I petitioner, that assumption is faulty because development of those lands under <br />2 the discretionary track is too difficult and development under the needed <br />3 housing track is unprofitable due to density limitations, such that land owners <br />4 will not develop those lands at all. Accordingly, we understand petitioner to <br />5 argue, that land is not "available * * * for residential development" within the <br />6 meaning of the definition of "buildable lands" in ORS 197.295(1). <br />7 Then, in various subsections of the first assignment of error, petitioner <br />8 cites specific examples of areas of the city or types of regulations in the EC's <br />9 needed housing track that petitioner argues make land unlikely to be developed <br />10 under the needed housing track, and argues that that land should be excluded <br />11 from the BLl altogether. Those areas and types of regulations are, generally, (1) <br />12 lands in the South Hills area of the city over 900 feet in elevation; (2) lands <br />13 with slopes greater than 20%; and (3) lands subject to buffer area, setbacks <br />14 from ridgelines, cluster requirements, and proximity to open space <br />15 requirements in the EC. Petition for Review 14-24. <br />16 The city responds first that the plain language of the statutes that require <br />17 the city to inventory residential buildable lands and that specify the <br />18 methodology for developing that inventory, at ORS 197.296(2) - (7), does not <br />19 support petitioner's interpretation. The city responds that nothing in the <br />20 definition of buildable lands at ORS 197.295(1), in ORS 197.296 or Goal 10 or <br />21 its implementing rules refer to "clear and objective standards," or includes any <br />22 reference to ORS 197.307(4)'s mandate that "development of needed housing <br />Page 10 <br />