No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 11-09; Quarry Creek Project File Part 4 of 4; General Plan Amendment (GPA)United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW -SD-06B0009-I 5CPA0043 Mr. Van Lynch Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 City ·Of Carlsbad DEC 1 6 2014 DEC 1 9 2014 Planning Division Subject: Request for Determination of Equivalency for a Hardline Modification of the Quarry Creek Master Plan Project 10-01(A), City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Lynch: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your November 18, 2014, request for determination of equivalency for a hardline modification of the Quarry Creek Master Plan Project (Project). The Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department, collectively, Wildlife Agencies) previously concurred with hardline modifications for the Quarry Creek Reclamation Plan Project in our October 13,2010, January 25,2013, and September 19, 2014, letters. We reviewed the equivalency findings for the proposed hardline modification for consistency with the City of Carlsbad's (City) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) based on the information provided in your request. The project site is located in the northeast portion of the City, approximately a quarter to half mile west of College Boulevard, and immediately south of State Route 78 (SR-78). The project site is comprised of 2 parcels ofland: the 1 00-acre Reclamation Parcel (APN # 167 -040-21-00) to the east, and the 56-acre Panhandle Parcel (APN #167-040-11 -00) to the west. Buena Vista Creek bisects the Reclamation Parcel and runs westerly as it exits the Reclamation Parcel, and continues off-site north of the Panhandle Parcel. The project site is generally bounded to the north by SR-78, to the east by a commercial center and auto dealership, to the south by residential development, and the Department-owned Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve to the west. The proposed hardline modification is the result of direction from the Carlsbad City Council in their approval of Master Plan MP 10-01, and Habitat Management Permit HMP 11-07, on April 16, 2013; and excludes the approved bridge over Buena Vista Creek, a trail, water line, and drainage structure easements as analyzed in our biological opinion dated October 27, 2014 (FWS-SDG-06B0009-14F0522) (Figure 1). The proposed hardline modification will establish a 90.71-acre preserve, which is a 7.96-acre net increase over the 82.75-acre preserve established by the 2013 hardline modification. The 7.96-acre net increase in hardline preserve includes 0.81 Mr. Van Lynch (FWS/CDFW-SD-06B0009-15CPA0043) 2 acre of coastal sage scrub (CSS), 6.51 acres of non-native grassland, and 1.66 acres of disturbed habitat (Figure 1, Table 1 ). T bl 1 Q a e uarry C kP ree ropose d20l4H dr P ar me reserve v egetatwn Ch anges Removed Added to Existing from Adopted Proposed Total Vegetation Type Hardline Adopted Hardline Hard line Difference Hard line Area (acres) Area Area (acres) (acres) . (acres) (acres) Sensitive Coastal sage scrub 35.71 -0.33 l.14 36.63 0.81 Coastal saoe scrub revegetated 4.52 -0.38 --4.14 -0.38 Chaparral 4.94 -0.18 0.03 4.79 -0.15 Riparian 16.12 -0.28 --15.84 -0.28 Freshwater marsh 0.44 -0.02 --0.42 -0.02 Subtotal Sensitive 61.73 -l.19 l.17 61.71 -0.02 Non-Sensitive Non-native grassland 10.14 -0.46 6.97 16.65 6.51 Eucalyptus woodland 0.04 -0.01 --0.03 -0.01 Disturbed 10.37 -0.04 1.70 12.03 1.66 Developed 0.47 -0.18 --0.29 -0.18 Subtotal Non-sensitive 21.02 -0.69 8.67 29.00 7.98 TOTAL 82.75 -1.88 9.84 90.71 7.96 The applicant has agreed to place a conservation easement or declaration of restrictive covenant over the hardline preserve, to provide funding for perpetual management of the hardline preserve, and to otherwise comply with all applicable mitigation measures adopted in the Final Environmental Impact Report (HDR 2013) for the project. The conservation easement should be in favor of the Department or other qualified entity. A declaration of restrictive covenant should only be used if the applicant demonstrates that it cannot retain a qualified entity to hold the conservation easement. The HMP standards for the western portion of Zone 25 require the maintenance of a contiguous linkage ofCSS, chaparral, and grassland habitats averaging 800 feet to 1,000 feet wide along the southern and western portion of the zone and to maintain a minimum constriction of 500 feet where narrower constrictions do not currently exist. The proposed hardline modification will widen (up to approximately 400 feet) and conserve more CSS in this linkage on the Panhandle Parcel than the hardline preserve originally approved under the City's HMP. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5900 LA PLACE COURT, SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 December 5, 2014 Don Mitchell McMillin QC2, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NATIONWIDE PERMIT VERIFICATION Dear Mr. Mitchell: I am responding to your request (SPL-2012-00807-RJV) for a Department of the Army permit for your proposed project, Quarry Creek Master Plan Residential Development. The proposed project is located approximately 0.5 miles west of College Boulevard, on the south side of State Route (SR) 78, within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (33.177°N, -117.304°W) (Figures 1 and 4). Because the project would result in a discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), a Department of the Army permit is required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344; 33 CFR parts 323 and 330). The project consists of a master planned development within a 156-acre site with 4 residential areas, 5 public use areas, and 3 open space (OS) areas. The residential areas consist of R-1 with a maximum of 127 units on 7.1 acres, R-2 with a maximum of 200 units on 11.1 acres, R-3 with a maximum of 96 units on 6.7 acres, and R-4 with a maximum of 214 on 18.2 acres. Maximum residential units total 636 units on 43.1 acres. The public use areas consist of 10.4 acres and include a park and ride lot, a community daycare, a community recreation area, and public trails and use areas. The OS areas consist of the 63.9-acre OS-1 which is located on the south and south-west ends of the project site and consist mostly of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, non-native grassland, and baccharis scrub; the 20.1-acre OS-2 which is located in the northern portion of the site and is mostly within Buena Vista Creek downstream of the bridge; and the 8.4-acre OS-3 which is located within Buena Vista Creek, east of OS-2 (Figure 12). The project is accessed via two existing streets in Oceanside; Marron Road and Haymar Road. A looping vehicular street system provides multiple points of access to and through the project site. A north-south connecting road between Marron Road and Haymar Road will cross the Buena Vista Creek via a bridge. A separate pair of streets will provide access to the westerly panhandle area of the property. I have determined construction of your proposed project, if constructed as described in your application, would comply with Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 – Residential Developments. - 2 - Specifically, and as shown in the enclosed figures (Enclosure 2 – Waters of the U.S. Impact Map; Quarry Creek Buffer Creation Exhibit; Figure 10 – HMP Hardline Comparison; Figure 26 –Pedestrian, Bike, and Trail Circulation Plan; Figure 25 – Planning Area OS-3 Conceptual Site Layout), you are authorized to: 1. Discharge native fill material into drainages B and B1 resulting in the permanent loss of 0.21 acre of intermittent, non-wetland waters of the U.S. and discharge native fill material into drainages C1 and C2 resulting in the permanent loss of 0.04 acre of ephemeral, non-wetland waters of the U.S. Project impacts to waters of the U.S. total 0.25 acre (1,909 linear feet). Impacts would occur from the construction of residential homes, interior roads, and associated infrastructure. For this NWP verification letter to be valid, you must comply with all of the terms and conditions in Enclosure 1. Furthermore, you must comply with the non-discretionary Special Conditions listed below: PRE-CONSTRUCTION: 1. Prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., the Permittee shall submit to the Corps a complete set of final detailed grading/construction plans showing all work and structures in waters of the U.S. All plans shall be in compliance with the Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program dated August 6, 2012 (http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/standards/map.pdf). All plan sheets shall be signed, dated, and submitted on paper no larger than 11x 17 inches. No work in waters of the U.S. is authorized until the Permittee receives, in writing (by letter or e- mail), Corps approval of the final detailed grading/construction plans. The Permittee shall ensure that the project is built in accordance with the Corps-approved plans. 2. The Permittee shall clearly mark the limits of the workspace with flagging or similar means to ensure mechanized equipment does not enter waters of the U.S. not authorized for impact. Adverse impacts to waters of the U.S. beyond the Corps-approved construction footprint are not authorized. Such impacts could result in permit suspension and revocation, administrative, civil or criminal penalties, and/or substantial, additional, compensatory mitigation requirements. 3. Prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., the Permittee shall post financial assurance ("financial assurance") in a form approved by the Corps for the estimated cost of implementing the approved Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) (including a 20% contingency to be added to the total costs). The purpose of this financial assurance is to guarantee the successful implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the wetland and non-wetland waters enhancement work. Our preferred form of financial assurance is a Performance Bond, in which case, you shall post a Performance Bond for 120% of the - 3 - anticipated cost of the mitigation and monitoring associated with the project, as indicated above. In addition, A) The bonding company must appear on the Department of Treasury Circular 570, Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies. For a current list of Treasury- authorized companies, write or call the Surety Bond Branch, Financial Management Services, Department of the Treasury, Washington DC 20227; (202) 874-6850 or at the following website: http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html. B) The performance bond shall be released only upon a determination by the Corps that successful mitigation has been completed. C) Alternatively, the Corps will accept an irrevocable letter of credit in the same amount in lieu of a Performance Bond. The terms of the irrevocable letter of credit are subject to Corps approval. MITIGATION: 4. The Permittee shall mitigate impacts to waters of the U.S. through purchase of 0.25 acre of wetland re-establishment credits at the San Luis Rey River Mitigation Bank implemented by Wildlands, Inc. Prior to initiating construction in waters of the U.S., the Permittee shall provide documentation verifying purchase of credits. The Permittee shall not initiate work in waters of the U.S. prior to receiving written confirmation (by letter or e-mail) from the Corps as to compliance with this special condition. The Permittee retains responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation until the number and resource type of credits described above have been secured from a sponsor and the district engineer has received documentation that confirms that the sponsor has accepted the responsibility for providing the required compensatory mitigation. This documentation may consist of a letter or form signed by the sponsor, with the permit number and a statement indicating the number and resource type of credits that have been secured from the sponsor. 5. The Permittee shall also mitigate impacts to waters of the U.S. through rehabilitation of 1.58 acres of existing waters of the U.S. within Buena Vista Creek in the north-western portion of the site (attached Figure 2 and Figures 4 and 5 in the below mentioned mitigation plan) and preservation of 17.25 acres of Buena Vista Creek (as shown by the dashed line in Figure 2). The mitigation will be implemented as outlined in the “Quarry Creek Master Plan Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan,” dated September 16, 2014, and prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.). According to the mitigation plan, responsible parties would be as follows: a) Implementation: McMillin QC2, LLC; b) Performance: McMillin QC2, LLC; c) Long-term management: The San Diego Habitat Conservancy. The Permittee retains ultimate legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of all permits and the final mitigation plan. Detailed mitigation objectives, performance standards, and monitoring requirements are described in the above mitigation plan. Any requirements for financial assurances and/or - 4 - long-term management provisions are also described in the above mitigation plan, as well as in Special Conditions 4, 8 and 9. Your responsibility to complete the required compensatory mitigation as set forth in this Special Condition will not be considered fulfilled until you have demonstrated compensatory mitigation project success, and have received written verification of that success from the Corps. The entire mitigation site shall have met its performance standards before any one mitigation site will be signed-off. 6. MONITORING: You shall submit monitoring reports for all compensatory mitigation sites as described in the final, approved mitigation plan by December 1 of each year following the construction of mitigation. To assure compensatory mitigation success, you shall monitor the mitigation area for at least five (5) consecutive growing seasons after construction or until the Corps determines the final performance standards are met (monitoring shall be for a minimum of 5 years, or, if success is not demonstrated to the Corps’ satisfaction after the 5th year of monitoring, additional monitoring may be required by the Corps as determined at that time). The monitoring period shall commence upon completion of the construction of the mitigation site. 7. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: The Permittee shall record a Conservation Easement (CE) in a form approved by the Corps, which shall run with the land, obligating the Permittee, its successors and assigns to protect and maintain the 17.25-acre(s) mitigation area (as shown in attached Figure 2) as natural open space in perpetuity. Special Condition No. 17 of Corps permit SPL-2008-01131, dated June 30, 2011, requires a CE over the same area (and some additional area upstream). It is not the intention of this condition to require a separate, second CE over the same area, as long as a CE is recorded in compliance with Special Condition 17 of permit no. SPL-2008-01131. The CE must include a 3rd party easement holder qualified to hold easements pursuant to California Civil Code 815.3 and Government Code section 65965. The Permittee must provide monies in the form of an endowment (endowment amount to be determined by Property Analysis Record or similar methodology) for the purposes of fulfilling the 3rd party easement holder's responsibilities under the CE. The CE shall preclude establishment of fuel modification zones, paved public trails, drainage facilities, walls, maintenance access roads and/or future easements, except as provided in the Project Description (described herein). Further, to the extent practicable, any such facilities outside the CE shall be sited to minimize indirect impacts on the avoided, created, restored and enhanced wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. Prior to its execution and within six months of issuance of this permit, the Permittee shall submit a draft CE based on the Corps template to the Corps for review. The Permittee shall receive written approval (by letter or e-mail) from the Corps of this CE prior to it being executed and recorded. No later than 30 calendar days after receiving Corps approval of the final draft CE, the CE shall be executed and recorded and a recorded copy furnished to the Corps. - 5 - GIS DATA: Within 60 days following recordation, you shall provide to this office GIS data (polygons only) depicting the CE boundaries, as authorized by the Corps. All GIS data and associated metadata shall be provided on a digital medium (CD or DVD) or via file transfer protocol (FTP), preferably using the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) shapefile format. GIS data for CE sites shall conform to the Mitigation_SPD.xlsx data table, as specified in the Final Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program dated August 6, 2012 (http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/standards/map.pdf), and shall include a text file of metadata, including datum, projection, and mapper contact information. 8. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Permittee shall preserve, manage, monitor, and maintain the 17.25-acre mitigation area (Figure 2) in perpetuity in accordance with the “Quarry Creek Preserve Management Plan,” (PMP) dated June 18, 2014 and prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning. The PMP currently states the site will be visited on a quarterly basis; the PMP will be updated to reflect monthly site visits. As such, the PAR amount outlined in the PMP will be updated. The PMP also includes preserved areas for the South Coast Materials Quarry Creek/Buena Vista Creek Reclamation project (SPL-2008- 01131), the College Boulevard Widening project (SPL-2003-00560) and additional areas for this project required by city and/or other agency requirements. As noted in Special Condition 8, the Permittee shall provide monies in the form of an endowment to fund the in- perpetuity maintenance and monitoring. 