MOTION TO REJECT OR STRIKE CITY STAFF 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. 101h Ave., Eugene, OR 97402 <br />Re: City File No. PDT 13-1; Oakleigh PUD <br />Unethical, biased and unreliable testimony by City staff <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />' Received <br />APR 19 2017 <br />City of Eugene <br />canning Division <br />I hereby move the Planning Commission to reject (or strike) the following documents from the <br />record in PDT 13-1 because they were produced and submitted by city staff with the intent to <br />bias the Planning Commissioners' decision in favor of the applicant, and the content of these <br />documents is therefore prejudicial and unreliable: <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 />Any reliance at all by commissioners on the contents of any of these documents would <br />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 Yamhlll County v. City of Newberg, 62 Or <br />LUBA 5 (2010) (citing Muller v. Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988)). <br />Although it isn't legally required, this motion is responsive to the above three <br />documents submitted during the first period of testimony. <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. <br />Opponents have submitted substantial and reliable evidence into the record that <br />Oakleigh Lane has a paving width of only 14 feet within a 250-foot long segment of the street <br />across which emergency response vehicles must pass as the only means of access to and from <br />the proposed PUD development. Opponents have submitted substantial and reliable evidence <br />into the record that that Oakleigh Lane cannot function as a "queuing street" to provide safe <br />Conte Motion to Reject/Strike PDT 13-1 April 19, 2017 Page 1 <br />