HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C - Schwabe LtrSCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
ATTORNEYS AT L A W
Pacwest Center,1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900, Portland, OR 972041 Phone 503.222.9981 1 Fax 503.796.29001 www.schwabe.com
PETER LIVINGSTON
Admitted in Oregon and Washington
Direct Line: 503-796-2892
Cellular Phone: 503-314-1050
Home Phone: (503) 233-9313
E -Mail: plivingston@schwabe.com
February 29, 2008
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL
Board of County Commissioners
c/o Deschutes County Planning Division
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC
Conceptual Master Plan Application
CU -05-20
Our File No.: 112188/138798
Dear Commissioners:
2 9 2008
;iq) BY:
We represent Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC ("Thornburgh"), the applicant in these
proceedings. This letter responds to the Board's request for written argument that addresses the
remands of the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA").
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this manner, and we are pleased to see that after
nearly three years of review, the Thornburgh application has now been returned to the County
Board of Commissioners ("Board") for only a few corrections or clarifications to the Board's
decision of May 10, 2006 ("Decision") approving the Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional
Use Permit.
As reflected in staff memoranda, which you have already received in connection with the
remand process, and in your directions inviting comment, all that remains to be done at this point
is the rather technical job of crafting additional conditions and findings directly responsive to the
orders. To that end, we have prepared an explanation addressing each of the six points listed by
staff in the January 2008 Request for Written Argument, followed by a suggested finding or
condition.
Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540.4262 I Bend, OR 541.749.4044
Seattle, WA 206.622.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 1 Washington, DC 202.488.4302
PDX/ 112188/] 38798/P1,1/2327680.2
EXHIBIT C
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 2
LUBA's Decision
In its May 14, 2007 Opinion and Order ("LUBA Order"), LUBA remanded to the County
on the following issues:1
1.
Gould's First and Fourth Assignments of Error: Correction of the
Inconsistency Between the Phasing Plan and the Overnight and Density
Calculations Chart
Gould's first and fourth assignments of error dealt with inconsistencies in the record
relating to the 2:1 ratio for residential development and overnight lodging. Both assignments of
error focused in part on the inconsistency between the Overnight and Density Calculations chart
and the Phasing Plan. These inconsistencies arose as a result of Thornburgh's inadvertent errors
in the preparation of the plan and chart prior to the Board's hearing in December 2005. In its
opinion, LUBA concludes that the apparent inconsistencies can be cured by a finding identifying
the correct version of the Overnight and Density Calculations chart and by modifying one legend
in the Phasing Plan.
In reaching this conclusion, LUBA first rejects most of the first assignment of error, but
agrees with Gould about "[t]he third inconsistency, which ... would require that the phasing
plan be modified to show that 62.5 overnight dwelling units will be developed in Phase D with
the hotel." LUBA Order 16. According to LUBA, "Until the phasing plan is corrected, it
proposes phased development that does not comply with the 2:1 ratio. That problem could have
been eliminated if the county had imposed a condition of approval that specifically required that
correction. " Id. (Emphasis added.)
LUBA explains that the corrections in the Overnight and Density Calculations chart
included in Thornburgh's final legal argument are not "new evidence." LUBA Order, p. 16,
footnote 16. This means they can be considered by the Board without reopening the record.
Because LUBA indicates that a condition of approval is proper, it becomes clear that ORS
197.522 applies. It requires a local government to "approve an application for a permit ... that
is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations or ... impose
reasonable conditions on an application to make the proposed activity consistent with the plan
and applicable regulations."
LUBA continues:
"Thornburgh has explained that it intends to correct that inconsistency by
modifying the phasing plan to conform to the Overnight and Density Calculations
chart. The county needs to either require that Thornburgh make that correction,
or impose a condition of approval that the correction be made, before it grants
approval of the CMP." LUBA Order, p. 17.
1 For the Board's convenience, the sections in this letter are numbered to correspond to the
numbered sections in the Memorandum to the Board dated December 31, 2007, which was
prepared by Associate Planner Ruth Wahl.
