DAVIES Anne C <br />From: <br />DAMES Anne C <br />Sent: <br />Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:59 PM <br />To: <br />'William Kabeiseman' <br />Cc: <br />FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: <br />RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />Bill, If you and your clients misunderstood my e-mail, then you will probably want to submit another letter as soon as <br />possible requesting that the record be re-opened and including rebuttal evidence responding only to the evidence <br />applicant submitted on August 31". <br />Anne <br />From: William Kabeiseman [mailto:billkabC@gsblaw.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 10:28 PM <br />To: DAVIES Anne C <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />Aline, <br />Thanks for the response; I note that in the summary that you sent nie on August 21, 2015, you <br />specifically indicated that it was "just a summary" and directed me to "watch the webcast to be <br />certain of the.scope and deadlines for the re-opening of the record." Based on your e-snail, <br />that was the direction.that we took. Attached is the transcript from that meeting and the <br />motion that was adopted talks only about rebuttal - I don't see any indication that new <br />evidence would be coming in on the 2n`I submittal period. Based on that discussion, I believe <br />that the appl icant was limited only to rebuttal, as stated in the motion. <br />Again, I'm happy to discuss if you would like, <br />Bill <br />From: DAVIES Anne C [mailto:Anne.C.Davies@ci.eu~ene.or.usl <br />Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 2:01 PM <br />To: William Kabeiseman <billkab@ssbiaw.com> <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />( Bill-here is my summary to you, in which I stated that the second open record period was open for "evidence In <br />response" to the evidence submitted on August 315` <br />I <br />332 <br />• <br />452 <br />