Exhibit 7

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 13
roberts 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW Up 

May 29, 2009 

JUL 0 1 2009 

Environmental 

Cleanup Office 

Direct Phone 

503.219.8133 

Direct Facsimil e 

800.600.2138 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

E-Mail 

hutch@robertskaplan.com 

Dan Opalski 

Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 6'*^ Avenue, M/S ECL-111 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Re: Linnton Plywood Association 

Portland Harbor Superfund Site Opportunity 

USEPA SF 

Iiiii i 

, iiilill lllillilll 

1309314 

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION (FRE 408) 

Dear Mr. Opalski: 

As counsel to and on behalf of Linnton Plywood Association, an Oregon cooperative 

corporation ("LPA"), we submit this request for EPA's early determination (at the reasonably 

earliest possible time) that LP A and its property, known as 10504 NW St. Helens Road, 

Portland, Oregon, as shown on Exhibits A-1 and A-2 ("Property"), are eligible for a de minimis 

settlement of any alleged liability arising out ofthe Portland Harbor-Willamette River ("Portland 

Harbor") Superfund Site. This determination and settlement ("Settlement") with EPA will allow 

LPA to proceed with its pending sale transaction with BP West Coast Products LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company ("BP") which will result in the redevelopment of the Property 

consistent with the goals of EPA's ER3 program and will allow the release 'of life savings to 

LPA's 199 members. As stated previously, BP is not willing to complete the transaction unless 

it is clear that it will not assume any liability because of past or current operations on the 

Property. BP's purchase ofthe Property is supported by a wide array of interests because ofthe 

environmental, social and economic benefits it will provide, as will be described in this letter. 

The purpose of this submission is to establish a foundation and mutually agreed path 

forward for EPA's consideration. To accomplish this purpose, this submission: (a) includes a 

description of LPA's manufacturing and regulatory history, (b) proposes a method of analysis to 

demonstrate LPA's de minimis contribution of contaminants to Portland Harbor sediment, and 

(c) describes the benefits that an early de minimis Settlement would provide to the community 

and the environment. At this point, LPA seeks EPA's concurrence that the path forward 

described in this letter provides an acceptable basis to proceed to determine whether LPA 

30162289.12 

601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 | PHONE: 503.221.0607 | FAX: 503.221.1510 | WEB: robertskaplan.com 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 2 

qualifies for a de minimis Settlement that will account for its liability for response costs for the 

Portland Harbor Superfiind Site. 

(A) Past and Current Operations on the Property and the Property's regulatory history 

reveal nominal potential contaminant sources and pathways to the River. 

1. Manufacturing processes and potential impacts. LPA's Property has had a 

long but relatively simple history of industrial use. The Property was first developed as 

the Clark and Wilson Lumber Company', which operated from 1894 to 1947, when 

significant portions of the mill bumed. LPA began operation in the surviving sawmill 

building in 1951, and operated on the northem portion ofthe Property unfil 2001, when it 

closed because of changing market conditions^. The southem portion ofthe Property was 

unused fi'om 1947 until 1994 when LPA leased the land for use as a sand transfer site, 

which involves slurrying clean sand ashore fi-om a barge and tmcking the sand offsite . 

The sand transfer operation is still active. 

These uses ofthe Property over the past 100 years have involved activities which 

have had relatively little potential impact on the Willamette River and its sediments, hi 

earlier days, the sawmill converted logs to lumber, with wood waste (used for fiiel) being 

the byproduct''. LPA's plywood operation was also timber-based, and fi'om 1951 to 1992 

LPA cut logs to length in the River and moved them by conveyor into the plant, where 

they were peeled into veneer^. The veneer was dried in kilns fired by sawdust and natural 

gas. The veneer was then glued together with a phenol-formaldehyde glue mixed on the 

Property fi-om formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide and soda ash (none of which contained 

polynuclear aiomatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), metals, polychlorinated biphenyls 

("PCBs")^, or other constituents identified as contaminants in the sediments offshore 

fi-om LPA). Plywood was shipped fi-om the plant in trucks and by rail^. No glue waste 

was generated, as excess glue was mixed with water and recycled back into a mixing 

tank. Wood waste was sold for fiiel^. 

