Supplemental Testimony re PDT 17-1 - Submitted by Paul Conte <br />testimony is attached) clearly describes a slew of edits and versions that may or may not <br />be reflected identically in both documents. See for example, the final statement: <br />"Nick Gioello combined the text of the Referral Comments (as revised on 2-13- <br />18) and the Dolan findings into a PDF document labeled 'November 30, 2017 - <br />Revised February 28, 2018.' That document is available online at <br />http://pdd. eugene-or. gov/LandUse/DocumentDetails?file=PDT-17- <br />0001&id=1972166. That document was not placed before the Hearings Official <br />but contains information virtually identical to that included in the Staff Report <br />that was placed before the Hearings Official." <br />"[V]irtually identical" doesn't pass legal muster as "identical." <br />Staff's approach reminds me of Abbott & Costello's "Who's On First" routine, just not <br />as humorous, given the intent of Statewide Planning Goal One and ORS 197.763(4)(b). <br />The February 28, 2018 version of the staff report (i.e., file _03072018-870.pdf) has <br />another potential problem. This version of the staff report relies on "referral comments <br />from Public Works Engineering staff [that] are incorporated within this staff report" <br />(emphasis added) under multiple criteria, including this example under EC 9.8320(5)(a) <br />"With regard to street design and public right-of-way dedication requirements, <br />referral comments from Public Works Engineering staff are incorporated within <br />this staff report and confirm the following findings: no additional right-of-way <br />dedication or special setback is required as a result of this development." Page 25 <br />of Staff Report. <br />Public Works staff submitted multiple versions of "PW Referral Response" documents, <br />as well as ad hoc revisions. For a planning staff report to "incorporate" and jely upon a <br />formal "referral response" document from the Public Works Department, obviously the <br />referral document must be made available to the public at the same time (or earlier), or <br />at least made available before the deadline for the staff report. Otherwise, there is no <br />way for the public to get the full content (i.e., what was incorporated) and details upon <br />which the staff report places such important reliance. <br />Accordingly, all references in the February 28, 2018 staff report that rely upon "referral <br />comments from Public Works Engineering staff" cannot be relied upon by the hearings <br />official. The Hearings Official might be on safe ground to rely on versions of PWD <br />referral comments that were clearly posted and available to the public prior to 5:30 p.m., <br />February 28, 2018. To the degree that the Hearings Official chooses that route, she must <br />specifically identify the document that is the source of any "incorporated" statements. <br />In any case, it is not the public's responsibility to unwind the mess created by the staff. <br />Nor does the law require the Hearings Official to do any more than consider the parts <br />of the staff report that do not rely on referral comments that weren't both available and <br />March 21, 2018 <br />