I guarantees approval of any and all applications for housing. ORS 197.307(4) <br />2 requires the city to apply only clear and objective standards to housing, but does <br />3 not suggest that noncompliance with applicable clear and objective standards <br />4 cannot be a basis to deny the application. The only express limitation in that <br />5 regard is ORS 197.307(4)(b), which provides that clear and objective standards <br />6 cannot have the effect of "discouraging needed housing through unreasonable <br />7 cost or delay." However, no party argues that any of the city needed housing <br />8 track standards that might limit development of the subject property discourage <br />9 needed housing through unreasonable "cost or delay." <br />10 As the city notes, ORS 197.307(6)(a) authorizes the city to apply <br />11 discretionary standards to housing applications as long as the applicant "retains <br />12 the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements <br />13 of subsection (4) of this section." ORS 197.307(6)(a) guarantees only the <br />14 option of proceeding under an approval process that applies only clear and <br />15 objective standards, not that an applicant proceeding under that process will <br />16 necessarily obtain approval to develop a particular site. <br />17 The Dreyers argue that in Home Builders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA <br />18 370 (2002), a legislative challenge to adoption of the city's general and needed <br />19 housing tracks, LUBA held that a clear and objective approval standard that <br />20 was impossible for any development to meet on any property in the city is <br />21 inconsistent with ORS 197.307(4) and (6), because it offers only an illusory <br />22 option to proceed on the needed housing track, effectively forcing applicants to <br />Page 19 <br />