I In sum, ORS 197.307 does not, as the Dreyers' argue, allow the city to <br />2 apply discretionary standards under its general PUD track only if the city <br />3 demonstrates that the applicant is able to gain approval for some kind of PUD <br />4 development on the subject property under its needed housing track. ORS <br />5 197.307(6)(a) requires only that the city allow the applicant the "option of <br />6 proceeding" under the needed housing track, and does not require a guarantee <br />7 or demonstration of any kind that development is likely to be approved under <br />8 the clear and objective approval standards in the needed housing track. Even if <br />9 it is presumed to be the case that, due to topography or other inherent features <br />10 of the subject property, almost any conceivable application for PUD <br />11 development of the property would be denied for noncompliance with clear and <br />12 objective approval standards, in our view that presumption would not, as a <br />13 consequence, preclude the city from applying discretionary approval standards <br />14 to a PUD application filed under the general track. <br />15 The Dreyers' first contingent cross-assignment of error is denied. <br />16 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR (The Neighbors) <br />17 EC 9.8320(2) is a tentative PUD general track standard requiring a <br />18 finding that the PUD is consistent with applicable refinement plan policies. As <br />19 noted, the SHS is one of the city's refinement plans. The Ridgeline Park <br />20 section of the SHS states, in relevant part: <br />21 "Specific Recommendations: <br />Page 24 <br />