9. Within 45 calendar days of complete installation of all mitigation, the Permittee shall submit to the Corps a memorandum including the following information: D) Date(s) all mitigation was installed and monitoring was initiated; E) Schedule for future mitigation monitoring and reporting pursuant to final, Corps- approved mitigation plan; F) Color photographs (including map of photopoints) taken at each mitigation site before and after installation such that correct installation appears final, Corps- approved mitigation plan can be verified; G) One copy of "as built" drawings for the entire project, including all mitigation sites. Electronic submittal (Adobe PDF format) is preferred. All sheets must be signed, dated, and to-scale. If submitting paper copies, sheets must be no larger than 11 x 17 inches; and H) Summary of compliance status with each special condition of this permit (including any noncompliance that previously occurred or is currently occurring and corrective actions taken or proposed to achieve compliance). ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 10. This Corps permit does not authorize you to take any threatened or endangered species, in particular the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. In order to legally take a listed species, you must have - 6 - separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g. ESA Section 10 permit, or a Biological Opinion (BO) under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take" provisions with which you must comply). Pursuant to the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) consistency letter (FWS-SDG-06B0009-14F0522) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), dated October 27, 2014, your project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP and the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit that was issued for the City of Carlsbad HMP, dated November 12, 2004, is authorized for this project. Your authorization under this Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with the Carlsbad HMP and the associated November 12, 2004 section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. CULTURAL RESOURCES 11. Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.13, in the event of any discoveries during construction of either human remains, archeological deposits, or any other type of historic property, the Permittee shall notify the Corps' Regulatory Staff (R.J. Van Sant at 760-602-4837) and Archeology Staff (John Killeen at 213-452-3861) within 24 hours. The Permittee shall immediately suspend all work in any area(s) where potential cultural resources are discovered. The Permittee shall not resume construction in the area surrounding the potential cultural resources until the Corps re-authorizes project construction, per 36 CFR § 800.13. This verification is valid through March 18, 2017. If on March 18, 2017 you have commenced or are under contract to commence the permitted activity you will have an additional twelve (12) months to complete the activity under the present NWP terms and conditions. However, if I discover noncompliance or unauthorized activities associated with the permitted activity I may request the use of discretionary authority in accordance with procedures in 33 CFR § 330.4(e) and 33 CFR § 330.5(c) or (d) to modify, suspend, or revoke this specific verification at an earlier date. Additionally, at the national level the Chief of Engineers, any time prior to March 18, 2017, may choose to modify, suspend, or revoke the nationwide use of a NWP after following procedures set forth in 33 CFR § 330.5. It is incumbent upon you to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this NWP verification and to remain informed of any change to the NWPs. A NWP does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. Additionally, it does not authorize any injury to the property, rights of others, nor does it authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. Furthermore, it does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. - 7 - Thank you for participating in the regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact me at 760-602-4837 or via e-mail at richard.j.vansant@usace.army.mil. Please help me to evaluate and improve the regulatory experience for others by completing the customer survey form at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. Sincerely, Richard J. Van Sant III Senior Project Manager South Coast Branch Enclosures LOS ANGELES DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NATIONWIDE PERMIT Permit Number: SPL-2012-00807-RJV Name of Permittee: Don Mitchell, McMillin QC 2 LLC. Date of Issuance: December 5, 2014 Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and the mitigation required by this permit, sign this certificate, and return it by ONE of the following methods; 1) Email a digital scan of the signed certificate to Richard.J.Vansant@usace.army.mil OR 2) Mail the signed certificate to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division Carlsbad Field Office ATTN: SPL-2012-00807-RJV 5900 La Place Ct, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 I hereby certify that the authorized work and any required compensatory mitigation has been completed in accordance with the NWP authorization, including all general, regional, or activity- specific conditions. Furthermore, if credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program were used to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements I have attached the documentation required by 33 CFR § 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the appropriate number and resource type of credits have been secured. ___________________________________ ________________________________ Signature of Permittee Date Enclosure 1: NATIONWIDE PERMIT (NWP) NUMBER 29 – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Nationwide Permit Terms: 29. Residential Developments. Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States for the construction or expansion of a single residence, a multiple unit residential development, or a residential subdivision. This NWP authorizes the construction of building foundations and building pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use of the residence or residential development. Attendant features may include but are not limited to roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, storm water management facilities, septic fields, and recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral part of the residential development). The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States, including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed, unless for intermittent and ephemeral stream beds the district engineer waives the 300 linear foot limit by making a written determination concluding that the discharge will result in minimal adverse effects. This NWP does not authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. Subdivisions: For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of United States authorized by this NWP cannot exceed 1/2-acre. This includes any loss of waters of the United States associated with development of individual subdivision lots. Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity. (See general condition 31.) (Sections 10 and 404) Note: To qualify for NWP authorization, the prospective permittee must comply with the following general conditions, as appropriate, in addition to any regional or case-specific conditions imposed by the division engineer or district engineer. Prospective permittees should contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine if regional conditions have been imposed on an NWP. Prospective permittees should also contact the appropriate Corps district office to determine the status of Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and/or Coastal Zone Management Act consistency for an NWP. 2. Nationwide Permit General Conditions: The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid: 1. 1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. All permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies shall be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of those aquatic species. 3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27. 6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements. 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow. 13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. 14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization. 15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. 16. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 17. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 18. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will review the documentation and determine whether it is sufficient to address ESA compliance for the NWP activity, or whether additional ESA consultation is necessary. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat, the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that might be affected by the proposed work. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity “may affect” or will have “no effect” to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps’ determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. In cases where the non-Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification the proposed activities will have “no effect” on listed species or critical habitat, or until Section 7 consultation has been completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e) Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the “take” of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with “incidental take” provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMFS, The Endangered Species Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take a listed species, where "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The word “harm” in the definition of “take'' means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. (f) Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their world wide web pages at http://www.fws.gov/ or http://www.fws.gov/ipac and http://www.noaa.gov/fisheries.html respectively. 19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any “take” permits required under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations governing compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee should contact the appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if such “take” permits are required for a particular activity. 20. Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. The district engineer will review the documentation and determine whether it is sufficient to address section 106 compliance for the NWP activity, or whether additional section 106 consultation is necessary. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre-construction notification must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). When reviewing pre-construction notifications, district engineers will comply with the current procedures for addressing the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties. Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties on which the activity may have the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps, the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106 consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR §800.3(a)). If NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur, the district engineer will notify the non-Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106 consultation is completed. If the non-Federal applicant has not heard back from the Corps within 45 days, the applicant must still wait for notification from the Corps. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(k)) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. If you discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify the district engineer of what you have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public comment. (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with general condition 31, for any activity proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 23. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10-acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse effects of the proposed activity are minimal, and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10-acre or less that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Compensatory mitigation projects provided to offset losses of aquatic resources must comply with the applicable provisions of 33 CFR part 332. (1) The prospective permittee is responsible for proposing an appropriate compensatory mitigation option if compensatory mitigation is necessary to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (2) Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (3) If permittee-responsible mitigation is the proposed option, the prospective permittee is responsible for submitting a mitigation plan. A conceptual or detailed mitigation plan may be used by the district engineer to make the decision on the NWP verification request, but a final mitigation plan that addresses the applicable requirements of 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) – (14) must be approved by the district engineer before the permittee begins work in waters of the United States, unless the district engineer determines that prior approval of the final mitigation plan is not practicable or not necessary to ensure timely completion of the required compensatory mitigation (see 33 CFR 332.3(k)(3)). (4) If mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program credits are the proposed option, the mitigation plan only needs to address the baseline conditions at the impact site and the number of credits to be provided. (5) Compensatory mitigation requirements (e.g., resource type and amount to be provided as compensatory mitigation, site protection, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements) may be addressed through conditions added to the NWP authorization, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan. (d) For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation, such as stream rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation, to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2-acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, to ensure that a project already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact requirement associated with the NWPs. (f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the restoration or establishment, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required. Riparian areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. If it is not possible to establish a riparian area on both sides of a stream, or if the waterbody is a lake or coastal waters, then restoring or establishing a riparian area along a single bank or shoreline may be sufficient. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, or separate permittee- responsible mitigation. For activities resulting in the loss of marine or estuarine resources, permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation may be environmentally preferable if there are no mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the area that have marine or estuarine credits available for sale or transfer to the permittee. For permittee-responsible mitigation, the special conditions of the NWP verification must clearly indicate the party or parties responsible for the implementation and performance of the compensatory mitigation project, and, if required, its long-term management. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the minimal level. 24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety. 25. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. 26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. 27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 28. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3-acre. 29. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: “When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.” ___________________________________________ (Transferee) _____________________________________________ (Date) 30. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who receives an NWP verification letter from the Corps must provide a signed certification documenting completion of the authorized activity and any required compensatory mitigation. The success of any required permittee-responsible mitigation, including the achievement of ecological performance standards, will be addressed separately by the district engineer. The Corps will provide the permittee the certification document with the NWP verification letter. The certification document will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general, regional, or activity-specific conditions; (b) A statement that the implementation of any required compensatory mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. If credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program are used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements, the certification must include the documentation required by 33 CFR 332.3(l)(3) to confirm that the permittee secured the appropriate number and resource type of credits; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation. 