I sort that would allow quicker emergency access. However, that does not <br />2 necessarily mean that respondents have demonstrated that "[m]aximum <br />3 efficiency of land uses" requires inclusion of 47 acres of agricultural land in <br />4 Area 6 in order to provide faster emergency services to the Area 5 exception <br />5 lands. <br />6 Petitioner next argues that including the lower portion of Area 6 to <br />7 resolve public safety issues with Area 5 is unnecessary because the TSP <br />8 already proposes an emergency access onto Coburg Bottom Loop Road that <br />9 would address the problem. Record 824, 826. Petitioners also argue there is <br />10 currently sufficient area within the Coburg UGB to locate an east-west bypass <br />11 north of Van Duyn Road without adding Area 6. <br />12 Respondents' answer that the emergency access petitioners identify was <br />13 included in the TSP to improve emergency access to western neighborhoods in <br />14 the city, not to solve the larger east-west congestion problem on Van Duyn. <br />15 Respondents are correct. Record 826. But respondents offer no response that <br />16 we can see to petitioners' contention that the needed east-west bypass could be <br />17 constructed north of Van Duyn without having to expand the UGB into the <br />18 lower part of Area 6. Remand is required for respondent to address that issue. <br />19 Finally, petitioners argue the real issue for the city with regard to the <br />20 east-west bypass is financial, not "maximum efficiency of land uses." <br />21 Petitioners contend respondent improperly seeks to allow development of the <br />22 lower part of Area 6 in order to fund the east-west bypass. Respondents <br />Page 44 <br />