the initial seven-day period ending October 9, 2013. That schedule satisfies all of the <br />requirements of ORS 197.763(6)(c). In addition, the Hearings Official did not close or <br />reopen the record on October 9, 2013 as Mr. Conte appears to believe and argue. <br />Therefore, ORS 197.763(7) is not independently applicable and does not represent a <br />requirement to reopen the record pursuant to Mr. Conte's request. <br /> <br />The record closed to public testimony on October 16, 2013, and Mr. Conte and all other <br />participants had the opportunity to respond to information and evidence submitted until <br />October 9, 2013. The Hearings Official has reviewed the six documents identified in Mr. <br />Conte's October 16, 2013 “Objection.” The Hearings Official has also examined other <br />documents providing argument and evidence submitted both by Mr. Conte and other <br />opponents prior to October 9, 2013. In particular, Mr. Conte's submission, Exhibit PT-4, <br />and Ms. Lauren Regan’s comment at Exhibit PT-2 are long, detailed, and extensive <br />comments touching almost all criteria applicable through EC 9.8320. This detailed <br />testimony was not submitted at the October 2, 2013 public hearing. Rather, the argument <br />and evidence was submitted after the hearing but prior to October 9, 2013. The <br />opponents took the opportunity to comment on a multitude of issues including traffic, <br />stormwater, screening, setbacks, the designation of Oakleigh Lane, the proposed right-of- <br />way and dedications, and Willamette River Greenway issues. See also Exhibits PT-1, <br />PT-9, PT-15 and PT-32. The six submissions complained of by Mr.Conte are well within <br />the scope of argument and evidence allowed to respond to issues, argument and evidence <br />submitted by the opponents prior to October 9, 2013. <br /> <br />Mr. Conte’s request is very similar to a request made to the former Hearings Official <br />pursuant to application PDT 12-1. In his September 7, 2012 order denying the reopening <br />of the evidentiary record, Mr. Litwak observed: <br /> <br />Ideally, the Hearings Official would approve this request (to reopen the <br />record) because doing so would certainly eliminate at least one issue from <br />the near certain appeal, but doing so would leave insufficient time within <br />the 120 day rule for an appeal to the planning commission. * * * The <br />Hearings Official cannot approve a discretionary request that would force <br />a decision. Past the 120 day rule * * * and the Hearings Official cannot <br />require the applicant to extend the 120 day clock, thus the request is <br />denied. <br /> <br />That very same circumstance exists in this application review. The Hearings <br />Official would have preferred to reopen the record in an abundance of caution to <br />respond to Mr. Conte's request. However, the applicant did not agree, and the <br />current 120 day deadline does not provide sufficient time to reopen the record and <br />allow the Hearings Official sufficient time to draft a decision before that deadline <br />expires. <br /> <br />In any case, as described above, Mr. Conte and the other parties who participated <br />either orally at the hearing, or in subsequent written submissions, have been <br />provided ample opportunity to put forth their case in front of the Hearings Official <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />