I in this appeal concur in and adopt the city's UGB expansion and TSP <br />2 amendments.1 <br />3 Respondents determined that Coburg needs an additional 903 residential <br />4 dwelling units, which justifies an expansion of the UGB by 148.8 acres to <br />5 accommodate residential and residentially related public facility needs. Record <br />6 298-299. The city and county also determined that an additional 91.7 acres <br />7 needed to be brought within the UGB for employment, including land to <br />8 accommodate large scale industrial sites. Record 306. <br />9 The city studied eleven different candidate areas to meet the identified <br />10 need. A map showing those eleven areas and the UGB as it existed prior to the <br />. Areas 1, 6, 7, <br />11 disputed amendments is included as Appendix 1 (Record 1492)2 <br />12 and 8 are made up almost entirely of agricultural land zoned for exclusive farm <br />13 use (EFU), with Areas 1 and 6 having the best soil quality, Area 8 having lesser <br />14 soils quality and Area 7 having the worst soil quality of Areas 1, 6, 7 and 8. <br />15 Area 5 is almost entirely rural residential land, for which an exception to Goal <br />16 3 (Agricultural Lands) was approved in the past. The UGB amendment <br />17 ultimately expanded the boundary to include 105.72 acres of land for light <br />18 industrial use, 2 acres for high-density residential use, 15 acres for medium- <br />1 While the appealed ordinances are county ordinances, the decisions are <br />joint city and county decisions and we refer to respondents in the plural in this <br />opinion. <br />2 The dashed line on the map shows the UGB before it was amended by one <br />of the ordinances that is before us in this appeal. <br />Page 4 <br />