Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC Packet 2-5-2019
A CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 5, 2019 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Amy Moore, Jim Mock, John Whiting, Kay Harrison, Chris Richey IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the January 8, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a minor zone map amendment from Residential Single Family (R-1-6) to Civic for 1.76 acres located at 1909 Scenic Avenue. Applicant: Fire District 3. Approval Criteria: CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments B. Public Hearing to consider the Urbanization Element of the Comprehensive Plan. File No. CPA -18002 C. Public Hearing to consider updates to the Population Element to address changes to the population forecast for 2019-2039. File No. CPA -18004. D. Public Hearing to consider the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), a component of the Land Use Element. File No. CPA -18003. E. Public Hearing to consider updates to the Housing Element which has been updated based on changes to the Population Element and BLI. File No. CPA -18005. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2019 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver (chair), Amy Moore, Chris Richey, John Whiting, Tom Van Voorhees, and Jim Mock were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Amy Moore made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Chris Richey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, abstain; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS DISCUSSION A. Population Element. Discuss updates to the Population Element to address changes to the population forecast for 2019-2039 planning period. File No. CPA -18004. Stephanie Holtey informed the Commissioners that Portland State University updates the Population forecast every 4 years. The last update was June 30, 2018. She said the main changes were the increase in population and the average annual growth rate for the City's Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2019 Page 2 urban area. She reviewed historic changes in the City's population growth. Ms. Holtey said the average annual growth rate is projected to be 1.5% over the next 20 years. She explained the population forecast increases the demand for housing in the City. The number of new residential units constructed directly impacts the population growth. There will be a need for additional land to accommodate the forecast population growth over the next 20 years. The Commissioners discussed the projected population growth. Amy Moore made a motion to recommend the Population Element be brought to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at its February 5, 2019 meeting. Jim Mock seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. B. Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). Present and discuss the Working Draft Residential BLI, a component of the Land Use Element. File No. CPA -18003. Ms. Holtey explained the Buildable Lands Inventory tracks availability of buildable residential lands within the City's urban area. She added OAR660-24-0050(1) requires cities of over 25,000 to maintain a BLI to accommodate residential land need for a 20 year planning period. Although the City is not required to maintain a BLI, it has had one since 2008. She said this allows the City to more effectively and efficiently manage the growth of the community. She reviewed the definition of "Buildable Lands." She stated there were three types of land included in the definition. Vacant Land, infill land and redevelopment land. Vacant land would have no improvements. Infill land is partially developed but has the potential for infill development. Redevelopment lands are partially developed with improvements that are generally old and the land value exceeds improvement value She said historically infill activity has been low, around 6% to 8%. She reviewed various factors that might affect properties that were eligible for infill development and explained why not all available land would be likely to be developed. She added that it was highly unlikely that all 100% of infill lands in the City will develop by 2039. She said the City is estimating that 30% of infill lands are likely to develop by 2039. The Commissioners asked if there were incentive programs to encourage infill development. Ms. Holtey said the Housing Implementation Plan did set out various incentives for that purpose. Mr. Humphrey added that urban renewal funds might possibly be used to help people redevelop properties. He explained the State was encouraging more efficient use of land within the City and the infill adjustment would impact the amount of land the City would be able to take in when the UGB was amended. Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2019 Page 3 The Commissioners thought 30% was high and discussed various percentages they thought would be more realistic. Ms. Holtey said the 2017 Housing Element included a 20% infill adjustment and the BLI presented tonight has included a 30% infill adjustment. The Commissioners asked if Ms. Holtey could provide them with information using different infill adjustment percentages for their review. She said she could provide that at the February meeting. Mr. Humphrey said the State required the City to prove a need before amending the UGB to bring in more land. The City was required to provide information regarding available residential land within the City limits and information regarding projected population growth. He said this would show how many residential acres were needed to accommodate the projected growth. Ms. Holtey reviewed the proposed distribution of land uses. She said most of the lands were in the medium and low density zones. John Whiting made a motion to recommend the Buildable Lands Inventory be brought to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at its February 5, 2019 meeting. Amy Moore seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. C. Housing Element. Discuss the Housing Element (review draft), which has been updated based on changes to the Population Element and BLI. File No. CPA -18005. Ms. Holtey said the Housing Element was last updated in 2017 using the 2015 PSU forecast. She said the population forecast and buildable lands inventory show an increase in population growth over the next 20 years. The projection shows an increase in population of 7582 people which results in a need for approximately 3000 additional dwelling units. There is a target minimum average density of 7.04 units per gross acre over the next 20 years. The City will need 431 additional acres of residential land. When we deduct the 125 acres of buildable land currently available and 33 acres of environmentally constrained land, the City needs to add 306 acres of additional residential land. The Commissioners clarified this was residential land and did not include commercial employment designations. Mr. Humphrey explained at this time the City is focusing on the UGB amendment to bring in residential lands. This will be followed with an update to the Economic Element which will follow an adjustment for employment lands. Ms. Holtey explained the City's committed average density. She said up until 2035 it is 6.9 units per acre. From 2035 to 2060 it is 7.9 units per acre. The 7.04 number is the average of the two. In order to achieve the committed density over the next 20 years it Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2019 Page 4 will be necessary to make some adjustments to the land use distribution. This would mean a decrease in the low density zone and an increase in the medium density zone. The commissioners discussed the density tables in their agenda packets. Ms. Holtey said the numbers would be adjusted as the process is refined through the public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation. 7:15 p.m. The Commissioners took a short break 7:28 p.m. Meeting was resumed The Commissioners clarified the density calculations and the fact that it was an average density throughout the City. Ms. Holtey explained that the City has established minimum densities. She said not all land will develop right at the minimum. Some will exceed that minimum. This helps to ensure development is at a higher density which enables the City to achieve its target over a 20 year period. Amy Moore made a motion to recommend the Housing Element Update be brought to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at its February 5, 2019 meeting. Chris Richey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. D. Urbanization Element. Present the Working Draft Urbanization Element of the Comprehensive Plan. File No. CPA -18002. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey said the Urbanization Element is modeled after Statewide Planning Goal 14 to provide orderly and efficient transition between rural and urban land use. He added Central Point's preferred future is currently guided by two documents; the Fair City Vision 2020 and The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. The City has also adopted revisions to its Population Element, Housing Element and Land Use Element which will provide additional direction for projected urban residential and employment growth. x He stated the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan sets forth procedures for the UGB Amendment which are: x Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population growth requirements x Need for housing, employment opportunities and livability x Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services x Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the UGB fringe x Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2019 Page 5 x Retention of agricultural land as defined by class and compatibility of the proposed urban land uses with Agricultural lands He reviewed the State requirements that the City evaluate all Urban Reserve areas prior to identifying the target property for the UGB Amendment. He said the Urbanization Element identifies factors the City uses to prove the need for more land. He said aside from a demonstration that there is a need to accommodate the City's long- range population, it must also consider the following locational criteria: Properties that abut either the City Limits, or the current UGB. x Properties that are in excess of 10 acres. x Properties that abut or are within 500 ft. of basic urban services; i.e. water, sewer, storm water, transportation. x Properties that are proximate to, or include, mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas x Compatibility with nearby agricultural uses outside the proposed UGB x Proximity to transportation infrastructure x Lands that have been master planned Readiness for development Mr. Humphrey showed overlay maps depicting properties that met the criteria for consideration. The Commissioners discussed the locations and the various properties which might be included in the UGB amendment. Chris Richey made a motion to recommend the Urbanization Element be brought to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at its February 5, 2019 meeting. Jim Mock seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes. Motion passed. Planning Update x Citizen Survey has gone out and there has been a good response x Snowy Butte station may be replatted to accommodate single family attached housing. Additionally the City may be buying several acres there for a new corporation yard. This would entail a modification to the Snowy Butte Station Master Plan. Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2019 Page 6 x The Housing Authority has submitted for building permits for the Creekside apartments on South Haskell. x Smith Crossing is continuing to build and will be able to start phase 2 once the railroad crossing is completed. x The crossing should be completed this year. x The Creamery is considering expanding. The City has received grant money to do environmental assessments and might do that on the Rogue Valley Bin property along with the property at 119 W. Pine and the small building on the corner of Pine and S. Haskell. The Creamery might be acquiring these properties. x Stephanie Holtey said there will be a public hearing at the February 5, 2019 meeting for a zone change on Scenic Avenue for Fire District 3. x Larry Martin and Sam Inkley have both resigned from the Citizen's Advisory Committee due to the fact they own property which may be impacted by the UGB amendment. The Commissioners discussed possible community participation at the public hearings in February. Mr. Humphrey said there might possibly be representatives from DLCD and perhaps 1000 Friends. Ms. Moore suggested notifying local builders. Mike Oliver announced John Whiting would be leaving to go to Utah for approximately 6 months in April. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Chris Richey made a motion to adjourn. Amy Moore seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the January 8, 2019 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair City_ of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov AOW%k CENTRAL POINT Oregon STAFF REPORT February 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: VII -A File No. ZC-18007 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Zone (map) Change application from R-1-8 (Residential Single Family) to Civic for three (3) properties approximately 1.76 acres in size located at 1909 Scenic Avenue. The properties are WMR1AT ISS 2W 03AB, Tax Lots 4400, 4500 & 4600. Applicant: Fire District No. 3 Approval Criteria: CPMC 17.10.400, Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments. STAFF SOURCE: Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II BACKGROUND: The proposed minor zone map amendment is to change the current zoning of the property from R-1-8 to Civic. The requested change will allow the applicant to prepare for construction of a new fire station. In considering the zone change, there are three (3) components that must be addressed pursuant to CPMC 17.10.400: Comprehensive Plan Compatibility. The current land use plan designation for the property was amended from Low Density Residential to Civic as part of the Land Use Element update in 2018. The Civic Comprehensive Plan designation allows for the proposed Civic zoning designation. Per the updated Land Use Element, the Civic zoning designation is consistent with the Civic Comprehensive Plan designation and abuts property to the south that is zoned the same. 2. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. The subject property for the proposed zone change is located along Scenic Avenue. The abutting property to the south is zoned Civic and is developed with the Scenic Middle School. The zoning of the properties to the east were recently amended to R-3 to accommodate future expansion of Scenic Heights, an affordable housing development owned and operate by the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The Housing Authority is in the preliminary stages of developing plans for the high density development, which is tentatively planned for construction in 5 -years. Traffic Impacts. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required to address compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Municipal Code and the Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR in OAR 660-012-0060 requires changes to land use plans and land use regulations (i.e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments) to be consistent with the function and capacity of existing and planned transportation facilities. As shown in the ASSN, ❑ Qthe traffic generated by the increased land use intensity will not alter the functional classification for any existing or planned infrastructure. As (FP ffFLI EIIIBULWHUM C:SS(DP HW4 I❑QAVEE)N'Q' H:WD proposed zone change can be accommodated by the transportation network and is consistent with the TPR. 10 ISSUES: There are no issues relative to this application for minor Zone (Map) Change. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None. ATTACHMENTS: ❑VUEP H79E DComprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps ❑)WEEP 1-110ELFPTraffic Impact Study, dated December 6, 2018 ❑)WEEP H:W&FUfl ❑ SSS I©3d1 V ❑VWE--P 1-17WE ®Planning Department Supplemental Findings AttIFEP H3R ®Resolution No. 863 ACTION: Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, close public hearing and 1) recommend approval to the City Council; 2) recommend approval with revisions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Resolution No. 863. Per the Staff Report dated February 5, 2019 and supported by Findings of Fact. is Figure 1. Current Comprehensive Plan Map CENTRAL POINT Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation 1909 Scenic Avenue (z zC-18007) Legend Civic (2018) H ig n_De nslty_(H R es) Low_Density_(LRes) M edium_De nsity_(M R es) Parks and Open Space (2818) MAP FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY Map Created by Justin Gindlesperger,AICF yPne II D— Jan ary 29, 2Oy Figure 2. Current Zoning Map 12 A CENTRAL POINT Current Zoning Fre District 3 - Scenic Avenue R-1.8 to Civic (ZC-18007) Legend _ BCG = Bear Creek Greenway I_ C2 [M)= Commera al Medical Gis[naH y--M1-� C-0=Town—d Ofice C 5 = Th—lgh— C. -- N= NeigM1bortio of Commercial LING ETOL Citic' _ EC= E pl)ym Commercial (TOG) GC =General Commercial (T oG) HMR= High Mix Resi—relic.—mial (TO D) HMR= Hnw Mir Residentlal(TOD) ETO❑ HMR' M = Ind -nal - M-2 = Ind -nal Gen—i MMR= Medium Mix Reside-1(TO G) Er0D MMR' G5= Open Space! Pa iks R3=Mukple Family Residemial Me 2 = Tw o -Family Re9dential R-1-8 - SF Resitl emia I - 8 000 R-1-8 = SF Resitl emia I - 8.000 R-1-10 = S F Residential -10.000 R L= Law Ge nstly Resitlential MAP FOR lLLUSTRADCR PURPOSES ONLY Figure 3. Proposed Zone Map Change 13 A CENTRAL POINT Proposed Zone Change Fre District 3 - Scenic Avenue R-1-8 to Civic (ZC-18007) C©� Legend _ BCG= Bear Creek Greenway 4-4 C-4 (M)= C—nne—1 Medical Di.n. y-4 C-4 = Toy ns[ and Office C-5 = Tho—ghtarc Commercial CN= Neighborhood Comm—,.l ON, ErO❑ Citic' F EC= Bm plo . Commercial (TOO) GC= General Commemial (T 00) HM R = High Mi[ Resid enta VComme mial Cr O D) LMR= Low Mix Residential (fOD) E -OD -MR- U-1 Ind -H.1 = Induslnal M-2 = Ind -nal General MMR= Medi.m Mi. Residential (TOD) E -OD MMR' OS= Open Space! Parks _ R-3 = Multiple Family Residential .� R-2 = Two Fami Iy Re sidentia) R-1-8= SF Residential 6,000 R-1-8= SF Residential -8,000 R-1-10 = SF Residential -10.000 R - L= Law De nsily Re sidential MAP FOR lLLUSTRADON PURPOSES ONLY Scenic Avenue R ---I--8 to Civic Zone Change Traffic Impact Study December 61 2018 Prepared By: foury"m 0.uon LL( PRD���, 53 OP OREGON L Y PAR A'Ws 121i118 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................5 II. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................6 Background...........................................................................................................................................6 ProjectLocation.......................................................................................................................................6 ProjectDescription...................................................................................................................................6 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................8 SiteCondition...........................................................................................................................................8 RoadwayCharacteristics ....................................................................................................8 TrafficCounts........................................................................................................................................8 BackgroundGrowth.................................................................................................................................8 Intersection Capacity and Level of Service............................................................................................1 l Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations.....................................................:...................:...............12 Year 2018 No -Build 95`h Percentile Queuing........................................................................................12 CrashHistory ..........................................................................................................................................13 IV. SITE TRAFFIC...............................................................................................................................15 TripGeneration......................................................................................................................................15 Trip Distribution and Assignment..,... .............................. 15 V. YEAR 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS......................................................................................................18 Year2018 Build Description..................................................................................................................18 Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations...............................................................................................18 Year 2018 Build 95`h Percentile Queuing.................:.............................................................................18 Year2018 Build Turn Lanes..................................................................................................................19 VI. FUTURE YEAR 2038 NO -BUILD AND BUILD CONDITIONS....................................................22 Future Year 2038 No -Build Description................................................................................................22 Future Year 2038 Build Description......................................................................................................22 Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build Intersection Operations.............................................................22 Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95`h Percentile Queuing.............................................................23 VII. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................28 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Roadway Classifications and Descriptions .................................... ...,................................................ 8 Table 2: HCM Level of Service Designations for Stop -Controlled Intersections.........................................11 Table 3: HCM Level of Service Designations for Signalized Intersections......:..........,..........••....................11 Table 4: Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours.........................................12 Table 5: Year 2018 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours.....................................12 Table 6: Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2012-2016............................................................................13 Table 7: Crash History by Type, 2012-2016.................................................................................................13 Table 8: Development Trip Generations.............................................................................................:.........15 Table 9: Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours...............................................18 Table 10: Year 2018 Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours...............................:.........18 Table 11: Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours ........... 22 Table 12: Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours ....... 