The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHDP 98-06; Barbour Residence; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (7)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 98-30 / HDP 98-06 DATE: 06-04-98 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Barbour residence 2. APPLICANT: John Barbour 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1620 Edilee Drive, Cardiff CA 92007 (760) 436-5477 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 04-13-98 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The develoument of a 3.500 square foot single family residence located at 1 155 Hoover Street, Carlsbad CA. APN: 206-180-07-00. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning Ix] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been 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 an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR 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 NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative 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 are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 o b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - ((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 0 11) Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 Ixl 0 IXI 0 IXI IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 5 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Changes 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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) ((#1 :PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? lnsufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Potentially significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr, Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 0 EJ €4 IXI 0 EJ IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 6 Rev. 03/28/96 ”-- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) (#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) - 5.4-24) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 8z 5.13- 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 1 - 5.13-9) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 1 - 5.9-15) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 7 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact Ix1 IXI IXI !xl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI [XI [XI IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI (XI IXI IXI Ixl IXI IXI IXI IXI (XI IXI IXI (XI El IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 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 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless t Impact 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 9 Rev. 03/28/96 x DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is located in the coastal zone on the south side of Hoover Street and east of Adams Street overlooking the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, although not within the Agua Hedionda Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The site is designated RLM (1-4 ddac) which would allow for the development of a single family dwelling. The surrounding development consists of single family units to the north, east, and west and vacant residentially designated land to the south. The west facing, rectangular .344 acre site contains .046 acres of small slope areas greater than 25 percent that appear to have been created by previous grading for driveways and public roads. The project’s grading would consist of 1750 cubic yards of cut and 300 cubic yards of fill with an export of 1450 cubic yards of material. The site is void of vegetation and there is no adjacent vegetation that would be disturbed during the grading operation. IIC. IV. V. VI. VI1 . VIII. Housing: The project consists of constructing a new single family residence and no existing housing will be displaced. The project is subject to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance and will be required to pay an affordable housing per unit impact fee to ensure that adequate affordable housing is available within the City’s boundaries. Water: The project would result in a minor increase in runoff, however, the onsite drainage will be discharged and dissipated consistent with City standards to avoid adverse impacts due to surface runoff. Air Oualitv: TransportatiodCirculation: The project is a single family residence which will generate 10 additional trips per day. The existing roadways are adequate to handle the additional traffic Biological Resources: The site has been previously disturbed and is currently void of vegetation. Aesthetics: The project is located between Adams Street, a scenic roadway from which visual access to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is provided, and Highland Drive. The project, being above Adams, is not required to comply with the City’s Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program policies requiring that development located adjacent to Adams Street (scenic roadway) will include frontage landscaping in conformance with the City’s Scenic Corridor guidelines. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfir, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated 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 mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. TransportatiodCirculation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 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 mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian 11 Rev. 03/28/96 linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 447 1. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 .~ - .. _- " LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) None ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) None 14 Rev. 03/28/96