1 

Filed 3/26/15 Redlands Good Neighbor Coalition v. City of Redlands CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

REDLANDS GOOD NEIGHBOR 

COALITION, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF REDLANDS, 

 Defendant and Respondent; 

WALMART STORES, INC., 

 Real Party in Interest and 

Respondent. 

 E060138 

 (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1211890) 

 O P I N I O N 

 APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Donald R. Alvarez, 

Judge. Affirmed. 

 Briggs Law Corporation, Cory J. Briggs, Mekaela M. Gladden, and Anthony N. 

Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant. 
2 

 Best Best & Krieger, Michelle Ouellette and Sarah E. Owsowitz for Defendant 

and Respondent. 

 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Arthur J. Friedman and Alexander L. 

Merritt for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff and appellant, Redlands Good Neighbor Coalition (RGNC), a non-profit 

social advocacy organization, appeals from the judgment denying its petition for a writ of 

mandate setting aside resolutions adopted by defendant and respondent, City of Redlands 

(the City), approving the Redlands Crossing Center project (the project), a 275,500-

square-foot shopping center anchored by a “super” Walmart store, and certifying an 

environmental impact report (EIR) for the project.1 

RGNC claims the City violated sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the Subdivision 

Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410-66499.37),2 by approving a tentative parcel map (TPM) 

for the project, namely, TPM 19060, that conflicts with the Design and Preservation 

Element of the City’s general plan. RGNC also claims the City violated the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) in certifying 

 1 In another writ proceeding, a coalition of members called “For Accountability in 

Redlands” or FAIR, appeals from a separate judgment entered by the trial court, denying 

FAIR’s writ petition to set aside the same project approvals RGNC challenges in this writ 

proceeding. (For Accountability in Redlands v. City of Redlands, Riverside County 

Superior Court case No. CIVDS1300289, Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two 

case No. E060756.) FAIR and RGNC are represented by the same counsel. 

2 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise 

indicated. 
3 

the EIR for the project that inadequately addressed the project’s impacts on aesthetics, 

specifically on Redlands’s historical and agricultural “community character” and views 

of the San Bernardino Mountains. Lastly, RGNC claims the EIR failed to analyze the 

project’s alleged inconsistencies with the City’s general plan. 

The City, joined by real party in interest and respondent, Walmart Stores, Inc. 

(Walmart) (collectively respondents), argues RGNC failed to exhaust its administrative 

remedies and is therefore barred from pursuing its Subdivision Map Act claims. 

Alternatively, respondents claim ample evidence supports the City’s findings that TPM 

19060 is consistent with the City’s general plan, and the EIR adequately addressed the 

project’s impacts on aesthetics and its consistency with the general plan. We affirm the 

judgment. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. The Project 

The project involves the development of a 275,500-square-foot regional retail and 

commercial center, built on approximately 32.97 acres at the southeast corner of 

Tennessee Street and San Bernardino Avenue, immediately east of Interstate 210. The 

project would be anchored by a 215,000-square-foot Walmart store, open 24 hours a day, 

seven days a week. An additional 60,500 square feet of space would be used for other 

commercial uses, including fast food restaurants. The project site consists of vacant, 

fallow agricultural land, formerly used as an orchard. Three residences were on the 
4 

project site from the 1930’s until two were removed in the early 1990’s and the third was 

removed in 2002. 

 The project site is designated “commercial” in the City’s general plan, allowing 

for a variety of uses, including shopping centers and business parks. The project site also 

lies within the boundaries of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (the EVCSP), which 

the City adopted in 1989 “to refine General Plan policies” for the East Valley Corridor—

a 4,000-acre planning area in the eastern portion of the San Bernardino Valley comprised 

mostly of vacant land, including the project site. 

The general plan envisions the EVCSP area “a high-quality business park 

environment” and as a vehicle for changing Redlands “from a labor exporting to a labor 

importing community.” When fully built in 2028, the EVCSP is expected to support 

90,000 jobs and “bring change on a scale Redlands has not experienced.” The general 

plan describes the EVCSP area “the best, perhaps only, location capable of attracting the 

office, high-tech and distribution jobs the eastern portion of the San Bernardino Valley 

needs,” and states the EVCSP “will reduce potential demand for retail, office, and 

industrial space elsewhere in the [City], thereby neutralizing pressures that might 

otherwise change the appearance of the older city.”3 

 3 In contrast to the EVCSP, the older downtown area of Redlands is governed by 

the Downtown Redlands Specific Plan, which “makes specific proposals for the 

preservation and development of the downtown area,” north of Redlands Boulevard. The 

Downtown Redlands Specific Plan is intended to preserve the “historic resources and 

distinct character of [the downtown area].” 
5 

In addition to the general plan and the EVCSP, the project site is governed by the 

Cities Pavilion Concept Plan (Concept Plan), which establishes planning objectives to 

guide development. The project site is zoned “EVCSP” and “Concept Plan No. 4” (CP4), 

a development district of the EVCSP. As a CP4 requirement, the project will include a 

landscape buffer on the west side of Karon Street between the project site and residences 

on the eastern side of Karon Street. Allowable uses within a CP4 zone include general 

commercial district and administrative professional. 

