I of the decision on appeal only if the decision on appeal is reversed <br />2 or remanded under the petition for review may file a cross petition <br />3 for review that includes contingent cross-assignments of error, <br />4 clearly labeled as such." (Emphasis added.) <br />5 Cross-petitioners request that LUBA affirm the planning commission <br />6 decision with respect to the Greenway Permit because, according to cross- <br />7 petitioners, the planning commission correctly determined that the application <br />8 meets those standards. Cross-petitioners also ask that LUBA reverse the planning <br />9 commission's determination that the Greenway standards apply to an application <br />10 to develop housing. Lombard's Cross-Petition for Review 2-3, 20 ("The <br />11 [planning commission] decision should be affirmed in part and reversed in <br />12 part."). <br />13 The remedy that cross-petitioners seek is an obstacle to our review of the <br />14 cross-assignment of error. LUBA lacks authority to grant the sort of mixed relief <br />15 that cross-petitioners seek. See ORS 197.835(1) (LUBA "shall * * * prepare a <br />16 final order affirming, reversing or remanding"); Dreyer v. City of f Eugene, <br />17 Or LUBA (LUBA Nos 2018-074180, Nov 20, 2018), a, f, f'd, 296 Or App <br />18 490, - P3 d _ (2019) (slip op at 11) ("LUBA may resolve the merits of an appeal <br />19 only by affirming, reversing, or remanding the decision on review."). Cross- <br />20 petitioners seek an order affirming, not reversing, the approval. Even assuming <br />21 that the city erred by applying the Greenway standards, the city's decision <br />22 approving the development could not be reversed because it is not "prohibited as <br />23 a matter of law." See ORS 197.835(1) ("The board shall adopt rules defining the <br />24 circumstances in which it will reverse rather than remand a land use decision or <br />Page 14 <br />