23 FIGURES Figure1: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................7 Figure 2a: Year 2018 No -Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour................:.........:....................................9 Appendix C: Figure 2b: Year 2018 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour..............................................................10 Year 2018 No -Build and Build SimTraffic Output Figure 3a: Development Trip Distributions, AM Peak Hour....................................::................................16 Appendix F: Figure 3b: Development Trip Distributions, PM Peak Hour.......................................................................17 Agency Requirements Figure 4a: Year 2018 Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour...................................................................20 Figure 4b: Year 2018 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour....................................................................21 Figure 5a: Future Year 2038 No -Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour..................................................24 Figure 5b: Future Year 2038 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour..................................................25 Figure 6a: Future Year 2038 Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour........................................................26 Figure 6b: Future Year 2038 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour ...... ::....................................._..........27 APPENDICES Appendix A: Traffic Count Data, Seasonal Adjustment Information Appendix B: ITE Trip Generation Data, Background Growth Appendix C: Year 2018 No -Build and Build Synchro Output Appendix D: Year 2018 No -Build and Build SimTraffic Output Appendix E: Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build Synchro Output Appendix F: Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build SimTraffic Output Appendix G: Agency Requirements 16 r r THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 17 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for a proposed zone change from Low Density Residential (R-1-8) to Civic on Township 37S Range 2W Section 3AB, tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4600 in Central Point, Oregon. The subject property is located along the south side of Scenic Avenue, west of Rock Way. Access is proposed from a planned extension of Rock Way. A traffic impact analysis is required by the City of Central Point to address issues of compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and Oregon Transportation Planning f - Rule (TPR). Potential development impacts were based on 1.76 acres of Civic zoning under existing year 2018 and future year 2038 conditions. Development impacts were analyzed within the study area during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours because of the close proximity to Scenic Middle School. Three study area intersections were identified as key intersections for the analysis. These included: 1. Upton Road & Scenic Avenue 2. Rock Way & Scenic Avenue 3. Scenic Middle School & Scenic Avenue Conclusions The findings of the traffic impact analysis conclude that the proposed zone change from R-1-8 to Civic on 37S2W03AB tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4600 is not shown to degrade the performance of any study area intersection such that it would cause an intersection to fail that was not otherwise failing or make an intersection worse that was already failing under existing or future conditions. Intersection operations, roadway classifications, and safety conditions were evaluated to address potential impacts to the transportation system. Results of the analysis show the following: The intersection of Upton Road and Scenic Avenue is shown to exceed the City's level of service (LOS) "D" performance standard and operate at a LOS "F" under existing year 2018 no -build conditions. The intersection continues to operate at LOS "F" under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions, and will require mitigation. The type of mitigation will be evaluated and recommended at the time of development, however, when actual development is known and true impacts can be addressed. This analysis was undertaken to address issues of compliance with the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 012. Based upon our analysis, it is concluded that streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for permitted uses under Civic zoning without requiring a change in the functional classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) or Comprehensive Plan. f. 0. Tunnjvonr�rr�nn �ncin�rnrnc. L L( I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 15 18 II. INTRODUCTION Background Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for a proposed zone change from Low Density Residential (R-1-8) to Civic on Township 37S Range 2W Section 3AB, tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4600 in Central Point, Oregon. The subject property is located along the south side of Scenic Avenue, west of Rock Way. Access is proposed from a planned extension of Rock Way. A traffic impact analysis is required by the City of Central Point to address issues of compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Potential development impacts were based on 1.76 acres of Civic zoning under existing year 2018 and future year 2038 conditions. Development impacts were analyzed within the study area during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours because of the close proximity to Scenic Middle School. Three study area intersections were identified as key intersections for the analysis. These included: 1. Upton Road & Scenic Avenue 2. Rock Way & Scenic Avenue 3. Scenic Middle School & Scenic Avenue Under Civic zoning, the site allows community services, religious assembly, parks & open spaces, and elementary and middle schools as outright permitted uses. The proposed use for the site is a future fire station, but this will be evaluated specifically at the time of site development because it is a conditional use within Civic Zoning. For purposes of the zone change analysis, potential traffic generations are based on a middle school use because it produces the highest number of trips for permitted uses. The largest middle school for a site this size was estimated to have up to 107 students and generate 228 average daily trips (ADT) with 62 occurring during the a.m. and 37 during the p.m. peak hour. Study area intersections were evaluated under existing year 2018 and future year 2038 no -build and build conditions to determine what impacts the proposed zone change will have on the transportation system. Project Location The subject parcel is located along the south side of Scenic Avenue, west of Rock Way on Township 37S Range 2W Section 3AB, tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4600 in Central Point, Oregon. Refer to Figure 1 for a vicinity map. Project Description The subject property is currently zoned Low Density Residential (R-1-8) and is proposed as Civic Zoning (C). The change in land use is estimated to generate 228 ADT to the transportation system with 62 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 37 during the p.m. peak hour. Access to the site is proposed through an extension of Rock Way. S.O. Npit5PORTU19H �EHOHFFRIH6, LLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 16 19 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Conditions The proposed site is located on Township 37S Range 2W Section 3AB, tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4 4600. The parcel is 1.76 acres in size and is currently vacant. Roadway Characteristics Table 1 provides a summary of existing roadway classifications and descriptions in the study area. Table 1 - Roadway Classifications and Descriptions Roadway Jurisdiction Functional Lanes City Operational Posted Speed Classification Standard Scenic Avenue City of Central Point Minor Arterial 2-3 LOS D 20-30 mph 10th Street City of Central Point Minor Arterial 2-3 LOS D 30 mph Upton Road City of Central Point Minor Arterial 2 LOS D 45 mph Rock Way City of Central Point Local 2 LOS D 25 mph Traffic Counts Manual traffic counts were collected from 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 3:00-6:00 p.m. at key intersections in early October of 2018. Counts were seasonally adjusted and balanced to reflect peak conditions. The t a.m. peak hour was shown to occur from 7:45-8:45 a.m. and the p.m. peak hour from 3:30-4:30 p.m. in the surrounding area. Refer to Appendix A for count data. Refer to Figures 2a and 2b for year 2018 no -build traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Background Growth Background growth was derived using growth rates from the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Exit 33 and volume comparisons between counts in 2010 and 2018 for 10th Street. The IAMP estimated 0.7% of growth per year on 10th Street between 2010 and future year 2034. We rounded that up to 1% to be conservative and applied it to all streets within the study area. f.0. T P gtifP0,PT-ITIOn �ncinrr--Hint, LLC I Dec 6, 20181 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 18 21 Figure 2a : Year 2018 No -Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour NOT TO SCALE SOOT-H-Uh OX ON T-4-INSPO-RT41TION 1NGIN-E- lK. LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim, parducciggmad.. com Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 2b : Year 2018 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour SOUT-Ha" 0-2-140N T-RANSPOATATION -1N4INZRIK, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim. parducciga gmail. com Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Intersection Capacity and Level of Service Intersection capacity calculations were conducted utilizing the methodologies presented in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity and level of service calculations for signalized and unsignalized intersections were prepared using "SYNCHRO" timing software. Level of service quantifies the degree of comfort afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway section. The level of service methodology was developed to quantify the quality of service of transportation facilities. Level of service is based on total delay, defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. Level of service ranges from "A" to "F", with "A" indicating the most desirable condition and "F" indicating an unsatisfactory condition. The HCM LOS designations for stop - controlled intersections are provided in Table 2. The HCM LOS designations for signalized intersections are provided in Table 3. Table 2 — HCM Level of Service Designations for Stop -Controlled Intersections Level of Service Delay Range A <10 B >10 — 15 C >15-25 D >25 — 35 E >35 — 50 F > 50 Table 3 — HCM Level of Service Designations for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Delay Range A <10 B >10-20 C >20 — 35 D >35 — 55 E >55 — 80 F > 80 Key intersections are under City of Central Point jurisdiction. The City of Central Point requires all study area intersections to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). The minimum acceptable level of service for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersection movements is LOS "D". Mitigation is required if proposed development is shown to degrade an intersection to a level of service worse than under no -build conditions. f.0. T unnjvo-arnrran -[ncin-[r-ninc, LLC I Dec 6, 20181 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 111 24 Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations Key intersections were evaluated under year 2018 no -build conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 - Year 2018 No -Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours Intersection Performance Standard Traffic Control Year 2018 No -Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Upton Road / Scenic Avenue LOS D TWSC F, (SB) F, (SB) Rock Way / Scenic Avenue LOS D TWSC C, (SB) B, (SB) Scenic Middle School / Scenic Avenue None TWSC C, (NB) C, (NB) LOS=Level of Service, TWSC=Two-way stop controlled, NB=northbound, SB=southbound Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Upton Road / Scenic Avenue operating at a level of service (LOS) "F" under existing year 2018 no -build conditions, which exceeds the LOS "D" standard. The critical movement is the southbound left turn movement, which drives the failing LOS. All other key intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Refer to Appendix C for synchro output sheets. Year 2018 No -Build 95th Percentile Queuing Queuing is the stacking up of vehicles for a given lane movement, and it can have a significant effect on roadway safety and the overall operation of a transportation system. Long queue lengths in through lanes can block access to turn lanes, driveways, and minor street approaches, as well as spill back into upstream intersections. As a result of this, the estimation of queue lengths is an important aspect of the analysis process for determining how a transportation corridor operates. Queue lengths are reported as the average, maximum, or 95"' percentile queue length. The 95th percentile queue length is used for design purposes and is the queue length reported in this analysis. Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95th percentile queue lengths at study area intersections under existing conditions. Queue lengths were then rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 5 for the p.m. peak hour unless the a.m. peak hour was higher. Table 5 — Year 2018 No -Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours Intersection / Available Link 95th Percentile Exceeded or Movement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway AM PM Scenic Avenue / Rock Way Eastbound Left/Through Westbound Through/Right Southbound Left/Right Scenic MS / Scenic Avenue 425 350 650 25 25 25 25 50 50 Eastbound Through/Right 500 25 25 - Westbound Left/Through 425 75 50 - Northbound Left/Right 360 125 75 - f. 0. T pntlIPUTAT101i -Enc/nC-[utnc, L LC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 112 25 Table 5 Continued — Year 2018 No -Build 95"' Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours Intersection / Available Link 95`h Percentile Exceeded or Movement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway Crashes Rte AM PM Upton Road / Scenic Avenue r 0 1 1 Eastbound Left 150 50 75 Eastbound Through/Right 350 25 25 Westbound Left 425 25 25 Westbound Through/Right 450 25 50 Northbound Left 100 25 25 l Northbound Through/Right l 200 25 50 = Southbound Left 225 125 125 _ Southbound Through/Right 225 75 50 - Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the queuing analysis show no link distances at key intersections exceeded under year 2018 no -build conditions. The longest queues are the southbound left turn queue length on Upton Road at Scenic Avenue and the northbound left turn queue on the Scenic Middle School driveway at Scenic Avenue. Both are estimated to be 125 feet or the equivalent of 5 vehicles. At Scenic Middle School this queue is longer when buses are trying to make left turns onto Scenic Avenue. Refer to Appendix D for a full queuing and blocking report. T Crash History Crash data for the most recent five-year period was gathered from ODOT's crash analysis unit. Results were gathered for the period of January 1, 2012 through December 31s', 2016. Crash data is gathered to identify crash patterns that could be attributable to geometric or operational deficiencies, or crash trends of a specific type that would indicate the need for further investigation at an intersection. Tables 6 and 7 provide intersection crash rates and types of collisions at study area intersections. Intersections with no reported crashes were not included. Full crash reports are provided in Appendix A. Table 6 - Study Area Intersection Crash Rates, 2012-2016 Total Crash ODOT Intersection 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ADT Crash Crashes Rte Rate' Rock Way / Scenic Ave 0 0 0 0 1 1 5,950 0.092 0.293' Upton Rd / Scenic Ave 1 0 0 0 2 3 7,780 0.212 0.408' 90' Percentile Crash Rate from Exhibit 4-1 in ODOT's Analysis Procedures Manual v2 ADT=average daily traffic Table 7 - Crash History by Type, 2012-2016 Intersection Collision Type Severity Rear- Turning/ Head- Pedestrian/ Fixed Non- Injury Fatal End Angle on Bicyclist Object Injury Rock Way / Scenic Ave 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Upton Rd / Scenic Ave 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 f.0. TunnrvoRrunon-[HOKITRO6, LL( I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 113 26 r - f Results of the crash analysis show the intersection with the highest crash frequency being Scenic Avenue at Upton Road with three crashes occurring within a five-year period. All three crashes were turning collisions, with one involving a bicyclist traveling westbound. Two resulted in non-fatal injuries and one property damage only. At the intersections of Rock Way / Scenic Avenue, there was one reported crash within a five-year period. The crash involved a pedestrian crossing Scenic Avenue and being struck by an eastbound traveling vehicle that had a blind spot due to the morning sun. All collisions along Scenic Avenue occurred between 6:00-8:00a.m. and 1:00-3:00 p.m., which is during the school a.m. and p.m. peak periods when congestion is highest. The type of collision (turning) occurring along Scenic Avenue within the study area is common for stop -controlled intersections, where drivers from side streets are turning onto and off of the mainline based on the availability of adequate gaps in traffic. School traffic is an added factor that contributes to higher spikes in traffic with a greater mix of pedestrians and bicyclists during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, but even considering this, the number of crashes reported within a five-year period is fairly low. Overall, the crash analysis does not raise any safety concerns regarding the number, type, or severity of collisions reported in the study area that would require further investigation. f.0. T��ncna�r�r�nn �NG/nFFltIHG, LLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 114 27 IV. SITE TRAFFIC Trip Generation Trip generation calculations for the proposed zone change to Civic Zoning (C) were prepared utilizing y the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10"' Edition. An ITE rate was used for land use code 522 — Middle School / Junior High. The Civic Zone is a new zone in the City of Central Point that allows community services, religious assembly, parks & open spaces, and elementary and j middle schools as outright permitted uses. The actual use on this site is planned as a future fire station, i but that will be evaluated at the time of site development and will be a conditional use within Civic Zoning. For purposes of the zone change analysis, potential traffic generations were based on the highest traffic generator of the permitted uses, which is a middle school. To determine the number of trips, we estimated a school on 1.76 acres would have approximately 107 students based on comparisons with the adjacent Scenic Middle School and their current enrollment. No pass -by or internal trip reductions were taken. All trips were considered new trips to the transportation system. Table 8 provides a summary of generations. ITE descriptions and graphs are provided in Appendix B. Table 8 — Development Trip Generations Land Use Unit Size Daily Rate Daily Trips Peak Hour Rates Peak Hour Trips AM PM AM PM Total In Out Total In Out 522 — Middle School Student 107 2.13 228 0.58 0.35 62 33 29 37 17 20 Total Trips 228 62 33 29 37 17 20 DU = dwelling unit Trip Distribution and Assignment Development trips were distributed based on existing traffic patterns at Scenic Middle School in the study area. They varied depending upon which peak hour was being evaluated. During the a.m. peak hour, traffic to the site was shown to be roughly a 50/50 split, but traffic leaving the site predominantly was shown to go to the east (65%). During the p.m. peak hour, most traffic was shown to come from (75%) and go to (61%) the east. Refer to Figures 3a and 3b for development distribution percentages and trip assignments. 1.0. NfinlPnarnrIon Et161nLFlt11Y6, LLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 115 28 Figure 3a : Development Trip Distribution & Percentages, AM Peak Hour 35% f- 55% NOT TO SCALE 0 m 0 0 18 +r l0 4 0 � seO4k Vf � 1 U Site W V / `fr U H (Civic Potential Trips) I 62 AM Trips 33 in, 29 out AURORA LN SOUT-H-UH HUN TTA-1NSPONATION -[WHMIK. LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim. parducci(Pgmail. com W Q PRINCESS WY Z 3 O 1z U WINDSOR WY KINGS WY 17% �o Q~p �0 0 1 5 0 14 9 0� 1 j 0 0 o}Y—o /p 27% 48% /y N VICTORIA WY ^'+ Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 3b : Development Trip Distribution & Percentages, PM Peak Hour S O UT -I -R N 0410" T-2-INSPOW-ATION A:KIN".RIK, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim. parduccioa gmail. com Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon V. YEAR 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS Year 2018 Build Description Build conditions represent no -build conditions for a study area with the addition of proposed development trips considered. Build conditions are compared to no -build conditions to determine what impacts and/or mitigation measures will result from proposed development. Build conditions are evaluated in this analysis for the year 2018. Year 2018 build traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are provided in Figures 4a and 4b. Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations Year 2018 build traffic volumes were evaluated at key intersections under p.m. peak hour conditions. Results are summarized in Table 9. Table 9 - Year 2018 Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours Intersection Performance Standard Traffic Control Year 2018 Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Upton Road / Scenic Avenue LOS D TWSC F, (SB) F, (SB) Rock Way / Scenic Avenue LOS D TWSC C, (SB) C, (SB) Scenic Middle School / Scenic Avenue None TWSC D, (NB) C, (NB) LOS=Level of Service, TWSC=Two-way stop controlled, NB=northbound, SB=southbound Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Upton Road / Scenic Avenue continuing to have a failing level of service for the southbound left turn movement on Upton Road. No other intersection movements are shown to exceed the City's LOS "D" standard under year 2018 build conditions. Refer to Appendix C for synchro output sheets. Year 2018 Build 95th Percentile Queuing Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTraffic to determine 95`h percentile queue lengths at study area intersections under year 2018 build conditions. Queue lengths were then rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported in Table 10 for the p.m. peak hour unless shown in the a.m. to be higher. Table 10 — Year 2018 Build 95th Percentile Queue Lengths, AN"M Peak Hours Intersection / Available Link 95th Percentile Exceeded or Movement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway AM PM Scenic Avenue / Rock Way Eastbound Left/Through/Right 425 25 25 Westbound Left/Through/Right 350 25 25 Southbound Left/Through/Right 650 50 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 200 50 50 - f.0. T RtifP0-PTATlOH LLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 118 31 _... _ — .... —. ............ — — Table 10 Continued — Year 2018 Build 95'h Percentile Queue Lengths, AM/PM Peak Hours Intersection / Available Link 951e Percentile Exceeded or Movement Distance (Ft) Queue Lengths Blocked Roadway AM PM Scenic MS / Scenic Avenue Eastbound Through/Right 500 25 25 Westbound Left/Through 425 75 50 Northbound Left/Right 360 125 125 Upton Road / Scenic Avenue Eastbound Left 150 50 75 - Eastbound Through/Right 350 25 25 - Westbound Left 425 25 25 - Westbound Through/Right 450 25 50 - Northbound Left 100 25 25 Northbound Through/Right 200 25 50 Southbound Left 225 100 125 - Southbound Through/Right 225 75 75 - Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the queuing analysis show small increases in queue lengths at study area intersections under year 2018 build conditions. The northbound left turn queue length at Scenic Middle School on Scenic Avenue remains the same. The southbound left and through/right turn movements both increase slightly on Upton Road at Scenic Avenue under build conditions. Neither queue is shown to exceed its available storage. Refer to Appendix D for a full queuing and blocking report. Year 2018 Build Turn Lanes Turns lanes are not evaluated at the time of plan map amendment or zone change because exact development details are not known at this time. They will be evaluated at the time of development on Scenic Avenue at all access points. f.0. TRAnfPo-PTJlrinH �HGInFFR/nG, LCC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 119 32 Figure 4a : Year 2018 Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour 0 NOT TO SCALE O Im m O G 273 120 125 I10 Ngo 5 30 3ifi � � 2l5 o SceNoc4kp Z u Z U H Site AURORA LN SOUT-H-UH 0 -h -140N TA-ANSDOW-ITION ZWKaING, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim.parducciCa)gmailcom D VICTORIA WY "+ W Q PRINCESS WY O U WINDSOR WY KINGS WY Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 4b : Year 2018 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour SOUTAUN 04[40N T-RANSPOATAITION 1KINIRING, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim. parduccifgmail. com Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon VI. FUTURE YEAR 2038 NO -BUILD AND BUILD CONDITIONS Future Year 2038 No -Build Description Future year 2038 no -build conditions represent future year conditions for a study area without consideration of proposed development trips. This condition is evaluated to determine how a study area will be impacted by future background growth without traffic from proposed development trips. Background growth was derived using growth rates from the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Exit 33 and volume comparisons between counts in 2010 and 2018 for 10"' Street. The IAMP estimated 0.7% of growth per year on 10th Street between 2010 and future year 2034. We rounded that up to 1% to be conservative and applied it to all streets within the study area. Refer to Figures 5a and 5b for future year 2038 no -build traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Future Year 2038 Build Description Future year 2038 build conditions represent future conditions for a study area with background growth and proposed development trips considered. Build conditions are compared to no -build conditions to determine what kind of impacts will result from proposed development under future conditions. Future build conditions are evaluated in this analysis for the planning year of 2038. Refer to Figures 6a and 6b for future year 2038 build traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build Intersection Operations Future year 2038 no -build and build traffic volumes were evaluated at study area intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours to determine how background growth and proposed development trips impact the transportation system. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 11. Table 11 — Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build Intersection Operations, AM and PM Peak Hours Performance Future Year 2038 Future Year 2038 Intersection Standard No -Build Build AM PM AM PM Upton Road / Scenic Avenue LOS D F (SB) F (SB) F (SB) F (SB) Rock Way / Scenic Avenue LOS D C, (SB) C, (SB) C, (SB) C, (SB) Scenic Middle School / Scenic Ave None E, (NB) C, (NB) E, (NB) C, (NB) LOS=Level of Service, TWSC=Two-way stop controlled, NB=northbound, SB=southbound Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the analysis show the intersection of Upton Road and Scenic Avenue continues to exceed its performance standard under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions. The northbound movement at Scenic Middle School on Scenic Avenue is also shown to exceed LOS "13", but there is no performance standard for a private driveway so this isn't considered failing as much as it's noted to have a fair amount of delay during the a.m. peak hour, which includes both the school drop off and commuter morning traffic. When the subject property is developed with a specific use, a traffic analysis will evaluate the need for a center turn lane on Scenic Avenue in the study area and the re- routing potential of school traffic if Rock Way is extended and provides an alternate access. For purposes of the zone change analysis, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that an s.0. Tnmi(PoPT_w1un _En61nttP1n6, iL( I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 122 35 I i_. analysis determine whether the functional classification of streets serving the property would need to be changed as a result of proposed development or any facility degraded beyond no -build conditions. Both intersections in Table 11 that are shown to have traffic movements exceeding LOS "D" are no worse than under no -build conditions, and the functional classification is not shown to change for any study area street as a result of the proposed zone change to Civic, so the TPR is shown to be satisfied. f Refer to Appendix E for synchro output sheets. f 3 Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95th Percentile Queuing ` Five simulations were run and averaged in SimTrafftc to determine 95"' percentile queue lengths at study area intersections under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions. Queue lengths were then rounded up to the nearest 25 feet (single vehicle length) and reported for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in Table 12. Table 12 — Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build 95`h Percentile Queue Lengths, PM Peak Hour 95`h Percentile 95`h Percentile Intersection / Available Link Queue Lengths Queue Lengths Movement Distance (Ft) No -Build Build AM PM AM PM Scenic Avenue / Rock Way Eastbound Left/Through/Right 425 25 25 25 25 Westbound Left/Through/Right 350 25 25 25 25 Southbound Left/Through/Right 650 50 50 50 50 Northbound Left/Through/Right 200 NA NA 50 50 Scenic MS / Scenic Avenue Eastbound Through/Right 500 25 25 25 25 Westbound Left/Through 425 75 50 75 50 Northbound Left/Right 360 150 125 175 150 Upton Road / Scenic Avenue Eastbound Left 150 75 75 75 75 Eastbound Through/Right 350 25 50 25 50 Westbound Left 425 25 25 25 25 Westbound Through/Right 450 25 75 25 75 Northbound Left 100 25 25 25 25 Northbound Through/Right 200 50 50 25 50 Southbound Left 225 125 175 150 175 Southbound Through/Right 225 100 125 100 125 Note: Exceeded performance standards are shown in bold, italic Results of the queuing analysis show small increases in queue lengths at study area intersections under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions. The northbound left turn queue length at Scenic Middle School and Scenic Avenue increases from 125 feet in year 2018 to 175 feet (a.m. peak hour) and 150 feet (p.m. peak hour), respectively in the future year 2038. Similarly, the southbound left and through/right movements on Upton Road at Scenic Avenue also increase under future year 2038 no -build and build conditions. No link distances are shown to be exceeded as a result of the increases, however. Refer to Appendix F for a full queuing and blocking report. 5.0. TRAtIIPORT47n9t1 fN61f1I-rRl116, LLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 123 36 Figure 5a : Future Yr 2038 No -Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour 0 OUTTI-UN 0 -h -140N T-t-1NSP0ATATION-1KINZaM, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim.parducciggmail.com Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 5b : Future Yr 2038 No -Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour SOUT-Ha" 0414;0N T-RANSPOW-ATION-WIN"AW, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kirn. parducciga gmail. corn Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 6a : Future Yr 2038 Build Traffic Volumes, AM Peak Hour 0 1z m O c i28 ]45 `H 13(1 0 NOT TO SCALE � O M I 5 35 4108 +245 15 o/1 SiCee AURORA LN SOUT-M-UH 0 -h -140N T-2-INSPOAT-1TION-MINZaIN4, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email.- kim. parducciftmail. com �Q ^ o 115 135 369 179 1� 1 r3I tea,, H 0 VICTORIA WY Q PRINCESS WY 3 0 1z U WINDSOR WY KINGS WY Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon Figure 6b : Future Yr 2038 Build Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour 0 NOT TO SCALE �° 1 0 1z m O 0 0 00 M 5 45 370 305 -4- el3 s y CEjy�CAl`E 258 r � 278 -T 65 25 � u Z H She" AURORA LN SHIM" 0410N TUNSPOAT-ITION ZKlU-E lK, LL( Medford, Oregon 97504 ph 541.608.9923 fax 541.535.6873 email: kim.parduccii?gmail.com AQ � � S J �'JjR N 144 1 215 263 223 5 r 10 1 O VICTORIA WY "+ Q PRINCESS WY Z O a U WINDSOR WY KINGS WY Scenic Avenue Zone Change (R-1-8 to Civic) Traffic Impact Analysis Central Point, Oregon VII. CONCLUSIONS j The findings of the traffic impact analysis conclude that the proposed zone change from R-1-8 to Civic on 37S2W03AB tax lots 4400, 4500, and 4600 is not shown to degrade the performance of any study area intersection such that it would cause an intersection to fail that was not otherwise failing or make r an intersection worse that was already failing under existing or future conditions. Intersection operations, roadway classifications, and safety conditions were evaluated to address potential impacts to the transportation system. Results of the analysis show the following: • The intersection of Upton Road and Scenic Avenue is shown to exceed the City's level of service (LOS) "D" performance standard and operate at a LOS "F" under existing year 2018 no -build conditions. The intersection continues to operate at LOS "F" under future year 2038 no -build and i build conditions, and will require mitigation. The type of mitigation will be evaluated and recommended at the time of development, however, when actual development is known and true impacts can be addressed. This analysis was undertaken to address issues of compliance with the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 012. Based upon our analysis, it is concluded that streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for permitted uses under Civic zoning without requiring a change in the functional classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) or Comprehensive Plan. f.0. TRAnfV0RT17T10H �nc�n��a�nc, CLC I Dec 6, 2018 1 R-1-8 to Civic ZC I Traffic Impact Analysis 128 41 Scenic Avenue R --l--8 to Civic Zone Change APPENDICES A -G December 65 2018 Prepared By: f OUTS III O&ron TumpoPUTIOn �NGIN���?ING, LLC SOUTRIP N Up-rom T -u NSDOPU TION �NGIN��R/NG, L L C Appendix A Traffic Count Data, Seasonal Adjustments 43 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 97504 1 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Rock Way File Name : rockway-scenicave East-West: Scenic Ave Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Clear, Warm Start Date : 10/9/2018 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 44 Groups Printed- All Ve h icles _ From North From East From South From West Start Time Left Thru Riaht Peds A.. To., Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Riaht Peds Int Total 07:00 AM 6 0 0 0 6 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 0 0 _FppTcW 34 64 07:15 AM 8 0 0 0 8 0 33 6 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 45 0 0 46 93 07:30 AM 10 0 1 0 11 0 45 2 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 2 78 0 0 80 i 138 07.45 AM 8 0 I 0 9 0 44 5 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 81 139 Total 32 0 2 0 34 0 146 13 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 4 237 0 0 241 434 08:00 AM 4 0 1 0 5 0 54 9 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 66 134 08:15 AM 7 0 1 8 16 0 54 6 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 1 83 0 6 90 166 08:30 AM 8 0 3 1 12 0 54 8 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 2 125 0 0 127 201 08:45 AM 6 a 1 0 7_..... 0 25 4 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 48 84 Total 25 0 69 40 0 187 27 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 3 322 0 6 331 i 585 BREAK "' 03:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 42 3 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 3 41 0 0 44 90 03:15 PM 5 0 1 6 12 0 58 8 1 67 0 0 0 0 0 5 49 0 0 54 133 03:30 PM 8 0 6 15 29 0 62 7 2 71 0 0 0 0 0 1 106 0 0 107 207 _03_45.PNI 7 0 2 2 11 0 75 13 88 0 0 0 0 0 2 73 0 38 113 t Total 21 0 9 23 53 0 237 31 3 271 0 0 0 0 0 11 269 0 —W-31 C1 642 04:00 PM 8 0 0 0 8 0 61 8 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 2 73 150 04:15 PM 4 0 2 0 6 0 45 9 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 0 0 48 108 04:30 PM 6 0 1 0 7 0 65 15 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 51 138 04:45. PM 6 0 0 0 6 0 56 15 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 1 51 039 91 168 Total 24 0 3 0 27 0 227 47 0 274 0 0 0 0 0 2 220 0 41 263 564 05:00 PM 4 0 3 3 10 0 67 12 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 0 0 48 137 05.15 PM 8 0 1 2 11 0 73 19 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 1 53 0 0 54 157 0530 PM 10 0 2 0 12 0 73 10 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 4 56 0 0 60 155 05:45 PM 8 0 1 0 9 0 89 6 0 95 0_ 0 0 0 0 1 52_ Q: D_ 53 157 Total 30 0 7 5 42 0 302 47 0 3491 0 0 0 0 0 7 208 0 0 215 606 Grand Total 132 0 27 37 196 0 1099 165 3 1267 0 0 0 0 0 ; 27 1256 0 85 1368 2831 Apprch % 67.3 0 13.8 189 0 86.7 13 0.2 0 0 0 0 2 91.8 0 6.2 Total % 4.7 0 1 1 3 6.9 0 38.8 5.8 0.1 44.8 0 0 0 0 0 1 44.4 0 3 483 44 F SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 975041 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Rock Way East-West: Scenic Ave Weather: Clear, Warm Veh Type: All Vehicles From North From East Start Thr Rig Ped App. f _ Time Left Thru Right Peds �o� Left u ht s Total Left Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach at: File Name : rockway-scenicave Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 10/9/2018 Page No :2 From South From West Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. u ht s Total l u I ht s , Total . Total 45 07-45 AM In - Peak Dour 07:45 AM 0 07 : 5 A 4. 81 0 0 81 0 Cl'.4 5 AM 66 0 0 66 +0 mins. 8 0 1 0 9 0 44 5 0 49 0 0 0 0 +15 mins. 4 0 1 0 5 0 54 9 0 63 0 0 0 0 +30 mins. 7 0 1 8 16 0 54 6 0 60 0 0 0 0 +45_mtns. , 8 0 3 1 12 0 54 8 0 62 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 27 0 6 9 42 0 206 28 0 234 0 0 0 0 %App To La! 643 0 143 21.4 0 88 12 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .844 000 .500 281 -656 -000 954 778 000 929 .000 -000 000 .000 45 ,SAM In - Peak Dour 07:45 AM 0 0 81 0 0 81 0 0 66 0 0 66 0 1 83 0 6 90 0 2 125 0 0 127 0 3 355 0 6 364 a 08 97.5 0 1.6 000 .375 .7110_000 ... .250 .717 45 In - Peak Dour 07:45 AM 42 i Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data a t-2. s r� J North ... I c 2 a All Vehicles; d M y CL o �v T D c°i > r Left--. Thru Rlghs Peds �..., al. a ❑ o 0 In - Peak Hour. 0745 AM 45 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 97504 1 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Rock Way East-West: Scenic Ave Weather: Clear, Warm Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : rockway-scenicave Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 10/9/2018 Page No :3 46 From North From East 54, From South From West 10 0 27 17 Start Time.. Left Thru Right Peds Left Thr u Rig ht Ped i s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht. Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Int. Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:30 PM to 04:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 _ . North m • Peak Hour for.Each_ApprAach._Begins at: 4 n z All Vehicles 03 30 PM 33 _ 03 30 PM 0 ------ 03 30 PM � a +0 mins. 8 0 6 15 29 0 62 7 2 71 0 0 0 0 0 1 106 0 0 107 +15 mins. 7 0 2 2 11 0 75 13 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 2 73 0 38 113 +30 mins. 8 0 0 0 8 0 61 8 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 2 73 +45 mins. 4 0 2 0 6 0 45 9 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 0_ 0 48_ Total Volume 27 0 10 17 54 0 243 37 2 282 0 0 0 0 0 4 297 0 40 341 %,App, Trial . 50 0 18.5 31.5 0 86.2— 13.1_-_ 0.7 0 0 0 0 1.2 87.1 0 11.7 PHF 844 ,000 -417 283 466 000 810 .712 .250 801 .000 000 000 000 000 .500 .700 .000 .263 .754 46 In - Peak Hour; p130 PM 54, 10 0 27 17 Right Thru Left Peds 4 i Peak Hour Data a _ North m 4 n z All Vehicles 0 � a CD a N 3 r/ 4 . Thru Right Peds 0` 0 7 0 In - Peak Hour: 03:30 PM 46 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 975041 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Upton Road File Name UptonScenic East-West: Scenic Avenue Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Clear, Warm Start Date : 10/9/2018 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 47 Groups Printed- All Vehicles From North From East From South From West . Start Time Left Thru Riaht Peds L.eft Thru Right Peds oo T Left Thru Right Peds e., Left Thfu Rio.ht Peds ^ ry r_ToU 07:00 AM 16 0 11 0 27 0 12 22 0 34 1 0 0 15 16 17 22 0 0 — 39 116 07:15 AM 31 0 22 1 54 0 16 32 0 48 1 1 1 3 6 17 34 2 15 68 176 i 07:30 AM 38 0 21 1 60 2 24 31 0 57 2 0 2 0 4 27 59 0 0 86 207 07;45 AM 44 0 20 1 65 0 26 35 1 62 3 1 7 3 14 25 61 1 2 89 230 I Total 129 0 74 3 206 2 78 120 1 201 7 2 10 21 401786 176 3 17 282 729 08:00 AM 31 1 25 1 58 2 36 35 0 73 2 0 0 1 3 21 47 0 0 68 202 08:15 AM 40 2 22 1 65 0 38 20 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 24 64 0 3 91 214 08:30 AM 39 3 24 0 66 1 38 25 1 65 0 1 1 7 9 24 107 0 1 132 272 _q8 45. AM 19 1 1'1 0 31 1 27 16. 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 39 0 1 55 135 Total 129 7 82 2 220 4 139 96 2 _45 241 3 2 2 9 16 84 257 0 5 346 823 l *** BREAK *** 03:00 PM 12 1 17 0 30 3 27 23 0 53 1 0 1 0. 2 19 23 0 0 42 127 03:15 PM 28 1 25 0 54 3 40 17 0 60 1 2 2 1 6 27 24 2 2 55 175 03:30 PMI 35 1 28 3 67 4 39 25 0 68 2 4 7 1 14 37 85 1 12 135 284 03:45 PM 42 1 34 0 77 3 51 69 0 123 1 2 � 3... 7 24 34 0 29 'S29 4. Total 117 4 104 3 228 13 157 134 0 304 5 8 11 . 5 29 107 166 3 43 319 880 04:00 PM 40 0 28 0 68 0 41 54 1 96 0 0 1 56 57 37 43 1 0 81 302 04:15 PM 58 1 20 0 79 0 33 34 0 67 1 0 3 0 4 23 36 1 28 88 238 04:30 PM 40 3 35 2 80 3 45 33 0 81 0 1 1 23 25 34 31 1 3 69 255 04:45 PM 46 1 26 0 73 2 44 34 34 114 1 0 0 41 42 23 26 2 9 60 289 Total 184 5 109 2 300 5 163 155 35 358 2 1 5 120 128 117 136 5 40 298 1084 05:00 PM 48 0 29 0 77 0 50 34 1 85 0 1 0 0 1 31 43 1 3 78 241 05:15 PM 62 0 41 0 103 2 51 40 0 93 0 0 1 1 2 17 35 0 2 54 252 05:30 PM 50 0 41 0 91 0 42 34 0 76 0 1 1 2 4 30 45 1 0 76 247 05:45 PM 48 0 40 1 89 3 45 25 0 73 0 0 0 7 7 29 83 0 1 113 282 Total 208 0 151 1 360 5 188 133 1 327. 0 2 2 10 14 107 206 2 6 321 1 1022 r Grand Total 767 16 520 11 1314, 29 725 638 39 1431 17 15 30 165 227 501 941 13 111 1566 4538 Apprch % 58.4 1.2 39.6 0.8 2 50.7 44.6 2.7 7.5 6.6 13.2 727 32 601 08 71 . Total % 169 0.4 11.5 0.2 29 0.6 16 14.1 09 31.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 36 5 11 207 03 24 34.5 47 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 975041 Kim.parducci@gmail.com (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Upton Road File Name : UptonScenic East-West: Scenic Avenue Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Clear, Warm Start Date : 10/9/2018 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No :2 From South From West App Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped I App. Int. Total : u : . ht s Total : u . ht s 1 Total_ Total From North In - Peak Hour 07:45 AM From East Start Left Thru Right Peds 254 Left Thr Rig Ped Time 7 3 14 u ht IS Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 0 Peak Hour for Each 1 Approach Begins at. 3 21 47 0 0 68 07:45 AM +0 mins. 44 0 20 1 65 0745 AM 0 26 35 1 +15 mins. 31 1 25 1 58 2 36 35 0 +30 mins. 40 2 22 1 65 0 38 20 0 +45 mins. 39 3 24 0 66 1 38 25 1 Total volume 154 6 91 3 254 3 138 115 2 Alp Talsl _ 6_0.6 _ 2.4 35-8 1.2 0.3 1.2 53.5 44.6 0.8 PFiF x,875 .5Q0 .910 .750 .962 393 375 .908 .821 .500 From South From West App Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped I App. Int. Total : u : . ht s Total : u . ht s 1 Total_ Total 48 0745AM In - Peak Hour 07:45 AM • 07:45 AM 254 62 3 1 7 3 14 25 61 1 2 89 73 2 0 0 1 3 21 47 0 0 68 58 0 0 0 0 0 24 64 0 3 91 65 0 1 1 7 9 24 107 0 1 132 258 5 2 8 11 26 94 279 1 6 3801 19.2 77 30.8 42.3 L a 24.7 73.4 0.3 1.6 884 417 500 ..286__ 393 _464. .940 _A52 L 250 -.,_5Q0� 720 . 48 In - Peak Hour 07:45 AM 254 at Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data Q o of n North' m z o' n J r All Void....... N o L a c 0 N v m D a. a . 3 a u, N i T r Lett-_ _Thru_ RigM Peds_ _ 51 2-- a 71. i 26 In - Peak Hour: 07:45 AM 48 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 975041 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Upton Road File Name : UptonScenic East-West: Scenic Avenue Site Code : 00000003 Weather: Clear, Warm Start Date : 10/9/2018 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No :3 49 From North In - Peav, 1 -lour 03:34 PM From East _ From South 24t From West Start Left Thru Right Peds App r m Left Thr Rig Ped App • Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. _ Time u ht s i Total u ht . s Total aP u ht s Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:30 PM to 04:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 j _ nj L All Vehicies IM'_• rn 'v I}I Peak Hour for E8d1..Approadh ee$ins. a1: 03:30 PM 03 30 PQM 03:30 PM S� 03:30 PM In - Peak Hour: 03:30 PM +0 mins. 35 1 28 3 67 4 39 25 0 68 2 4 7 1 14 37 85 1 12 135 +15 mins. 42 1 34 0 77 3 51 69 0 123 1 2 1 3 7 24 34 0 29 87 +30 mins. 40 0 28 0 68 0 41 54 1 96 0 0 1 56 57 : 37 43 1 0 81 +45 mins. 58 1 20 0 79 0 33 34 0 67 1 0 3 0 4 23 36 1 28 88 Total Volume 175 3 110 ......3 291 7 164 182 1 354 4 6 12 60 82 121 VN _3 69 391 pp r osai BOA 1 378 1 2 46.3 51.4 0.3 4.9 73 14.6 732 30.9 50.6 0.8 17.6 PHF 754 750 809 250 .921 438 804 659 250 720 500 .375 A29 .268 360 .818 .582 .750 .5-95-7.24 -1 49 In - Peav, 1 -lour 03:34 PM 24t 110 3. 1752a Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data aP North �M j = nj L All Vehicies IM'_• rn 'v I}I Ix=.r 'r 11i•.I R!ghl Peds S� In - Peak Hour: 03:30 PM 49 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 975041 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Scenic Middle School File Name : scenicave_middleschool East-West: Scenic Avenue Site Code : 00000001 Weather: Clear, Warm Start Date 10/9/2018 Veh Type: All Vehicles Page No : 1 Grqups.Printed- Unshifted Scenic Ave Middle School Scenic Ave From North From East _ From South From West SEart Time Left Thru fi:g^c Peds Left Thru r,•:gin PedB a,;, Left Thru R glil Peds Left Thru t rrw Peds ,.,: Tod. im Tmai 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 0 15 40 0 0 2 0 2 0 29 2 14 45 87 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 28 0 0 31 0 0 3 0 3 0 41 4 1 46 80 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 34 0 1 47 0 0 4 0 4 0 76 7 1 84 135 07-45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 21 23 0 0 44 4 0 11 0 15 0 70 17 1 88 147 Total 0 0 0 0 0 39 107 0 16 162 4 0 20 0 24 0 216 30 17 263 449 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 28 27 0 1 56 13 0 22 0 35 0 41 27 2 70 161 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 0 0 56 21 0 35 0 56 0 53 40 7 100 212 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 23 31 0 0 54 25 0 44 0 69 0 81 34 6 121 244 08:45 AA+1 0 0 0 0 0 8 19 0 1 28 3 0 12. 0 15 1 0 36 B 0 42 85 Total 0 0 0 0 0 93 99 0 2 194 62 0 113 0 175 0 211 107 15 333 702 `.. BREAK — 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 38 0 0 42 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 42 12 0 54 100 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 17 42 0 0 59 2 0 8 0 10 0 46 9 0 55 124 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 29 39 0 0 68 33 0 44 9 86 0 63 9 1 73 227 03:45 PM . Q fl 0 0 0 1$ 59 U 0 77 10 0. 24 15.., Q._51 t"i 1 _ 58 1.70 Total C 0 0 0 0 0 68 178 0 0 246 47 0 78 10 135 0 202 36 2 240 621 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 55 0 0 61 6 0 21 3 30 0 50 1 1 52 143 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 0 0 47 8 0 1 0 9 0 47 1 0 48 104 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 61 0 0 66 2 0 6 0 8 0 45 2 2 49 123 04.45 PM 0 0 0 0__. 0 6 50 0 0 56 0 0 1 17 18 0 51 6 14 71._1.....145 Total 0 0 0 0 0 21 209 0 0 230 16 0 29 20 65 0 193 10 17 220 515 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 21 49 0 0 70 10 0 24 4 38 0 44 10 1 55 163 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 25 49 0 0 74 5 0 12 0 17 0 42 12 1 55 146 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 26 49 0 0 75 8 0 20 0 28 0 40 21 0 61 164 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 53 0 0 90 7 0 14 0 21 0 38 22 0 60 . 171 Total 0 0 0 0 0 109 200 0 0 309 30 0 70 4 104 0 164 65 2 231 644 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 330 793 0 18 1141 159 0 310 34 503 0 986 248 53 1287 2931 Apprch % 0 0 0 0 28.9 695 0 1.6 31.6 0 61.6 6.8 0 76.6 19.3 41 Total % 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 27.1 0 06 38.9 5.4 0 10.6 1.2 172 0 336 8.5 1.8 43.9 50 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 97504 1 Kim.parducci@gmail.com 1 (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Scenic Middle School East-West: Scenic Avenue Weather: Clear, Warm Veh Type: All Vehicles File Name : scenicave_middleschool Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 10/9/2018 Page No : 2 51 In - Peak 07:45 AM Scenic Ave Hour: Middle School Scenic Ave ❑ 0 0 0 From North From East From South From West Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr Rig 1 Ped u ht__. s App. Int. Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 _ r Unshifted Pea kHour for Each Approach Begins at: I� a > I S@�_.._Thru.. Right Peds 1 1 0 1121 01 t75 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 07 45 AIA +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 21 23 0 0 44 4 0 11 0 15 0 70 17 1 88 +15 mins. 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 27 0 1 56 13 0 22 0 35 0 41 27 2 70 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 0 0 56 21 0 35 0 56 0 53 40 7 100 +45. mins,.. 0_ 0 0 0 0 23 31 0 0 54 25 0 44 0 69 0 81 34 6 121 . Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 106 103 0 1 210 63 0 112 0 175 0 245 118 16 379 %App. Tolal 0 0 0 0 50.5 49 0 05 36 0 64 0 0 64.6 31 1 4.2 PHI'= .000 .000 000 .000 .000 779 831 000 250 .938 .630 000 .636 .000 634 000 756 .738 .571 .783 51 In - Peak 07:45 AM Hour: ❑ 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Peds 1 � -F Peak Hour Data Q J n North Q `i 2 l, 2 _ r Unshifted I� a > I S@�_.._Thru.. Right Peds 1 1 0 1121 01 t75 In - Peak Hour: 07:45 AM 51 SOUTHERNOREGON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Medford, Oregon 97504 1 Kim.parducci@gmail.com (541) 941-4148 cell North-South: Scenic Middle School East-West: Scenic Avenue Weather: Clear, Warm Veh Type: All Vehicles i 0 24 Scenic Ave 35 0 _ From North 6 1 From East 6 0 Start 3 30 0 Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thru I Right Peds �P Time _ � , ! Tou Left u ht s Total Peak Hour Analysis From 03:30 PM to 04:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 0 48 Peak Hour for Each roach Begins at: 03 30 PM03:30 0 PM 13 160 0 211 +0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 29 39 0 0 68 +15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 18 59 0 0 77 +30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 6 55 0 0 61 +45 mins. 0 0 0 0 _0 4 43 0 0 47 Total volume 0 0 0 0 0 57 196 0 0 253 %App. Total 0 0 0 0 22.5 77.5 0 0 PHF .000 .000 -000 000 .000_' C .491 831 .000.000 C Nd .821 File Name : scenicave_middleschool Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 10/9/2018 Page No :3 Middle School Scenic Ave From South From West Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig PedApp. Int. U -. ht : s ;_ Totall u ht s Tatal Total 03:30 PM 03 30 PM 33 0 44 9 86 j 0 63 9 1 73 10 0 24 1 35 0 51 6 1 58 6 0 21 3 30 0 50 1 1 52 8 0 1 0 9 0 47 1 0 48 57 0 90 13 160 0 211 17 3 231 35.6 0 56.2 8_1 0 913 7.4 1.3 a .432 000 .511 _36'1 ......41E5.....000 n m .837 .472 750 791 52 In -Peak Hour: 0130 PM 0' Right Thru Left Peds �J 1 / Peak Hour Data o J -' �n 3 In 2 North a NF_- , 2 u� n m N 0. M O C p � C Nd F+ Left-Thn#--- R1gh1. Peds 57.1 0 90 13' 160 In - Peak Hour: 0330 PM 52 53 ;- .� aaf gid^ cdo �p 6d�p 5q� `4 ^ MM: &'apmRIim3 adao sit �d lgjp ^ RMSP R o ry ? ' a i m l q E 'S$$di$e � ggSL�{ R&�m� pS�ffii8 a �2 ^ R lll 3 4 ARMS. 4 IN MIKE .-I" ' ^ n 4 g oto M INA TZ _ G .Z w W K Yp C ¢KooFGFG � p q V N W gpi pL�pL77�� R UL0.��OWIMCM 53 IOUTJIF'OM Oplom T uNSDORTNION �NGI N��RI NG, L L C Appendix B ITE Trip Generation Data, Background Growth 54 Land Use 522 Middle School/Junior High School Description A middle or junior high school serves students who have completed elementary sctrool and have not yet entered high school. Both public and private middle schoolsIjunior high schools are included in this land use. Elementary school (Land Use 520), high school (Land Use 530), private school (K-8) (Land Use 534), private school (K412) (Land Use .536), and charter elementary school (Land Use 537) are related uses. Additional Data The percentage of students at the sites who were transported to school via bins varied considerably. Due to the varied transit and school bus usage at these sites, it is desirable that future studies include additional detail on the percentage of students who were bused to school and the percentage that were dropped off and picked up. Because the ratio of floor spade to student population varies widely among the schools surveyed, the dumber of students may be a more reliable independent variable on which to establish trip generat`on rates. Time -of -day distribution data for this land use are presented in Appendix A_ For the two general urbanlsuburban sites with data. the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 7.00 and 8,04 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.. respectively. The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2014s in Califomia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Minnesota. Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee_ Source Numbers 431, 444, 534, 536, 564. 579, 592. 611, 719, 867, 936, 940 26 1r :) Genera ton rd•enua; 101h =drion • 4o ume 2: Uala • Inss Uloral;.Land Uses 500-599j NEW 55 Middle School/Junior High School (522) Whicle Trip Ends aa: lkludents On a: V1119O iday► SebHngLoc0on: General Urbarftuburban Number of Studies: 10 Avg. Num. of Students: 1079 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting renlie i rip Generation per Stuaent Avwap Rats Range of Raws Stand; tjeu' sn 2.13 1.48-2-81 [tea PW end Egua0cm a g r 2,W0 1.00 F •' r x rte. � xx X• X n Number of Students x gwdy ske, FIftd Curve Filled 04aw Equallan: Ln(T) ■ 0.71! Lnjlq •2.21 Avorgp Rale R20 0.73 ewT-ip Giew erabon Manuel 10th Edtbon - Volume 2: Date • Institutional (Lend Uses 500—NO) M 56 r Middle School/Junior High School X22 Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban { Nuri mer of Studies. 22 Avg. Nuri. of Students: 937 Directional Distr bution 54% entering, 46% exiting venicie i np t7eneration per aituaent Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.58 0,06 • 1.29 0.32 Data Plot and Equation 0 x x - x- x x x x x x x,r x x x -, x." r - -xx x X = Number o; Students X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given x x Average Rate Rr= .... Middle School/Junior High School (522) Vehicle Trip Ends, vs: Students On a: Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator Setting/Location: General UrbanlSuburban Number of Studies. 20 Avg Nurn. of Students: 944 Direct canal Distribution: 46".?> entering. 5411/�v exiting venicle trip generation per Student Average Rate kance of Rates Standard De,fiatron rJ.35 C) -1b - C.63 0.13 Data Piot and Equation roc 20C x x x K = Number of Students X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.96 Ln(X) - 0.86 - - - - Average Rate R'= 0.58 Trap Generation Manual 1Ut5Ldliiun - Volume l: Dale • Instituttonal �Larnd Uses bOO-5993 31 ab HJjaWvH a' H Lu 2 w u m a �n O O N 11 4 0 ILZ X00'0 ] —01 4j—, Sb SE J •� 1 r ST— �m 58V w 0 u 0 0 O N m �Ob M N J 1 —01 J j 4 `081 ori J 11 1, S— 0 0£� m m ti u m a �n O O N 11 4 0 no 0 0 X00'0 ] u o 4j—, LVO 7 0 n 7 6Z'0J+ 1f- W N 7 w 0 u 0 0 O N 0 0 M N J 1 a m m io rn v E0'0 7 m J 11 1, «r 98'0 3 0 ] 62'01. 7 1f' o in 7 8E'0� STS N � 0 0 as 0 mm L ssz N � m m m —0 0' o t9£'0 ] J 1 `sob J 1 950 7 6. 0 0 0 n n m m 59 a a m N a a �n O O N 11 4 0 0 65"0� 11 r 0 b0'01 0 0 0 a 4j—, ] LT -01 11 N I� O N O O � as m W N 0 0 —E90 0 .il V r OL'0 0 w 0 u 0 0 O N 0 b9'0=+ N e 0 0 a u u M N J 1 a a M 00 c .il V + ZT'0 6 1 b oz -, 1 C O 7 W.G+ fC N o in STS N �a N N L 56Z O C +� ZTO 7 a-, a •— SZT J 1 4 r S6 N C] W w a SbT '1 1 r OVT� m�m OEC a L aE o a —Z r51 Z1 0— N v O m N Z� m m N i01 '-0 r s 011 0— ti OO S- N o t- OE T m0 N f -Z J 1 4 r0 O171 •� 1 r S— --.os os z .y 59 a a m N a a �n O O N 11 4 0 0 65"0� 11 r 0 b0'01 0 0 0 a -U ] LT -01 11 N I� O N O O � as m � c o LZZO 0 u 0 0 —E90 0 .il V r OL'0 0 w 0 u ] E9'01 .1 } 0 b9'0=+ N e 0 0 a u u 0 a a M 00 c .il V + ZT'0 6 0 11'0+ 11» M N cc M a a b N +90.0 7 N C O 7 W.G+ fC N N O = N a �a N O C +� ZTO 7 pp 3 SV'0�+�-��+ c N N C] W w a r L y CV 0 0 7 � LL U 0 LL oa c e m O O y C 0 H � W i I ad M C A m IL CL— O e V E o V 02 im ro m n .2 v m c m Q u � �e L c E O (D ac) E E 0 0 ab)lJlbW b'H f4 10TH Ln NB of O y1 w V 1 4 mo. 0 tTO0 Cl t5 J0 'il �• 0 vom� HOZ Z9'O-L 1 4 `0e n. 0 99-0 m 0 0 oa � Q V m sq -t •l i r u -w SZ— Nmo o S09 m O 00 = 0 ZL Off. tOL m ti v —ST 006 mua `SbZ 0611 Q os1 -,ir m o m 0 3 9T O+ -€1+ N OEC m m w V 1 4 mo. 0 tTO0 Cl 0 J0 'il �• -r6/'O 3 0 Z9'O-L n 0 90'0 n. 0 99-0 m 0 0 oa � Q V m o, m, a 0 0 o -L £1'0 7 u -w .J 11 L. `OT -T j o CLS o- 11r = 0 ZL Off. a ;& o > m 006 mua O m u g o tOLb o m u N � o o t 560 3 0 om 1 rSbS .� 11 T59"0 7 0 n 0 0 O o 1 4 m 09z1 i r n O m SOTS m It n 0 90'0 o� �1 a sz 1 1 00 11 m m o m 00 as OZZ � 0 t LZO 0 0 0 n t 09E 0 u °.ti' m voi OET 09LO� N`n° O OO Q U U .J 1 L. OTT 00 •11 T' '� LL'0 7 0611 Q Ota m o m 0 3 9T O+ -€1+ N SES a m m tSE 0 0 --z 1 L. 4 -sl Z-) 0- -Z- z -4 m tsz O O O 1 r OT OT1 0— o0 N S� N m t SE .J 1 4 r0 Sb� 1 1 r 091 ti 60 N M LL H LL r; n 0 E J O 0) ID E E o Q V m m m .n n O O 11 L' n O az90 It 0 90'0 2- °1 0 0 O a �1 11 m m o m 00 as mu 0 t LZO 0 0 no b9'0 Cl `9S'0 0 0 u 3 EB'0-J 09LO� N`n° O OO Q U U Q m m ao 00 •11 T' '� LL'0 7 o a 0 0 M Q Q Q o 0 3 9T O+ -€1+ N c � GN a u_ � a H p -11• �-fi 1'0 7 .N.. tw j 48-0+ � » c A N G x Q W N M LL H LL r; n 0 E J O 0) ID E E o SOUTJIFAM D'Ploly TR,INSPaRTNION l momzr l NG, L L C Appendix C Year 2018 No -Build and Build, Synchro Output 61 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT 1r4ST 'VVBR SEL SBR Lane Configurations 4 1+ y Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 370 215 30 30 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 370 215 30 30 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 6 3 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 474 276 38 38 6 MajorlMinor t;laj0rI Majx2 Mlrar2 Conflicting Flow All 314 0 - 0 781 304 Stage 1 - 295 - Stage 2 - 486 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1258 366 740 Stage 1 - 760 - Stage 2 - 623 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1258 364 734 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 364 - Stage 1 - 755 - Stage 2 623 - Approach ES W8 SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 15.