Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 42581 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ” 33 23 24 25 26 27 ~ 28 ~ e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4258 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE GRAVITY SEWER PIPELINE ALONG JEFFERSON STREET BETWEEN LAS FLORES DRIVE AND OAK AVENUE, AND THE REALIGNMENT OF THE GRAVITY SEWER LINE ALONG CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE TO BE REALIGNED IN OAK AVENUE BETWEEN IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME: VISTNCARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR SEWER REPLACEMENT REACHES JEFFERSON STREET AND THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY VCSB - VC9 CASE NO.: CDP 98-07 WHEREAS, the City’s EngineeringPublic Works Department, “Dev has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the Carlsbad and San Diegs Northern Railroad, “Owner”, described as The public right-of-way of Jefferson Street between Las Flores Drive and Oak Avenue: public right-of-way of Oak Avenue between Jefferson Street and the railroad right-of-way; and, a portion of the railroad right-of-way directly west of Oak Avenue. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planruing Commission did on the 1st day of April 1998 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by iaw to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te, and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all I ~ relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P Commission as follows: A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. t: c 1 2 3 4 5 6 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “N: February 13, 1998, and “PII” dated December 30, 1998, attached he made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mq significant impact on the environment. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and co the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this prc any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA Pa comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evid project will have a significant effect on the environment and thereby APPRO’ Negative Declaration. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indc judgment of the Planning Cornmission of the City of Caslsbad. ... ... 1611 **. 17 11 . . . 18 19 20 21 22 ... ... ... . .. 23 24 ... **e 25 26 ... II **. 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 4258 -2- 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 e I) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April 199t following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, h Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: - CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HMZM~LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4258 -3- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: City of Carlsbad, California - Jefferson Street between Las Flores D and Oak Avenue and Oak Avenue between Jefferson Street and A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way. I’rqjcct Description: The project site includes the pavement area within Jefferson Street betwcn Flores Drive ancl Oak Avenue and the pavement area within Oak Avenue between .Ieffmon Strect Ihe A.T.JkS.1.‘. I<ail~-oad right-of-way. The project consists of the replacement of thc \~is~:\/C;\~\sl intcrceptor gravi~). sc‘\\er pipcline in Jefferson Street and the replacement and realignment ot’the gra! sewer pipeline in Carlsbad Village Drive to be realigned in Oak Avenue (reaches VC5B through VC the project will replace approximately 2,000 lineal feet of 27-inch pipeline with 36-incl1 pipeline, , approximately 3,700 lineal of 36-inch pipeline with 42-inch pipeline and will replace 15 access 110 The pipeline and access hole replacement is necessary due to deterioration caused by hydrogen sull corrosion. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuanl the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmer Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declarat: (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued 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 Departme 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Ple; submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you 11:. any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455. DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 1998 CASE NO: CDP 98-07/EIA 97- IO CASE NAME: VISTA/CARLSBAD INTERCEPTOR SEWER REPLACEMENT REACHES VC5B - VC9 PUBLISH DA’I’E: FEBRUARY 13, 1998 MICHAEL J. HOLZmLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089, 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 98-07/EIA 97-1 DATE: February 2. 195 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: VistdCarlsbad Interceptor Sewer Replacement - Reaches VC5B - VC9 2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, William Plummer, District Engineer 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad, C 92008, (760) 438-3367 EXT. 124 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 30, 1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site includes the pavement area within Jefferson Stre between Las Flores Drive and Oak Avenue and the pavement area within Oak Avenue betwe6 Jefferson Street and the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way. The project consists of th replacement of the VistdCarlsbad interceptor gravity sewer pipeline in Jefferson Street and th replacement and realignment of a gravity sewer pipeline in Carlsbad Village Drive to b realigned in Oak Avenue (reaches VCSB through VC9). The project will replace approximate1 2,000 lineal feet of 27-inch pipeline with 36-inch pipeline, and approximately 3,700 lineal of 3t inch pipeline with 42-inch pipeline and will replace 15 access holes. The pipeline and acce: hole replacement is necessary due to deterioration caused by hydrogen sulfide corrosion. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec; involving at 1east.one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Air Quality 0 Noise Cultural Resources [7 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 a DETERMINATION. e (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [x1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. /"J 'I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but , least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negatil Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [7 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaratio pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to th: earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 3- JkLJLVm F~L~vcwy I 0 I 199% Planner S?'gXatd Date w&&* z/to 178 Planning Director's Signature Date 2 Rev. 03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL IM~TS e STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci conduct an Envirmmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi~ pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum; factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that s effect is significant. * Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzt adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab standards and’(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up( the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to 1 supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri, environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement t Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing ; EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, ar those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate( may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, ar the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redul the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1. 