I therefore remand under the Neighbors' petition for review. As discussed <br />2 below, we deny the Neighbors' first assignment of error, which challenges the <br />3 findings of consistency with the SHS. Accordingly, we have no need to address <br />4 the Dreyers' second contingent cross-assignment of error. <br />5 However, as discussed below, we sustain portions of the Neighbors' <br />6 second and third assignments of error, which concern consistency with two <br />7 general track PUD approval standards that the Dreyers argue are not clear and <br />8 objective: EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). We understand the Dreyers to <br />9 argue that we should therefore address the Dreyers' first contingent cross- <br />10 assignment of error, which argues that the city cannot apply any discretionary <br />11 general track standards to the PUD application. If we sustain the first <br />12 contingent cross-assignment of error, then that would necessarily mean that the <br />13 errors identified under the Neighbors' second and third assignments of error <br />14 constitute only harmless error, and thus would not warrant remand under the <br />15 Neighbors' petition for review. <br />16 We agree with the Dryers that it is appropriate to address and resolve the <br />17 first contingent cross-assignment of error, which, if sustained, would have the <br />18 effect of rendering any errors in applying EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c) <br />19 harmless and not a basis for reversal or remand. However, for the reasons <br />20 below, we deny the Dreyers' first contingent cross-assignment of error. <br />Page 14 <br />