Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />Traffic/Speed/Pedestrian Safety (Ferris) –traffic issues have been resolved. <br />Tree Removal Generally (Ferris, O’Connor) –tree issues have been resolved. <br />Need For Affordable Housing (Ferris) –outside the scope of remand and approval <br />criteria. <br />EC 9.8320(10) and EC 9.6710 (Dorsey, Schleider) –Standards not applicable, not within <br />the scope of remand. <br />Increase protections beyond what is provided by the Eugene Code (Hoffman, Teich) – <br />outside scope of remand and beyond Planning Commission’s authority. <br />Negative Impact on environment, noise, visual and air quality (Mackey) –issues have <br />been resolved, outside scope of remand. <br />Emergency Response (Mackey, Teich) –issues have been resolved, outside the scope of <br />remand. <br />Future Storm Events (Teich) –outside the scope of remand. <br />Procedural Issues: <br />Commissioner Tiffany Edwards shouldnot recuse herself from this proceeding. <br />Neighbors’ attorney Sean Malone requested that Commissioner Tiffany Edwards recuse <br />herself, alleging that she is biased. Mr. Malone’s legal position is not well taken,and the <br />evidence in the record does not demonstrate that Commissioner Edwards need or even should <br />recuse herself.At most, she should acknowledge the allegation and publicly assert, if <br />appropriate, that she has not prejudged the decision and is not biased. <br />The Court of Appeals in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, 289 Or App <br />507, 552, 410 P3d 1051 (2017) explained that the touchstone of bias is whether the comments <br />show that the decision maker is not capable of judging the controversy fairlyon its own facts. <br />The court explained that the key to evaluating claims of bias is whetherthe evidence <br />demonstratesthe decision-maker’sprejudgment of the specific factsof the application, not the <br />decision-maker’s particular views on policy matters or aspects of the law. Here, all of the <br />evidence Mr. Malone points to addressesgeneralpolicy matters and refersto this application <br />only in reference to it being an example of a context where those types ofpolicy concernsarise. <br />The emails do not discuss the details of this application or prejudge the merits of the application. <br />Even the case cited by Mr. Malone does not fully support his position. Eastgate Theatre, <br />Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 37 Or App 745,751-55,588 P2d 640 (1978). It cites and <br />relies on cases that have held that the principles expressed in Fasanocannot and should not be <br />applied as literally asfor court proceedings, and that the goal of Fasanois that land-use <br />decisions are made fairly. The decision recognizes that land use decision makers are “expected <br />to be intensely involved in the affairs of the community” and to hold known positions on policy <br />matters. 37 Or App at 752-53. <br />10 <br />