Walmart first presented the project to the planning commission and city council at 

public hearings in early 2009. During the next three years, Walmart’s design team 

worked with city staff, members of the design review board, and an ad hoc committee of 

the planning commission, consisting of two planning commissioners, to address concerns 

raised during the 2009 hearings. As a result of this process, Walmart added amenities to 

the project, including an outdoor food court, enhanced entrances, and pedestrian 

walkways, and increased the landscaped area to 7.25 acres, or 22 percent of the 32.97-

acre project site. Walmart also added “Redlands” design features to the project, 

including Spanish-style architecture, a corner landscape area featuring citrus trees, and 

“the generous use of river rock in the overall design.” The landscape plan calls for 1,060 

trees on the project site. The City expects the project will create 206 new jobs and 

generate $459,936 in annual net revenue to the City. 
6 

B. The City’s Environmental Review and Approval of the Project 

The City circulated a draft EIR (DEIR) for the project from November 21, 2011 to 

January 28, 2012. On March 16, 2012, the City released the final EIR (FEIR), including 

the City’s responses to comments received on the DEIR. The planning commission 

considered the project during three public hearings on March 14, March 27, and April 24, 

2012. At the April 24 hearing, the planning commission recommended that the city 

council certify the FEIR, by a unanimous vote of 7-0. 

 On July 18, 2012, the city council held a public hearing to consider whether to 

certify the FEIR as complying with CEQA, and whether to approve or deny the project. 

Following several hours of public testimony and comments, the city council continued 

the project for further consideration. Meanwhile, city staff prepared written responses to 

questions and comments raised by the public during the July 18 hearing. At a further 

public hearing on October 16, 2012, the city council received additional public 

comments, then adopted resolution No. 7193 certifying the FEIR, adopting findings of 

fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting 

program. The City also adopted resolution No. 7192, approving a socio-economic cost 

benefit study; resolution No. 7194, approving a conditional use permit; and resolution 

No. 7198, approving TPM 19060. 

In November 2012, RGNC petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate setting 

aside the EIR certification and other project approvals. RGNC also filed a complaint for 

declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the project’s compliance with CEQA, the 
7 

Planning and Zoning Law, and other laws. Following extensive briefing and a hearing on 

the merits, the trial court issued a 43-page ruling denying the petition and dismissing the 

complaint. In September 2013, judgment was entered in favor of the City and Walmart. 

RGNC timely appealed. 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Substantial Evidence Supports the City’s Findings, in Resolution No. 7198, That TPM 

19060, and the Provisions for Its Design and Improvement, Were Consistent with the 

City’s General Plan (§§ 66473.5, 66474) 

RGNC claims the City violated sections 66473.5 and 66474 of the Subdivision 

Map Act (§§ 66410-66499.37) in approving TPM 19060 for the project. Specifically, 

RGNC claims insufficient evidence supports the City’s findings that TPM 19060, and the 

provisions for its design and improvement, were consistent with the City’s general plan. 

(§ 66473.5.) RGNC argues that the design provisions of TPM 19060 are, in fact, 

inconsistent with several provisions of the Design and Preservation Element of the City’s 

general plan, namely, general plan policies 3.10a, 3.10b, 3.10f, 3.20a, 3.20c, 3.20f, 3.24a, 

3.24d, and 3.27b. RGNC also argues the City should have found that the design 

provisions of TPM 19060 were likely to cause significant environmental damage. 

(§ 66474, subd. (e).) Thus, RGNC claims the City’s approval of TPM 19060 is invalid 

and must be set aside. 
8 

1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Respondents claim RGNC has failed to preserve its Subdivision Map Act claims 

for appeal. They argue RGNC did not exhaust its administrative remedies because no 

one, including RGNC members, objected to the adequacy of the City’s section 66473.5 or 

66474 findings during the administrative proceedings before the planning commission or 

the city council. (City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa (1980) 101 

Cal.App.3d 1012, 1019-1020 [judicial review of administrative proceedings is confined 

to the issues raised in the record of the proceedings].) RGNC argues it was not required 

to exhaust its administrative remedies because the notice of the July 18, 2012, hearing 

before the city council did not include the warning specified in section 65009, 

subdivision (b)(2). We agree with RGNC. 

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a judicial 

action challenging a public agency’s planning decision. (Corona-Norco Unified School 

Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 993 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].) Still, 

an agency may not rely on the exhaustion doctrine to preclude a judicial action 

challenging its planning decisions, unless the agency complies with notice requirements 

of section 65009. (Ibid.) 

Section 65009 provides, in relevant part: “(b)(1) In an action or proceeding to 

attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a finding, determination, or decision of a public 

agency made pursuant to this title at a properly noticed public hearing, the issues raised 

shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence 
9 

delivered to the public agency prior to, or at, the public hearing, except where the court 

finds either of the following: [¶] (A) The issue could not have been raised at the public 

hearing by persons exercising reasonable diligence. [¶] (B) The body conducting the 

public hearing prevented the issue from being raised at the public hearing. [¶] [(b)](2) If 

a public agency desires the provisions of this subdivision to apply to a matter, it shall 

include in any public notice issued pursuant to this title a notice substantially stating all 

of the following: ‘If you challenge the (nature of the proposed action) in court, you may 

be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing 

described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the (public entity 

conducting the hearing) at, or prior to, the public hearing.’” (Italics added.) 

Respondents argue section 65009 does not apply to its Subdivision Map Act 

claims because the statute is not part of the Subdivision Map Act. (§§ 66410-66499.37.) 

Instead, they argue, section 66499.37, which provides for a 90-day limitations period on 

Subdivision Map Act claims (Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa 

Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1023), governs its claims. Respondents are 

mistaken. Though they correctly point out that section 66499.37 establishes a 90-day 

limitations period on Subdivision Map Act claims (Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 

Cal.4th 1, 27; § 65009, subd. (c)(1)(E)), section 65009 also applies to such claims. 

