1 15-acre portion. By August 15, 2002, petitioner had submitted the requested information. <br />2 Petitioner indicated a willingness to submit additional information as the city's review <br />3 moved forward; however, petitioner requested that with the material submitted the city <br />4 consider the application complete. <br />5 On September 13, 2002, the city planning director sent a letter to petitioner rejecting <br />6 the CIR-CUP application, and refunding a portion of the application fee. The September I3, <br />7 2002 letter takes the position that the area on which petitioner proposes to construct housing <br />8 is subject to the 1995 CUP. The letter states, in relevant part: <br />9 "The City cannot address the conflicts between your proposed CIR-CUP <br />10 application and the existing CUP for the site through the completeness review <br />11 process because the City is not in a position to notify you of `exactly what <br />12 information is missing' from your application. There are numerous options <br />li for addressing the conflict between an existing CUP and a proposed new use <br />14 on the same site. The City cannot presume that you would pursue any one <br />15 option and the option chosen would dictate what additional information is <br />16 needed. Further, the completeness review process is not designed to allow an <br />17 applicant to submit what amounts to a new application. To establish a CIR <br />18 development on the Rest-Haven site, you would need to submit a very <br />19 different plan, application and narrative statement that would constitute a new <br />20 application. Therefore, your application has been rejected by the City to <br />21 allow you to reformulate your approach to your proposal in a way that <br />22 addresses the existing CUP for the site." Record 4. <br />23 The city's September 13, 2002 letter advised petitioner that the letter is the city's <br />24 final land use decision, appealable to LUBA. This appeal followed. <br />25 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />26 Petitioner contends that the city violated its code and applicable statutes in rejecting <br />27 petitioner's CIR-CUP application without completing the conditional use hearing process. <br />28 According to petitioner, nothing in the city's code authorizes the planning director to reject <br />29 or refuse to process a conditional use permit application for any of the reasons stated in the <br />30 September 13, 2002 letter. Petitioner cites to Doumani v. City of Eugene, 35 Or LUBA 388 <br />Page 4 <br />