1 A. Vest Creek's Seventh Cross Assignment of Error <br />2 In West Creek's seventh cross assignment of error, it argues that EC 9.8325(13) may <br />3 not be applied to the proposal because it is not a "clear and objective standards" within the <br />4 meaning of ORS 197.307(4). According to West Creels, EC 9.8325(13) is a subjective <br />5 standard because the city must determine what a "natural drainage course" is, since that term <br />6 is not defined in the EC, and determine what constitutes "damage" to that natural drainage <br />7 course. <br />8 Southeast Neighbors responds initially by arguing that West Creek is prohibited under <br />9 Mftles v. City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 79 P3d 382 (2003) from asserting the issue raised <br />10 in its seventh cross assignment of error, because West Creels failed to raise the issue in its <br />11 appeal before the planning commission. West Creek responds that the issue is merely raised <br />12 as a "backup defense" in its cross-petition for review. West Creels also cites Olstedt v. <br />13 Clatsop County, 62 Or LUBA 131, 13940 (2012), for the proposition that Miles is inapposite <br />14 because West Creek prevailed on the issue before the hearings officer, and therefore there <br />15 was no "issue" to appeal to the planning commission in order to preserve the right to raise the <br />16 issue at LUBA. Finally, West Creek also cites to the pages in the record where the issue was <br />17 raised before the hearings officer. <br />18 We do not understand West Creek to contend that it raised the issue in its appeal or in <br />19 any response to Southeast Neighbors' appeal. Where the issue of whether the city may apply <br />20 EC 9.8325(13) at all to a proposal is raised as an assignment of error in West Creek's cross <br />21 petition for review, the issue is not a "backup defense" as West Creek suggests. In that <br />22 circumstance, we agree with Southeast Neighbors that West Creek may not assign error to the <br />23 planning commission's decision on the basis that EC 9.8325(13) does not apply at all to the <br />24 proposal, where the issue was not raised in West Creek's appeal to the planning commission <br />25 or in any response to Southeast Neighbors' appeal to the planning commission. That differs <br />26 from the situation in Olstedt that West Creels relies on. In Olstedt, the petitioners at LUBA <br />Page 15 <br />