I Under McMinnville, reliance on Factor 2 is inappropriate, but Factor 3 is <br />2 potentially applicable. <br />3 Petitioners contend that deviating from the ORS 197.298(1) priority <br />4 scheme to include agricultural land instead of exception land is only <br />5 appropriate for cost of service reasons under ORS 197.298(3)(b), which allows <br />6 selecting lower priority exception lands where they are needed "to provide <br />7 services to higher priority lands." See n 15. <br />8 Respondents do not specifically respond to the argument, except to argue <br />9 that Coburg found that "the higher per residential unit cost of water and service <br />10 services [sic] to properties along Stallings Lane * * * were inhibiting factors <br />11 that would slow any development, so that the Stallings Lane area was unlikely <br />12 to meet the standards for efficient accommodation of the identified need[.]" <br />13 Respondents' Brief 40. <br />14 Petitioners' broad assertion that exception lands can only be rejected for <br />15 cost of service reasons under ORS 197.298(1) in the circumstances set out in <br />16 ORS 197.298(3)(b) ("Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed <br />17 urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to <br />18 include or to provide services to higher priority lands") finds support in <br />19 McMinnville. There the court concluded "any inefficiency in the provision of <br />20 urban services and facilities is not material to the analysis under ORS <br />21 197.298(1)." 244 Or App at 276. The court also concluded "[t]he city's <br />22 evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the provision of public facilities and <br />Page 37 <br />