HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP041119
CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Mayor
Hank Williams
Ward I
Neil Olsen
Ward II
Kelley Johnson
Ward III
Brandon Thueson
Ward IV
Taneea Browning
At Large
Rob Hernandez
At Large
Michael Parsons
At Large
Michael Parsons
Next Res (1575) Ord (2057)
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. Transportation Updates
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment is for non-agenda items. If you are here to make comments on a specific agenda item, you must speak at
that time. Please limit your remarks to 3 minutes per individual, 5 minutes per group, with a maximum of 20 minutes per meeting being allotted for public comments. The council may ask questions but may take no action during the public
comment section of the meeting, except to direct staff to prepare a report or place an item on a future agenda.
Complaints against specific City employees should be resolved through the City’s Personnel Complaint procedure. The
right to address the Council does not exempt the speaker from any potential liability for defamation.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of March 28, 2019 City Council Minutes
B. Approval of 2019 City Surplus List
C. Authorization to Cancel May 9th and July 25th City Council Meeting
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING
Public comments will be allowed on items under this part of the agenda following a brief staff report presenting the item
and action requested. The presiding officer may limit testimony.
A. An Ordinance adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
(2019-2039). (Holtey)
IX. BUSINESS
A. Dennis Richardson Memorial Discussion (Samitore)
B. Discussion of Little League Partnership Options (Samitore)
C. Appointment of New Planning Commission Member (Casey)
D. Preliminary Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Mapping Discussion
(Holtey)
E. Planning Commission Report (Humphrey)
X. MAYOR'S REPORT
XI. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
XII. COUNCIL REPORTS
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council will adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660. Under the provisions of the
Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the
hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request,
please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail to Deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov.
Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por
favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Oregon
City Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 28, 2019
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Hank Williams
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Hank Williams Mayor Present
Neil Olsen Ward I Present
Kelley Johnson Ward II Present
Brandon Thueson Ward III Excused
Taneea Browning Ward IV Present
Rob Hernandez At Large Excused
Michael Parsons At Large Present
Staff members in attendance: City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dryer;
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey; Parks and Public Works Director
Matt Samitore; Police Captain Dave Croft; and City Recorder Deanna Casey.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. Planning Commission Member Recognition
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey presented awards of recognition
to John Whiting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Whiting and his wife will be moving
out of town in April. He also recognized CAC members Sam Inkley and Larry Martin
who will be leaving the CAC because of conflict of interest issues with the Urban
Growth Boundary areas. We hope to see them at future meetings, and hope they
continue to stay involved with the City of Central Point.
2. RVCOG Annual Report
RVCOG Executive Director Michael Cavallaro from RVCOG presented the Annual
Report for 2018. He updated the Council on some of the valued programs that they
have implemented and managed over the last few years like the Brownfields
projects; Shake Alert program implementing 45 second zones/plans; Alert Wildfire
detection and quick notice; the availability of the GIS specialist for members; a drone
program to help members with Arial photos and infrared technology; Senior and
Disabilities program updates; and Grant writing services. They hired a replacement
for Dick Converse the new Principal Land Use Planner is Ryan Nolan. They continue
to balance the budget without increasing cost to the members.
6.A
Packet Pg. 3 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 2
City Manager Chris Clayton thanked RVCOG for being such good partners with the
city. He suggested the Alert Wildfire Detection cameras be installed in the water
shed. If we had a fire in that area it could affect the entire water supply for the Rogue
Valley.
RESULT: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Taneea Browning, Ward IV
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Browning, Parsons
EXCUSED: Brandon Thueson, Rob Hernandez
A. Approval of March 14, 2019 City Council Minutes
Neil Olsen clarify that his comment in the minutes regarding the Mae
Richardson Path wasn't to request maintenance but stated that without
maintenance the trails get over grown.
Michael Parsons moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
VII. ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. _______ to include Southern Oregon Regional Economic
Development Funding Request Amount of $5,300 for a New Regional
Economic Strategy in the 2019-2021 City of Central Point Budget Proposal
Mr. Clayton explained that the Council previously heard a request from Southern
Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc (SOREDI) asking for funding from a
number of municipalities to establish a regional economic strategy for Southern
Oregon. As the federally appointed Economic Development District, SOREDI is
required to develop a comprehensive development strategy in five-year increments.
Their Board of Directors has recently adopted an initiative to create a regional
economic strategy aimed at eliminating long-standing economic disadvantages and
generating potential expansion opportunities. SOREDI Board of Directors intend to
include a robust performance measure in any developed strategy so that all
stakeholders can evaluate outcomes/results and demonstrate the wisdom of this
publicly funded project.
The City of Central Point contributes to SOREDI by annual membership dues and
generally supports their economic development initiatives. The city is being asked to
support the proposal in the amount of $5,300. The proposed resolution will state the
amount the city is willing to provide after the 2019-2021 budget has been approved.
The funds would be available for disbursement after July 1, 2019. SOREDI will also
be asking for a grant from the State of Oregon. They should know by that time if the
grant is approved or if they will need to ask the members for additional funds. If they
6.A
Packet Pg. 4 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 3
are denied the grant, the City Council will need to decide if the city is able to fund an
additional amount.
Mike Parsons moved to approve Resolution No. 1572, to include Southern
Oregon Regional Economic Development Funding Request Amount of $5,300
for a New Regional Economic Strategy in the 2019-2021 City of Central Point
Budget Proposal.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Browning, Parsons
EXCUSED: Brandon Thueson, Rob Hernandez
B. Resolution No. ______, Adopting the Rogue Valley Storm Water Design Manual
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore explained that the Rogue Valley
Storm Water Design Manual is the currently approved manual for design consultants
to use for new water quality projects associated with new development or major
redevelopment. The manual is updated annually. It has been suggested by DEQ that
we adopt the attached document by Resolution now that the city has its own water
quality permit. Previously Rogue Valley Sewer Systems managed the design of
construction projects in Central Point.
Mr. Samitore explained that it is the intent of the city to be more flexible with the
developers while still adhering to the standards. RVSS interpreted the manual in
black and white terms. We hope to be able to work with developers on infill projects
that may have special circumstances. The City will be creating a Central Point
Standards in the near future which will fit the state guidelines while still allowing
flexibility in design.
Kelley Johnson moved to Approve Resolution No. 1573, Adopting the Rogue
Valley Storm Water Quality Design Manual.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
SECONDER: Taneea Browning, Ward IV
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Browning, Parsons
EXCUSED: Brandon Thueson, Rob Hernandez
C. Resolution No. _______, Approving Amendment No. 1 to Intergovernmental
Agreement with Jackson County for Improvement and Elimination of Railroad
Crossings and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement
Mr. Samitore stated that the original agreement signed by the City of Central Point in
2017 was misplaced after it was sent to Jackson County. The City has received a
request to execute a new Amendment to the IGA, and to include updated provisions.
The revised agreement gives the city time to complete any additional safety
concerns or welded rail requirements that may be needed as part of the ODOT
project. Under the original IGA the city agreed that in exchange for the financial
6.A
Packet Pg. 5 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 4
flexibility from Jackson County, the City would take jurisdiction of Bursell Road. The
new proposed amendment provides the information of responsibilities that have been
completed and the responsibilities that still need to be funded.
There was discussion about the closing of Seven Oaks crossing, issues that have
come up regarding the upgrades to the Scenic crossing and intersection with Hwy
99. There have been several fatal accidents at that intersection. Engineers will be
working on designs for the intersection. The city will have some responsibility for
providing funds even though it is not in our jurisdiction.
Kelley Johnson moved to approve Resolution No. 1574 A Resolution
Approving Amendment No. 1 to that Intergovernmental Agreement with
Jackson County and the City of Central Point for Improvement and elimination
of Railroad Crossings and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute
Agreement.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kelley Johnson, Ward II
SECONDER: Michael Parsons, At Large
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Browning, Parsons
EXCUSED: Brandon Thueson, Rob Hernandez
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Rogue Valley Transit District request for a Bus Stop at 5th
and East Pine
Mr. Samitore explained that the Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) has
encountered issues with the right turn movement from E. Pine onto N. 2nd Street. The
Council discussed this issue in February and decided to revise the bulb-out at 2nd
Street. RVTD has stated that they do not want to change their route back to the
original direction because they have seen an increase in riders with the new route.
They are now asking to locate a bus stop near 5th Street in front of the Grange Hall.
RVTD has provided a conceptual drawing with modifications that would have to be
implemented to the planter/landscaping area to make it viable for RVTD.
There was discussion that RVTD knew about the construction project well before the
changes were made and the city created a location on the north side of Pine at 6th
Street. The new recommendation would take away one parking spot on Pine Street
and cost the city funds to change the landscaping in order to accommodate one or
two riders.
Mike Parsons moved to direct staff to encourage RVTD to pursue a new
location. Neil Olsen seconded.
There was discussion of other options staff could suggest to RVTD and that they
could use a shorter bus that would work with the location Council originally
suggested in front of Key Bank in February.
Mike Parsons made a motion to withdraw the previous motion. Neil Olsen
6.A
Packet Pg. 6 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 5
seconded.
Mike Parson moved to reject the proposal of locating a new RVTD bus stop in
front of the Grange Hall on Pine Street.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Michael Parsons, At Large
SECONDER: Neil Olsen, Ward I
AYES: Williams, Olsen, Johnson, Browning, Parsons
EXCUSED: Brandon Thueson, Rob Hernandez
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that:
He attended the Cheese Festival. It was very crowded and very successful.
He attended Central Point Greeter's.
The Jackson County Fair Board gave the fair manager approval to look for support
for the Red, White and Boom. If successful they would open the gates to the Expo. If
she is unable to find sponsors the gates may need to stay closed during the event.
X. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
There is a lot of interest in developing in town recently.
There were a couple of articles in the paper this week. One was regarding the new
Jackson County Jail Bond. The County will be asking local cities for a Resolution of
Support.
There was also a nice article on the Cheese Festival. It looks like they will be
continue to have the festival in Central Point.
He will send out information on the Addiction Recovery Center lunch.
The clearing of brush on the greenway is going well. They have found signs for the
Mae Richardson path along with benches and picnic tables from when the path was
in better shape.
Chief Alison and Council Member Browning are introducing Council, Cops and
Coffee. A way to connect with the Council and staff other than during Council
meetings. The first event will be May 1st in Phaff Park.
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Kelley Johnson had no report.
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
6.A
Packet Pg. 7 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 6
She attended the cheese festival. It was crowded but very successful and it was nice to
introduce the new Maker Space building to the public.
She attended Fire District 3 Board meeting. Their seismic upgrades are complete and
they have identified hazardous material storage facilities in the area. There are 71
facilities in the region. They will be introducing a 28 million dollar infrastructure bond
supported by the county. They identified 905 incidents where they responded to falls and
they will be working with a non-profit in Central Point to help with those homes at risk of
causing falls.
She attended the RVCOG meeting. They received an award from SOLVE for their work
on the Greenway cleanup, their financials are in good shape. The Josephine Food and
Friends building will be complete in June. The next Wildfire Alert meeting will be May
10th.
Council Member Mike Parsons reported that:
He attended the Cheese Makers Dinner as a Central Point Sponsor.
He worked the Cheese Festival as a Police Volunteer all weekend. The set up was
better and the traffic was slower this year because of the Twin Creeks Crossing
construction zone.
He attended the Study Session.
He attended the RVSS meeting and lunch.
Council Member Neil Olsen reported that he participated in the Shamrock Run and
attended the Cheese Festival.
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that:
The Building Department has hired Jeanine Delchini a Community Development Support
specialist. They are in the process of recruiting a new Planner for the Planning
Department side.
