ATTACHMENT H <br />Oakleigh Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Remand Hearing <br />William Kabeiseman <biIIkab@gsblaw.com> <br />To: DAVIES Anne C <Anne.C.Davies@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Anne, <br />Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:02 PM <br />As you know, I represent Simon Trautman in this remand hearing on the Oakleigh Meadows <br />matter. Please accept this e-mail into the record as a procedural objection to your memo dated <br />August 12, 2015, concerning two matters. I hereby request that the Planning Commission <br />accept the various attachments submitted with the July 27, 2015, letter and that the hearing be <br />re-opened to allow my client to respond to the new evidence and argument submitted with the <br />City's staff memorandum. <br />My first concern is directed at the characterization of several of the attachments to Mr. <br />Trautman as "new evidence" in your August 12, 2015, memorandum. As noted in the <br />memorandum, EC 9.7655 prohibits the introduction of "new evidence." The attachments did <br />not provide any new "evidence," they took evidence that had previously been provided to the <br />Hearings Official and put it into a different form. This is not a situation like LUBA where the <br />review is limited to a particular "record" that requires the actual document to have been <br />submitted previously for it to be considered. EC 9.7655 simply says that "No new evidence <br />pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted." There is nothing in the Eugene Code that prevents <br />a party from using evidence that was already presented to the hearings official and creating <br />demonstrative exhibits using that evidence. The material submitted to the Planning Commission <br />on July 27, 2015, contained no new evidence and should be accepted by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />The second, and perhaps more troubling, concern involves the statement at the bottom of third <br />page of that same memorandum addressing the paved area outside of the Oakleigh Lane right- <br />of-way. In particular, for the first time in this proceeding, the memorandum addresses the <br />concept of a "prescriptive easement." This concept of a prescriptive easement is new "evidence" <br />57 <br />