A ftmw <br />VCity Attorney's Office Memorandum <br />Date: August 12, 2015 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Anne C. Davies <br />Subject: Oakleigh Remand Hearing <br />1. Official Notice <br />On July 27, 2015, the day before the Planning Commission remand hearing, Simon <br />Trautman caused to be filed with the City a hearing memo. The memo included numerous <br />attachments, including at least some of the briefing of parties before LUBA and Court of <br />Appeals. Mr. Trautman's letter includes four attachments. (Attachment A: Oregon Maps; <br />Attachment B: Drawing of Oakleigh Lane ROW; Attachment C: LUBA opinion in Butte <br />Conservancy v. City of Gresham; Attachment D: CD containing LUBA record and supplemental <br />record, audio recording of LUBA oral argument, LUBA briefing, and Court of Appeals briefing). <br />The next day, the afternoon of the hearing, legal counsel received an e-mail from Bill <br />Kabeiseman requesting that the Planning Commission take official notice of certain documents. <br />Mr. Kabeiseman represented Simon Trautman before the Court of Appeals. It was not clear at <br />the time the e-mail was received whether Mr. Kabeiseman still acted as Mr. Trautman's legal <br />representative. Mr. Kabeiseman has since confirmed that he represents Mr. Trautman. <br />Mr. Kabeiseman's request to take official notice provides: "Please accept this e-mail as a <br />request for the city to take judicial notice of the briefing documents before LUBA and the Court <br />of Appeals." It is not entirely clear what documents Mr. Kabeiseman seeks to have the Planning <br />Commission take official notice of. In an abundance of caution, again, I suggest you assume the <br />request covers all of what appears on Attachment D to Mr. Trautman's letter. As explained at <br />the hearing, there are certain documents within the LUBA briefs submitted by Mr. Trautman that <br />were stricken by LUBA as outside the record. Those documents include Exhibit A to Intervenor- <br />Petitioner Conte's Amended Petition for Review (3rd of 12 files appearing on Attachment D to <br />Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal). That exhibit, including the red notation box that was <br />added for this remand proceeding, should be disregarded by the commission. <br />It also appears that the versions of the briefs that were scanned by Mr. Trautman were <br />copies that included notations and highlighting. For example, an arrow appears on Mr. <br />Trautman's copy of page 8 of the applicant's opening LUBA brief (12th of 12 files appearing on <br />Attachment D to Mr. Trautman's July 27, 2015 submittal) that was not part of the brief submitted <br />to LUBA. Further, pages 1262, 1257 and 1258 of the electronic version of the LUBA record (5th <br />PC Agenda - Page 6 <br />