I complicated an already complicated process, and the version of Goal 14 that <br />2 applies in this case does not include that language or requirement. We agree <br />3 with respondents that it does not appear that respondents were attempting to <br />4 approve an exception to ORS 197.298, or any particular goal or rule, but rather <br />5 mistakenly believed they were required to follow exception procedures and <br />6 requirements under Goal 14, as analyzed in McMinnville. <br />7 We reject intervenor's contention that because the applicable version of <br />8 Goal 14 states an UGB amendment must be consistent with the priority scheme <br />9 set out in ORS 197.298, the statute thereby becomes eligible for an exception. <br />10 A local government may not approve an exception to a statute. Because we <br />11 conclude respondents did not take an exception to the ORS 197.298 priority <br />12 scheme, which is the premise of petitioners' fourth assignment of error, the <br />13 fourth assignment of error is denied. <br />14 CONCLUSION <br />15 Our resolution of petitioners' assignments of error requires that we <br />16 remand Ordinance 1315, which among other things amends the UGB. Because <br />17 we reject petitioners' challenges under Goal 9 to the TSP, it is less clear <br />18 whether Ordinance 1314, which adopts amendments to the TSP, must also be <br />19 remanded. But it is undisputed that, the east-west bypass could not be <br />20 constructed across rural agricultural land, and therefore depends on the UGB <br />21 amendment to include the lower part of Area 6. And as noted earlier, the <br />22 claimed need for the east-west bypass was one of the reasons respondents gave <br />Page 65 <br />