I The McMinnville court noted that "[c]onsiderations of urban form under <br />2 Goal 14 * * * are more appropriately deferred to Step Three, during the full <br />3 application of Goal 14 to candidate lands identified under the priorities <br />4 statute." McMinnville, 244 Or App at 278. If respondents were selecting which <br />5 of the available and suitable exception lands "should be added to the <br />6 boundary," under McMinnville Step Three, it would be entirely appropriate to <br />7 apply the urban form policies and select the exception lands that are most <br />8 consistent with those policies. But to the extent respondents applied the urban <br />9 form policies to exclude exception lands and higher priority farm land (portions <br />10 of Area 5 and Area 7) from further consideration under ORS 197.298(1) in <br />11 McMinnville Step Two, as appears to be the case here, respondents erred. <br />12 This sub-assignment of error is sustained. <br />13 Subassignment of error B is sustained. <br />14 C. Error To Include Area 6 Farmland to Accommodate Need For <br />15 Multi-Family Residential Land <br />16 Area 6 is agricultural land that contains Class I and II soils. As noted <br />17 earlier, ORS 197.298(3) sets out three reasons that may be relied on to deviate <br />18 from the ORS 197.298(1) priority scheme and include within a UGB lower <br />19 priority lands instead of higher priority lands. One of those reason is "specific <br />20 types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher <br />21 priority lands." Petitioners argue the city has not shown exception lands or <br />22 lands within the city's existing UGB cannot reasonably accommodate the <br />23 identified multi-family housing land need. <br />Page 40 <br />