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane11a�o: :1vn7t EBL E87 VVBT 1NBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh1h) 1258 - 392 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.114 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 15.4 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No -Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 62 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBT EBR '0,1SL U15T NBL NBR Lane Configurations T. HCM Lane LOS C 11. y 3.4 Traffic Vol, vehm 255 125 110 110 65 120 Future Vol, vehlh 255 125 110 110 65 120 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 16 16 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 11 6 7 15 10 Mvmt Flow 327 160 141 141 83 154 Major/Minor `;12.0-1 fVla ort Mingri Conflicting Flow All 0 0 503 0 846 423 Stage 1 - - - 423 - Stage 2 - - 423 - Critical Hdwy 4.16 - 6.55 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.254 3.635 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 1041 316 614 Stage 1 - 634 - Stage 2 634 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1027 265 606 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 265 - Stage 1 626 - Stage 2 540 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.5 24.4 HCM LOS C t.'iror Lane Walor h.lvmt :a' .1 EBT EBR Vv3L V)ST Capacity (veh/h) 417 - 1027 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.569 - 0.137 - HCM Control Delay (s) 24.4 - 9.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.4 - 0.5 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 63 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 12.4 ESL EBT EBR 1ABL W$T UVI3R NBL NST NBR SEL SBT SBR Lane Configurations `t A 857 `i 1♦ - 11.3 1A 602 'S 1, 255 Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 300 1 3 145 120 5 2 8 160 6 95 Future Vol, veh/h 100 300 1 3 145 120 5 2 8 160 6 95 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 6 6 0 2 3 0 11 11 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 699 652 100 476 492 100 - 200 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 666 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Stage 1 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 3 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 4 0 7 Mvmt Flow 119 357 1 4 173 143 6 2 10 190 7 113 Major/Minor Ma ort Ma ort !v"-•inorl 1200 - 242 Minor2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 364 0 0 918 928 375 868 857 250 Stage 1 - 11.3 - - 602 602 - 255 255 - Stage 2 - 0.1 316 326 - 613 602 - Cribcal Hdwy 4.19 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.14 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.281 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.536 4 3.363 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1204 1206 254 270 676 271 297 777 Stage 1 - 490 492 - 745 700 - Stage 2 - - 699 652 - 476 492 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1202 1200 195 241 666 242 265 774 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 195 241 - 242 265 - Stage 1 - 439 441 - 670 697 - Stage 2 - 587 649 - 417 441 - Approach EB WS NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0.1 16.3 405 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane. i',•.alor Mvr , 1 JBLi' NSLn2 ESL EBT EBR tiV L !WK WS SKr• 1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh1h) 195 492 1202 1200 - 242 695 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.024 0.099 0.003 - 0.787 0.173 HCM Control Delay (s) 24 12.5 8.3 8 - 58.9 11.3 HCM Lane LOS C B A A - F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 - 5.8 0.6 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No -Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 64 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way 11/1712018 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT '/1'BT tdBR SEL SBC Lane Configurations ti IA ,if Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 310 255 40 28 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 310 255 40 28 10 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 2 0 0 2 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 6 5 3 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 356 293 46 32 11 Ma orUnor NI url V.a'or2 l!4r,004. Conflicting Flow All 341 0 - 0 686 335 Stage 1 - - - 318 - Stage 2 - - - 368 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1229 416 712 Stage 1 - 742 - Stage 2 - 704 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1227 412 701 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 412 - Stage 1 - 736 - Stage 2 703 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 13.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane.'Mi cr It:9Ixa EBL EST WST WBR SBLnl Capacity (veh1h) 1227 - 462 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.095 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 13.6 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No -Build _PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 65 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intorseefien Int Delay, s/veh Movement 4.9 EBT ESR V�SL V^ BT NBL NSR Lane Configurations 11 - - 310 4 y - Traffic Vol, veh/h 220 20 60 205 60 95 Future Vol, veh/h 220 20 60 205 60 95 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 689 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - W8 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 25 8 3 13 11 Mvmt Flow 293 27 80 273 80 127 Ma orlMinor Ma ort Ma or2 Minorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 0 0 323 0 743 323 Stage 1 - - - 310 - Stage 2 - - 433 - Critical Hdwy - 4.18 - 6.53 6.31 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.617 3.399 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 1204 367 698 Stage 1 719 - Stage 2 - 631 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1201 337 689 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 337 - Stage 1 718 Stage 2 581 A roach EB W8 NS HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.9 17.6 HCM LOS C Mina- LaNIBLM EST EER 'JBL VST Capacity (veh)hj 491 - 1201 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.421 0.067 - HCM Control Delay jsj 17.6 - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS C - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - 0.2 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No-Build•.PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 66 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/17/2018 lnters$ction %Ia cr1 Ma'or2 Minorl 1205 - 227 WW HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 Conflicting Flow All 389 0 0 295 0 0 927 Int Delay, s/veh 15.8 863 863 291 Stage 1 - - - - - 560 560 - 302 302 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL. VVBT WBR NBL NB'r NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6.5 1a 7.11 `i to Critical Hdwy Stg 1 °i i* 6.1 5.5 r -I 6.11 Traffic Vol,veh/h 125 210 3 7 175 190 4 6 13 183 3 115 Future Vol, veh/h 125 210 3 7 175 190 4 6 13 183 3 115 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 69 69 0 1 3 0 60 60 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - 177 100 - 227 100 - - 200 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 5 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Mvmt Flow 133 223 3 7 186 202 4 6 14 195 3 122 Major/Minor %Ia cr1 Ma'or2 Minorl 1205 - 227 WW HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 Conflicting Flow All 389 0 0 295 0 0 927 963 354 863 863 291 Stage 1 - - - - - 560 560 - 302 302 - Stage 2 - - 367 403 - 561 561 - Critical Hdwy 4.16 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.11 6.5 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.509 4 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1148 1278 251 258 694 276 295 748 Stage - - 516 514 709 668 - Stage 2 - - 657 603 - 514 513 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1147 1205 177 214 621 227 244 746 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 177 214 - 227 244 - Stage 1 - 430 429 - 626 663 - Stage 2 - 542 599 - 416 428 - A roach EB WB Na SB HCM Control Delay, s 3.2 0.2 16.7 49 HCM LOS C E Minor Lan e!lV,ajor %Ivm1, NBL0 N'2Ln2 EBL EBT EcR V2.L VvET WSR SSLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh1h) 177 388 1147 1205 - 227 709 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 0.052 0.116 0.006 - 0.858 0.177 HCM Control Delay (s) 25.8 14.8 8.6 8 - 73.4 11.2 HCM Lane LOS D B A A F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0 - 6.8 0.6 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 No -Build -PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 67 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR V48L '0137 tiVSR NBL NBT tdBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 19.4 4► B A A 44 C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 41 0 - - 0.1 - 4. Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 370 18 15 215 30 10 0 19 30 0 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 370 18 15 215 30 10 0 19 30 0 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 474 23 19 276 38 13 0 24 38 0 6 Major/Minor Majorl Ma ort Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 314 0 0 497 0 0 843 850 486 843 842 304 Stage 1 - - 498 498 - 333 333 - Stage 2 - - - - 345 352 - 510 509 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1258 1077 286 300 585 286 303 740 Stage - 558 548 - 685 647 - Stage 2 - 675 635 - 550 541 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1258 1077 275 292 585 268 295 734 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 275 292 - 268 295 - Stage 1 - 554 544 - 680 633 - Stage 2 650 622 - 523 537 - Approach ES WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0-5 14.4 19.4 HCM LOS B C Minor Lnne.!Malar M m l HSL^ ] EBL EBT EBF WK WBT VVBR SBLnl Capacity (veh/h) 421 1258 - - 1077 - 295 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 0.005 - - 0.018 - 0.152 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 7.9 0 - 8.4 0 19.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0.1 - 0.5 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 68 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 7.2 EST EBR .VOL W8T NSL NBR Lane Configurations 1+ - - 446 4 5"' - Traffic Vol, veh/h 273 125 110 120 65 120 Future Vol, veh/h 273 125 110 120 65 120 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 16 16 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - 588 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 610 0 0 - Grade, % 0 WB NB 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 11 6 7 15 10 Mvmt Flow 350 160 141 154 83 154 Ma orftnor Jgjor2 P,linarl HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 0 0 526 0 882 446 Stage 1 - - 446 - Stage 2 - 436 - Critical Hdwy - 4.16 6.55 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 3.635 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 1021 301 596 Stage 1 - - 618 - Stage 2 625 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1007 252 588 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 252 - Stage 1 610 Stage 2 529 A2proach E8 WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.4 26.3 HCM LOS D M,incr Lane,klaior [.'.vmt NBLn1 ECT ESR A16L V,'BT Capacity (veh/h) 400 1007 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.593 0.14 - HCM Control Delay (s) 26.3 9.2 0 HCM Lane LOS D A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.7 0.5 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build—AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 69 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/17/2018 Intersbction Int Delay, s/veh Movement 14.1 EBL EBT EBR VRL WST �VBR NEL NST NSR SBL SBT SSR Lane Configurations " 1+ 896 260 T, - 1 k 631 '4 k 265 Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 314 1 3 154 120 5 2 8 160 6 101 Future Vol, veh/h 105 314 1 3 154 120 5 2 8 160 6 101 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 6 6 0 2 3 0 11 11 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - 645 100 - - 100 - - 200 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 226 - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 3 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 4 0 7 Mvmt Flow 125 374 1 4 183 143 6 2 10 190 7 120 MalorJMinor Majora _ _ Major2 10,00 - 1183 - 226 Mlnor2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 Conflicting Flow All 328 0 0 381 0 0 960 967 392 907 896 260 Stage - - - - - - 631 631 - 265 265 F Stage 2 - - - 329 336 - 642 631 - Critical Hdwy 4.19 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.14 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.281 - 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.536 4 3.363 PotCap-1 Maneuver 1193 - 1189 238 256 661 255 282 767 Stage - - - - - 472 477 - 736 693 - Stage 2 - - - 688 645 - 459 477 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1191 - 1183 - 179 227 652 226 250 764 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 179 227 - 226 250 - Stage 1 - 421 425 - 658 690 - Stage 2 - 570 642 - 399 425 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0.1 17.1 47.2 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane Major NBLn7 NBLn2 ESL EBT EBR VK WBT VIER SSLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 179 474 1191 - 1183 - 226 685 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.025 0.105 - - 0.003 0.843 0.186 HCM Control Delay (s) 25.8 12.8 8.4 - 8.1 - 71 11.5 HCM Lane LOS D B A - A F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.4 - 0 - 6.5 0.7 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build_AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 70 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.4 ESL EST EBR WK WET WSR NBL NBT NBR 58'_ SET SBR Lane Configurations 358 41, 719 335 1� - - - - - 41 370 - 41 348 Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 310 3 13 255 40 8 0 12 28 0 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 310 3 13 255 40 8 0 12 28 0 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 655 - - 649 623 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 339 0 - - 0 Stage 1 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 6 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 356 3 15 293 46 9 0 14 32 0 11 Major/Minor Ma ort FAR or2 hlinorl - 383 HCM Lane V/C Ratio tvlinor2 0.005 - - 0.012 - Conflicting Flow All 341 0 0 359 0 0 739 741 358 725 719 335 Stage 1 - - - - - 370 370 - 348 348 - Stage 2 - - - 369 371 - 377 371 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1229 1211 336 347 691 343 357 712 Stage 1 - - 654 624 - 672 638 - Stage 2 - 655 623 - 649 623 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1227 - 1211 321 339 691 330 349 701 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 321 339 - 330 349 - Stage 1 - 650 620 - 667 627 - Stage 2 - 626 612 - 632 619 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 13 15.6 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane'Ma;or N4vn;s N3Lnl EEL EBT EBR INBL VVBT SBLrl Capacity (veh1h) 473 1227 - - 1211 - - 383 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 0.005 - - 0.012 - - 0.114 HCM Control Delay (s) 13 7.9 0 - 8 0 - 15.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.4 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build—PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 71 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Inters mon Int Delay, s/veh 4.9 Movement ST EBR +%IBL 'A'BT NBL NE,R Lane Configurations 1+ HCM Lane LOS C .-1 y 2.1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 223 20 60 213 60 95 Future Vol, veh/h 223 20 60 213 60 95 Conflicting Peds. #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 25 8 3 13 11 Mvmt Flow 297 27 80 284 80 127 Aor/Minor t,!a;or1 t -la cr7 hdinorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 327 0 758 327 Stage 1 - - - - 314 - Stage 2 - - 444 - Critical Hdwy - 4.18 6.53 6.31 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.272 3.617 3.399 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 1200 360 694 Stage 1 - 716 - Stage 2 - 624 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1197 331 685 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 331 - Stage 1 715 - Stage 2 575 - Approach EB We NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.8 17.9 HCM LOS C Minor Lase.P;laiorN imi ,-,'SLr,1 EBT EBR '.ti°3L `ABT Capacity (veh/h) 484 - 1197 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.427 - 0.067 - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.9 - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - 0.2 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build --PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 72 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housin /U ton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 17.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR bVBL WBT WBR I13L NST NBR SK SBT SER Lane Configurations HCM Control Delay (s) T► 15.1 1 t. 83.5 'S T� D 'S I. A Traffic Vol, veh/h 129 218 3 7 183 190 4 6 13 183 3 120 Future Vol, veh/h 129 218 3 7 183 190 4 6 13 183 3 120 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 69 69 0 1 3 0 60 60 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - 100 - 100 - - 200 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 5 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Mvmt Flow 137 232 3 7 195 202 4 6 14 195 3 128 Ma or/Minor Ma ort Ma ort Minarl MInor2 Conflicting Flow All 398 0 0 304 0 0 956 989 363 889 889 300 Stage 1 - - - 577 577 - 311 311 - Stage 2 - - 379 412 - 578 578 - Critical Hdwy 4.16 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.11 6.5 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.509 4 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1139 1268 240 249 686 265 285 740 Stage 1 - 506 505 - 702 662 - Stage 2 - - 647 598 - 503 504 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1138 1195 167 205 614 217 235 738 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 167 205 - 217 235 - Stage 1 - 419 419 - 617 657 - Stage 2 528 594 405 418 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 3.2 0.1 17.2 54.5 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane!Maicr I.1vn;1. NBLul NSLn2 EBL EBT EBR "ISL IVBT VV.6R Sl3Ln1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 167 377 1138 1195 217 701 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 0.054 0.121 0.006 0.897 0.187 HCM Control Delay (s) 27.1 15.1 8.6 8 83.5 11.3 HCM Lane LOS D C A A F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0 7.3 0.7 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Year 2018 Build -PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 73 l nur�F.an On��nn TumfPuTNION lmomr.rvmc, L L C Appendix D Year 2018 No -Build and Build, SimTraffic Output 74 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 No -Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 A 5 Avg Start Time 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 End Time 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1307 1402 1330 1398 1334 1354 Vehs Exited 1316 1399 1338 1399 1340 1358 Starting Vehs 23 15 16 15 20 15 Ending Vehs 14 18 8 14 14 13 Travel Distance (mi) 338 361 347 358 349 351 Travel Time (hr) 15.7 17.5 16.0 17.7 16.3 16.6 Total Delay (hr) 2.8 3.6 2.7 3.9 3.0 3.2 Total Stops 760 879 747 857 778 805 Fuel Used (gal) 14.1 15.2 14.5 15.3 14.6 14.7 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:35 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Av Vehs Entered 423 506 440 480 466 463 Vehs Exited 425 497 432 466 467 456 Starting Vehs 23 15 16 15 20 15 Ending Vehs 21 24 24 29 19 24 Travel Distance (mi) 102 124 108 114 116 113 Travel Time (hr) 4.8 6.4 5.0 6.1 5.6 5.6 Total Delay (hr) 0.9 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.3 Total Stops 236 309 222 275 265 259 Fuel Used (gal) 4.4 5.3 4.6 5.1 5.0 4.9 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 75 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 No -Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 884 896 890 918 868 890 Vehs Exited 891 902 906 933 873 904 Starting Vehs 21 24 24 29 19 24 Ending Vehs 14 18 8 14 14 13 Travel Distance (mi) 236 237 239 244 233 237 Travel Time (hr) 10.9 11.0 11.0 11.6 10.7 11.1 Total Delay (hr) 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.9 Total Stops 524 570 525 582 513 542 Fuel Used (gal) 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.2 9.6 9.9 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC W. SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2018 No -Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way Movement EB IND SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 41 20 45 Average Queue (ft) 4 1 21 95th Queue (ft) 22 10 47 Link Distance (ft) 437 340 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) 143 88 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 8 63 41 Storage Blk Time (%) 57 13 12 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 30 120 Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement E3 4VB Na Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) TR LT LR 15 117 162 1 31 66 11 79 121 220 437 592 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement E3 EE V;6 VVE Y:5 t3$ 56 51 Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 69 28 18 46 35 38 143 88 Average Queue (ft) 24 1 1 4 6 8 63 41 95th Queue (ft) 57 13 12 22 25 30 120 71 Link Distance (ft) 340 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 77 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 No -Build PM Peak Hour 1111712018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 End Time 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1460 1406 1354 1352 1457 1404 Vehs Exited 1461 1415 1354 1350 1456 1407 Starting Vehs 19 20 19 13 19 19 Ending Vehs 18 11 19 15 20 16 Travel Distance (mi) 345 331 315 325 345 332 Travel Time (hr) 17.2 16.1 15.0 15.5 17.0 16.2 Total Delay (hr) 3.9 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.8 3.4 Total Stops 885 844 802 802 902 847 Fuel Used (gal) 15.0 14.2 13.3 13.7 14.8 14.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 3:20 End Time 3:30 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 3:30 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 502 467 443 450 514 475 Vehs Exited 496 460 445 442 511 472 Starting Vehs 19 20 19 13 19 19 Ending Vehs 25 27 17 21 22 23 Travel Distance (mi) 110 100 95 99 113 104 Travel Time (hr) 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.8 5.8 5.1 Total Delay (hr) 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.2 Total Stops 291 257 244 253 289 266 Fuel Used (gal) 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.9 4.5 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 78 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 No -Build PM Peak Hour 11117/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 958 939 911 902 943 933 Vehs Exited 965 955 909 908 945 936 Starting Vehs 25 27 17 21 22 23 Ending Vehs 18 11 19 15 20 16 Travel Distance (mi) 235 230 219 225 232 228 Travel Time (hr) 11.7 11.1 10.4 10.7 11.2 11.0 Total Delay (hr) 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.2 Total Stops 594 587 558 549 613 578 Fuel Used (gal) 10.2 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.9 9.7 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 79 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2018 No -Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way Movement ES V B SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 57 10 49 Average Queue (ft) 5 0 24 95th Queue (ft) 28 5 49 Link Distance (ft) 437 340 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) 154 79 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 3 19 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 15 66 37 Storage Blk Time (%) 64 22 20 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 41 122 Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement EE l.%(B IN Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) TR LT LR 14 74 107 0 15 52 7 51 83 220 437 592 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St M06ment EB EB A's V%IB NE NS SB Sia Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 84 45 34 105 30 44 154 79 Average Queue (ft) 32 4 3 19 3 15 66 37 95th Queue (ft) 64 22 20 63 17 41 122 60 Link Distance (ft) 340 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 80 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 End Time 8:45 8:45 8-45 8:45 8:45 8:45 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1404 1341 1414 1369 1390 1384 Vehs Exited 1413 1343 1429 1377 1399 1393 Starting Vehs 23 23 23 22 22 21 Ending Vehs 14 21 8 14 13 11 Travel Distance (mi) 358 349 355 352 352 353 Travel Time (hr) 17.0 16.3 17.1 16.4 16.7 16.7 Total Delay (hr) 3.3 3.0 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 Total Stops 840 803 853 827 825 832 Fuel Used (gal) 15.1 14.6 15.0 14.8 14.6 14.8 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:35 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 496 448 490 468 487 476 Vehs Exited 491 444 489 467 484 473 Starting Vehs 23 23 23 22 22 21 Ending Vehs 28 27 24 23 25 26 Travel Distance (mi) 121 108 121 116 120 117 Travel Time (hr) 6.2 5.2 6.1 5.4 5.9 5.8 Total Delay (hr) 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 Total Stops 313 266 282 263 267 279 Fuel Used (gal) 5.3 4.6 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 81 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Av Vehs Entered 908 893 924 901 903 903 Vehs Exited 922 899 940 910 915 917 Starting Vehs 28 27 24 23 25 26 Ending Vehs 14 21 8 14 13 11 Travel Distance (mi) 237 240 234 236 232 236 Travel Time (hr) 10.9 11.1 11.1 11.0 10.8 10.9 Total Delay (hr) 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 Total Stops 527 537 571 564 558 552 Fuel Used (gal) 9.8 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.8 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 82 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2018 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave Movement ES V118 tiE SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 48 51 41 52 Average Queue (ft) 4 6 19 24 95th Queue (ft) 24 29 44 50 Link Distance (ft) 430 343 184 358 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 9 55 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) 55 14 9 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 24 32 98 73 Storage Blk Time (%) 343 459 Queuing Penalty (veh) 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement EB W13 NB: Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 95 158 Average Queue (ft) 0 32 63 95th Queue (ft) 6 79 116 Link Distance (ft) 220 430 592 Upstream Blk Time (%) 116 79 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 9 55 44 Storage Blk Time (%) 55 14 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 32 98 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement EB ES WB WB NB NB SB 513 Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 61 28 18 29 35 38 116 79 Average Queue (ft) 25 2 1 2 5 9 55 44 95th Queue (ft) 55 14 9 15 24 32 98 73 Link Distance (ft) 343 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 83 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 Build PM Peak Hour 1111712018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Av Start Time 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 End Time 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1426 1479 1465 1432 1408 1440 Vehs Exited 1430 1484 1467 1433 1412 1448 Starting Vehs 14 19 17 17 21 17 Ending Vehs 10 14 15 16 17 12 Travel Distance (mi) 349 349 344 337 342 344 Travel Time (hr) 17.1 16.9 17.3 16.0 16.8 16.8 Total Delay (hr) 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.1 3.6 3.6 Total Stops 903 874 888 863 894 884 Fuel Used (gal) 14.8 15.0 14.8 14.3 14.5 14.7 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 3:20 End Time 3:30 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 3:30 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 473 511 493 476 468 481 Vehs Exited 471 504 486 472 466 478 Starting Vehs 14 19 17 17 21 17 Ending Vehs 16 26 24 21 23 19 Travel Distance (mi) 108 106 109 105 105 107 Travel Time (hr) 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.2 5.4 5.4 Total Delay (hr) 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.3 Total Stops 277 263 286 266 308 278 Fuel Used (gal) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 84 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2018 Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 9 2 3 4 5 Avg_ Vehs Entered 953 968 972 956 940 957 Vehs Exited 959 980 981 961 946 967 Starting Vehs 16 26 24 21 23 19 Ending Vehs 10 14 15 16 17 12 Travel Distance (mi) 240 242 235 232 236 237 Travel Time (hr) 11.6 11.5 11.7 10.8 11.4 11.4 Total Delay (hr) 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.3 Total Stops 626 611 602 597 586 601 Fuel Used (gal) 10.1 10.3 10.1 9.7 9.9 10.0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 85 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2018 Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave Movemerit EB VB N13 SE Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 50 35 49 Average Queue (ft) 4 5 16 21 95th Queue (ft) 25 28 41 47 Link Distance (ft) 430 343 184 358 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 3 12 69 Queuing Penalty (veh) 95th Queue (ft) 72 26 17 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 19 37 123 72 Storage Blk Time (%) 343 459 Queuing Penalty (veh) 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movernenr EB M WJE Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) TR LT LR 31 82 168 1 18 61 17 58 116 220 430 592 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement EE EE V.'B V1113 "iB NB SB S8 Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 92 46 34 72 29 40 148 101 Average Queue (ft) 34 5 2 16 3 12 69 40 95th Queue (ft) 72 26 17 53 19 37 123 72 Link Distance (ft) 343 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time -('°(o) 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: l R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC M SimTraffic Report Page 3 r r r r r soUrRUM ffft.rom r ruHioownT,o„ �- Inenziftinc. LLC � Appendix E Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build, L Synchro Output 87 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBT 1NBT WBR SK SBR Lane Configurations - 17.8 #T 1� - C y 0 - Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 430 245 35 35 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 430 245 35 35 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 6 3 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 551 314 45 45 6 Ma orlMinor Majvl P.