I requirement). The study concluded that the city would need to expand its UGB to meet <br />2 its projected growth.' <br />The urbanization study was updated in 2014 with an addendum, reflecting <br />4 changes between 2010 and 2014. Generally, the addendum concluded that there was a <br />5 "need for a UGB expansion * * * based on forecast need for large industrial sites within <br />6 Coburg and the Central Lane County region." The addendum concluded that the <br />7 "scenarios," which the city council had selected in 2010, remained the recommended sites <br />8 for expansion. In 2014, the city also conducted a Regional Economic Analysis (REA), <br />9 prepared by an economic and development services company, E.D. Hovee. The REA <br />10 considered "scenarios," each of which would require expansion of Coburg's UGB.3 <br />11 "[W]hen a city amends its comprehensive plan, including any amendment <br />12 to its UGB, the city must justify the change as being consistent with the [Land <br />13 Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)] goals, except to the extent that <br />"A UGB is the part of the land use map in a city's comprehensive plan that <br />demarcates the area around a city that is available for expansion and future urban uses." <br />1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 241, 259 P3d 1021 (2011) <br />(McMinnville). <br />Scenario A was "modeled to align with the forecast methodology provided with <br />the 2010 Urbanization Study." Scenario B was "predicated on the economic opportunity <br />for Coburg to serve regional needs for large 20+ acre sites that require I-5 freeway access <br />in addition to capturing its Safe Harbor share of regionally forecast job grown[.]" <br />(Emphasis in original.) Three "variations" on Scenario B were included in the REA (B 1, <br />B2, and B3). Each variation illustrated a different "regional market capture rate"--10, 20, <br />and 30 percent, respectively. <br />In its order, LUBA determined that the city and county "determined the need for <br />employment land * * * consistent with [Scenarios] B 1 and B2, and whatever assumptions <br />and studies justified those figures." <br />2 <br />