I to identify each of petitioners' separate arguments under this assignment of <br />2 error. <br />3 A. Adequacy of the Decision for Review (Petition for Review 39- <br />4 43) <br />5 Petitioners argue that the 2014 Update reveals that only ranges of <br />6 forecasts and land needs were presented and none were actually selected <br />7 ("Neither scenario presented in the Regional Economic Analysis is expressly <br />8 rejected by the City of Coburg in this addendum. At their cores both scenarios <br />9 are generally consistent with the primary assumptions of the current <br />10 Urbanization Study. * * * All of the scenarios evaluated support the continued <br />11 need for a UGB expansion of at least 40 acres to as much as 195 acres based on <br />12 forecast need for large industrial sites within Coburg and the Central Lane <br />13 County region.") Record 306. Therefore, petitioners argue, the decision is not <br />14 adequate for review. <br />15 Respondents answer that the city and intervenor submitted letters to <br />16 clarify the evidence in the record that supported the decision, and that those <br />17 letters were incorporated as findings. Those letters are at Record 757-782 and <br />determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for <br />employment uses consistent with 660-009-0025. Employment land <br />need may be based on an estimate of job growth over the planning <br />period; local government must provide a reasonable justification <br />for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that job <br />growth estimates necessarily be proportional to population <br />growth. * * (Emphasis added.) <br />Page 53 <br />