~a or? Mina' Conflicting Flow All 359 0 0 900 346 Stage 1 - - - 337 - Stage 2 - 563 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1211 312 702 Stage 1 - 728 - Stage 2 - 574 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1211 310 697 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 310 - Stage 1 - 723 - Stage 2 574 - Approach EB 1NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 17.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane ,191or !V1vmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnl Capacity (veh/h) 1211 - - 333 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.154 HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 17.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No -Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 88 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9 Movement EBT EBR ViEL V)BT NBL NBIR Lane Configurations 1 HCM Lane LOS E 4. ",1 5.1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 310 130 115 135 70 125 Future Vol, veh/h 310 130 115 135 70 125 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 16 16 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 11 6 7 15 10 Mvmt Flow 397 167 147 173 90 160 Ma orlMinor Ma ort Ma ort WOO Conflicting Flow All 0 0 580 0 964 497 Stage 1 - - - 497 - Stage 2 - - 467 - Critical Hdwy - 4.16 - 6.55 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 3.635 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 974 - 268 557 Stage 1 - 585 - Stage 2 - 605 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 961 220 550 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 220 - Stage 1 577 - Stage 2 503 - A roach EB WE NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.3 35.3 HCM LOS E Minor Lane±Mialor IJS'Ln", EBT EBR lVBL VvBT Capacity (veh/h) 358 961 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.698 0.153 - HCM Control Delay (s) 35.3 9.4 0 HCM Lane LOS E A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.1 0.5 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No -Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 89 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/17/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 27 EBL EBT EBR '6K 1'a2T VYSR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 't t� Stage 1 ' 1a 692 'ti t; 293 - l> - Traffic Vol, veh/h 110 355 1 3 170 135 5 2 10 180 7 105 Future Vol, veh/h 110 355 1 3 170 135 5 2 10 180 7 105 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 6 6 0 2 3 0 11 11 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 1154 100 - - 200 - 736 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 3 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 4 0 7 Mvmt Flow 131 423 1 4 202 161 6 2 12 214 8 125 Major/Minor Ma ort 1rla'c,2 Knor1 - 1134 Minar2 641 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 365 0 0 430 0 0 1052 1065 441 997 985 288 Stage 1 - - 8.2 692 692 - 293 293 - Stage 2 - - 360 373 - 704 692 - Critical Hdwy 4.19 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.14 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.281 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.536 4 3.363 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1156 - 1140 206 224 621 221 250 739 Stage - - 437 448 - 711 674 - Stage 2 - - - 662 622 - 424 448 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1154 1134 150 196 612 -193 219 736 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 150 196 - -193 219 - Stage 1 - 385 395 - 629 670 - Stage 2 539 618 - 363 395 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 2 0.1 18.1 95.9 HCM LOS C F Minor Lanelklajor Mvmt NBLn1 PiBLr,2 EBL EBT EBR WEL WBT WBF SBLr:I SBLn2 Capacity (veh1h) 150 452 1154 - 1134 - 193 641 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.032 0.113 - 0.003 1.11 0.208 HCM Control Delay (s) 30 13.2 8.5 - 8.2 - 148.1 12.1 HCM Lane LOS D B A - A - F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.4 - 0 - 10.4 0.8 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ': All major volume in platoon R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No -Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 .o] HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way 11/19/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EB"_ EBT VBT iVBR SBL SER Lane Configurations #T 11 'r' Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 370 305 45 30 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 370 305 45 30 10 Conflicting Peds, Whir 2 0 0 2 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 6 5 3 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 425 351 52 34 11 Ma orlMinor Ma ort klkor2 Mlnor2 Conflicting Flow All 405 0 0 816 396 Stage 1 - - 379 - Stage 2 - 437 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1165 349 658 Stage 1 - 696 - Stage 2 - 655 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1163 345 648 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 345 - Stage 1 - 690 Stage 2 654 Lproach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 15.4 HCM LOS C tAnor Lane.,44a.or. Mvmt EBL EBT WBT tVBR SBYn1 Capacity (veh1h) 1163 - - 391 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.118 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 15.4 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th % ile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 m HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 1111912018 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 5.7 Movement EBT ESR 'S BL bVBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1* HCM Lane LOS C 4 `ill 3.1 Traffic vol, vehm 275 25 65 250 65 100 Future Vol, vehlh 275 25 65 250 65 100 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 3 3 0 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 25 8 3 13 11 Mvmt Flow 367 33 87 333 87 133 Wor/Minor v9a'.r1 1`,'a'cr2 MI -10"l Conflicting Flow All 0 0 403 0 894 400 Stage 1 - - 387 - Stage 2 - - 507 - Critical Hdwy - 4.18 - 6.53 6.31 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.272 3.617 3.399 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 1124 298 631 Stage 1 663 - Stage 2 583 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1121 269 623 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 269 - Stage 1 662 - Stage 2 528 - Approach ES WB N8 HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 23.5 HCM LOS C Miner LaneIAaicr h1vn,t NBLil EB- EER VBL 1NBT Capacity (vehlh ) 410 - 1121 - HCM lane V/C Ratio 0.537 - 0.077 - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.5 - 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS C - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.1 - 0.3 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No -Build -.PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/19/2018 aa1ETI �, Int Delay, s/veh Movement 35.2 EBL EB7 EER '0. -'BL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR S6L SBT SSR Lane Configurations R I. Stage - l• - 641 641 r 367 `5 1+ - Traffic Vol, vehih 140 255 5 10 215 215 5 7 15 200 4 130 Future Vol, veh/h 140 255 5 10 215 215 5 7 15 200 4 130 Conflicting Peds, #Jhr 1 0 69 69 0 1 3 0 60 60 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channetixed - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - - 100 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1080 100 - - 200 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 471 - 0 384 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 5 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Mvmt Flow 149 271 5 11 229 229 5 7 16 213 4 138 Major/Minor Ma ort hlajor2 Minorl - 1155 MinW 644 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 459 0 0 345 0 0 1081 1122 403 1010 1010 348 Stage - - - 641 641 - 367 367 - Stage 2 - - - - 440 481 - 643 643 - Critical Hdwy 4.16 4.1 - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.11 6.5 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.509 4 3.318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1081 1225 197 208 652 219 242 695 Stage - - 466 473 - 655 626 - Stage 2 - 600 557 - 464 472 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1080 1155 129 167 584 -174 195 693 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 129 167 - -174 195 - Stage 1 - 378 385 - 564 619 - Stage 2 - - 471 551 - 362 384 - Approach EB WB N8 86 HCM Control Delay, s 3.1 0.2 20.1 120.9 HCM LOS C F Minor Lan6OJalor Mvnit r4BLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR 1'JBL 41i87 A 6R SSLn 1 SBcn2 Capacity(veh/h) 129 325 1080 - 1155 - 174 644 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.072 0.138 0.009 - 1.223 0.221 HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 16.9 8.9 - 8.1 - 193.7 12.2 HCM Lane LOS D C A - A - F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0.5 - 0 - 11.7 0.8 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined All major volume in platoon R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 No-Build..PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 93 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave 11/19/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL +A'BT WBR NBL NBT N6R SBL S9T SBR Lane Configurations 23.8 4* C A A 4T C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) by 0 - - 0.1 - 41 Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 430 18 15 245 35 10 0 19 35 0 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 430 18 15 245 35 10 0 19 35 0 5 ConNcting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 551 23 19 314 45 13 0 24 45 0 6 Ma orftor Ma ori Wa ort Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 359 0 0 574 0 0 962 972 563 962 961 346 Stage - - - - - - 575 575 - 375 375 - Stage 2 - - 387 397 - 587 586 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 4.1 - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1211 1009 - 237 254 530 237 258 702 Stage - - 507 506 - 650 621 - Stage 2 - - 641 607 - 499 500 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1211 1009 228 246 530 221 250 697 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 228 246 - 221 250 - Stage 1 - 503 502 - 645 606 - Stage 2 - 615 592 - 473 497 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.4 16 23.8 HCM LOS C C Minor LanelMajor Mvmt NBLn1 EBL E87 EBR 6L WET VvBR SSLri1 Capacity (veh/h) 364 1211 - - 1009 - 242 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.102 0.005 - - 0.019 - 0.212 HCM Control Delay (s) 16 8 0 - 8.6 0 23.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0.1 - 0.8 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build -AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 94 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/19/2018 IntersectIon Int Delay, s/veh Movement 9.7 EST EBR '.1 SL *BT 1-18L N 9 R Lane Configurations A 521 Stage 1 '1� Y 521 Traffic Vol, veh/h 328 130 115 145 70 125 Future Vol, veh/h 328 130 115 145 70 125 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 16 16 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length Stage 2 - 0 Platoon blocked, % Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 11 6 7 15 10 Mvmt Flow 421 167 147 186 90 160 MaorlMinor %1aiorI Nla of 2 Id norl 0.733 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 604 0 1001 521 Stage 1 - - 521 - Stage 2 - 480 - Critical Hdwy - 4.16 6,55 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 3.635 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 954 255 540 Stage 1 - - 570 - Stage 2 596 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 941 208 533 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 208 - Stage 1 563 - Stage 2 - 492 - Approach EB WB N8 _ HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.2 39.7 HCM LOS E Vim Lane�Ma:or N, :int NBW EST EGR V%,BL WET Capacity (veh/h) 341 941 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.733 0.157 - HCM Control Delay (s) 39.7 9.5 0 HCM Lane LOS E A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.5 0.6 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build..AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 95 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/19/2018 Intersecon Int Delay, s/veh Movemo 31 EBL EST EBR WS '49T lNBR NEL NBT IBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1024 1; Stage 1 "i I. - - 720 720 - 304 304 - b - Traffic Vol, veh/h 115 369 1 3 179 135 5 2 10 180 7 111 Future Vol, veh/h 115 369 1 3 179 135 5 2 10 180 7 111 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 6 6 0 2 3 0 11 11 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - - 100 - - 100 - 185 200 - 726 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Stage 1 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 348 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 64 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 3 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 4 0 7 Mvmt Flow 137 439 1 4 213 161 6 2 12 214 8 132 MajorlMinor Ma;'ar1 l`V1 cf2 Minorl 1119 Nln0r2 631 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 376 0 0 446 0 0 1095 1104 457 1036 1024 299 Stage 1 - 8.2 - - 720 720 - 304 304 - Stage 2 - - - 375 384 - 732 720 - Cridcal Hdwy 4.19 4.1 - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.14 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Crifical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.14 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.281 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.536 4 3.363 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1145 1125 193 213 608 -208 237 729 Stage 1 - 422 435 - 701 667 - Stage 2 - - 650 615 - 410 435 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1143 - 1119 138 185 599 -181 206 726 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 138 185 - -181 206 - Stage 1 - 370 381 - 616 663 - Stage 2 522 611 - 348 381 - Approach EB WS NB S8 HCM Control Delay, s 2 0.1 19 111.9 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane!%Iajer I41vnn NBLn . h3Ln2 EBL EBT EBR 'O)aL WBT MR SEW SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 138 436 1143 1119 181 631 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.033 0.12 0.003 1.184 0.223 HCM Control Delay (s) 32.3 13.5 8.6 8.2 177.2 12.3 HCM Lane LOS D B A A F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 11.3 0.8 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 -! HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Rock Wav & Scenic Ave 11/19/2018 Intmelon Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.5 ESL EBT PER VV8'L WBT L• ER NK NBT i BR SEL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 427 41 849 396 4� - - - 4. 439 - IT. 409 Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 370 3 13 305 45 8 0 12 30 0 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 370 3 13 305 45 8 0 12 30 0 10 Conflicting Peds, Whir 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 584 - 595 - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 648 Grade, % - 0 - 261 282 0 - - 0 Stage 1 - 0 597 Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 6 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 425 3 15 351 52 9 0 14 34 0 11 M*viir} mx 403 Nla'or2 Minor1 315 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.005 - - 0.013 - Conflicting Flow All 405 0 0 428 0 0 869 874 427 855 849 396 Stage - - - - 439 439 - 409 409 - Stage 2 - - 430 435 - 446 440 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1165 - 1142 274 290 632 281 300 658 Stage 1 - - - 601 582 - 623 600 - Stage 2 - - - 607 584 - 595 581 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1163 - 1142 261 282 632 269 292 648 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 261 282 - 269 292 - Stage 1 - 597 578 - 617 589 - Stage 2 578 573 - 578 577 - Approach EB WS NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 14.5 18.4 HCM LOS B C Minor La- e:Maior M,):n[ I-JBLn1 ERIL EBT ESR INK WST VVER SSLn, Capacity (veh/h) 403 1163 - 1142 - 315 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.057 0.005 - - 0.013 - 0.146 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.5 8.1 0 - 8.2 0 18.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - 0.5 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build -PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 1 97 HCM 2010 TWSC 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave 11/19/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 5.7 EBT EBR ds3L WBY NBL NBR Lane Configurations T.� - - 391 a1 y - Traffic Vol, veh/h 278 25 65 258 65 100 Future Vol, veh/h 278 25 65 258 65 100 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 263 620 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 521 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 1.7 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 25 8 3 13 11 Mvmt Flow 371 33 87 344 87 133 Maar/Minor %1ik.or1 404 1"linorl HCM Lane V/C Ratio Conflicting Flow All 0 0 407 0 909 404 Stage 1 - - - 391 - Stage 2 - - 518 - Critical Hdwy - 4.18 - 6.53 6.31 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.272 3.617 3.399 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1120 292 628 Stage 1 - 660 - Stage 2 - 576 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1117 263 620 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 263 - Stage 1 - 659 Stage 2 - 521 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 24.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane*1a;o, I n -A NBLrl EST E3R ViEL 1W'51 Capacity (veh/h) 404 - 1117 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.545 - 0.078 - HCM Control Delay (s) 24.1 - 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS C - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.2 - 0.3 - R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build -PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 2 98 HCM 2010 TWSC 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St 11/19/2018 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 38.7 EBI. EST ESR ;VBL WST WSR NBL NBT NER SBL SET SBR Lane Configurations 1035 1. Stage 1 "1 T. - 658 658 T* 375 - 1d - Traffic Vol, veh/h 144 263 5 10 223 215 5 7 15 200 4 135 Future Vol, veh/h 144 263 5 10 223 215 5 7 15 200 4 135 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 1 0 69 69 0 1 3 0 60 60 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 1073 100 - - 200 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - 0 352 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 6 5 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Mvmt Flow 153 280 5 11 237 229 5 7 16 213 4 144 Ma'oriminor M�or1 Ma'or2 Mino 7 166 Minor2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.074 Conflicting Flow All 467 0 0 354 0 0 1109 1147 412 1035 1035 356 Stage 1 - - - - 658 658 - 375 375 - Stage 2 - - 451 489 - 660 660 - Critical Hdwy 4.16 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.11 6.5 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.11 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.254 2.2 3.5 4 3.3 3.509 4 3-318 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1074 1216 189 201 644 -211 234 688 Stage - - 457 464 - 648 621 - Stage 2 - - 592 553 - 454 463 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1073 - 1146 122 161 577 -166 187 686 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 122 161 - -166 187 - Stage 1 - 369 375 - 555 614 - Stage 2 - 459 547 352 374 Ap2roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 3.1 0.2 20.7 134.1 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane)Ualor Ic vint NBLn1 NSLn2 EBL EET EBR ?'VBL Vr'BT W2R SBLn1 SSW Capacity (veh/h) 122 317 1073 - 1146 166 637 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.074 0.143 0.009 1.282 0.232 HCM Control Delay (s) 35.8 17.3 8.9 - 8.2 218.6 12A HCM Lane LOS E C A - A F B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0.5 - 0 12.3 0.9 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ": All major volume in platoon R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Future Year 2038 Build -PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 - Report Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Page 3 99 D'P.Com T.umfmoUTlon I monzia1nc, L L C Appendix F Future Year 2038 No -Build and Build, SimTraffic Output 100 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 No -Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 End Time 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1532 1526 1456 1434 1460 1481 Vehs Exited 1555 1542 1480 1452 1479 1500 Starting Vehs 35 31 40 26 31 32 Ending Vehs 12 15 16 8 12 12 Travel Distance (mi) 408 397 372 375 375 386 Travel Time (hr) 20.2 19.4 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.7 Total Delay (hr) 4.7 4.3 4.4 3.6 3.3 4.1 Total Stops 943 908 882 869 828 885 Fuel Used (gal) 17.5 16.8 16.0 15.6 15.8 16.3 Interval #0 Information Seedi Start Time 7:35 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 512 482 503 462 454 480 Vehs Exited 515 490 527 465 462 492 Starting Vehs 35 31 40 26 31 32 Ending Vehs 32 23 16 23 23 24 Travel Distance (mi) 140 125 130 121 116 126 Travel Time (hr) 7.5 6.7 7.4 6.1 5.7 6.7 Total Delay (hr) 2.2 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.9 Total Stops 335 293 324 278 270 298 Fuel Used (gal) 6.2 5.5 5.9 5.1 5.0 5.5 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 101 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 No -Build AM Peak Hour 1111712018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 1020 1044 953 972 1006 998 Vehs Exited 1040 1052 953 987 1017 1011 Starting Vehs 32 23 16 23 23 24 Ending Vehs 12 15 16 8 12 12 Travel Distance (mi) 269 272 242 254 258 259 Travel Time (hr) 12.8 12.8 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.1 Total Delay (hr) 2.5 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 Total Stops 608 615 558 591 558 585 Fuel Used (gal) 11.3 11.4 10.0 10.5 10.8 10.8 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 102 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Future Year 2038 No -Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way Movement EB B SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 38 24 57 Average Queue (ft) 4 1 25 95th Queue (ft) 23 12 51 Link Distance (ft) 437 340 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) 170 165 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 12 71 46 Storage Blk Time (%) 63 22 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 36 137 Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement EB L113 N5 Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) TR LT LR 8 96 206 0 35 71 4 77 143 220 437 592 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement EB E6 V4B V416 NB PJB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 80 50 24 34 23 45 170 165 Average Queue (ft) 26 2 1 3 3 12 71 46 95th Queue (ft) 63 22 11 19 16 36 137 87 Link Distance (ft) 340 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 103 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 No -Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 End Time 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1559 1550 1531 1533 1553 1548 Vehs Exited 1570 1565 1536 1550 1558 1555 Starting Vehs 24 26 20 27 22 24 Ending Vehs 13 11 15 10 17 14 Travel Distance (mi) 364 374 363 360 370 366 Travel Time (hr) 18.9 18.4 18.3 18.7 18.8 18.6 Total Delay (hr) 5.0 4.2 4.4 5.0 4.6 4.6 Total Stops 914 912 876 884 961 909 Fuel Used (gal) 16.0 16.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 15.9 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 3:20 End Time 3:30 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 3:30 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 516 496 500 497 525 508 Vehs Exited 516 503 495 504 524 510 Starting Vehs 24 26 20 27 22 24 Ending Vehs 24 19 25 20 23 22 Travel Distance (mi) 113 112 115 110 118 114 Travel Time (hr) 6.2 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.0 Total Delay (hr) 1.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 Total Stops 286 272 266 283 302 283 Fuel Used (gal) 5.2 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.1 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 104 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 No -Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 1043 1054 1031 1036 1028 1039 Vehs Exited 1054 1062 1041 1046 1034 1045 Starting Vehs 24 19 25 20 23 22 Ending Vehs 13 11 15 10 17 14 Travel Distance (mi) 251 262 248 250 252 253 Travel Time (hr) 12.7 12.9 12.4 12.6 12.5 12.6 Total Delay (hr) 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9 Total Stops 628 640 610 601 659 627 Fuel Used (gal) 10.8 11.