I services is immaterial to the analysis under ORS 197.298(1) during Step Two." <br />2 244 Or App 278. The court apparently considers cost of providing services to <br />3 be an "efficiency" issue under Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 1, which is <br />4 irrelevant at Step Two, rather than an economic issue that is potentially <br />5 applicable under Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 3. <br />6 Moreover, we agree with petitioners that the record appears to indicate <br />7 that providing services to Area 5 is relatively cheap. Record 493 ("According <br />8 to Coburg's Public Works Director, Study Area 5 is one of the least expensive <br />9 areas to extend City water and stormwater service into.") To the extent <br />10 respondents excluded portions of Area 5 due to perceived economic <br />11 consequences of providing needed services, the city erred. <br />12 This subassignment of error is sustained. <br />13 j. Urban Form (North and South Areas 5, and Area <br />14 7) <br />15 Petitioners assert that respondents erroneously eliminated North Area 5, <br />16 South Area 5, and Area 7, thus deviating from the ORS 197.298(1) priority <br />17 scheme, on the basis that including those areas does not meet Coburg's criteria <br />18 for urban form and violate comprehensive plan policies that pertain to orderly <br />19 and efficient development. Respondents contend those policies call for a <br />20 concentrically shaped urban area. <br />21 "Several policies were applied to limit the area of study area 5 that <br />22 would be included in the needs analysis. <br />23 "Policy l: The City shall preserve urbanizable land <br />24 and provide for orderly, efficient development by <br />Page 38 <br />