in that it is information offered to demonstrate compliance" with the standards contained in the <br />Eugene Code. ORS 197.793(9)(b). <br />Moreover, whether there is a prescriptive easement is an entirely new issue that neither Mr. <br />Trautman nor anyone else ever had a chance to address. As I assume you also know, there are <br />several elements to a claim of prescriptive easement beyond a 10 year period and the blunt <br />assertion that the area "will be considered to have been acquired by the City as a prescriptive <br />easement" is unsupported by the evidence currently before the Planning Commission. <br />The inclusion of the discussion of a prescriptive easement goes far beyond the evidence before <br />the Hearings Official or previously before the Planning Commission, introduces new evidence <br />and an entirely new issue into this already complicated matter. <br />I would reiterate our requests: <br />1. the Planning Commission should accept the various attachments submitted with the July 27, <br />2015, letter because, although the documents are new, those documents do not contain any new <br />evidence and are the equivalent of demonstrative exhibits; and <br />2. The Planning Commission must re-open the hearing to allow my client to respond to the <br />new evidence and argument submitted with the City's staff memorandum. <br />Thank you for your consideration on this matter. <br />Bill <br />BILL KABEISEMAN <br />billkab@gsblaw.com. <br />GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER <br />GSBLAw.coM <br />eleventh floor <br />121 sw morrison street <br />portland, oregon 97204-3141 <br />TEL 503 228 3939 x 3231 FAX 503 226 0259. <br />land use condemnation I real estate e-forum: wwwAorthwestlandlawforum.com <br />58 <br />