31. Pre-Construction Notification. (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, if the PCN is determined to be incomplete, notify the prospective permittee within that 30 day period to request the additional information necessary to make the PCN complete. The request must specify the information needed to make the PCN complete. As a general rule, district engineers will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity until either: (1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer’s receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 20 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that there is “no effect” on listed species or “no potential to cause effects” on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) has been completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21, 49, or 50 until the permittee has received written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee may not begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the permittee’s right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project’s purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause, including the anticipated amount of loss of water of the United States expected to result from the NWP activity, in acres, linear feet, or other appropriate unit of measure; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided results in a quicker decision. Sketches should contain sufficient detail to provide an illustrative description of the proposed activity (e.g., a conceptual plan), but do not need to be detailed engineering plans); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of wetlands, other special aquatic sites, and other waters, such as lakes and ponds, and perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters on the project site, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, as appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10-acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied, or explaining why the adverse effects are minimal and why compensatory mitigation should not be required. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non-Federal applicants the PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, for non-Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this general condition. A letter containing the required information may also be used. (d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project’s adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. (2) For all NWP activities that require pre-construction notification and result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, for NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, and 52 activities that require pre-construction notification and will result in the loss of greater than 300 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral stream bed, and for all NWP 48 activities that require pre- construction notification, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via e-mail, facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the complete PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. The comments must explain why the agency believes the adverse effects will be more than minimal. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre-construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame concerning the proposed activity’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs, including the need for mitigation to ensure the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed activity are minimal. The district engineer will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction notification that the resource agencies’ concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. (3) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps with either electronic files or multiple copies of pre-construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. 3. Regional Conditions for the Los Angeles District: In accordance with General Condition Number 27, "Regional and Case-by-Case Conditions," the following Regional Conditions, as added by the Division Engineer, must be met in order for an authorization by any Nationwide Permit to be valid: 1. For all activities in waters of the U.S. that are suitable habitat for federally listed fish species, the permittee shall design all road crossings to ensure that the passage and/or spawning of fish is not hindered. In these areas, the permittee shall employ bridge designs that span the stream or river, including pier- or pile-supported spans, or designs that use a bottomless arch culvert with a natural stream bed, unless determined to be impracticable by the Corps. 2. Nationwide Permits (NWP) 3, 7, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 35, 36, or 39-46, 48-52 cannot be used to authorize structures, work, and/or the discharge of dredged or fill material that would result in the "loss" of wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows or riffle and pool complexes as defined at 40 CFR Part 230.40-45. The definition of "loss" for this regional condition is the same as the definition of "loss of waters of the United States" used for the Nationwide Permit Program. Furthermore, this regional condition applies only within the State of Arizona and within the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California. The desert regions in California are limited to four USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) accounting units (Lower Colorado -150301, Northern Mojave-180902, Southern Mojave- 181001, and Salton Sea-181002). 3. When a pre-construction notification (PCN) is required, the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) District shall be notified in accordance with General Condition 31 using either the South Pacific Division PCN Checklist or a signed application form (ENG Form 4345) with an attachment providing information on compliance with all of the General and Regional Conditions. The PCN Checklist and application form are available at: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory. In addition, the PCN shall include: a. A written statement describing how the activity has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States; b. Drawings, including plan and cross-section views, clearly depicting the location, size and dimensions of the proposed activity as well as the location of delineated waters of the U.S. on the site. The drawings shall contain a title block, legend and scale, amount (in cubic yards) and area (in acres) of fill in Corps jurisdiction, including both permanent and temporary fills/structures. The ordinary high water mark or, if tidal waters, the mean high water mark and high tide line, should be shown (in feet), based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) or other appropriate referenced elevation. All drawings for projects located within the boundaries of the Los Angeles District shall comply with the most current version of the Map and Drawing Standards for the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division (available on the Los Angeles District Regulatory Division website at: www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/); and c. Numbered and dated pre-project color photographs showing a representative sample of waters proposed to be impacted on the project site, and all waters proposed to be avoided on and immediately adjacent to the project site. The compass angle and position of each photograph shall be documented on the plan-view drawing required in subpart b of this regional condition. 4. Submission of a PCN pursuant to General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3 shall be required for all regulated activities in the following locations: a. All perennial waterbodies and special aquatic sites within the State of Arizona and within the Mojave and Sonoran (Colorado) desert regions of California, excluding the Colorado River in Arizona from Davis Dam to River Mile 261 (northern boundary of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Reservation). The desert region in California is limited to four USGS HUC accounting units (Lower Colorado -150301, Northern Mojave-180902, Southern Mojave-181001, and Salton Sea-181002). b. All areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (i.e., all tidally influenced areas - Federal Register dated March 12, 2007 (72 FR 11092)), in which case the PCN shall include an EFH assessment and extent of proposed impacts to EFH. Examples of EFH habitat assessments can be found at: http://www.swr.noaa.gov/efh.htm. c. All watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles and Ventura counties bounded by Calleguas Creek on the west, by Highway 101 on the north and east, and by Sunset Boulevard and Pacific Ocean on the south. d. The Santa Clara River watershed in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, including but not limited to Aliso Canyon, Agua Dulce Canyon, Sand Canyon, Bouquet Canyon, Mint Canyon, South Fork of the Santa Clara River, San Francisquito Canyon, Castaic Creek, Piru Creek, Sespe Creek and the main-stem of the Santa Clara River. 5. Individual Permits shall be required for all discharges of fill material in jurisdictional vernal pools, with the exception that discharges for the purpose of restoration, enhancement, management or scientific study of vernal pools may be authorized under NWPs 5, 6, and 27 with the submission of a PCN in accordance with General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3. 6. Individual Permits shall be required in Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek watersheds in Riverside County for new permanent fills in perennial and intermittent watercourses otherwise authorized under NWPs 29, 39, 42 and 43, and in ephemeral watercourses for these NWPs for projects that impact greater than 0.1 acre of waters of the United States. In addition, when NWP 14 is used in conjunction with residential, commercial, or industrial developments the 0.1 acre limit would also apply. 7. Individual Permits (Standard Individual Permit or 404 Letter of Permission) shall be required in San Luis Obispo Creek and Santa Rosa Creek in San Luis Obispo County for bank stabilization projects, and in Gaviota Creek, Mission Creek and Carpinteria Creek in Santa Barbara County for bank stabilization projects and grade control structures. 8. In conjunction with the Los Angeles District's Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) for the San Diego Creek Watershed and San Juan Creek/Western San Mateo Creek Watersheds in Orange County, California, the Corps' Division Engineer, through his discretionary authority has revoked the use of the following 26 selected NWPs within these SAMP watersheds: 03, 07, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, and 50. Consequently, these NWPs are no longer available in those watersheds to authorize impacts to waters of the United States from discharges of dredged or fill material under the Corps' Clean Water Act section 404 authority. 9. Any requests to waive the 300 linear foot limitation for intermittent and ephemeral streams for NWPs 29, 39, 40 and 42, 43, 44, 51 and 52 or to waive the 500 linear foot limitation along the bank for NWP 13, must include the following: a. A narrative description of the stream. This should include known information on: volume and duration of flow; the approximate length, width, and depth of the waterbody and characters observed associated with an Ordinary High Water Mark (e.g. bed and bank, wrack line, or scour marks); a description of the adjacent vegetation community and a statement regarding the wetland status of the associated vegetation community (i.e. wetland, non-wetland); surrounding land use; water quality; issues related to cumulative impacts in the watershed, and; any other relevant information. b. An analysis of the proposed impacts to the waterbody in accordance with General Condition 31 and Regional Condition 3; c. Measures taken to avoid and minimize losses, including other methods of constructing the proposed project; and d. A compensatory mitigation plan describing how the unavoidable losses are proposed to be compensated, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332. 10. The permittee shall complete the construction of any compensatory mitigation required by special condition(s) of the NWP verification before or concurrent with commencement of construction of the authorized activity, except when specifically determined to be impracticable by the Corps. When mitigation involves use of a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, the permittee shall submit proof of payment to the Corps prior to commencement of construction of the authorized activity. 4. Further information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: ( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. (a) This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. (b) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. (c) This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. (d) This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: (a) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. (b) Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. (c) Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. (d) Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. (e) Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (b) The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). (c) Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 330.5 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measure ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. This letter of verification is valid for a period not to exceed two years unless the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, revoked, or expires before that time. 7. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition H below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 8. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and conditions of your permit. Poway Oceanside Carlsbad Vista Escondido Otay Chula Vista Santee San Marcos Encinitas El Cajon La Mesa Coronado NationalCity ImperialBeach LemonGrove SolanaBeach Del Mar San Diego Camp Pendleton Lake San Marcos Lake Hodges Lake Wohlford Lake RamonaLake Poway Miramar Reservoir San VicenteReservoir Lake Murray SweetwaterReservoir Lake Jennings Otay Reservoir Pacific Ocean San D ie g o B aySantee Lakes SutherlandReservoir Lake Henshaw El Capitan Reservoir Loveland Reservoir Vail Lake O'Neill Lake Barrett Lake Tijuana UNITED STATES MEXICO Dulzura Julian Ramona Warner Springs RIVERSIDECOUNTY ORANGECOUNTY SAN DIEGOCOUNTY Project Site! San Diego AlpineLa Jolla Aª Aª WÛ WÛ WÙ AÒ A© A£ Fallbrook ?z A© ?z A¨ A©!"^$ 56 !"a$ ?z ?h %&s( !"^$AÛ AÀ !"_$Aù !"a$ !"_$ AÀ ?j !"^$ A× ?j %&s(µ 8 0 84Miles I:\ArcGIS\M\MMC-40 QuarryCreek\Map\BIO\Permit\Binder\Fig1_Regional.mxd -EV Figure 1 QUARRY CREEK Regional Location Map Project Boundary Buena Vista Creek 1,500 0 1,500750Feet µ Job No: MMC-40 Date: 12/06/12 Figure 4 QUARRY CREEK Project Aerial PhotographI:\PROJECTS\M\MMC\MMC-40_QuarryCreek\Map\BIO\Permit\Binder\Fig4_Aerial.mxd -EV R-17.1 Gross ac.RHR-211.1 Gross ac.RHR-36.7 Gross ac.13.7 DU's/ac.OS-38.4 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-220.1 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-163.9 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-10.9 Gross ac.CommunityP-43.9 Gross ac.Trail, View Area,P-22.1 Gross ac.CommunityFacility SiteWater QualityBasinPublic Area(Not a Part)P-31.3 Gross ac.CommunityRecreation AreaFacilitiesR-17.1 Gross ac.21.5 DU's/ac.RHR-211.1 Gross ac.21.3 DU's/ac.RH16.7 DU's/ac.RHR-418.2 Gross ac.RMHOS-38.4 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-220.1 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-10.9 Gross ac.CommunityP-4Trail, View Area,P-22.1 Gross ac.CommunityFacility SiteWater QualityBasinPublic Area(Not a Part)P-31.3 Gross ac.CommunityRecreation AreaFacilitiesOS-163.9 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-52.2 Gross ac.CommunityFacilitiesHAYMAR RD.STREET ASTREET BHAYMAR RD.STREET ASTREET BSTREET ESTREET DSTREET C (PRIVATE)Specific alignment forroadway connection tobe determined at planningarea R-4 site designQuarry Creek0400200800 FTPAGE III-3MASTER LAND USE PLANMaster Plan1. Units can be transferred subject to totalproject unit maximum.Brush Management per HMP Hardline MapLimits of Hardline Map BoundaryPAR-1Apartments *7.1GROSS NET5.9ACRESACRESLAND USE9.411.1R-25.76.7Planned DevelopmentR-3Trail, View Area, Water Quality BasinCommunity Recreation AreaCommunity Facility SiteCommunity FacilitiesP-4P-3P-2P-13.91.32.10.93.91.11.20.9OS-1Southerly Open Space Corridor PreserveWetland PreserveBuena Vista Creek and Buffer63.920.18.4------OS-2OS-3Public Roads9.5 9.521.5DENSITY21.316.7----------------127MAX.UNITS20095----------------GENERAL PLANLAND USE(RH) High Density(RH) High Density(OS) Open Space(CF) Community Facility--GENERAL PLANDENSITY RANGE15-23 du/ac----------------(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space15.618.2Planned Development13.7 214(RMH) Medium-High Density8-15 du/ac15-23 du/ac(CF) Community FacilityR-4* Includes affordable and potential market rate units.Planned Development(RH) High Density15-23 du/acCommunity Facilities2.2 1.2 -- ----P-5(CF) Community FacilityNOTES:2. For purposes of density transfer, planningareas R-1 & R-2 may be treated as asingle planning area.FIGURE 12 R-17.1 Gross ac.RHR-211.1 Gross ac.RHR-36.7 Gross ac.13.7 DU's/ac.OS-38.4 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-220.1 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-163.9 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-10.9 Gross ac.CommunityP-43.9 Gross ac.Trail, View Area,P-22.1 Gross ac.CommunityFacility SiteWater QualityBasinPublic Area(Not a Part)P-31.3 Gross ac.CommunityRecreation AreaFacilitiesR-17.1 Gross ac.21.5 