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.9 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 105 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Future Year 2038 No -Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Scenic Ave & Rock Way Movement EB VJB I B Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 36 54 Average Queue (ft) 4 2 26 95th Queue (ft) 25 18 51 Link Distance (ft) 437 340 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) 201 156 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 3 21 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 16 92 48 Storage Blk Time (%) 68 45 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 43 171 Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement EB 'AJ8 td6 Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 84 164 Average Queue (ft) 2 17 59 95th Queue (ft) 15 56 111 Link Distance (ft) 220 437 592 Upstream Blk Time (%) 201 156 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 3 21 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 16 92 48 Storage Blk Time (%) 68 45 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 43 171 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement EB EB WB 1^/6 NS N13 SB S6 Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 77 82 31 96 30 52 201 156 Average Queue (ft) 34 10 3 21 6 16 92 48 95th Queue (ft) 68 45 18 64 26 43 171 107 Link Distance (ft) 340 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1 1 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 106 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 End Time 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 8:45 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1538 1503 1532 1462 1452 1501 Vehs Exited 1540 1492 1551 1478 1477 1509 Starting Vehs 19 14 33 30 39 23 Ending Vehs 17 25 14 14 14 18 Travel Distance (mi) 388 373 396 367 372 379 Travel Time (hr) 18.9 18.3 19.6 18.1 18.1 18.6 Total Delay (hr) 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.1 Total Stops 918 893 994 867 874 908 Fuel Used (gal) 16.4 15.9 16.9 15.6 15.6 16.1 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:35 End Time 7:45 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:45 End Time 8:00 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 489 517 481 482 468 487 Vehs Exited 488 493 488 482 488 487 Starting Vehs 19 14 33 30 39 23 Ending Vehs 20 38 26 30 19 23 Travel Distance (mi) 123 122 126 121 121 122 Travel Time (hr) 6.1 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.4 Total Delay (hr) 1.4 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.8 Total Stops 295 312 338 307 278 304 Fuel Used (gal) 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.4 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 107 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recordina Start Time 8:00 End Time 8:45 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 1049 986 1051 980 984 1010 Vehs Exited 1052 999 1063 996 989 1020 Starting Vehs 20 38 26 30 19 23 Ending Vehs 17 25 14 14 14 18 Travel Distance (mi) 265 251 270 247 250 257 Travel Time (hr) 12.8 11.9 12.9 11.5 11.7 12.2 Total Delay (hr) 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.3 Total Stops 623 581 656 560 596 602 Fuel Used (gal) 11.2 10.4 11.4 10.2 10.3 10.7 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 108 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Future Year 2038 Build AM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave Movement E3 LN3 PJB 53 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 59 44 63 Average Queue (ft) 3 6 16 26 95th Queue (ft) 22 32 42 53 Link Distance (ft) 430 343 184 358 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 4 10 71 Queuing Penalty (veh) 95th Queue (ft) 67 21 9 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 19 32 136 90 Storage Blk Time (%) 343 459 Queuing Penalty (veh) 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Movement EB WB NB Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) TR LT LR 17 120 258 1 38 79 7 87 170 220 430 592 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement ELS EE �1 B 'AS h8 id$ SB se Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 88 33 24 39 29 29 184 140 Average Queue (ft) 29 2 1 3 4 10 71 44 95th Queue (ft) 67 21 9 18 19 32 136 90 Link Distance (ft) 343 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC 109 SimTraffic Report Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Start Time 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 End Time 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 3 3 3 3 3 3 # of Recorded Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehs Entered 1542 1612 1574 1563 1582 1574 Vehs Exited 1543 1622 1582 1582 1593 1584 Starting Vehs 24 30 24 30 27 24 Ending Vehs 23 20 16 11 16 15 Travel Distance (mi) 363 382 372 366 373 371 Travel Time (hr) 18.1 19.9 18.1 19.5 19.5 19.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.2 5.3 3.8 5.5 5.2 4.8 Total Stops 916 972 941 944 950 947 Fuel Used (gal) 15.8 16.6 16.0 16.3 16.4 16.2 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 3:20 End Time 3:30 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 3:30 End Time 3:45 Total Time (min) 15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 gI 5 Avg Vehs Entered 484 499 500 517 515 503 Vehs Exited 480 498 499 521 511 503 Starting Vehs 24 30 24 30 27 24 Ending Vehs 28 31 25 26 31 29 Travel Distance (mi) 105 110 111 116 118 112 Travel Time (hr) 5.2 5.6 5.5 7.0 6.2 5.9 Total Delay (hr) 1.2 1.5 1.2 2.6 1.7 1.6 Total Stops 251 282 277 293 302 281 Fuel Used (gal) 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.4 5.2 5.0 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC r`n SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Future Year 2038 Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time 3:45 End Time 4:30 Total Time (min) 45 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF, Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Vehs Entered 1058 1113 1074 1046 1067 1073 Vehs Exited 1063 1124 1083 1061 1082 1082 Starting Vehs 28 31 25 26 31 29 Ending Vehs 23 20 16 11 16 15 Travel Distance (mi) 259 272 261 249 255 259 Travel Time (hr) 12.9 14.2 12.6 12.5 13.3 13.1 Total Delay (hr) 3.0 3.8 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.2 Total Stops 665 690 664 651 648 663 Fuel Used (gal) 11.3 11.9 11.1 10.9 11.2 11.3 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC ME SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Future Year 2038 Build PM Peak Hour 11/17/2018 Intersection: 5: Rock Way & Scenic Ave Movement ES WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 44 42 44 61 Average Queue (ft) 5 5 14 26 95th Queue (ft) 25 23 40 53 Link Distance (ft) 430 343 184 358 Upstream Blk Time (%) 23 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 17 92 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) 75 37 17 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 22 44 167 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 343 459 Queuing Penalty (veh) 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Intersection: 8: Middle School & Scenic Ave Moyemer>It 6 til s NS Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 12 80 185 Average Queue (ft) 0 18 66 95th Queue (ft) 4 60 133 Link Distance (ft) 220 430 592 Upstream Blk Time (%) 183 147 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 3 23 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 17 92 49 Storage Blk Time (%) 75 37 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 44 167 Intersection: 30: JC Housing/Upton Rd & Scenic Ave/10th St Movement EB EB W8 lIjB N3 NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 95 56 30 96 34 53 183 147 Average Queue (ft) 38 8 3 23 4 17 92 49 95th Queue (ft) 75 37 17 69 22 44 167 110 Link Distance (ft) 343 459 167 223 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 3 1 Zone Summa Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 4 R-1-8 to Civic Zone Change - Scenic Ave Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC ism SimTraffic Report Page 3 Snur��-ftn O,P-ron T umfPaRTNION lmom, ,fti, G, LLC Appendix G Agency Requirements 113 320.00.00 - Design 320.10.01- Design Standards 3/25/14 12:26 PM The purpose of these standards is to provide a consistent policy under which certain physical aspects of street and related design and plan preparation will be observed by the engineer. The Engineer should be aware that certain alternate street standards for the Transit Oriented District and Transit Oriented Corridor might apply to the design and construction streets in these areas of the city. These alternate standards are fully described in the Central Point TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines. They are also briefly described in lesser detail in these Standards and Specifications. This section contains design standards to ensure the safe and efficient operation of each facility type for all users and the best use of public space. The requirements in this section are established as minimum standards to follow and apply to both new construction and reconstruction, except as otherwise specified. Designs shall consider the needs of people with disabilities and the aged, such as visually impaired pedestrians and mobility impaired pedestrians. Every effort should be made to locate street hardware away from pedestrian locations and provide a surface free of bumps and cracks, which create safety and mobility problems. Smooth access ramps shall be provided where required. All designs shall conform to the current American Disabilities Act (ADA) or as adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The determination of the pavement width and total right-of-way shall be based on the operational needs for each street as determined by a technical analysis. The technical analysis shall use demand volumes that reflect the maximum number of pedestrians, bicyclists, parked vehicles and motorized vehicle traffic expected when the area using the street is fully developed. Technical analysis shall take into consideration, transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, TOD, neighborhood plans, approved tentative plans as well as existing commercial and residential developments. All street designs shall be coordinated with the design of other new or existing infrastructure. These standards set forth the minimum requirements for materials and street design. The Public Works Director shall have discretion to require a higher or different standard for materials or design when in his judgment it is in the best interest of the public's health, safety and welfare when considering all aspects and circumstances of the project. The minimum geometric requirements for all street classifications are defined in Tables 300 — 1 through 300 — 7. 320.10.02 — Traffic Impact Analysis The purpose of this section is to assist in the determination of which road authorities participate in land use decisions, and to implement Section 660-012-0045(2)(e) of the State Transportation 37 City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications ME r 3/25/14 12:26 PM Planning Rule that requires the city to adopt a process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities. This chapter establishes the standards for when a proposal must be reviewed for potential traffic impacts; when a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with a development application in order to determine whether conditions are needed to minimize impacts to and protect transportation facilities; what must be in a traffic impact analysis; and who is qualified to prepare the study. A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer or civil engineer licensed to practice in the state of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. If the road authority is the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), consult ODOT's regional development review planner and OAR 734-051-180. If the road is the authority of Jackson County, consult Jackson County's road design requirements. The Public Works Director may, at his/her discretion, waive the study of certain intersections when it is concluded that the impacts are not substantial. 320.10.03 — Traffic Impact Analysis Applicability (1) The level of detail and scope of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) will vary with the size, complexity, and location of the proposed application. Prior to any TIA, the applicant shall submit sufficient information to the City for the Public Works Department to issue a scoping letter. If stipulations to reduce traffic are requested by an applicant, it must first be shown by means of an analysis that an unconditional approval is not possible without some form of mitigation to maintain an adequate LOS. This will determine whether a stipulation is necessary. (2) Extent of Study Area: The study area shall be defined by the Public Works Department in the scoping letter and shall address at least the following areas: a) All proposed site access points; b) Any intersection where the proposed development can be expected to Contribute 25 or more trips during the analysis peak period. Impacts of less than 25 peak period trips are not substantial and will not be included in the study area. This volume may be adjusted, at the discretion of the Public Works Department, for safety or unusual situations; and c) Any intersections directly adjacent to the subject property. (3) When required: TIA shall be required when a land use application involves one or more of the following actions: a) A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation that generates 300 average daily trips (ADT) more than the current zoning; b) Any proposed development or land use action that a road authority, including the city, Jackson County or ODOT, states may have operational or safety concerns along its facilities; c) An increase in site traffic volume generation by 250 average daily trips (ADT) or more, or 25 Peak Hour Trips (PHT); City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications 38 ism 3/25/14 12:26 PM d) An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the State highway by 20 percent or more; e) An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding twenty thousand pounds gross vehicle weight by 10 vehicles or more per day; f) The location of the access driveway does not meet minimum sight distance requirements, as determined by the city engineer, or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property are restricted, or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state highway, creating a safety hazard at the discretion of the community development director; or g) A change in internal traffic patterns that, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, may cause safety problems, such as back-up onto a street or greater potential for traffic accidents. (4) Submittals: Provide two copies of the TIA for Public Works Department to review. (5) Elements of Analysis: A TIA shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. The TIA shall be a thorough review of the effects a proposed use will have on the transportation system. The study area shall include all streets and intersections in the analysis, as defined in subsection (2) above. Traffic generated from a proposed site will be distributed throughout the transportation system using existing count data or the current transportation model used by the City. Any alternate distribution method must be based on data acceptable to the Public Works Department. The following checklist outlines what a TIA shall contain. Incomplete reports shall be returned to the applicant for completion without review: a) The scoping letter as provided by the Public Works Department; b) The Final TIA shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Civil or Traffic Engineer registered in the State of Oregon; c) An executive summary, discussing the development, the major findings of the analysis, and the mitigation measures proposed; d) A vicinity map of the proposed site and study area; e) Project characteristics such as zoning, potential trip generations (unless stipulated to less than potential), proposed access(s), and other pertinent factors; f) Street characteristics within the study area including functional classification, number of travel lanes, lane width, shoulder treatment, bicycle path corridors, and traffic control at intersections; g) Description of existing transportation conditions including transit accessibility, accident history, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, traffic signals, and overall traffic operations and circulation; h) Peak period turning movement counts of at least two-hour minimums at study area intersections, less than 2 years old. These counts shall be adjusted to the design year of the project and consider seasonal traffic adjustments when required by the scoping letter; i) A "Figure" showing existing peak period (AM, noon, or PM, whichever is largest) turning movement volumes at study area intersections, as shown in Example 1. Approved applications obtained from the City that have not built out but will impact study 39 City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications iffi 3/25/14 12:26 PM area intersections shall be included as pipeline traffic. An appropriate adjustment factor shall be applied to existing count data if counts were taken during the off-peak season; j) Potential "Project" trip generation using the most current edition of the ITE Trip Generation, as required by the Public Works Department at the time of scoping. Variations of trip rates will require the approval of the Public Works Department. Such approval will require submission of adequate supporting data prior to first submittal of the TIA; k) A "Figure" illustrating project turning movement volumes at study area intersections for peak periods, as shown in Example 2. Adjustments made for pass -by traffic volumes shall follow the methodology outlined in the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation, and shall not exceed 25% unless approved by the Public Works Director; I) A "Figure" illustrating the combined traffic of existing, background, and project turning movement volumes at study area intersections for peak periods, as shown in Example 3; m) Level of Service (LOS) analysis at study area intersections under the following conditions: (A) Existing plus pipeline traffic (B) Existing plus pipeline traffic and project traffic. A table shall be prepared which illustrates all LOS results. The table shall show LOS conditions with corresponding vehicle delays for signalized intersections and the critical movement at unsignalized intersections. If the proposed use is scheduled to be completed in phases, a LOS analysis shall be prepared for each phase; n) A mitigation plan if impacts to the study area reduce level of service (LOS) below minimums. Mitigation measures may include stipulations and/or construction of necessary transportation improvements. Mitigation measures shall be required to the extent that the transportation facilities, under City jurisdiction, operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with the addition of project traffic; and o) Intersections under jurisdiction of another agency, but still within the City limits, shall be evaluated by either the City's criteria or the other jurisdiction's criteria, or both, whichever is considered applicable by the Public Works Department. If the TIA is not consistent with the scoping letter (including any amendments) then the TIA will be returned to the applicant without review. (6) Analysis criteria: a) All trip distributions into and out of the transportation system must reflect existing traffic count data for consistency or follow the current transportation model used by the City. If alternate splits are used to distribute traffic then justification must be provided and approved by the Public Works Department prior to first submittal of the TIA. b) If progression analysis is being evaluated or queuing between intersections is a concern, the peak period used in the analysis must be the same for every intersection along the street and reflect that of the most critical intersection being evaluated. If a common peak period is not requested by the Public Works Department, then the actual peak period of every intersection shall be used. c) Counts performed must be a minimum of two hours and include the peak period for analysis purposes. All documentation shall be included in the TIA. d) All supporting count data, LOS analyses, pass -by deductions, growth rates, traffic 40 City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications ism 3/25/14 12:26 PM distributions, or other engineering assumptions must be clearly defined and attached to the TIA when submitted in report form to the City for review. e) All LOS analyses shall follow operational procedures per the current Highway Capacity Manual. Ideal saturation flow rates greater than 1800 vehicles per hour per lane should not be used unless otherwise measured in the project vicinity. Queue lengths shall be calculated at the 95th percentile where feasible. Actual peak hour factors should be used for each movement or lane grouping in the analysis. Peak hour factors over 0.90 shall not be used unless justified by specific counts at that location. f) Signal timing used in capacity or progression analysis shall follow City timing plans and account for pedestrian crossing times, unless otherwise noted in the scoping letter. g) Arrival Type 3 (random arrivals) shall be used unless a coordinated plan is in place during the peak period. 320.10.04 — Maintenance of level of Service D Whenever level of service is determined to be below level D for arterials or collectors, development is not permitted unless the developer makes the roadway or other improvements necessary to maintain level of service D respectively. 41 City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standards and Specifications i`t] Jackson County Fire District 3 December 13, 2018 8383 Agate Road White City, OR 97503 Project Narrative & Findings of Fact (Scenic Avenue Fire Station Project) Affected Parcels: This application is a request for zone changes on these parcels: 37 2W 03 AB TL 4400 currently owed by School District 6, and, 37 2W AB TL 4500 & 4600 currently owned by Jackson County Fire District 3. Project Summary: The purpose of the requested Zone Map Amendment is to change the zoning designation on the above listed parcels to Civic Use as needed to prepare for construction of a new fire station on these properties located along Scenic Avenue in Central Point. As well as to comply with the comprehensive plan designations recently approved by the City of Central Point. Provided below are responses to the application approval criteria in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.10, Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments. 17.10.200 Initiation of amendments. A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be initiated by either: • A resolution by the planning commission to the city council, • A resolution of intent by the city council, or for zoning map amendments; • An application by one or more property owners (zoning map amendments only), or their agents, of property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property or properties affected, proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed amendment, justifying the some and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014). Findings for 17.10.200: Section 17.10.200 item C is met. As evidenced by the application submittals, the zoning map change(s) is/are being requested by the property owners, specifically Fire District 3 and on behalf of School District 6 by their authorization. Conclusion of 17.10.200: The application for a zone map change has been initiated consistent with the requirements of this section. 17.10.300 Major and minor amendments. There are two types of map and text amendments: A. Major Amendments. Major amendments are legislative policy decisions that establish bylaw general policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning ifiE'] and land division ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. Major amendments are reviewed using the Type W procedure in Section 17.05.500. B. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a specific development application, and not the adoption of new policy (i.e., major amendments). Minor amendments shall follow the Type 111 procedure, as set forth in Section 17.05.400. The approval authority shall be the city council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. (Ord. 1989 §1 (part), 2014, Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006). Findings for 17.10.300: On March 8, 2018, the City approved Ordinance No. 2043 updating and adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. As part the Land Use Element Update, the City re -designated the Project Site properties from Low Density Residential to Civic Use. At this time, the zoning for these properties is R-1-8, Low Density Residential, which is consistent with the prior land use designation. The purpose of the proposed zone map change is to comply with the new Comprehensive Plan land use designation (i.e. Civic Use), and to prepare the properties for construction of a new fire station. No new policies or zoning regulations are proposed as part of this application. Since the request is to apply the existing Civic designation to the subject properties, and does not create new policy, it qualifies as a Minor Zone Map amendment subject to Type III procedures. Conclusion to 17.10.300: The proposed zone map change is a Minor Amendment consistent with this section. 17.10.400 Approval Criteria A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (major amendments only), Findings for 17.10.400(A): The proposal is a Minor Zone Map Amendment (see Findings for 17.10.300). Conclusion of 17.10.400(A): Sub -section (A) is not applicable to this request. B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor amendments), Findings for 17.10.400(13): The proposed zone map amendment would change the current R-1-8 zoning designations to Civic Use, which is consistent with the recently updated Land Use Element, Land Use Map Civic land use designation. 