Page 3 <br />July 6, 2016 <br />documents address and why they the issues. The City should not reward such gamesmanship <br />and attempts to preclude a party from fully participating in the public process. <br />The Applicant's narrative for the new adjustment request is also littered with statements that <br />include new evidence that is not in the record. The new adjustment narrative alleges that if <br />parking and circulation areas were not allowed between the hotel and the site's frontage, <br />"roughly 56,000 square feet, or 64 percent of the site would be unavailable to support <br />development of the hotel." New Application Narrative, p.3. The new adjustment narrative <br />alleges that if the hotel was placed within 15 feet of the east property line "would cause adverse <br />impacts to the mature trees located along either side of the access drive." New Application <br />Narrative, p.5. The new adjustment narrative alleges that it would be impossible to place the <br />hotel in a manner that does not result in parking between the hotel and Valley River drive. New <br />Application Narrative, p.11. The new adjustment narrative alleges that if parking and circulation <br />areas were not allowed between the hotel and the site's frontage, "roughly 56,000 square feet, or <br />64 percent of the site would be unavailable to support development of the hotel." New <br />Application Narrative, p.15. These statements constitute new evidence that is not part of the <br />record and therefore should be stricken. <br />Regardless of whether or not adjustments may be submitted during the public hearing process as <br />the Applicant alleges, they certainly cannot be submitted for the first time in the final argument. <br />It would be a clear procedural error that substantially prejudices Valley River Inn to allow it in <br />this case. Accordingly, the Applicant's four new adjustment requests, the 15-page application <br />narrative and all references to the new adjustment requests in the final argument should be <br />rejected and stricken from the record. <br />B. New Evidence in the final argument. <br />The final argument itself contains new evidence which must be stricken from the record. The <br />final argument alleges that Delta Highway/I- 105 is not a public street, is under the jurisdiction of <br />Lane County and ODOT and classified as a state highway and interstate freeway. Final <br />Argument, p.2. This statement is new evidence that is not part of the record and should be <br />stricken. <br />The final argument alleges that if parking and circulation areas were not allowed between the <br />hotel and the site's frontage, "roughly 56,000 square feet, or 64 percent of the site would be <br />unavailable to support development of the hotel." Final Argument, p.5. This statement is new <br />evidence that is not part of the record and should be stricken. <br />The final argument alleges that Exhibit B of its June 8, 2016 submission "shows how an <br />AASHTO vision clearance triangle, and vision clearance triangles used by other jurisdictions <br />would be applied." Final Argument, p.5. The Applicant elected not to explain what this exhibit <br />B represented in its June 8 submission. This statement is new evidence that is not part of the <br />record and should be stricken. <br />The final argument alleges that the Applicant provided a complete storm water report and <br />geotechnical report as part of its revised April 4, 2016 completeness submittal that fully address <br />