PDX/1I2188/138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 3
In considering the January 3, 2006 Overnight and Density Calculations chart, which
makes the necessary corrections, LUBA states, "We do not understand petitioners to dispute that,
as a factual matter, the suggested correction will preserve the 2:1 ratio." LUBA Order, p. 16,
footnote 16.
Therefore, consistent with these statements in the LUBA Order, Thornburgh proposes the
following additional condition:
Thornburgh shall modify the Overnight and Density Calculations chart presented
to the Board at the appeal hearing on December 20, 2005 by replacing it with the
Overnight and Density Calculations chart included at page 25 in Thornburgh's final legal
argument, dated January 3, 2006, as shown below.
The 75 units of overnight lodging shown in the December 20, 2005 Overnight and
Density Calculations table to be developed in Phase C will actually be developed in
Phase B, for a total of 150 units in Phase B. The Overnight and Density Calculations table
will be corrected to show the 50 hotel units will be developed in Phase D, where the Phasing
Plan, attached to the Memorandum of Applicant in Response to Public Comments, Ex. 13,
Revised B-1.8, already shows the hotel will be developed. Additionally, the legend in the
Phasing Plan will be corrected to show hotel and residential overnight lodging uses in
Phase D (in pod 30).
ITEM
Phase
A
Phase
B
Phase
C
Phase
D
Phase
E
Phase
F
Phase
G
Totals
Residential Single Family
(RSF)
300
150
150
125
125
50
50
950
Hotel Overnight
0
0
0
50
0
0
0.
50
Residential Overnight
150
150
0
63
62
0
0
425
Net Overnight
150
150
0
113
62
0
0
475
Cumulative RSF
300
450
600
725
850
900
950
950
Cumulative Overnight
150
300
300
413
475
475
475
475.
RATIO-RSF/Overnight
2.00
1.50
2.00
1.76
1.79
1.89
2.00
2.00
Thornburgh shall present the corrected Phasing Plan and Overnight and Density
Calculations chart, consistent with this condition, during the Final Master Plan approval
process.
This new condition also addresses LUBA's discussion of Gould's fourth assignment of
error, LUBA Order, p. 24.
2. Gould's Third Assignment of Error: Compliance with ORS
197.445(4)(b)(B) Concerning Construction of the 50 Units of Overnight
Lodging Prior to Closure of Sale of Individual Lots or Units
PDX/112188/138798/PL1/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 4
Gould's Third Assignment of Error relates to an inconsistency between the wording of
the county approval standard and that of a subsequently adopted state statute. As described
below, LUBA determined the wording of the state statute must control and instructed the county
to make related corrections in the findings.
In the first paragraph of Condition 21, the Decision states, "In lieu of construction,
[Thornburgh] may provide financial assurances for construction of the required overnight
lodging." As explained in the LUBA Order, pp. 21-24, this condition, while consistent with
DCC 18.113.060(A)(5), which allows all of the required 150 units of overnight lodging to be
"physically provided or financially assured," is inconsistent with the requirement in
ORS 197.445(4)(b)(B) that the first 50 of those 150 units "must be constructed prior to the
closure of sale of individual lots or units." LUBA Order, p. 23.
Therefore, consistent with these statements in the LUBA Order, Thornburgh proposes
that the first paragraph of Condition 21 of the Decision be replaced with the following:
Each phase of the development shall be constructed such that the number of
overnight lodging units meets the 150 overnight lodging unit and 2:1 ratio of individually
owned units to overnight lodging units standard set out in DCC 18.113.060(A)(1) and
18.113.060(D)(2). Individually owned units shall be considered visitor oriented lodging if
they are available for overnight rental use by the general, public for at least 45 weeks per
calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in services. As required
by ORS 197.445(4)(b)(3), at least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to
the closure of sale of individual lots or units.
3. Gould's Fourth Assignment of Error: Correction of Phasing Plan to
Match Overnight and Density Calculations Chart
This issue, which is raised by Gould's fourth assignment of error, is identical to the issue
that prompted LUBA to remand on Gould's first assignment of error. It is addressed by the first
condition proposed above. Staff has proposed a separate condition, acceptable to Thornburgh,
which restates part of the first condition.
