I Needed Housing. The relationship of these two tracks to the city's BLI is <br />2 somewhat central to petitioner's first assignment of error. <br />3 D. First Assignment of Error <br />4 Petitioner's first assignment of error is that the city's BLI improperly <br />5 includes lands that petitioner argues are not "buildable lands" within the <br />6 meaning of ORS 197.295(1). Citing ORS 197.307(4), which requires <br />7 development applications for needed housing to be subjected "only [to] clear <br />8 and objective standards, conditions and procedures," petitioner argues that the <br />9 ORS 197.296(2) requirement to adopt a buildable lands inventory requires the <br />10 city's BLI to include only acreage that is "truly" developable under clear and <br />1 I objective standards. Petition for Review 13-14. Citing ORS 197.296(4)(b)(A), <br />12 petitioner also argues that the city did not adequately consider "[t]he extent that <br />13 residential development is prohibited or restricted" by specific approval criteria <br />14 in its clear and objective regulations for PUDs and subdivisions in determining <br />15 whether to include land on the BLI. Petition for Review 6, 14. We understand <br />16 petitioner to argue that the BLI improperly includes land that petitioner argues <br />17 is not developable under clear and objective standards. Petitioner maintains <br />18 that some lands included in the BLI should not be included in the BLI, because <br />19 the city improperly assumes that those lands will be developed. According to <br />7 The city excluded nine categories of land that the city determined were <br />unbuildable because they were subject to protective regulations that prohibit <br />development, and six categories of land that the city determined were <br />"committed" and also unbuildable. Record 31, 325, 41. <br />Page 9 <br />