I individual building pads, the Dreyers argue that as a practical matter little or no <br />2 further residential development of the subject property can be approved under <br />3 the needed housing PUD track, and certainly a 36-unit PUD application similar <br />4 to what they proposed under the general housing track would necessarily be <br />5 denied. <br />6 The Dreyers argue that under ORS 197.307(4) and 197.307(6)(a) the city <br />7 can apply approval standards that are not clear and objective to proposed <br />8 housing development of the subject property only if the city "guarantee [s]" that <br />9 the applicant has "a discretion-free path to residential approval through the <br />10 code." Dreyers' Petition for Review 19. However, in the present case the <br />11 Dreyers argue that the option of obtaining approval under the needed housing <br />12 track is illusory, because the Dreyers contend they cannot obtain approval of the <br />13 proposed PUD development, or any significant housing development, under the <br />14 city's needed housing track. Because they have only an illusory right to obtain <br />15 approval under the needed housing track, the Dreyers argue therefore that ORS <br />16 197.307(6) does not authorize the city to apply any general track approval <br />17 standards to their proposed 36-unit PUD application that are not clear and <br />18 objective. EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c) are among the general track <br />19 approval standards that the city applied and found compliance with. However, <br />20 the Dreyers argue (as cross-petitioners) that any errors the city made in finding <br />21 compliance with those two standards are harmless, because those two standards <br />Page 17 <br />