The Planning Commission will be reviewing the site plan for Fire District No. 3 at their
April meeting.
Staff has been working on mapping out alternative areas for the UGB Amendment. They
are working with Jackson County to schedule joint Planning Commission meetings and a
time line for expected completion of the UGB expansion.
There is a Planners Network meeting coming up in Southern Oregon.
The Southern Oregon Chiropractors Office and an Urgent Care Facility is being
proposed for the corner of 6th and Pine Street.
6.A
Packet Pg. 8 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
City Council Minutes
March 28, 2019
Page 7
Captain Dave Croft reported that seven Central Point Officers drove to Salem last week
for the Police Academy graduation of Wayne Evens. We are very proud of Officer Evens
who started as our CSO. They are conducting a recruitment process for a new officer
and are planning 15 to 17 people going through the assessment process next week.
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that:
The City has terminated the contract with TYLN for the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing.
Construction is ongoing while we are in transition to RH2. We will have a temporary
agreement with RH2 to continue the work until the State gets a permanent agreement in
place.
B&B Fire Suppression cleared approximately 10 acres of greenway near the Expo. Fire
District No. 3 kicked in funds to help with the clearing effort. We hope to get the Mae
Richardson Trail back in usable shape.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
Kelley Johnson moved to adjourn. Taneea Browning seconded. All said aye and the
meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the March 28, 2019, Council meeting were approved by the City
Council at its meeting of April 11, 2019.
Dated: _________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Mar 28, 2019 7:00 PM (CONSENT AGENDA)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Approval of 2019 City Surplus List
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is the list of surplus from new purchases and
consolidations across all departments from March of 2018 through March 2019. No
items are being donated at this time.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: Surplus revenue is considered miscellaneous revenue and is added
to the internal services fund.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: N/A
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the 2019 Surplus
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Recommend approval of the 2019 City Surplus.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. surplus. 2019
6.B
Packet Pg. 10
Item #Qty Make/Model Description Dept Reason Method of Disposal Est. $ Value
1 1 Chevy Colorado Spray Rig Truck PW Not Used Auction $4,000
2 1 Chevy Colorado Parks Utility Vehicle PKS Not Used Auction $5,000
3 1 ExMark LAZER Z XP Zero-Turn Mower PKS Replaced Auction $1,500
4 1 Custom In-House 5'x8' Trailer PKS Replaced Auction $400
5 1 Custom In-House 6'x14' Trailer PKS Replaced Auction $700
6 1 Husqvarna Z248F Zero-Turn Mower PKS Replaced Auction $500
7 3 Boxes of Kid Games Recreation Dept. Surplus REC Not Used Auction <100
8 1 Sharp XE-A23S Cash Register REC Not Used Auction <100
9 30 Folding Chairs Folding Chairs from Various Locations P&R Not Used Auction <100
10 2 Unknown Hanging Plans Cabinets BLD Not Used Auction <100
11 1 Random Box of misc. tools from field crews PW Not Used Auction <100
12 1 Random Box of misc. PVC fittings PW Not Used Auction <100
13 1 Unknown Folding Ping Pong Table REC Not Used Auction <100
14 5 Tables Misc. sizes of plastic folding tables P&R Not Used Auction <100
15 1 K Copper 1-1/2"Odd sized copper water service pipe PW Not Used Auction <100
16 2 CEP Utility Work lights PW Not Used Auction <100
17 1 Grand Inc Confined Space Blower PW Replaced Auction <100
18 1 Random Misc old tools from fab shop PW Not Used Auction <100
19 1 Liftmoore Inc Vehicle Hoist PW Not Used Auction $200
20 4 Unknown 4'x4' Plastic Safety barriers PW Not Used Auction <100
21 1 Hobart 8500 Portable Stick Welder PW Not Used Auction $1,500
22 3 Fujitsu FI5160 Desktop Scanner IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
23 2 Marantz PMD570 Solid State Audio Recording Server IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
24 1 Dymo Label Writer Label Printer IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
25 1 Wasp Waspnest Barcode Scanner & Software IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
26 26 Dell D830 Laptop IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
27 4 Triplite Smart500rtiu UPS Battery Backup IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
28 1 Standard Imagemast Overhead Transparency Projector IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
29 2 Architectural Accous Audio Mixer IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
30 13 N/A Aluminum laptop stand IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
CP SURPLUS LIST 2019
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: surplus. 2019 (1127 : 2019 City Surplus)
Item #Qty Make/Model Description Dept Reason Method of Disposal Est. $ Value
31 1 Symbol MC3000 Handheld Scanner IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
32 1 Zebra TLP2824 Printer IT Replaced Auction 100+/-
33 3 Random 6' Office Desks ALL Replaced RESTORE <>
34 5 Random Rolling Office Chairs ALL Replaced RESTORE <>
35 2 Random File Cabinets ALL Replaced RESTORE <>
36 5 Random Meeting Room Chairs ALL Not Used RESTORE <>
37 10 Random Break Room Chairs PW Not Used RESTORE <>
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: surplus. 2019 (1127 : 2019 City Surplus)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Administration
FROM: Deanna Casey, City Recorder
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Authorization to Cancel May 9th and July 25th City Council Meeting
ACTION REQUIRED:
Consent Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
The City Manager is recommending cancellation of the May 9, 2019 City Council meeting due to
multiple meetings in the end of April and beginning of May.
The City Manager is recommending cancellation of the July 25, 2019 City Council meeting due
to the remodel in the Council Chambers during the last half of July.
6.C
Packet Pg. 13
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: An Ordinance adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Housing
Element (2019-2039).
ACTION REQUIRED:
Public Hearing
Ordinance 1st Reading
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 866 recommending
approval of the 2019-2039 Housing Element (Attachment “A”). The Housing Element evaluates
the City’s forecast growth and associated need for housing based on the availability of built
land, household and housing characteristics. In addition to being considered at a duly noticed
public hearing by the Planning Commission, the Housing Element has been considered by the
Citizen’s Advisory Committee also with a favorable recommendation.
Housing Element Overview:
The Housing Element includes an analysis of housing needs within the City’s urban area over a
20-year growth period and addresses the City’s capacity to accommodate that need within the
existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Based on past and forecast housing and demographic
characteristics, the Housing Element sets forth goals and policies intended to encourage the
number of various housing types at appropriate locations and densities, as well as the price
levels that are commensurate with the capabilities of Central Point households.
The Housing Element was last updated in 2017, a little over a year ago. Since that time,
population forecast changes and updated residential buildable lands information have resulted
in an increased need in housing for the period 2019-2039 as shown in Table 1. The proposed
Housing Element addresses these changes and maintains the previously adopted policies
without changes.
8.A
Packet Pg. 14
Table 1
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.1 19,101
2032 Forecast2 23,662
2039 Forecast3 26,317
Population Increase 7,216
Persons/HH4 2.50
Household Increase 2,887
Average Gross Density5 7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres 410
Total Buildable Residential Acres6 105
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305
1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2018
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated
Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB),
and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill
Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
The housing needs identified in the Housing Element do not generate additional cost to the City
beyond the in-kind staff expenses, postage and legal notification cost included within the
budgeted funds for Community Development. The fiscal impact of extending public
infrastructure and services to accommodate future housing will be evaluated at such time as the
City proposes amendments to its UGB.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan text amendments are “Major Amendments” per CPMC 17.96.300 and are
subject to Type IV Legislative application procedures per CPMC 17.05.500. Conducting a
second public hearing by the City Council is necessary and a requisite procedure to adopt
changes to the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Housing Element.
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
The City Council goal is to provide managed growth and infrastructure and is predicated on the
ability of the City to forecast growth and the corresponding land and service needs over the long
term. The 2019-2039 Housing Element aligns with the Council’s goal by: “Continually ensuring
that planning and zoning review and regulations are consistent with the comprehensive plans
and vision.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving the staff report, open the public hearing to receive public input regarding the
8.A
Packet Pg. 15
2019-2039 Housing Element. Close the public hearing and 1) forward to a second reading; 2)
forward to a second reading with changes; or 3) deny the 2019-2039 Housing Element.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to forward the Ordinance updating and adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element (2019-2039) to a second reading on the April 25, 2019 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance (Housing Element)
2. Housing Element (PC Recommended)
3. PC Resolution No 866
8.A
Packet Pg. 16
Ordinance No. _____; April 11, 2019 Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND ADOPTING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT (2019-2039)
Recitals:
A. The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS)
Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and implementing
ordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
B. The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS
197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals and
compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans.
C. ORS 197.296 directs jurisdictions to demonstrate its comprehensive plan provides
sufficient buildable lands within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate
estimated housing needs for 20-years. The Housing Element reflects the analysis
and determination of residential housing needs necessary to satisfy this requirement.
D. Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City has
determined it is necessary to update its Housing Element which was last adopted
and acknowledged in 2017.
E. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.96 Amendments and
Chapter 17.05.500, Procedure, the City has initiated the amendments and conducted
the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the proposed amendments:
a) Planning Commission hearing on February 5, 2019 and March 5, 2019; and,
b) City Council hearing on April 11, 2019.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council adopts the Staff
Reports and evidence which are incorporated herein by reference; determines that changing
community conditions, needs and desires justify the amendments and hereby adopts the
changes entirely.
Section 2. The City Comprehensive Plan Housing Element is hereby updated and
adopted as set forth in Exhibit A –Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, 2019-2039 which is
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to conduct post acknowledgement procedures
defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the Housing Element.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ___ day of
____________, 2019.
__________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Recorder
______________________________________________________________________________
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Ordinance (Housing Element) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
Housing Element
2019-2039
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Final Draft
3/5/2019
Ordinance No.
DLCD Acknowledged:
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 2 | 37
Contents
1. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Residential Land Need ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1
Housing Affordability ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2
Housing Types.................................................................................................................. 7 1.3
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7
3. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing .................................................................... 8
4. Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 9
5. Household Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 9
Household Tenure .......................................................................................................... 10 5.1
Age of Householder ....................................................................................................... 11 5.2
Household Size ............................................................................................................... 12 5.3
Household Income.......................................................................................................... 12 5.4
Special Needs Housing................................................................................................... 14 5.5
5.5.1 Elderly Residents .................................................................................................... 14
5.5.2 Handicapped Residents ........................................................................................... 15
Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents ................................................................. 15 5.6
Summary, Household Characteristics ............................................................................ 15 5.7
6. Housing Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 16
Housing Age ................................................................................................................... 16 6.1
Housing Type ................................................................................................................. 16 6.2
Housing Value ................................................................................................................ 21 6.3
Housing Vacancy ........................................................................................................... 22 6.4
Summary, Housing Characteristics ................................................................................ 23 6.5
7. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................... 23
Housing Density ............................................................................................................. 23 7.1
Land Use and Housing Type .......................................................................................... 27 7.2
Summary, Housing Density ........................................................................................... 27 7.3
8. Buildable Residential Lands ................................................................................................. 27
Summary, Buildable Residential Lands ......................................................................... 29 8.1
9. Housing Affordability ........................................................................................................... 29
Renter Households ......................................................................................................... 29 9.1
Owner Households ......................................................................................................... 30 9.2
Summary, Affordability ................................................................................................. 31 9.3
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 3 | 37
10. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 31
Future Housing Tenure ............................................................................................... 34 10.1
Future Housing Types ................................................................................................ 34 10.2
11. Housing Goals and Policies ............................................................................................... 34
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 4 | 37
1. Summary
Over the next twenty-years (2019-39) the City of Central Point’s population is projected to add
an additional 7,216 people, the equivalent of 2,887 new households. Most of the households will
be the result of in-migration as the region continues to grow. The physical and demographic
characteristics of these new households are not expected to significantly change. Single-family
detached owner-occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by
multiple-family rental housing.
