Attachment A <br />Planning Commission <br />September 21, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />abundance of caution and in order to allow full briefing of this issue for the Planning <br />Commission, advised Mr. Kabeiseman that, based on-his misunderstanding of the Planning <br />Commission's direction, he should consider filing a request to re-open the record and submitting <br />rebuttal evidence limited to response to the applicant's August 31 submittal. Rec. 332 (e-mail <br />sent September 10 at 2:59 p.m.). On September 14, Mr. Kabeiseman (presumably on behalf of <br />Simon Trautman) submitted a letter requesting that the record be re-opened and submitting <br />evidence that responds to the evidence submitted by the applicant on September 4. Rec. 334-35. <br />As explained above, an opponent is not entitled to provide any evidence after the second <br />open record period: The evidence that the opponent seeks to submit is in response to the <br />evidence submitted by the applicant on September 4, not the evidence submitted by the applicant <br />on August 31. While I have included those requests to re-open the record, my advice is to reject <br />them. , Based on that analysis, I have not provided you with Mr. Conte's September 8 request or <br />proposed evidence. Further, I have included a redacted version of Mr. Kabeiseman's e-mail <br />request in which he proposed to provide evidence in response to applicant's September 4 <br />submittal. <br />3. Conclusion <br />The materials that have been provided to you are all materials that the city attorney <br />believes can be properly included in the record. <br />. With regard to the paving width issue, your task is to determine whether the applicant has <br />carried its burden to establish that, based on the entire record, Oakleigh Lane complies with <br />applicable code provisions related to safe passage of motor and emergency response vehicles, <br />either as Oakleigh Lane currently exists or with the imposition of reasonable conditions of <br />approval. With regard to the remainder of the issues raised in Mr. Trautman's original July 27th <br />submittal, you should determine whether the arguments presented alter your previous findings on <br />those issues, keeping in mind that the applicant retains the burden of proof at all times. <br />ACD:abm <br />City of Eugene • 125 E. 8th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-8447 • 541-682-5414 Fax <br />www.eugene-or.gov <br />(00178804;1) <br />