I application or any particular type of development could be approved on the <br />2 subject property, under the city's needed housing tracks. We agree with the <br />3 city. The two statutes the Dreyers cite as imposing a burden on the city, ORS <br />4 197.831 and ORS 227.173(2), require the city to demonstrate only that the <br />5 needed housing track standards are "capable of being imposed only in a clear <br />6 and objective manner," and are "clear and objective on the face of the <br />7 ordinance."g There is no dispute in the present case that the city's PUD needed <br />8 housing track imposes only clear and objective standards, and that those <br />9 standards are facially clear and objective. No statute or code provision cited to <br />10 us imposes on the city the burden of coming forth with a plan for developing <br />11 housing on the subject property that is guaranteed or likely to gain approval <br />12 under any of the city's needed housing tracks. <br />a ORS 197.831 provides: <br />"In a proceeding before [LUBA] or an appellate court that involves <br />an ordinance required to contain clear and objective approval <br />standards, conditions and procedures for needed housing, the local <br />government imposing the provisions of the ordinance shall <br />demonstrate that the approval standards, conditions and procedures <br />are capable of being imposed only in a clear and objective <br />manner." <br />ORS 227.173(2) provides: <br />"When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required <br />under ORS 197.307 to provide only clear and objective standards, <br />the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the <br />ordinance." <br />Page 22 <br />