4. Gould's Eighth Assignment of Error: Required Additional Finding with
Respect to DCC 18.113.070(G)(3)(b): "Access within the Project Shall
Be Adequate to Serve the Project in a Safe and Efficient Manner for
Each Phase of the Project"
Gould's eighth assignment of error points out an omission in the original findings: The
Decision failed to include a finding addressing the evidence relating to access roads. LUBA
concluded that the County "must address and demonstrate" that the CMP complies with
DCC 18.113.070(G)(3)(b). LUBA Order, p. 43. Although the Board's original decision did not
include a specific finding, the record included extensive evidence demonstrating the adequacy of
access, including statements by representatives of the county road office, the United States
Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), and the City of Redmond Fire Department. Therefore,
PDX/ 112188/ 138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 5
Thornburgh suggests the following additional finding, which summarizes evidence already in the
record and is consistent with the Board's initial determination approving the CMP:
Applicant has submitted a revised Vehicular Access and Circulation Plan,
Memorandum of Applicant in Response to Public Comments, September 28, 2005 ("MR"),
Ex. 3, A-1.6, which illustrates how roads will provide access throughout each phase of the
project. This plan can be viewed together with the revised Phasing Plan, MR, Ex. 13,
B-1.08, to determine how the different phases of development will be served by roads. The
revised Phasing Plan does not show the roads extending to the Phase G residential area,
but Applicant has explained that this is a typographical error, Applicant's Final Argument,
October 19, 2005 ("AFA"), p. 8, and the Board relies upon the Vehicular Access and
Circulation Plan to determine where the roads will go. The revised Phasing Plan shows the
internal roads will be constructed in Phase A or, at the latest, in Phase B.
The Board finds that the roads have been located in a safe and efficient manner. As
Applicant explained in its final argument to the hearings officer, AFA, p. 5, roads have
been located in response to concerns expressed by the Bureau of Land Management and
others. Robert Towne, Field Manager, Deschutes Resource Area of the Bureau of Land
Management, states in a September 28, 2005 letter to the County hearings officer, MR,
Ex. 14, B-1.40, that the location of the northern access road, which emphasizes shared use
of rights-of-way, will "balance BLM's competing objectives" by minimizing "any
additional disturbance of the land and ... consolidate access points in a single location."
Mr. Towne states further that Thornburgh's choice of existing road segments for its
proposed connecting roads across federal lands in Section 29 and 30 "will minimize the
fragmentation of public lands and impacts on the environment." From these statements,
the Board concludes the proposed connecting roads will be "efficient," as that term is used
in the DCC.
Opponent Gould objects that the internal road that accesses the southwest part of
the property cannot be described as safe or efficient because it is over two miles from Cline
Falls Road and because of "fire danger in the area." However, the distance from Cline
Falls Road does not make the road in the southwest part of the property inefficient or
unsafe per se. Gould has not identified a standard that would show the road to be unsafe.
Efficiency depends on available alternatives, and the Applicant's choice of alternatives
appears reasonable to the Board. Because it is not adequately developed, Barr Road is not
a reasonable access alternative to the southwest part of the resort. In its May 14, 2007
Opinion and Order, LUBA found that the unavailability of Barr Road for either access or
emergency access provides no basis for reversal or remand.
The question of fire danger is addressed by the City of Redmond Fire Department
in its January 12, 2005 Letter, in which the Fire Chief, Ron Oliver, describes meeting with
representatives of the resort project to discuss fire and public safety issues, hazardous fuels
reduction and annexation of the resort property into the Deschutes County Rural Fire
Protection District #1. Thornburgh's Burden of Proof Statement, dated February 16, 2005
("BOP"), Ex. 15, B -29a. In a subsequent July 13, 2005 letter, MR, Ex. 15, B-1.32, Chief
PDX/112188/138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 6
Oliver states that fire code access requirements will be met through the use of two routes
connecting to the Cline Falls Highway and through an all weather access road across the
northern portion of the Thornburgh property for additional access via Highway 126. In a
September 23, 2005 letter, MR, Ex. 15, B -L31, Deschutes County Sheriff Les Stiles states
that representatives of the sheriff's office have reviewed Thornburgh's Resort Planning
and Emergency Preparedness plan, MR, Ex. 15, B-1.30, and find it "consistent with the
evacuation operational plans within Deschutes County." These letters and the Emergency
Preparedness Han itself adequately address the concerns raised by Gould in connection
with safe and efficient internal access.
