Oregon 
Theodore R KjibngDski, Governor 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
Department of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
w w w . lc d. s tat e. or. us 
Mis. 
1/5/2010 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: Douglas County Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 005-09A 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. 
A Copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local 
government office. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice 
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS 
MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED 
TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAT IT WAS MAILED TO DLCD. AS A 
RESULT, YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER THAN THE ABOVE 
DATE SPECIFIED. 
Cc: John Boyd, Douglas County 
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative 
<paa> YA 
£ 2 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
This Form 2 must be mailed to DLCD within S-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance i« signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements ofORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-000 
[ ) In person Q| electiviiiii tiiaiL.l 
DEPTOF 
OEC 2 9 2009 
LAND CONSERVATION 
AND DEVELOPMENT 
Jurisdiction: Douglas County Local file number: None 
Date of Adoption: 12/09/09 Date Mailed: 12/28/09 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? ^ Yes • No Date: 10/01/09 
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
• Land Use Regulation Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation • Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
This legislative amendment will address Ch. 10 which includes a population update to extend the forecast 
horizon to 2030; (Please note - The changes to Ch. 10 Population were excluded from the Notice of Adoption 
Mailed on 12/11/09 and addressed under this separate notice of adoption.) 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No, except that Ch. 10 Population was adopted under a 
separate ordinance and a separate notice of adoption. 
Plan Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A 
Zone Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A 
Location: N/A Acres Involved: N/A 
Specify Density: Previous: N/A New: N/A 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
• • • • • S D 0 S D S D S D D D D D 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES E3 NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? [x] Yes • No 
If no. do the statewide planning goals apply? [Z Yes • No 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? • Yes • No 
DLCD file No. 005-09A 07866) Tl59271 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Cities of Canyonville, Drain, Elkton, Glendalc, Myrtle Creek, Oakland, Recdsport, Riddle, Roseburg, Sutherlin, 
Winston and Yoncalla 
Local Contact: John J. Boyd, A1CP Phone: (541) 440-4289 Extension: 
Address: Room 106, Justice Bldg,Courthouse Fax Number: 541-440-6266 
City: Roseburg Zip: 97470- E-mail Address: jjboyd@co.douglas.or.us 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This Form 2 must be received by DLCD no later than 5 days after the ordinance has been signed by the public 
official designated by the jurisdiction to sign the approved ordinance(s) 
per ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660. Division 18 
1. This Form 2 must be submitted by local jurisdictions only (not by applicant). 
2. When submitting, please print this Form 2 on light green paper if available. 
3. Send this Form 2 and One (1) Complete Paper Copy and One (1) Electronic Digital CD (documents and 
maps) of the Adopted Amendment to the address in number 6: 
4. Electronic Submittals: Form 2 - Notice of Adoption will not be accepted via email or any 
electronic or digital format at this time. 
5. The Adopted Materials must include the final decision signed by the official designated by the jurisdiction. 
The Final Decision must include approved signed ordinancc(s). finding(s), exhibit(s), and any map(s). 
6. DLCD Notice of Adoption must be submitted in One (1) Complete Paper Copy and One (1) 
Electronic Digital CD via United States Postal Service, Common Carrier or Hand Carried to 
the DLCD Salem Office and stamped with the incoming date stamp, (for submittal instructions, 
also sec# 5)] MAIL the PAPER COPY and CD of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
7. Submittal of this Noticc of Adoption must include the signed ordinances), finding(s), exhibit(s) and any other 
supplementary information (see ORS 197.615 ). 
8. Deadline to appeals to LUBA is calculated twenty-one (21) days from the receipt (postmark date) of adoption 
(see ORS 197.830 to 197.845 ). 
9. In addition to sending the Form 2 - Notice of Adoption to DLCD, please notify persons who participated in 
the local hearing and requested noticc of the final decision at the same time the adoption packct is mailed to 
DLCD (sec ORS 197.615 ). 
10. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/. You may also 
call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to: (503) 378-5518. 
