and (2) the modifications will not result in significant changes to the appearance, use, and <br />impacts of the site.' <br />On September 30, 2020, the City's planning director (the "Director") approved the <br />Application, finding that: (1) both modifications complied with the 1998 Plans' conditions of <br />approval; (2) the loading dock reconfiguration will improve the safety, efficiency, and <br />appearance of the site, as well as lessen the dock's impacts on neighboring properties through <br />better screening and improved landscaping; and (3) the conversion of the greenhouse and lawn <br />area to a 256-square-foot bottle redemption center will have no meaningful bearing on the <br />appearance, use, or impacts of the large retail Property, especially as it is located in a 15-acre <br />shopping center, within a heavily-developed retail area, and along the major thoroughfare, <br />Coburg Road (the "Decision" ).5 <br />Two separate appeals of the Decision were filed on October 12, 2020. One was <br />filed by Bill Kloos, on behalf of Living Strong, LLC ("LSL"), and the other by Sean Malone, on <br />behalf of Eugene Moving Forward, Robert Stein, and Patricia Barajas (collectively, "EMF"). As <br />required by EC 9.7605, both appeals were accompanied by a statement of issues, arguing why <br />the Director's Decision was purportedly wrong.6 <br />4 The April 17, 2020, narrative is attached as Exhibit 4 <br />5 The Decision is attached as Exhibit 5. <br />6 It should be noted that the appeal statements do not include all opposition arguments in the appellants' previous <br />submissions to the City. The appellants have stated that they intend to possibly introduce these and perhaps other <br />challenges to the Decision later in this appeal. For example, EMF states that "[a]ppellant also reserve the right to <br />raise new issues on appeal * * * [sic] The hearings official, however, should deny appellants' attempts to <br />introduce new issues because EC 9.7605(3) plainly states that "[t]he appeal shall include a statement of issues on <br />appeal and be limited to the issues raised in the appeal." LUBA has found that pursuant to this ordinance, a party is <br />precluded from relying on issues that were not raised in the statement of appeal, even if raised earlier in the review <br />process. Sanga v. City ofEugene, LUBA No. 2019-111, 2020 WL 1819709, at *2 (2020) ("Intervenors respond, <br />initially, that petitioner is precluded from raising the issues * * * because petitioner failed to identify those issues in <br />his appeal statement. For the reasons set forth below, we agree.") (citation omitted); McKeown v. City ofEugene, <br />Page 3 - 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 />