I directs the City to deem the application complete (regardless of whether or it <br />2 is in fact complete) and then to process the application." Petition for Review <br />3 17-18. <br />4 Petitioner contends that ORS 227.178(2) mandates an interactive process whereby the <br />5 applicant attempts to submit a complete application, and if the local government feels it <br />6 needs additional information to make a decision, it may request that information. According <br />7 to petitioner, the statute does not authorize the city to reject an application it believes to be <br />8 incomplete. On the contrary, petitioner argues, the statute contemplates that the city must <br />9 make a decision on the application, even if the applicant refuses to supply information the <br />10 city has requested, and even if as a result of the missing information the city decides to deny <br />11 the application. Petitioner contends that the city misunderstands its role under <br />12 ORS 227.178(2), in apparently believing that it needs to have before it all information it <br />13 deems necessary to approve the application. <br />14 Further, petitioner argues that the city's summary termination of the statutory process <br />15 deprived petitioner of the opportunity to address the city's concerns. Petitioner notes that the <br />16 planning director suggested in her September 13, 2002 letter that petitioner has a number of <br />17 options for addressing the alleged conflict between the 1,995 CUP and the CIR-CUP. <br />18 Petitioner agrees, and notes that such options would potentially include (1) demonstrating <br />19 that there is no conflict and thus no need to amend the 1995 CUP, or (2) amending the 1995 <br />20 CUP to allow the proposed housing, either by shrinking the footprint of the CUP masterplan <br />21 or by changing the text and plans to allowing housing. Petitioner argues that the second <br />22 option might be done as a separate application to amend the 1995 CUP, or by combining it <br />23 with the CIR-CUP application. A third option; petitioner argues, is the one apparently <br />24 preferred by the planning director: to abandon the CIR-CUP application and start over with <br />25 a new combined application to amend the 1995 CUP and to approve the requested CIR <br />Page 6 <br />