Section 65009 applies to public agency decisions made “pursuant to this title” 

(§ 65009, subd (b)(1)), and, as used in the statute, “this title” ostensibly refers to title 7 of 

the Government Code, comprised of sections 65000 through 66499.50. (§ 65000 [“This 
10 

title may be cited as the Planning and Zoning Law.”].) The Subdivision Map Act appears 

in division 2 of title 7, and includes sections 66410 through 66499.37. (§ 66410 [“This 

division may be cited as the Subdivision Map Act.”].) Thus, the Subdivision Map Act is 

part of the Planning and Zoning Law, and section 65009 applies to all Planning and 

Zoning Law claims, including Subdivision Map Act claims. 

A review of the notices of public hearing related to TPM 19060 shows the notice 

of the July 18 public hearing before the city council, at which the city council made its 

consistency findings and approved TPM 19060, but did not include the warning language 

of section 65009, subdivision (b)(2).4 Thus, respondents may not invoke the exhaustion 

doctrine to preclude RGNC’s present action challenging the City’s approval of TPM 

19060. (§ 65009, subd. (b)(2); Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona, 

supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 993.) 

2. Section 66473.5 

 (a) Relevant Background 

In adopting resolution No. 7198, the city council found TPM 19060 and the plans 

for its design and improvement were consistent with the City’s general plan, the EVCSP, 

and CP4. (§ 66473.5.) The resolution states: “TPM 19060 advances the goals and 

policies of the City of Redlands General Plan . . . as well as the [EVCSP] and [CP4].” 

 4 Section 65094 of the Planning and Zoning Law states: “As used in this title, 

‘notice of a public hearing’ means a notice that includes the date, time, and place of a 

public hearing, the identity of the hearing body or officer, a general explanation of the 

matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location 

of the real property, if any, that is the subject of the hearing.” 
11 

The resolution explains TPM 19060 was consistent with the general plan because the 

project site is “a ‘keystone’ location within the EVCSP area due to its proximity to the 

210 Freeway and San Bernardino Avenue Interchange, and as such, has the unique ability 

to create highly accessible and visible master planned development within contiguous 

property boundaries without the limitations imposed by property ownership patterns and 

existing street systems seen throughout most of the EVCSP area. TPM 19060 creates a 

fully integrated development of retail and commercial uses rather than development of 

less desirable fragmented land uses spread out over several locations. Also, because 

TPM 19060 consists of high-quality commercial components, it will create significant 

employment opportunities for the local/regional population.”5 

 5 Resolution No. 7198 identified the following “Guiding Polices” of the general 

plan applicable to TPM 19060: “Policy 4.62a - ‘Develop the EVCSP so as to promote 

and facilitate high-quality commercial and industrial development within the Corridor 

area.’ [¶] Policy 4.62g: ‘Promote high quality development in the East Valley Corridor 

by protecting and enhancing existing amenities in the area, creating an identifiable 

community character, and adopting development standards and guidelines to ensure 

aesthetically pleasing design and maximum land use compatability.’ [¶] Policy 4.62l: 

‘Maximize generation of employment opportunities in a region, which has a significant 

imbalance of housing versus employment opportunities.’ [¶] Policy 4.62m: ‘Facilitate 

location in the project area of a wide range of commercial uses to serve the region, local 

industry, and residential neighborhoods.’ [¶] Policy 4.62ff: ‘Ensure compatability 

between adjacent land use types within the Corridor area.’” (Underlining omitted.) 

Resolution No. 7198 also identified several “Implementing Polices” of the general 

plan applicable to TPM 19060: “Policy 4.621 - ‘Maximize generation of employment 

policies in a region which has a significant imbalance of housing versus employment 

opportunities.’ [¶] Policy 4.62m - ‘Facilitate location in project area of a wide range of 

commercial uses to serve the region, local industry, and residential neighborhoods.’ [¶] 

Policy 4.62u - ‘Develop opportunities for community oriented services within the 

General Plan area.’ [¶] Policy 4.62gg - ‘Enhance the beauty of the East Valley Corridor 

and the overall quality of life for users and residents of the area.’” 
12 

Regarding the map’s consistency with the EVCSP, the City’s findings point out 

that, “[t]he EVCSP tailors the policies of the General Plan for the characteristics of the 

East Valley Corridor area and indicates that the intent is to develop the East Valley 

Corridor into commercial areas that will create employment opportunities for City 

residents, as well as commuters into the City from other areas. TPM 19060 will be near 

existing and proposed residential uses so that employees and visitors will not have to 

travel long distances, thereby reducing commuting distances and improving the jobs to 

housing ratio.” The findings also state that TPM 19060 is consistent with the EVCSP 

because its design features will “result in an aesthetically high quality development.”6 

Lastly, the findings explain that TPM 19060 is consistent with the CP4 requirements 

because it will include “a mixture of retail, commercial and administrative professional 

uses,” with “maximum land use compatability,” and will create “an aesthetically pleasing 

portal into the City from the 210 Freeway.” 

