I should be consistent with "sound principles governing judicial review." ORS <br />2 197.805. <br />3 In sum, because the Dreyers' two assignments of error in the petition for <br />4 review seek relief that is beyond our authority to grant, we decline to resolve <br />5 those assignments of error. <br />6 B. Cross-Petition for Review <br />7 The Dreyers' two assignments of error are also labeled as contingent <br />8 cross-assignments of error, presented in the Dreyers' capacity as intervenors- <br />9 respondents in the Neighbors' appeal in LUBA No. 2018-080.5 A contingent <br />10 cross-assignment of error, by its nature, is one that LUBA would reach only if <br />11 LUBA sustains at least one assignment of error in a petition for review and <br />12 remands the decision under the petition. See OAR 661-01-0030(7), n 3; Young <br />13 v. Jackson County, 49 Or LUBA 327 (2005) (under former version of OAR <br />14 661-010-0030(7), declining to reach a cross-assignment of error where all <br />15 assignments of error in the petition for review were denied). <br />16 In the present case, we understand the Dreyers to request that LUBA <br />17 resolve the two contingent cross-assignments of error only if we sustain one or <br />18 more of the Neighbors' assignments that involve discretionary general track <br />19 PUD standards, including consistency with the SHS, and where we would <br />5 These arguments are also repeated, in briefer terms, in the Dreyers' <br />response brief to the Neighbors' petition for review. <br />Page 13 <br />