The County depends upon its own Road Department to raise concerns about
internal access after reviewing an application. Gary Judd, at the County Road
Department, by email dated June 2, 2005, requested from Applicant's traffic consultant a
copy of the updated map of the phases and an approximate time line for construction of
each phase, in order to assess trip distribution and how it would affect various
intersections. On July 1, 2005, Mr. Judd commented to planner Devin Hearing that
Thornburgh's traffic study, as modified, "is acceptable to the Road Department."
Mr. Judd raised no concerns about internal access.
Based on substantial evidence in the record, the Board finds that Applicant has
demonstrated compliance with this standard. In order to assure future compliance, as
access roads are designed and constructed, the Board has imposed Conditions 5, 7, 27 and
30. Condition 5 requires the design and construction of the road system in accordance
with Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). It requires further that road
improvement plans be approved by the County Road Department prior to construction.
DCC Title 17 (and, in particular, DCC chapter 17.48) establishes minimum standards for
design and construction of roads and other improvements and facilities. DCC 17.48.180
states applicable minimum road standards for private roads. In addition, DCC 17.48.030
allows the Road Department Director to impose additional design requirements "as are
reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the public." Condition 27 requires that
road width be consistent with the standards in DCC chapter 17.36. Condition 30 requires
Applicant to submit a detailed traffic circulation plan prior to Final Master Plan approval.
This criterion is met.
5. Fifth Assignment of Error: Confusion over Dimensional Standards
Gould's fifth assignment of error related to minimum dimensional standards for lot sizes
within the project. Although LUBA and the Court of Appeals rejected Gould's arguments and
upheld the county finding on this issue, the LUBA Order contains a statement that may cause
confusion in the future. As a result, Thornburgh requests the finding be modified to clarify that
the specified minimum lot sizes do not at the same time prescribe maximum dimensions.
Gould contended to LUBA that the County's findings in response to
DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) "violated the subsection (G) requirement that no lot shall exceed a
PDX/1 I2 1 88/138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 7
project average of 22,000 square feet, where the County allowed lots over twice that size and
even greater than one acre." LUBA rejected that contention, LUBA Order, p. 30, but added:
"However, to the extent the above quoted findings can be read to grant
Thornburgh the `flexibility' to propose one acre or 1,500 square foot lots, even
though the approved lot dimensions at Record 5642 would not permit lots that
large or small, we do not believe that grant of flexibility is within the county's
discretion under DCC 18.113.060(G)(1).[2] If Thornburgh can subdivide the
property into whatever size lots it believes the terrain or high density housing type
it desires might warrant, without first amending the CMP to allow such different
lot sizes, the exercise by DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) is a waste of time at best.
Because the above -quoted findings need not be read to authorize lot sizes other
than the ones set out at Record 5642, without first amending the CMP to allow
such larger or smaller lots, we do not read the findings in that way. The
dimensional standards approved by the county appear at Record 5642. If
Thornburgh later discovers that the approved eight different lot types do not offer
sufficient flexibility, it may request a change in the CMP to allow additional lot
dimensions." LUBA Order, pp. 30-31 (emphasis added).
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Thornburgh pointed out that the development code
and the submission set minimum parcel sizes and do not require the adoption of maximum lot
areas. The court agreed that LUBA's conclusion "was not necessary to the determination of
Gould's precise assignment of error to LUBA." Gould, 216 Or App at 165, slip op 15.
However, the court focused on the "lot width average" and speculated that it requires, for lots of
15,000 square feet or more in area, a "lot width average" of 100 feet that "may operate to limit
the sizes of some of the lots." Id. at 164-65, slip op 15.