 6 In making these consistency findings, the City noted, “[m]uch like the General 

Plan, the EVCSP contains a number of polices intended to guide growth and development 

within the East Valley Corridor. The applicable EVCSP goals include: [¶] Goal 

EV2.0205(a) - ‘Develop the EVCSP so as to facilitate the high-quality commercial, 

industrial, and residential development within the corridor area.’ [¶] Goal 

EV2.0205(a)(1) - ‘Maximize generation of employment opportunities in a region which 

has a significant imbalance of housing versus employment opportunities.’ [¶] Goal 

EV2.0205(a)(2) - ‘Facilitate location in the project area of a wide range of commercial 

uses to serve the region, local industry, and residential neighborhoods.’ [¶] Goal 

EV2.02[0]5(a)(3) - ‘Create a visually aesthetic appearance for the East Valley Corridor 

from the freeway as well as from the planning area.’” 
13 

(b) Applicable Law and Standard of Review

For development projects involving a proposed subdivision, like the project here, 

section 66473.5 prohibits a local agency, including a city or county,7 from approving a 

tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the 

agency’s legislative body “finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the 

provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan . . . or any 

specific plan . . . .” (§ 66473.5.) The statute further provides: “A proposed subdivision 

shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if . . . the proposed 

subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and 

programs specified in such [an officially adopted] plan.” (Ibid.) 

“‘Every county and city must adopt a “comprehensive, long-term general plan for 

the physical development of the county or city . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 65300.) “The 

general plan has been aptly described as the ‘constitution for all future developments’ 

within the city or county. . . . ‘[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting 

land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and 

its elements’ . . . .” [Citations.] “The consistency doctrine has been described as ‘the 

linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuse[s] 

the concept of planned growth with the force of law.’ . . .”’ [Citation.]” (California 

Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 636.)

 

7 The Subdivision Map Act defines “[l]ocal agency” as including “a city, county 

or city and county.” (§ 66420.) 
14 

In reviewing an agency’s consistency findings, our role is the same as the trial 

court’s; we independently review the agency’s actions and are not bound by the trial 

court’s conclusions. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of 

Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 357.) The essential inquiry is whether the 

agency’s consistency findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, or are 

“reasonable based on the evidence in the record.” (California Native Plant Society v. 

City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 637.) An agency errs in finding a 

proposed subdivision consistent with an applicable general plan “only if . . . no 

reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” (San Franciscans 

Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 

Cal.App.4th 656, 677 (San Franciscans).) Reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor 

of the agency’s findings and decision. (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa 

County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, at p. 357.) 

As courts have consistently emphasized, judicial review of consistency findings is 

“highly deferential to the local agency.” (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville

(2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 816; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County 

Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 357; San Franciscans, supra, 102 

Cal.App.4th at p. 677; Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of 

Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142.) “This is because the body which adopted 

the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret 

those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. [Citation.] Because 
15 

policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency 

must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan’s policies when applying them, and it has 

broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the plan’s purposes. [Citations.] A 

reviewing court’s role ‘is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the 

applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those 

policies.’ [Citation.]” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of 

Supervisors, supra, at p. 142.) 

As courts have also emphasized, a given project is not required to be in precise or 

perfect conformity with each and every policy in a comprehensive general plan. (Friends 

of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 817; Sierra Club v. 

County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510-1511; Defend the Bay v. City of 

Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1268-1269.) Instead, “a proposed subdivision shall 

be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan . . . if . . . the proposed subdivision or 

land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs 

specified in” the applicable plan. (§ 66473.5, italics added; San Franciscans, supra, 102 

Cal.App.4th at p. 678.) 

As this rule recognizes, “[a] general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of 

competing interests—including those of developers, neighboring homeowners, 

prospective homebuyers, environmentalists, current and prospective business owners, 

jobseekers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all types of city-provided 

services—and to present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide 
16 

development decisions. Once a general plan is in place, it is the province of elected city 

officials to examine the specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be 

‘in harmony’ with the policies stated in the plan. [Citation.] It is, emphatically, not the 

role of the courts to micromanage these development decisions.” (Sequoyah Hills 

Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719.) 

 (c) Analysis

RGNC claims insufficient evidence supports the consistency findings because, in 

making them, the City “cherry-picked a handful of policies” from the land use element of 

the general plan, while ignoring other policies listed in the “design” and “historic and 

scenic preservation” elements of the general plan and “aimed at promoting a historical 

feel.”8 RGNC complains that the City failed to discuss how the proposed subdivision or 

 8 RGNC claims the City disregarded the following “design” policies of the 

general plan: “Preserve awareness of Redlands’ heritage as [a] navel orange capital” 

(3.10a); “Retain the character of the neighborhoods, streets, and buildings that established 

Redlands’ reputation as an ideal Southern California City” (3.10b); and “Establish or 

reinforce City entrances that announce arrival and convey the spirit of the City” (3.10f), 

and also disregarded the following “Historic and Scenic Preservation” policies of the 

general plan: “Identify, maintain, protect, and enhance Redlands’ cultural, historic, 

social, economic, architectural, agricultural, archeological, and scenic heritage. In so 

doing, Redlands will preserve its unique character and beauty, foster community pride, 

conserve the character and architecture of its neighborhoods and commercial and rural 

areas, enable citizens and visitors to enjoy and learn about local history” (3.20a); “Foster 

an understanding and appreciation of history and architecture” (3.20c); “Encourage 

preservation of and public access to significant scenic vistas, viewpoints and view 

corridors” (3.20f); “Encourage developers to construct new buildings and settings of such 

quality that preservationists of the future will wish to protect them. Encourage 

appropriate scale, materials, setbacks, and landscaping to enhance the City’s beauty and 

historic fabric” (3.24a); “Encourage historical depictions commemorating historic sites or 

events in Redlands’ history. Such depictions could be incorporated into new commercial 

or rehab development projects. Historical depictions may be monuments, plaques, 

[footnote continued on next page] 
17 

project would affect “the uniqueness of the Redlands community character,” and argues 

the City ignored “overwhelming evidence” that TPM 19060 and its “contemporary” 

design features would adversely affect the historical, “identifiable community character 

of Redlands.” 

