I demonstrate that [the city and county] improperly double-counted large-lot industrial <br />2 jobs." LUBA issued a final order remanding the ordinances reflecting the proposed UGB <br />3 expansion and transportation system plan. <br />4 <br />II. ANALYSIS <br />5 A. Petition for Judicial Review <br />6 In its petition for judicial review, the city and county make three <br />7 assignments of error. We reject, without discussion, the county's second and third <br />8 assignments. We write briefly to explain our rejection of the county's first assignment. <br />9 In the first assignment, the city and county assert that LUBA erred in concluding that the <br />10 county had erroneously construed ORS 197.298 and misapplied the analysis outlined in <br />11 McMinnville. The city and county rejoin that "LUBA ignored the established standards <br />12 of review and dismissed substantiated local findings that supported Coburg's conclusions <br />13 regarding the inclusion of lower priority land pursuant to ORS 197.298." The city and <br />14 county stress that they had substantial evidence for their reasoning. The city and county <br />15 posit that so long as a city "considers the actual appropriate factors as determined * * * <br />16 [under McMinnville], and makes its decision based on how those permissible elements <br />17 work to form a decision set concerning the inclusion or exclusion of available land," then <br />18 a review of other applicable factors should not "invalidate" the city's decision-making <br />19 process. <br />20 We reject those arguments. Our task on judicial review is to determine <br />21 whether LUBA's order is "unlawful in substance." ORS 197.850(9)(a). Initially, we are <br />11 <br />