I limited land use decision that is not affirmed."); OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c) ("The <br />2 Board shall reverse a land use decision when * * * [t]he decision violates a <br />3 provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law."). If we agree <br />4 with cross-petitioners that the city erred in determining that the Greenway <br />5 standards are applicable criteria, then the correct disposition is remand for the <br />6 city to decide the application without applying those standards. Cross-petitioners <br />7 do not request such a remand, and we do not understand that such a remand order <br />8 would have any effect on the city's decision approving this application. <br />9 Based on the foregoing, we view cross-petitioners' assignment of error as <br />10 a contingent cross-assignment of error, although it is not "clearly labeled as <br />11 such." OAR 661-010-0030(7); Devin Oil v. Morrow County, 70 Or LUBA 420, <br />12 436 (2014). Thus, we would resolve the contingent cross-assignment of error <br />13 only if we sustain petitioners' second assignment of error. For reasons explained <br />14 below, we deny the second assignment of error and thus do not resolve the <br />15 contingent cross-assignment of error. <br />16 A. Area between the development and the river <br />17 Petitioners do not clearly state the standard of review under this <br />18 subassignment of error, but we understand petitioners to argue that the city's <br />19 findings are insufficient to support the conclusion that "to the greatest possible <br />20 degree" the development design will maximize the open space between the <br />21 development and the river. EC 9.8815(1). <br />Page 15 <br />