As respondents point out, RGNC does not claim insufficient evidence supports the 

City’s findings that TPM 19060, and its contemporary design features, were inconsistent 

with the policies of the EVCSP or CP4. Further, the record shows the City did not fail to 

consider “the unique character of Redlands,” or the general plan policies designed to 

preserve the historical character of Redlands, in finding that TPM 19060 and its 

contemporary design features were consistent with the policies of the general plan and

the EVCSP. 

As respondents argue, “the General Plan makes quite clear that the purpose for 

designating the East Valley Corridor area of the City for intense large-scale development 

(such as the [p]roject) is to protect the overall character of the City.” As noted, the 

general plan envisions the East Valley Corridor as a “high-quality business park 

environment,” and observes that the East Valley Corridor “is the best, perhaps only, 

location capable of attracting the office, high-tech and distribution jobs the eastern 

portion of the San Bernardino Valley needs.” The EVCSP area is also identified in the 

 [footnote continued from previous page] 

archeological viewing sites, exhibits, or illustrative art works, such as sculpture, mosaics, 

murals, tile-work, etc.” (3.24d); and “Encourage new construction that ties the new with 

the old in a harmonious fashion, enhancing the historic pattern” (3.27b). 
18 

general plan as including “a site likely to attract San Bernardino County’s largest regional 

shopping center east of Ontario . . . .” The general plan anticipates that the EVCSP “will 

reduce potential demand for retail, office, and industrial space elsewhere in the [City], 

thereby neutralizing [development] pressures that might otherwise change the 

appearance of the older city.” (Italics added.) 

As respondents further explain, the general plan envisions the EVCSP area as a 

“release valve for intense levels of retail and other development, in order to reduce the 

demand for such development elsewhere in the City, and thus avoid altering the City’s 

overall character, i.e., the “appearance of the older city.” The general plan does not 

envision the EVCSP area as one in which the historic preservation goals of the general 

plan will be most directly served. Rather, the EVCSP area is a new, shopping and 

business park area, to be built on largely vacant land, in which the City hopes to draw 

new industry, broaden its tax base, and facilitate the creation of 90,000 jobs. In 

approving TPM 19060 and its contemporary design features, the City struck a reasonable 

balance between the general plan policies of preserving the “historical feel” of Redlands 

and the EVCSP’s stated policy of “promot[ing] and facilitat[ing] high-quality commercial 

and industrial development” in the EVCSP area. 

RGNC maintains the City disregarded the general plan policy of “[e]ncourag[ing] 

new construction that ties the new with the old in a harmonious fashion, enhancing the 

historic pattern” (3.27b), among similar general plan policies. But the record does not 

support this claim. In its final form, the project incorporated several “Redlands” design 
19 

elements, including Spanish-style architecture, a corner landscape area featuring citrus 

trees, and “the generous use of river rock in the overall design.” 

As RGNC points out, several residents and City officials voiced concern that the 

project did not incorporate enough historical design elements. For example, during the 

March 27, 2012, planning commission hearing, commissioner Julie Rock observed: 

“While the architecture on this project is lovely, it doesn’t say Redlands to me. It could 

be anywhere. And I think . . . that is a mistake for this project and for a project that is at 

such a critical location. There are a zillion and one iconic pieces in Redlands, whether 

you’re talking about street furniture, lighting, architectural elements, public art, even the 

Zanche that could be incorporated into this project that have not been.” (Italics added.) 

Contrary to RGNC’s suggestion, the City’s failure to incorporate more Redlandsthemed or historical design elements into the project does not mean the project was 

incompatable with the design and historical preservation policies of the general plan. 

(§ 66473.5.) As noted, general plan policies reflect a range of competing interests, and 

the agency has broad discretion to weigh and balance these interests in applying its 

general plan policies. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of 

Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 142.) The City reasonably determined that TPM 

19060 and its design elements were consistent with the policies of the EVCSP and the 

general plan. 

In sum, the City’s consistency findings are “reasonable based on the evidence in 

the record” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 172 
20 

Cal.App.4th at p. 637) and it cannot be said that “no reasonable person could have 

reached the same conclusion” (San Franciscans, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 677). 

Accordingly, the City’s consistency findings and consequent approval of TPM 19060 

must be upheld. 

3. Section 66474 

Similar to section 66473.5, which requires a lead agency to make consistency 

findings before it may approve a tentative map, section 66474 requires a lead agency to 

deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not 

required, if it makes any of several findings, including: “(a) That the proposed map is 

not consistent with applicable general and specific plans . . . . [¶] (b) That the design or 

improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and 

specific plans . . . [or] [¶] . . . [¶] (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed 

improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and 

avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.” 

