1 <br />"Vision Zero Eugene"' document undermines Weishar's testimony, regarding <br />2 <br />- the. safety of-Oakleigh Lane. <br />3 <br />However,, as with the. motion regarding Dahl;,. petitioners identify. no <br />, <br />4 <br />basis under OAR 661-010-0045(1):'that-'would authorizeLUBA. to conduct <br />5-. <br />evidentiary proceedings to: allow petitioners to establish that Weishar is not a <br />6 <br />- credible expert. Petitioners have not :established the . existence . of any <br />7 <br />"procedural. irregularities not shown in the record," or "disputes regarding the <br />8 <br />content of the record,." or any other basis for LUBA to consider, or. to allow <br />9 <br />petitioners to produce, extra-record evidence. In addition, as explained above, ' <br />10 <br /> <br />OAR 661-010-0045 is nota vehicle for parties to'submit evidence in the record. <br />i <br /> <br />11 <br />in. order to support or controvert findings of compliance with applicable. <br />' <br />12 <br />approval criteria, which is essentially what petitioners seek to do in this : <br />13 <br />motion. - Accordingly, petitioners' motion to take evidence and conduct an <br />s. <br />f <br />14 <br />evidentiary hearing to question Weishar is denied.. <br />15 <br />D. Motion to Take Evidence Regarding the Capital Drive PUD <br />16 <br />On November 28, 2017, petitioners filed a motion to take evidence not in <br />17 <br />the record, along with petitioners' reply to Oakleigh Meadow's response briefs, <br />.18 <br />arguing that LUBA should consider. "Exhibit A," a copy, of an e-mail. thread <br />i. <br />19.- . <br />among petitioner Conte and several city staff members regarding a different <br />20 <br />PUD application that involves a street called Capital. Drive, and. proposed <br />21 <br />improvements. to that street. Petitioners argue that in'. that' e-mail <br />22: <br />correspondence city staff. confirmed that.proposed improvements to Capital: <br />z , <br />Page 9 <br />. <br />