loading docks, trash enclosures, bottle storage areas and the like) * * Agreement, ¶ 5.03(d). <br />The site plans incorporated into the Agreement clearly show the loading dock access to the <br />Crescent Avenue access lane. <br />LSL offers no support for its theory, only its fundamentally flawed interpretation, <br />which is in direct conflict with the plain language of the condition, the discussion in the written <br />approval, the 1988 Plans, and the subsequent confirmation of the use of the adjacent parcel in the <br />SR 00-13 final plans. In light of these documents, there can be no reasonable question that the <br />City correctly found compliance with this condition. <br />B. The Director Correctly Found That the Proposed Modifications Do Not <br />Significantly Change the Appearance, Use, or Impact From the Site. <br />LSL argues that the Application should have been denied because it will result in <br />significant changes to the Property's physical appearance, use, and impact on surrounding <br />properties. Likewise, EMF claims that there will be a significant impact because WinCo will be <br />open 24 hours a day. <br />The first fundamental flaw in these arguments is that they flow from comparisons <br />of the purported operational differences between WinCo and ShopKo, the previous occupant of <br />the Property.19 As noted earlier, the past use of the Property is not relevant to this Application. <br />Because it is clearly an outright allowed use in the C-2 zone, a supermarket may operate on the <br />Property to the fullest extent allowed under the zoning code, without reference to or restriction <br />based on the past operations of prior occupants. The relevant issues in this Application flow not <br />19 In the LSL appeal statement, LSL even goes so far as to state as a fact that ShopKo "had a much lower volume of <br />truck deliveries than projected with WinCo," and that under ShopKo "deliveries were not made after store business <br />hours." (LSL Statement at 4.) It is not clear where these "facts" came from or how LSL could possibly substantiate <br />them if they were actually relevant. <br />Page 22 - 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 />