I "(c) Complies with ORS 197.732(2), the provisions of this <br />2 division and, if applicable, the provisions of OAR 660-011- <br />3 0060, 660-012-0070, 660-014-0030 or 660-014-0040." <br />4 Citing language in the decision that can be read to suggest respondents <br />5 attempted to take an exception to the ORS 197.298(1) priority scheme, <br />6 petitioners contend that while the exception process is a permissible vehicle for <br />7 attempting to avoid statewide planning goal requirements, there is simply no <br />8 authority for taking an exception to a statutory requirement, such as the ORS <br />9 197.298(1) priority requirement. <br />10 We understand respondents to take the position respondents were not <br />11 attempting to approve an exception to ORS 197.298, or any particular <br />12 statewide planning goal or administrative rule, but rather were simply <br />13 attempting to respond to the Court of Appeals decision in McMinnville "that <br />14 says clearly that there must be an exceptions analysis as a part of the UGB <br />15 expansion process." Respondents' Brief 68. Intervenor-Respondent takes a <br />16 different approach and argues that because the version of Goal 14 that applied <br />17 in this case required that respondents evaluate "alternative boundary locations <br />18 consistent with ORS 197.298," it was entirely appropriate for respondents to <br />19 attempt to approve an exception. <br />20 The old version of Goal 14 that applied in McMinnville provided "a <br />21 governing body proposing [a] change in the boundary separating urbanizable <br />22 lands from rural land, shall follow the procedures and requirements as set forth <br />23 in the Land Use Planning goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions." That requirement <br />Page 64 <br />