Hathaway Kobadc <br />Connors uP <br />July 6, 2016 <br />VIA EMAIL <br />Fred Wilson <br />City Hearings Officer <br />c/o Erik Berg-Johanson <br />Eugene Planning Department <br />Atrium Building <br />99 West 10th Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Eugene Towneplace Suites (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) <br />Procedural Objections to Applicant's Final Argument <br />Dear Mr. Wilson: <br />520 SW Yamhill St. <br />Suite 235 <br />Portland, OR 97204 <br />E. Michael Connors <br />503-205-8400 main <br />503-205-8401 direct <br />m ikecon norsAhkcllp.com <br />As you know, this office represents Rockbridge Capital, the owners and operators of the Valley <br />River Inn ("Valley River Inn") with respect to Valley Hospitality, LLC's (the "Applicant") <br />above-referenced application for the proposed 101-room hotel (the "Application"). Although we <br />understand that the record has been closed in this matter, we are submitting this letter to object to <br />the Applicant's final argument on the ground that it includes new application requests and new <br />evidence that cannot be included as part of the final argument. <br />ORS 197.763(6)(e) permits the applicant to submit a final argument at the end of the post <br />hearing process, but the final argument "shall not include any new evidence." It is a procedural <br />error to allow a final argument that includes new evidence. Rogue Advocates v. Josephine <br />County, _ Or LUBA - (LUBA No. 2014-095/096, dated October 15, 2015). <br />As Valley River Inn predicted in its June 22, 2015 rebuttal letter, the Applicant included <br />substantial new evidence in its final argument. In fact, the Applicant went even further than <br />Valley River Inn contemplated by including multiple new adjustment requests that were <br />submitted for the first time in the final argument. Valley River Inn objects to the new application <br />requests and new evidence, and it believes this new evidence must be stricken from the record. <br />A. The new adjustment application requests should be rejected. <br />The Applicant's request for four new adjustments is the most obvious and egregious violation of <br />the limitations for final arguments submitted pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(e). These new <br />application requests and the new 15-page application narrative clearly qualify as "evidence" <br />