I F. Conclusion <br />2 Petitioners have successfully challenged a large number of the findings <br />3 that respondents adopted to exclude 97 acres of exception lands in North Area <br />4 5 and South Area 5 from consideration under ORS 197.298(1), and to include <br />5 prime agricultural lands in parts of Area 6 and Area 1, notwithstanding that <br />6 ORS 197.298(2) prioritizes exception lands. Petitioners have successfully <br />7 challenged findings respondent adopted to justify including land with better <br />8 quality agricultural soils in Areas 6 and 1, while not including land with poorer <br />9 quality agricultural soils in Area 7, whereas ORS 197.298(2) puts a higher <br />10 priority on including lands with poorer quality agricultural soils first. Finally, <br />11 we have sustained petitioners' challenges to respondents' reliance on ORS <br />12 197.298(3) to include lands with lower priority under ORS 197.298(1) in place <br />13 of lands with higher priority under ORS 197.298(1) to meet identified need for <br />14 multifamily housing, a multi-modal path and the east-west bypass. <br />15 Remand is therefore required under the second assignment of error for <br />16 respondents to correct those findings if they can, eliminate any findings that it <br />17 cannot correct, and adopt any supplemental findings they may wish to adopt to <br />18 support a UGB expansion that is consistent with ORS 197.298(1) and relevant <br />19 Goal 14 factors. To the extent our discussion above has not made this point <br />20 clearly enough, respondents appear to view Goal 14, Boundary Location Factor <br />21 3 "[c]omparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences" <br />22 and Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 4 "[c]ompatibility of the proposed <br />Page 46 <br />