LARK HOLDEN, Plаintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents; IDEA ENTERPRISE, LP, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
D074474
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
December 3, 2019
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2017-00018417-CU-TT-CTL) Certified for Publication 12/13/19 (order attached)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge. Affirmed.
Mara W. Elliott, City Attorney, Glenn T. Spitzer and Tyler Louis Krentz, Deputy City Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents.
Dillon Miller & Ahuja, Timothy P. Dillon and Sunjina K. Ahuja for Real Party In Interest and Respondent.
Plaintiffs Lark Holden and James Stansell1 appeal a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate challenging decisions by the City
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2014, IDEA submitted an application to City for the demolition of two existing single-family houses on adjacent parcels and construction of seven detached residential condominium units on the 0.517-acre aggregate site on Indiana Street in City‘s North Park community (Project). The Project‘s site is located on the western hillside of a canyon with a 35- to 41-degree down slope; the site is considered to be environmentally sensitive land. The Project would cover аpproximately 42 percent of the site.
In 2015, City‘s planning staff initially informed IDEA that the Project did not comply with the minimum density required for development of the site under City‘s General Plan and its Greater North Park Community Plan (Community Plan). Specifically, the planning staff told IDEA that a minimum of 16 residential units would be required under Policy LU-C.4 of the General Plan and the housing element of the Community Plan. However, in late 2015, City‘s staff informed IDEA that the Project could be approved with seven residential units, citing the site‘s environmental sensitivity, which made a reduced density of seven residential units appropriate.
In November 2015, the North Park Community Planning Group voted to recommend approval of the Project without conditions. In 2016, a preliminary review by City‘s staff concluded that the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA requirements because it qualified as an infill development project pursuant to section 15332 of the California Code of Regulations, title 14, division 6, chapter 3 (Guidelines). In order for a project to qualify as an infill development project under the exemption set forth in section 15332 of the Guidelines, the project must, inter alia, be “consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies . . . .” (Id., § 15332, subd. (a).) City proceeded to issue an environmental determination that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 of the Guidelines. The City Council denied an appeal challenging that
Project. City thereafter filed a notice of exemption declaring that the Project was categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332 of the Guidelines.
In May 2017, Holden and Stansell filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging both City‘s determination that the Project is exempt from CEQA and its approval of the Project. The trial court denied the petition, stating in part:
“The first issue is whether substantial evidence supports the City‘s determination to approve the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332. [¶] Petitioners contend that . . . City avoided its duty to perform an environmental review despite the [P]roject‘s failure to meet the density minimum required under [General Plan] Policy LUC.4. It reads: ‘Ensure efficient use of remaining land available for residential development and redevelopment by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable plan designations.’ (AR 56:2311.) They state that [IDEA] was required to develop multi-family housing within a medium-high density of 30-44 dwelling units per acre. (AR 50:2033.) In short, Petitioners argue for the application of a rigid minimum density requirement. However, [General Plan Policy] LU-C.2 specifically directs the City to ‘[r]ely on community plans for site-specific land use and density designations and recommendations.’ (AR 56:2310.) Furthermore, a note on Figure 6 of the Plan Elements sections of the Community Plan states that ‘[t]he residential density recommendations may be subject to modification during implementation of this plan.’ (AR 45:1960.) Also, the Implementation Program within that section provides ‘[t]he achievability of the recommended densities may be predicated upon the design standards, development regulations and other regulations of the implementing legislation.’ In sum, as the City‘s counsel pointed out at oral argument, a certain amount of flexibility was contemplated by the City and built into the process.
“The record indicates that the City balanced the density requirements against the topography of the land and its accompanying restrictions to come up with a plan that generated the maximum possible density allowablе under the circumstances. In other words, the project minimized the impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands through the planning of several smaller scaled detached dwelling units sited across the eastern frontage of the property that are designed on stilts to elevate the detached structures to natural land-
form. (AR 4:14-16, 8:58, 41:1640-1644.) Thus, the Court concludes that substantial evidence exists to support the City‘s decision to rely on [Guidelines] section 15332 for infill development.