DU's/ac.RHR-211.1 Gross ac.21.3 DU's/ac.RH16.7 DU's/ac.RHR-418.2 Gross ac.RMHOS-38.4 Gross ac.Open SpaceOS-220.1 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-10.9 Gross ac.CommunityP-4Trail, View Area,P-22.1 Gross ac.CommunityFacility SiteWater QualityBasinPublic Area(Not a Part)P-31.3 Gross ac.CommunityRecreation AreaFacilitiesOS-163.9 Gross ac.Open SpaceP-52.2 Gross ac.CommunityFacilitiesHAYMAR RD .STREET ASTREET BHAYMAR RD .STREET ASTREET BSTREET ESTREET DSTREET C (PRIVATE)Specific alignment forroadway connection tobe determined at planningarea R-4 site designQuarry Creek0400200800 FTPAGE III-3MASTER LAND USE PLANMaster Plan1. Units can be transferred subject to totalproject unit maximum.Brush Management per HMP Hardline MapLimits of Hardline Map BoundaryPAR-1Apartments *7.1GROSS NET5.9ACRESACRESLAND USE9.411.1R-25.76.7Planned DevelopmentR-3Trail, View Area, Water Quality BasinCommunity Recreation AreaCommunity Facility SiteCommunity FacilitiesP-4P-3P-2P-13.91.32.10.93.91.11.20.9OS-1Southerly Open Space Corridor PreserveWetland PreserveBuena Vista Creek and Buffer63.920.18.4------OS-2OS-3Public Roads9.5 9.521.5DENSITY21.316.7----------------127MAX.UNITS20095----------------GENERAL PLANLAND USE(RH) High Density(RH) High Density(OS) Open Space(CF) Community Facility--GENERAL PLANDENSITY RANGE15-23 du/ac----------------(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space(OS) Open Space15.618.2Planned Development13.7 214(RMH) Medium-High Density8-15 du/ac15-23 du/ac(CF) Community FacilityR-4* Includes affordable and potential market rate units.Planned Development(RH) High Density15-23 du/acCommunity Facilities2.2 1.2 -- ----P-5(CF) Community FacilityNOTES:2. For purposes of density transfer, planningareas R-1 & R-2 may be treated as asingle planning area.FIGURE 12 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !NNB uenaV istaC reek15' 10' 5' 8'9'6'3' 1'4' 4' 3' 4'8' 9'20' 20' 15' 6' 1' 1'2'4'6' 18' 9' 17'1' 2' 14' 24'6'3' 1' 3' 4' 2'3' 6' Carlsbad Village Drive Simsbury Court Tamarack Avenue A© Man-made Basin 3' Culvert 2' 1' D E E2 E1 D1 D C1 C2 B1 B A A Bridge Vista Way Haymar Drive Marron Road Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad Village Drive Vancouver S t r e e t I:\PROJECTS\M\MMC\MMC-40_QuarryCreek\Map\BIO\Permit\Final\En2_USACE_Impts.mxd -EVJob No: MMC-40 Date: 08/19/14 µ400 0 400200 Feet Enclosure 2 QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLANPERMIT NO. SPL-2012-00807-RJVAUGUST 19, 2014 USACE Area of Potential Effect Project Boundary Aerial Interpretation Used in Mapping ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Project ImpactsUSACE Area of Potential Effect Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Disturbed Wetland Non-native Vegetation Streambed Southern Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Freshwater Marsh Riparian Creation/Restoration Streambed Open Water Vista Way A© Haymar Drive Marron Road Tamarack AvenueSimsbury Court Carlsbad Village Drive Vancouver S t r e e t Buena Vista Cr eek CollegeBoul eva r d LBV LBV CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN CAGN Hp 1000 Hp 200 Hp 1000 Hp 50 Hp 100 Hp 100 Hp 200 Hp 20 Hp 30 I:\PROJECTS\M\MMC\MMC-40_QuarryCreek\Map\BIO\Permit\Binder\Fig10_HMP_Hardlines.mxd -EVJob No: MMC-40 Date: 05/14/13 µ400 0 400200 Feet Figure 10 QUARRY CREEK HMP Hardline Comparison Pro ject Bo undary Pro p o sed Hardline Revegetatio n Slo p es Existing Hardline Hardline Gains (19.53 Acres) Hardline Lo sses (2.58 acres) Palmer s Grap p lingho o k (Harpagonella palmeri) Co astal Califo rnia Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Freshwater Marsh Mule Fat Scrub So uthern Willo w Scrub So uthern Rip arian Wo o dland So uthern Co tto nwo o d-willo w Rip arian Fo rest Rip arian Creatio n/Resto ratio n Baccharis Scrub Disturb ed Wetland Streamb ed Native Grassland Diegan Co astal Sage Scrub Diegan Co astal Sage Scrub Creatio n/Resto ratio n Co astal Sage Chap arral Scrub So uthern Mixed Chap arral No n-native Grassland Eucalyp yus Wo o dland No n-native Vegetatio n Op en Water Disturb ed Hab itat Develo p ed CAGN LBV Hp HAYMAR RD.STREET ASTREET BSTREET ASTREET AHAYMAR RD.STREET ASTREET BSTREET ASTREET ASTREET C (PRIVATE)R-1R-3R-4OS-3OS-1OS-1P-1P-4P-2P-5P-3HAYMAR RD.STREET ASTREET BSTREET C (PRIVATE)SIMSBURY CT .Parcel(Not a Part)Open SpaceQuarry CreekPAGE VI-7PEDESTRIAN, BIKE AND TRAIL CIRCULATION PLANMaster Plan06003001200 FTFIGURE 26LEGENDQUARRY CREEK PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINEPEDESTRIAN TRAILSTRAILHEAD/TRAIL STOPROADS WITH SIDEWALKS & BIKE LANESROADS WITH SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES & D.G. TRAILSCONNECTION TO EXISTING TRAIL 100'100'100'100'50'50'50'50'200'El Salto FallsFuture PublicCultural AreaPLANNING BUFFERPLANNING BUFFERPublic trails, viewing areas, and other uses, to be located withinplanning buffer.Grading and revegetation may occur in biological buffer.Grading in planning buffer will not result in expansion of biological buffer.Notes:BRIDGEOS-3 CROSS SECTION150' Wetland Area100'50'100'50'PlanningBufferBiological BufferPlanningBufferBiological BufferReclamationPlan GradingFutureGradingReclamationPlan GradingFutureGradingNOT TO SCALEQuarry CreekPAGE IV-38PLANNING AREA OS-3 CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUTMaster Plan018090360 FTFIGURE 25PLANNING BUFFERPLANNING BUFFER---A Final Falls Management Plan will be developed for areas within-200 feet of El Salto Falls. This plan will be developed in consultationwith the native-americans and will ensure that development withinthis area is sensitive to the cultural values and designation of theEl Salto Falls.STREET C (PRIVATE)OPEN SPACE PARCELPossibleNOT A PARTDeterrent landscaping installedin consultation with SLR tribe.Indicates area of no structures, parking, drive lanes or otherhardscape surfaces. Passive uses allowed such as benches,kiosks, etc.6' View Fence6' View FenceDeterrent landscaping !( !( XY #* #*#* !( ") XY !( !( !( !(!( XY !(!( !(^_ ") ")!( XY !( !( !(!(")XY ") !( ") #* !( XYXY #* XY #* !( !( #* #* ") ") ") !( ") !( ") ") !( ^_ !( ") ") !( !( !( !(") !( !( !( !( Haymar Drive Buena Vista Cre e k 10% 25% 75% 75% 75% 50% 100% 50% Buena Vista Creek RehabilitationI:\PROJECTS\M\MMC\MMC-40_QuarryCreek\Map\BIO\Permit\Permit_BVC\Fig2_BuenaVistaCreek.mxd MMC-40 11/21/14 -EV, RK0 100FeetN Project Boundary Conservation Easement Rehabilitation Non-native Target Species (Symbols may Represent Single or Multiple Plants) !(Brazilian Pepper !(Canary Island Date Palm !(Catalpa !(Chinese Elm !(English Walnut !(Field Mustard !(Florist’s-smilax !(German Ivy !(Giant Reed !(Golden Wattle !(Gopher Plant !(Hollow-stem Asphodel XY Fig XY Hottentot Fig XY Indian-fig ^_Mexican Fan Palm ^_Mousehole Tree #*Pampass Grass !(Poison Hemlock !(Prickly Ox Tongue !(Tree of Heaven ")Virginia Creeper % Represents Percentage of Non-native Cover Figure 2 QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLANPERMIT NO. SPL-2012-00807-RJVNOVEMBER 24, 2014 Van L nch From: Sent: To: Bridget Desmarais on behalf of Planning Wednesday, April 02, 2014 7:39AM Van Lynch Subject: FW: New Violation at El Saito Falls Mar 31, 2014 From: Ann Gunter [mailto:ann@lightfootpg.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:58 PM To: diane nygaard; cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org; codeenforcement; Planning; 'Marisa Lundstedt'; melvern@aol.com: 'Merri Lopez-Keifer' Cc: 'Howell, Marvin (Miramar) NA'; brett.hurst@hanson.biz Subject: RE: New Violation at El Saito Falls Mar 31, 2014 This is an update regarding graffiti and planned removal at El Saito Falls. We have verified with the contractor that they can use the same method and materials previously outlined. Because there is still some chance of forecasted rain in the next couple days, the schedule for this work is targeted for the end of this week or early next week. It is estimated to require 2 days. We have coordinated with the resource agencies, and this afternoon received concurrence to proceed with the removals. We are also coordinating with Cami Mojado to have tribe members present during this work. If you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Ann Gunter, AICP I Vice President I The Lightfoot Planning Group 5900 Pasteur Court I Suite 110 I Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-692-1924 ext 247 ----···-·~~~~-·--·-------------------------- From: Ann Gunter Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:11AM To: diane nygaard; cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org; codeenforcement@carlsbadca.gov; planning@carlsbadca.gov; 'Marisa Lundstedt'; melvern@aol.com; 'Merri Lopez-Keifer' Cc: 'Howell, Marvin (Miramar) NA'; brett.hurst@hanson.biz Subject: RE: New Violation at El Saito Falls Mar 31, 2014 Thank you for the information. We are evaluating this with removal contractor to verify method and schedule, and will inform all of the plan as soon as possible. Ann Gunter, AICP I Vice President I The Lightfoot Planning Group 5900 Pasteur Court I Suite 110 I Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-692-1924 ext 247 From: ,diane nygaard <dandd2@peoplepc.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:04 AM 1 To: Ann Gunter; cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org; codeenforcement@carlsbadca.gov; planning@carlsbadca.gov; 'Marisa Lundstedt'; melvern@aol.com; 'Merri Lopez-Keifer' Cc: 'Howell, Marvin (Miramar) NA'; brett.hurst@hanson.biz Subject: New Violation at El Saito Falls Mar 31, 2014 Hi ALL This morning my husband observed the worst graffiti tagging at the falls he has ever seen -large, multi colored, over many rocks and on the fence. Diane Nygaard 760-724-3887 2 To: Marvin Howell, Hanson Aggregates Date: March 7, 2014 From: Barry Jones Subject: Channel Condition for the Quarry Creek Reclamation Project (HAW-21) Message: Per your request, I conducted a site visit on March 6, 2013 to assess the status of the Buena Vista Creek channel following the significant rain even over the past weekend. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. has been monitoring the restoration efforts of the channel for the past year and a half, and the overall channel restoration effort is progressing well. During the March 6 site assessment, there was evidence of significant flows with the channel including wrack (debris) and drift lines well up the side slope and in existing vegetation. Typical after any significant rain event, there was trash that had washed onto the site from offsite upstream. Removal of trash has been an ongoing part of the overall restoration effort within the channel, and the newly introduced trash will be removed as part of the next maintenance event. The orange environmental fence is no longer needed and will be removed as part of site maintenance. In summary, the channel restoration is progressing well towards fully functional habitat and the site is being maintained through ongoing trash removal, weeding and general site maintenance. Please let me know if you have any questions. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 BarryJ@helixepi.com 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com Monitoring Memo 1 of 1 INSPECTION REPORT Date: 3-6-2014 Location: Quarry Creek Job Site Haymar Road, Carlsbad, CA Inspection performed by: JTK Site inspections were performed on March 1st and 2nd. There were heavy flows in the Buena Vista Creek channel on both Saturday and Sunday. The retention basins were full of water and functioning on Saturday, water levels were significantly lower by Sunday. The drainage swales were functioning well on both sides of the creek. Some maintenance of the swales are required on the north side, but the swales on the south side within a 100 feet of the retention basin need to be reestablished. Plant growth is getting established on both the north and south pads. There is no evidence of erosion on the perimeter cut slopes. Additional observations are as follows: • There has been motorcycle activity on both sides of the channel, with minor damage to the pads. There is some evidence of the motorcycle entering the property from the western slope on the north pad through the ornamental landscaping. • There is a small amount of trash that has been thrown over the gate at the Marron Road entrance. • Graffiti has been painted on the mid-slope terrace ditch on the south slope. This is the third time since the reclamation was completed. • There is new graffiti at the upper falls. Not to the same extent as last time. • Orange boundary fence has deteriorated. I have instructed maintenance crews to remove it. • The silt fence is down along the lower bench in the creek channel. I have requested the maintenance crew to restore it. I have made arrangements for Cal West General to paint over the graffiti on the terrace ditch and will make arrangements for removal of the graffiti at the upper falls once the appropriate approvals have been obtained for access and the activities required for the graffiti removal. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Please see the attached photos. Regards, Jonathan 1 of 1 INSPECTION REPORT Date: 3-6-2014 Location: Quarry Creek Job Site Haymar Road, Carlsbad, CA Inspection performed by: JTK Site inspections were performed on March 1st and 2nd.There were heavy flows in the Buena Vista Creek channel on both Saturday and Sunday. The retention basins were full of water and functioning on Saturday, water levels were significantly lower by Sunday. The drainage swales were functioning well on both sides of the creek. Some maintenance of the swales are required on the north side, but the swales on the south side within a 100 feet of the retention basin need to be reestablished. Plant growth is getting established on both the north and south pads. There is no evidence of erosion on the perimeter cut slopes. Additional observations are as follows: •There has been motorcycle activity on both sides of the channel, with minor damage to the pads. There is some evidence of the motorcycle entering the property from the western slope on the north pad through the ornamental landscaping. •There is a small amount of trash that has been thrown over the gate at the Marron Road entrance. •Graffiti has been painted on the mid-slope terrace ditch on the south slope. This is the third time since the reclamation was completed. •There is new graffiti at the upper falls. Not to the same extent as last time. •Orange boundary fence has deteriorated. I have instructed maintenance crews to remove it. •The silt fence is down along the lower bench in the creek channel. I have requested the maintenance crew to restore it. I have made arrangements for Cal West General to paint over the graffiti on the terrace ditch and will make arrangements for removal of the graffiti at the upper falls once the appropriate approvals have been obtained for access and the activities required for the graffiti removal. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Please see the attached photos. Regards, Jonathan _§~A_ CITY OF VcARLSBAD Community & Economic Development February 5, 2014 Marvin Howell Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. P.O. Box 639069 San Diego, CA 92163-9069 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RESTRICTION-MP 10-01-QUARRY CREEK Dear Mr. Howell: www.carlsbadca.gov Please find the enclosed Notice of Restriction that needs to be signed, notarized, and returned for recordation. This is to fulfill.a condition of approval of the Quarry Creek Master Plan. Please ensure the following items are addressed prior to returning the Notice of Restriction: .f Correct Notary Acknowledgement Required (Effective January 1. 2008, all Certificates of Acknowledgement used by a California notary on a document that will be recorded in the State of . California must NOT HAVE "PERSONAllY KNOWN TO ME" in the acknowledgement. (Assembly Bill 886, Chapter 399)) .f Document must be properly notarized . .f Name on signature page and name on Notarial Acknowledgement must match . .f Property owner's signatures/initials must be the same as on Notary Acknowledgement . .f Notary seal cannot be blurry/too light (County will not record the document if any portion af the Notary Seal is blurry or too light} .f Include property owner's name in the designated space above the owner's signature . .f Please pay particular attention to the signature requirements at the bottom of the signature page. It is our goal to assist you in getting the Notice of Restriction recorded as expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions or need additional ,assistance, please contact Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst at (760) 602-4615 or via email at michele.masterson@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, Senior Planner c: Michele Masterson, CED Senior Management Analyst File Copy · · Planning Division ~~'----~--------------------------------------------------------:: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Van L nch From: Sent: Howell, Marvin (Miramar) NA <Marvin.Howell@hanson.biz> Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:54 PM To: Van Lynch Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ann Gunter (ann@lightfootpg.com) FW: Quarry Creek Graffiti Removal photo1.zip; Marvin E Howell.vcf Van: I want to keep you in the loop as things occur on the Quarry Creek Site. Attached are some photos of graffiti at the top of the south Quarry slope. We painted it out again as soon as it appeared. Also, I think you were aware that the fence behind the shopping center was repaired and the sofa removed. It appears that the Police are patrolling. Thanks for your help on that. We will be increasing security hours as the school year ends. I will let you know as we have additional problems. Marvin E. Howell lehigh Hanson West Region land Use Planning and Permitting (858) 577-2770 Work marvin.howeJI@hanson.com From: JTKruer@aol.com [mailto:JTKruer@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:40 PM To: Howell, Marvin (Miramar) NA Subject: Quarry Creek Graffiti Removal Marvin, Attached, please see before and after photos. Regards, Jonathan ]. T. Kruer & Company 10251 Vista Sorrento Pkwy. Ste 1501 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone (858) 550-00441 Fax (858) 550-0404 License No. 777345 1 www.jtkruerco.