The table in question is reproduced below:
.......:»...e........_....4...n.._....._:.. �vL•__-...._.qLt.r2...:.:1r_.,...i_N..:_.:c.._..._rsE_.....:�....z.......;r;_h.-...r::s.__.� ., � M�<t.9-f=.� L- {.cus .__.�_'..r..u...x.:_6..'•:=_S._��.E.._.:t L.•Z:csaygkF� ]•t1
:sEr�::p1};•;.•%rE. -
....�__.__..��1110134_, r _.z=°z:
._.._...I......{_- u::�;..;;-Erc ^:a:•s:.__:._d._..34..,an.>r._a.._.....__,>,_e.r:__._._._..-y_.....
411'
�:
'�:i:.i7:i:}?
... ..
Type
H
ITEM
Type
A
Type
13
Type
C•
Type
D
Type
E
Type
F
Type
G
Lot Area (Minimum)
15,000
12,500
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,500
3,200
3,200
Lot Width Average (Minimum)
100
90
80
70
60
40
30
25
Lot Frontage — Regular
60
55
50
45
40
40
30
25
Lot Frontage — Cul-de-sac
50
40
40
35
35
30
25
25
Lot Coverage — Footprint (Maximum)
65%
65%
65%
70%
70%
75%
80%
80%
Lot Setbacks
Front
30
30
30
30
25
25
20
20
Back
25
25
25
20
20
15
15
15
Side
15
15
I0
10
10
5
5
0
Building Height* (Maximum)
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
*depends on location
2 The Residential Lot Standards are at BOP, Ex. 8, B -24a.
SAT
PDX/ 112188/ 138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 8
Since the table states a minimum lot width average for each type of lot, it does not
establish any limitation on the size of any lots. However, this issue has apparently been
confusing to both LUBA and the Court of Appeals. Thornburgh therefore urges the County to
adopt the following additional, clarifying finding responsive to DCC 18.113.060(G)(1).3
DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) does not state a requirement for maximum lot dimensions
other than the general requirement that "No lot for a single-family residence shall exceed
an overall project average of 22,000 square feet in size," which LUBA has said (and the
Board agrees) "prohibits lot sizes that would result in the `overall project average'
exceeding 22,000 square feet." LUBA Opinion and Order, dated May 14, 2007, p. 30.
The Board understands Applicant's "Residential Lot Standards" chart, Applicant's
Burden of Proof Statement, dated February 24, 2005, Ex. 8, B-24, which shows residential
lot standards, to state only minimum dimensional standards, as required by this code
provision, and not to state any limitation on maximum dimensions unless expressly stated
(as with the maximum lot coverage and the maximum building height (depending on
location)).
In particular, the minimum "lot width average" is understood to state that the
average lot width shall not be less than the stated number under any type of lot (e.g.,
"Type A," "Type B," etc.), but does not state it cannot be more. The lot frontage and lot
setback standards are also understood to be minimums, which do not establish maximum
lot dimensions.
This additional finding is important to establish even more clearly what Thornburgh and
the Board understood to be the case all along and to avoid future challenges based on the notion
that DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) requires or that Thornburgh has stated maximum lot dimensions.
3 As relevant, DCC 18.113.060(G)(1) states:
"The minimum lot area, width, lot coverage, frontage and yard requirements and
building heights otherwise applying to structures in underlying zones and the
provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to solar access shall not apply within a
destination resort. These standards shall be determined by the Planning Director
or Hearing Body at the time of the CMP. In determining these standards, the
Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that the minimum specified in the
CMP are adequate to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar
access, fire protection, vehicle access, visual management within landscape
management corridors and to protect resources identified by LCDC Goal 5 which
are identified in the Comprehensive Plan." (Emphasis added.)
PDX/112188/ 138798/PLI/2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 9
Court of Appeals Decision
6. Gould's Eleventh and Munson's Fourth Assignments of Error:
DCC 18.113.070(D) and Wildlife Mitigation
The Court of Appeals remanded on Gould's eleventh and Munson's fourth assignments
of error, which were identical, concerning the process used to determine compliance with
DCC 18.113.070(D).
