findings and decision-making, including any additional geotechnical analysis required for <br />individual permits. It would be folly for the Planning Commission to again try to avoid <br />ensuring the public safety of its citizens. <br />Finally, I respectfully request that Commissioner Tiffany Edwards recuse herself from <br />her role as decision-maker because of prior statements made in favor of the development and <br />against the opponents of the development, as represented in an email string entitled Capital Hill <br />Testimony). In that email exchange, where Bree Nicolello Schirmer Satre Group and former <br />planning commission member was preparing testimony for Tiffany Edwards to submit on behalf <br />of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. See Exhibit A (Tiffany Edwards stating: I think its <br />important for the City to know the types of very specific barriers developers are facing. If <br />nobody can build either because of red tape or lawsuits or NIMBYs stopping development, <br />funds from any CET have nowhere to go. Im hearing that projects keep getting scrapped <br />because either they dont pencil financially, or theyre not worth all the legal expense to fight the <br />NIMBY opposition.). <br />Parties to land use hearings and decisions are entitled to a tribunal which is impartial in <br />the matter. Fasano v. Washington County, 264 Or 574, 577, 507 P2d 23 (1973), and Fasano <br />was intended to insulate decisions from private economic interests. Eastgate Theater v. Bd. Of <br />County Comm, 37 Or App 754, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Here, Commissioner Edwards has <br />prejudged this matter by making explicit statements about this PUD application. This is not <br />simply a matter of appearance of bias but also actual bias against the NIMBY opponents <br />and prejudgment in favor of this particular application. See Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop <br />County, 267 Or App 578, 341 P3d 790 (2014). Under ORS 197.835(12) and ORS 227.180(3), <br />Commissioner Edwards must (a) \[p\]lace\[\] on the record the substance of any written or oral ex <br />parte communications concerning the decision or action; and (b) \[h\]as a public announcement of <br />the content of the communication and of the parties right to rebut the substance the <br />communication made at the first hearing following the communication where action will be <br />considered or take on the subject to which the communication related. (emphasis added). In <br />short, opponents are entitled to cross-examine Commissioner Edwards about the issues of <br />prejudgment and bias raised by Commissioner Edwards email. <br />For the above reasons, the application on remand must be denied because the applicant <br />has not satisfied. <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Sean T. Malone <br />Cc: <br />4 <br />