In adopting resolution No. 7198 and approving TPM 19060, the City found that 

the proposed map, and the provisions for its design and improvement, were consistent 

with the City’s general plan and the EVCSP and were not likely to cause substantial 

environmental damage. (§ 66474, subd. (e).) RGNC claims insufficient evidence 

supports the City’s finding, under section 66474, subdivision (e), that TPM 19060, and 

the provisions for its design and improvement, were not likely to cause substantial 

environmental damage. 
21 

RGNC complains that in making this finding, the City focused on the undisputed 

fact that the project site contained no fish- or wildlife-sensitive habitat, but the City did 

not “squarely address environmental damage in other respects.” RGNC points out that, 

in adopting resolution No. 7193, certifying the EIR for the project, and making CEQA 

findings, the City found the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on 

air quality, at the project level and cumulatively, along with cumulative health and 

transportation impacts. Based on this finding, RGNC claims insufficient evidence 

supports the City’s section 66474, subdivision (e) finding that the project would not

likely cause significant environmental damage, and the City’s approval of TPM 19060 

must therefore be set aside. We disagree. 

As respondents point out, Government Code section 66474, subdivision (e) applies 

only in limited circumstances. Government Code section 66474.01 provides that a public 

agency may approve a tentative map “[n]otwithstanding subdivision (e) of [Government 

Code] Section 66474,” if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and 

a finding was made, under section 21081, subdivision (a)(3) of the Public Resources 

Code that, “specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the 

mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” 

In adopting resolution No. 7193, the City certified the EIR for the project and 

adopted a “statement of environmental effects, mitigation measures, findings, and 

overriding considerations . . . .” In relevant part, the City found, pursuant to Public 

Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), that all feasible mitigation measures 
22 

had been adopted to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality, health, 

and transportation impacts identified in the EIR. Thus here, the City was not required to 

deny approval of TPM 19060, even though it found, as part of its CEQA findings, that 

the project would result in the environmental impacts on air quality, health, and 

transportation identified in the EIR. (Gov. Code, §§ 66474, subd. (e), 66474.01.) 

RGNC maintains the City’s section 66474, subdivision (e) finding that the project 

was not likely to cause significant environmental damages was “a false finding,” in light 

of the City’s inconsistent CEQA finding that the project would result in unavoidable 

impacts on air quality, health, and transportation. As the City concedes, its section 

66474, subdivision (e) finding was in error, but RGNC has not demonstrated any 

resulting prejudice or substantial injury. (§ 65010, subd. (b) [“No action, inaction, or 

recommendation by any public agency or its legislative body . . . on any matter subject to 

this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court . . . by reason of any error . . . 

unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or 

appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have 

been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption that error is 

prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown.”].) 

As RGNC concedes, the City could have lawfully approved, and did lawfully 

approve, TPM 19060, notwithstanding its CEQA findings of adverse environmental 

impacts, based on its findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, 

subdivision (a)(3). (Gov. Code, § 66474.01.) 
23 

B. The FEIR Adequately Analyzed the Project’s Impacts on Aesthetics, Including Scenic 

Views and Redlands’s “Community Character” 

RGNC claims the FEIR inadequately analyzed the project’s impacts on 

aesthetics—specifically, the impacts of its contemporary design features on the 

“community character” of Redlands and its impacts on views toward the San Bernardino 

Mountains. We conclude the FEIR adequately analyzed these impacts, and substantial 

evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the impacts were insignificant. 

1. Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review 

In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared it is the policy of this state to “[t]ake 

all action necessary to provide people of this state with . . . enjoyment of aesthetic, 

natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities . . . .” (Pub. Resources Code, 

§ 21001, subd. (b).) For purposes of CEQA, “[e]nvironment,” means the “physical 

conditions” existing “within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, 

including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, [and] objects of historic or 

aesthetic significance.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.5.) An EIR is required to 

analyze “[a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project.” (Pub. 

Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1).) 

Based on the policy goals of CEQA and the definition of “environment” to include 

“objects of historic or aesthetic significance” (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (b), 

21060.5) courts have recognized that “aesthetic issues” are properly studied in an EIR, 

and broadly include impacts on public and private views and on the historic character of 
24 

the project site and surrounding area. (Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. 

City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 363, 374-375 (Eureka Citizens) [colorful 

school playground’s aesthetic impacts on “historic character” of neighborhood]; Pocket 

Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 937 (Pocket Protectors) 

[visual “tunneling” or “canyoning” effect of “long double rows of houses flanking a 

narrow private street”]; Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 

Cal.App.4th 477, 485, 492 [condominium project’s impacts on public and private ocean 

views]; Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Monetcito Water Dist. (2004) 116 

Cal.App.4th 396, 402-403 [“overall aesthetic impact” on public and private views of 

aluminum reservoir cover].) 

The lead agency has discretion to determine whether an impact is “significant,” 

however, because the significance of an impact may vary with the environmental setting 

or “nature of the area affected.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water 

Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 627; Eureka Citizens, supra, 147 

Cal.App.4th at p. 375; Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (b) (the Guidelines).)9 

The agency “‘must necessarily make a policy decision in distinguishing between 

substantial and insubstantial adverse environmental impacts based, in part, on the 

setting.’” (Eureka Citizens, supra, at p. 376, citing Guidelines § 15064, subd. (b).) If the 

 9 Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (b)(1) states: “The determination of 

whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful 

judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on 

scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always 

possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. . . .” 
25 

agency determines an impact is insignificant, the EIR is required to contain “a brief 

statement addressing the reasons” for the agency’s conclusion. (Eureka Citizens, supra,

at p. 376; Guidelines, § 15128.) 

Because an agency’s determination of whether an impact is significant is a factual 

determination, it is reviewed for substantial evidence. (Vineyard Area Citizens for 

Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.) 

“Where an EIR contains factual evidence supporting the conclusion that aesthetic impacts 

will be insignificant, that conclusion must be upheld.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. 

Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 627.) Courts 

“‘may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite 

conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.’” (Mira Mar Mobile 

Community v. City of Oceanside, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) 

2. The EIR’s Analysis of Aesthetic Impacts, and the City’s Conclusions 

Chapter 3.1 of the EIR analyzed the project’s potential aesthetic impacts. The 

analysis begins with a description of the project’s environmental setting, including the 

current condition of the project site and its surrounding area. The project site lies just 

east of Interstate 210 and consists of vacant land, used as an orchard from the 1930’s to 

the early 2000’s. Fallow agricultural land lies north and south of the project site, and a 

residential subdivision lies east and southeast. A 125-acre shopping center, Citrus Plaza, 

lies to the west of the project site, west of Interstate 210. West San Bernardino Avenue 

crosses Interstate 210 and connects the 32.97-acre project site with Citrus Plaza. The San 
26 

Bernardino Mountains lie approximately 10 miles north of the project site, the San 

Gabriel Mountains approximately 15 miles northwest. Scenic views of the mountains are 

visible from most areas of the project site, but existing development obstructs views of 

the lower portions of the foothills. There are no designated scenic vistas on or adjacent to 

the project site. 

The EIR analyzed four potential aesthetic impacts, using the initial study checklist 

in appendix G of the Guidelines which recommends that a lead agency, in analyzing 

potential aesthetic impacts, consider whether the project would (a) have a substantial 

adverse effect on a scenic vista; (b) substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 

not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic 

highway; (c) substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and 

its surroundings; and (d) create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners 

Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th 396 at p. 401.) In each of 

these respects, the EIR concluded the impacts would be less than significant, and set forth 

a brief statement of the reasons for these conclusions. 

In considering the third inquiry under appendix G of the Guidelines—whether the 

project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and 

its surroundings—the EIR states the project would “substantially chang[e] the aesthetic 

nature” of the project site because it would “convert predominantly urban vacant land to 

commercial, retail and restaurant uses,” but concluded the project would enhance, not 
27 

degrade, the aesthetics of the project site. (Italics added.) The EIR explained: “[M]uch 

of the site is disked on a regular basis and in a blighted condition from illegal dumping 

activities, and thus would not be considered scenic in nature. . . . [T]he architectural 

features and landscaping designed for the [p]roject are intended to provide a visually 

appealing commercial retail development that attracts potential customers. As such, it 

would be expected to enhance the aesthetics of the [p]roject site.” 

3. Impacts on the Historic and Agricultural “Community Character” of Redlands 

In support of its claim that the EIR inadequately analyzed the potential impacts of 

the project’s contemporary design features on the “community character” of Redlands, 

RGNC relies on several comments by residents who were critical of the project’s 

contemporary design, or who simply objected to building any Walmart store on the 

project site or elsewhere in the City. These comments included the following: “Redlands 

takes pride in its small town image, and this idea [of a Walmart Supercenter on the 

project site] does not fit into that identity.” “This project is not the kind of development 

we need here in Redlands. It will pave nearly 1.5 million square feet of our city to erect a 

Wal-Mart and drive-thru restaurants. This is not the type of future we envision for our 

fair city.” “WalMart stands for everything that Redlands residents are against: a 

community that takes care of its own, and a safe and small town atmosphere with local 

shop owners. Besides demoralizing local shop owners, this proposed WalMart Super 

Center site is to be built adjacent to a residential area!” “Redlands is known as an 

historic town, proud of our small town feel and our heritage.” “I believe a development 
28 

of this size and magnitude will have a destructive impact on Redlands’ unique character, 

quality of life, and sense of community.” “We are extremely troubled by . . . . [¶] . . . 

[¶] [the] [a]esthetics of the mega-retail big box.” In addition and as noted above, city 

planning commissioner Julie Rock commented during one of the planning commission 

meetings that: “While the architecture on this project is lovely, it doesn’t say Redlands to 

me.” 

RGNC argues these comments show the EIR inadequately addressed the project’s 

impacts on the “community character” of Redlands. RGNC maintains “[t]he opinions of 

area residents may be relevant as to the aesthetic impacts of a [p]roject and may 

constitute substantial evidence to show a [p]roject’s significant environmental impacts.” 

This argument is off-base. In support of it, RGNC relies on Pocket Protectors, a case 

that did not involve an EIR but a mitigated negative declaration. Pocket Protectors does 

not assist RGNC’s claim. 

The petitioners in Pocket Protectors challenged a city’s approval of a residential 

project based on a mitigated negative declaration, and sought to compel the city to 

prepare an EIR analyzing the project’s impacts on aesthetics, among other impacts. 

(Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 929.) The appellate court concluded 

that comments from area residents to the effect that “long double rows of houses flanking 

a narrow private street” would create a displeasing “tunneling” or “canyoning” effect was 

sufficient to support a fair argument that the project would have a significant impact on 

aesthetics. (Id. at p. 937; Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f).) Thus, the court reversed the 
29 

city’s approval of the project based on the mitigated negative declaration and required the 

city to prepare an EIR. (Pocket Protectors, supra, at p. 940.) 

The fair argument standard applied in Pocket Protectors is a “low threshold” test 

for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 

928, citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) Though there is 

substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant 

impact on the aesthetics or visual beauty of the project site and its surrounding area, 

including what RGNC calls the historic and agricultural “community character” of 

Redlands, this does not mean the EIR inadequately addressed these potential impacts. 

To the contrary, the EIR thoroughly discussed whether the project would 

substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its 

surroundings, concluded it would not, and explained why. (Guidelines, §§ 15064, subd. 

