and unimpeded access by emergency response vehicles. Opponents have also submitted <br />substantial and reliable evidence into the record that a paving width of only 14 feet cannot <br />provide safe and unimpeded emergency response. Opponents rely in large measure (but not <br />solely) on these facts to demonstrate that the PUD does not conform to the mandatory approval <br />criterion in EC 9.8320(6): <br />9.8320(6) "The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including <br />but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an <br />impediment to emergency response." <br />Prior to receiving any testimony, on March 23, 2017, Berg-Johansen, the city planner assigned to <br />this case, sent an e-mail to Scott Gillespie and Ed Haney, Public Works Department (PWD) staff <br />members, containing the following request: <br />"We expect that opponents will submit hundreds of pages of evidence saying why a 14' <br />queing [sic] street (Oakleigh Lane) is not safe, and how it does not meet City standards. <br />We will need PW to weigh in on this issue, and some of the key issues to evaluate are on <br />Page 6 of the PC's initial Final Order (see attachment). There is discussion of Mike <br />Weishar's letter, the Eimstad survey, and statements about how a 14' queing [sic] street <br />can provide safe access. <br />"I am hoping your team can reevaluate the findings in this original Final Order and <br />confirm that the queing [sic] street is consistent with the code. Ed, I was also wondering <br />if you could find a few additional examples where a 14' queing [sic] street was allowed <br />through a Land Use Decision?" (Exhibit A, bold in original) <br />The first thing to note is how Berg-Johansen makes a point of setting up his request by stating <br />what "we expect" from opponents. Considering the request that Berg-Johansen then makes in <br />the next paragraph, this setup can have served no other purpose than to identify a threat that <br />Berg-Johansen perceived would be posed by opponents' "hundreds of pages of evidence." <br />Berg-Johansen then expresses his personal "hope" that "your team" can rebut this <br />anticipated evidence by "confirm[ing] that the queing [sic] street is consistent with the code." <br />A legitimate request for PWD staff to reevaluate the commissioners' prior findings would <br />have requested that the PWD staff "determine whether or not Oakleigh Lane is consistent with <br />the code for a queuing street." In contrast, Berg-Johansen's request was meant to serve his <br />prejudicial objective of skewing the commissioners' findings. <br />This effort to solicit biased statements from PWD staff to undermine opponents' <br />evidence and arguments is made even clearer by Berg-Johansen expressing his further "hope" <br />that Ed Haney "could find a few additional examples where a 14' queing [sic] street was <br />allowed through a Land Use Decision." A legitimate request for PWD staff to reevaluate the <br />commissioners' prior findings would not have asked for only such "examples" as would help <br />him undermine opponents' arguments. <br />In response to this request Gillespie provided a memo, dated April 10, 2017 (Exhibit B) <br />that made no mention of "queuing street" or 14' paving width. Gillespie did, however, provide <br />Conte Motion to Reject/Strike PDT 13-1 April 19, 2017 Page 2 <br />