Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Commissioner Edwards’ policy positions concerning the land use difficulties developers <br />occasionally face is no different than any other Commissioner’s policy opinions,such as that <br />natural resources should generally be protected or the city needs more affordable housing. <br />Commissioner Edwards has no direct conflict of interest,and Mr. Malone has not <br />demonstrated that she has prejudged this application. Commissioner Edwards should not recuse <br />herself from this proceeding. <br />Attorney Errorregarding geotechnical report. <br />Applicants’ attorney can only plead “mea culpa”regardingstatements that a Level 3 <br />geotechnical analysis was conducted.The error is mine.As Applicant’s own experts have <br />pointed outto me,and consistent with assertions made by Neighbors’ representatives, a Level 3 <br />analysis has not been conducted for this project because one is not required. I misread my <br />meeting notes and confess I must improve my penmanship. <br />As Neighbors’ geotechnical consultant concedes, it has been previously determined that <br />the proposed PUD is included in the city’s Acknowledged Goal 5 Inventory and is explicitly <br />exempt from the provisions of EC 9.6710. SeeEC 9.6710(3)(f). <br />Neighbors representatives’efforts to try to shoe-horn into this proceeding sections of the <br />Eugene Code not remanded by LUBA(e.g., EC 9.6710 andEC 9.8320(10)) similarly constitute <br />error. They are beyond the scope of remand and represent unpreserved arguments. <br />The Planning Commission should ignore all parties’ statements that reach a bit too far. <br />CredibilityIssues <br />After reading the GeoScience, Inc. report, the Commission should see credibility issues <br />in that work. The Commission should focus in particular on the argumentative tone of the June <br />17, 2019GeoScience, Inc. report and its characterizations of the Branch Engineering analysis <br />and conclusions contained in the entire record, as well as GeoScience’scommentary on Branch <br />Engineering’s intentions both in this report and in the earlier proceeding (allegations of biased <br />assessment, see Branch 3/20/2018 Response). GeoScience’s statements detract fromthe <br />credibility of its own conclusions. <br />The GeoScience, Inc. report goes well beyond a professional engineering analysis, <br />delving into legal analysis of LUBA’s decisions and, as noted above, opining on engineering <br />matters outside itsprofessional expertise. The report comes across as an advocatingfor the <br />neighbors in the manner a lawyer mightuseas opposed topresenting the objective analysis ofa <br />professional engineer. This begs the question whetherthe assertions he is making arehis <br />professional opinion, or ones crafted to suit the positions of his employers. <br />The multiple Branch Engineering reports contained in the record are stamped with the <br />professional stamps for several engineering professionals and include statementsthatthe reports <br />11 <br />