“The second issue is whether a [G]eneral [P]lan amendment was required. Given the fact that the Community Plan, as noted above, allows for the modification of the recommended densities based upon implementation and consideration of applicable regulations, [the] Court concludes that a [G]eneral [P]lan amendment pursuant to [General Plan Policy] LU-D.1 was not necessary in this case.”
On April 27, 2018, the court entered an amended judgment against Holden and Stansell. Holden and Stansell timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the amended judgment.
DISCUSSION
I
CEQA and Standards of Review
“CEQA and its implementing regulations ‘embody California‘s strong public policy of protecting the environment.‘” (Bottini v. City of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 281, 291 (Bottini).) “CEQA establishes a three-tier environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a ‘project.’ . . . If a proposed activity is a project, the agency proceeds to the second step of the CEQA process. [¶] At the second step, the agency must ‘decide whether the project is exempt from the CEQA review process under either a statutory exemption [citation] or a categorical exemption set forth in the . . . Guidelines [citations].’ [¶] Unlike statutory exceptions, categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions. . . . [¶] If a project is categorically exempt and does not fall within an
exception, ’ “it is not subject to CEQA requirements and ‘may be implemented without any CEQA compliance whatsoever.‘“‘” (Id. at pp. 291-292.) “[I]f a project is not exempt, the agency must then ‘decide whether the project may have a significant environmental effect.‘” (Id. at p. 292.) “[I]f the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must proceed to the third step of the process and prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).” (Ibid.)
On an appeal challenging a trial court‘s denial of a petition for a writ of mandate in a CEQA case, our task is the same as the trial court‘s. (Banker‘s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 257 (Banker‘s Hill).) We conduct our review of the agency‘s action independently of the trial court‘s findings. (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602, fn. 3.) Accordingly, in this appeal we review City‘s decision and not the trial court‘s. (Banker‘s Hill, at p. 257.)
Thus[,] as to the question [of law] whether the activity comes within the categorical class of exemptions, ‘we apply a de novo standard of review, not a substantial evidence standard.‘” (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 693-694 (Save Our Carmel River).)
In contrast, where a public agency makes a factual determination that a project falls within a statutory or categorical exemption, we apply the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the agency‘s finding. (Banker‘s Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 267; CREED-21 v. City of San Diego (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 488, 510-511 (CREED-21); San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382; Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1251.) In particular, in this case we apply the substantial evidence standard of review to City‘s factual finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Community Plan. (Cf. Banker‘s Hill, at pp. 267-268.)
In applying the substantial evidence standard, we review the administrative record of the public agency‘s decision (e.g., agency‘s determination that a CEQA exemption applies to a project) for substantial evidence to support that decision. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 570-571 (Western States); CREED-21, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 510; Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 968 (Great Oaks).) Substantial evidencе is evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. (Banker‘s Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 261, fn. 10.) In applying the
substantial evidence standard of review, all conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the prevailing party and all legitimate and reasonable inferences are made to support the agency‘s decision. (Western States, at p. 571; Great Oaks, at p. 968.) When two or more inferences reasonably can be deduced from the evidence, we cannot substitute our deductions for those of the agency. (Western States, at pp. 571-572.)
City‘s Finding That the Project Is Exempt from CEQA
Holden contends that City erred by finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemption for infill development. In particular, he argues that the Project provides for less residential density than is required by the Generаl Plan and therefore, does not satisfy the requirements for an infill development exemption.
A
City concluded that the Project is exempt from CEQA because it satisfies the requirements for a categorical exemption for infill development under Guidelines section 15332. Guidelines section 15332 states that infill development is exempt from CEQA if it meets the following conditions:
“(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
“(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
“(c) The project site has nо value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
“(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
“(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” (Italics added.)
