I track, that does not mean that such applicants do not have the "option of <br />2 proceeding" under clear and objective standards, as required by ORS <br />3 197.307(6)(a), or that that the option is only illusory. <br />4 Nonetheless, the Dreyers argue that the city has the burden in the present <br />5 circumstance of demonstrating that some development of the subject property <br />6 under the PUD needed housing track standards is approvable, and that the city <br />7 has not met that burden. Because the city has not met that burden, the Dreyers <br />8 argue, the city cannot rely upon ORS 197.307(6) to authorize imposition of <br />9 discretionary approval standards under the PUD general track. As noted, the <br />10 Dreyers submitted below a diagram showing that there are few areas of the <br />11 subject property that (1) are lower than 901 feet in elevation and (2) have slopes <br />12 lower than 20 percent, intended to show that no PUD application could be <br />13 approved under EC 9.8325(3) and 9.8325(12)(a), which prohibit grading on <br />14 slopes over 20 percent, and prohibit creation of new lots or parcels over 901 <br />15 feet in elevation, respectively. According to the Dreyers, submittal of that <br />16 evidence shifted the burden to the city to demonstrate that some PUD <br />17 application with a substantial number of dwellings could be approved under the <br />18 needed housing track standards. Instead, the Dreyers argue, staff responded <br />19 only with a theoretical plan for creating three new parcels for three dwellings on <br />20 a small portion of the property under the city's needed housing partition track. <br />21 The city responds that it has no burden under any statute or code <br />22 provision to submit plans or evidence demonstrating that a theoretical PUD <br />Page 21 <br />