DCC 18.113.070(D) states, "Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be
completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource." In response
to this criterion, after discussing the evidence in the record, the Board found, "It is feasible to
mitigate completely any negative impact on identified fish and wildlife resources so that there is
no net loss or net degradation of the resource." Decision, p. 61. The Board relied upon evidence
in the record, including a Tetra Tech Wildlife Report, and on the future participation of the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") and the BLM in devising a final wildlife
mitigation plan pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between Thornburgh and the
BLM.
The Court of Appeals opinion notes two deficiencies in LUBA's (and the County's)
decisions. First, "Without knowing the specifics of any required mitigation measures, there can
be no effective evaluation of whether the project's effects on fish and wildlife resources will be
`completely mitigated' as required by DCC 18.113.070(D)." Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or
App 150, 159, slip op 8. Second, DCC 18.113.070(D) "requires that the content of the
mitigation be based on `substantial evidence in the record,' not evidence outside the CMP
record." Id. at 159-60, slip op 9. The court notes, "In this case, the particulars of the mitigation
plan were to be based on a future negotiation, and not a county hearing process." Id. at 160, slip
op 9. Later, the court states, "The county's decision, however, allows the mitigation plan
justification to be established by future discussions among Thornburgh, ODFW, and BLM, and
not on evidence submitted during the public hearings. That robs interested persons of the
participatory rights allowed by the county ordinance." Id. at 163, slip op 13.
In terms of appropriate procedure, the Court of Appeals notes, "[A] determination that a
wildlife impact mitigation plan is `feasible' might be appropriate to justify postponement of any
evaluation of the application of DCC 18.113.070(D) to the plan." The court then says, "The
determination of feasibility, however, is not an adequate substitute for an assessment of whether
a specific mitigation plan actually complies with the standard." Id. at 162, footnote 4, slip op 11.
The court states:
"The county might have, but did not, postpone determination of compliance with
[DCC 18.113.070(D)] until the final master plan approval step and infuse that
process with the same participatory rights as those allowed in the CMP approval
hearing." Id.
PDX/112188/138798/PLU2327680.2
Board of County Commissioners
February 29, 2008
Page 10
As noted above, based on evidence in the record, the Board has already found that
compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D) is feasible. Thornburgh supports the Board's decision to
adopt a condition that defers review of the wildlife mitigation plan until the FMP is reviewed in a
public process. Consistent with the Court of Appeals' decision, Thornburgh proposes the
following additional condition:
Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D) by submitting a
wildlife mitigation plan to the County as part of its application for Final Master Plan
approval. The County shall consider the wildlife mitigation plan at a public hearing with
the same participatory rights as those allowed in the CMP approval hearing.
Conclusion
It has been more than three years since Thornburgh filed its application for CMP
approval. After a comprehensive process involving public hearings and review of an extensive
record of evidence, the Board approved the application on May 10, 2006. The appeal process
took more than 18 months for decisions from both LUBA and the Court of Appeals. Yet nothing
that happened during the appeal process raises any doubt about the soundness of the Board's
decision to approve the project. Of the numerous objections initially raised by project
opponents, only the technical issues discussed above remain unresolved.
Given this long history of prior proceedings, and the limited, technical nature of the
issues now before you on remand, we urge the Board to adopt the suggested findings and
conditions, which will allow the project to move forward in the manner originally contemplated
in your May 10, 2006 decision to approve the CMP. The suggested findings and conditions are
similar to what staff proposed in their December 31, 2007 Memorandum to the Board, but they
contain additional detail intended to produce a clearer decision in light of possible future appeals.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to provide this argument in support of the
application.
Very truly yours,
Peter Livingston
PLI:mka
cc: Kameron DeLashmutt
Laurie E. Craghead
Mark E. Pilliod
Kevin Harrison
Ruth Wahl
Catherine Morrow
PDX/112188/138798/PL1/2327680.2