Projects that are exempt under Guidelines section 15332 are referred to as “Class 32” infill development projects. (Guidelines, § 15332.)
As stated ante, Guidelines section 15332(a) requires, inter alia, that the project be “consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies....” “General plans ordinarily do not state specific mandates or prohibitions. Rather, they state ‘policies,’ and set forth ‘goals.‘” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378 (Napa Citizens).) A project is consistent with a general plan if it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. ( Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994.) To be consistent with a general plan, a project must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan. (Ibid.;
and the applicable general plan . . . .” (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 817.) “[G]eneral and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan.” (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1510-1511 (Sierra Club), italics added.)
We give great deference to a public agency‘s finding of consistenсy with its own general plan. (San Franciscans Upholding, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pp. 677-678.) One court explained the reasoning for such deference, stating: “When we review an agency‘s decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency‘s determination. 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 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 construе 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.‘” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142 (Save Our Peninsula Committee).) “A city‘s findings that the project is consistent with its general plan can be reversed only if it is based on evidence from which no
reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 630, 648 (
B
In arguing that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Holden primarily relies on Policy LU-C.4 of the General Plan, which states that one of the General Plan‘s policies for community planning is to “[e]nsure efficient use of remaining land available for residential development and redevelopment by requiring that new development meet the density minimums of applicable plan designations.” Table LU-C.4 of the General Plan recommends that residential areas designated as “Medium High” provide for multi-family housing with a density range of 30- to 44-dwelling units per acre. As IDEA and City note, Policy LU-C.1 of the General Plan states that another of the General Plan‘s policies is to “[e]stablish each community plan as an essential and integral component of the City‘s General Plan with clear implementation recommendations” and provides, in particular, that City should “[r]ely on community plans for site-specific land use and density designations and recommendations.” Thus, the density designations and recommendations set forth in the Community Plan for site-specific land use are deemed to be an integral component of the General Plan and are therefore effectively integrated with and incorporated into the General Plan.
Applying the density designations and recommendations set forth in the Community Plan‘s housing element to the Project, the City Council found, and the parties agree, that the Project falls within an area designated by the Community Plan for recommended “medium-high” residential densities of 30- to 45-dwelling units per acre. The Community Plan‘s residential density recommendations in its housing elemеnt section includes Figure 6, which is a residential density map that illustrates recommended residential densities for specific areas within the North Park community, and Table 2, which designates in table form the recommended residential densities for those specific areas. Based on the City Council‘s findings, the Project appears to fall geographically within area 16 of Figure 6, an area for which the Community Plan recommends a medium-high residential density of 30- to 45-dwelling units per acre. Therefore, as the City Council found, the Project, consisting of about 0.52 of an acre, ordinarily would be required to have 16- to 23-dwelling units pursuant to the General Plan‘s Policy LU-C.4, which adopts “the density minimums of applicable plan designations” (e.g., the residential designations and densities recommended in Table 2 and Figure 6 of the Community Plan).
hillside preservation in the community.” In support of that finding, City cited to a note on Figure 6 of the Community Plan, which states: ”The residential density recommendations may be subject to modification during implementation of this plan.” (Italics addеd.) Further, the implementation program subsection of the Community Plan‘s housing element states in relevant part: ”Refinements and modifications to the boundaries and recommended densities for the various residential areas may be incorporated into the implementing legislation. In addition, the achievability of the recommended densities may be [predicated] upon the design standards, development regulations and other regulations of the implementing legislation.” (Italics added.)
