EC 9.1220 only concerns the continuation, limits on, and extinguishment of a legal <br />nonconforming use. <br />This nonconforming use argument has also been rejected by LUBA. In Tarbell v. <br />Jefferson Cnty., 21 Or LUBA 294, 1991 WL 1169487 at *4 (1991), LUBA denied the <br />petitioner's theory that "because a structure may be nonconforming, the use of the structure is <br />subject to regulations applicable to changes in nonconforming uses." LUBA held this was not <br />plausible because the code "distinguished between nonconforming uses and structures and <br />establish different criteria for changing nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures." Id.; <br />see also Caster v. City ofSilverton, 54 Or LUBA 441, 2007 WL 1964240 (2007).22 <br />E. The Director Was Not Required to Consider All Development Standards <br />Related to the Property. <br />In its third assignment of error, LSL states that the Director's decision is flawed <br />because it incorrectly found that SR 88-11 "is still in effect" and thus "prevents development <br />standards adopted since 1988 from being applicable." LSL cites to no such finding in the <br />Decision because it does not exist. Regardless, the underlying argument that the City was <br />required to order WinCo to update the entire Property to current development standards is <br />entirely unsupported and in patent conflict with the City's zoning code. <br />First, it is unclear how a site review approval could no longer be "in effect" or <br />how that would trigger an obligation to update all structures on the Property to meet current <br />development code standards.23 The concept of being "in effect" seems to be borrowed from <br />22 LUBA again distinguished between nonconforming uses and structures, holding that the extinguishment of a <br />nonconforming use does not affect the right to maintain the nonconforming structure. <br />23 Even if no site review existed for the Property (for instance because the site review overlay did not apply at the <br />time of initial development), all uses permitted in the C-2 zone would still be allowed. In fact, the lack of existing <br />site review plans would be beneficial for WinCo because it would not need to obtain approval of this Application, <br />Page 29 - 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 />