Other products used in the plywood manufacturing process included water-based 

paint (used for painting plywood edges) and light petroleum hydrocarbons (such as diesel 

fiiel)^. Four underground storage tanks were removed in the 1990s with clean closure 

from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ")'°. Several small soil 

removals were conducted in 2003; one to remove accumulated abrasive material used in 

sharpening lathe blades", and one to remove soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons and 

metals fi-om beneath a stormwater outfall (which drained an outdoor steam cleaning pad 

and a small paved area at the North side of the plant)'^. The soil was tested and taken to a 

municipal waste landfill. Wood ash residue fi-om the sawdust-fired veneer kiln was 

trapped in an air pollution control device, and the residue (about one cubic yard per 

month) was initially placed onsite'''. Material generated after 1997 was shipped to a 

municipal waste landfill'''. Material remaining onsite was tested in 2007, found to be 

benign, and with DEQ approval, left onsite'^. 

The sand operation on the southem portion of the Property did not store fiiels 

onsite until recently, when small quantities of fuel and oils were brought on the 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 3 

Property, within secondary containment, for equipment maintenance'^. The northem 

portion ofthe Property is used, beginning in 1997 and continuing to the present, for 

the storage of steel rail and track hardware'^. The plant building and paved portions 

near it were also leased after the plant closed in 2001 to several entities for the 

temporary storage of forest products equipment, pallet wood and miscellaneous 

equipment'^. Current stormwater controls were maintained during this period'^. 

2. Regulatory history. LPA operated under relevant permits for its operations, 

including an air discharge permit (veneer dryer stack), a stormwater permit (outfalls), and 

a dredging permit (clearing wood debris fi-om its in-water log processing area)^°. 

LPA reported a spill of about 25 gallons of a diesel-like petroleum hydrocarbon to 

01 • 

a storm drain in 1995 . The spill created a sheen on the River which quickly dissipated 

and no further regulatory action was taken. 

LPA entered DEQ's Voluntary Cleanup Program in 2000, to assess its potential 

contribution of contamination to Portland Harbor, hi 2004, DEQ concluded, with EPA 

concurrence, that LPA was not a current or likely fiiture source of contamination to the 

River. DEQ also determined that LPA's inclusion in DEQ's confirmed release hst was 

not warranted. Further investigation and evaluation was conducted in 2007 to support a 

determination of "no fiirther action" ("NFA") for the Property, which is expected fi-om 

DEQbyJune 15,2009^1 

3. Potential Contaminant sources and pathways. Historical uses ofthe Property 

did not include chemicals or processes likely to release significant quantities of hazardous 

substances. Several environmental investigations have been conducted on the Property, 

and the results of these studies validates the logical conclusion that the Property has had a 

nominal impact on River sediment. 

The historical operations on the Property had no process or industrial discharges to 

the River. The only direct contact with the River by plant equipment was the conveyor 

belt, which operated fi-om 1951 to 1992, moving logs fi-om the River up to the veneer 

lathe^^. Potential contaminants associated with the Property include the following: 

• Small quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons (and by association the small PAH 

component of these products) associated with miscellaneous oils (e.g., hydraulic 

fluid), lubrication greases, fiiels, and a diesel-grade oil used for some plywood 

products to keep wood forms fi-om adhering to concrete^''; 

• 

• 

Very small quantities of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and semi-volatile 

organic compounds ("SVOCs") potentially associated with equipment 

maintenance, cleaning and repair^^; 

