Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Sloat Room -- Atrium Building www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541)682-5481. WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION Assessors Map: 18-03-05-32 Tax Lot: 100 Decision: Denial of a Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Map Correction for Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) Appellant: Jon Lauch, Eugene School District 4J Lead City Staff: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5697 E-mail: gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff introduction/presentation. 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from neutral parties. 4. Testimony from appellants and others in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene- or.us/hearingsofficial.  Atrium Building 99 west 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning ____________________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2014 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Gabe Flock, Senior Planner Subject: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision to Deny a Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Map Correction for Roosevelt Middle School (OC 2 14-1) __________________________________________________________________________________ Background The subject property is located at 680 East 24th Avenue, between the Amazon Parkway and Hilyard Street, on Tax Lot 100 of Assessor’s Map 18-03-05-32. The site is zoned Public Land with the Water Resource Overlay (PL/WR). This appeal pertains to the Planning Director’s recent denial of the Eugene School District 4J’s request for a “Type II map correction” involving a protected Goal 5 wetland (site AMA-10) located on the Roosevelt Middle School Site. For a vicinity map showing the school site and the location of the wetlands involved in this request, see Attachment A. In essence, if approved, the school district’s request would remove the protection designation under the City’s adopted Goal 5 Water Resource regulations for the southern portion of the wetland, which would then allow the wetland to be filled to accommodate a new school building. The Planning Director’s decision denying the applicant’s request is included for reference; see Attachment B. Notice and Appeal On June 26, 2014, notice of the decision denying the applicant’s request was provided in accordance with the Type II application procedures at EC 9.7220, which established an appeal deadline of July 8, 2014. On July 2, 2014, Bill Kloos filed an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision on behalf of Eugene School District 4J. See written appeal statement included as Attachment C. The appeal statement sets out two primary assignments of error. Because the appellant’s statement only briefly sets out the appeal issues, and essentially re-asserts issues that were addressed in the decision, a brief initial staff response is provided below with reliance on the Planning Director’s written decision for a more detailed explanation of the City’s rationale as to why the application was denied. Staff anticipates that the appellant will submit more extensive, additional argument at the public hearing, which may necessitate further response from staff and the City Attorney’s Office at or following the hearing. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 1 HO Agenda - Page 1 The public hearing for this appeal is scheduled for July 30, 2014 and public notice was mailed in accordance with applicable code requirements on July 9, 2014. As described in the public notice, the decision on this appeal is subject to the procedural requirements of EC 9.7600 through 9.7635, and the public hearing for this appeal will be conducted according to quasi-judicial hearing procedures in state law and described at EC 9.7065 through 9.7095. Pursuant to EC 9.7630, the HO shall affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision to deny the applicant’s request. EC 9.7630(2) clarifies that the HO can only reverse or modify the Planning Director’s decision if he finds that the Planning Director failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the approval criteria. Since the submittal of the appeal, one letter of testimony has been received (see Attachment D). Any written testimony or other evidence submitted after the preparation of this report will also be forwarded for consideration as part of the decision on this appeal. Appeal Issues and Staff Response The appeal issues are summarized below (in bold), followed by staff’s initial response: Appeal Issue #1: The Director erred in concluding that the requested Goal 5 Plan map correction is not the kind of correction that can be done under the authority of EC 9.4960. That code section envisions just the kind of map correction that is requested here. The Planning Director addresses this issue about the scope of EC 9.4960 on pages 2-5 of the written decision. The analysis explains the rationale in detail, as to why the applicant’s request cannot be approved as a map correction and instead would require a legislative amendment to the City’s adopted Goal 5 regulations. Rather than a request to correct the mapped location of the wetland, which could be appropriate within the scope of EC 9.4960, the applicant’s request would change (i.e. remove) the level of protection afforded to the wetland under the City’s regulations. The Planning Director’s decision includes an analysis of the text and context of EC 9.4960, as well as related legislative history, in reaching the conclusion that the applicant’s request falls outside the intended scope of EC 9.4960. A useful excerpt summarizing that analysis is provided below: Based on the text, context and legislative history, the Planning Director concludes that the council intended the process