9.8815(1). The area in the Willamette Greenway area that is not being developed as part of the <br />hotel would be landscaped, open space,. or vegetation. Therefore, EC 9.8815(1) is satisfied. <br />This case was unusual in that the applicant submitted new evidence, including new requests <br />for adjustment review, in its final legal argument - which is supposed to be limited to just legal <br />argument. By submitting such new evidence and adjustment requests, the applicant placed <br />substantial burdens on VRI by having to object to such improper methods and filing additional <br />responses to the new evidence;8 on staff by not allowing staff review of and comment on the <br />additional evidence and adjustment; and on me by not having the benefit of staff's input or the <br />opportunity to ask the parties questions regarding the new evidence and adjustment review <br />requests.9 While it is certainly possible that the applicant could eventually satisfy all of the <br />applicable approval criteria, as explained earlier, the application as submitted does not satisfy EC <br />9.2170(5), EC 9.6792, and EC 9.8440. Given that these approval criteria are not satisfied, I have <br />no choice but to deny the application. <br />DECISION <br />For all the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Official DENIES the application for a <br />Willamette Greenway Permit, Site Review approval, and Adjustment Review Approval for a 101- <br />room hotel. <br />Fred Wilson <br />Hearings Official <br />Dated this 5`h day of August 2016. <br />Mailed this -~L day of August 2016. <br />SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL <br />RIGHTS <br />s VRI graciously did not object to responding to the new evidence within seven days of a letter extending the open <br />record period. <br />9 I realize the applicant's attorney was only retained after the public hearing and was making the best of a bad situation. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 15 <br />