I "There is no evidence for this assertion; nothing prevents the <br />2 residents of North Area 5 from accessing the multi-modal path. <br />3 The residents in North Area 5 are no more distant from the multi- <br />4 modal path than downtown residents. In any event, the record <br />5 does not contain even a basic explanation of how the urbanization <br />6 of Area 5 could negatively impact the proposed path." Petition for <br />7 Review 19. <br />8 We agree with petitioners. But more to the point, respondent may not <br />9 eliminate candidate exception lands, or in the words of ORS 197.298(1) decide <br />10 such lands are "inadequate," simply because respondent believes development <br />11 of those exception lands is inconsistent with the "concept" of a planned <br />12 transportation facility. Exception land probably could be deemed "inadequate" <br />13 if, for example, a planned transportation facility would render the exception <br />14 land unbuildable. But respondent has not shown that to be the case. <br />15 d. Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 3 <br />16 Environmental Consequences (Area 7) <br />17 Assuming that exception lands are inadequate to accommodate identified <br />18 land needs, under ORS 197.298(1)(d) lower priority agricultural lands can be <br />19 included in the UGB. However, in that circumstance, ORS 197.298(2) makes <br />20 agricultural land with poorer soils a higher priority than agricultural lands with <br />21 better soils. <br />22 Portions of Areas 1 and 6 were included in the UGB. Areas 1 and 6 <br />23 contain high quality Class I and II soils. Area 7, which was not included in the <br />24 UGB, has Class IV soils. Since Area 7 has poorer soils than Areas 1 and 6, <br />25 under ORS 197.298(2), Area 7 is a higher priority for a UGB expansion and <br />Page 28 <br />