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged, and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. 1 .\\. April 26, 2013 McMillin Land Development City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 A Corky McMillin Company Attn: Re: Mr. Van Lynch, Senior Planner Quarry Creek-VTM CT 11-04 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6938 Changes in lot numbers Dear Van, CITY OF CARLSBAD APR 2 0 2013 PLANNING DEPARTMENT As we discussed, with the deletion of Planning Area R5, a change in the lot numbering is required. The attached spreadsheet has been reviewed and approved by Engineering. Below lists the condition numbers and the change in lot numbering. Conditions 26 & 27-Lots 13 and 14 replaces lots 14 & 15. Condition 31.a-Lots 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 replaces lots 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10. Condition 66-Lot 5 replaces lot 11. Condition 69.g-Delete " ... in the proposed 30-foot wide utility easement within lot 5". Lot 5 replaces lot 11. Conditions 69.k and 70-Lot 5 replaces lot 11. Condition 72.g-Delete" ... in the proposed 30-foot wide utility easement within lot 5". Lot 5 replaces lot 11. As you suggested, we will add tile table. to the \/Tivl showing the naw and aid iot numbers. Thank you for you help on this. ~erely, ti _ ~-~ Don fvlitchell, P · McMillin Land Development c: Tecla Levy, Engineering Department encls: Spreadsheet showing lot number conversion .. \\. McMillin Realty .. \\. McMillin Mortgage .. \\. McMillin Land Development .. \\. McMillin Homes .. \\. McMillin Commercial ~~~~~~~~~ring\Project F<JW.rfil~~'ll'li'd'rM~~P'J!tili'l.l'8xoMf8Jf~a~Wl5?~[~, '2:Rf~\-gg~m~arding PC Reso 6938 lot 2750 Womble Road · San Diego, CA 92106 TEL (619)477-4117 • FAX (619) 794-1604 'WUr\.Vtnr1nillin rnm Old Lot# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Quarry Creek New lot numbers New lot# 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 5 14 13 12 11 MP R1 R2 R3 R4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 OS2 OS1 OS2 OS3 OS2 H:\datalengnring\Project Folders\Quarry 11\Lot Numbers\New lot numbers Van L nch From: Sent: To: Subject: Jeff Hickox <jeff.hickox@rgpobox.com> Friday, April 26, 2013 2:04PM Van Lynch Quarry Creek Fencing Van, it was a pleasure talking with you. I will inspect the missing fencing area at the top of the falls just down hill from the project Monument Sign and get back to you if! have any further questions. Jeff Jeff Hickox, CPM® Director of Business Development & Property Management RG Investment Real Estate Services, Inc. 858.268.5004 Phone 858.268.7743 Fax jeff.hickox@rgpobox.com www.rginvestmentre.com "Commitment, Innovation, Results" 1 Van L nch From: Sent: William Tayrien <william.tayrien@kohls.com> Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:27AM To: Van Lynch Cc: Subject: Tony Cogdill; Le Dabney; d.fialho@rgpobox.biz Re: Kohl's fencing at Buena Vista Creek falls Mr. Lynch, I will forward this communication to the appropriate contact for you. Radlow/Gittens (RG Investment) Property Manager Dick Fialho (858) 268-5004 for their review .. Thanks, Bill Tayrien 1 Store Manager KOHL'S-expect great things Oceanside, CA -#700 3410 Marron Road 1 Oceanside, CA 92056 II Office (760) 730-3520 On Wed, Apr 24,2013 at 2:27PM, Van Lynch <Van.Lynchial,carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Mr. Taryien, As you are probably aware, the Quarry Creek Master Plan project adjacent and westerly of your Oceanside store on Marron Road was recently approved. During the site visits with the Planning Commission and City Council, it was noted that there were some rails missing in the steel fence that is to prohibit entry into the El Saito Falls area at the northwesterly comer of your site. You or Kohl's management may have already been contacted by the current adjacent property owner or representative of Hanson Aggregates regarding the repair of the fencing. I would like to confirm that Kohl's is aware of the fencing and that repairs will be made to the fencing to prohibit entry into the Native American sacred site. Thank you in advance and if you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Van Lynch Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad CA 92008 T (760) 602-4613 van .I vnch@carls badca. gov 1 www.carlsbadca.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000. CAUTION: Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages by authorized Kohl's Associates at any time without any further consent. 2 April15, 2013 Mr. Van Lynch Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Quarry Creek Master Plan EIR-Budget Amendment Dear Mr. Lynch: The purpose ofthis letter is to request an amendment of $12,500 to HDR's existing contract amount of $167,597 for the preparation of the ErR and related environmental documentation for the Quarry Creek Master Plan project. With approval of this amendment, the revised contract amount would be $180,097. The following provides an explanation of the additional our work efforts that exceed those contemplated in our original scope of work dated December 30, 2011. 1. EIR Alternatives. The original scope of work contemplated "a minimum of three" project alternatives. While it is acknowledged that no maximum was identified, the EIR included the evaluation of a total of eight project alternatives, stemming from the input received during the NOP and scoping process. This is a robust number of alternatives, and far exceeds the reasonable range analyzed in a typical EIR, but was necessary in light of the comments received and the high level of interest from the community on the project. 2. Project Revisions/Technical Report Revisions. Subsequent to the preparation of the First Screencheck Draft EIR, the project was modified to address the grading and slope conditions generally in the R-5 Planning Area. This required revisions to various technical reports and project exhibits (e.g., hydrology/water quality, grading plan, visual simulations, landscape plan) that necessitated updates and revisions in the corresponding sections of the EIR (in addition to the incorporation of team comments on the screencheck EIR). 3. Responses to Comments. It is recognized that it is not possible to accurately predict the number and scope of comments that will be received on the public review Draft EIR. The original scope of work and corresponding cost estimate assumed a total of 200 individually numbered comments. However, over 50 comment letters were received, with more than 670 individually-numbered comments. (Note: we recognize and appreciate that this effort involved participation and input from all team members). Regardless, the effort involved considerable coordination with the team. In order to facilitate the EIR processing schedule, HDR prepared responses to these comments in good faith, rather than risk schedule delays while HDR Engineering, Inc. 8690 Balboa Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 858-712-8400 858-712-8333 (fax) Mr. &Lynch Senior Planner April 15, 2013 Page 2 negotiating the proper budget that would reflect the actual level of effort involved. 4. EIR Errata. In response to comments received from adjacent jurisdictions subsequent to the preparation of the Final EIR, and in part, the continued dialogue with the City and the continued refinement of traffic mitigation measures was necessary based on the progressive dialogue with the Applicant and City. As such, an Errata to the EIR was prepared to reflect the agreed-upon mitigation measures. 5. Late Comments/Responses. Late comment letters were submitted by three entities, requiring preparation of additional responses to comments. 6. Hearing/Meetings. The Planning Commission and City Council hearings involved approximately 18 hours, which was in excess of are original estimate when combined with other project team meetings and pre-meetings, etc. (our original estimate assumed a total of 18 hours meeting time for all meetings). We appreciate your favorable consideration of this budget amendment request for $12,500. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 760-845-9258. Sincerely, HDR Engineering, Inc. Tim Gnibus Environmental Business Class Leader HDR Engineering, Inc. Van Lynch From: Van Lynch Sent: To: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 9:35 AM Van Lynch Subject: FW: Quarry Creek Housing Plan -----Original Message----- From: Tom Shearer [mailto:tsealbeach@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:38AM To: CDAdmin Subject: Quarry Creek Housing Plan Apparently the City Council has unanimously approved the Quarry Creek development. College Ave is already experiencing gridlock from North Tamarack to Vista Way. This will only add to the problem. Also, where will these children go to school? Calavera Hills Elementary & Middle Schools were not built to handle more students. This is a classic lack of planning and foresight. Although I love living in Carlsbad, as soon as my daughter is out of Carlsbad High this will probably force me to move from the city. Poor leadership, poor planning. Tom Shearer 3678 Strata Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92010 Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 1 0 0 DELANO & DELANO VIA E-MAIL & US. MAIL Van Lynch Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, California 92025 (760) 510-1562 (760) 510-1565 (fax) March 30,2013 fc1TY OF CARLSBAD\ APR 01 2013 PLANNING DEPAR"l MENTl Re: Proposed Quarry Creek Project and EIR: April2, 2013 City Council Meeting Dear City of Carlsbad: This letter is submitted on behalf of Preserve Calavera and North County Advocates in connection with the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and proposed Quarry Creek project ("Project"). Please ensure members of the City Council are provided this letter prior to their consideration of this matter. The City has made substantial changes to the EIR, which were included as "errata" and posted on the City's website just hours before the March 261h hearing. Additional information regarding the Project's environmental impacts to traffic and historic resources was included in responses to comment letters, which information was only made available in a binder at the front of the hearing room the night of the hearing. All of this information should be compiled in a revised EIR, which should be recirculated for public comment. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.41h 1112, 1130. The failure to recirculate would deny the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the information and the validity of conclusions drawn from it. Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.41h 99, 131. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. ~ . (~~ CITY OF c ¥"CARLSBAD e . . Memorandum March 26, 2013 To: Don Neu, City Planner Van lynch, Senior Planner From: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Re: REVIEW OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SUBMITIED FOR QUARRY CREEK Per your request on March 21, 2013, the financial information presented by the McMillin Company to the City of Carlsbad to address the financial feasibility of the environmental alternatives set forth for the Quarry Creek Project has been independently reviewed by staff ofthe City's Finance and Housing and Neighborhood Services Departments, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Typically, the City would hire a third-party consultant to review and comment on the financial analysis for CEQA purposes. However, due to inadequate time to allow for this outside financial analysis review, appropriate in-house staff with related expert knowledge has reviewed the documentation and provides this summary of its analysis for consideration as the City Council considers the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Quarry Creek. Based on the information provided, it does not appear that any of the alternatives set forth in the EIR will meet the developer's investor requirements and therefore are not financially feasible. Following are some more specific staff observations regarding the developer's financial summaries: • There are no specific details on what went into the financial numbers set forth within the financial feasibility analysis and no land appraisals to support the land values, so it was difficult to provide much debate to the numbers. However, a general review indicates that the initial land costs are pretty much in line with other residential developments at about 25% oftotal development costs (TDC). The land development costs appear to be high (35% of TDC) compared to other residential developments (15% ofTDC) reviewed by staff. However, the other comparable developments have had more basic infrastructure (streets, utilities, etc) requirements. The Quarry Creek project has a bridge and much more grading and open space preservation than the other projects reviewed for comparison purposes. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the developer cost estimates appear to be reasonable. • A more reasonable internal rate of return (IRR) for an investor investing in the stock market would be around 12 to 13%. With that said, staff was unable to validate or make a statement as to the reasonableness of a 25% IRR for this type of project If that is what the developer investor is requiring to provide the requested equity noted, the staff opinion seems fairly irrelevant. Housing & Neighborhood Services 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov 0 Don Neu & Van Lynch -Financial Analysis-Quarry Creek March 26, 2013 Page 2 • One way to lower the target IRR would be to have a higher mix of debt as compared to investor equity, which would reduce the IRR due to the historically low interest rates. On other development proformas for market-rate multi-family housing reviewed by staff, the City has seen a split of 70% debt/loan and 30% investor equity. The proposed project appears to be showing about 44% debt/loan and 56% investor equity under the highest number of units scenario (656 units-reclamation parcel only). However, again, staff has no information on whether or not other financing was even available at a higher mix of debt for this specific project. The above information is simply an observation . • Based on the revenue numbers McMillin provided for sale of the properties, it is clear that the higher density sites are intended to be sold at higher values. R-2 and R-3 are proposed to be sold at $1.9 million and $1.67 million per acre (gross acreage), respectively. R-4 is proposed to be sold at a little over $1 million per acre (gross acreage). There was no value attributed to R-5 (panhandle) in the 656 unit scenario because no residential units would be allowed on the property under that scenario. There was also no value attributed to R-1, which staff assumed was set aside to be the required affordable apartment site. It is difficult for staff to say at this point if the properties noted above are being overvalued. But, it does show that the higher density sites appear to be more valuable. As a side note, another similar development situation in Carlsbad requiring a zoning change and a substantial number of units out of the excess dwelling unit bank indicated an anticipated land value of $1.5 million/acre for an apartment site. This does provide some reference point for the noted market land values within the developer proposal, which supports the land values noted in the financial analysis summaries from the developers. If you require any additional information, please contact my office. ~C4~ Debbie Fountain Director, Housing and Neighborhood Services Cc: Finance Director Assistant Finance Director City Attorney Mike Hogan, CEQA Counsel REVENUE (all numbers in 1000's) 1 R1 2 R2 3 R3 4 R4A 5 R4B 6 R5 7 TOTAL REVENUE IMPROVEMENT COSTS 8 Land Costs 9 Acquisition Title, Escrow, Appraisal, Legal, & Broker Fees 10 Property Taxes 11 Williamson Act Penalty 12 Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Mitigation Costs 13 Contingency Costs 14 Land Development Costs 15 Contingency Costs 16 Master Marketing Expense 17 Indirect Costs/Development Supervision 18 Technical Service Fees 19 Loan Interest 20 Loan Orig. & Other Fees 21 Management Fees 22 Investor Management Fee 23 Mise Fees 22 CFD Reimb & Water, CIP, and Utility Reimb 23 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS 24 Broker Commissions/Closing Costs 25 G&A Expenses (00-810 thru 899) 26 Homes Sales Expenses and G&A 27 Mise lncome!Exp_.-Income Taxes (00-990 thru 00-99~ 28 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES 30 NET PROFIT(% OF TOTAL REVENUE)·LEVERAGED Total $0 21,140 11,200 8,406 11,690 0 $52,436 (11,708) (150) (107) 0 (8,470) (847) (16,521) (1,652) 0 (360) (1,810) (3,895) 0 (1,049) 0 (550) 0 ($47,119) (361) (1,049) 0 0 ($1,409) PROJECT SUMMARY QUARRY CREEK II • DRAFT PLAN • Reclamation Parcel Only 656 units Develop & Sell Blue Top Lots Business Plan DEBT SUMMARY Max Outstanding Loan Balance Total Loan Commitment CAPITAL SUMMARY Max Equity 12% Leveraged Balance Pref Return Profit Dist Total IRR Investor 125,1531 3516 lOl 3 516 6.9% .. 