set forth in EC 9.4960 to be available as a means of correcting only certain mapping errors. In doing so, the council necessarily meant to limit the scope of that provision to a confined universe of situations where the error in mapping was relatively clear and could be discerned simply by reference to the documentation before it. Given the history of the adoption of the Goal 5 water resources conservation plan and code provisions implementing that plan, this interpretation is the only one that makes sense. If a property owner could characterize the erroneous analysis of existing data as a mapping error, then there would be no limit to what would be considered a mapping error for purposes of EC 9.4960. Such an interpretation would allow an end run around the Goal 5 process. Each and every parcel that has the /WR overlay designation would be subject to challenge under EC 9.4960. An alleged error in analysis of the available data is not a mapping error. Rather, that is a challenge that properly should have been raised at the time the Goal 5 plan was adopted. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 2 HO Agenda - Page 2  Here, the applicant asserts that the City made an error in its analysis of the data in front of it and, as a result, the mapping of the boundaries of the protected wetland was in error. This application does not allege a mapping error that can be corrected under the EC 9.4960 process. An example of a mapping error that would be subject to EC 9.4960 is the situation where the underlying information supports a conclusion that the wetland would be mapped in one location, but the mapping erroneously shows the wetland mapped in an entirely different location. An assertion that the City made an error in its analysis of the data that resulted in a piece of land erroneously being afforded protection is not a mapping error subject to correction under EC 9.4960. The applicant’s attempt to challenge the City’s prior analysis in this application is a collateral attack of the City’s 2005 ordinance. The only remedy for the applicant at this point is to seek a legislative amendment, which would allow the City Council to re-analyze the data and determine what protections are appropriate. The appeal statement asserts that the request here is not intended as new policy-making or to re- open the analysis for individual sites that was done in 2005, but rather, seeks to resolve a conflict between the map and text of the Goal 5 Plan. As such, the appellant believes that the request falls within the scope of EC 9.4960 as a Type II map correction. The assertions about a conflict between the text and map of the Goal 5 Plan, or that the text of the ESEE analysis has the same legal standing as adopted Metro Plan text which must be resolved in favor of the text over the adopted Goal 5 maps, are addressed in more detail under Appeal Issue #2, below. Appeal Issue #2: The Director erred in failing to correct the Goal 5 Plan map for this site, as requested. The denial is based on several legal errors that are apparent in the decision. The Hearing Official should correct the legal errors and then conclude, as the applicant asserts, that the Resource Site intended by the Goal 5 Plan to be protected is limited to the ash grove, as described in the ESEE – the text of the Goal 5 Plan. Here, the appellant asserts three “legal errors” under Appeal Issue #2, which if corrected by the Hearings Official, the appellant believes should allow the applicant’s request to be approved as a Type II map correction. Legal Error (a): The Director erred in reading the Goal 5 Plan maps as being the only credible source of information in the plan for locating a Resource Site. This argument misconstrues the Planning Director’s findings in the decision, regarding the legal standing of the ESEE analysis that was adopted as findings in support of the City’s Goal 5 ordinance (Ordinance No. 20351). Here, without addressing the Planning Director’s explanation in the decision as to why the ESEE analysis cannot be relied upon in the way that the applicant would prefer, the appellant turns to the definition of “Goal 5 Water Resource Site” at EC 9.0500. He asserts that the term “identified” is much broader than “mapped” and thus one should look to the entire plan to determine what the resource site is, and where it is located. No further explanation or analysis of the text, context or legislative history is provided in support of this argument which would appear to greatly expand the latitude and range of interpretation involved in determining both the location and level of protection afforded to wetland sites under the City’s Goal 5 regulations (i.e. beyond what was _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 3 HO Agenda - Page 3 intended). As explained in the decision, even if the text of the ESEE analysis could be relied upon in the way that the applicant would like, the language itself does not support the contention that the City intended to only protect the ash grove portion of the wetland. The language the applicant points to is found in a brief summary description of the site, not in a section that purports to outline the purposes for which a particular resource site is to be protected. Legal Error (b): The Director erred by stating that the text of the ESEE is not part of the Goal 5 Plan. Again, this argument misconstrues what the Planning Director’s decision really says, and how the relationship works between adopted refinement plans and the Metro Plan. As explained in the decision beginning on page 6, the City firmly disagrees with the applicant’s assertions that the ESEE analysis somehow has the same legal standing as adopted Metro Plan text, which would in turn allow them to rely on the ESEE text to resolve an alleged “conflict” between the Metro Plan and the