DAVIES Anne C <br />• From: William Kabeiseman <billkab@gsblaw.com> <br />Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:17 PM <br />To: DAVIES Anne C <br />Subject: FW: E-mail to Anne <br />Anne, <br />• <br />Please accept this e-mail as a procedural objection to the material submitted by the applicant <br />on September 4, 2015, and a request that these materials be stricken from the record. I've <br />reviewed a transcript of the August 17, 2015, meeting and, as I understand the motion that <br />was ultimately made at that time, it allowed for "new evidence" regarding the limited issues to <br />be submitted to the Eugene Planning Commission until the end of business on August 31, <br />2015. It then allowed for the submission of "rebuttals" until Friday September 4, 2015, and <br />then the "applicant's rebuttal until than Friday September 11. <br />My client understood that, when the Planning Commission used the term "rebuttals" in the <br />limitations on both the September 4 and September 11 requirements, that rebuttal was <br />limited to written argument and not new evidence. Accordingly, the swath of new evidence <br />submitted by the applicant on September 4, 2015, must be struck from the city's record and <br />may not be considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination on remand. <br />I have a meeting and will be out of the office from 3:00 on this afternoon, and have an oral <br />argument in Salem tomorrow morning, but should have time Thursday afternoon if you <br />would like to discuss this'procedural issue further. <br />Thank you, <br />Bill <br />1 <br />331 <br />451 <br />