0 (r REVENUE (all numbers in 1000's) 1 R1 2 R2 3 R3 4 R4A 5 R4B 6 AS 7 TOTAL REVENUE IMPROVEMENT COSTS 8 Land Costs 9 Acquisition Title, Escrow, Appraisal. Legal, & Broker Fees 10 Property Taxes 11 Williamson Act Penalty 12 Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Mitigation Costs 13 Contingency Costs 14 Land Deveiopment Costs 15 Contingency Costs 16 Master Marketing Expense 17 Indirect Costs/Development Supervision 18 Technical Service Fees 19 Loan Interest 20 Loan Orig. & Other Fees 21 Management Fees 22 Investor Management Fee 23 Mise Fees 22 CFD Reimb & Water, CIP, and Utility Reimb 23 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS 24 Broker Commissions/Closing Costs 25 G&A Expenses (00-810 thru 899) 26 Homes Sales Expenses and G&A 27 Mise lncome/Exp.-Income Taxes (00-990 thru 00-992) 28 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES 30 NET PROFIT(% OF TOTAL REVENUE)-LEVERAGED Total $0 18,620 11,648 16,769 0 0 $47,037 (11,708) (150) 0 0 (8,470) (847) (16,521) (1,652) 0 (360) (1,630) (2,551) 0 (1,144) 0 (360) 0 ($45,393) (362) (1 ,144) 0 0 ($1,506) PROJECT SUMMARY QUARRY CREEK II -DRAFT PLAN-Reclamation Parcel Only 506 units Develop & Sell Blue Top Lots Business Plan DEBT SUMMARY Max Outstanding Loan Balance Total Loan Commitment CAPITAL SUMMARY Max Equity 12% Leveraged Balance Pref Return Profit Dlst Total IRR Investor (25,729) 554 (0 554 1.3% ., 0 () REVENUE (all numbers in 1000's) 1 R1 2 R2 3 R3 4 R4A 5 R4B 6 AS 7 TOTAL REVENUE IMPROVEMENT COSTS 8 Land Costs 9 Acquisition Title, Escrow, Appraisal, Legal, & Broker Fees 10 Property Taxes 11 Williamson Act Penalty 12 Engineering, Planning, and Environmental Mitigation Costs 13 Contingency Costs 14 Land Development Costs 15 Contingency Costs 16 Master Marketing Expense 17 Indirect Costs/Development Supervision 18 Technical Service Fees 19 Loan Interest 20 Loan Orig. & Other Fees 21 Management Fees 22 Investor Management Fee 23 Mise Fees. 22 CFD Reimb & Water, CIP, and Utility Reimb 23 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS 24 Broker Commissions/Closing Costs 25 G&A Expenses (00-810 thru 899) 26 Homes Sales Expenses and G&A 27 Mis~ lncome/Exp.-Income Taxes (00-990 thru 00-992) 28 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES Total $0 14,770 6,792 2,547 0 0 $24,109 (12,402) (150) 0 0 (5,848) (585) (13,048) (1,305) 0 (360) (1,630) (2,950) (211) (482) 0 (60) 0 ($39,031) (158) (482) 0 0 ($640) PROJECT SUMMARY QUARRY CREEK II -DRAFT PLAN -Reclamation Parcel Only 250 units Develop & Sell Blue Top Lots Business Plan DEBT SUMMARY Max Outstanding Loan Balance Total Loan Commitment CAPITAL SUMMARY 15.446 21,052 Max Equity 12% Leveraged Balance Pref Return Profit Dist Total IRA Investor (14,400 (12,656) 0 (12,656) N/A .. '. 0 l) c Financial Feasibility Documentation The financial feasibility of the Quarry Creek project is dependent on a number of variables. These include the following: I. Project Costs -This includes not only the total costs, but also the timing of when those costs are incurred. Project costs for the Quarry Creek project are incurred very early in the plan, and phasing of those costs is severely constrained by the City's public safety requirements. 2. Project Revenues -Similar to project costs, it is not only the total revenues that count, but also the timing of when those revenues are realized. Timing is affected by any zoning or other regulatory constraints which would limit the ability to segment product offerings, which constrains the ability to sell planning areas at the same time. Overall project revenues are also directly affected by density, type of product (two story vs. three story, apartments vs. for-sale units, etc) and sizes of units. The debt and equity ·markets dictate that sales revenues are based on sales values in today's market, with reasonable price trending applied. 3. Capital Sources and Returns -The Quarry Creek project will be financed by a combination of bank debt and investor equity. Investor equity is measured by the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) which is driven by the equity invested, the equity returned to the investor and the time it takes to return the equity. The applicant has indicated that a minimum IRR for a project of this scale and risk profile is approximately 25%. No Development on Panhandle-656 Units Alternative This alternative would limit development to the reclamation parcel only and would include the full 656 units contemplated in the Proposed Project. Project Costs -The total costs would only drop approximately 5% from the Proposed Project (from approximately $50.8M to $48.5M) as all the major improvement costs of the Proposed Project would still be incurred with this alternative. These include design and construction of the bridge across Buena Vista Creek, improvements to, and undergrounding of utilities along Haymar Drive, traffic mitigations, and off-site water, sewer and reclaimed water line connections. In addition, similar to the Proposed Project, the majority of these costs would be incurred early in the plan to comply with the City's public safety requirements which require both a second point of access and a permanent water source to be provided early on in vertical construction. In addition there are cost increases associated with endowing the increased open space acreage however these would likely be somewhat offset by reduced mitigation requirements. .. c Project Revenues -The reduction in net developable residential acreage (from 41.6 acres to 29.9 acres) would result in the entire project being designated as Residential-High zoning. This single zoning category would limit the ability to segment the product offerings and would require land sales to be staggered; which would delay bringing those revenues into the plan. In addition, the higher density zoning would result in smaller units and more three-story units, both of which would directly and negatively impact project revenues. The average sales price of the resulting units would be approximately 14.3% less than those of the Proposed Project. Project revenues are estimated to drop approximately 25% under this alternative, from approximately $70M to approximately 52.4M. Capital Sources and Returns -The combination of the small reduction in costs, and the significant drop in revenues, combined with a delayed revenue stream, would reduce the Investor Rate of Return by from 26% under the Proposed Project to just 6.9% - a reduction of 73%. This return would not be sufficient to attract capital investment into this project. This alternative is not economically feasible. No Development on Panhandle-506 Units Alternative This alternative would limit development to the reclamation parcel only and would allow only 506 units to be developed. Project Costs -Similar to the No Development on the Panhandle -656 Units Alternative, the total costs of this alternative would only drop incrementally as all the major costs of the Proposed Project would also still be incurred with this alternative. These include design and construction of the bridge across Buena Vista Creek, improvements to, and undergrounding of utilities along Haymar Drive, traffic mitigations, and off-site water, sewer and reclaimed water line connections. In addition, similar to the. other Alternatives, the majority of these costs would be incurred early in the plan to comply with the City's · public safety requirements. In addition there are minor cost increases .associated with endowing the increased open space acreage, however these would likely be offset by·reduced mitigation requirements. It is estimated that overall project costs would only be reduced approximately 8% under this alternative -from $50.8M to $46.9M. While the footprint of the project and the required improvements are the same as the No Development on the Panhandle -656 Units Alternative, the costs would drop approximately 3% more due to a reduction in the number of units, which would affect costs which are unit-driven. c Project Revenues-The reduction in net developable residential acreage from 41.6 to 29.9 acres and the reduction in unit counts would result in the two zoning categories .on the project-Residential-High and Residential Medium-High which allow product offerings to be segment such that revenues would not be delayed. The primary impact to revenues is from the loss of 150 units, which reflects a 23% drop in the number of units. It is estimated that project revenues would drop approximately 33% under this alternative -from approximately $70M to approximately $4 7M. Under this alternative, costs would almost equal revenues. Capital Sources and Returns -The combination of the incremental reduction in costs, and the significant drop in revenues driven primarily by the reduced unit count, would reduce the Investor·Rate of Return by 95%, from approximately 26% to approximately 1.3%, resulting in returns which would not be sufficient to attract investment. No Direct Traffic Impact Alternative This alternative would limit development on the site to 250 units located on the pad areas created as part of the approved reclamation plan, Zoning on the site would change south of the Buena Vista Creek from Residential Medium-High to Residential Low-Medium (0-4 units per acre). Project Costs -Under this alternative, project costs would be reduced by more than 22% -from 50.8M to approximately 39.6M. This is a result of reduced grading costs, elimination of traffic mitigation costs, and reduction in both design and construction costs related to the reduced project footprint and reduced financing costs resulting from the lower cost of improvements. Some cost increases would be realized including costs to re-entitle the project (revised Master Plan,. Tentative Map, etc) and increased costs for endowing the larger open space acreage. The open space endowment costs would likely be offset to some degree by reduced mitigation costs. While overall costs are reduced, many of the major costs of the proposed project would still be incurred including the bridge over Buena Vista Creek, the improvements and undergrounding of utilities on Haymar and the off-site water, reclaimed water and sewer connections. In addition, similar to the Proposed Project, the majority of these costs would be incurred early in the plan to comply with the City's public safety requirements. Project Revenues -Project revenues would drop by approximately 60% under this alternative from $70M to approximately $24.1 M. This is a direct result of the loss of 406 (62%) of the units. c Capital Sources and Returns -The reduction in cost is insufficient to overcome the Joss of the majority of the project revenues in this plan. This plan would not be profitable and in fact would lose money; and consequently, is not economically feasible. Van Lynch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Council Internet Email Thursday, March 21,2013 8:19AM Van Lynch; Don Neu Gary Barberio FW: Save the Panhandle From: Pamela Langness [mailto:pamela.langness@kenblanchard.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:05AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Save the Panhandle Please do not approve the development of the Buena Vista Creek Valley where the sacred El Saito waterfall exists. We must have more open space to mitigate the existing over building in that area and honor the sacred areas of our predecessors. I have lived in in Calavera area for over 15 years and have witnessed the unbelievable amount of traffic increase as each new development is built. Each property guarantees two to three vehicles added to our streets, polluting our natural areas and inhibiting wildlife movement. Our schools are crowded and we are quickly becoming a mirror of Orange County. Pamela Langness 2856 Nantucket Lane Carlsbad CA 92010 1 DATE: March 20, 2013 SENT: By Email TO: Carlsbad Council on Quarry Creek Proposal Prior to Hearing on 3-26-13 FROM: Joan Herskowitz, Conservation Chair, Buena Vista Audubon Society I am writing on behalf of the Buena Vista Audubon Society with 1 ,800 member households in North County, including many residents of Carlsbad. Our primary concerns involve the health of the Buena Vista Lagoon and activities in the watershed. that affect the habitat and wildlife of the lagoon. We strongly urge you to deny approval of the 656-home project that will come before you next week, and instead approve a modification of the proposal that eliminates housing in all of the panhandle and reduces environmental impacts on this sensitive site. We are concerned about the loss of quality of the irreplaceable and unique biological and historical resources on the site, as it is upstream of the lagoon and adjoins an ecological reserve, both landmark Carlsbad natural areas with wildlife of local, state, and national importance. In addition, the EIR clearly states, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the project would have traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated and will result in gridlock for Carlsbad and Oceanside residents, on an already impacted roadway. Carlsbad residents expect the Council to protect lands that reflect their heritage and sustain native wildlife. Natural waterways in our dry climate are hotspots for wildlife and they provide the backbone of a system of preserves and corridors that scientists tell us we must protect if they are to survive into the future. CEQA was adopted by the state to identify environmental impacts of new development and analyze less impactive alternatives that could be implemented in its place. At a minimum, the "No Panhandle Development Alternative" is shown to significantly reduce biological and historical impacts, and would reduce traffic impacts as well. In addition, the determination of overriding findings which is required by CEQA to approve the proposed project, is only warranted in rare and extreme situations, not present in this case. The Council's decisions will be felt by future generations of residents. It is your obligation to protect the quality of life for residents, as well as our natural environment and history. Therefore, we urge you to: • Reject the EIR as inadequate because it erroneously concludes that all biological and historical resource impacts are mitigated; and • Deny approval of the proposed project, because of the unmitigated environmental impacts, and because we do not believe that you can make the required finding that the project, as proposed, is a suitable and appropriate land use for this sensitive site, and • Approve a modified project that reduces the housing units to 506 and protects the panhandle from development. Thank you for considering our views on this matter. _4~ CITY OF VcARLSBAD c Community & Economic Development PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION www.carlsbadca.gov March 7, 2013 Planning Systems Attn: Paul Klukas Suite 100 1530 Faraday Av Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: EIR 11-02/GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/LFMP 87-25/CT 11-04/HDP 11-04/SUP 11- 04/HMP 11-07-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN At the March 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of your request. The decision of the Planning Commission as to EIR 11-02, GPA 11-09, ZC 11-04, MP 10-01, and LFMP 87-25 is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The Planning Commission determination on CT 11-04, HDP 11-04, SUP 11-04 and HMP 11-07 was final at Planning Commission unless a written appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the Planning Commission adoption of the decision(s) in accordance with the provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Van Lynch at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, ~n DON NEU, AICP City Planner DN:VL:bd c: Data Entry .1 File SM"t y,·a_ ewrut-Quarry Creek Investors, LLC, Attn: Todd Galarneau, 2750 Womble Road, San Diego, CA 92106 Tim Gnibus, Tim.Gnibus@hdrinc.com Marvin Howell, Marvin.Howell@hanson.biz enc: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6936, 6937, 6938 and 6939 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Quarry Creek March 7, 2013 Page2 EIR 11-02-QUARRY CREEK As of March 6, 2013 our records indicate the project planner and project engineer have accumulated the following number of hours: Project Planner-Van Lynch Less 160 hour threshold Hours to be billed 88.5 hours x $108.06 = $9,563.31 Project Engineer-Tecla Levy Less 40 hour threshold Hours to be billed 28.5 hours x $115.34 = $3,287.19 TOTAL $12,850.50 MP 10-01 -QUARRY CREEK 248.5 160.0 88.5 68.5 40.0 28.5 As of March 6, 2013 our records indicate the project planner and project engineer have accumulated the following number of hours: Project Planner-Van Lynch Less 200 hour threshold Hours to be billed 5.5 hours x $108.06 = $594.33 Project Engineer-Tecla Levy Less 1 00 hour threshold Hours to be billed 42.3 hours x $115.34 = $4,878.88 TOTAL. $5,473.21 205.5 200.0 5.5 142.3 100.0 42.3 Please remit a check to the City of Carlsbad in the amount of $18,323.71 at your earliest convenience. - Van Lynch From: Don Neu Sent: To: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11 :49 AM Bridget Desmarais; Van Lynch Subject: FW: Quarry Creek Project From: Dennis Nathan [mailto:dpnathan@roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:47 PM To: Don Neu Subject: Quarry Creek Project Dear Don: Please take development off the Quarry Creek panhandle and reduce the number of units. This will preserve the heart of the Buena Vista Creek Valley, protect the regional wildlife corridor and creek, and the historic sense of place that can never be replaced. Reducing the number of units is key to reducing the traffic failures this project will cause along College, Lake, Plaza, Vista Way and the ramps to# 78. The loss of this valley, and the horrific traffic congestion will impact all of us who live here today-and generations to come. Sincerely, Dennis and Jane Nathan 1617 Hawk View Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 1 Carlsbad City Planning Commission Quarry Creek Development February 20, 2013 Outline of Comments Made By Michael D. Haslam 3540 Simsbury Court Carlsbad, CA 92010 • My written response to EIR is unchanged and copies have been provided to the Commission this evening; • The traffic mitigation information provided by McMillin is dependent upon approval by the City of Oceanside City Council and those approvals have not yet been obtained; • The traffic mitigation solutions proposed by McMillin do not consider the impact of over 1300 motor vehicles attempting to travel from this development to some work location in the morning via College Blvd. • While my home is the most aversely effected by this proposed development and I am certainly most concerned about the impacts this development will have on me ••• and my neighbors, I am also concerned about the New Home Owners. • Can you imagine the reaction of the 656 homeowners and renters when they try to leave for work in the morning and find that it will take them 30 minutes of additional commute time just to get to College Boulevard? • Can you imagine their reaction when they learn that we, in this room, knew of this unmitigated traffic disaster, and approved the project anyway? • And can you imagine the reaction of the rest of Calavera Hills when they wake up and learn that the approved EIR did not consider the impact of those 1300 vehicles trying to move onto college in the morning and the impact that movement would have on the number of "red lights" the north-south traffic would experience? PLEASE DO THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF CARLSBAD Comments Made By Michael Haslam February 20, 2013 Page 2 Page 2 c Van Lynch From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:31 PM Don Neu; Van Lynch Cc: Gary Barberio Subject: FW: Save Quarry Creek From: Summer Boger [mailto:SUMMERBOGER@COX.NITJ Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:40PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Save Quarry Creek Dear Mayor Matt Hall and City Council Members, I feel strongly we should save the panhandle of Quarry Creek. It is a priceless piece of San Diego County History and a beautiful spot. There are so few spots like this that I would love to see it turned into a public park much like the Cottonwood Creek Park or Double Peak Park that have some factual tid bits about the site. Please make sure that developers reduce the number of units below 656 and please require high frequency public transit through this area. Plus there are few places away from traffic designed for bicycles. Please require improvements to include pedestrian/ biking trails. