I In the second assignment of error, petitioners argue that the planning <br />2 commission misconstrued applicable law and made findings not supported by <br />3 substantial evidence in approving the Greenway Permit under the standards in <br />4 EC 9.8815. <br />5 In the sole crass-assignment of error, Lombard Apartments and HBA <br />6 (collectively, cross-petitioners) argue that the planning commission violated ORS <br />7 197.307(4) by subjecting the application for housing to the Greenway standards <br />8 because those standards are not clear and objective.' <br />9 OAR 661-010-0030(7) provides, in part: <br />10 "Any respondent or intervenor-respondent who seeks reversal or <br />11 remand of an aspect of the decision on appeal regardless of the <br />12 outcome under the petition for review may file a cross petition for <br />13 review that includes one or more assignments of error. A respondent <br />14 or intervenor-respondent who seeks reversal or remand of an aspect <br />' ORS 197.307(4) provides: <br />"(4) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local <br />government may adopt and apply only clear and objective <br />standards, conditions and procedures regulating the <br />development of housing, including needed housing. The <br />standards, conditions and procedures: <br />"(a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more <br />provisions regulating the density or height of a <br />development. <br />"(b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or <br />cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through <br />unreasonable cost or delay." <br />Page 13 <br />