I in relevant part, that the SHS did not apply to the subject property or, <br />2 alternatively, that the PUD application is consistent with at least one of the <br />3 listed SHS purposes. <br />4 Both the Dreyers and the Neighbors appealed the hearings official's <br />5 decision to the planning commission. The Dreyers argued in relevant part that <br />6 the hearings official erred in applying discretionary, unclear or subjective <br />7 standards under the general EC 9.8320 track. The Neighbors challenged <br />8 findings that the application complied with several general track standards, <br />9 including the EC 9.8320(2) requirement for consistency with the SHS. On June <br />10 14, 2018, the planning commission affirmed and adopted the hearings official's <br />11 decision and approved the tentative PUD with modified conditions. <br />12 These appeals followed. <br />13 FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS/CONTINGENT CROSS- <br />14 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR (the Dreyers) <br />15 As noted, the Dreyers' combined petition for review includes two <br />16 assignments of error, presented in their capacity as petitioners in LUBA No. <br />17 2018-074. The two assignments of error are also labeled as contingent cross- <br />18 assignments of error, presumably in the Dreyers' capacity as intervenors- <br />19 respondents in LUBA No. 2018-080.3 Although the two sets of assignments of <br />3 OAR 661-010-0030(7) provides: <br />"Cross Petition: Any respondent or intervenor-respondent who <br />seeks reversal or remand of an aspect of the decision on appeal <br />Page 8 <br />