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Summer Boger and Family 1 Things You Can Do to Save the Quarry Creek Panhandle What Can YOU Do to Save This Priceless Valley ? Van Lynch From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hello Van, Shelley Caron <adobegal@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, January 31,2013 9:39PM Van Lynch RE: VMM-Shelley Hayes Caron Quarry Creek Comment Letter's 7 Dec 2012 RDO_HPSRS1-Fig4.pdf The map that was removed from Vonn Marie May DEIR comment letter and my comment letter showing the historic district was done because it shows the location of archaeological sites. Archaeological site locations are confidential and cannot be disclosed in a public document. However the map does correctly depict the limits of the National Register eligible historic district. I have attached a map from a 2005 supplemental HPSR that was done for the project, which also shows the same boundaries for the district. Was my original map that I submitted with my DEIR comment placed in the confidential cultural flie of the report? Please add the map and this e-mail to the Quarry Creek Project record. Thank you, Shelley H Caron 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 60 I 0 Hidden Valley Road, Suite I 0 I Carlsbad, California 920 II 760-43I-9440 FAX 760-43I-96I8 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-06B0009-l3TAOI34 ---------. Mr. Van Lynch Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue CITY OF CARLSBAD JAN 3 0 2013 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 "' """"' California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92I23 858-467-420I FAX 858-467-4299 JAN 2.5 2013 Subject: Request for Determination of Equivalency for a Hardline Modification of the Quarry Creek Master Plan Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Lynch: The California Department ofFish and Wildlife (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed your December 12, 2012, request for determination of equivalency for a hardline modification of the Quarry Creek Master Plan Project (Project). The Wildlife Agencies previously concurred with a hardline modification for the Quarry Creek Reclamation Plan Project in our October 13, 2010, letter. We have reviewed the equivalency findings (enclosed) for the proposed hardline modification for consistency with the City of Carlsbad's (City) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) based on the information provided in your request. Except for Figure 6, the figures in the enclosed equivalency findings are incorporated by reference. The project site is located in the northeast portion of the City, approximately a quarter to half mile west of College Boulevard, and immediately south of State Route 78 (SR-78). The project site is comprised of two parcels of land: the 1 00-acre Reclamation Parcel (APN # 167-040-21- 00) to the east, and the 56-acre Panhandle Parcel (APN #167-040-11-00) to the west. Buena Vista Creek bisects the Reclamation Parcel and runs westerly as it exits the Reclamation Parcel, and continues off-site north of the Panhandle Parcel. The project site is generally bounded to the north by SR-78, to the east by a commercial center and auto dealership, to the south by residential development, and the Department-owned Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve to the west (Figure 1 ). The purpose for the proposed hardline modification is to accommodate hardline preserve patterns in order to maintain the Buena Vista Creek in the Resource Agency's desired alignment. The modification will also serve to protect and increase habitat corridors, and reflect the landowner's proposed master plan development project for the property. The proposed 2012 hardline alignment increases the overall acreage ofhardline preserve area by 9.5 acres. More specifically, the proposed hardline increases sensitive habitats by increasing Mr. Van Lynch (FWS/CDFW-06B0009-13TA0134) 2 7.76 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS; 3.24 acres ofpreservation and 4.52 acres ofrestoration) and 1.66 acres of riparian habitat (Figure 2). It also increases the acreage of non-sensitive disturbed land 0.54 acre. The modification will result in reductions to 0.02 acre of marsh, 0.18 acre of grasslands, 0.02 acre of eucalyptus, and 0.24 acre of developed land within the current hardline preserve design. These sub-totals result in a net increase of 9.4 acres of sensitive habitats and a net increase in 0.10 acre of non-sensitive habitats; for a total increase of9.5 acres ofhardline preserve (Figure 3). Table 1. Quarry Creek Proposed Hardline Vegetation Changes Removed Added to Existing from Adopted Proposed Total Vegetation Type Hardline Adopted Hard line Hard line Difference Hard line Area (acres) Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Sensitive Coastal sage scrub 32.47 -1.28 4.52 35.71 3.24 Coastal sage scrub-revegetated --4.52 4.52 4.52 Chaparral 4.94 --4.94 - Riparian 14.46 -0.04 1.70 16.12 1.66 Marsh 0.46 -0.02 -0.44 -0.02 Subtotal Sensitive 52.33 -1.34 10.74 61.73 9.40 Non-Sensitive Non-native grassland 10.32 -0.40 0.22 10.14 -0.18 Eucalyptus woodland 0.06 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 Disturbed 9.83 -0.22 0.76 10.37 0.54 Developed 0.71 -0.71 0.47 0.47 -0.24 Subtotal Non-sensitive 20.92 -1.35 1.45 21.02 0.10 TOTAL 73.25 -2.69 12.19 82.75 +9.50 The total hardline preserve for the Project will be approximately 82.75 acres, a 9.50-acre increase over the approved 73 .25-acre 201 0 hardline preserve. The proposed hardline preserve will include 35.71 acres of avoided CSS. The proposed hardline preserve will also include 16.66 acres of riparian and marsh habitats and will result in the restoration of 4.52 acres of manufactured slope to CSS and the restoration of degraded riparian and/or wetland habitats (Figure 4). All CSS and wetland restoration will be subject to success criteria approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. Thus, the proposed 82.75-acre hardline preserve for the Project will include a total of 40.23 acres of CSS, 16.56 acres of wetlands, 4.94 acres of chaparral, and 10.14 acres of non-native grassland (Table 1, Figure 6). The applicant has agreed to place a conservation easement or declaration of restrictive covenant over the hardline preserve, to provide funding for perpetual management of the hardline preserve, and to otherwise comply with all applicable mitigation measures adopted in the certified Final EIR for the project. The conservation easement should be in favor of the Department or other qualified entity. A declaration of restrictive covenant should only be used if the applicant demonstrates that it cannot retain a qualified entity to hold the conservation easement. Mr. Van Lynch (FWS/CDFW-06B0009-13TA0134) 3 The HMP standards for the western portion of Zone 25 require the maintenance of a contiguous linkage ofCSS, chaparral, and grassland habitats averaging 800 feet to 1,000 feet wide along the southern and western portion of the zone and to maintain a minimum constriction of 500 feet where narrower constrictions do not currently exist. However, the eastern portion of Zone 25, including the Project site, is within an existing hardline preserve. The proposed hardline alignment will maintain important habitat corridors established in the adopted HMP and result in the removal of impacts to riparian habitats in the north-south regional wildlife corridor on the Panhandle parcel, approved per the adopted hardline (Figure 5). Furthermore, it will expand this corridor from 625 feet to 880 feet in width. The approximate 255-feet in width addition will provide enhanced connectivity and will benefit HMP preserve areas outside the project site by facilitating wildlife movement between habitat areas. The proposed hardline largely follows the adopted hardline alignment of the biologically less significant corridor paralleling the southern property line, but slightly narrows the narrowest point ofthis hardline width from approximately 110 feet to approximately 85 feet; however, the proposed Project will provide restoration of native CSS through this preserve area. The net reduction in width is a result of the inclusion of a fire management area adjacent to the existing offsite neighborhood, The Knolls, as allowed per the HMP Adjacency Standards. No brush fire management is included within the proposed hardline adjacent to any new development. Immediately west of this narrow portion of preserve, however, the proposed hardline results in a significant widening of the preserve corridor by approximately 190 feet in added width from 110 feet to 300 feet wide. The proposed hardline also slightly expands the important east-west trending Buena Vista Creek valley along the outside (north) of the meandering riparian corridor that characterizes the northwest section of the Reclamation Parcel. The HMP Zone 25 standards also require that alignment for the future Marron Road minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and disruption of wildlife movement. The proposed Project will remove the extension of Marron Road from the City's Circulation Element. Based on the above, the Wildlife Agencies concur with the equivalency finding for the proposed hardline modification, and have determined that the modifications are consistent with City's HMP. We appreciate the opportunity to review the City's request for a hardline modification. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Janet Stuckrath (Service) at 760-431- 9440, extension 270 or Stephanie Ponce (Department) at 858-467-4237. cU4d~~ -~~ Karen A. Goeoel Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Enclosure Sincerely, David Mayer Acting Environmental Program Manager California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 0 QUARRY CREEK PROPOSED HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Request: The applicant for development of the Quarry Creek development (Quarry Creek Investors LLC) is requesting a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Equivalency Determination for the proposed Quarry Creek project. This request is allowed pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.21 0.080(A)(l ), as follows: 21.210.080 Habitat management plan amendment A. Minor Amendments 1. Equivalency Findings. Minor changes to the boundary of proposed hardline preserve areas or other HMP maps which do not reduce the acreage or quality of habitat are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be approved by the city with equivalency findings. The city shall provide written notice of the equivalency findings to the wildlife agencies, and unless the agencies object within thirty days of notification, the change will be considered automatically approved. lf objections are raised, the city will meet with the agencies to resolve the objection and written approval of the change from the agencies will be required. Background. The Quarry Creek project consists of 156 acres located in northwestern San Diego County in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, within Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 25. The property is the subject of an adopted HMP hardline preserve boundary. This hardline is intended to preserve open space areas in perpetuity in an effort to adequately protect the sensitive biological resources found on-site. An aerial photograph of the Quarry Creek property is shown on Figure 1; Quarry Creek Aerial Photo. The eastern 100.13 acres of the plan (the "Reclamation parcel") area has historically been the subject of rock and gravel mining activities which resulted in large areas of earth removal and excavation scar. The property has recently been the subject of a mine reclamation program which has returned the mined areas to a state which is usable for urban land uses per the local zoning and General Plan land uses designated for the property. The westerly "Panhandle parcel" (55.25) gross acres, is undeveloped. Attached Figure 2; Quarry Creek-Vegetation/Sensitive Resources Map, demonstrates the vegetation communities and biological resources located on the property. This Map is taken from the Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Technical Report; dated October 4, 2012, by Helix Environmental Planning, including the Memorandum dated November 16, 2012, and is the subject of the EIR analysis for the Quarry Creek project. As can be seen on the map, biological resources on the property include primarily Developed lands (reclaimed rock quarry area) and non-native grasslands, with Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS) covering much of the slope areas. The Buena Vista Creek and related riparian environments run east-west through the north-central portion of the Reclamation parcel. Quarry Creek Hardline Equivalency Detennination Findings \/9/13 1 0 Adopted Hardline. The present hardline alignment on the Quarry Creek property was adopted in 2010. However, this 2010 alignment is the second adopted HMP hardline for the property. The original HMP (2004) adopted the HMP Hardline Preserve to the north of the existing alignment of Buena Vista Creek. This 2004 hardline preserve pattern was based on the previously-approved 1990's era mining reclamation plan that showed the realignment of the creek to the north. Based on input from the Resource Agencies, the property owner applied for and received the first amendment to the hardline boundaries through an Equivalency Finding dated October 13,2010. This 2010 amendment allowed for the Buena Vista Creek channel to be retained in its original (existing) location and widened. In addition, 100-foot biological buffers were incorporated into this 2010 alignment in order to maximize habitat corridor connectivity along the creek. Proposed Hardline. The applicant presently requests modification to this 2010 adopted hardline through Equivalency Determination process. This proposed year 2012 hardline preserve pattern maintains the creek in the Resource Agency-desired alignment, protects and increases habitat corridors, and also reflects the landowner's proposed master planned development project for the property. The proposed 2012 hardline alignment increases the overall acreage of hardline preserve area by 9.50 acres [or 12.9%]. More specifically, the proposed hardline increases sensitive habitats by increasing 7. 