- <br />r <br />r <br />1 . <br />would be sub'ect to,a process conducted by the. city engineer known as <br />. Drive, <br />r: . <br />2 " <br />. "Privately En - eered Public Improvements" (PEPI). Petitioners contend that gin. <br />3 ' <br />.the!: e-mail correspondence, supports an.. argument under .their 'second. assignment <br />4" <br />of error, that, increasing the paved width of Oakleigh bane in the:present case, <br />5 <br />pursuant _to-a condition of approval, would also.. be subject to the;:PEPI process: <br />6. - <br />O1vMC responds, and we agree, that 'petitioners: -have .failed to establish <br />" n . <br />7 = <br />that. the proffered: e-mail. correspondence has,-any :basis in OAR. 661-010- <br />8 <br />0045(1). Petitioner& do not cite any basis for the motion under OAR 661=010- <br />9 <br />see 'rione that would authorize LUBA to. consider the e-mail <br />004:5 1 and we <br />10 <br />correspondence. ` We. note also that -whether therequired -,.improvements Jo <br />1.1 <br />Oakleigh Lane will be subject to the PEPI process is.a question of law ,not fact, <br />i <br />s. <br />12 <br />and indeed not even a disputed question of law, since' we do not understand the <br />y <br />13 <br />city or OMC to dispute that privately engineered improvements will be subject <br />14 <br />to whatever process is required by the city engineer, potentially including the <br />15 <br />PEPI process. <br />E <br />N <br />16 <br />Petitioners' November 28, 20,17 motion to take evidence regarding the <br />.17 <br />- Capital.Drive PUD is denied. <br />1'8. <br />' :'.MOTIONS"TO TAKE OFFICIAL NOTICE <br />19 <br />On November '27 2017, : etitioners filed a motion to-take official_ notice <br />P <br />20 <br />of .City, of Eugene.,Resolution No. 5143;. attached as Exhibit B 1, to the motion <br />21 <br />- , <br />AdoPted: on November, 'i8, 2015, Resolution No.5143 adopis asy "official <br />. ' 1 <br />B. <br />- <br />- <br />f <br />Page 10 <br />z <br />I • <br />l- ' <br />