I of buildable land" may occur only under "clear and objective standards, <br />2 conditions, and procedures." In fact, the city maintains, the definition of <br />3 "buildable land" broadly requires the city to include lands that are "suitable, <br />4 available and necessary for residential uses," and OAR 660-008-0005 <br />5 establishes a rebuttable presumption that land is generally "available" for <br />6 development unless it falls within one of the five categories listed in the rule. <br />7 As the city explains it, ORS 197.296 and ORS 197.307(4) "serve different <br />8 purposes" and are "related but [ ] not co-dependent as [petitioner] suggests." <br />9 Response Brief 26-27. <br />10 The city also responds that even assuming petitioner's interpretation of <br />11 the phrase "buildable lands" is correct, petitioner's premise is faulty. That is so, <br />12 the city argues, because the city's BLI does not include any land that cannot be <br />13 developed at all for residential uses. Whether that land is developed at a lower <br />14 density under the needed housing track, or whether that land is developed at a <br />15 higher density under the discretionary track, the land is "available * * * for <br />16 residential uses" within the meaning of ORS 197.295(1) and OAR 660-008- <br />17 0005. In fact, the city argues, ORS 197.296(5)(a)(A) requires that, if data <br />18 demonstrates that land in the city has been developed under the discretionary <br />19 track within the last five years (or the longer period the city used), the city must <br />20 base its determination of housing capacity and need on that data (data must <br />21 include "[t]he number, density and average mix of housing types of urban <br />22 residential development that have actually occurred"). <br />Page 11 <br />