76 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS; 3.24 acres of preservation and 4.52 acres of restoration) and 1.66 acres of riparian habitat. It also increases the acreage of non-sensitive disturbed land (0.54 acres). A small decrease in sensitive marsh habitat (-0.02acre) and decrease in non-sensitive areas grasslands (-0.18 acre), eucalyptus (-0.02 acre) and developed land (-0.24 acre) will also result from the proposed hardline alignment. These sub-totals all result in a net increase of 9.40 acres of sensitive habitats and a net increase in 0.10 acre of non-sensitive habitats; for a grand total of 9.50 acres of increased hardline preserve area for the property. Please see Figure 3, Quarry Creek HMP Hardline Comparison and Table 1 -Quarry Creek Proposed Hardline Vegetation Changes, below. Table 1: Quarry Creek Proposed Hardline Vegetation Changes Removed Added to Existing from Proposed Total Adopted Vegetation Type Hardline Adopted Hard line Hardline Difference1 (acres) Hardline Area (acres) (acres) (Acres) Area (acres) Sensitive Coastal sage scrub 32.47 1.28 4.52 35.71 3.24 Coastal sage scrub -Revegetated --4.52 4.52 4.52 Chaparral 4.94 - -4.94 - Riparian 14.46 0.04 1.70 16.12 1.66 Marsh 0.46 0.02 -0.44 (0.02)L '., ,/, ''', ~~l\i9t) 52.33 ,,I.M,, ,/., 10{14 / ',j1(:1J, i -· ',' ·9~40 Non-Sensitive Grassland 10.32 0.40 0.22 10.14 (0.18) Eucalyptus 0.06 0.02 -0.04 (0.02) Disturbed 9.83 0.22 0.76 10.37 0.54 Developed 0.71 0.71 0.47 0.47 (0.24)' 'Su'bfotal N.ot\-'Sen$ltiw 20.92 .J:c:lS 1.45 ' 21.02 (UO TOTAL 73.25 2.69 12.19 82.75 9.50 I· .. Includes areas to be restored as part of proJect mttlgatlon Quarry Creek Hardline Equivalency Determination Findings 1/9113 2 0 2Table 12 of Biological Resources Report incorrectly states -0.39 acre difference 3Table 12 of Biological Resources Report incorrectly states 0.13 acre difference Therefore, as seen in Table 1, the proposed hardline open space area is 9.50 acres larger than the adopted 2010 hardline. The proposed preserve area for the Quarry Creek project per the proposed 2012 hardline will total 82.75 acres. As indicated in Table 1, this total is a 9.50 acre increase over the existing 73.25 acre increase over the approved 2010 preserve. The proposed 2012 hardline will also result in restoration of significant areas of the property which are presently covered with non-native or degraded habitats or which are disturbed and then restored, to natural, native habitats. This will include restoration of 4.52 acres of property to DCSS, and restoration of degraded riparian and/or wetland habitats. These are areas that will be conserved within the hardline area. The potential areas identified for such restoration mitigation are shown graphically on Figure 4; Potential Wetland, Native Grassland and Sage Scrub Mitigation/Restoration Areas. The adopted 2010 hardline does not include any additional required areas of revegetation. Wildlife Corridors. The proposed project will accommodate the habitat corridors identified on the adopted HMP hardline, and will further expand the width of the north-south regional wildlife corridor that traverses the southwestern portion of the project (west end of the Panhandle parcel) from an existing 625-feet in width (at tightest point per the 201 0 adopted hardline) to a proposed 880-feet in width in the same tightest location, which results in an expansion of255-feet in width [or 40.8% wider]. This proposed hardline will result in a net improvement in wildlife movement between the southern off-site (Calavera Hills Village H) corridor (from the south) and the Buena Vista Ecological Reserve and environs (to the northwest). Please see Figure 5; Regional Corridor Linkage Map. Another less significant corridor parallels the southern property line. The proposed hardline largely follows the adopted hardline alignment, and slightly narrows the narrowest point of this hardline width from approximately 110 feet to approximately 85 feet, however the proposed project will provide restoration of native coastal sage scrub vegetation through this preserve area. Also this net width reduction is a result of the new inclusion of a fire management area adjacent to the existing offsite The Knolls neighborhood in order to reduce potential fire hazard to this existing residential neighborhood. Please note that fire management is allowed within a hardline preserve in locations when preserve areas are planned adjacent to developed areas per HMP Adjacency Standards (HMP p. F-17). Notwithstanding that the HMP allows fire management zones within hardline preserves when adjacent to existing developed areas, the hardline preserve calculations in Tables 1 and 2 above, as well as Figures 3 and 4, conservatively assume loss of preserve area for this fire management zone. Just west of this narrowest preserve area the proposed hardline then widens the preserve corridor significantly (from 110 feet to 300-feet wide) along the western half of this mid-corridor narrow section. The proposed hardline also slightly expands the important east-west trending Buena Vista Creek valley along the outside (north) of the meandering riparian corridor that characterizes the northwest section of the Reclamation Parcel. Quarry Creek Hardline Equivalency Determination Findings 1/9113 3 0 0 FINDINGS OF EQUIVALENCY The proposed Quarry Creek 2012 hardline (shown on Figure 6; Proposed Hardline Map) qualifies for a Determination of Equivalency with the approved HMP hardline based on the following findings: Finding #1. The proposed hardline alignment does not reduce the acreage of sensitive habitat from that preserved with the existing hardline. As indicated above, the proposed hardline increases the acreage of sensitive habitats within the hardline by 9.40 acres, and additionally increases the acreage of non-sensitive habitats by 0.10 acres, for a total of9.50 acres (12.9%) of increase hardline area. Further, the preserve system created by the proposed hardline alignment will maintain or increase the main habitat corridors established in the adopted HMP. It will result in the removal of impacts, which had been allowed per the adopted hardline, to riparian habitats in the north-south regional wildlife corridor on the Panhandle parcel. It will expand the width of this corridor approximately 255-feet in width (40.8% wider). This expansion of the corridor will provide enhanced connectivity and will benefit HMP preserve areas outside the project site by facilitating wildlife movement between habitat areas. The proposed hardline largely follows the adopted hardline alignment of the biologically less significant corridor paralleling the southern property line, albeit including a slight reduction in the minimum width, but including habitat restoration and provision of a fire management safety zone adjacent to the existing neighboring residential neighborhood, consistent with HMP allowances. Immediately west of this narrow portion of preserve however, the proposed hardline results in a significant widening of the preserve corridor by approximately 190 feet in added width. The proposed hardline also slightly expands the important east-west trending Buena Vista Creek valley along the outside (north) of the meandering riparian corridor that characterizes the northwest section of the Reclamation Parcel. Finding #2. The proposed hardline alignment does not reduce the quality of habitat from that preserved with the existing hardline. The project results in an increase in the amount ofDCSS by 7.76 acres, and also by increasing the amount of Riparian habitats by 1.66 acres. (Additional wetland restoration will take place either onsite, offsite, or a combination of both.) This total, in conjunction with the reduced area of protected marsh habitat by 0.02 acres, results in a total net increase in sensitive habitats of9.40 acres. Further, the proposed hardline provides for the permanent conservation and restoration of a widened HMP "Core 2" inasmuch as the minimum width provided on the Quarry Creek property is increased from 625 feet to 880 feet. Also, at least 4.52 acres ofhardline area presently containing non-native or degraded habitat, or undergoing grading and then restoration, will be revegetated with DCSS habitat and wetland habitats. This is an increase of revegetation area from the adopted 2010 hardline. No brush fire management is included within the proposed hardline. Note that the fire management zone located immediately adjacent to the existing offsite Quarry Creek Hardline Equivalency Determination Findings 1/9/13 4 0 The Knolls neighborhood could have been included per HMP Adjacency Standards discussed previously, but for purposes of maintaining a conservative analysis has not been included. CONCLUSION It is our conclusion that this proposal qualifies for a Determination of Eguivalency to the HMP hardline based on the fact that; (a) the acreage of the hardline preserve will substantially increase and, (b) the quality of the preserved habitat will also be substantially increased and the width of the main habitat/wildlife corridor will be significantly expanded. This expansion will enhance connectivity, which will benefit the HMP preserve areas outside the project site by facilitating wildlife movement between habitat areas. Further, the applicant has agreed to place a conservation easement or declaration of restrictive covenant over the hardline area, to provide funding for perpetual management of the HMP preserve, and to otherwise comply with all applicable mitigation measures adopted in the certified Final EIR. Figures: Figure 1; Quarry Creek Aerial Photograph Figure 2; Quarry Creek Vegetation/Sensitive Resources Map Figure 3; Quarry Creek HMP Hardline Comparison Figure 4; Quarry Creek Potential Wetland, Native Grassland & Sage Scrub Mitigation and Restoration Areas Figure 5; Regional Corridor Linkage Map Figure 6; Quarry Creek Proposed Hardline Map Quarry Creek Hardline Equivalency Determination Findings 1/9/13 5 Figure 1 Quarry Creek -Aerial Photograph Carlsbad, California 0 250 500 1000 FT ~ ·~--~IEB II ';~~~~ I '•II 0 Ptoject Boundary Streambed <5:> Palmer's Grapplincttook (Ht11JH1801fe/Japalmeri} Native Grassland @l!i1D Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Jireo bellii piUiUus} .. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub D Least Bell's Vireo {Jtfreo bellii pll.lill11s} Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Creation/Restoration Freshwater Marsh Coastal Sage Chaparral Scrub Mule Fat Scrub .. S<luthem Vlllllow Scrub .. S<luthem Riparian Woodland S<luthem Riparian Forest Riparian Creation/Restoration .. Baccharis Scrub .. Disturbed W.Uand Figure 2 S<luthem Mxed Chaparral Non-native Grassland .. Eucalypyus Woodand Non-native Vegetation Open Water Disturbed Hablat Quarry Creek -Vegetation/Sensitive Resources Carlsbad, California HELIX 200 fMc ..,....,.. Project Boundary Existi'lg Hardline Prcposed Hardline Hardine Gainll (12.45 acres) Hardline Losses (2.94 acres) Revegetation Slopes <:I;m) Palmer's Grapplinghook (lfarpago.nel)a palmeri) l!l.mZI Coastal calibnia Gnatcatcher (lilreo bel!ii puzillu$) m Least Bell's Vireo (Wee beUii pu.rillus; Freshwat8r Marsh Mule Fat Scrub -Southern WHew Scrub -Southern Riparian ~e~d Southern Riparian Forest Figure 3 Bac:charis Scrub .. Disturbed Wetlm~d Streambed Native Grassland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Creation/Restoration Coastal Sage Chaparral Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Nor.-natiVe Grassland ~ Euc:alypyus \1\bodm~d Nor.-native Vegetation Open Water Disturbed Habitat Developed Quarry Creek -HMP Hardline Comparison Carlsbad, California HELIX 200 400 BOO FT ~ .l'llniQj ~--:----~1 83 II '~MfT~~~ I '•II Project Boundary .,. .. , .. ., Brush Managment <Z) Impacts Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Slopes (~iii) Palmer's Grappllnghook {Ha1JK180111!1la pabneri) <Dml Coastal Calfomia Gnatcatcher (lfnw beJJJi piUillru) ~!fir! Least Bel's Vireo (JIWo be/Iii pruillru) Freshwater Marsh Mule Fat Scrub ~ Southern Willow Scrub .. Southern Riparian Woocland Southern Riparian Forest Riparian Creation/Restoration .. Baccharis Scrub Figure 4 ~ Disturbed Wetland streambed Native Grassland ~ Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Dlegan Coastal Sage Scrub Creation/Restoration Coastal Sage ChapBJTal Scrub Sarthem Mixed Chaparral Non-native Grassland .. Eucalypyus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Open water Disturbed Hablat Developed Quarry Creek -Potential Wetland, Native Grassland & Sage Scrub Mitigation/Restoration Areas 0 Carlsbad, California HELIX 200 400 800 FT ~lllr l'llllaQI ... :----~ Ba ll ~L.fs~r:l~ I '•II •· s 1~00 500 0 Job No: MMC-40 Date: 03/27/12 Figure 5 Quarry Creek -Regional Corridor/Linkage Carlsbad , California HELIX 500 1000 2000FT ............... --~---EJB II ~~~~; I '•II MAP ELEMENTS New Hardline Limits of Disturbance HMP Open Space Brush Management Open Space (Non-HMP) Development Area Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub DCSS Revegetation Area Diegan Coastal Sage Summary Total CSS: 42.9 AC. Impacts: 12.6 AC. (30%) Preserved: 30.3 AC. (70%) Revegetation Areas: DCSS Revegetation: 4.5 AC. Figure 6 NON-HMP OPEN SPACE Quarry Creek -New Hard line Map Carlsbad, California NON-HMP -~~~~~f' OPEN SPACE HARDLINE (TYP.) 200 400 y--1 \~,_ I '\ 800FT I I I Open Space 1 \ Parcel (Not a Parl) I ' HARDLINE (TYP.) MAP ELEMENTS New Hardline Limits of Disturbance HMP Open Space Brush Management Open Space (Non-HMP) Development Area Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub DCSS Revegetation Area Coastal Sage Scrub Summary Total CSS: 49.5 AC. Impacts: 13.79 AC. (28%) Preserved: 35.71 AC. (72%) Revegetation Areas: DCSS Revegetation: 4.5 AC. Figure 6 NON-HMP OPEN SPACE Quarry Creek -New Hardline Map Carlsbad, California HARDLINE (TYP.) 200 400 800 FT I I I Open Space 1 \ Parcel (Not a Part) I. I ' ' / HARDLINE (TYP.) c LJ FILE Planning Division January 15, 2013 www.carlsbadca.gov Planning Systems Attn: Paul Klukas 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: EIR 11-02/GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/LFMP 87-25/CT 11-04/HDP 11-04/SUP 11- 04/HMP 11-07-QUARRY CREEK The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, February 23, 2013, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on January 28, 2013. A one and one-half hour (1.5 hour) appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations; and 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations. The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Van Lynch at (760) 602-4613. (Jf~De~~ DON NEU, AICP City Planner DN:VL:sm c: Quarry Creek Investors, LLC, Attn: Todd Galarneau, 2750 Womble Road, San Diego, CA 92106 Tim Gnibus, Tim.Gnibus@hdrinc.com Marvin Howell, Marvin.Howell@hanson.biz File Copy Tecla Levy, Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® HAYMAR RD .STREET ASTREET BSTREET ASTREET AHAYMAR RD .STREET ASTREET BSTREET ASTREET ASTREET C (PRIVATE)R-1R-3R-4OS-3OS-1OS-1P-1P-4P-2P-5P-3HAYMAR RD .STREET ASTREET BSTREET C (PRIVATE)SIMSBURY CT .Parcel(Not a Part)Open SpaceQuarry CreekPAGE VI-7PEDESTRIAN, BIKE AND TRAIL CIRCULATION PLANMaster Plan06003001200 FTFIGURE 26LEGENDQUARRY CREEK PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINEPEDESTRIAN TRAILSTRAILHEAD/TRAIL STOPROADS WITH SIDEWALKS & BIKE LANESROADS WITH SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES & D.G. TRAILSCONNECTION TO EXISTING TRAIL 100'100'100'100'50'50'50'50'200'El Salto FallsFuture PublicCultural AreaPLANNING BUFFERPLANNING BUFFERPublic trails, viewing areas, and other uses, to be located withinplanning buffer.Grading and revegetation may occur in biological buffer.Grading in planning buffer will not result in expansion of biological buffer.Notes:BRIDGEOS-3 CROSS SECTION150' Wetland Area100'50'100'50'PlanningBufferBiological BufferPlanningBufferBiological BufferReclamationPlan GradingFutureGradingReclamationPlan GradingFutureGradingNOT TO SCALEQuarry CreekPAGE IV-38PLANNING AREA OS-3 CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUTMaster Plan018090360 FTFIGURE 25PLANNING BUFFERPLANNING BUFFER---A Final Falls Management Plan will be developed for areas within-200 feet of El Salto Falls. This plan will be developed in consultationwith the native-americans and will ensure that development withinthis area is sensitive to the cultural values and designation of theEl Salto Falls.STREET C (PRIVATE)OPEN SPACE PARCELPossibleNOT A PARTDeterrent landscaping installedin consultation with SLR tribe.Indicates area of no structures, parking, drive lanes or otherhardscape surfaces. Passive uses allowed such as benches,kiosks, etc.6' View Fence6' View FenceDeterrent landscaping 1 of 1 INSPECTION REPORT Date: 3-6-2014 Location: Quarry Creek Job Site Haymar Road, Carlsbad, CA Inspection performed by: JTK Site inspections were performed on March 1st and 2nd.There were heavy flows in the Buena Vista Creek channel on both Saturday and Sunday. The retention basins were full of water and functioning on Saturday, water levels were significantly lower by Sunday. The drainage swales were functioning well on both sides of the creek. Some maintenance of the swales are required on the north side, but the swales on the south side within a 100 feet of the retention basin need to be reestablished. Plant growth is getting established on both the north and south pads. There is no evidence of erosion on the perimeter cut slopes. Additional observations are as follows: •There has been motorcycle activity on both sides of the channel, with minor damage to the pads. There is some evidence of the motorcycle entering the property from the western slope on the north pad through the ornamental landscaping. •There is a small amount of trash that has been thrown over the gate at the Marron Road entrance. •Graffiti has been painted on the mid-slope terrace ditch on the south slope. This is the third time since the reclamation was completed. •There is new graffiti at the upper falls. Not to the same extent as last time. •Orange boundary fence has deteriorated. I have instructed maintenance crews to remove it. •The silt fence is down along the lower bench in the creek channel. I have requested the maintenance crew to restore it. I have made arrangements for Cal West General to paint over the graffiti on the terrace ditch and will make arrangements for removal of the graffiti at the upper falls once the appropriate approvals have been obtained for access and the activities required for the graffiti removal. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Please see the attached photos. Regards, Jonathan