In summary, after spending long hours studying the Tentative PUD application and attempting to <br />“ <br />learn as much as possible about the relevant sections of the Eugene Code, it was disappointing to <br />read the staff report. I held out hope that the planning department might look at this development with <br />a more critical eye, but in far too many sections the Application's assertions were accepted without <br />question and used nearly verbatim to explain why the PUD application should be approved.” <br />(Kathleen Masterson, Additional testimony 3/20/18) I fully concur with Kathleen on this. The exact <br />reasoning used in the application was used by the city in their report consistently. The professional <br />reports the applicant submitted were accepted without question and in fact the city went through the <br />effort to produce and include Attachment F from Scott Gillespie whose sole purpose appears to be to <br />argue in support of the reasoning in the application and the professional reports produced for the <br />applicant. The lack of a critical eye by the city makes it clear that the developer's interests have been <br />driving the process, not a more expected ensuring that the applicant's plan actually met city codes. <br />This process has fallen on the public and shown that if we had not hired our own more qualified <br />professionals to do higher quality reports than the applicant and had not spent countless hours <br />researching the applicant's plan and relevant codes, the city would simply be acting as an endorser <br />and promoter of a plan created by a private developer and selling that plan to the hearings official for <br />a relatively clean approval of what we have established is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous <br />plan built upon faulty logic and poorly done professional reports. This process has caused me to lose <br />great faith in the independent decision making of the city. There was little if any here. Their report was <br />an endorsement of poorly done work. We have established with incontrovertible evidence that the <br />proposed development would violate many of the Criteria put forth by the city and should be denied in <br />full. <br />5 <br /> <br />