City‘s implementing legislation includes its regulations for development of environmentally sensitive lands, which are found at San Diego Municipal Code (Mun. Code) section 143.0101 et seq. City‘s environmentally sensitive lands regulations apply to all proposed development when environmentally sensitive lands are present on the premises. (
development is permitted in steep hillsides if necessary to achieve a maximum development area of 25 percent of the premises.”3 (
In approving the Project and detеrmining that it is exempt from CEQA, the City Council found that the Project is consistent with the policies, goals, and objectives of the General Plan. In particular, it found that although Policy LU-C.4 of the General Plan requires new development to meet the density requirements of the Community Plan, which ordinarily would require 16- to
with grades ranging from 253.5 feet to 300.2 feet. This change in topography has created the development design for the units to establish the building massing by vertically stacking three floor levels (two above street level and one below basement) with minimal setback from the street and elevated on stilts to the rear on each unit. The development layout of separated, low-lying buildings, benefits the surrounding neighborhood by minimizing the impact to the natural topograрhy of the site and maximizing on-site open spaces as well as maintaining several significant trees on the site. Due to these constraints, the proposed design provides a uniquely different product of seven detached dwellings, elevated above the terrain and cushioned within the existing vegetation of the existing urban canyon.”
The City Council further found: “The steep hillside terrain makes it challenging to achieve the minimum dwelling unit density permissible under the . . . Community Plan without extensive steep hillside grading and clearance of the existing vegetation. The Project with the proposed lower density of seven detached dwelling units and hillside stilt structure construction is a suitable balance of providing an urban infill on environmentally sensitive steep hillsides and the retention аnd regeneration of the highly vegetated canyon. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.” The City Council expressly found that the Project is consistent with the Community Plan and City‘s environmental regulations. It stated: “The [Project‘s] creation of seven new dwellings, where there existed two units, would assist the housing needs of the North Park area community.”
The City Council also specifically found that the Project conformed to City‘s steep hillside regulations, stating:
“The site is currently developed with two single-family residential units above an urban canyon‘s steep hillside with a 35-41% down slope gradient, east to southeast. The entire site (100%) is considered steep hillsides and the existing development encompasses 22% of the site. The Project proposes to demolish the existing units and construct the new multi-family detached units which will encompass 42% of the site. [¶] Although the development exceeds the 25% threshold for encroachment into steep hillsides, the Project does not conflict with any other development regulations for the site. Consistent with the Steep Hillsides Guidelines
standards for multiple dwelling unit development, the proposed Project‘s design will respect existing natural landforms, minimize impacts to steep hillsides, the graded development pad areas will blend with the existing topography, the site improvements are designed and located to minimize impacts to the steep hillside, [and] the design and placement of the structures will respect the steep hillside charаcter . . . .”
The City Council also found that the Project‘s proposed use and design met the purpose and intent of the Community Plan and would not adversely affect the Community Plan or the General Plan. Accordingly, the City Council approved the Project.
The extensive findings by the City Council, as discussed ante, show that it considered the General Plan, the Community Plan, and City‘s steep hillside development regulations in approving the Project and, in so doing, expressly balanced the competing interests of the General Plan and the Community Plan‘s policies and objectives of providing multifamily housing with a medium-high density at the Project‘s site against the purpose of City‘s steep hillside regulations to protect such environmentally sensitive lands. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that City acted reаsonably and did not abuse its discretion by balancing those competing, and necessarily (in this case)
conflicting, policies and regulations and finding that the Project‘s density of seven dwelling units conformed to the General Plan, the Community Plan, and City‘s steep hillside development regulations. (Save Our Peninsula Committee, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 142; A Local & Regional Monitor, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 648.) In particular, City reasonably could find that because of the Project‘s steep hillside topography, it would be impractical to construct 16- to 23-dwelling units on the Project‘s site and that such density would be inconsistent with its steep hillside development regulations that apply to the site. Therefore, City could reasonably conclude that the construction of seven dwelling units, as proposed by IDEA, is consistent with the General Plan, the Community Plan, and City‘s steep hillside regulations. Alternаtively stated, City reasonably concluded, albeit implicitly, that the Project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and the Community Plan. (Sierra Club, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511.)