I ipdatcd Dcccmbcr 22. 2009 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING ) 
AMENDMENTS TO THE DOUGLAS ) ORDINANCE 2009-12-2 
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ) 
RECITALS: 
A. Amendments to the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan are proposed to update the 
County's twenty year population projection. These amendments are adopted by the 
Board of County Commissioners under the direction of ORS 195.036 in order to 
integrate information into the Population Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 
B. HB 2709 was adopted in 1995 and required counties to "establish and maintain a 
population forecast" and "coordinate the forecast with the local governments within its 
boundary." Douglas County completed an updated population forecast in the spring of 
1996. The adopted model established coordinated city population rate within each of 
our twelve cities and a County rate within the unincorporated areas. 
C. In February 2000, the Board of Commissioners adopted an update to the 
comprehensive plan extending the forecast to the year 2020. This adoption process 
included five years of state and local coordination and the successful defense of 
multiple LUBA appeals. In the end, LUBA found confirmed the validity of the County's 
model and found it had "reasonable assumptions" and "an adequate factual basis." 
The County developed a forecast range with the "preferred alternative" being the high 
forecast range and the "sensitivity analysis" being the low forecast range. 
D. In 2007, House Bill 3436 amended the OAR (660-24-0030) and ORS (195.034) which 
required the County to adopt and maintain a 20 year population forecast. Pursuant to 
the rule, the coordinated forecast must be accepted by each city. This language 
requires the County maintain a forecast at 10 year intervals. 
E. The 2009 Population Element update includes forecast and calculations for each city at 
a coordinated rate and each UGA at the county forecast high rate. 
F. On November 19, 2009, the Douglas County Planning Commission held a hearing and 
recommended that the amendments be adopted by the Board of Commissioners. 
G. The Board of County Commissioners held a public meeting, considered applicable laws 
and public comments, in their review of the population update. 
THE DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 
SECTION ONE: The amendments contained and referenced in the yellow attachment 
titled "Amendments to the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan - Board 
Draft (Limited to Population)" dated December 23, 2009 are adopted. 
DOUGLAS COUNTY OREGON 
Page 1 - Douglas County Ordinance No. 2009-12-2 F ILED 
'lf:C 2 8 2009 
RARRARA F. NIFI SFN C:C)\ JNTY CA FRK 
SECTION TWO: The amendments are necessary and appropriate and shall become 
effective on January 8, 2010. 
SECTION THREE: The Board finds that this 2009 population update builds upon the 
success of the 2000 County forecast and does not alter the adopted 
model. This update utilizes data inputs from State Employment 
Department and Health Department along with other sources to extend 
the population forecast to the year 2030. The change in those data 
inputs was the primary factor in calculated outcome that was a reduced 
forecast in the year 2030. 
SECTION FOUR: The Board finds that the needs of Douglas County and its incorporated 
cities are recognized in their acknowledged comprehensive plans and 
that the county's projections are consistent with and supported by these 
plans. The counly and its communities have a compelling need, 
recognized in those plans, to diversify and strengthen their economies in 
order to become less timber-dependant and more diversified. 
SECTION FIVE: The Board finds that the needs of Douglas County are recognized by the 
adoption of the high range as a preferred alternative from the range of 
reasonable population. 
SECTION SIX: SEVERABILITY; If any provision of this ordinance is held to be invalid by 
any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the 
validity of any other provision of the ordinance. The ordinance shall be 
construed as if such invalid provision had never been included. 
DATED this 23,h day of December, 2009 
D OF COUNTS COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
Commissioner 
Page 2 - Douglas County Ordinance No. 2009-12-2 
Amendments to the 
DOUGLAS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 
BOARD DRAFT (Limited to Population) 
December 23. 2009 
Planning Commission 
November 19. 2009 
Board of Commissioners 
December 9, 2009 
December 16. 2009 
December 23. 2009 
CHANGES 
Amendments to Chapter 10: Population Element 2 
KEY 
Additions and Amendments are identified by both BOLDING and UNDERLINING. 
Deletions are identified by STRUCKOUT text. 
