I outlined in McMinnville.6 For this case, it suffices to say that the "application of all of <br />2 the provisions in Goal 14 to the resulting UGB change is required * * The application <br />3 of Goal 14 to the land that results from the prioritization of ORS 197.298 allows the <br />4 separate and full use of both policies in justifying a UGB change that is contemplated by <br />5 the priorities statute." Id. at 266 (emphases added). <br />6 For our review, we summarize Land Watch's two contentions before LUBA <br />7 that are pertinent here. First, Land Watch contended that the city had impermissibly <br />8 excluded higher-priority lands from inclusion in the UGB (exception lands and EFU land <br />9 with Class 4 soils). Land Watch disputed the city's conclusions that Areas 5 and 7 were <br />10 "inadequate" or "unusable." Second, Land Watch contended that the city had not <br />11 properly based a UGB decision on the 2010 urbanization study or 2014 addendum, <br />12 because the study had impermissibly calculated its REA employment forecasts. As its <br />13 premise, Land Watch assumed that there are two, mutually exclusive options for <br />14 calculating an employment projection--a safe harbor method and a stand-alone approach. <br />15 Therefore, Land Watch contended that the city had used the safe harbor method but then <br />16 impermissibly augmented that calculation.7 In a related subassignment of error, Land <br />17 Watch contended that the city had "double-count[ed] large-lot industrial jobs."s <br />6 Those three steps, in brief, are determining the land needed under <br />ORS 197.298(1), determining the adequacy of candidate lands under ORS 197.298 and <br />Goal 14, and determining which candidate lands should be included under Goal 14. <br />McMinnville, 244 Or App at 255-66. <br />7 In its petition to LUBA, Land Watch contended that "Scenario A" had been <br />"improperly calculate [ed]. " In its cross-petition to this court, however, Land Watch does <br />9 <br />