I the city has adopted for all residential development a needed housing track <br />2 limited to clear and objective standards, consistent with ORS 197.307(4), and a <br />3 corresponding alternative or "general" track that includes some standards that <br />4 are not clear and objective, as authorized by ORS 197.307(6). For their PUD <br />5 application, the Dreyers applied under the general PUD standards at EC 9.8320 <br />6 rather than the needed housing PUD standards at EC 9.8325. However, the <br />7 Dreyers argue that they were forced into that choice after they concluded that, <br />8 due to elevation and slopes on the subject property, they could not obtain <br />9 approval under the PUD needed housing track standards. As noted, two needed <br />10 housing track standards, EC 9.8325(5) and 9.8325(12)(a), prohibit grading on <br />11 slopes over 20 percent, and prohibit creation of new lots or parcels over 901 <br />12 feet in elevation, respectively. Because roughly half the property is over 901 <br />13 feet in elevation, and most of the remainder exceeds 20 percent slopes, and <br />14 because some grading is essential for road and driveway construction and <br />"(a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the <br />approval process that meets the requirements of subsection <br />(4) of this section; <br />"(b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process <br />comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals <br />and rules; and <br />"(c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process <br />authorize a density at or above the density level authorized <br />in the zone under the approval process provided in <br />subsection (4) of this section." <br />Page 16 <br />