Potential though unlikely releases of PCBs associated with onsite electrical 

transformers ; and, 

Metals fi-om general Property operations and zinc fi-om stormwater mnoff fi-om a 

galvanized metal roof^^. 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 4 

Environmental investigations have focused on three potential pathways to the River: (1) 

entrainment and transport of contaminated soils in stormwater discharge, (2) riverbank soils in 

areas where stormwater outfalls discharge, and (3) the discharge of groundwater which may have 

been affected by historic releases. Constituents detected in groundwater include low levels of 

metals (below DEQ ecological risk screening criteria) and low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons 

in an unfiltered sample near the maintenance shop area^^. A petroleum hydrocarbon plume on the 

southwestem comer of the Property is being addressed by the adjoining property owner with 

DEQ oversight^^ 

LPA conducted a focused evaluation of ecological risk using sediment data reported by 

the Lower Willamette Group ("LWG")''*'. This evaluation showed an absence of unacceptable 

ecological risk, a conclusion corroborated by bioassay testing conducted by the LWG, which 

showed high organism survival rates and low ecological risk^'. 

(B) The apportionment framework described below should establish LPA's less than 

1/10*'' of 1% de minimis apportioned share of responsibility for Portland Harbor 

CERCLA Response Costs. 

With EPA's acknowledgment that our suggested path forward provides a reasonable 

basis to proceed, we propose to provide our detailed analysis in a second supporting submission 

in the July-August timefi-ame. This submission will also include any response to data or 

information requests received fi-om EPA. This analysis will be based on both qualitative and 

quantitative assessments of LPA's potential and apparent contribution to contamination in 

Portland Harbor. 

We understand that the Remedial hivestigation report prepared by the LWG will be 

received by EPA later this summer. When this report is received, it can be used to validate 

LPA's analysis. However, LPA suggests that with currently-available data it is possible to do 

two things: 

• Demonstrate that past operations on LPA's Property had de minimis (<0.1%) 

contributions to contamination in Portland Harbor; and 

• Estimate that contribution for purposes of discussing a Settlement with EPA in 

advance of the Remedial Investigation report. The methodology needed to 

accomplish this task is simplified by the fact that there were no process-related 

discharges to the Willamette River fi-om past operations on the Property. 

An estimate of any contribution of contaminants fi-om past operations on the Property can be 

accomplished using methodology similar to that used for other multi-party Superfimd sediment 

sites, and will include the following steps: 

(1) Inventory the contaminants of interest ("COIs") detected on the Property and in 

the adjacent sediments; 

(2) For those COIs detected both upland and in nearby sediments, compare the 

sediment COI concentrations adjacent to the Property with potential risk-based 

criteria and with concentrations measured in sediments elsewhere in Portland 

Harbor; 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 5 

(3) Consider toxicity data for sediment adjacent to the Property and document the fact 

that active remediation is not required for the sediments adjacent to the Property; 

(4) Assess any potential contribution to harbor-wide contamination by considering: 

(a) potential on-site sources (focusing on the magnitude and nature of the use of 

COIs on the Property) versus off-site sources, (b) potential on-site and off-site 

pathways to the River, and (c) the distribution (i.e., depth and volume) of 

sediment contamination relative to potential pathways to the River; 

(5) Provide an estimate of the contribution fi-om operations on the Property to 

Portland Harbor contamination, with a transparent description of all calculations 

and assumptions used; and 

(6) Review the de minimis calculations with EPA. 

LPA's apportionment of liability based on the outline of steps described above will 

comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe 

Railway Co.. et al. v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1870, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3006 (2009). hi that 

case, the Court concluded that where a defendant provides evidence of a "reasonable basis" for 

apportioning liability, even if such an apportionment is less than exact or fully precise, the 

defendant may avoid the imposition of "joint and several liability" under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Id. at *31. Thus, 

apportioned liability rather than joint and several liability should be applied where the harm is 

legally divisible. 

