I uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower <br />2 priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority <br />3 lands." Respondents found: <br />4 "Transportation and public safety issues serve as a limiting factor <br />5 for any of the exceptions areas of Stallings Lane being included in <br />6 the proposed Coburg UGB. If, however, a connector could be built <br />7 across the lower priority land adjacent to and just north of the <br />8 current Coburg UGB, the connector would provide an alternative <br />9 means to access the properties along Stallings Lane and reduce or <br />10 relieve the practical limitations on developing any part of Stallings <br />11 Lane. <br />12 "The lower priority agricultural land must be included to provide <br />13 urban levels of service to the higher priority land along Stallings <br />14 Lane." Record 752-53. <br />15 Petitioners first note in McMinnville, the Court of Appeals determined <br />16 that the scope of "services" in ORS 197.298(3)(c) does not include "roads." <br />17 244 Or App at 275. Although petitioners recognize that respondent also cites <br />18 "public safety issues," we understand petitioners to contend the public safety <br />19 issues are indistinguishable from the roads that would be used to provide them. <br />20 We reject petitioners' argument that respondent is categorically <br />21 precluded from relying on ORS 197.298(3)(c) to include the lower part of Area <br />22 6 to provide needed police and other emergency services to Area 5. That those <br />23 services would be provided by using roads does not mean they are the same <br />24 thing as a road. Area 5 apparently does currently suffer from poor access for <br />25 police and other emergency services and would suffer even more if that Area <br />26 were developed more densely without transportation improvements of some <br />Page 43 <br />