I housing.' Petitioner argues that the planning director's decision effectively forces petitioner <br />2 to exercise the third option discussed above, without giving petitioner the opportunity to <br />3 make a case for any of the other options. Further, petitioner argues, the planning director's <br />4 decision essentially prejudges the merits of the CIR-CUP application, without any <br />5 opportunity for hearing or to address the planning director's views of the merits. Petitioner <br />6 notes in this regard that, under the city's code, the decision maker on a conditional use <br />7 application is the hearings officer, not the planning director. <br />8 Finally, petitioner argues that the planning director's decision is inconsistent with <br />9 ORS 197.307(6), which requires that:. <br />10 "Any approval standards, special conditions and the procedures for approval <br />11 adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and may not have <br />12 the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed <br />13 housing through unreasonable cost or delay." <br />14 According to petitioner, the procedure the planning director followed, in summarily rejecting <br />15 petitioner's CLR application without allowing a decision on the merits of the application, is <br />16 unclear and subjective, and has the effect of discouraging needed housing through <br />17 unreasonable cost or delay. Petitioner contends that the planning director's decision is based <br />18 on no code provisions or standards at all, and therefore reflects the height of discretion. <br />19 The city responds that it has implicit authority under its code to reject a permit <br />20 application that would require a modification to an approved CUP, and that its decision to <br />21 reject the CIR-CUP application is consistent with ORS 227.178(2). According to the city, <br />22 Eugene Code (EC) 9.718 requires adherence to approved CUP plans. EC 9.772(2) provides a <br />23 specific procedure for modifying approved CUP plans, and requires that "modifications to <br />3 Petitioner notes that any new application would be governed by the code standards in effect at the time <br />the application is submitted. ORS 227.178(3). See n 2. According to petitioner, shortly after petitioner filed its <br />CIR-CUP application the city amended its CIR regulations to impose more difficult standards for CIR <br />development. <br />Page 7 <br />