120 Conclusion to 17.10.400(B): The proposed zone change complies with the land use and zoning map designations and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. if a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city's public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments), and Findings for 17.10.400(C): As stated in the Pre -Application Conference Report dated March 20, 2018 (File No. PRE -18005), the project site is currently served with water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, which serves existing development on portions of the site and existing surrounding development. Any future infrastructure upgrades will be a function of development, per the City's requirements for public services and streets. Conclusion to 17.10.400(C): The project complies with this standard. D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1989 §1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006. Formerly 17.10.300(8)). Findings for 17.10.400(D): A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Southern Oregon Traffic Engineering, LLC on November 19, 2018 for the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendments on the Project Sites. The purpose of the Traffic Study is to demonstrate how the proposed change complies with the Transportation Planning Rule and City regulations. Per the Traffic Study analysis, "...the proposed zone change... is not shown to degrade the performance of any study area intersection under existing or future conditions." And, "...it is concluded that streets and intersections that serve the subject property will accommodate projected a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes from permitted uses under Civic zoning without requiring a change in the functional classification of any existing or planned facility, or degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified...". The Traffic Impact Study is included with this application. Conclusion of 17.10.400(D): Based on the Traffic Study analysis and findings, the proposed zone map amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule and the City's Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, we believe the application submittal package demonstrates compliance with the approval criteria for zone map amendments outlined in the Central Point Municipal Code. On behalf of Jackson County Fire District 3 and School District 6 1 request approval of this zone change for the subject properties. John Patterson Deputy Chief Jackson County Fire District 3 541-831-2752 121 LU Z3 z LU Q U W U C/) I I F I w w >00E -a t I ZC7 Ozo LUL) iYF- _ 0 Q 0 F- H wOco En 0�0 I d z U) I ]o U) 1 _r ��4 I °,Q >aa I 122 i , I I I I r------------------ ' 1 I 1 1 r 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 W U- I J U) Lij I I I 1 Q LU F m0� 1 1 Z W 9 W 0 p 1 1 0 5 - o a. MS 1 e 1 1 r i I 1 ' I ------------------- J FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No.: ZC-18007 Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission Consideration of a Zone (Map) Change Application on 1.76 acres at 1909 Scenic Avenue. The property is EEEEfl4MP IS®EFIE6 2W 03AB, Tax Lots 4400, 4500 and 4600. Applicant: Fire District Number 3 8383 Agate Road White City, OR 97503 PART 1 INTRODUCTION Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law It is requested that the above referenced tax lots be rezoned from Residential Single Family (R-1- 8) to Civic. The purpose of the application is to comply with the Civic Use Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the property and prepare for the construction of a new fire station. The zone change request is a quasi-judicial map amendment, which is processed using Type III application procedures. Type III procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provide the basis for decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate. Applicable development code criteria for this Application include: 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. State Transportation Planning Rule 3. CPMC, Chapter 17.10 PART 2 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 6 WI MDMFUY RMID SSS MEM V(❑gWEP H7WE ❑lii the Staff Report dated February 5, 2019) and are herein incorporated by reference, and found that they address all of the applicable development code criteria for the proposed zone (map) amendment. However, the Planning Department is providing supplemental findings addressing the State Transportation Planning Rule below. OAR 660-012-0060 El Transportation Planning Rule The State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in OAR 660-012-0060 requires changes to land use plans and land use regulations (i.e. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments) to be consistent with the function and capacity of existing and planned transportation facilities. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060 subsection (1) states the following: 123 (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of corrections of map errors in an adopted plan); Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a): A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed zone change by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC on December 8, 2018. The Study evaluates the proposed zone change on the 1.76 acre project site (37S 2W 03AB Tax Lots 4400, 4500 & 4600) from R-1-8 to Civic. The TIA evaluates the surrounding streets and intersections, including Scenic Avenue (Minor Arterial), 10`h Street (Minor Arterial), Upton Road (Minor Arterial, and Rock Way (Local). Per the TIA, the zone change trip generation was evaluated based on a middle school with 107 students because it produces the highest number of trips for permitted uses in the Civic zoning district. The analysis reported 228 additional daily trips and 37 additional PM Peak trips, which does not result in any changes to the functional street classifications on the surrounding streets. Per the TIA, the traffic generated by the increased land use intensity will not alter the functional classification for any existing or planned infrastructure. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a): ❑EZ 45, ❑die functional street classifications for existing and planned facilities will not change as a result of the minor zone map amendment. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(b): The standards implementing a functional classification system are based on the Street Classification standard in the Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Uniform Details for Public Works Construction (2014). As shown in the TIA, the proposed minor zone map amendment does not alter the performance standards for any of the street intersections with existing and planned improvements per the Public Works Standards noted above. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(b): Consistent. (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the areas of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This 124 reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): The Public Works Standards, Table 300-6 Driveway and Property Access Dimensions, specifies that direct site access is generally not allowed unless no other reasonable access is available. Per the ❑SSS, E1197HEWJfffEJEUffRP EScenic Way and from a future extension of Rock Way along the west property boundary. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): The access and travel on existing and planned facilities is consistent with the functional classification standards set forth in the Public Works Standard Specifications and TSP and Comprehensive Plan. (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or, Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): As shown in Table 1, the intersection of Upton Road and Scenic Avenue is currently operating at an unacceptable level of EHJUHI2 6EIEF ❑LIEGIlcurrent conditions (Year 2018 No -Build). The critical movement is the southbound left turn movement, which causes the failing LOS. Table 1. Traffic Impact Summ Roadway Functional City Year Year Future Future Intersection Classification Operational 2018, 2018, Year Year Standard No -build Build 2038, No 2038, Build Build Upton Road/ Minor Arterial / 2 6 HE ❑ / 2 6 ❑) ❑ / 2 6 LE) ❑ / 2 6 mF ❑ / 2 6 ILF ❑ Scenic Avenue Rock Way/ Collector/ / 2 6=1 / 2 6=L1 / 2 6=L] / 2 6 ❑C ❑ / 2 6 = ❑ Scenic Avenue Minor Arterial Scenic Middle Private Drive/ None / 2 6 ®❑ / 2 6 ®❑ / 2 6 TE ❑ / 2 6 ❑E ❑ School/Scenic Ave Minor Arterial The TIA also examined the intersection of the Scenic Middle School driveway with Scenic Avenue. ❑IISHIRDLE2 61T( ❑fit kFM movement is northbound traffic exiting the middle school and there is no operational standard for private driveways. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): The TIA demonstrates that the existing facilities at Upton Road and Scenic Avenue perform below the acceptable SDLP 63 LRU&RPSL9W1L B 2 611F111for the 125 planningperiod (i.e. 2038).However, the turning movement that contributes to the failing performance (Southbound Left Turn) is not impacted by the proposed zone change LOSMEERHEEDEEHEWHEEFFEEEMJBl R ❑EMD for the planning period. When a specific use is proposed for site development, further traffic analysis will be needed per CPMC 17.05.900(A)(2)(b) and (g) to evaluate mitigation that would allow the intersection to operate within an acceptable LOS during the planning period. (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): See Finding OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B). Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): Consistent. (2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned, function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including but not limited to transportation system 126 management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations if- (A) £ (A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all standards; (B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide written statements of approval; and, (C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written statements of approval. Finding OAR 660-012-0060(2): As demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed zone map change does not significantly affect transportation facilities. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(2): Not applicable. (3) Notwithstanding sections(1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility where: (a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the TSP. (b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (d)(C); and For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, ata minimum, sufficient to 127 avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides MOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section. Finding OAR 660-012-0060(2): As demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed zone map change does not significantly affect transportation facilities. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(2): Not applicable. (4) Determinations under sections (1) through (3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. (a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below. (b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements, and services: (A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider. (B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are pEM approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT 128 provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional por local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government9s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b) (A -(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where: (A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or, (B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local government may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (d) As used in this section and section (3): (A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and, (C) Interstate interchange area means: (i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or, (ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. (e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E), or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs 129 (b)(A)-(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2). Finding OAR 660-012-0060(4): As demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed zone map change does not significantly affect transportation facilities. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(4): Not applicable. (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned facility if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map; Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a): The City of Central Point completed a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment in 2018 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2043. The amendment designated the subject property as Civic. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a): The City of Central Point uses a two (2) map system with the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan Map provides a broad view of development within the City; whereas, the Land Use Map, commonly referred to as the Zoning Map, represents the spatial distribution of all land uses and provides parcel specific information for development. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment designated the subject property as Civic in 2018, but did not change the Land Use Map. The requested change is consistent with the recent amendment. (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and, Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(b): The Transportation System Plan for the City of Central Point was acknowledged in 2008. The Land Use Goals and Policies in the TSP direct the City to effectively manage the use of land within the urbanized area and manage the Land Element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that is consistent with the successful implementation of the TSP. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(b): As noted in the findings for OAR 660-012- 0060(9)(a), the Comprehensive Plan Map was amended in 2018 and the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map was included as part of the update to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element determines where a land use will be physically sited and �2Z �I�HP �❑Q8 ElM lement urban area to 130 ensure the land uses are compatible with the surrounding infrastructure. At the time of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject property was designated as Civic and determined to be consistent with the transportation system. (c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. Finding OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c): The subject property and the surrounding area were not exempted from the Transportation Planning Rule at the time of an urban growth boundary expansion. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c):Not applicable. (10) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend a functional plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to capacity ratio or V/Q, delay or travel time if the amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. This section does not exempt a proposed amendment from other transportation performance standards or policies that may apply including, but not limited to, safety for all modes, network connectivity for all modes (e.g. sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight vehicles of a size and frequency required by the development. (a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section if it: (A) Is a map or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA); and (B) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of the MMA as described in the findings designating the MMA. HITi 1! 1i :1,11 !illilm II IMAN 1111 ' 1111 ill: l;l ■ , III I 1111 DELTi1111M (A) With a boundary adopted by a local government as provided in subsection (d) or (e) of this section and that has been acknowledged; (B) Entirely within an urban growth boundary; (C) With adopted plans and development regulations that allow the uses listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(A) through (C) of this rule and that require new development to be consistent with the characteristics listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(D) through (H) of this rule; 131 (D) With land use regulations that do not require the provision of off-street parking, or regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than required in other areas and allow flexibility to meet the parking requirements (e.g. count on -street parking, allow long-term leases, allow shared parking); and (E) Located in one or more of the categories below: (i) At least one-quarter mile from any ramp terminal intersection of existing or planned interchanges; (ii) Within the area of an adopted Interchange Area Management Plan (LAMP) and consistent with the LAMP; or (iii) Within one-quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange if the mainline facility provider has provided written concurrence with the MMA designation as provided in subsection (c) of this section. (c) When a mainline facility provider reviews an MMA designation as provided in subparagraph (b)(E)(iii) of this section, the provider must consider the factors listed in paragraph (A) of this subsection. (A) The potential for operational or safety effects to the interchange area and the mainline highway, specifically considering: (i) Whether the interchange area has a crash rate that is higher than the statewide crash rate for similar facilities; (ii) Whether the interchange area is in the top ten percent of locations identified by the safety priority index system (SPIS) developed by ODOT; and (iii) Whether existing or potential future traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps extend onto the mainline highway or the portion of the ramp needed to safely accommodate deceleration. (B) If there are operational or safety effects as described in paragraph (A) of this subsection, the effects may be addressed by an agreement between the local government and the facility provider regarding traffic management plans favoring traffic movements away from the interchange, particularly those facilitating clearing traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps. (d) A local government may designate an MMA by adopting an amendment to the comprehensive plan or land use regulations to delineate the boundary following an 132 existing zone, multiple existing zones, an urban renewal area, other existing boundary, or establishing a new boundary. The designation must be accompanied by findings showing how the area meets the definition of an MMA. Designation of an MMA is not subject to the requirements in sections (1) and (2) of this rule. (e) A local government may designate an MMA on an area where comprehensive plan map designations or land use regulations do not meet the definition, if all of the other elements meet the definition, by concurrently adopting comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendments necessary to meet the definition. Such amendments are not subject to performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion, delay or travel time. Finding OAR 660-012-0060(10): The proposed amendment affects land within an Activity Center, an area designated in the comprehensive plan for mixed uses with medium to high density. The activity center promotes pedestrian oriented development with transit services. However, the activity centers are not consistent with the definition of a Mulitmodal Mixed Use Area (MMA), as defined in the TPR. The performance standards for traffic congestion, delay D059EDHLWIIZHI!rgS tRSRIL2PFffi'IEFEI=I?Z SSaM=, ❑EDM demonstrated in the findings and conclusions for OAR 660-012-0060(1), the proposed zone map change does not significantly affect transportation facilities and the functional plan will not change. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0060(10): Not applicable. PART 3 SUMMARY CONCLUSION As evidenced in findings and conclusions provided in Part 2, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the Statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Transportation Planning Rule. 133 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 863 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE MINOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (R-1-8) TO CIVIC (CIVIC) ON 1.76 ACRES LOCATED AT 1909 SCENIC AVENUE. (37S 2W0 3AB Tax Lot 4400, 4500 & 4600) File No. ZC-18007 Applicant: Fire District 3; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is proposed to re -designate the property L � )M EW_-11I1N1R J&REE)W11 EFUMMO LF UTFE6 2W 03AB Tax Lots 4400, 4500 & 4600 as Civic; and WHEREAS, the proposed Civic zoning is a Civic zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, adequate public services and transportation networks are available to the site; and WHEREAS, the proposed zone change from R-1-8 to Civic has been determined to be consistent with the State Transportation Planning Rule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 863, does recommend that the City Council approve the change of zone on the property identified by the Jackson CFLLWLI LLLLflRUM0 LS2W 03AB Tax Lots 4400, 4500 & 4600. This decision is based on the Staff Report dated February 5, 2019 including Attachments A through D attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Resolution No. 863 (02/05/2019) 134 135 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT February 5, 2019 (CPA -18002) Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator Consideration of the Urbanization Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan (File No. CPA -18002) (Applicant: City of Central Point) STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The City's Urbanization Element was last acknowledged in 1983 and is in need of updating to account for over 30 years of incremental changes that have occurred. The Urbanization Element is modeled after Statewide Planning Goal 14, which emphasizes the need for all communities to: "Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. " As stated in the element itself, urbanization is not responsible for the building of functional, or dysfunctional cities, beautiful, or blighted cities, it is merely the process that fuels the building of cities. The quality of the built city is a function of a community's ability to define and diligently pursue a preferred future. Central Point's preferred future is currently guided by two documents; the Fair City Vision 2020 and The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. The City has also adopted revisions to its Population Element, Housing Element and Land Use Element which provide additional direction for projected urban residential and employment growth. Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 highlights the City's unique identity, livability objectives and the mission, vision and values upon which the Urbanization program is based. The document has helped elected officials and City staff to focus and to attract the type of innovative, responsible and community -minded residents and businesses that contribute to a healthy Central Point future. Important concepts of the vision plan are emphasized in the Urbanization Element. The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan is a fifty-year planning document that was created in collaboration with Jackson County and five other cities to address long-term urbanization needs of the region. The most significant product(s) of the Regional Plan is the establishment of requirements which affect the form and function of future urban -level development and the creation of Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Regional Plan requirements are emphasized in the Urbanization Element and the URAs are targeted when considering the locational criteria. Page 1 of 2 136 The Urbanization Element's primary responsibility is to establish criteria (goals and policies) that manage the physical direction of the City's planned growth. Therefore it must rely on other Comprehensive Plan Elements. These elements include the Population Element, the Housing Element, the Economic Element, the Parks and Recreation Element, the Land Use Element, the Transportation Element and the Public Facilities Element. A brief explanation of the content and resources each of these elements provide are discussed in the Urbanization Element. Aside from a demonstration that there is a need to accommodate the City's long-range population growth and related land needs there is a requirement that the boundaries within which the City's urban lands are located be given some forethought. The location of the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) and changes to the UGB are determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197.020, and with consideration of the following locational criteria: 1. Properties that abut either the City Limits, or the current UGB. 2. Properties that are in excess of 10 acres. 3. Properties that abut or are within 500 ft. of basic urban services; i.e. water, sewer, storm water, transportation. 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 9. Proximity to the City Center, using a Central Growth Pattern Attached is a draft of the Urbanization Element for the Planning Commission's consideration, input and recommendation to the City Council. These criteria will be discussed in further detail during the meeting. The last three criteria have been introduced to the Urbanization Element with the intent of minimizing land speculation that often occurs during UGB Amendments. ISSUES: The primary issues in considering the Urbanization Element are ensuring there is agreement between state and local purposes and that the City's choice of locational criteria is reasonable and justifiable. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Draft of Urbanization Element Attachment "B" — Resolution No. 867, A Resolution Recommending Approval of The City Of Central Point 2018-2038 Urbanization Element ACTION: Open public hearing, take testimony and: 1. Continue public hearing to the March 5, 2019 meeting; 2. Close public hearing and direct staff to forward to the City Council a favorable recommendation RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to make changes and approve Resolution No. 867, forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Page 2 of 2 137 City of Central Point COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 2 — Urbanization Element, 2010 City of Central Point URBANIZATION ELEMENT 2018-2038 Draft tonnh 1/29/2019 138 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................3 Purpose of the Urbanization Element..........................................................................................................3 APreferred Future.................................................................................................................................... 3 Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020............................................................................................3 The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (Regional Plan)..................................................................5 Livability........................................................................................................................................................ 6 PLANNING TIME FRAME, 2018 — 2038................................................................................................................ 7 UrbanizationFactors.....................................................................................................................................7 PopulationElement..................................................................................................................................7 HousingElement.......................................................................................................................................8 EconomicElement....................................................................................................................................8 Parks and Recreation Element..................................................................................................................9 LandUse Element..................................................................................................................................... 9 PublicFacilities Element...........................................................................................................................9 EnvironmentalElement............................................................................................................................9 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Urban Growth Boundary Location Criteria.................................................................................................10 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Procedures....................................................................................10 MajorAmendment..................................................................................................................................10 Minor Urban Growth Boundary Adjustments........................................................................................11 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT......................................................................................11 URBANIZATION GOALS & POLICIES..................................................................................................................... 