I identified need) and a much less straightforward qualitative part. The <br />2 qualitative part of the inquiry is attributable first to ORS 197.298(3), which <br />3 allows including lower priority agricultural land in the UGB, instead of higher <br />4 priority exception land, if any of the ORS 197.298(3)(a)-(c) reasons make that <br />5 higher priority land "inadequate to accommodate the amount of land" needed. <br />6 Candidate lands that are not buildable may also be excluded as not adequate. <br />7 244 Or App at 262. <br />8 In addition to the ORS 197.298(3) reasons, Goal 14 "Boundary <br />9 Location" factors potentially may be applied in Step 2 to determine that higher <br />10 priority candidate land is "inadequate." The Goal 14 "Boundary Location <br />11 Factors are set out below: <br />12 "The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the <br />13 boundary shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary <br />14 locations consistent with ORS 197.298 and with consideration of <br />15 the following factors: <br />16 "(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs [old <br />17 Factor 3]; <br />18 "(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and <br />19 services [old Factor 4]; <br />20 "(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social <br />21 consequences [old Factor 5]; and <br />22 "(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby <br />23 agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and <br />24 forest land outside the UGB [old Factor 7]." <br />25 However, the Court of Appeals concluded in McMinnville that because Goal 14 <br />26 Boundary Location Factors 1 and 2 have more specific and limited counterparts <br />Page 22 <br />