HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 38210 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3821
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TENNIS
COURT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND
EAST OF THE SEAPOINTE RESORT WITHIN THE
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT
CASE NAME SEAPOINTE RESORT TENNIS COURT
CASE NO: CUP 93-04(A)/SDP 95-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of November,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reques
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by sta:
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f
relating to the Negative Declaration.
DEVELOPMENT BOARD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1;
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1;
Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Decla
according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 22, 1995 and "PII",
September 20, 1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based (
following findings:
Findines:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mq
a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental an
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed p
I1
0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~
26 ~
27 I 28
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signj
impacted by this project.
5. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein id
for this project and any comments thereon prior to approving the project. B
the EIA Part-11 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds th;
is no substantiual evidence the project will have a significant effect
environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
6 The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflel
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbac
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of November, 1
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas,
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary
NOES: None
ABSENT. None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMl
MICHAEL JXOLWILLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 3821 -2-
II
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECI' ADDRESS/LOCATION: Adjacent to and east of the Seapointe Resort
within the North San Diego County Transit
Development Board right-of-way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conditional Use Permit amendment and Site
Development Plan to allow a tennis court and landscape
area.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning
Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 1
CASE NO: CUP 93-04(A)/SDP 95-10 Planning Director
CASE NAME SEAPOINTE RESORT TENNIS COURT
MICHAEL J. HOL%ILLER
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1995
CWfr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 93-04(Al/SDl
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15,
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Seapointe Resort Tennis Court
2. APPLICANT Continental Commercial Corporation
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 5050 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200.
California, 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 1.1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tennis Court and Landscape Area
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvi
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless P(
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 312819
0 0
. DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have b
added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 1
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applics
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL N
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequal
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATX
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a No
of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
&*J)& %Qk 123, Q45 Planner Signature Date
4.1 zD/q y-
Planning Directz Signatlhr'e Date
2 Rev. 312819
a 0
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envh
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envh
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any
biologicd and hum factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative De
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequate
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impac
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simp
does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “NO Impact” answer should be explained whr
there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gener
standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impe
is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policic
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatic
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significa
Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatit
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on tl
environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier El
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstanc
requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requirt
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepa;
an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicab
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has bet
made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the proje
or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the1
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatic
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriai
“Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigate
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit(
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed t
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridir
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) propost
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pa
11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fol
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to d
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
0 e
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Impact
Significant
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ) -
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? () -
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? () -
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? () -
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? () -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? () -
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? () -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? () -
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? () -
b) Seismic ground shaking? () -
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () -
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () -
5
Potentially
Significant
UnleSS Less Than
Mitigation Si%nificant
Incorporated Impact
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
~ -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Rev. 312819
0 0
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Landslides or mudflows? ()
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? ()
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
lV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ()
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ()
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? ()
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ()
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Potentially
Significant
UdeSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Less%
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 Rev. 312819
0 0
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
0 -
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? () -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? () -
d) Create objectionable odors? () -
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
0 -
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? () -
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () -
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () -
f') Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? () -
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () -
Potentially
Significant
UdeSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Less Than
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
7 Rev. 312819
0 0
. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? () - -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () - -
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () - -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? 0 - -
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () - -
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
0 - -
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? () - -
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? () - -
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? () - -
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? () - -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? () - -
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? () - -
Less Than
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8 Rev. 312819
0 0
- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? () -
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? () -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () -
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? () -
b) Police protection? () -
c) Schools? () -
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0 -
e) Other governmental services? () -
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? () -
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant
unless Less Than
Incorporated Impact
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
b) Communications systems? () - - -
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? () - - -
d) Sewer or septic tanks? () - - -
e) Storm water drainage? () - - -
f) Solid waste disposal? () - - -
g) Local or regional water supplies? () - - -
9 Rev. 312819
0
- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ()
c) Create light or glare? ()
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ()
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? ()
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ()
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ()
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
e
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Less Than
Significant
Impact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10 Rev. 312x19
0 @
, Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LesSThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? - - -
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects) - - -
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? - - -
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the followin
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
review.
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures base
on the earlier analysis.
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are Tess than Significant with Mitigation
11 Rev. 312819
0 0
. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gen
will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequen
in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and su
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as il
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emis
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of n
measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and in1
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips thr
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage a
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient buildin,
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applic
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of tl
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located withi
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. Th
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the cel
of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of C
Considerations” for. air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all SI
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further envh
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gel
will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build0
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over 7
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major int(
along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intl
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous I
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the prc
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportatio
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) partic
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing In1
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to con
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporate(
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
12 Rev. 312819
0 0
, Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intf
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist i
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparal
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resol
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Stat(
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR,
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
The proposed use can not have any significant effects on the environment. The proposed tennis court i
within the zone if approved by a Conditional Use Permit which is consistent with the General Plan. 1
on which it is proposed has been disturbed by previous grading and is immediately adjacent to the
Resort, which is a 78 unit timesharefiotel.
The addition of the tennis court to the parcel adjacent to the hotel will not create a need for additiona
will not create or expose people to geologic problems, will not result in a significant change to water a
or expose people to flooding, will not create significant additional average daily (automobile) trips, will n
a biologically sensitive area, will not use or require significant amounts of energy and/or mineral resou
not expose people to hazards as listed in the EIA part 11, will not create significant noise impacts tc
properties, will not require additional public services but will contribute to the public availability of re1
facilities, will not require the need for new utilities or service systems, will not create a significant aesthel
because there will be no lighting and the tennis court area will include landscaping, and will not disturb a:
cultural resources.
13 Rev. 312819
0 0
, LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
14 Rev. 3/28/95