I location shown on the TSP. And we have already rejected petitioners <br />2 understanding that Goal 9 paragraph 4 applies generally to all areas zoned for <br />3 commercial and industrial uses. Those are the only reasons petitioners put <br />4 forward to support their claim that the east-west bypass is not viable. <br />5 The second sub-assignment of error is denied. <br />6 The first assignment of error is denied. <br />7 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />8 Petitioners argue that the county erred in adopting an amended UGB that <br />9 violates ORS 197.298 and the Statewide Planning Goals, and is not supported <br />10 by an adequate factual basis. io <br />11 A. The UGB Amendment Does not Comply With Goal 9 <br />12 Petitioners argue that the UGB amendment also does not comply with <br />13 Goal 9. See n 5. Petitioners explain that the Coburg NIA currently abuts only a <br />14 small area of residential land within the city to the southwest, but the proposed <br />15 UGB expansion would approximately quadruple the amount of residential land <br />16 that would abut the NIA. See Appendix 2. Petitioners argue that the city failed <br />17 to address the conflicting nature of residential and industrial uses in approving <br />18 the disputed UGB amendment, particularly because there was extensive <br />19 testimony below regarding conflicts between the two uses attributable to, <br />10 ORS 197.298 was amended by legislation that took effect January 1, <br />2016. The version of ORS 197.298 that was in effect before that 2016 <br />amendment took effect governs in this appeal. <br />Page 14 <br />