In Burlington Northern, the Court found that the following factors provided a reasonable 

basis to apportion liability to the railroad: 

(1) The percentage ofthe overall site that was owned by the railroads; 

(2) The percentage of time that the railroads leased the parcel to the facility operator 

in relation to the total time period the facility operated; and, 

(3) The percentage of chemicals that were found to be attributable to the parcel 

owned by the railroads. 

The method of apportioning liability that LPA proposes is much more precise and will provide a 

much more defensible method than the Court found acceptable in Burlington Northern. Thus, 

we are hopefial that EPA will agree that the method proposed will provide a reasonable basis to 

proceed to determine LPA's share of hability for Portland Harbor response costs. 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 6 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 6 

(C) This Settlement is consistent with EPA's guidance and is in the public interest. 

Based on our evaluation that any releases fi-om LPA's Property are minimal and any 

response costs associated with the Property are minor in relation to the Portland Harbor Site, we 

believe LPA is eligible for a de minimis early Settlement of CERCLA claims pursuant to 42 USC 

§ 9622(g)(1)(A). We believe all ofthe elements of this Section of CERCLA will be satisfied: 

(1) Response costs are minor. Based on present information described above, and 

pending the results of the Remedial Investigation, response costs arising from the 

Property appear to be very minor. 

(2) The volume of hazardous substances contributed is minimal. This standard, 

as applied, does not require precise figures and may include a range. Streamlined 

Approach for Settlements with De Minimis Waste Contributors under CERCLA § 

122 (g)(1)(A), dated July 30, 1993, (the "1993 Guidance"), p. 2. There is no 

bright-line percentage for determining whether a contribution is "minimal". The 

determination is site-specific. Id. As of the 1993 Guidance, "minimal" 

contributions ranged fi-om .07% to 10.0% of the total volume of hazardous 

substances released at a facility, with a mean of 1.059%) and a median of 1.0%o. 

Id. at n. 5. The Property has contributed less than 0.1% to Portland Harbor's 

contamination. 

(3) The hazardous effects of the substances contributed are minimal. If the 

hazardous substances released by a defendant "are not significantly more toxic 

and not of significantly greater hazardous effect than other hazardous substances 

at the facility", then the "toxic or other hazardous effects" of the released 

contamination will be deemed minimal. 1993 Guidance, at p. 2 (intemal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). The de-listing and the imminent issuance 

of DEQ's NFA, along with the LWG's and EPA's Remedial Investigation all 

show that any hazardous substances released fi'om the Property are less hazardous 

or toxic than other hazardous substances at the Portland Harbor Site. 

(4) The Settlement is practicable and in the public interest. The proposed de 

minimis Settlement is practicable, and in the public interest, as demonstrated by 

the support of the City, the Portland Development Commission, the Port of 

Portland, the Linnton Community, and the Natural Resource Tmstees. 

Methodologies for Implementation of CERCLA § 122 (g)(1)(A) De Minimis 

Waste Contributor Settlements, dated December 20, 1989; United States v. 

Borough ofLemoyne, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21533, =^13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 

1994) (appljdng criteria). 

By entering into an early de minimis Settlement with LPA, EPA not only achieves a fair 

settlement of CERCLA response cost claims, obtaining payment of LPA's response costs, but 

EPA also satisfies a critical requirement for the redevelopment of LPA's Property as desired by 

EPA and all federal, state and local stakeholders, consistent with the public interest. As stated 

earlier, LPA's Settlement with EPA is supported by wide array of interests, including the City of 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 7 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 7 

Portland, the Portland Development Commission, the Port of Portland, the Linnton community, 

and the Natural Resource Tmstees. 

(D) The redevelopment of the Property that would result from this Settlement and 

LPA's transaction with BP would meet the goals of EPA's ER3 program and the 

Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustees ("the Trustees"). 

