I error are identical in substance, as explained below their posture requires <br />2 separate treatment. <br />3 A. Petition for Review <br />4 The first assignment of error argues that the city erred in applying <br />5 discretionary, unclear or subjective standards to the proposed PUD under the <br />6 city's general PUD track at EC 9.8320, without carrying its burden of showing <br />7 that the Dryers had the option to proceed under the clear and objective needed <br />8 housing track standards at EC 9.8325 with a realistic expectation of gaining <br />9 PUD approval. The second assignment of error argues that the city erred in <br />10 applying the SHS to the application, without showing that the SHS has ever <br />11 been adopted and applied to the subject property by a governing body with <br />12 planning authority. <br />regardless of the outcome under the petition for review may file a <br />cross petition for review that includes one or more assignments of <br />error. A respondent or intervenor-respondent who seeks reversal or <br />remand of an aspect of the decision on appeal only if the decision <br />on appeal is reversed or remanded under the petition for review <br />may file a cross petition for review that includes contingent cross- <br />assignments of error, clearly labeled as such. The cover page shall <br />identify the petition as a cross petition and the party filing the cross <br />petition. The cross petition shall be filed within the time required <br />for filing the petition for review and must comply in all respects <br />with the requirements of this rule governing the petition for <br />review, except that a notice of intent to appeal need not have been <br />filed by such party." <br />Page 9 <br />