The most significant housing challenge will be affordability. Regardless of housing type the cost
of housing is taking a larger percentage of household income.
Residential Land Need 1.1
To accommodate the housing demand the City will need an estimated 410 gross acres of
residential land (Table 1). The City’s current inventory of Buildable Residential Land totals 105
gross acres, requiring 305 gross acres of additional Buildable Residential Land.
Aside from the Great Recession of 2008 (“Great Recession”), which had a significant negative
impact on jobs and housing, the most significant influence on the City’s housing program was
the adoption of a development standard requiring a minimum average density of 6.9 dwelling
Table 1
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.1 19,101
2032 Forecast2 23,662
2039 Forecast3 26,317
Population Increase 7,216
Persons/HH4 2.50
Household Increase 2,887
Average Gross Density5 7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres 410
Total Buildable Residential Acres6 105
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305
1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2018
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated
Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB),
and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill
Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 5 | 37
units per gross acre1 for new residential construction. The relevance of this new density standard
becomes evident when compared to the City’s current average (1889 through 2018) gross density
of 4.41 dwelling units (Table 2). For purposes of comparison Table 2 also shows the City’s 1980
maximum allowable density. Unlike the new density standards, which are measured in terms of
required minimums, the 1980 densities were stated in terms of maximum allowed densities.
The use of minimum average densities does not preclude higher density development. As an
example, during the latter two time periods (2006 through 2018 and 2010 through 2018) the
higher average densities in Table 3 exceed the average 6.9 minimum density standard. It should
be noted that these periods of higher average density were primarily due to the concentration of
Developable Residential acres in the higher density districts (MRes and HRes), and the
1 City of Central Point Regional Plan
Table 2
City of Central Point
Land Use Classification
1980
Maximum
Allowed
Gross
Density1
Historic
Average
Gross
Densities
2019-2039
Minimum
Required
Gross
Density
VLRes 1.00 1.31 1.00
LRes 6.00 3.85 4.00
MRes 12.00 6.02 7.00
HRes 25.00 7.11 20.00
Average Gross Density 10.95 4.41 7.04
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
1 Based on build-out of residentially designated lands
1980, Actual, and 2019-2039 Gross Density Comparision
Table 3
City of Central Point
Gross Density Comparision Historic, 1980-2018, 2006-2018, and 2010-2018
Land Use Classification
Historic
Average
Gross
Densities
Actual
Developed
Gross
Density, 1980 -
2018
Actual
Developed
Gross
Density, 2006 -
2018
Actual
Developed
Gross
Density, 2010 -
2018
VLRes 1.31 1.51 1.65 -
LRes 3.85 4.14 5.22 5.06
MRes 6.02 7.85 9.71 9.21
HRes 7.11 9.56 19.97 22.04
Average Gross Density 4.41 5.42 8.42 7.99
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 6 | 37
subsequent development of higher density housing. These higher densities do not represent the
City’s long-term housing goal of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, but instead illustrates the
City’s need to re-stock the low density (LRes) Buildable Residential acres and rebalance the total
Buildable Residential lands inventory to meet the minimum density objective.
To achieve the minimum density standard it will be necessary to modify the acreage distribution
within the City’s residential land use classifications (Table 4). The redistribution is most
significant in the low density (LRes) classification where there was a 10% reduction from the
LRes historic participation. To offset this reduction the medium density (MRes) was increased
9% and a 1% increase in the high density (HRes) land use classifications.
As previously noted (Table 1) the City will need an estimated 410 acres of gross residential land.
After taking into consideration the City’s current inventory of residential land (105 gross acres),
there is a need for an additional 305 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table
5.
Housing Affordability 1.2
Housing affordability will continue to be a challenge for many households, improving and
declining as a function of the national economy. The City is very aware of the challenges in
addressing housing affordability. The Housing Element includes policies requiring the
development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the “HIP”). The specific purpose of the HIP
will be to monitor housing needs and affordability in the context of regional efforts by local
governments and the private sector, and to put into action those strategies that have a positive
mitigating impact on addressing housing need and affordability in the City of Central Point.
Table 4.
City of Central Point
Comparison Historic Developed Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution vs. 2006-2018,
2010-2018 and Proposed New 2019-2039 Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution
Land Use Classification
Historic Percentage
Developed Residential Acres,
pre-2018
New Percentage Buildable
Residential Acreage
Distribution, 2019-2039
VLRes 4%4%
LRes 70%60%
MRes 11%20%
HRes 15%16%
Totals 100%100%
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 7 | 37
The City does have control over a very critical resource in the affordability equation – the
availability of vacant land necessary to meet market demand for housing. Therefore, the primary
objective of this Housing Element is the continued assurance that sufficient land is available for
housing and that zoning standards are flexible and take in to account all housing types and needs.
There are other tools available such as urban renewal and system development charge credits
(SDCs), but consideration of these and other options requires additional analysis beyond what
this Housing Element offers, analysis more appropriate for the HIP and regional strategies.
Housing Types 1.3
Historically the preferred housing type has been single-family detached (SFD) housing. As a
result of changing demographics and affordability the SFD unit has been taking less market
share, and is expected to continue that trend until the issue of affordability is resolved. In 1980
the SFD unit accounted for 80% of the City’s total housing stock. For the period 1980 through
2018 SFD representation dropped to 70% of all housing units built during that period. The
difference was made up in the single-family attached and manufactured homes.
Going forward it is expected that the SFD unit will continue to be the preferred housing type, but
with a declining market share. This is reflected in the Developable Residential Land distribution
shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
2. Introduction
The City’s Housing Element was last updated in 2017 and was based on the 2015 population
forecast prepared by Portland State University’s Population Research Center (PSU). The most
recent PSU forecast (2018) for the City increases the City’s population by 7,216 vs. the 4,420 in
the 2015 PSU forecast. The magnitude of the 2018 increase is sufficient to warrant a re-
Table 5
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Land Use Classification
Percentage
Distribution of
Needed
Developable
Residential
Acres, 2019-
2039
Needed
Developable
Residential
Acres, 2019-
2039
2018 Existing
Buildable
Residential
Acres
Surplus or
(Shortage)
VLRes 4%16 3 (13)
LRes 60%246 35 (211)
MRes 20%82 46 (36)
HRes 16%66 21 (45)
Totals 100%410 105 (305)
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 8 | 37
evaluation and 2019 update of the Housing Element, particularly as it applies to the need for
Buildable Residential Lands.
Prior to the 2017 Housing Element there was the 1983 Housing Element. Ironically, the 1983
Housing Element was completed just after the 1980’s Real Estate Crash. Its purpose statement
reflects local government’s frustration in its inability to offer timely, meaningful and sustainable
solutions to needed housing as “. . . usually ineffective.” This reaction is understandable given
the circumstances in 1983. At the housing peak in 1978 over 4 million homes across the U.S.
were sold. Then, over the course of the next four years housing sales dropped over 50%. With
interest rates in excess of 15% housing affordability was a major issue. It wasn’t until 1996,
almost two decades later, that the national housing market recovered to its 1978 level. Since the
Recession we once again confront the issue of housing need and affordability.
Housing demand and supply, as with most commodities, varies with changing demographics and
economic cycles. Demographic changes can affect the long-term (generational) demand for
housing and is predictable and easily factored into the supply side of the housing equation.
Economic cycles, unlike demographic changes, are more whimsical, less predictable, and can be
very disruptive to the shorter-term demand and supply for housing. The Great Recession had,
and still poses, a significant impact on housing, both on the demand and the supply side of the
equation. Prior to the Great Recession demand for housing was high and with sub-prime lending
practices housing was affordable. By the end of 2007 the housing bubble had burst – the Great
Recession had arrived. Unemployment skyrocketed (16%), mortgage foreclosures reached
historic levels, and housing prices tumbled. Overnight housing production of all types virtually
ceased. Without jobs homeownership was out of reach for many households.
The Great Recession did not reduce the real demand for housing; people still needed a place to
live. Consequently, the demand for rental units increased, but due to the failure of the financial
system, real estate lending for all housing types dried up, the short-term housing supply
plateaued. With the increase in the demand for rental housing rents began to escalate. Today,
unemployment and interest rates are near all-time lows, wages are increasing (although slowly),
and lending practices are easing, all of which are improving the supply and affordability of
housing, but affordability still remains a challenge. As the economy continues to improve the
question remains – will housing affordability continue to improve, or will additional measures be
needed before sustainable solutions to the affordability issue are realized?
3. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing
The need for housing/shelter is one of man’s basic survival needs. Oregon’s Statewide Planning
Goals, Goal 10, Housing, recognizes this need and offers a venue to address not only housing
needs in general, but also the broader spectrum of housing – its affordability. The stated purpose
of Goal 10 is to “. . . encourage adequate numbers of needed housing at price ranges and rent
levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City’s households”.
The City of Central Point’s Housing Element addresses the objectives set forth in the State’s
Goal 10, Housing. The Housing Element will not only encourage adequate numbers of needed
housing, but the continuous monitoring of housing activity as it relates to both need and
affordability, and the development of strategies and actions addressing housing affordability. It is
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 9 | 37
for this reason that the Housing Element introduces the creation of a Housing Implementation
Plan, a dynamic working document that monitors housing activity within the City and
coordinates with other communities in the development and implementation of affordable
housing at both the local and regional level.
4. Purpose
Over the course of the next 20-year planning period (2019-39) the City’s population is projected
to increase by 7,216 residents2. With an average household size of 2.5 persons3 there will be a
need for 2,887 dwelling units. The types, density, and land required to meet the projected
housing demand will be addressed in this Housing Element. On the demand side the Housing
Element will monitor the demand for housing and make necessary adjustments in the land
supply, while on the supply side the Housing Element will encourage and support the
development of a wide array of housing types. The purpose of the Housing Element is:
To assure that the City’s land use policies, support a variety of housing types at
densities and locations that provide and encourage opportunities for the provision
of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels
commensurate with the financial capabilities of the City’s households. It is also
the purpose of this element to open and maintain communication between private
industry and local public officials in seeking an improved housing environment
within the Greater Bear Creek Valley Region.
There are six basic indicators of housing need that serve as the basis for this Housing
Element:
1. Household Characteristics;
2. Housing Characteristics;
3. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning;
4. Buildable Residential Lands;
5. Housing Affordability; and
6. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Needs
The conclusions, goals and policies of this Housing Element are derived from the current
status of each indicator. As part of the Housing Implementation Plan it is expected that
each indicator will be monitored and tracked periodically for changes that affect the
City’s housing needs.
5. Household Characteristics
One of the factors in determining housing demand is an understanding of the characteristics of
our households. As defined by the U.S. Census a household includes all the people who occupy a
housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence. There are two
2 PSU 3 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 10 | 37
major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily." For purposes of this Housing Element
the term “household” includes both “family” and “non-family” households.
The following describes those household characteristics pertinent to understanding the City’s
housing needs.
Household Tenure 5.1
By definition tenure refers to the distinction between owner-occupied and renter-
occupied housing units. For the City of Central Point owner occupied housing has been
historically the dominant, but declining, form of tenure. In 2017 owner occupied housing
represented 61% of all households (Figure 1), down slightly from 2015. Renter occupied
units have typically been less than half (Figure 2) of owner occupied units (39%).
As a result of the Great Recession, and its impact on jobs and income, the owner
occupied percentages have been declining as foreclosures forced many to abandon their
homes and seek rental housing. Since the Great Recession, as jobs and wages gradually
improved, there should have been some movement back to ownership as the preferred
tenure. At the county and state level, although slightly lower, there have been some gains
in ownership, but at the City level ownership continued to decline. The reason for the
decline may be as simple as the increase in construction of rental units since 2015, which
may now have reached market capacity, or the result of the growing disparity between
increasing housing costs and lagging household income.
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 11 | 37
Age of Householder 5.2
A householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned or
rented. If there is no such person present, then any household member 15 years old and
over can serve as the householder4. As illustrated in Figure 3 the dominant householder
age has been within the 35 to 64 category. As a result of the Great Recession, and the
subsequent loss in jobs and income, householders in this age category experienced a
reduction, 49% in 2010. Since the Great Recession, as job conditions improved this age
category as returned to its pre-recession level.
4 U.S. Census Glossary
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Occupancy Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 12 | 37
The age category 65 plus was not affected by the Great Recession. Householders in this
category are typically retired, and therefor insulated against the income induced impacts
(jobs) of a recession. The increase of householders in this age category is the product of
the aging Baby Boomer generation.
Unlike the other two age categories the 15 to 34 category experienced an increase as a
result of the Great Recession. Since the recovery the housing participation of this
category has dropped below 20%, possibly as a result of relocation for employment
purposes.
Household Size 5.3
The average household size is computed based on occupied housing and total population.
Until the Recession the average City household size had been continually declining and
projected to level-out at 2.5 persons per household. Since the Recession the average
household size has actually increased. The increase in household size also occurred at the
state and county. The primary cause for the increase in average household size is again
due to the Recession as many younger adults moved in with their parents or cohabitated
for affordability reasons. It is anticipated that as the economy improves and ages that the
average household size will continue its downward trend.
Figure 4 identifies changes in the average household size since 1990. The City’s
Population Element identified an average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes
over the next twenty years.
Household Income 5.4
Between 2000 and 2010 the median household income has steadily increased, peaking in
2010 at $50,631 for the City. Since the Great Recession household incomes have
declined. As of 2017 the median household income for the City was $48,409 (Figure 5),
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 13 | 37
down slightly from 2015. At the county and state level median incomes have increased.
As with household ownership this decline may be a function of rental housing
construction since 2015. Pending continued improvement in the economy the median
household income should improve, which in turn should improve housing affordability.
During the Great Recession the most financially impacted household income group was
the $35,000 to $49,999 category. This group has almost recovered to pre-Recession
levels (Figure 6). The $50,000 to $74,999 income group is the largest group representing
approximately 25% of all households.
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 14 | 37
Special Needs Housing 5.5
Certain minority groups within the general population have unique challenges and
needs that deserve consideration as part of this Housing Element. Often these
groups are ignored because they represent a small portion of the total population.
However, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that all citizens
have an opportunity for safe and decent housing. The City’s most significant
contribution to addressing special housing is assurances that the City’s zoning and
building regulations are not impediments and that the City works collaboratively
with other organizations to assure that special needs housing is not left behind.
5.5.1 Elderly Residents
The Baby Boom Generation is the fastest growing segment of the population at
both the national, state, and local level. By 2040 it is projected that nationally one
in eight persons will be at least 75. In 2014 that figure was one in sixteen5.
Among individuals aged 80 and over more than 75% live in their own homes,
making “aging in place” the preference of most of the elderly population.
However, as this older demographic continues to grow, they will find themselves
in housing that is not suited or “. . . prepared to meet their increasing need for
affordability, accessibility, social connectivity, and well-being.” As people age,
their physical needs change. Climbing stairs and turning doorknobs can become
more difficult impacting the ability to “age in place” becomes more difficult.
The majority of elderly residents are retired and living on pensions or other forms
of fixed income. As the costs of maintaining a household increase over time the
5 The State of the Nation’s Housing; Joint Studies for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2017
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 15 | 37
elderly are typically spending an increasing percentage of their income on
housing. As people age, they need housing that is structurally and mechanically
safe and that is designed to accommodate people with disabilities. Given the
widely varying circumstances of older adults, meeting their housing and housing-
related needs requires a range of responses.
5.5.2 Handicapped Residents
Residents who are physically handicapped suffer many of the same problems as
the elderly, such as fixed incomes and difficulty in maintaining property.
Strategies for elderly housing are applicable to handicapped households.
Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents 5.6
The federal government defines the 2017 poverty level between $12,600 and $41,320
depending on the household size6. In 2017 approximately 10% of all families within the
City were classified at or below the poverty level, up from 2015. At the County and State
level there was a decline in the percentage of families at or below the poverty level. The
increase in poverty level households correlates with the decline in median household
income. The construction of more single-family detached owner occupied homes will
change this trend.
Summary, Household Characteristics 5.7
Since 2015 the City’s percentage of owner occupied units has dropped below the county
and state level. The median household income in 2017 is lower than the county and the
state. Although the average household size increased this is expected to be a reaction to
the Recession, and will return to lower levels in the future as housing affordability
6 HUD User, FY 2015 Income Limits Documentation System
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 16 | 37
improves. As noted earlier the reduction in ownership and income may be a short-term
event resulting from rental housing construction since 2015.
6. Housing Characteristics
The City’s housing stock is approaching 7,000 dwelling units of various type, ages, and
value. In 1980 the City’s housing inventory totaled 2,2917 dwelling units. By the end of
2018 the housing unit inventory within the City was 6,864 dwelling units. The following
describes the characteristics of the City’s housing stock by age, type, tenure, and value.
Housing Age 6.1
Based on the age of the City’s housing stock Central Point is considered a young
community. Most of the housing was constructed after 1980 (71%). The older housing
stock (pre-1949) is concentrated in the original central area of the City. Because of its
age most of the City’s housing stock is in very good physical condition.
Housing Type 6.2
The City’s housing stock is comprised of seven (7) housing types as follows:
1. Single-Family Detached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be
occupied by only one family.
2. Single-Family Attached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be
occupied by only one family, but has a common wall with other single-family
attached dwelling(s);
7 City of Central Point Housing Element
Source: City of Central Point, 2019 Residential BLI
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 17 | 37
3. Duplex/Triplex/Apartments; a group of dwellings on a legally defined property
having 2, 3, and 4 or more dwelling units with separate entrances. This includes
two-story houses having a complete apartment on each floor and also side-by-side
apartments on a single legally described lot that shares a common wall.
Apartments that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and
housekeeping are included within this definition;
4. Manufactured Homes; a dwelling on a legally defined property that is
constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and
plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a
foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction
and safety standards and regulations.
5. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on
a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement
on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities
intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in
accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety
standards and regulations and
6. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government
sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy
people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted
housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent
supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing.
The City’s housing policies and zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing
types.
Historically (1889-1979), the City’s housing preference has been for single-family
detached housing supplemented by apartments (Table 6). SFR attached units account for
less than .5% of the total housing inventory, but this is expected to change as attached
housing becomes more acceptable and is an affordable housing option. Between 1980
and 2018 the distribution of housing type by land use category is illustrated in Table 7. At
70% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home was still the preferred
housing type, followed by apartments (11%) and Duplex/Triplex (5%). As a housing type
Assisted Living housing accounts for approximately 1% of the total housing inventory.
Table 8 measures residential construction between 2006 through 2018 illustrating the
shifting of preferences in new residential construction. As a percentage of new
construction single-family detached, at 56%, was down from historical highs. Single-
family attached increased significantly (12%) from its historic level. For the duplex
housing types it was 5%, and for apartments it was at 25%. The purpose in comparing
various construction periods is to illustrate that during any given time span the housing
inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix depending on economic
circumstances.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 18 | 37
The decline in single-family detached dwelling types was the due to the loss of jobs and
the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. When
measured between 2010 (post-recession) to 2018 (Table 9) the preference for single-
family detached homes improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post-
Recession levels remains to be seen. The point is that during any given time span the
housing inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix.
It is worth noting (Table 6) that a significant number of single-family detached units are
located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is
primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached
neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill
development. On the regulatory side prior to 2006 new single-family detached dwelling
units were permitted in the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This
practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum
densities in all residential zones, and the exclusion of single-family detached dwellings in
the high density residential districts.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 19 | 37
Table 6.City of Central PointHousing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1889 through 1979 Land Use ClassificationSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Developed UnitsGross DensityVLRes45 - - - - - - - - 45 1.20 LRes1,256 1 6 3 4 4 - - - 1,274 3.32 MRes215 8 18 15 39 1 - - - 296 4.29 HRes167 - 20 15 232 5 53 1 - 493 7.12 Total Units1,683 9 44 33 275 10 53 1 - 2,108 3.77 Percentage of Total80%0%2%2%13%0%3%0%0%100%Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLINumber and Type of Dwelling UnitsTable 7.City of Central PointHousing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980 through 2018 Land Use ClassificationSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Developed UnitsGross DensityVLRes30 - - - - - - - - 30 1.51 LRes2,573 49 8 - - 5 76 - - 2,711 4.14 MRes603 27 70 - 130 - - - 15 845 7.85 HRes358 53 171 12 439 114 287 11 60 1,505 9.56 Total Units3,564 129 249 12 569 119 363 11 75 5,091 5.42 Percentage of Total70%3%5%0%11%2%7%0%1%100%Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLINumber and Type of Dwelling Units8.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 20 | 37
Table 9.City of Central PointHousing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2010 through 2018 Land Use ClassificationSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Developed UnitsNet DensityGross DensityVLRes- - - - - - - - - - - - LRes144 21 4 - - - - - - 169 6.32 5.06 MRes94 17 12 - 71 - - - 15 209 11.51 9.21 HRes- 28 - - 82 - - - - 110 27.55 22.04 Total Units238 66 16 - 153 - - - 15 488 9.98 7.99 Percentage of Total49%14%3%0%31%0%0%0%3%100%Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLINumber and Type of Dwelling Units8.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 21 | 37
Housing Value 6.3
Prior to the Great Recession the median owner occupied housing value increased
substantially reaching a peak value of $233,000 (Figure 9). These early value increases
were indicative of the demand and affordability of housing. Jobs were plentiful and easy
financing was accessible. With the on-set of the Great Recession the real estate bubble
burst causing a 22% reduction ($181,200) in the 2010 median house value. Since 2010
owner occupied housing values have been increasing, but not to pre-Recession levels. By
2017 the median housing value, at $203,500, had not reached its 2010 peak.
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 22 | 37
In 2017 the housing value distribution (Figure 10) places 48% of the City’s owner
occupied inventory in the $199,999 or less category, down from 55% in the 2017
Housing Element.
Housing Vacancy 6.4
Another characteristic of the housing supply is the vacancy rate. Vacancy rate is the
percentage of housing units (rental and ownership) are unoccupied or are available for
rent at any given time. The vacancy rate also serves as a measure of housing demand vs.
supply. A vacancy rate less than 5% is equivalent to market equilibrium supply equals
demand. As illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 the vacancy rates for owner and renter
housing have been increasing in both the City, while for the county and the state the
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 23 | 37
vacancy rate has been declining.
Summary, Housing Characteristics 6.5
The City’s housing inventory is typical of the region reflecting the western region’s
preference for single-family detached housing. The housing stock is young and heavily
concentrated in the single-family detached category. The cost of housing is slightly on the
high side for the region, but typical for the state. The demand for housing, measured by
the vacancy rate in 2017, is strong.
7. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning
In 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was approved by Jackson County. Shortly
thereafter the City of Central Point adopted its component of the Regional Plan as an element to
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In the City’s Regional Plan Element it was agreed that all new
residential development within the UGB would be constructed at an average minimum density of
6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, and after 2036 the minimum density would increase to 7.9
dwelling units per gross acre. The targeted density for this Housing Element is 7.04 dwelling
units per gross acre.
Housing Density 7.1
Measured in 10-year increments beginning in 1980 the City’s average gross residential density
has been steadily increasing (Table 10). The causes and rates of increase have not been
specifically studied, but in general can be attributed to a variety of factors from changes in the
economy to improving efficiencies in housing development practices. In 2006 the City amended
its zoning ordinance setting mandatory minimum density standards for all residential zoning
districts. Until then the higher density zoning districts were allowed to build at much lower
single-family detached densities.
Tables 11 through 14 identify the residential development activity between 1980 through 2018
Table 10.
City of Central Point
Cummulative Average Gross Density by Land Use Classification
1980 through 2018
Land Use Classification
Gross
Density,
1980
Gross
Density,
1990
Gross
Density,
2000
Gross
Density,
2010
Gross
Density,
2018
VLRes 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.31 1.31
LRes 3.32 3.33 3.56 3.80 3.83
MRes 4.28 4.33 4.67 6.05 6.33
HRes 7.12 7.07 7.40 8.52 8.58
Average Gross Density 3.77 3.80 4.19 4.67 4.73
* Based on build-out
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 24 | 37
and 2006 through 2018 by land use designation and zoning. The information in Tables 11
through 14, by removing pre-1980 development, provides a different perspective from the
density information in Table 10. The most significant difference is in the dramatic density
increase post-2006. This increase is attributed to the 2006 codified minimum density requirement
and the declining inventory of low density (LRes) designated lands.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 25 | 37
Table 11.City of Central PointHousing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980 through 2018 Land Use ClassificationSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Developed UnitsGross DensityVLRes30 - - - - - - - - 30 1.51 LRes2,573 49 8 - - 5 76 - - 2,711 4.14 MRes603 27 70 - 130 - - - 15 845 7.85 HRes358 53 171 12 439 114 287 11 60 1,505 9.56 Total Units3,564 129 249 12 569 119 363 11 75 5,091 5.42 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLINumber and Type of Dwelling UnitsTable 12.City of Central PointHousing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2006 through 2018 Land Use ClassificationSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Developed UnitsGross DensityVLRes1 - - - - - - - - 1 1.65 LRes298 49 8 - - - - - - 355 5.22 MRes139 17 12 - 83 - - - 15 266 9.71 HRes17 28 18 - 258 - 1 - - 322 19.97 Total Units455 94 38 - 341 - 1 - 15 944 8.42 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLINumber and Type of Dwelling Units8.A.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 26 | 37
Table 13City of Central Point ZoningSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Gross Acres DevelopedR-L1.51 - - - - - - - - 1.51 R-1-64.13 - - - - 1.77 4.68 - - 10.58 R-1-83.70 - - - - 2.78 - - - 6.48 R-1-103.27 - - - - - - - - 3.27 LMR5.28 11.02 8.39 - - - - - - 24.68 R-26.11 16.19 8.84 - - - - - - 31.13 R-37.81 22.34 10.75 13.41 15.18 6.54 5.66 - 97.69 179.38 MMR9.83 8.35 25.77 - 14.42 - - - 12.84 71.20 HMR19.67 17.31 - - 23.15 - - 17.04 - 77.16 Average Gross Density4.55 14.02 10.17 13.41 17.17 6.00 5.42 17.04 42.08 5.42 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLIDeveloped Gross Acres1980 through 2018 Gross Density by Zoning DistrictTable 14City of Central Point ZoningSFR DetachedSFR AttachedDuplexTriplexApartment Mobile Home Mobile Home ParkMixed Use ResidentialAssisted LivingTotal Gross Acres DevelopedR-L1.65 - - - - - - - - 1.65 R-1-64.77 - - - - - - - - 4.77 R-1-84.16 - - - - - - - - 4.16 R-1-103.62 - - - - - - - - 3.62 LMR5.43 11.02 8.39 - - - - - - 24.83 R-27.23 15.78 8.63 - - - - - - 31.64 R-38.40 16.09 14.26 - 18.00 - 6.18 - - 62.93 MMR8.84 8.35 - - 12.63 - - - 12.84 42.66 HMR17.99 17.31 - - 23.46 - - - - 58.76 Average Gross Density5.60 11.96 11.26 - 18.64 - 6.18 - 12.84 8.42 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI2006 through 2018 Gross Density by Zoning DistrictDeveloped Gross Acres8.A.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 27 | 37
Land Use and Housing Type 7.2
The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning
districts. These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types. Each
land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use
classification/zoning district the following housing types are allowed:
Table 15. Housing Type by Land Use Classification
Land Use
Class
SFR
Detached
SFR
Attached
Duplex Triplex Apt Manuf.
Home
Mobile Home
Park
VLRes
R-L Yes No No No No Yes No
LRes
R-1 Yes No No No No Yes No
MRes
R-2 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
LMR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HRes
R-3 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MMR No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
HMR No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Summary, Housing Density 7.3
Since 1980 the City’s average gross density has been steadily improving. The ability of
the City to achieve a minimum density of 6.9 for the period 2019 through 2039 appears to
be very attainable.
8. Buildable Residential Lands
The 2019 Residential BLI identified a total residential land inventory within the City’s urban
area of approximately 1,488 acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 16). The
City’s residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning
districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes (Low Density) at 67% of all
residential lands followed by the MRes (Medium Density) at 15%.
The four (4) residential land use classifications and their related zoning districts are:
1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes);
a. Very Low
2. Low Density Residential (LRes);
a. R-1-6
b. R-1-8
c. R-1-10
3. Medium Density Residential (MRes);
a. LMR
b. R-2; and
4. High Density Residential (HRes).
a. R-3
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 28 | 37
b. MMR; and
c. HMR
Table 16 identifies the City’s residential land allocations by land use classification. Table 17
provides the same information by zoning district.
As of the end of 2018 there were approximately 105 acres of Buildable Residential Land8 within
the City’s urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in Table 18.
The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classifications is 3%
and 36% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City’s net buildable
residential acreage is in the MRes (40%) and HRes (21%) classifications, representing over 60%
of the City’s buildable vacant residential acres (83 acres).
8 See City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI for definition.
Zoning
Total City
Acres
Total UGB
Acres
Total Urban
Area Acres
Percentage of
Total
R-L 45.87 21.86 67.73 4.6%
R-1-6 373.91 5.92 379.83 25.5%
R-1-8 392.95 11.25 404.19 27.2%
R-1-10 33.66 22.12 55.78 3.7%
LMR 110.62 48.49 159.11 10.7%
R-2 106.60 - 106.60 7.2%
R-3 179.75 - 179.75 12.1%
MMR 77.70 22.56 100.26 6.7%
HMR 34.77 - 34.77 2.3%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,355.83 132.19 1,488.01 100%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 17. City of Central Point
Residential Land Inventory by Zoning District
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Total City
Acres
Total UGB
Acres
Total Urban
Acres
Percentage
of Total
VLRes 45.87 21.86 67.73 5%
LRes 901.86 87.77 989.63 67%
MRes 193.58 22.56 216.14 15%
Hres 214.51 - 214.51 14%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,355.83 132.19 1,488.01 100%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 16. City of Central Point
Residential Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 29 | 37
Summary, Buildable Residential Lands 8.1
The City’s Buildable Residential Land inventory is currently under represented by the LRes
classification and over represented in the higher density residential land use classifications
(MRes and HRes).
9. Housing Affordability
Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied, is typically measured as a percentage
of household income. A standard benchmark for housing affordability is when housing costs are
less than or equal to 30% of total household income. When housing costs exceed 30% of
household income affordability becomes an issue.
Renter Households 9.1
As illustrated in Figure 13 the Great Recession had a significant impact on rental housing
affordability as the percentage of renter households paying more than 30% increased
from 37% to 50% by 2010, and by 2017 had continued to rise to 57% of all renter
households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that
in 2015 there was a slight decline, but by 2017 there was a slight increase in the number
of renter households paying more than 30%.
Table 18.City of Central Point
0.20
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Vacant
City1
Vacant
UGB1
Total
Vacant
Acres Infill City
Infill
UGB
Redev.
City &
UGB
Total
Infill &
Redev.
Acres
Total
Gross
Vacant
Acres
(less)
Envir.
Acres,
Vacant
Lands
(less)
Envir.
Acres,
Infill
Lands
Total Net
Vacant
Acres
Total
Buildable
Acres
VLRes - - - 2 1 1 4 4 - 1 3 3
LRes 17 7 24 9 10 10 29 53 5 13 35 35
MRes 46 - 46 4 3 1 8 55 6 2 46 46
HRes 12 - 12 10 - 5 14 27 2 4 21 21
Vacant Residential Acres 76 7 83 25 14 17 56 138 13 20 105 105
Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres 60%18%10%12%40%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Infill Availability AdjustedBuildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 30 | 37
Owner Households 9.2
To a lesser extent the rate of affordability in owner households followed the same pattern
as renter households. By 2017 owner households paying more than 30% of income on
housing increased from a pre-Recession 25% to 32% (Figure 14). Since the Great
Recession the price of housing has continued to rise, exceeding the increase in wages. As
of December 2018, average hourly wages were up 2.9% year-over-year, while the median
home value in the U.S. was up 7.7%. It is expected that in 2019 local home values will
continue to rise, but at a slower 3.79%9.
9 Zillow, www.zillow.com/central-point-or/home-values
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 31 | 37
Summary, Affordability 9.3
The question of housing affordability, especially since the Recession, is without question
an issue that needs addressing and continual monitoring. The basic demand and supply
mechanics of housing affordability are easily understandable, but the solutions; either on
the demand or supply side, are extremely complex, especially at the local level. During
preparation of this Housing Element many housing affordability programs and strategies
were reviewed, but without any final determination on a preferred strategy to mitigate the
affordability issue. At this time the only solutions that this Housing Element offers
regarding affordability are:
1. Provide an inventory of vacant residential lands sufficient to accommodate the
need for all housing types.
2. Monitor and manage residential development standards and processes to eliminate
unnecessary costs.
3. Prepare and maintain a Housing Implementation Program (HIP) that annually
tracks the demand and supply of vacant residential lands and housing construction
by type of housing.
4. Collaborate at the regional level in the identification, prioritization, development,
and implementation of strategies specifically addressing housing affordability.
10. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need
Based on the 2018 Population Projections prepared by PSU it is estimated that by 2039 the
City’s population will have increased by 7,216 residents. With an average household size of 2.5
persons per household10 an additional 2,887 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate
the projected population growth. At a minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre11 the
City will need approximately 41012 acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate the
2,887 new dwelling units. Given the existing Buildable Residential Lands (105 acres) the City
needs an additional 305 acres of Buildable Residential Land (Table 19).
As previously discussed the City has historically and consistently made gains in residential
density (Table10). Since 1980, a time period representative of a balanced Buildable Residential
Land inventory, the residential density pattern and land use distribution yielded an average gross
density of almost 5.42 units per acre (Table 21). If new residential construction follows a similar
land use and density pattern the City would not meet its 6.9 minimum density requirement. To
achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re-allocate the distribution of
housing by land use classification; increase the minimum density requirements for each land use
classification; or a combination of both.
10 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36 11 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 12 Rounded figure
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 32 | 37
For purposes of meeting the 6.9 density standards the City used an iterative process based on a
mix of land use distribution and density. Table 20 shows the preferred distribution of Buildable
Residential Lands. To achieve the 6.9 minimum density it was necessary to decrease the LRes
and increase the higher density MRes. For comparison purposes the historic distribution is also
shown.
