I violation of Coburg's driveway and street spacing requirements." <br />2 Respondents' Brief 53. <br />3 If respondents' rationale for excluding South Area 5 is that existing <br />4 driveways and county street spacing requirements make South Area 5 <br />5 unbuildable, that rationale is not sufficiently explained with reference to the <br />6 city or county spacing standards respondents are relying on. In addition, as <br />7 discussed further below, absent an identified need for residential land with <br />8 particular parcel sizes, which the city did not justify under McMinnville Step <br />9 One for residential lands, respondents cannot exclude exception lands as <br />10 inadequate simply because they are parcelized. Parcel size is one of the factors <br />11 that can be relied on to justify an irrevocably committed exception in the first <br />12 place. 660-004-0028(6)(c). Disregarding exception lands simply because they <br />13 are parcelized, without more, is inconsistent with the ORS 197.298(1) priority <br />14 scheme. <br />15 This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />16 c. Conflicts with TSP (North Area 5) <br />17 The county adopted the following finding: <br />18 "Coburg is developing a multi modal path around the current UGB <br />19 to facilitate non-vehicular movement in Coburg. Inclusion of <br />20 Stallings Lane properties, especially those distant from the rest of <br />21 Coburg, would be directly contrary to the concept of the multi <br />22 modal path as a resource available for all Coburg residents, and <br />23 would negate the development work on the path that has already <br />24 been accomplished." Record 750. <br />25 Petitioners argue: <br />Page 27 <br />