from the identity or operational characteristics of a past occupant, but from the specifications in <br />the 1988 Plans. It is these plans that must be amended to allow for the proposed bottle <br />redemption building and loading dock reconfiguration. Thus, the apt comparison for purposes of <br />EC 9.8455(2) is between the development allowed under 1988 Plans and the proposed <br />development under the plans as modified. <br />The focus on the comparison of the existing and modified plans is readily <br />apparent in the plain language of the relevant section, EC 9.8455, titled "Modifications to <br />Approved Site Review Plans." It states that "[m/odifications of the final approved site review <br />plan may be requested following the Type II process[,]" and that this "request" and "proposed <br />modification" shall be approved if it is consistent with the conditions of the original approval and <br />"the proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical appearance of the <br />development, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties." (Emphasis added.) <br />There is no reference whatsoever in this code section to the existing or past use of the property at <br />issue. <br />The oppositions' underlying theory that the focus should be based on past use is <br />clearly unworkable. If the current or past use of the property was the basis for determining if the <br />modification will result in significant changes, there could never be a modification to site review <br />plans prior to or during construction of the development. The allowed modifications to the <br />operations and buildings at the site would vary over time, depending on the success and size of <br />the current business. Even minor technical changes to the plans would frequently not be allowed <br />unless the applicant first built out the property to the full extent allowed under the approved <br />plans before proposing the change. And ultimately, the review would be nonsensical because it <br />Page 23 - 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 />