2. Amendments to Chapter 10: Population Element 
Page 10-1 
PLANNING FOR T H E FUTURE 
In short, Douglas County can continue to expect a steady growth in population growth. As 
these increases occur, the complexity of many issues and problems intensify.— If the growth is 
anticipated and completely planned, the increased needs of more people can be met in a positive 
fashion without sacrificing everyone's livability. It is more important to consider the implications 
of an increase in population than the population increase itself. By the year 2020 2030 the 
population of Douglas County can be expected to total between 136,232 132,016 and 145,346 
139,626 persons. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 summarize this projected growth. 
Page 10-
TABLE 
Table 10-1 Summary of Projections Results (Growth Rate) 
A r e a 2000 1990-00 
Annua l 
G r o w t h 
Ra te 
2 0 1 0 * 2000-10 
Annua l 
G r o w t h 
Rate 
2030 2000-2030 
Annua l 
G r o w t h 
R a t e 
COUNTY H I G H 100,399 0.61% 108,223 0.78% 139,626 1.30% 
COUNTY LOW 100,399 0.61% 107,025 0.66% 132,016 1.05% 
1990 Census 94,649 0.61% 
2000 Census 100,399 
Note: The Center for Population Research and Census reported a population estimate 
for Douglas County for 2008 of 105,240 people. 
10-1. SUMMARY OF PROJECTION RESULTS (Growth Rate) 
Table 10-1 Summary of Projections Results (Growth Rate) 
Area innf l i yy\) i iinn I 311U JU 
Annual 
Growth 
h rvaTC 
QiiTv/l 2X7TR7 1990-00 
Annual 
Growth 
n - i -TvTITC 
o m n 
Annutri 
Growth 
n _ RlltC 
COUNTY HIGH 94,649 0.10% 110,537 145,348 
COUNTY LOW 94,649 Q.10% 110,096 136,232 -b+9% 
1990 Census 94,649 0.10% 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 1 
Page 10-2 
TABLE 10-2. POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY SUB AREA. 
t ilrm iflflA l i n /1 177U XTfTTtT XTTitT 
S11 bare a Census W jmj M i • mm la J igp W • - -—• -LuW lllgn LuW TTlgfi 
Coastal 
T>.1 li-1 111 
Central 
r rrotnrr 
m e 
6059+ 
26603 
+00*9 +0059 +239? 
jCHQiC r.goi onifl oc'TC CrtTU UJ^Z OUJO TTD/ZT 
72443- ?2?33 8964+ 95639 
2++3ft 2+223 26+-56 27907 
T ^ j J . TT/utT 94649 110096 1J 0537 136233 145348 
2000 2010 2030 
Subarea Census Low High Low Hieh 
Coastal 
North 
Central 
South 
6413 
6178 
60806 
27002 
6836 6913 8433 8919 
6586 6659 8124 8592 
64819 65545 79955 84564 
28784 29106 35505 37552 
Total 100399 107025 108223 132016 139626 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 2 
Page 10-3 
TADLE 10-3. 1990 POPULATION AND YEAR 2020 POPULATION PROJECTIONS. 
Total Population 
Using County 
Projections 
Sub 
Area 
i — i n n n in f tn i f t ^ n m e n XTOV IT7W ZVZU 17UU" 
T-i-i anjn 1 UU 1 UU • l/ini XTFZv 
Coastal 
North 
South 
— -A - -Loumy 
W i u C 
n i TvuTTTT 
Subtotal 
Central 
T T_l UJ l/BIl 
Unincorp: 
n l ItuToT 
Subtotal 
City 
UI LFHI1 
Unincorp. 
n _. i lviiraj 
Subtotal 
City 
i i,i UI UQ11 
Unineorp. 
n •• i IVlil 111 
cAOL ,Ui I 
S+4 
icon TpTJT7 
qitii 
LyJ i LI 
e 
A I A"> •f s 1 tfJ 
ZJCM 0,"tn J 
31,379 
l A l f l l ^ V UJ 
61,023 
n no i TjOTT 
18,029 
^ r ocA •n^ TTTT 
A 1TA 
7 j J J U 
JTTK •T, f z u 
6,376 
"i J' in/ in, mjo 
H o o t f j,nn j 
60,591 
^ 111 o; rjz 
14,471 
20,603 
HI 111 I j7,n i i 
n A rtn f ,*TU f 
n/a 
f o t n 
JjDIW 
13,227 
J ,*ToO 
h/A 
C AAA 
flCTi cii j r o 
D O V 
n/fr 
39,010 
nc f i n 
n/a 
16,796 
27,907 
76,633 
ft/fl 
r 
ti/a 
AOvLQ 
1 1 AO 1,1 vH 
h/A 
w j -
1 cu\c 
Ti_l£Q i J , i J U 
n/a 
i >1 nm 
L t j 7 U 7 
-> d /• 1 (. 1 u 
n/a 
10,023 
n j n i i . 
30,774 
38,559 54,R3» 611,715 30,156 
TOlBf 93,748 94*49 145,340 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 3 
TABLE 10-3. 2000 POPULATION AND YEAR 2030 POPULATION PROJECTIONS. 
Sub 
Area 
Class 
Coastal City 
North 
Central 
South 
»• • U1IMI1 
< nnn 
I77U 
2000 
P o p 
202920 2000-
30Tota l 2«2#20 
30 
4,370 5,359 989 
67 
385 
1,591 
6,413 
2,220 
224 
88 
565 
2,910 
8,922 
3,238 
326 
1\_ 
180 
1319 
2,509 
1,018 
102 
1.30% 
UUA 0 0 0 
Rural 3,734 5,442 1,708 
Subtotal 6,178 9,006 2,828 1,53% 
City 32,440 52,994 20,554 
1 1 •!• r. •• UIIIUI1 6,357 8,992 2,635 
Sir 
UUA 5,885 12,336 6,451 
R u r a l y j 16,124 10,236 (5,888) 
Subtotal 60,806 84,558 23,752 1.30% 
City 6,600 10.109 3,509 
* • • uinaii 3,532 5,067 1,535 
UGB (2) 
U U A 0 0 0 
Rural 16,870 22,369 5,499 
Subtotal 27,002 37,545 10,543 1.30% 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 4 
Sub 
Area 
Class < nnn J 7 7V 
2000 
Pop 
202020 
30Total 
2000-
202020 
30 
County 
W i d e 
Cily 
" i . - -U1 Uflll 
Unineorp. 
UGB 
45,630 
10,180 
71,700 
14,473 
26,070 
4,293 
1.90% 
1.41% 
UUA 6,270 12,901 6,631 3 .53% 
Rural 38,319 40,552 2,233 0.19% 
Total 100,399 139,626 39,227 
(1) The Centra l Area contains the UUA of Glide, Green, Shady and Dillard. In 
addition it has I he UGB of Oakland. Rose burn, Sutherlin and Winston. The 
Comprehensive Plan findings recognize tha t over time, growth will shift f rom rura l to 
u rban densities. The reduction in rural growth in the Central siiharea is one 
example of that rural to u rban shift . 
(2) Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) - The County has adopted an updated 
coordinated forecast for the Comprehensive Plan of each city. The coordinated 
forecast was applied to extend the 20 year forecast within city limits. The County 
high rate (1.29%) was applied to extend the 20 year forecast within in the urban 
growth area (outside city limits but inside UGB) and update each jurisdiction's 20 
year forecast. A summary of this analysis is shown in Table 10-4. This process is 
consistent with the safe harhor found in O A R 660-024-0030(4)(a). 
