Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte <br />Comment: See comment under question #23. <br />30. RE: "City staff re-paved the street systems serving the site prior to the PUD application. The <br />evaluation and conclusions for re-paving were made independent of the PUD application. Multiple <br />City of Eugene transportation professionals reviewed the rehabilitation plan and the plan was <br />approved to reconstruct to historical grades, controls and parking patterns." <br />Please explain how these historical events and decisions, made in the absence of any consideration <br />of the proposed PUD's impacts, are probative the current PUD approval process. <br />Comment: Gillespie declined to explain his statement. His statement is not probative. <br />31. "The applicant's engineer provided a robust traffic study and concluded the existing roadway <br />system is safe and adequate to serve. I have also reviewed the roadway system and conclude there <br />is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development <br />site. Therefore, City staff concurs with the applicant's engineer and recommends the existing <br />transportation system is adequate to serve the proposed development and no offsite mitigation is <br />required." <br />Correct me if I'm wrong. This is your summary and contains no additional supporting evidence or <br />analysis. <br />Comment: Gillespie did not indicate my (Conte) understanding was incorrect. Obviously, this <br />paragraph adds no reliable or probative evidence or relevant argument. <br />March 8, 2018 P a g e 19 <br />