adopted Goal 5 refinement plan in favor of removing the protection designation. In its appeal statement, the applicant cites to OAR 660-023-0040(4) in support of its position that the ESEE analysis is equivalent to Metro Plan text. OAR 660-023-0040(4) provides: “The analyses of the ESEE consequences shall be adopted either as part of the plan or as a land use regulation.” However, the fact that the ESEE consequences are adopted as part of the plan does not mean that every word in the ESEE consequences analysis must be treated as if it were Metro Plan text. The decision clarifies that the ESEE analysis was only adopted as findings in support of the City’s Goal 5 ordinance. To the extent they are part of the plan, they are supporting documentation of the plan text, much like a housing inventory is part of a local government’s comprehensive plan. Accordingly, any language found in the ESEE analysis does not carry the same weight as Metro Plan text and cannot be used as the appellant asserts to override or “resolve a conflict” that would change the level of protection afforded to the wetland. More importantly, the language of the ESEE analysis relied upon by the applicant does not support its contention that the City only intended to protect the ash grove. As the Planning Director found, the language the applicant relies upon is found in the “Site Description” portion of the ESEE analysis, which only provides a brief summary of each of the wetlands. The ESEE conclusions, however, make clear that the entire wetland is valuable, and should be protected, as it provides a diversity of wetland types. Legal Error (c): The Director Erred in stating that the text of this refinement plan does not control over the map in this refinement plan. This assertion appears to rely on the same faulty premise that the text of the ESEE analysis is adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan. As described above and in the Planning Director’s decision, the ESEE analysis was only adopted as findings in support of the City’s Goal 5 ordinance; it is not adopted as text of the Metro Plan or as text of a refinement to the Metro Plan. The appellant also incorrectly asserts that the City’s Goal 5 Plan, as a refinement plan, is “incorporated into” the Metro Plan. While it is true that the Metro Plan and the City’s adopted refinement plans taken together constitute our _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 4 HO Agenda - Page 4 comprehensive plan as that term is used in the context of State law, refinement plans are not one and the same as the Metro Plan. A useful excerpt from the Planning Director’s decision at pages 6-7 helps to explain how the appellant is misreading the relationship between the ESEE analysis, the adopted Goal 5 Plan, and the Metro Plan in this case: The applicant asserts that the ESEE analysis, which applicant argues reflects the intent to protect AMA-10 only for its value as an ash wetland, takes precedence over the WRCP map. Applicant asserts that the map and the ESEE text are inconsistent because the ESEE text states an intent to protect the wetlands as an ash grove, and the mapped wetland includes property that is not part of the ash grove. The applicant quotes the following provision from the Metro Plan: “In addition, it is important to recognize that the written text of the Metro Plan takes precedence over the Metro Plan Diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The Metro Plan Diagram is a generalized map which is intended to graphically reflect the broad goals, objectives, and policies. As such, it cannot be used independently from or take precedence over the written portion of the Metro Plan.” The applicant generalizes this rule, asserting that any text in any document that is part of the Metro Plan takes precedence over any map that is part of the Metro Plan. However, that is not what the above-quoted Metro Plan language says. It merely states that where the Metro Plan “Diagram” conflicts with the text of the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan text controls. There is but one Metro Plan Diagram. It is found in the Metro Plan following page II-G-16. The WRCP map is not the Metro Plan Diagram. Further, the ESEE analysis relied upon by the applicant is not part of the Metro Plan and cannot be treated as Metro Plan text. Ordinance No. 20351 is the ordinance that adopted the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan. That same ordinance created the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone (/WR) and adopted the code provisions related to that new overlay zone. EC 9.4900 through 9.4980. The Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan was adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan. Ordinance No. 20351, Section 2. The ESEE analysis and Eugene’s Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) were adopted as findings in support of the ordinance. Section 3. However, they were not themselves adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Accordingly, any text found in the ESEE analysis does not carry the weight of Metro Plan text. Furthermore, as noted above, even if the appellant could rely on the text of the ESEE analysis as asserted, the language itself does not support the contention that the City intended to only protect the ash grove portion of the wetland. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 5 HO Agenda - Page 5 Staff Recommendation Based on the available information and evidence, staff concludes that the Planning Director’s decision was not in error or otherwise inconsistent with the applicable approval criteria at EC 9.4960. Staff recommends that the Hearings Official affirm the decision of the Planning Director denying the map correction request for the Roosevelt Middle School Site (OC2 14-1). Attachments A: Vicinity Map B: Written Appeal Statement C: Planning Director’s Decision D: Public Testimony The full application file will be made available at the public hearing on this matter, and is otherwise available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices. Staff is forwarding the Hearings Official a copy of all relevant application materials and related evidence in the record to date. For More Information Please contact Gabe Flock, Senior Planner, by phone at (541) 682-5697 or by e-mail, at gabriel.flock@ci.eugene.or.us. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Roosevelt Middle School (OC2 14-1) July 2014 Page 6 HO Agenda - Page 6  Attachment A NOTES 1. All survey information provided by: Branch Engineering 310 5th St. EK Springfield, Oregon 97477 CRE P: 541-746-0637 PATTERSON ST. ZON 2. The northern reach of the 60 ft. setback, measured AMA from Amazon Creek (E-30E), is beyond the 50 ft. setback of wetland AMA-9 and AMA-7B in the boundaries of 4J's property. The setback for wetlands AMA-9 and AMA-7 are not shown for this reason. LEGEND E. 24TH AVE. PROPERTY EASEMENT Eugene School District 4J TAX LOT GOAL 5 WETLAND BOUNDARIES SIDEWALK SIDEWALK SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE GOAL 5 WETLAND BOUNDARIES WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED FOR ADJUSTMENT CONSERVATION TAX LOT LINE OF PROTECTION STATUS AREA WETLAND SETBACK (25 ft.) 88 PROPERTY EASEMENT PARKING WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR REMOVAL AMAZON CREEK RIPARIAN TENNIS SETBACK (60 ft.) COURTS FENCELINE EXISTING WETLAND 200 N. Monroe St. Eugene, OR 97402 RIPARIAN AREA AREA, AMA-10 Proposed: AMA-10A (Category B) WETLAND AREA 89 CONSERVATION AREA SOCCER FIELDS CONSERVATION AREA PROPOSED FOR ADJUSTMENT PARKING PHS SAMPLE PLOT 89 LOCATION & NUMBER EXISTING WETLAND AREA AMA-10 Proposed: AMA-10B (Area requested for 90 removal of protection status) TAX LOT 18-03-05-32-00100 5/5/2014 9:45 AM PARKING TAX LOT 18-03-05-32-00200 STAMP CONSERVATION AREA FO FO BACKSTOP R R O MA KRISTINA KOENIG N T LY IO N IN Checked: CM Drawn By: KMK AMAZON CREEK Checked: RIPARIAN SETBACK, E30 E (Category B) Project #: 1410B See Note 2 EXISTING WETLAND AREA Date: May 5, 2014 AMA-9 (Category A) EXISTING WETLAND, AMA-7B (Category A) EXISTING WETLAND AREA AMA-11A Rev. #: Date: AMAZON PARKWAY (Not Designated for Protection) Z:\4J Roosevelt MS 1344B\CAD\OLD\Wetland Vicinity Map Opt. 2.dwg # dd/mm/yy AMAZON PARK SHEET TITLE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP FOR AMA-10 0' 30' 60' 120' NORTH SHEET # Existing and Proposed Wetland Boundary Map for AMA-10 SCALE 1" = 60'-0" L1.0 HO Agenda - Page 7  Attachment B LAW OFFICE OF BILL OOS PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W 4r AVENUE SUITE 204 BILL KLOOS EUGENE OR 97401 COM BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON TEL 541 8596 343 WEB LANDUSEOREGON COM WWW July 2 3014 Ms Carolyn Burke Eugene Planning director 99 W loth Ave Eugene OR 97401 Re Appeal of Denial of Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Map Correction for Roosevelt Middle School OC2 14 Dear Carolyn This is an appeal of your June 25 decision on the 4J School District application for a Goal 5 map correction It is filed on behalf of 4J it is supported by the enclosed filing fee and appeal form As directed in the decision this appeal is filed under EC 7 9 605 The application for a map correction was requested under EC 4 9 960 EC 4 9 960 is the correct process to use for this because the request to resolve a conflict that is internal to the Goal 5 plan a conflict between the plan map and the plan test The big picture is that 4J is seeking to correct the Goal 5 Resource Site map in the Goal 5 plan to match the text in the Goal 5 plan describing the site the plan intends to protect The map correction would fix the map by bifurcating it to include just the ash grove which is what the text of the plan says is to be protected Correcting the map in this way will allow 4J to relocate Roosevelt Middle School consistent with the district s adopted plan and in a way that will allow the best use of the larger site The balance of this statement is organized according the required contents of an appeal as state in EC 7 9 605 9 7 605 Filin ofAppeal ofPlannin Director s Decision 1 Within 12 days of the date of the mailing of the planning director s decision the decision may be appealed to the hearings official or historic review board according to the appeal review authority specified in Table 7 9 055 Applications and Review Authorities by the following a Applicant b Owner of the subject property c Neighborhood group officially recognized by the city that includes the area of the subject property d Any person who submitted written comments in regards to the original application e A person entitled to notice of the original application HO Agenda - Page 8  Attachment B Ms Carolyn Burke July 2 2014 Page 2 0 A person adversely affected or aggrieved by the initial decision This appeal is filed by the applicant 2 The appeal shall be submitted on a form approved by the city manager be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to EC Chapter 2 and be received the no later than 5 00 by city p of the 12 m h day after the notice of decision is mailed The record from the planning s proceeding shall be forwarded to the appeal review director New evidence authority pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted This appeal is filed with the approved appeal form and within the 12 day period 3 The appeal shall include a statement of issues on appeal and be limited to the issues raised in the appeal The appeal statement shall explain specifically how the planning director s decision is inconsistent with applicable criteria The issues are stated here in a summary fashion We look forward to