Table 19
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.1 19,101
2032 Forecast2 23,662
2039 Forecast3 26,317
Population Increase 7,216
Persons/HH4 2.50
Household Increase 2,887
Average Gross Density5 7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres 410
Total Buildable Residential Acres6 105
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305
1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2018
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated
Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB),
and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill
Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan
Table 20.
City of Central Point
Comparison Historic Developed Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution vs. 2006-2018,
2010-2018 and Proposed New 2019-2039 Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution
Land Use Classification
Historic Percentage
Developed Residential Acres,
pre-2018
New Percentage Buildable
Residential Acreage
Distribution, 2019-2039
VLRes 4%4%
LRes 70%60%
MRes 11%20%
HRes 15%16%
Totals 100%100%
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 33 | 37
By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications the
needed 2,887 dwelling units can be accommodated on 305 acres yielding an average density of
7.04 dwelling units per gross acre (Table 22).
The proposed densities and land use allocations are explained as follows:
VLRes – The VLRes classification supports the R-L (Rural) Low Density) zoning
district. The allocation of very low density lands has remained constant at 4%. The
allocation retention was based on the finding that as the City expands into the UGB/URA
there will be environmental and agricultural conflicts which may necessitate larger lots as
a buffering mitigation strategy.
LRes – The LRes classification represents the R-1-6, R-1-8, and R-1-10 zoning districts.
Table 22
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Land Use Classification
Percentage
Distribution of
Needed
Developable
Residential
Acres, 2019-
2039
Needed
Developable
Residential
Acres, 2019-
2039
Minimum
Gross Density
Requirements
New Dwelling
Units, 2019-
2039
2018 Existing
Buildable
Residential
Acres
Surplus or
(Shortage)
VLRes 4%16 1.00 16 3 (13)
LRes 60%246 4.00 984 35 (211)
MRes 20%82 7.00 574 46 (36)
HRes 16%66 20.00 1,312 21 (45)
Totals 100%410 7.04 2,887 105 (305)
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
Table 21.
City of Central Point
Cummulative Average Gross Density by Land Use Classification
1980 through 2039
Land Use Classification
1983
Maximum
Allowable
Gross
Density*
Actual Gross
Density, 1980-
2018
Minimum
Required
Gross
Density,
2019-2039
VLRes 1.00 1.51 1.00
LRes 6.00 4.14 4.00
MRes 12.00 7.85 7.00
HRes 25.00 9.56 20.00
Average Gross Density 10.79 5.42 7.04
* Based on build-out
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 34 | 37
The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 70% to
60%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on
single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to
continue into the future. The LRes classification experienced the most quantitative
changes in both density and land use allocation.
MRes – The MRes classification represents the LMR and R-2 zoning districts. The
allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 11% to 20%.
HRes – The HRes classification represents the MMR, HMR, and R-3 zoning districts.
The allocation of the high density residential lands was increased from 15% to 16%. The
minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross
density.
The City currently has an inventory of 105 buildable acres of residential land (Section 8,
Buildable Residential Lands). Table 23 identifies the current vacant acreage need, and where
there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the 410 acres
needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 305 new gross acres are needed to supplement the
existing inventory.
Future Housing Tenure 10.1
It is expected that the long-term mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied housing will be
the preferred tenure mix in the long run. If the future tenure mix does not trend toward the 70/30
mix then issues in affordability should be evaluated and appropriate measures in housing type
and affordability addressed.
Future Housing Types 10.2
For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling.
The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in
the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing
choice. The City’s current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types, and
should continue to do so throughout the planning period. Over the course of time the City needs
to monitor, through its HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land
supply, and where appropriate make adjustments.
In addition to availability of housing type the City needs to take into account the health aspects
afforded well planned neighborhoods. The land use planning of new neighborhoods and the
revitalization of existing neighborhoods needs to acknowledge the health, both social and
physical, benefits to the City’s residents in living in well planned neighborhoods.
11. Housing Goals and Policies
Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City’s
current and projected households.
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 35 | 37
Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at the new minimum
residential densities.
Policy 1.2. Develop a Housing Implementation Plan that is regularly updated based
current market conditions
.
Policy 1.3. Provide an efficient and consistent development review process.
Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measures that
reduce upfront housing development costs.
Policy 1.5. Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided
with urban services and that will in a timely manner meet the City’s housing needs.
Policy 1.6. When properly mitigated to preserve the integrity of existing
neighborhoods support higher density residential development within the Downtown
and older surrounding residential areas, capitalizing on availability of existing
infrastructure and supporting revitalization efforts.
Goal 2. To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housing.
Policy 2.1. Through a Housing Implementation Plan explore and promote federal,
state, and regional programs and incentives that support new affordable housing.
Policy 2.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan’s
program addressing regional housing strategies, particularly as they apply to affordable
housing.
Policy 2.3. Support regional efforts addressing homelessness, medical and social
services for special need households.
Goal 3. To maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate
development of new housing to serve the City’s projected population.
Policy 3.1. Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land
to meet projected demand in terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost.
Policy 3.2. Throughout the 2019-2039 planning period the City’s new vacant
residential land use mix shall support an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling
units per gross.
Policy 3.3. Update the Housing Element’s vacant acreage needs every four-years
consistent with the PSU Population Research Centers update of population.
Policy 3.4. To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish
procedures that give priority to lands that will be developed in a timely manner and with
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 36 | 37
a residential mix and density consistent with the Housing Element.
Policy 3.5. Monitor residential in-fill development activity and develop and enact
programs that encourage the expanded use of in-fill as a component to the City’s
residential land use inventory.
Goal 4. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of
location, type, price and tenure, according to the projected needs of the population.
Policy 4.1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the
Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs and housing types
identified in the Housing Element.
Policy 4.2. Based on the findings of the Housing Implementation Plan incentivize
housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the private
sector market forces.
Policy 4.3. In larger residential developments (in excess of 5 acres) encourage a mix
of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and
income levels.
Policy 4.4. Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in
place by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible.
Goal 5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not
unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing.
Policy 5.1. As part of a Housing Implementation Plan periodically evaluate
development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing
Element and modify as appropriate.
Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan that includes programs
that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City’s low- and moderate-
income households.
Policy 6.1. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations,
affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various
sources of affordable housing funds.
Policy 6.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan’s
program addressing regional housing strategies.
Policy 6.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of
affordable housing and housing related services.
Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
F i n a l D r a f t 1 -30-2 0 1 9 P a g e 37 | 37
and healthy neighborhoods.
Policy 7.1. Encourage quality design throughout the City that acknowledges
neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi-modal), and integrates
recreational and open space opportunities.
Policy 7.2. Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum
standards for natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and
energy efficiency.
Policy 7.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that
enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the
City’s transportation system.
Policy 7.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development
served by public transit.
Policy 7.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that
all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary
includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on
lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Housing Element (PC Recommended) [Revision 1] (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: PC Resolution No 866 (1129 : Housing Element (2019-2039))
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Dennis Richardson Memorial Discussion
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
None Forwarded
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Several members of the community have reached out to the
City regarding a memorial, to be located at the Oregon War Memorial,l for Dennis Richardson.
As you know, Dennis was the catalyst for the Memorial, and it simply wouldn’t be here without
his leadership and vision.
Two primary options for a memorial have been presented. The first option would be to move
the blue star memorial rock and replace it with a monument rock and plaque with language
describing Dennis life of service and dedication to the war memorial. The second option would
be to name the existing Gazebo structure after him, which would include a memorial plaque.
Staff would like some feedback from the Council and Community on these options or others that
might be viable.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: Either of the two options would be funded by the City Parks Fund.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for a memorial location.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/a
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Options
9.A
Packet Pg. 56
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Location Options (1131 : Dennis Richardson Memorial)
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Location Options (1131 : Dennis Richardson Memorial)
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Location Options (1131 : Dennis Richardson Memorial)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Public Works
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Discussion of Little League Partnership Options
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City has had a series of meetings with Central Point Little League about a potential
partnership for youth and adult softball leagues that would be organized by the City. In order to
better understand the issues associated with the Little League field—and establish a long-range
plan—a Master Plan/Facility Analysis needs to occur.
The staff has budgeted a maximum of $25,000 for this analysis to occur. The analysis would be
funded from the General Fund through the City’s Parks Department. Staff wanted to get
direction from the council on whether it would be willing to consider such a commitment, prior to
a formal budget recommendation during the budget committee process. If the council feels this
is a worthwhile expenditure, staff would bring back an agreement between the City and Little
League regarding funding of the consultant and outlining possible future steps. The City would
not be bound to any additional obligations or expenditures beyond the $25,000 at this time. All
other obligations would need to be negotiated in the future and set forth in a contract to be
signed by the parties at a later date. The effect of any agreement at this time would be to
obligate the City to pay a consultant for a master plan without any agreement for long term
upgrades or other improvements at this time.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
Potential expenditure of $25,000 for Master Plan/Facility Analysis of the Central Point Little
League subject to formal agreement and budget approval.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
Recreation; Goal 3 - Provide high-quality age-appropriate recreation programs that benefit all
residents of our community. Strategies: (b). Pursue the development and implementation of
9.B
Packet Pg. 60
comprehensive recreation programs in cooperation with governmental bodies/agencies and
athletic/recreation organizations
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff believes this is a necessary initial step to determining the feasibility of a long term
agreement for joint use.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to include a $25,000 expenditure in the 2019-2021 budget proposal for the
purposes of master planning the Central Point Little League Facilities.
9.B
Packet Pg. 61
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Administration
FROM: Deanna Casey, City Recorder
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Appointment of New Planning Commission Member
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
As of April 3, 2019 the Central Point Planning Commission has one vacancy. Position 5
Commissioner John Whiting will be moving out of the State and will no longer be able to
participate on the Commission. The City advertised on the City Website, Social Media and the
local newspaper for volunteers to fill the remaining term expiring December 31, 2021.
The City of Central Point has received three applications for the Planning Commission vacancy.
Patrick Smith Michael House David Gilmore
The attached applications will provide background information on all three candidates.
Current members of the Planning Commission are:
Mike Oliver (Chair) Kay Harrison Thomas Van Voorhees
Amy Moore Jim Mock Chris Richey
Information that could be used in identity theft has been redacted. If Council members would
like to see this information please contact the City Recorder.
RECOMMENDATION
Mayor Williams is ready to make a recommendation at the April 11, 2019 City Council meeting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to appoint _____________________ to Central Point Planning Commission Position No.
5 with a term expiration of December 31, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PC App - David Gilmour_Redacted
9.C
Packet Pg. 62
2. PC App - Michael House_Redacted
3. PC App - Pat Smith_Redacted
9.C
Packet Pg. 63
of Central Point,
r40 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502
54 1.664.332 I Fax 541.664.6384
www.centralpoi ntqregon.tev
c
POINTOregon
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMMITTEE
Date:
Administration Depaftment
Chris Cla¡on, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Elizabeth Simas, Human Resource Director
3/25/19NameDavid R. Gilmour, M.D.
Address: Manzanita Street
Home Phone: Cell Business Phone: _-
N/A
N/A (541l-all Þh
Fax:E-mail:com
Are you a registered voter with-the State of Oregon? Yæ X No
Are you a city resident? Yes X No If Yes, How long:since 1981
Which committee(s) would you like to be appointed to: (Please make sure the dates below workwith your
schedule beþre applying. Council and Planning Commission members are required toJile an Annuai
Statement of Economic Interest to the State of Oregon.)
Meeting Dates (All meeting dates are subject to change or additions, times vary for
each committee):
Budget Committee: Meetings vary in April Bi-Annually
Citizens Advisory Committee:2nd Tuesday of quarterþ
Planning Commission: I't Tuesday of each month
Parks and Recreation Committee/Foundation: Meeting dates vary
eryplqytgq!pf q&qs_lo¡ql,Udvqunteel,b¡r.ck_g1oqq{:__
Family Physician: Central 1-gS, providence Medical Group /Central Point 1995-2012, 012-2015 ;Jackson County HeãúnOfficer 1985-2002; Jacks 2002-2010.