EPA's Settlement with LPA is needed for LPA to proceed with its sale ofthe Property to 

BP. A conceptual site plan showing how BP intends to redevelop the Property is attached as 

Exhibit B. If the sale ofthe Property closes, BP's plan to redevelop the Property will satisfy a 

number of interests. First, BP's redevelopment plan will preserve for ecological uses a 

significant portion of the Property's undeveloped shoreline. The Portland Harbor Natural 

Resource Tmstees have expressed a high level of interest in preserving and enhancing the 

Property's shoreline to provide additional near shore habitat for the Harbor's threatened and 

endangered wildlife. BP's redevelopment plan will also include a significant amount of open 

green space which local residents and the City of Portland find appealing. Finally, the plan will 

eventually retum the upland northem and southem portions of the Property to productive 

industrial use, consistent with the land use goals of the Port of Portland and the Portland 

Development Commission. 

BP's plan to redevelop the Property satisfies ER3's core mission which is "to establish 

the next generation of environmental protection—one that proactively prevents and/or reduces 

contamination in the developed environment". BP's plan to use a significant amount of the 

Property for open space and preserve the River's natural shoreline will satisfy ER3's primary 

goal, as will using the remaining upland portion of the Property for industrial use that will 

comply with state and local land use and environmental laws. Industrial use of the Property will 

also create additional jobs for the community and will provide economic development where 

infi-astmcture already exists for such development. We believe LPA's sale ofthe Property to BP 

and BP's redevelopment plan for the Property provides an exciting opportunity for Region 10 to 

showcase how it can help to facilitate the redevelopment of a unique and under-utilized parcel of 

property within the Portland Harbor Superfund Site that will satisfy multiple interests and ER3's 

goals. 

(E) LPA's remaining members need this Settlement to permit their realization of the 

social and economic benefits they have earned. 

LPA ceased operating on a cooperative basis in 2001. Since that time, its efforts have 

been focused on an orderly liquidation of its assets which has been expensive and we hope will 

culminate with the sale of the Property soon. LPA has addressed environmental issues during 

this period and sought a purchaser for the Property. 

Over the course of LPA's 50 years as a worker-owned plywood manufacturing 

cooperative, its working members have capitalized the cooperative out of their taxable earnings. 

Normally those contributions would have been distributed back to the members over time. But a 

significant portion of the capital contributions have not been retumed to LPA's working 

members, and will remain unavailable until the Property is sold. Retuming those fimds and the 

proceeds realized fi-om the proposed sale ofthe Property to the 199 remaining members will help 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 8 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 8 

alleviate the financial hardship many of them are experiencing. With an average member age of 

over 65 years and 35 members who are over 80 years old, it is possible that some members will 

not live long enough to receive proceeds due them unless the Property is sold soon. 

CONCLUSION 

The requested Settlement is supported by the law and underlying facts pertinent to the 

Property. These include the Property's historic use, the plywood manufacturing process and 

constituents utilized, the Property's regulatory history (including upland source de-listing and 

DEQ's anticipated NFA detennination), and LWG's and EPA's scientific sediment analytical and 

characterization results. 

In addition, because the Property is immediately below the City of Portland's Forest Park 

and has the longest vegetated shoreline within the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, it affords the 

Natural Resource Tmstees a unique species refugia and mitigation opportunity which is 

enhanced by BP's carefiilly balanced redevelopment plan. In the near future, LPA and BP plan 

to meet with the Tmstees to explore how BP's redevelopment plan might be coordinated with the 

Tmstees' plans for Portland Harbor and explore settlement of any claims the Tmstees' may have 

against LPA. Retuming the Property to economic productivity in an environmentally sensitive 

manner is consistent with EPA's ER3 goals and is supported by the Linnton Community, the Port 

of Portland and the City of Portland (and the Portland Development Commission) under their 

Harbor Ready (ReDi) Initiative. Finally, a favorable EPA determination would permit LPA's 

199 working members to recover their eamings in their lifetime. 