supplementing the record prior to and at the public hearing as necessary Issue 1 The Director erred in concluding that the requested Goal 5 Plan map correction is not the kind of correction that can be done under the authority of EC 4 9 960 That code section envisions just the kind of map correction that is requested here At pages 4 and 5 of the decision the Director concludes that the map correction process is intended to allow correction of mapping errors it is not intended to reopen the analysis for individual sites that was done in 2005 The kind of map correction requested here seeks to resolve a conflict between the map in the Goal 5 Plan and the text of the Goal 5 Plan Does the plan as a whole intend to protect just the ash grove as the plan text says or does it intend to protect both the ash grove and the adjacent grass area to the south of the ash grove That is a question that can be answered indeed must be answered based on the plan language itself The applicant is not requesting a change in the plan or new policy making about what should be protected Issue 2 The Director erred in failing to correct the Goal 5 Plan map for this site as requested The denial is based on several legal errors that are apparent in the decision The Hearing Official should correct the and then conclude as the applicant legal errors asserts that the Resource Site intended by the Goal 5 Plan to be protected is limited to the ash grove as described in the ESEE the text of the Goal 5 Plan We list here briefly the several legal errors that are apparent in the Decision If these legal errors are corrected the Hearing Official should be able to afford the relief that is requested Legal Error a The Director erred in reading the Goal 5 Plan maps as being the only credible source of information in the plan for locating a Resource Site There is an HO Agenda - Page 9  Attachment B Ms Carolyn Burke July 2 2014 Page 3 erroneous assumption throughout the decision that the published maps are the only place to go to locate the footprint of a Resource Site This is not so The definition of Resource Site in the plan says that the plan identifies sites not that it maps sites EC 0 9 500 says Goal 5 Water Resource Site As used in EC 4 9 900 to 4 9 980 and 8 2 9 030 1 the resource site as identified in the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan For riparian corridor and upland wildlife habitat sites the Goal 5 Water Resource Site includes the stream and riparian areas that may extend beyond applicable conservation setbacks Wetland sites include only the wetland itself emphasis added The tern identified is much broader than mapped Thus one looks to the entire plan to detennine what is the Resource Site and where it is located Legal Error b The Director erred in stating that the text of the ESEE as not part of the Goal 5 Plan saying that it is merely findings supporting the Goal 5 Plan By discounting the pedigree of the ESEE in this way the Director found it easy to ignore the text of the ESEE which says that it is the ash grove at this site that is to be protected The Director s discounting of the ESSE as mere findings is plainly wrong It does not matter what label the Goal 5 ordinance puts on the ESEE As a matter of state law it is a part of the comprehensive plan The status of the ESEE as a part of the plan or as an implementing regulation is guaranteed by the Goal 5 Rule OAR 660 4 says in relevant part The analyses of 0040 023 the ESEE consequences shall be adopted either as part of the plan or as a land use regulation More specifically the ESEE is text of the refinement plan which is incorporated into the Metro Plan Legal Error c The Director erred in stating that the text of this refinement plan does not control over the map in this refinement plan This erroneous assumption allowed the Director to completely discount the text of the ESSE even assuming that it is a part of the plan As a refinement plan of the Metro Plan the Goal 5 Plan is incorporated into the Metro Plan The text of refinement plans control over the Metro Plan diagram because they are incorporated into the Metro Plan See Opus Development Corp v City ofEugene 30 Or LUBA d 141 Or App 249 1996 If that is so then the text of the refinement plan certainly 360 376 aff controls over the maps in the refinement plan So based on all of the legal errors above the applicant requests the Hearing Official to Detennine that the text of the Goal 5 Plan in the ESEE states the intent to protect the ash grove at this location The Goal 5 map shows a larger area The map is by definition generalized The text states the plan s ultimate policy choice for this location The text controls over the graphic Based on this inforination all of which is included in the Goal 5 Plan the Hearing Official should direct the city staff to correct the mapping error to make the map match the text which says to protect the ash grove at this site HO Agenda - Page 10  Attachment B Ms Carolyn Burke July 2 2014 Page 4 We look forward to elaborating and providing more infonnation at the public hearing Sincerely Val Bill Kloos Encl Fonn Filing Fee Check HO Agenda - Page 11 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 12 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 13 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 14 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 15 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 16 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 17 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 18 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 19 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 20 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 21 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 22 Attachment C HO Agenda - Page 23 Attachment D HO Agenda - Page 24