modifications to the 1988 site review plans. And no modification is needed to the 1988 Plans to <br />continue the reconfigured loading dock's connection with the Crescent Avenue access lane. <br />LSL's argument also incorrectly assumes that the term "intersecting cross aisle" <br />refers to the access from the loading dock area onto the Crescent Avenue access lane. But this <br />cannot be. Condition (c) was issued in the SR 88-11 written decision on November 16, 1988. <br />The 1988 Plans were deemed to comply with all conditions when they were subsequently <br />approved in 1989. Thus, it is not possible that an "intersecting cross aisle" refers to access from <br />the Property onto the Crescent driveway because pursuant to EC 9.8450, "[a] site review plan <br />shall not be stamped with the city's approval until all conditions of approval have been met [and <br />o]nce stamped by the city's approval, a site review plan is deemed to be consistent with all <br />development standards of this land use code." 16 Further, this condition states that the "[f]inal site <br />review plans addressing this issue need to be submitted prior to issuance of the site review <br />agreement[,]" and the site review agreement was executed by the developer and City in <br />February 1989. <br />Accordingly, the Director correctly found that the Application complies with this <br />condition. <br />3. Condition (d) is satisfied because the landscape and irrigation plans <br />comply with current standards. <br />Condition of approval (d) of SR 88-11 states: <br />"A landscape plan showing sidewalk locations, all plant and tree locations <br />(including street trees), species, sizes, spacing, and irrigation methods will be <br />16 At the risk of beating a dead horse, LSL's argument is wrong for two additional reasons: even if the City <br />incorrectly approved the 1988 Plans by misinterpreting condition (c) that error cannot be challenged 30 years later. <br />And even if the decision could be challenged, WinCo is entitled to reconfigure the loading dock area because the <br />change brings the driveway into closer compliance with LSL's interpretation of the condition. <br />Page 18 - WinCo Foods, LLC's Response to Appellants' Statements of Alleged Errors <br />MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4816-6071-2143.6 <br />TELEPHONE: 503.224.5858 <br />3400 U.S. BANCORP TOR'ER <br />I11 S.W FIFTH AVENUE <br />P ORTLAND. OREGON 97204 <br />