I apply under the discretionary general track. The Dreyers argue that the holding <br />2 in Home Builders should be extended beyond circumstances where a clear and <br />3 objective standard is impossible to meet for any development on any property <br />4 in the city, to the present circumstances, where clear and objective standards <br />5 arguably make it impossible to approve any significant development on a <br />6 particular site, due to elevations and slopes present on that site. <br />7 We agree with the city that an extension of Home Builders is not <br />8 warranted. As the city notes, clear and objective standards by their nature tend <br />9 to be more rigid and less flexible than discretionary standards. Clear and <br />10 objective standards must address in a "one-size-fits-all" way the city's <br />11 legitimate regulatory interests in public health and safety, as applied to many <br />12 different properties, each of which may have topographic or other challenges to <br />13 development under inflexible cookie-cutter standards. Consequently, it may be <br />14 inherent in a two-track system such as the city's that particular development <br />15 proposals on particular properties may not be approvable under some clear and <br />16 objective standards, due to site-specific topographic characteristics such as <br />17 predominant steep slopes, although such proposals can be approved under more <br />18 flexible discretionary standards, such as the general track PUD standards. <br />19 Applicants in such circumstances will either have to modify their development <br />20 proposal to one that complies with the applicable needed housing standards, or <br />21 choose to apply under the more flexible general track standards. While there <br />22 may be a strong incentive in many cases to choose the more flexible general <br />Page 20 <br />