Nowhere does the City's land use code state that a site review overlay or site <br />review approval can expand, restrict, or otherwise dictate the actual uses allowed under the <br />applicable base zone. See EC 9.440-.4410 & 9.8425 et seq. Site review is only relevant to the <br />appearance and function of the allowed uses, which is determined by the property's zoning. The <br />only time "uses" are mentioned in the code related to site review is in EC 9.8430, which merely <br />states that certain uses may trigger a requirement for site review. In fact, a change in use does <br />not itself trigger a requirement for a new site review approval unless there are corresponding <br />changes to the physical development on the site. EC 9.8430. <br />Further, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") has already held that there is <br />no connection between site review and nonconforming use regulations. In McPhillips Farm v. <br />Yamhill Cnty., 66 Or LUBA 355, 2012 WL 10816576 (2012), the petitioners made an identical <br />claim that a proposed development was subject to the restrictions on nonconforming uses <br />because the site purportedly did not have proper site design review approval. LUBA rejected <br />this theory stating: <br />"That most portions of the existing landfill have not received site design review <br />does not mean that the existing landfill is a non-conforming use, or that a <br />proposed expansion of the landfill must be processed and evaluated as an <br />alteration of a non-conforming use. At most, it means that a previously <br />unauthorized expansion would require site design review." McPhillps Farm, <br />2012 WL at *9. <br />LSL's supplemental argument that SR 88-11 restricted all uses other than <br />"shopping centers" is also meritless. This should be immediately apparent from the fact that a <br />"shopping center" is not and never has been a use category under Eugene's zoning code. <br />Further, the limited 1988 site review could not have possibly generated this <br />purported restriction on "use." The four narrow criteria considered in SR 88-11 concerned only <br />Page 27 - 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 />