8 <br />terms of the "particular text, purpose or underlying policy" of a provision of <br />law, it has failed to preserve that issue for appeal. VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook <br />Co., 221 Or App 677, 691, 191 P3d 712 (2008). Here, Intervenors-Petitioners <br />did not refer to or attempt to demonstrate compliance with the text, purpose or <br />underlying policy ORS 197.763(7)(a) or (c) before LUBA. Accordingly, this <br />alleged error has not been preserved for the Court's review. <br />Intervenors-Petitioners do not contend that the alleged error is error <br />apparent on the face of the record pursuant to ORAP 5.45(4)(b), and the alleged <br />error is not "apparent" or legally "obvious" in view of the fact that Intervenors- <br />Petitioners' argument directly contradicts the express language of the statute. <br />See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990). Accordingly, the <br />Court of Appeals should decline to consider the First Assignment of Error. <br />STANDARD OF REVIEW <br />Intervenors-Petitioners allege that LUBA's decision is "unlawful in <br />substance." Opening Brief, p. 6. The Court of Appeals may reverse or remand <br />an order that is "unlawful in substance" under ORS 197.850(9)(a). However, <br />Intervenors-Petitioners bear the burden before the Court of Appeals of <br />establishing that LUBA's order is "unlawful in substance," by referring to a <br />source of law required that LUBA to allow the Motion to Intervene. See Young <br />v. Crook County, 224 Or App 1, 7, 197 P3d 48 (2008)("petition must <br />demonstrate a source of law that required the county to prove ...that the <br />