I Dreyers argued that in the present case the option required by ORS 197.3 07(4) <br />2 of proceeding under a clear and objective PUD approval track is illusory, <br />3 because no new development of the subject property with needed housing could <br />4 be approved under the needed housing track. Consequently, the Dreyers argued <br />5 that, in order to comply with ORS 197.307(4) and (6), the city must process the <br />6 PUD application under the general track at EC 9.8320, but cannot apply any of <br />7 the discretionary or non-clear and objective standards in the general track. The <br />8 Dreyers supplied the city with a list of EC 9.8320 standards that they argued <br />9 were not clear and objective, including the EC 9.8320(2) requirement to show <br />10 consistency with applicable refinement plan policies such as those in the SHS. <br />11 As noted, the SHS allows intensive development on land above 901 feet in <br />12 elevation only pursuant to a PUD in which the applicant demonstrates that the <br />13 PUD is consistent with one or more of the purposes of the Ridgeline Park <br />14 section of the SHS. <br />15 The hearings official held a public hearing on the Dreyers' application on <br />16 March 7, 2018. Following open record periods, the hearings official approved <br />17 the application with conditions on April 20, 2018. The hearings official found, <br />on the subject property. Planning staff responded to this argument in part by <br />presenting a theoretical development scenario including a three-parcel partition <br />to allow three new dwellings on the property, in addition to the existing <br />dwellings, under the city's needed housing partition track. Record 1652-53. <br />The Dreyers disputed that the staff response was sufficient to demonstrate that <br />the Dreyers had a meaningful option to proceed under the clear and objective <br />EC 9.8325 track to obtain PUD approval. Record 63. <br />Page 7 <br />