(b), 15128.) The EIR explained the project would “convert predominantly urban vacant 

land to commercial, retail and restaurant uses,” and concluded the project would therefore 

enhance, not degrade, the aesthetics of the project site and its surrounding area. 

Substantial evidence supports this conclusion, including evidence that the project’s 

contemporary design features would be aesthetically pleasing. 

Additionally, the EIR concluded the project would be of similar land uses, height, 

and scale as other commercial and retail centers in close proximity to the project site and 

Interstate 210. Thus, the EIR concluded the project would “not constitute a substantial 

change in the visual character of the [p]roject area.” Substantial evidence also supports 
30 

this conclusion. A similar shopping center, the Citrus Plaza, is located just west of 

Interstate 210, near the project site. Though RGNC argues the project’s contemporary 

design features will have a negative aesthetic impact, the City reasonably concluded they 

would not. “‘“‘“We may not set aside an agency’s approval of an EIR on the ground that 

an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.” [Citation.]’”’” 

(Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 921, citing In re Bay-Delta etc.

(2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1161-1162.) 

Finally, the record shows the City heeded residents’ complaints about the project’s 

contemporary design features by requiring the project’s nine out-parcels to utilize “a 

heritage theme reminiscent of early Redlands . . . .” Other “Redlands” design features 

were also incorporated into the project, including a corner landscaped area featuring 

citrus trees. These Redlands-themed design features further support the City’s conclusion 

that the project would not have a negative aesthetic impact on the project site and 

surrounding area, including on the historic and agricultural “community character” of 

Redlands. 

4. Impacts on Views of the San Bernardino Mountains 

RGNC argues the project inadequately addressed the project’s impacts on scenic 

resources, namely, “the scenic vista of residents toward the San Bernardino Mountains,” 

and insufficient evidence supports the City’s conclusion that these impacts would be less 

than significant. We disagree. 
31 

The EIR acknowledges there are residences located both east and southeast of the 

project site, and that Karon Street divides the project site from these residences. The EIR 

states: “The residences most likely affected by the [p]roject are located directly east of 

the [p]roject site, near Karon Street. Their view of the San Bernardino Mountains (if 

any) would be oriented to the north, across the [p]roject site. However, the [p]roject will 

be developed below the Karon Street grade. Consequently, views of the [p]roject site 

will only be of the upper portion of the Walmart structure, and will be shielded by 

landscaping. The [p]roject would maintain the block wall and the landscaping.” 

The EIR also states, “as outlined within EVCSP Compatibility Standards, smaller 

buildings shall be located near residential uses with larger buildings further away. . . . In 

addition, a landscape buffer will be located on the west side of Karon Street . . . . This 

landscape buffer is a requirement of the [EVCSP] and [CP4] . . . . Thus, the proposed 

land uses and site plan design for the [p]roject will comply with Section EV4.0225 and 

other applicable policies and will have a less than significant impact to views of the San 

Bernardino Mountains and other scenic views within the project area.” 

RGNC argues insufficient evidence supports the City’s conclusion that impacts on 

residents’ views toward the San Bernardino Mountains would be less than significant for 

two reasons: (1) the Walmart store will be 50 feet tall at its highest point, and (2) the EIR 

failed to address potential impacts on views of the mountains from the residences located 

southeast, as opposed to directly east, of the project site. Not so. 
32 

First, RGNC points to no evidence in the administrative record indicating that the 

50-foot height of the Walmart store would significantly obstruct views toward the San 

Bernardino Mountains from the residences located east or southeast of the project site. 

The EIR assessed the project’s potential impacts on the eastern residents’ mountain 

views, and reasonably concluded the impacts would be less than significant because the 

project would be built below the Karon Street grade. 

Second, the EIR acknowledged there were residences located directly east and

southeast of the project site, but stated “[t]he residences most likely affected by the 

[p]roject” were the residences located directly east of the project site. The EIR indicated 

that the impacts on mountain views from the residences located both east and southeast of 

the project site would be less than significant, and substantial evidence supports this 

conclusion. The record shows the southeastern residences were a significant distance 

away from the project site. In addition, the photographs in the EIR support the City’s 

conclusion the project would not obstruct the mountain views (if any) from the 

southeastern residences—any more than it would obstruct views from the eastern 

residences. RGNC’s contrary argument is speculative; it is not based on any evidence in 

the administrative record. 

RGNC relies on Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water 

Dist., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th 396, another case involving a mitigated negative 

declaration, for the proposition that the agency was not relieved from considering the 

impact of its project on private views. This point is not disputed. The City assessed the 
33 

project’s impacts on private views of the San Bernardino Mountains from area 

residences, and substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that such aesthetic 

impacts were insignificant. 

C. The EIR Adequately Addressed the Project’s Consistency with the General Plan 

 Lastly, RGNC claims the EIR inadequately addressed inconsistencies between the 

project and the City’s general plan policies. An EIR is required to discuss any 

inconsistencies between the project and applicable general and regional plans. 

(Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (d).) But here, the EIR discussed the applicable regulatory 

framework, including the general plan policies RGNC claims were inconsistent with the 

project, and reasonably concluded the project was not inconsistent with any of these 

general plan policies. For the reasons discussed in section III.A., substantial evidence 

supports the City’s conclusions. 

IV. DISPOSITION 

The judgment denying RGNC’s writ petition and dismissing its complaint is 

affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.278.) 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

KING 

 J. 

We concur: 

McKINSTER 
34 

 Acting P. J. 

CODRINGTON 

 J.