I Petition for Review 24. Petitioners argue remand is appropriate, because "the <br />2 findings are not sufficiently descriptive of nearby agricultural uses to allow <br />3 comparison among the candidate sites[,]" citing McMinnville, 244 Or App at <br />4 287. Petitioners also argue that respondent treated exception areas <br />5 inconsistently by including 13.6 acres in Area 1, with Class I and II soils, while <br />6 excluding 20-acre South Area 5, exception land, based on agricultural activity <br />7 conflicts, when those two areas appear to be very similarly situated. <br />8 Respondents do not clearly respond to petitioners' arguments under this <br />9 subassignment of error. <br />10 We agree with petitioners. Exclusion of candidate land based on <br />11 incompatibility between existing agricultural operations and proposed <br />12 residential zoning must identify those agricultural practices and explain why <br />13 any incompatibility justifies deviating from the ORS 197.298(1) priority <br />14 scheme. Respondents also must address petitioners' contention that for all <br />15 candidate land there is some level of agricultural conflict, because every study <br />16 area abuts farmland. Record 744 ("the compatibility impacts do not appear to <br />17 be much different between the UGB study areas.") This sub-assignment of <br />18 error is sustained. <br />19 h. Traffic Impacts (North Area 5) <br />20 Petitioners argue that respondents erred in using the lack of an existing <br />21 east-west bypass to exclude portions of Area 5 as unavailable to meet identified <br />22 residential land needs. Respondents found: <br />Page 34 <br />