1 time "correcting" the city's alleged errors.4 Recovery House IV does not <br />2 support that proposition. As explained, in Recovery House IV the ultimate <br />3 conclusion that the city lacked authority to process the application as a <br />4 conditional use permit meant that the decision must be reversed so that the city <br />5 could process the application as a permitted use, and without imposing any <br />6 conditions on the use. 156 Or App at 511. In the present case, the Dreyers do <br />7 not seek relief from any conditions imposed or any aspect of the city's PUD <br />8 approval under the general track. Instead, the Dreyers' petition for review asks <br />9 LUBA to issue what is essentially an advisory opinion regarding the present <br />10 case. Not only do we lack express statutory or cited judicial authority to issue <br />11 an advisory opinion on the legal matters presented in the Dreyers' two <br />12 assignments of error, but issuing such an advisory opinion would be contrary to <br />13 one of the express statutory purposes of LUBA's review: that our review <br />4 The only statutory authority that would potentially allow LUBA to affirm a <br />decision notwithstanding a substantive error is ORS 197.835(11)(b), which <br />provides that: <br />"Whenever the findings are defective because of failure to recite <br />adequate facts or legal conclusions or failure to adequately identify <br />the standards or their relation to the facts, but the parties identify <br />relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision <br />or a part of the decision, the board shall affirm the decision or the <br />part of the decision supported by the record and remand the <br />remainder to the local government, with direction indicating <br />appropriate remedial action." <br />Page 12 <br />