I e. Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 3 Social <br />2 Consequences (Areas 5 and 7) <br />3 Petitioners also assign error to respondent's rejection of North Area 5 <br />4 and Area 7 based on Goal 14, Factor 3 "[c]omparative * * * social <br />5 consequences[.]" The findings identified by petitioner concerning Area 5 are <br />6 as follows: <br />7 * * Existing residents of [Area 5] were split in terms of wishing <br />8 incorporation into the Coburg Urban Growth Boundary. <br />9 Therefore, inclusion of this exception land into the urban growth <br />10 boundary is inappropriate and would not accommodate the <br />11 residential land need pursuant to Factor 3 * * * social (resident <br />12 opposition) impacts * * *."Record 735. <br />13 The findings identified by petitioners concerning Area 7 are as follows: <br />14 "[E]xtension of the urban growth boundary to the east side of <br />15 Interstate 5 has been a source of significant opposition from rural <br />16 property owners to the east." Record 736. <br />17 Petitioners argue the record does not support respondent's finding of <br />18 significant opposition to including North Area 5 in the UGB. Petitioners also <br />19 argue: <br />20 "Beyond the factual deficiencies, the Decision does not contain <br />21 any reasoning explaining why the disappointment of property <br />22 owners constitutes a valid basis for decision making, let alone a <br />23 bona-fide `social consequence' contemplated by Goal 14 that <br />24 would be so severe that any part of Area 5 or Area 7 would be <br />25 rendered `inadequate' under ORS 197.298(1). In addition, the <br />26 findings do not reconcile the obvious contradiction between the <br />27 exclusion of North Area 5 from [the] UGB and the simultaneous <br />28 inclusion of Mid Area 5 located just to the south. * * Petition <br />29 for Review 20-21. <br />Page 30 <br />