Petitioners Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

ER-14 1 of the decision on appeal only if the decision on appeal is reversed 2 or remanded under the petition for review may file a cross petition 3 for review that includes contingent cross-assignments of error, 4 clearly labeled as such." (Emphasis added.) 5 Cross-petitioners request that LUBA affirm the planning commission 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 decision with respect to the Greenway Permit because, according to cross- petitioners, the planning commission correctly determined that the application meets those standards. Cross-petitioners also ask that LUBA reverse the planning commission's determination that the Greenway standards apply to an application to develop housing. Lombard's Cross-Petition for Review 2-3, 20 ("The [planning commission] decision should be affirmed in part and reversed in part."). The remedy that cross-petitioners seek is an obstacle to our review of the cross-assignment of error. LUBA lacks authority to grant the sort of mixed relief that cross-petitioners seek. See ORS 197.835(l) (LUBA "shall * * * prepare a final order affirming, reversing or remanding"); Dreyer v. City of Eugene, 17 Or LUBA (LUBA Nos 2018-074180, Nov 20, 2018), aff'd, 296 Or App 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 490, _ P3d _ (2019) (slip op at 11) ("LUBA may resolve the merits of an appeal only by affirming, reversing, or remanding the decision on review."). Cross- petitioners seek an order affirming, not reversing, the approval. Even assuming that the city erred by applying the Greenway standards, the city's decision approving the development could not be reversed because it is not "prohibited as a matter of law." See ORS 197.835(1) ("The board shall adopt rules defining the circumstances in which it will reverse rather than remand a land use decision or Page 14 LUBA Record Page 00019