We respectfiilly request EPA's consideration of LPA's proposed path forward to 

apportion its CERCLA liability for Portland Harbor response costs. We look forward to EPA's 

response after you've had a chance to consider this submission. Because I am traveling out of 

the country until June 26, 2009, during my absence please contact my partner, Elia Popovich at 

503-221-7303 or epopovich(a)jobertskaplan.com. Please note our new firm name and, for fiiture 

reference, my new email address hutch@robertskaplan.com. 

Very tmly yours, 

William P. Hutchison 

WPH/dod 

cc: Kristine Koch - Project Manager, Office of Environmental Cleanup 

Lori Houck Cora - Assistant Regional Counsel 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 9 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 9 

References 

EPA 104(E) Response - Linnton Plywood Association, Portland Harbor, Portland, Oregon. 

Prepared by CH2M HILL. October 23, 2008 ("LPA, 2008"). 

' (LPA, 2008) Questions 8 and 11 

^ (LPA, 2008) Question 20 

^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 11 and 20 

" (LPA, 2008) Question 11 

^ (LPA, 2008) Question 20 

^ (LPA, 2008) Question 21 

'(LPA, 2008) Question21 

* (LPA, 2008) Question 21 

'(LPA, 2008) Question 21 

'" (LPA, 2008) Questions 13, 62, 64, and 72 

" (LPA, 2008) Questions 16, 21, 36, 39, 40, 62, 63, 64, and 72 

'^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 63, 64, and 72 

'^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 13, 16, 21, 26, 36, and 62 

'" (LPA, 2008) Questions 26, 39, and 40 

' ' (LPA, 2008) Questions 16 

'^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 28 and 32 

" (LPA, 2008) Questions 6 and 20 

'* (LPA, 2008) Question 6 

"(LPA, 2008) Question 13 

^^ (LPA, 2008) Question 52 

^' (LPA, 2008) Questions 18, 22, 24, 51, 58, 60, 62, 64, and 67 

^^ http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=237^ 

" (LPA, 2008) Questions 22 and 23 

^^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 21, 32, and 34 

" (LPA, 2008) Questions 34 and 64 

^* (LPA, 2008) Questions 22, 36, 47, 48, 51, 60, 62, and 67 • 

" (LPA, 2008) Questions 18 and 63 

^* (LPA, 2008) Questions 65, 66, and 71 

^' (LPA, 2008) Questions 6, 13, and 66 

^^ (LPA, 2008) Questions 15 and 71 

^' http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/website/portal/portland/pdfs/figure_ToxData.pdf 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 10 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 10 

EXHIBIT A-1 

Diagram of the Property 

30162289.12 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 11 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 11 

EXHIBIT A-2 

Diagram of the Property 

Ckttti 

2mi miio i 

Legend 

iBlenwl Property Une 

Appndmae River Bank 

}S<inmmM»a 

_>i__ii-s StwmOnlnLlnta 

— — — — — — OswiCtairwl 

— 1—" — Gr»*yS««fU>M 

:—n — PnssurlzKJSffHrUnfls 

— c> — a — ComBBwl Stma m m 

........ OnfnajtBnlnBandBy 

1 Stnn Dtam m 

I Rvnoval AcOcni 

© SarvleUiaislon.KKll 

Sarvli Location, 2002 

Sample Lnailon. 2007 

Nca: ill utiliv loaHons IHOIKI m apdmifflgii. 

@ 

-Ih 

SCAlf: T = 100' 

m g in 

Exhibit B 

Sampling Locations 

LINNTON PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION 

PORrLAND,0%GON 

fM2MHILl 

VnWfitfUwmrt'i^oM.—o:. ..„..II.-,i:.-i-^|/.«;j45 l.u> 21 S08-»3pir 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 12 of 13
May 29, 2009 

Page 12 

EXHIBIT B 

Conceptual Plan for the Proposed 

Redevelopment of the Property 

Case 3:14-cv-01772-MO Document 33-21 Filed 04/10/15 Page 13 of 13