As discussed ante, we defer to City‘s finding of consistency with the General Plan and the Community Plan. City adopted both plans in its legislative capacity and therefore, has unique competence to interpret the policies set forth in those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. (Save Our Peninsula Committee, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 142.) Accordingly, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support City‘s finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Community Plan. (Cf. Banker‘s Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 267.) Because
support its finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA as infill development pursuant to Guidelines section 15332 and, in particular, its implicit finding that “[t]he project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies” within the meaning of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a). We therefore conclude that City did not abuse its discretion by finding the Project is exempt from CEQA.4 (
C
Contrary to Holden‘s assertion, the General Plan‘s density designations and recommendations are not rigid and can be adjusted or modified for certain areas or sites as prоvided in community plans. As stated ante, Policy LU-C.1 of the General Plan makes “each community plan [e.g., the Community Plan] . . . an essential and integral component of the City‘s General Plan” and provides, in particular, that City should “[r]ely on community plans for site-specific land use and density designations and recommendations.” As a result of that language, the Community Plan‘s density designations and recommendations for site-specific land use are deemed to be an integral
component of the General Plan and are therefore effectively integrated with and incorporated into the General Plan. Because the provisions of the General Plan and the Community Plan must be construed together, we reject Holden‘s claim that the Community Plan‘s provisions cannot vary from, or modify, the density designations and recommendations set forth in the General Plan. We likewise reject Holden‘s related assertion that the General Plan must be amended before City may allow development of a site with a density less than that recommended in the General Plan.5 Rather, if a proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Community Plan, and City‘s development regulations, the density recommended by the General Plan for certain designated areas (e.g., medium-high residential areas) need not be rigidly
(San Franciscans Upholding, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 678; Sierra Club, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1510-1511.) We are not persuaded by Holden‘s assertion that the General Plan‘s designations and density recommendations are not, in fact, “recommendations” but are instead absolute mandates setting forth rigid density ranges for development оf property within City‘s boundaries. Further, because the Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Community Plan, and City‘s steep hillside development regulations, no project-specific land use plan was required for the Project. Thus, Municipal Code section 143.0115, cited by Holden, is inapplicable.7 Holden does not show otherwise.
Finally, although Holden‘s opening brief alludes to his claim in the trial court that City did not comply with
manner contrary to the provisions of the Land Development Code: [¶] [¶] . . . [¶] (3) To change density or intensity of the use of land. . . .”
discussion.” (People v. Ham (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 768, 783 (Ham).) “Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by [substantive] argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived.” (Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99 (Jones); see also Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 (Cahill) [same]; Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700 (Landry)
Holden‘s opening brief also failed to provide any substantive legal analysis showing that City erred in its purported noncompliance with
Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1260, fn. 10 [argument raised in footnote without analysis or discussion is waived]; Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1562 [assertions raised only in footnote may be properly disregarded]; Evans v. Centerstone Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 160 [“We do not have to consider issues discussed only in a footnote.“].) Because Holden does not provide any proper substantive legal analysis on his
III
City‘s Approval of the Project
Relying on many of the same arguments discussed ante, Holden contends that City erred by approving the Project because it did not comply with the General Plan‘s designation and density recommendations that apply to its site. We rejected those arguments in section II, ante. Incorporating our discussions of those arguments herein, we conclude thаt City did not err by finding that the Project was consistent with the General Plan‘s density designations and recommendations and, based thereon, approving the Project. The trial court thus did not err in denying Holden‘s petition for writ of mandate.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
GUERRERO, J.
Filed 12/13/19
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LARK HOLDEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al., Defendants and Respondents; IDEA ENTERPRISE, LP, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
D074474
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2017-00018417-CU-TT-CTL)
ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION
THE COURT:
The opinion in this case filed on December 3, 2019, was not certified for publication. It appearing the opinion meets the standards for publication specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), the request pursuant to rule 8.1120(a) for publication is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the opinion meets the standards for publication specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c); and
ORDERED that the words “Not to Be Published in the Official Reports” appearing on pagе one of said opinion be deleted and the opinion herein be published in the Official Reports.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties