New Search
I <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />II. Motion to Strike <br />The City moves LUBA to strike portion of Petitioners' Appendix on the grounds that <br />Petitioners cannot submit new evidence to LUBA on appeal. <br />Despite the fact that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan adopted by <br />Resolution No. 4858 appears in the record at pages 22 -143, included as Volume II of the Petition <br />for Review is an internet copy of the PROS Plan. Regarding the internet copy, Petitioners state <br />on page one of Volume II: <br />The City of Eugene Parks and Recreation Division did not have published copies <br />of the PROS Plan available for purchase. Petitioners were referred to the city's <br />website to download the plan. The PROS Plan is located on the city's website <br />under `Parks and Open Space > PROS Comp. Plan. The copy of the PROS Plan <br />that falls here has been printed from the city's website. <br />It is unclear when the Petitioners downloaded the PROS Plan that they include in the <br />appendix. Significantly, the document downloaded from the internet and appended as Volume <br />II to the Petition for Review is different than the document adopted by Resolution No. 4858 and <br />set forth in the record at pages 22 -143.' While Respondent has not performed an exhaustive <br />comparison of the two documents, a glance at the first few pages shows that the document <br />included in Petitioners' appendix does not include the Forward, Acknowledgments and Special <br />Thanks that appear on pages 26 - 28 of the record. Because the PROS Plan appended to the <br />Petition for Review as Volume II, Appendix, was downloaded from the internet and is not a copy <br />of the document included in the record as the decision adopted by Resolution No. 4858, the <br />document should be struck form the Petition for Review and any references to the document <br />should be disregarded.' <br />'Petitioners do not assert that the document appended to the Petition for Review is identical to the <br />document adopted by Resolution No. 4858 and included in the record. Rather, Petitioners simply state that, <br />because they could not get a copy of the PROS Plan from the City, they are appending the Internet version of the <br />Plan. <br />`The City's Response Brief will refer to the LUBA record when citing to the PROS Plan adopted by <br />Resolution No. 4858. <br />Page 2 - MOTION TO DISMISS LUBA NO. 2006 -024 AND MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONERS' <br />APPENDI`: "VOLUME 11" <br />