Community affi liations and activities:
None
Previous City appointments, offices, or activities:
Central Point City Counc¡l l ggg-2002
Central Point Planning Commission
Eflxfl
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: PC App - David Gilmour_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
Central Point Committee Application
Page 2
To provide additional background for the Mayor and City Council, please provide the
following information.
1) Please explain why you are interested in the appointment and what you would offer to
the community.
As many of you know, I was active in public service for a number of decades, serving
on the Dist.#6 School Board, the Central Point City Planning Commission and City
Council and as a Jackson County Commissioner. After my retirement as a Family
Physician in 2015, my wife and I spent most of our time intensively traveling throughout
North America, SE Asia, Europe and the South Pacific. We knew that the intensive
traveling would soon come to an end because of both the debilities of age, and finite
resources.
As our traveling winds down, I would like to again engage in public service.
Unlike most other new applicants, I am familiar with government ethics laws, conflict of
interest issues, and the role of the Planning Commission (i.e. to offer informed advise to
the Mayor and City Council, who make the final decisions on all items on the Planning
Commission agenda).
As one who had previous experience on planning issues for both the city and county, I
could be ready to offer an informed opinion on day 1. I also could give a historical
perspective on the development of the Transit Oriented Development [OD), and
decisions made through the Regional Problem Solving process (RPS).
2) Please describe what you believe are the major concerns of City residents and businesses
that this committee should be concerned about.
a)As residential development fills the remainder of our Urban Growth Boundary, we
must be diligent in providing adequate parks within easy and safe walking distance for
families with children.
b) Development of the old Wallmarl property on Pine and Hamrick will eventually occur.
We need to insist that resultant traffic flow will have manageable impact on both the
Expo and the nearby interchange.
c) Since the the RPS has limited growth into prime farmland, much of Central Point's
future growth will require increasing density near its "core" areas (now designated
HMR). As this occurs, we need to be aware of other issues that may occur, such as the
need for off street parking, and need for adequate sidewalks for pedestrians.
d) As lands are developed between our interchange and the airport (e.9. Costco), we
will see a significant increase in traffic on East Pine street, which could cause frequent
gridlock during events at expo. Eventually, we might expect to see a number of truck
related facilities, such as Pilot and Reddaway, consider moving to the Blackwell / Tolo
region, both to facilitate truck movement and to cash in on property that has greatly
increased its value. Should this occur, our city should do whatever is necessary to
expedite the regulatory process to allow a seamless transition.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: PC App - David Gilmour_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
Page 3.
3) Please provide any additional information or comments which you believe will assist the City
Council in considering your application.
lf selected to become a member of the Planning Commission, I would miss very few
meetings because of future travels.
4) Do you anticipate that any conflicts of interest will arise if you are appointed; and if so, how
would you handle them?
Since I have lived in the same house on Manzanita Street since 1981 , any vote
impacting the HMR zone has a potential for conflict of interest. lf an actual conflict: I will
recuse myself. lf potential, but not actual, I will declare the potential before voting.
My signature affirms that the information in this application is true to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that misrepresentation and / or omission of facts
are cause for removal from any council, advisory committee, board or
commission I may be appointed to. All information / documentation related to
service for this position is subject to public record disclosure.
Signatu
D^urD L,q ttrt,rùv/¿, t4,D
L
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: PC App - David Gilmour_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
City of Central Point, Oregon CE
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502
54 1.664.3321 Fax 54 I .664.6384
www.centralpoi ntoreton.Sov
POINT
Oregon
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMMITTEE
Administration D
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Elizabeth Simas, Human Resource Director
oName:tt/tertArL ÉuG Fru n ¡{*.*s lã Date:
Address:e
Home Phone: 7 Business Phone:
Fax E-mail
Are you a registered voter with the State of Oregon? Yes X' No
Cell Phone:
Are you a city resident? Yes KNo If Yes, How long:¿t no--l'
/
Which committee(s) would you like to be appointed to: (Please make sure the dates below workwith your
schedule beþre applying. Council and Planning Commission members are required tofile an Annual
Statement of Economic Interest to the State of Oregon.)
Meeting Dates (All meeting dates are subject to change or additions, times vary for
each committee):
Budget Committee: Meetings vary in April Bi-Annually
Citizens Advisory Committe e: znd Tuesday of quarterly
Planning Commission: l't Tuesday of each month
Parks and Recreation CommitteeÆoundation: Meeting dates vary
<-25
EFE
\
a
Employment, professional, and volunteer background:'["LEÁs e 1€€ ÊÉs"wtl. f,
Ëbcr- r-b\ €s E \ f-éK).3
Community affrliations and activities:
Previous City appointments, offices, or activities:
9.C.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: PC App - Michael House_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
Central Point Committee Application
Page2
To provide additional background for the Mayor and City Council, please answer the following questions.
1. Please explain why you are inter_ested in the.appointment y.I'rrÉ t^rtl-Pçi sîEn TF+Ê Pn
fcrq"t ut?tJS-J t O^t= l.rAT-q RÉ Ò€ C
äã.,'ænilt¡í--ß.OY- ^^Jtô
L*re¡c'r'À '.-(KÉ 1-Ô fÊ5:r¡Jl
Ë rr-äp Tt{F ı Y3'J_iEþ4, |=u l-rc-Tl ò^J rr./G l1S wËlA,
2. Please describe what you believe are the major concerns of the City residents and businesses that this
committee should be concerned about.
hAA r uÎta. t ru I þG äo,4 Ê&-f / ø A l: c Pr(>tôr'cl-ÈF Òt=
ßsr-H- úQ-sç{ Êt=ù*rT&ç{L /t-tJ 0'ã-är,t^E@êl4¡- ¿='s'
AliU 6)-ÕpÈ + 5or-tuJ Úl I ru Ffql\Ét1ìQ Ue--ît^Rta
rò et^ PPoRT G'ß o uJ rbf
3. Please provide any additional information or comments which you believe will assist the City Counciltî*"ftitiä'"ooiå'Ë"Ër o\Lr l+ry ^ S?1 -ß o A R0 w rT(*
ìsor{o¡ (^JÞçrrìüJc= 4ot '(ppÑEcr ATÉ t-{ts
tq É aßr Ê rlolt*) c¡F T-[+É TÐTéÂhrG€-llJT-
Artr0
- ¿,-'r{åsr O E lJkTu¡Qlã ò 5- 1-r{.¡¡
Ci¡RRÉ^J+ 8i) ¡,rlu¿ L! a Co/¿rryrBci Õ/t)
4. Do you anticipate that any conflicts of interest will arise if you are appointed; and if so, how would you
handle them? TF( E_ c5 rLJ L Y <¡ a.j (3 Ut*t c- t+ Ï- 6 É
fHË AauE-AoQy'AÉrrJT <si= I-*Ë r/uE\{)
sc- € t,'¿t c- trr )EE ıT7tT¿ Ò l.l A'Î .1 aJout- tf
{E;usÊ tt/tVs Fl-F HaÒM\ AIJV t;otÉs
Ênßf A¡ r; t llG Tò Tt-(F €T,.tTrOtt) ,
Pleasefeelfree to use øddítional sheet tÍyou høve more ínformøtion to help the
Councíl make aJinal decísion.
affirms that the information in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I
srepresentation andlor omission of facts are cause for removal from any council,
Date
advisory
record disclosure.
My signature
understand that mi
committee, board or commission I may be appointed to. All information/documentation related to service for
is subject
9.C.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: PC App - Michael House_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
Michael E. House
Evan Way, Central Point, OR. 97502-3575
Cell: 33 Home phone: 5 13 Email:
Work Experience:
Since retiring in 2009 I have been helping friends and family and doing volunteer work. I
volunteered for the Josephine Co. Sportsman Park, the Jackson County Shooting Range. I'm on
the Hidden Grove HOA board. Most recently I have been the owner's rep. and construction
manager for Fire District 3 on five seismic retrofits and the new Fire Science Classroom. I will be
with them through the construction of the new Scenic Station.
D ivision M anager, Al I ied Waste/Re pu blic Services 1 129 12007 to 9 12312009o Managed three Allied Waste divisions: Grants Pass hauling company,
Merlin Waste Transfer Station & Klamath Falls Waste Transfer Stationo Responsible for hiring, training & supervising personnel, including performance
reviews; Human Resources benefits point of contact for employees. Responsible for payroll & budget for each division, financial reports, labor scheduling,
advertising including special events, customer serviceo Worked with OSHA, DEQ, city & county officials in Grants Pass, Klamath Falls,
Josephine and Klamath counties; member of Solid Waste Committees in both
locations; interface with SPARC. Community involvement with Boys & Girls Clubs of the Rogue Valley and Rotary
Site Manager, Allied Waste Klamath Regional Disposal 913012003 to 112812006. Finished construction of new Klamath waste transfer station; formatted all record
keepingo Hired & trained statf, including HR, safety, maintenance, payroll, drug testing,
labor scheduling, equipment operation, training & maintenanceo Container tracking, recycle disposal & transfer, inventory control, budget data,
interface with Burlington Northern, site maintenance. lnterface with city and county, DEQ, OSHA
Project Superintendent, Ausland Builders, 31212002 to 912912003. Position includes duties performed for R.A. Murphy, with these expanded & additional
responsibilities:. Responsible for total construction project oversight & management, including
architectural and engineering coordination and resolution. Development of a close working relationship with owners & their project management
team; oversaw 3-5 million dollar projectso Close involvement & participation with local planners & the entire plan review &
approval process. Responsible for hiring employees & reviewing their job performance
Foreman and Carpenter, R.A. Murphy Construction , 1111993 to 312002. Responsible for supervising crew, coordinating sub-contractors, establishing &
following project schedule; commercial & residential construction. Strong knowledge of building codes, ADA & OSHA requirements, read & follow
blueprints, work closely with engineers & architectso Do take-offs, solicit bids, assist in preparing budgets, process change orders as
necessary
9.C.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: PC App - Michael House_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
a Do all phases of wood frame construction including roofing & finish work, form & work
concrete, operation & maintenance of cat, backhoe, bobcat, forklift, dump truck, hand
& power tools
Management Skills:o Utilization of effective management techniques; work well with everyone from
governmental agencies & upper management to employees, whether as teacher,
leader or team member. Strong organizational skills; try to anticipate problems & solve them before they
become an issue. Computer literate, including Excel; knowledge of the budget process; motivate people
to be the best they can be & lead by exampleo Treat everyone with respect & integrity; doing the right thing has always been my
philosophy before it became a catch phrase; enjoy challenges & new responsibilities
Additional Skills:¡ Electrical, mechanicaland mathematical understanding & knowledge; design,
fabrication & construction knowledge. Ability to communicate wellwith others; healthy sense of humor; I don't make many
mistakes, but when I do, I own them & move on
Education:. Eagle Point High School, Eagle Point, OR - graduated. King County Community College, Seattle, WA - coursework drafting, metallurgyo Construction apprenticeship, A.H. Birch Construction, Shady Cove, ORo Machinist Training School, Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle, WA. Ashland Massage lnstitute, Ashland, OR - graduated as LMT. ThermoKing Refrigeration, Minneapolis, MN - certificate
Personal:
Married, two grown, independent sons. Excellent health with no restrictions, either
mentally or physically, on what I can do. Enjoy and very active in community volunteer
and service work. Dependable, honest and responsible. I perceive challenges as
opportunities rather than obstacles.
