I exception lands that are brought into the UGB in fact do redevelop at higher <br />2 densities. <br />3 If there are responses to petitioners' arguments in the challenged <br />4 decision, respondents do not call them to our attention. We generally agree <br />5 with petitioners that mere expressions of opposition to urbanization or <br />6 redevelopment cannot be a basis for determining that exception land is <br />7 "inadequate to accommodate" identified land need. There must be a real and <br />8 substantial basis for concluding that rural lands brought inside the UGB, so that <br />9 those lands can be provided urban services and become valuable for <br />10 development and redevelopment, will nevertheless remain in their rural <br />11 underdeveloped condition during the planning period. <br />12 This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />13 g. Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 4 <br />14 Compatibility With Nearby Agricultural Activities <br />15 (South Area 5 and North Area 5) <br />16 Petitioners assign error to respondents' exclusion of North Area 5 and <br />17 South Area 5, based on Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor 4's compatibility <br />18 factor, which permits consideration of "[c]ompatibility of the proposed urban <br />19 uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest <br />20 land outside of the UGB" when determining if candidate land is adequate to <br />21 accommodate the land need. Petitioners argue that "the findings do not contain <br />22 descriptions of the adjacent farm activities or any analysis of how those <br />23 particular farm activities could be affected by urbanization of adjacent land." <br />Page 33 <br />