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