Gommunity Service & Volunteer Work:
Recently: Board Member of Boys & Girls Clubs of the Rogue Valley; member of Rotary,
President of Rogue Valley Archery, member RMEF, member Medford rifle and pistol club
and hold pioneer huntíng and fishing licenses in Oregon . Previously: Shady Cove City
Council member, Chair of Shady Cove Planning Commission, assisted in incorporation of
Shady Cove & grant applications for sewer, President of Upper Rogue Jaycees, Chair of
Rogue Wonderland Association, Chair of Eagle Point Sports Complex Committee,
President of the Eagle Point Athletic Association.; coached Eagle Point Junior High
football, coached & managed Eagle Point Little League & Babe Ruth teams;
instructor/leader of Medford YMCA cross-country skiing & bicycling programs, member of
Medford YMCA fund-raising committees, President of Southern Oregon Nordic Club.
References: Personal & professional references gladly provided upon request.
9.C.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: PC App - Michael House_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
City of Central Point, Oregon CE
140 S 3rd Street, Central Poinq OR 97502
541.664.3321 Fax 541 .664.6384
,.,\r,,\ !/ ( t'ìtìt iliì( jtrti()i r,,,, )tì a,\/
POINT{-)ì.r r,lì
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMMITTEE
Administrat¡on
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Elizabeth Simas, Human Resource Director
pu1". March 21,2019Name: Patrick L Smith
Address: Brandon St
Fax
Home phone: 5 Business Phone:Cell phone. 5
E-mail:
Are you a registered voter with the State of Oregon?Yes X
Are you a city resident? Yes X No If Yes, How long:19 years
Which committee(s) would you like to be appointed to: (Please make sure the dates below workwithyour
schedule beþre applying. Council and Planning Commission members are required tofile an Annual
Statement of Economic Interest to the State of Oregon.)
Meeting l)ates (All meeting dates are subject to change or additions, times vary for
each committee):
Budget Committee: Meetings vary in April BiAnnually
Citizens Advisory Committe e: 2nd Tuesday of quarterly
Planning Commission: 1" Tuesday of each month
Parks and Recreation CommitteeÆoundation: Meeting dates vary
Employment, profes sional, and volunteer background :
United States Navy 1969-1989.
Retailsales 1989-1997
US Government 1997-2014 Hydro electric Operator
2014 to present retired
Community affiliations and activities :
None
Previous City appointments, offices, or activities:
Current Member of Citizen's Advisory Committee ZotJ
No
tlEtI
9.C.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: PC App - Pat Smith_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
Central Point Committee Application
Page2
To provide additional background for the Mayor and City Council, please answer the following questions.
1. Please explain why you are interested in the appointment and what you would offer to the community.
I have found my time on the Citizen's Advisory Committee to be invaluable. I am more aware of the many challenges the city faces
with growth and modernizing. Found the process of assisting the City Council and Planning commission highly rewarding.
Working with the City Staff has been superior.
2. Please describe what you believe are the major concerns of the City residents and businesses that this
committee should be concerned about.
Major concerns from my current point of view are , land use, housing expenses, keeping infrastructure operating and
updated. Working to make Central Point a destination city.
3. Please provide any additional information or comments which you believe will assist the City Council
in considering your application.
I am an excellent listener, I want to digest each decision completely as possible.
I have a diverse background and living in different areas gives me a different perspective
about housing issues.
My time on the Citizens Advisory Committee has opened my mind to a whole new wonderful
experience of serving and assisting.
4. Do you anticipate that any conflicts of interest will arise if you are appointed; and if so, how would you
handle them?
I do not expect any conflicts of interest. lf one would arise, I would IMMEDIATELY recuse myself.
Pleasefeelfree to use addûtional sheet tÍyou have more ínformatíon to help the
Council møke alinal decßion,
My signature affirms that the information in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that misrepresentation and/or omission of facts are cause for removal from any council, advisory
I may be appointed to. All information/documentation related to service for
Date:Signature:,3 zÒ/
record disclosure.
or
tothis
committee, board
9.C.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: PC App - Pat Smith_Redacted (1126 : Appointment to Planning Commission)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Preliminary Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Mapping
Discussion
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
None Forwarded
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City’s last residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment occurred in 1983. Since
that time, the City has grown substantially adding 4,450 units on 885 gross acres. It is expected
that the City will continue to grow at a steady rate adding 7,216 people and 2,887 households
over the next 20-years. Based on the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the City
doesn’t have enough land inside the current UGB to accommodate forecast growth and will
need to expand its UGB to provide land supply for residential, park and school needs (Table 1).
Table 1. 2019-2039 Residential Land Need
Forecast Population Growth 2019-2039 7,216 people
No. Persons per Household 2.5
No. New Households 2019-2039 2,887
Average Minimum Gross Density 2019-
2039
7.04 units/acre
Gross Residential Land Need 410 acres
Available Buildable Lands 105 acres
Additional Residential Land Need 305 acres
As the City adds new housing, additional parkland and school capacity will be needed. The
Parks Element identifies a need to add 54 acres of parkland to serve forecast population growth
for the 20-year planning period. Per School District 6, additional land may be needed to
accommodate a new school. The City is evaluating alternative boundary locations for a
residential UGB amendment, including 305 acres for housing, 54 acres of park land and 16
acres for schools. At this time staff is seeking input and direction on the preliminary UGB
location for the purposes of preparing the Residential UGB Amendment application.
Locational Analysis Description:
When considering amendments to the UGB, the City must demonstrate a need for the added
land as well as forethought regarding its location. The Urbanization Element (Ordinance 2054)
establishes a list of locational criteria to be used in evaluating alternative boundary locations.
These include:
9.D
Packet Pg. 73
1. Properties that abut either the City Limits or current UGB;
2. Properties that are greater than 10 acres in size;
3. Properties that abut or are within 500-ft of basic urban services (i.e. water, sewer,
stormwater);
4. Properties that are proximate to or include mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas;
5. Compatibility with nearby agricultural uses outside the proposed UGB;
6. Proximity to transportation infrastructure;
7. Lands that have been master planned;
8. Readiness for development; and,
9. Proximity to the City Center using a central growth pattern.
Attached for discussion and input are two (2) alternative boundary locations prepared by staff.
These represent two possible scenarios based on application of coarse locational criteria: the
location of larger parcels (i.e. greater than 10 acres) that abut the UGB, are within 500-ft of
basic urban services, and have a master plan. Additional consideration has been given to
proximity to and inclusion of activity centers, proximity to transportation infrastructure and
whether there is any evidence of development readiness (i.e. master plan, written request to be
included in the UGB). The two alternatives prepared for preliminary consideration include:
Staff Alternative 1A (Attachment “1”). This alternative applies the coarse locational
criteria addressed above but emphasizes inclusion of larger lots (i.e. greater than 10
acres) resulting in greater acreage east of Interstate 5 between Upton and Gebhard
Roads and north to Wilson Road.
Staff Alternative 1B (Attachment “2”). This alternative applies the coarse locational
criteria addressed above but increases the emphasis on small to mid-size parcels with
access to services and exception lands in proximity to basic urban services.
The Planning Commission at the April 2, 2019 meeting discussed the two alternatives and
allowed input from members of the public present. At the conclusion of the item, Staff
Alternative 1A was identified as the preferred alternative with the caveat that careful
consideration be given to development readiness based on continued public input throughout
the application process. Staff will present a summary of the input and recommendation offered
by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) at the April 9, 2019 CAC meeting.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
The preliminary UGB mapping discussion aims to assist staff in preparing a residential UGB
amendment application for consideration by both Jackson County and the City. The discussion
of alternative location scenarios does not generate additional cost to the City beyond the in-kind
staff expenses included within the budgeted funds for Community Development. The fiscal
impact of extending public infrastructure and services to areas proposed for UGB inclusion will
be based on direction from City Council and addressed in the UGB amendment application.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
In accordance with ORS 197.296, the City is required to provide a 20-year residential land
supply within its UGB to accommodate housing needs. This discussion reflects the City’s effort
to satisfy this requirement based on analysis of forecast growth, current capacity, and housing
needs; and, the City’s efforts to inform and engage the public about land use relative to growth
management consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1.
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
9.D
Packet Pg. 74
The City Council goal to provide managed growth and infrastructure is predicated on the ability
to identify and evaluate alternative UGB boundary locations that meet identified land use needs,
provide for the efficient and orderly provision of basic urban services, and align with the City’s
vision for its preferred future. This discussion is fundamental to realizing these goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the alternative UGB boundary locations recommended by the Planning Commission
and Citizen’s Advisory Committee and direct staff to make any changes needed to finalize the
map for purposes of application submittal and consideration by Jackson County, the City of
Central Point, other agencies and the public.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to designate Alternative _____ as the preferred alternative.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RUGB Map Exhibits (CC Packet)
9.D
Packet Pg. 75
ATTACHMENT “A”
9.D.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: RUGB Map Exhibits (CC Packet) (1132 : Preliminary Residential UGB Mapping Discussion)
ATTACHMENT “B”
9.D.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: RUGB Map Exhibits (CC Packet) (1132 : Preliminary Residential UGB Mapping Discussion)
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
ISSUE SUMMARY
TO: City Council
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Report
ACTION REQUIRED:
Information/Direction
RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
The following items were presented by staff and discussed by the Planning Commission at its
regular meeting on April 2, 2019.
A. Public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to allow Fire
District 3 to operate a fire station at 1909 Scenic Avenue. The 1.76 acre site is
within the Civic zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s
Map as 37S 2W 03AB Tax Lots 4400, 4500 and 4600. File No. CUP-19001.
Applicant: Fire District 3; Agent: Matt Small; Kistler, Small & White Architects.
Planning staff explained the reasons for a CUP application and how it differed from the
associated site plan for the new fire house. Public facilities such as fire stations generate
activity that impacts surrounding land uses. The Commission discussed those impacts
which included traffic, emergency responses, etc. and determined that the applicant
made the necessary adjustments and improvements to safeguard the use and to
mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. They approved the CUP with
conditions recommended by staff.
B. Public hearing to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the
construction of a 10,200 square foot fire station, including parking and landscape
areas, at 1909 Scenic Avenue. The 1.76 acre site is within the Civic zoning district
and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 03AB Tax Lots
4400, 4500 and 4600. File No. SPAR-19001. Applicant: Fire District 3; Agent: Matt
Small; Kistler, Small & White Architects. Planning staff and the applicant described
the layout and design of a new fire house. An explanation was given about the
collaboration that occurred between the Fire District, the School District and the Housing
Authority of Jackson County. Property boundaries are being adjusted and public
improvements are being made that will benefit all three entities and the City. The
Planning Commission agreed that the architecture, landscaping and road improvements
will be compatible with the neighborhood and will put the Fire District in a strategic
location to serve Central Point residents and businesses. The Site Plan was approved
with conditions recommended by staff.
9.E
Packet Pg. 78
C. Discussion of Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment. Present
and discuss two preliminary mapping alternatives for the Residential UGB
Amendment. File No. CPA-19001. Applicant: City of Central Point. Planning staff
introduced two very preliminary mapping alternatives for a residential UGB expansion in
order to test locational criteria adopted by the City Council as part of the urbanization
element. The rationale for each scenario was explained and the Commission was invited
to ask questions and offer opinions about the maps. Members of the public in
attendance were also invited to comment. The intention of the topic and discussion was
to help staff come up with a general proposal that can be used for the initial UGB
amendment when an application is submitted to the state and to Jackson County. The
Commission provided helpful feedback and they will expect a more refined ‘hybrid’ of the
two scenarios at the Planning Commission meeting in May.
9.E
Packet Pg. 79