T A B L E 10-4 City Population Forecast for incorporated area and urban growth area 
City 2000 2010 2020 2030 
Canyonville City 1295 1791 2130 2534 
UGA 173 237 270 306 
UGB (Total) 1468 2028 2400 2840 
Drain City 1020 1102 1217 1344 
UGA 184 200 227 259 
UGB (Total) 1204 1302 1444 1603 
Elkton City 145 258 299 347 
UGA 12 23 26 30 
UGB (Total) 158 281 325 377 
Glendale City 860 974 1076 1189 
UGA 11 82 93 106 
UGB (Total) 932 1056 1169 1295 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 5 
T A B L E 10-4 City Population Forecast for incorporated area and urban growth area 
City 2000 2010 2020 2030 
Myrt le Creek City 3430 3720 4382 5085 
UGA 3272 3587 4077 4636 
UGB (Total) 6702 7307 8459 9721 
Oakland City 955 964 1065 1176 
UGA 150 152 173 197 
UGB fTotal) 1105 1116 1238 1373 
Recdsport City 4370 4392 4851 5359 
UGA 67 67 71 52 
UGB (Total) 4437 4459 4928 5446 
Riddle City 1015 1066 1178 1301 
UGA 15 16 18 20 
UGB (Total) 1030 1082 1196 J 321 
Roseburg City 20125 22093 26931 32829 
UGA 5676 6144 6985 7940 
UGB (Total) 25801 28237 33916 40769 
Sutherlin City 6720 8031 9320 10816 
UGA 264 314 357 406 
UGB (Total) 6984 8345 9677 I I222 
Winston City 4640 6068 7042 8173 
UGA 267 348 395 449 
UGB (Total) 4907 6416 7437 8622 
Voncalia City 1055 1149 1333 1547 
UGA 27 12 33 38 
UGB (Total) 1082 1178 1366 1585 
G r a n d Totals All Cities 45630 51608 60824 7J700 
All UGA's 10180 11199 12731 14474 
All UGB1s 55810 62807 73555 86174 
County Total 100399 108223 119180 139626 
C P R C Estimates used for each Citv dur ing years 2001 to 2008. Cily coordinated rate used from 2009 to 2030 
Some numbers reported in this summary table may differ slightly due to rounding. 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 6 
Page 10-4 
The publication of the 1990 Census shows a continuation of the overestimation of the Cuunty and 
cities' population growth. The 1990 Census indicated that the population of the cities was 39t811. The 
2000 Census indicates that the population of the cities was 45,630. This relates to aeounty wide annual 
growth rate for cities of Or+6 L9 percent from +986- 2000 to +996 2030. The actual county wide annual 
growth rate for cities is below above both the County forecasted high rate (2:31.3%) and low rate (+t4 
1,05%) listed in prior versions (Table I) of this element. 
The high County projection for rural population in 1980 was 28,440 persons. This figure is 36% 
lower than the 38,559 persons indicated by the 1980 Census. The rural population for the 2000 census was 
38.319 persons. 
This overestimation of 1980 city UGB population and underestimate of 1980 rural 
population will likely resulted in a similar if not exaggerated overestimation of city UGB population 
in 2000 and conversely underestimation of rural population in the same year. 
The County formed a population coordination committee with the twelve cities in 
1995. This committee was reformed in 2009 to update coordination efforts for the population 
forecast. These The population figures in this plan were jointly adopted by the cities and 
County in advance of the Census publication and can only be modified by joint City-County plan 
amendment. Table 10-3 indicates that using these inaccurate figures would result in an actual 
decline of 3,930 persons in rural areas by the year 2000. there has been a slow shift from rural 
areas to incorporated cities. In 1980, 41.6% of the population lived in cities. In 2030, it is 
projected that 52.1% of the population will reside in incorporated cities. This table also 
includes more realistic projections of rural housing growth based upon assumptions used in the 
County overall population projections. 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 7 
Historical Population 
Projected Population 
OEA — Low High 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 8 
Sub-Area Percentage Increase 
Cities Included 2000 -2030 
Using Coordinating Committee Projection and 2010 Population as Base 
GLENDALE ' 1 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 9 
Distribution of Total 
Annual Population Increase 
Cities Included 2000 - 203D 
Using 2000 Population as Base and High Projections 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 10 
Page 10-7 
POPULATION ELEMENT FINDINGS 
POPULATION GROWTH 
I. Although somewhat erratic, the County and cities have experienced population growth daring the 
period of 1950 through +995- 2005. Overall the County population increased by ?9 89 percent over 
this period. 
