I compliance with a goal is excused by an exception to its application." 1000 Friends of <br />2 Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 243, 259 P3d 1021 (2011) (McMinnville); see also <br />3 ORS 197.175 (requiring cities and counties to exercise land planning and zoning <br />4 responsibilities in accordance with state land use statutes and goals approved by LCDC). <br />5 In this case, 11 discrete areas of land were considered as sites for the UGB <br />6 expansion. Of those areas, Areas 1, 6, 7, and 8 were predominantly agricultural land that <br />7 had been zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU). Maps of the UGB were employed, <br />8 illustrating alternative arrangements to address the city's projected land needs. The city <br />9 considered a map that illustrated growth using "exception lands." They are lands outside <br />10 the UGB in which the city or county can take an "exception" to the application of a goal <br />11 to particular property that is regulated by LCDC substantive standards. See Waste Not of <br />12 Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 240 Or App 285, 287-89, 246 P3d 493 (2010), adh'd <br />13 to as modified on recons, 241 Or App 199, 255 P3d 496 (2011) (explaining the <br />14 relationship between goals and exception process). Other alternatives illustrated growth <br />15 using EFU land. <br />16 The city considered alternatives that proposed using those 11 areas for <br />17 residential and employment-based expansions. The urbanization study noted that "[a]ll <br />18 employment land expansion alternatives show expansion occurring on the east side of I-5 <br />19 in order to take advantage of the excellent transportation opportunities presented at this <br />20 location." The study recommended, for employment-related growth, an expansion of 106 <br />21 acres using the entirety of "Study Area 8." That area, comprised of EFU land, "would <br />3 <br />