I lands to be put to uses other than those allowed in exclusive farm use (EFU) <br />2 zones. Frequently, and in the present case, exception lands have been put to <br />3 low density rural residential uses. In addition, under the ORS 197.298 priority <br />4 scheme, where the local government must choose between agricultural lands, it <br />5 must generally include agricultural lands with worse productivity soils over <br />6 agricultural lands with soils of better productivity soils. <br />7 By selecting the alternative that they did, the city and county rejected <br />8 parts of Area 5 with higher priority exception land: North Area 5 (77 acres of <br />9 exception lands) and South Area 5 (20 acres of exception lands located south <br />10 of Coburg Road), in favor of high value agricultural land. Compare <br />11 Appendices 1 and 2.11 In selecting lands for the identified commercial and <br />12 industrial development (employment lands) needs, the city and county chose to <br />13 include Area 8. <br />14 Below, we first discuss how the ORS 197.298 priority scheme is <br />15 supposed to work, in conjunction with the Goal 14 (Urbanization). We then <br />16 turn to petitioners' challenges to the findings the city and county adopted to <br />17 support their decision to include agricultural lands in Areas 1 and 6 instead of <br />11 Appendix 2 shows the middle portion of Area 5 that was included. The <br />roughly triangular southern portion of Area 5 below Coburg Road (which is <br />Van Duyn extended west) was not included in the UGB. <br />Page 16 <br />