1 We review petitioner's challenges to Ordinance 20585, which amends <br />2 the ECP, to determine whether the ordinance is "in compliance with [Goal <br />3 101," and to determine whether the city "[i]mproperly construed the applicable <br />4 law." ORS 197.835(6) and 197.835(9)(a)(D). We agree with the city that <br />5 including land on its BLI that is developable under either the needed housing <br />6 track or the discretionary track is consistent with ORS 197.295(1), ORS <br />7 197.296(2) - (5) and Goal 10. The statutes at ORS 197.296 and Goal 10 require <br />8 the city to inventory its supply of buildable land and to estimate the capacity of <br />9 that land for residential development. In estimating the development capacity <br />10 of that land, the statutes require the city to (1) consider local regulations that <br />11 prohibit or restrict development (ORS 197.296(4)(b)(A)), and (2) rely on <br />12 development that has "actually occurred." ORS 197.296(5)(a)(A). <br />13 Consideration of such regulations may result in an estimate of a lower <br />14 development capacity than would otherwise exist if the regulations did not <br />15 exist. But nothing in ORS 197.296 requires that the city omit from the <br />16 inventory altogether land that is developable with residential uses. ORS <br />17 197.307(4) specifies regulations that cities may apply to development ofneeded <br />18 housing on land included in the UGB and on the BLI. It does not apply to the <br />19 city's initial determination of what land is included in a city's inventory. <br />20 Petitioner has not established that the BLI includes any lands that are not <br />21 "suitable, available and necessary for residential uses," or pointed to any data, <br />22 or "trends," either economic, population, or otherwise, within the meaning of <br />Page 12 <br />