I The city responds that no statute or other law obligates the city to amend the <br />2 EC or conform its existing EC standards to ORS 197.307(4), and therefore <br />3 petitioner's assignment of error is outside the scope of review of the challenged <br />4 decision, which adopts a BLI. We agree. Petitioner has not pointed to any <br />5 authority that obligates the city to amend the EC or conform its existing code <br />6 standards to ORS 197.307(4) as part of its adoption of the BLI, and we are <br />7 aware of none. <br />S The fifth assignment of error is denied. <br />9 SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />10 Petitioner's sixth assignment of error is: <br />11 "The [EC] illegally subjects BLI land in the South Hills to <br />12 standards[,] processes and conditions that appear in the South <br />13 Hills Study, an area refinement plan adopted in 1974. The lawful <br />14 footprint for that study is the city limits as they exist[ed] in 1974, <br />15 when the South Hills Study was adopted, not the area outside the <br />16 1974 city limits but inside the current UGB." Petition for Review <br />17 52. <br />18 Petitioner further describes the sixth assignment of error as: <br />19 "Here [petitioner] makes a broader challenge to the applicability of <br />20 standards in the South Hills Study to South Hills land that is in the <br />21 BLI. [Petitioner] asserts that the city plan and code illegally <br />22 extends the South Hills plan policies and development standards <br />23 to more land than the South Hills Study legally applies to." <br />24 Petition for Review 54. <br />25 As far as we can tell, the crux of the sixth assignment of error challenges the <br />26 city's prior application of standards in the EC that petitioner argues do not <br />27 apply to land in the South Hills area of the city that was not included in the <br />Page 19 <br />