Page 2 <br />July 6, 2016 <br />under ORS 197.763(9)(b). "Evidence" is defined as "facts, documents, data or other information <br />offered to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the <br />proponent to be relevant to the decision." The Applicant's new 15-page application narrative <br />squarely falls within this definition as it is a document "offered to demonstrate compliance or <br />noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the decision." <br />Indeed, that is the whole purpose of the application narrative. <br />Not only does the submission of these new application requests violate ORS 197.763(6)(e), but it <br />violates other requirements in ORS 197.763. ORS 197.763(3) requires the notice of the hearing <br />to "explain the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized" <br />and "list the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at <br />issue." ORS 197.763(3)(a) and (b). The City's notice does not comply with these requirements <br />because the Applicant changed its request and added new criteria that did not previously apply.' <br />ORS 197.763(3)(i) requires the staff report to be available seven days prior to the hearing. See <br />also EC 9.7320. Since the Applicant submitted these new requests as part of the final argument, <br />staff has not reviewed or commented on these requests, nor has staff been able to provide a staff <br />report explaining its position on these requests. <br />The Applicant's approach violates the whole purpose of public participation and Goal 1, which <br />ensures "an opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process," and <br />would substantially prejudice Valley River Inn. By submitting new application requests as part <br />of its final argument, Valley River Inn is deprived of any opportunity to review or comment on <br />these aspects of the Application. Since EC 9.7655(3) limits an appeal of the initial Hearings <br />Officials decision to "to the issues raised during the review of the original application," Valley <br />River Inn would be precluded from raising issues with respect these new adjustment requests <br />during the City process. If the City were to allow the Applicant to get away with this approach <br />in this case, every applicant would wait until the final argument to submit new adjustment <br />requests or other new applications to respond to public comments and preclude those parties <br />from having an opportunity to weigh in on the new application request. <br />This procedural violation is even more egregious because there is little doubt that the Applicant <br />waited until the final argument to include these new application requests precisely to prevent <br />Valley River Inn from having an opportunity to respond to these parts of the application. Valley <br />River Inn raised the need for additional adjustments in both its written and oral testimony at the <br />June 8, 2016 public hearing, and therefore the Applicant could have submitted these new <br />adjustment requests as part of its June 15, 2016 submittal. The Applicant choose not to do so <br />because it knew Valley River Inn would have an opportunity to respond in its June 15, 2016 <br />rebuttal letter and obviously it did not want to risk giving us the opportunity to do so. This tactic <br />is consistent with the Applicant's entire post-hearing process approach, which included dumping <br />a large volume of documents into the record without any explanation of which issues those <br />' Several of the new adjustment requests were made pursuant to EC 9.8030(2). None of the <br />original adjustment requests triggered this approval criterion. <br />