I discretionary planned development standards, at LDC 2.5.40.04, which require <br />2 a determination that the modification is "compatible" with surrounding <br />3 development with respect to 14 factors. Application of those discretionary <br />4 standards is consistent with ORS 197.307(4), we understand the city to argue, <br />5 because petitioner has essentially "opted" to pursue an alternative development <br />6 process subject to discretionary standards, as authorized by ORS 197.307(6). <br />7 See n 1. According to the city, petitioner has the option of either proceeding <br />8 under the "clear and objective" 1981 DDP "standards," including Condition 12 <br />9 as interpreted by the city council, or proceeding under the discretionary <br />10 standards to modify the 1981 DDP, which are not clear and objective. Because <br />11 petitioner has elected to proceed under the discretionary standards to modify <br />12 the 1981 DDP, the city argues that application of those discretionary standards <br />13 to approve or deny the proposed needed housing is authorized by ORS <br />14 197.307(6) and does not offend ORS 197.307(4). <br />15 Petitioner argues, and we agree, that at no relevant time since 1981, <br />16 when Condition 12 and the PD overlay were first applied, has the city's land <br />17 use legislation offered a "clear and objective" path for approval of needed <br />18 housing on the area that is now Tract B. Petitioner's filing of an application for <br />19 a Planned Development Major Modification was required by the city code to <br />20 develop Tract B with the proposed needed housing, which is a permitted use in <br />21 the PD (RS-12) zone, not an "option" that petitioner voluntarily exercised for <br />22 purposes of ORS 197.307(6). Under ORS 197.307(6), a local government may <br />23 impose unclear, subjective or discretionary standards and conditions on needed <br />24 housing only if it offers a path that allows needed housing subject only to clear <br />25 and objective standards and conditions. We understand the city to argue that <br />26 the 1981 DDP (as interpreted) is itself clear and objective and that development <br />Page 12 <br />