Page 10-7 
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 
4. There has been an increase during the years of 1960 through 1990 2000 in the upper (older) age 
categories of the population. During that period the percentage of the County population 65 years of 
age and older increased by 186% as compared with 46% for the state, overall. 
5. The County has a lower percentage of population in the under 15 years category than the state (21.5 
19% as compared with 20%). 
6. The County population can basically be considered racially homogeneous with 96.7 97.3 percent of 
the population being classified in one race. The demographic of the County is the majority 93.9% 
is while . The largest minority population is Hispanic at 3,3%. 
7. The County's residents have a lower percentage of college graduates than the state and nation as a 
whole (44r?13.3% versus 25.1%). 
Page 10-8 
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 
17. The County projection anticipates an increase in population between 1990 2000 and 2020 2030 of 
4-)-5fl3 31,617 to 5069939,227 people based on the Douglas County projection and the projections 
of all 12 incorporated cities in Douglas County. 
Page 10-8 
CITY COUNTY COORDINATION AND ANALYSIS 
21. In an effort to update the existing 1995 Population Element a Population Coordination Committee 
consisting of all 12 incorporated cities, Douglas County and URCQG was convened. 
22. During the period of April 1996 andAugust 1996, the committee reviewed Douglas County Planning 
Department analysis of the existing model as updated from the 1990 census data. Following the 
acceptance of this analysis, the historical growth of each city was reviewed and a comparison to each 
Comprehensive Plan projection completed. A similar proccss was completed to update the forecast 
using 2000 ccnsus data. 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 11 
23. This current update is based upon the+990 2000 census. Between 1995 and 2000 a lengthy process 
was conducted and included the coordinated input of Douglas County and each incorporated city as 
required by ORS 197.063, as well as that of the Department of Land Conservation and Development 
(DLCD) and the Office of Economic Analysis, as required by Statewide Planning Goal 2 . 
24. In 2005, the DLCD adopted a "safe harbor" (OAR 660-24-0030(4) for cities to use, if there is not 
a reasonably current county coordinated forecast to use, when considering updates to their urban 
growth boundary. Pursuant to the rule, the coordinated forecast must be adopted by each city. 
Page 10-10 
Model Assumptions 
4. School enrollment is expected to have has been low growth in years 1995 to 2005 2009, and low to 
moderate growth in years 2005 to 2020 2030. This projection is based on the growth experienced in 
the school districts, the growlh in service industries and continued stabilization in the wood products 
industry. 
6. In Douglas County, between 1985 and 1990, employment increased at an average rate o f 2.9% per 
year. Between 1992 and 1994, employment increased at an average rate of 2.3%. The forecasted rate 
for Douglas County is a 4t3 percent average annual increase from 1995 2008 to 2005 2015. The 
assumed rate of employment between £006 2016 and 2020 2030, will over time increase toward the 
State average annual increase in employment (2.2%). 
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POPULATION ELEMENT 
The adoption of the population element formally establishes a target population 
as a basis for comprehensive planning in Douglas County. This target population will 
be used to establish public needs for housing, rural lands, urban growth boundaries, 
transportation, public facilities and other key elements of the plan. The County has 
adopted and is maintaining a coordinated 20 year population forecast for the 
county and for each urban area within the county consistent with statutory 
requirements for such forecasts under ORS 195.025 and 195.036 (and as specified 
in OAR 660-24-0030.) Also, the subarea projections will anchor the process for 
planning to satisfy needs based on the anticipated geographical distribution of the 
population. 
Future projects and development must be consistent with the target population 
and policies set forth in the population element. 
Inconsistent proposals will require substantial justification through the plan 
amendment process to identify and establish comprehensive planning needs beyond 
those recognized through the use of the target population projection. 
2009 Fall Legislative Amendments Page 12 
£ 8 
r-m o 
01 
<o r-
2 ^ 
O H 
^ z n> m 
1 
O > 
r H O H 
O z 
ot o 
m 
z 
Q 
Z 
m 
z H 
u> 
TJ m O