1 petitioner's contingent motion to take evidence, for the reasons expressed in our order.g <br />2 Petitioner's evidentiary challenge under this assignment of error is premised on our granting <br />3 petitioner's request for reconsideration and striking nearly all documents from the record. <br />4 With elimination of that premise, this assignment of error provides no basis for reversal or <br />5 remand. <br />6 The city's decision in LUBA No. 2002-131 is remanded. <br />7 LUBA No. 2002-132 is dismissed. <br />s On February 5, 2003, one day prior to oral argument; petitioner filed its second motion to take evidence <br />not in the record, pursuant to OAR 661-010-0045. The motion requests that the Board consider an e-mail <br />between petitioner's attorney and the city's attorney, if the Board deems the content of the e-mail relevant to <br />resolving the second assignment of error. The e-mail purports to establish that petitioner's attorney conferred <br />with the city's attorney regarding the content of the record, prior to filing record objections, a point that the city <br />apparently disputed in its response brief. Given our disposition of the second assignment of error, petitioner's <br />second motion to take evidence is denied as moot. <br />Page 13 <br />