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 tu 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)? 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? 0 o 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 0 0 housing? 0 0 111. 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? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? IV. 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? 0 El 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 5 Less Than No Significant lmpac Impact IXI O w 0 IXI 0 E3 0 [XI o w 0 IXI IXI o w R w [XI 0 [XI O w 0 w 0 IXI w 0.N 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI cl [XI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting InformaSources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f, Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through 0 interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 0 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? n U h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of -0 ' groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? o 0 CI 0 cause any change in climate? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 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)? o I7 0 0 0 0 g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 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 d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? pool)? 0 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? 6 f- entially Less Than No ignificant Significant Impac Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 [XI !x [XI 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 0 [I] 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI w 0 0 [XI [XI 0 0 El 0 Ix) CI 0 [XI 0 0 w 0 I7 Ix1 0 0 [XI 0 I7 [XI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informa Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 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? o 0 0 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 hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? O 0 f entially ignificant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 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? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 7 Less Than No Significant Impat lmpact 0 [x1 cl [XI 0 Ixl DE4 0 IXI 0 Kl 0 [XI 0 w Ixl 0 w 0 0 w 0 €3 0 [XI 0 (XI 0 €3 0 Ixl 0 IXI 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 (XI o w Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Informa Sources). Potentially .entially Less Than Significant lgnificant Significant f Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 0 o 0 0 0 0 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 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 0 0 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? potential impact area? 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 o 0 0 0 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 wildlife 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 0 0 I- 0 0 0 NO Impac w [XI w w w E IXI w w w w IXI XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati. declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D): In this case a discussion should identify tl following on attached sheets: 8 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 a) Earlier analyses used. IdentifL earlier analyses and state where they are availat: for review. NIA II r- b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkl: were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed 1 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated ( refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit specific conditions for the project. N/A 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVI~MENTAL EVALUATION 0 ' The project consists of the replacement of an existing sewer line under the pavement in the rig1 of-way of Jefferson Street, the abandonment of a sewer line under Carlsbad Village Dri. (CVD), and the realignment and construction of the CVD portion of the sewer under t! pavement in the right-of-way of Oak Avenue. The project would replace an existing a deteriorating sewer facility and all trenching and other miscellaneous construction work wou take place within existing paved streets, therefore, an environmental discussion on t environmental impact for the following environmental impact categories is not included becau no impact would occur - I. Land Use and Planning, 111. Geologic Problems, IV. Water, V. P. Quality, VII. Biological Resources, VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources, IX. Hazards, X Public Services, XII. Utilities and Services Systems, XIII. Aesthetics, XIV. Cultural Resource and XV. Recreational. I. 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed project would replace the existing VistdCarlsbad interceptor sewer that current serves existing development within the Cities of Vista and Carlsbad. The pipes would be u sized from 27-inch to 36-inch and 36-inch to 42-inch to return the existing over-capaci pipeline system to normal flow depths. The sewer lines are located in urbanized areas which w continue to grow and intensifL through infill development and redevelopment, however, tl sewer lines are being resized to more safely accommodate existing flows. The lines do nc connected to large tracts of undeveloped land, therefore, any potential growth inducing impac created by the resizing of the pipes would be considered less than significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION The proposed project is for an underground pipeline that would not permanently impact traff circulation and patterns. However, short-term pipeline construction impacts would temporari' change local traffic patterns in the area. Local ordinance requires that all construction operatio] located within the public right-of-way must have a Traffic Control Plan approved by the City Engineering Department Traffic Division before construction commences. The approved Traffi Control Plan would incorporate the necessary traffic safety control measures such as signs, lm and construction barricades, designation of work zones, and phasing to ensure that traffic an pedestrian safety and emergency access is maintained In addition, when a street or portions of street are closed due to paving or construction, substantial advanced notification is given t businesses and residents living in the area so they can plan accordingly and do not bloc construction access by parking vehicles in the street. Some of the construction (Portions ( Jefferson Street and all of Oak Avenue) would take place in areas where the street system comprised of a rectangular grid system. The grid layout of the streets would help to minimiz traffic congestion and restricted access by allowing more convenient alternative routes aroun the streets being impacted by the project's construction, therefore, vehicular circulation an access impacts would be considered less than significant. X. NOISE The proposed project would not create a permanent increase in noise levels, however, people i the vicinity of the construction site would be exposed to higher than normal noise levels in th area as a result of the temporary construction noise. Local ordinance requires that a construction contractors observe strict hours of operation, including a prohibition on work durin 10 Rev. 03/28/96 # certain holidays and on mays. The short-term nature of the e impacts and complian e with the mandated hours of construction operation would result in less than significant impacts. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) s N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 11 Rev. 03/28/96