II. OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED DURING REVIEW. <br />The two narrow modifications to the 1988 Plans would seem to be <br />noncontroversial, and in fact, most of the public comments that have been submitted to the City <br />are in support of its approval. The appellants, however, have spared no expense in vehemently <br />challenging the Application. A cursory review of their present appeal and past submissions <br />show that the appellants are not primarily focused on the two modifications at issue, but <br />opposing the opening of the store in general. <br />Obviously, these arguments are outside the scope of the Application and its <br />review. And because the City's zoning code could not be clearer that the new WinCo <br />supermarket is an outright allowed and not a change from the previous use, appellants have been <br />forced to rely on patently meritless (at times, even absurd) arguments. For instance, appellants <br />have stated in their numerous submissions that: <br />• An allowed use in the base zone is not actually allowed until it has been <br />"authorized" in a site review. <br />• The description of the original development as a "shopping center" in the <br />1988 site review decision approved a nonconforming use, and thus, rendered the <br />initial use and all subsequent uses on the Property nonconforming until a new site <br />review is completed. <br />• Because all structures on the Property have not been updated to <br />2020 development standards, every use is nonconforming. <br />• A site review plan modification triggers an obligation to bring all structures on the <br />Property up to current code standards. <br />46 Or LUBA 494, 503, affd 193 Or App 512, 93 P3d 845 (2004) ("However, as we explain below, under the <br />holding in Miles, petitioners waived the issue * * * because they did not include that issue as one of their bases for <br />appeal in the appeal form and attached documents that they filed * * * to the hearings official."); see also Miles v. <br />City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 509, 79 P3d 382, 387 (2003) ("When such an ordinance limits the local body's <br />review to the issues so specified, the local appeal body cannot go beyond those issues."). <br />Page 4 - 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 />