1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-7-18 to 3-19-18)

i March 8, 2018 MAR 0 8 2018 Hearings Official City of Eugene Capital Hill Tentative PUD (PDT 17-1) Planning Division Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker, Regarding EC 9.7085 Quasi-Judicial Hearings-Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant. A decision to resolve the issues presented shall be based upon reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record. Under multiple approval criteria in EC 9.8320 etseq, the Planning Division Staff Report relies on the March 1, 2018 memo from Scott Gillespie. This memo is found in Attachment F of the Agenda for the March 7, 2018 Public Hearing, and is attached to this testimony as Exhibit A. The memo itself makes no reference to any Tentative PUD approval criteria, and appears to clearly not be directed at EC 9.8320(6), which requires unimpeded emergency response access to the PUD. ("Public Works staff defers to Eugene-Springfield Fire for a specific evaluation of Fire Codes and First Responder operations.") The Staff Report explicitly cites this memo under EC 9.8320(5)(c), which addresses requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis. The Staff Report also cites this memo under EC 9.8320(6), which appears to be an error on the part of staff (based on the memo's own deference to Eugene-Springfield Fire), and which I've also addressed in prior testimony regarding EC 9.8320(6). The Staff Report cites to the memo under EC 9.8320(7), which addresses adequate public services; but it's completely unclear for what reason. Finally, the staff report cites to the memo under EC 9.8320(11), which addresses minimal off-site impacts; here again, the connection seem tenuous. In any case, there is nothing at all in the Gillespie memo that the Hearings Official can rely upon as substantial, reliable and probative evidence. Exhibit B provides a list of questions and requests for clarifications that I provided to Mr. Gillespie, to which he responded: "I am comfortable with the content of the memo and don't have corrections or clarifications for the record at this time." In Exhibit B I've added (in blue typeface) my follow-up comments that demonstrate that the memo throughout is fraught with deficiencies. This would not be the first memo written by Mr. Gillespie that is a rambling collection of unsupported claims, erroneous statements and irrelevant points. In the recent Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing PUD (PDT 13-1) remand, after the Planning Division staff solicited testimony to bolster their defense of the City's approval, Gillespie's one-page memo was so filled with errors that the Planning Commission entirely ignored it in their revised findings and final order. See Exhibit C. I'm respectfully arguing that the Hearings Official reject, or in any case ignore, all references to the Gillespie memo in the Staff Report because any reliance on the Gillespie memo would not conform to the requirements of EC 9.7085.