Appeal Responsive Testimony re PDT 13-1 <br />April 19, 2017 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner <br />City of Eugene <br />99 West 10th Avenue, <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Submitted by: Paul Conte <br />Send notices to: 1461 W. 1011, Ave., Eugene, OR 97402 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Opposition to Hearings Official Decision <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />Y7 <br />Received ~APR 19 2017 <br />LIZ City of Eugene <br />Plannina Divisinn <br />The following testimony is in response to the following testimony submitted during the first <br />period of the evidentiary hearing: <br />• April 12, 2017 memo from Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner <br />• April 10, 2017 memo from Scott Gillespie, Public Works Department staff <br />• April 12, 2017 comments from Mark H. Dahl, Deputy Fire Marshal <br />My "Motion to Reject or Strike City Staff Testimony re PDT 13-1" provides written evidence <br />that the above testimony was produced and submitted by staff with the intent to bias the <br />Planning Commissioners decision in favor of the applicant <br />The statements by Gillespie and Dahl were intentionally solicited by Berg-Johansen to <br />undermine critical evidence and testimony in opposition to the application. Berg-Johansen then <br />misrepresented Gillespie's and Dahl's statements to further mislead commissioners. As a <br />consequence, the statements and conclusions in these documents do not provide reliable <br />evidence. Any reliance at all by commissioners on the contents of any of these documents <br />would prejudice my substantial rights, and I (and other opponents of the application) would be <br />deprived of our rights to "an opportunity to prepare and submit a case and a full and fair <br />hearing" before LUBA. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) Friends of Yamhill County v. City of Newberg, 62 Or <br />LUBA 5 (2010) (citing Muller v. Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988)). <br />If the Planning Commission were to make the unwise decision to give any consideration to <br />these documents, the following testimony demonstrates that they do not provide any <br />substantial, reliable and probative evidence. <br />Conte Appeal Responsive Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 1 April 19, 2017 <br />