"In summary, Fire staff conclude that the proposed development will actually improve <br />safety for residents along Oakleigh Lane with the new turnaround." - Erik Berg- <br />Johansen memo, page 2. (Emphasis added.) <br />This statement is false. Dahl's opinion was much more limited: <br />"The proposed development accounts for actual safety improvements regarding <br />emergency response for both fire related and medical related responses." (Italics in <br />original.) <br />Dahl's statement then lists the three "actual safety improvements" as: <br />• An on-site turnaround, <br />• an on-site 20-foot access road, and <br />• on-site sprinkler systems <br />Dahl's comments and supporting examples do not say anything about the "safety for residents <br />along Oakleigh Lane," as Berg-Johansen falsely claimed. Berg-Johansen apparently felt he <br />needed to twist Mr. Dahl's statements to more forcefully support Berg-Johansen's previously <br />stated "hope" that staff from other departments would help "confirm that the queing [sic] street <br />is consistent with the code." <br />Berg-Johansen's misrepresentation is not merely a sloppy choice of words. Instead, it <br />takes Dahl's very limited facts and conclusion and turns them into a conclusion that would <br />effectively deny opponents' evidence and arguments, if believed by commissioners. <br />While the on-site elements mentioned by Dahl are arguably safety "improvements" for <br />PUD residents, these elements would obviously have no effect at all on the fundamental problem <br />with Oakleigh Lane or the safety of residents outside the PUD, which have been identified by <br />opponents - i.e., Oakleigh Lane is too narrow and obstructed to ensure unimpeded emergency <br />response. Dahl's comments did not address these issues at all, so Berg-Johansen had to concoct <br />a more effective, although false, conclusion as if it were Dahl's; and then send that false <br />information to the commissioners as relevant evidence supporting a finding that the application <br />met the criterion related to the safety of Oakleigh Lane. <br />The first thing to note, from a legal perspective, is that none of the testimony from Berg- <br />Johansen, Gillespie or Dahl is reliable as "independent," neutral opinions by staff <br />"professionals." The evidence demonstrates that all three staff comments were crafted to slant <br />and misrepresent the evidence to benefit the applicant and undermine opponents. Expert <br />testimony, submitted separately, by Massoud Saberian (PE, PTOE), an independent traffic <br />engineer, provides a detailed analysis demonstrating that the content of the Gillespie and Dahl <br />documents is unreliable, regardless of the intent behind it. Thus, in any case, none of the <br />comments in these three documents can be relied upon as "substantial, reliable and probative" <br />evidence upon which adequate findings can be based. <br />Further, the fact that these three staff colluded to misdirect the planning commissioners' <br />deliberations and then signed statements that were false and misleading requires that their <br />testimony be rejected (or struck) from the record in order to ensure the planning <br />commissioners' findings do not promulgate the bias that these documents reflect. <br />Conte Motion to Reject/Strike PDT 13-1 April 19, 2017 Page 5 <br />