L_ <br />From: DAVIES Anne C (mailto:Anne.C.Davies@ci.eugene.or.us] ti - <br />Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:54 PM <br />To: William Kabeiseman <billkab@gsblaw.com> <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />Bill-- It is entirely up to you and your client how you wish to proceed. I cannot guarantee that 1 will be advising the <br />planning commission to reject the applicant's rebuttal evidence that was submitted on September 4'h, as the applicant <br />apparently did not understand the planning commission's direction in the same way your client did. Given the <br />clarification that I provided to you via e-mail on August 21st, it would seem a risky approach not to attempt to put In <br />rebuttal evidence of your own, just In case. I would anticipate that the applicant would then provide a supplemental <br />closing argument, and the planning commission would not be required to open the record for any further <br />submittals. I'm anticipating preparing a fun flow chart on this for the planning commission. <br />Best, <br />Anne <br />From: W1111arn Kabeiseman [mailto:billkab(&osblaw.com] <br />Sent: Monday; September i4, 2015 12:22 PM <br />To: DAVIES Anne C <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: RE: Oaklelgh Meadows <br />. Anne, <br />Thank you and, while I understand that asking for a re-opened record is possible; my client, <br />and I would guess your Planning Commission, would prefer not to see another cycle of <br />evidence, response, etc I continue to think the better course is to strike. the new evidence <br />submitted by the applicant during the period when the Planning Commission allowed <br />"rebuttal," but gave no indication that additional evidence would be allowed from the <br />applicant with no opportunity for my client to respond ui any way. <br />Striking the new evidence would be consistent with what the Planning Commissioners <br />actually said in their meeting, would avoid prejudicing my client's substantial rights and <br />world let the Planning Commission make its decision on September 28th or October 5th, <br />according to their current meeting schedule. <br />If the Planning Commission would rather re-open the record so that my client's substantial <br />rights are ensured,.I will discuss that alternative with my client. However,-I would advise him <br />to consider that alternative only if the City can assure us that the Planning Commission would <br />still be able to meet the remand decision deadline under ORS 227.181. According to <br />3 <br />336 <br />456 <br />