ER-11 <br />1 were compiled to assist the decision-maker with regard to detailed <br />2 measurements and data that are critical to determine the accurate net density." <br />3 Neighbors' Reply Brief 1. <br />4 LUBA's review is limited to the record filed by the local government. <br />5 ORS 197.835(2). Portions of the two appendices are not included in _the <br />b record, and based on Neighbors' reply, they appear to be offered for their <br />7 evidentiary value. The city's motion to strike the portions of Appendices 2 and <br />8 3 not included in the record is granted. With regard to striking the portions of <br />9 the petition for review that the city contends relies on those appendices, LUBA <br />10 disregards any allegations of material fact that are not supported by the record. <br />11 However, a lack of evidentiary support for arguments and factual allegations in <br />12 a response brief is not a basis for striking those portions of the brief. Hammack <br />13 & Associates, Inc. v Washington County, 16 Or LUBA 75, 78, aff d .89 Or App <br />14 4011 747 P2d 373 (1987). <br />15 Where EC 9.7655(3) requires that the issues to be raised in a local appeal <br />16 must be stated in the notice of local appeal, those issues must be identified in <br />17 the local notice of appeal or the issues are not preserved for review. Miles v. <br />18 City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 510, 79 P3d 382 (2003) (a party may not <br />19 raise an issue at LUBA if no party specified the issue as a basis for appeal <br />20 before the local appeal body). Neighbors do -not respond to the city's <br />21 exhaustion waiver argument. We agree with the city that absent any showing - <br />22 that Neighbors raised the issue of the accuracy of the city's calculation of the <br />23 total acreage included in the subject property in their appeal statement to the <br />24 planning commission, that issue may not be raised for the first time at LUBA. <br />Page 11 <br />0 00Og0 <br />