12 Goal.........................................................................................................................................................12 Policies....................................................................................................................................................12 Page 2 of 13 139 INTRODUCTION Urbanization is defined as the movement of people from rural to urban environments, and from urban environments to other urban environments. This movement can be motivated by any number of reasons; such as jobs, housing, health care, retirement, and education. The product of urbanization is realized in the incremental increase in the demand for urban services such as housing, and supporting physical and social infrastructure, and the land necessary to support the urbanization process. Urbanization has its most negative impact when the demand for support infrastructure exceeds supply, resulting in a reduction in livability as evidenced by overcrowded schools, poor health care, traffic congestion, urban blight, inadequate utility services, environmental pollution, housing affordability, etc. Urbanization is not responsible for the building of functional, or dysfunctional cities, beautiful, or blighted cities, it is merely the process that fuels the building of cities. The quality of the built city is a function of a community's ability to define and diligently pursue a preferred future. Over the course of the next twenty years Central Point's population will continue to increase, fueling the urbanization process and resulting in millions of dollars in public and private investment for housing, businesses, and infrastructure. The outcome of that investment will be defined by the City's preferred future, and the urbanization strategies, policies and implementing ordinances adopted to attain that preferred future. PURPOSE OF THE URBANIZATION ELEMENT The significance of urbanization on the economic, environmental, and general welfare of communities throughout the state is acknowledged in Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization; which establishes as a statewide goal the need for all communities to: "Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. " The purpose of the City's Urbanization Element is modeled after the Statewide Planning Goal 14 purpose, but with an emphasis on attaining the City's preferred future as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the City's Urbanization Element is to: "Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in accordance with the goals and policies of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan as necessary to accommodate projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, as necessary to provide for the City's preferred future. " A Preferred Future There are two documents; the Fair City Vision 2020 and The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan that together define the City's preferred future, and as such serve as the cornerstone of the Urbanization Element. Because of the significance of their role in defining the City's urbanization these two documents are briefly discussed in the Urbanization Element. Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision 2020) - Vision 2020 addresses the City's unique identity and livability objectives, and the mission, vision, and values Page 3 of 13 140 on which the City's urbanization program is based. By keeping the focus on livability, the City will not only be able to maintain its policy focus but also be able to attract the type of innovative, responsible and community -minded residents and businesses that will contribute to the pursuit of a successful fixture for the City of Central Point. Maintaining an acceptable level of livability consistently rises to the top as one of the primary challenges confronting all communities as they grow. For Central Point livability is a point of pride and the primary reason people are attracted to the City as a place to live, work, and play. In 1998 the City adopted its first strategic plan to guide its general growth and decision making process. This plan served the community well and was updated in 2007 as Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision Plan). The significance of the Vision Plan is that it defines basic livability objectives to be applied by elected officials in their deliberation on issues related to the City's urbanization. Participants in the Vision Plan attribute Central Point's livability to a matrix of factors. The citizens of Central Point realize that their preferred level of livability does not come about by chance, but rather is intentionally created through collaborative community efforts, innovative planning, public policy, and effective and efficient implementation strategies. The Vision Plan's livability objectives are presented in three core elements; Mission, Vision, and Values. These core elements are carried forward and incorporated in the Urbanization Element's goals and policies. Our Mission. `It is the mission of the City of Central Point to build and maintain a highly livable community by working in harmony and being a catalyst for partnership with all members of the community, public and private. " Our Vision. To create a community: f With a "small town " commitment and feel that promotes community pride, safety, and friendliness. Page 4 of 13 141 That provides consistent quality in guiding growth, beautifying and strengthening the downtown area, and providing adequately for City services, while being flexible and updating citizens. f Where we work jointly with our community schools, libraries, and public/private institutions to increase opportunities for the development of our youth and our citizens. f Where city, county, state, and federal agencies work together as partners with a "can do" attitude. f That protects our unique identity — People know when they are in the "Heart of the Rogue Valley"— Central Point. Our Values. In achieving the City's mission and vision it is important to set forth a system of values on which to base our behavior in addressing the urbanization challenges. These values are: Growth: We value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere. Public Safety: We value a professional service oriented public safety policy that promotes a sense ofsafety and security in our city. Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient, and sensitive to the environment. Community: We value a clean and attractive city with parks, open space and recreational opportunities. Service: We provide the highest level ofservice possible in the most eicient and responsible manner. The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (Regional Plan) - establishes the basic planning timeframe and urbanization needs, goals, and policies for the region and its participating cities, including the City of Central Point. The Regional Plan is the product of a regional land -use planning project involving Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County (Participants). The purpose of the Regional Plan was to define a preferred future of the Participants to accommodate projected population and job growth to the year 2060, an approximate 50 year planning period. The most significant products of the Regional Plan are the establishment of minimum residential density requirements and, through the establishment of urban reserve areas (URAs), the efficient use of land by each of the Participants. The purpose of the 142 M CCnleal P4inl Urban ReservesAmm URA is to reserve land for future urban -level development. The method of establishing an urban reserve is defined in state law (see ORS 195.137-145). The State legislature's findings in the bill creating the urban reserve statute are succinct in stating their value: "The Legislative Assembly finds that ... long-range planning for population and employment growth by local governments can offer greater certainty for... commerce, other industries, other private landowners and providers of public services, by determining the more [likely] and less likely locations of future expansion of urban growth boundaries and urban development."' The Regional Plan provides Central Point with an additional 1,720 gross acres in the 8 urban reserve areas. The goal of the plan is to protect the valley's farmland while allowing urbanization to progress in areas planned to accommodate growth. This plan also provides participants with a roadmap for the future to ensure that as urbanization occurs, the necessary infrastructure is able to be put in place to support projected growth. LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES Although the primary objective of the state's Urbanization Goal is the efficient use of land, it is important that we do not lose sight of maintaining a livable community. The ultimate goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a roadmap for the City of Central Point to maintain and enhance the livability of the City as it continues to grow. The SPOT chart (below) identifies the Strengths, Problems, Opportunities and Threats facing Central Point as it moves forward. The livability principles identified in this section can be incorporated into each comprehensive plan element to encourage the development of a livable community. A description of each element and how they relate to the Urbanization Element and livability is described below. ;�,ilalLjbµ.l nrvat waw ���1f� 6Pv1'f'ra �ArYNIK 61x1 "Law r�nin�- "��'w` �-` ` ° ��i � i i�`'v�• ,�rr��'�"'' t`a'i–w�► To Lw#r l weal aw �UXAT41 - Y 1 � 1 P tAM*_ N' V11t, XFZvw44t, is�esj �'rr WLKPHUM +4W -OAC 4 MMC rAfw__6S ". II Ur wlc*?Va ' —v � TGs7 �1 F}G 4rr�[ac4ux>~f FaKFAe+u•l�. m i v�xraum� .}����t55►�`�1.,.�-,q, vt� of W6 .. �y��ss,, �YtTiL�`i �N6 Aa1 - -- - i�E1Npl1Tlt17fi �`rRHS iAviw w W ,i �• \ �19us��� �M1111L Maw R++1BRs"!N F_ l5 ff ! '� �. h 6• kJWi �r�1&wtiws The six livability principles and the City's aligned Vision are: ' ORS 197.139 143 Page 6 of 13 1. Promote transportation choices Continue to support the development of safe, reliable and economical transportation choices that improve the City's multi -modal transportation mix to decrease household transportation costs, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. 2. Promote equitable, affordable housing Expand housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase housing mobility and lower the cost of housing and transportation. 3. Enhance economic competitiveness Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. 4. Support existing neighborhoods Continue targeting funds toward existing neighborhoods — through strategies like transit -oriented, mixed-use development, and redevelopment, to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments. 5. Coordinate and leverage investment policies Align the City's capital improvement programs to collaborate, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for the City's fixture growth. 6. Value our neighborhoods Enhance the unique "small town" characteristics of the City by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods. PLANNING TIME FRAME, 2018 — 2038 The urbanization needs of the City are based on two timeframes; a twenty (20) year time frame addressing the City's urban land needs, and an extended timeframe (an additional 30 years) addressing the planning period identified in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, which is based on a doubling of the region's population by approximately 2060. For purposes of this Urbanization Element the planning period 2018 to 2038 will be used, with the Regional Plan's timeframe serving as a longer term review. URBANIZATION FACTORS The Urbanization Element's primary responsibility is to establish criteria (goals and policies) that manage the physical direction of the City's planned growth. To do this it must rely on the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The following is a brief description of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and their key contributions to the Urbanization Element. Population Element The basic input to the urbanization process is population growth. In accordance with ORS 195.033 Portland State University's Population Research Center (PRC) is responsible for preparing population projections for all counties and cities in the state, and updating their projections on a four year cycle. In June 2015 PRC completed the City's first population forecast, the Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 ("2015 Population Forecast'). By Page 7 of 13 144 2038 the City's population is expected to reach 23,0852. Based on PRC forecast the City will need sufficient lands to serve the needs of an additional 5,736 people. The City's latest PRC's Certified Population Estimate for 2017 is 17,7093. The Population Element maintains the City's population and demographic forecasts, and is the resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's population and demographic characteristics. Key Contribution: Population forecasts. Housing Element Housing is a key component of any city's urbanization and is directly related to Livability Principle No. 2 above. The Housing Element supports the Urbanization Element by analyzing trends that affect the City's housing needs during the planning period. The City's Housing Element provides an assessment of current and future housing needs to ensure that there are a variety of housing options for Central Point including varying densities and affordability. The Housing Element aims to ensure that future, residential design standards, infrastructure and development help to preserve the small town feel of Central Point, protect agricultural land and provide housing to all citizens at all income levels. The Housing Element maintains the City's housing goals and policies, and is the resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's housing needs. Key Contribution: Residential acreage needs. Economic Element The City's livability is dependent on a dynamic, diversified, and growing economic base that complements and reinforces the small town character goal (Livability Principle No. 3) . Central Point will be regionally competitive with policies that attract and retain businesses and employment for its citizens, provide essential services and maintain a strong tax base. Economic competitiveness and prosperity will be the means of supporting a quality of life that is distinctive among Valley communities. The economic element will support and facilitate the City's Urbanization Element through the development and implementation of policies and implementation measures that promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities within the City's urban area, improving the health, welfare, and prosperity of its citizens. The Economic Element provides a written framework for meeting the City's economic goal to diversify its economic base. The Economic Element maintains the City's goals and policies related to the City's economic growth. It is also the resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's economy. Key Contribution: Employment acreage needs. 2 City of Central Point Population Element, 2016 3 Portland State University First Supplement to July 1, 2017 Certificate of Population Enumeration, 12/31/2017 Page 8 of 13 145 Parks and Recreation Element The long-term parks and recreation needs of the City are described in the Parks and Recreation Element. The Parks and Recreation Element not only determines the acreage needs of the City, but also identifies the general location of the City's future community and neighborhood parks. Key Contribution: Parks and recreation acreage need and general location. Land Use Element The use of land and its percentage distribution are common indicators of how a community grows and responsibly expands its infrastructure. The Land Use Element addresses the City's past, present and future use of land and also introduces the concept of `Activity Centers'. The Land Use Element maintains the City's land use goals and policies, and is the resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's land use. Key Contribution: Geographic distribution of urban land. Public Facilities Element The Public Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan is directly related to Livability Principle No. 5 and will address and assure the provision of city services. These services include sewer, storm drainage, and water. As the city grows, these services will have to be able to meet the needs of citizens in newly developed areas as well as continue to provide for current residents. This element provides an assessment of the current public facilities to meet citizens' needs. Also, any future extension of services will be guided by this element to ensure that future growth is supported by an adequate and efficient network of public facilities in order to meet the needs of all its citizens. Key Contribution: Existing and planned availability of public facilities. Transportation Element (Transportation System Plan) The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is directly related to Livability Principle No. 1 and No. 5 by providing quality roads and other modal options to city residents and businesses. As growth occurs, the City will have to ensure that all residents have access to transportation and that the roads and other modes of transportation are able to accommodate the community's needs. Future improvements to the transportation system will be guided by this element to ensure that fixture growth is supported by an adequate and efficient network of roads in order to meet the needs of all its residents. Key Contribution: Existing and planned availability of the City's transportation system. Environmental Element The purpose of the Environmental Element is to identify the goals and policies addressing both the City's environmental assets and potential disasters, and to integrate those policies with the Urbanization and Land Use Elements. There is no one specific livability goal for environmental protection; instead, environmental protection is woven throughout all of the livability goals. This element will support the Urbanization element by providing goals and policies that encourage sustainability and protection of natural resources that occurs simultaneously with growth in Central Point. Page 9 of 13 146 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LOCATION CRITERIA Aside from a demonstration that there is a need to accommodate the City's long-range population growth and related land needs there is a requirement that the boundaries within which the City's urban lands are located be placed with forethought. The location of the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) and changes to the UGB shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197.020, and with consideration of the following locational criteria: 1. Properties that abut either the City Limits, or the current UGB. 2. Properties that are in excess of 10 acres. Properties that abut or are within 500 ft. of basic urban services; i.e. water, sewer, stormwater, transportation. 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 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Periodically it will be necessary to amend the City's urban growth boundary due to changes in circumstances. The procedures for the review and amendment of the Urban Growth Boundary are as follows: Major Amendment Major revisions to the Urban Growth Boundary or Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement will be considered amendments to both the city and county comprehensive plan, and as such are subject to a legislative review process. A major revision shall include any UGB amendment that would necessitate revisions to the intent of the city or County comprehensive plan goals, policies, or text, that has widespread and significant impact on the immediate area, such as quantitative changes for substantial changes in population, or significant increases in resource impacts, qualitative changes in land use itself, such as conversion of residential and industrial use, or spatial changes that affect large areas, or many different ownerships. Any change in the policies of the Urbanization Element is considered a major revision. Major revisions will be considered by the city and county at five-year intervals the date of adoption of the EGP and urbanization policies. If the city and County governing bodies find that prevailing circumstances have a significant effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, a major revision can be considered in less than five years. A request for a major revision can be initiated by an individual or group, citizen's advisory committee, affected agencies, and governing bodies. Parties should file adequate written documentation with the city and County governing bodies. Final legislative acts on major revisions requests shall be based on the following factors: Page 10 of 13 147 a. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted population trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment opportunities; b. The orderly and economic provision of key urban public facilities and services; c. The maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area; d. Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences; e. The compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the city and County comprehensive plans; and f. The state-wide planning goals. Major revision proposals shall be subject to a mutual city and County review and agreement process involving affected agencies, citizen advisory committee, and the general public. If the city and county cannot agree on a major revision, or until an acceptable revision is mutually agreed upon and adopted, both jurisdictions will continue to use existing UGB, areas of regional planning concern boundaries, and urbanization policies. Minor Urban Growth Boundary Adjustments Minor adjustments to the UGB may be considered subject to similar procedures used by the city and county in hearing zoning requests. A minor revision is defined as one focusing on specific individual properties, and not having significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change. An application for a minor UGB amendment can be made only by property owners, their authorized agents, or by a city or County governing body. Written application for a minor adjustment may be filed with the Jackson County Department of Development Services on forms prescribed by the County. The standards for processing an application are as follows: a. Final action on the minor use of UGB adjustment shall be based in the same six factors required for major revision requests as listed in the preceding section, major revisions. b. Application shall be reviewed by the affected city and County citizens planning advisory committees annually. c. Strategic, location of roads, golf courses, or other visible public or semi-public open spaces; d. Compliance with the City's Agricultural Mitigation standards; e. All UGB amendments shall include adjacent streets and other transportation rights-of- way; URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Development within the UGB, but outside the City Limits shall be subject to the policies of the most recent Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA), jointly adopted by both the City and the County. Page 11 of 13 148 URBANIZATION GOALS & POLICIES Goal "Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in accordance with the goals and policies of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan as necessary to accommodate projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, as necessary to provide for the City's preferred future. Policies 1. All urban level development shall conform to city standards, shall be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, and shall meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and Map. 2. Urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to accommodate the additional level of growth, as allowed by the comprehensive plan, prior to and or concurrent with land -use changes. To maintain an inventory of buildable lands within the UGB in all land use classifications sufficient to accommodate the City's most recent 20 -year population projection4. a. Vacant lands within the UGB that have farm or open space tax benefits are not classified as vacant until such time as the farm or open space tax benefits are removed5. b. At the time of the population projection updates the City shall evaluate the need to expand the UGB. c. The calculation for In -Fill lands available for development shall be discounted based on their likelihood of developing during the planning period. A determination of the in -fill acreage likely to develop shall be maintained in the Buildable Lands Inventory, including the methodology of determining the term "likely". 4. Promote compact, orderly and efficient urban development by guiding future growth to vacant sites and redevelopment areas within the established areas of the city, and to urbanizable lands where future annexation and development may occur. Promote efficient and economical patterns of mixed land uses and development densities that locate a variety of different life activities ,such as employment, housing, shopping and recreation in convenient proximity; and that are, or can be made, accessible by multiple modes of transportation —including walking, bicycling, and transit in addition to motor vehicles —within and between neighborhoods and districts. 4 ORS 197 requires that Portland State University, Population Research Center provide updated population projections on a 4 -year cycle. 5 ORS 197.756 Page 12 of 13 149 6. Provide an adequate level of urban services, including but not limited to public water, wastewater, storm water management systems, environmental services and an urban multi -modal transportation system as urban development occurs within the City's UGB. 7. Maintain and reinforce the City's small town image by emphasizing and strengthening the physical connections between people and nature in the City's land development patterns and infrastructure design. 8. Create opportunities for innovative urban development and economic diversification. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth boundary. 9. The City of Central Point General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map and zoning designations for unincorporated urbanizable land, and all other city development and building safety standards, shall apply only after annexation to the city; or through a contract of annexation between the city, Jackson County, and other involved parties; or after proclamation of an annexation having a delayed effective date pursuant to ORS 222.180(2). Page 13 of 13 150 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 867 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 2018-2038 URBANIZATION ELEMENT WHEREAS, the latest version of the Urbanization Element was adopted in 1983 and needs to be updated to reflect the latest population projections and housing needs; and WHEREAS, the City has recently adopted its Population Element, Economic Element, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Transportation Element, Regional Plan Element, and Housing Element each addressing specific land use issues and needs; and WHEREAS, it is timely and appropriate to apply the land use findings of the above Comprehensive Plan elements to the Urbanization Element; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the City staff report (File No. 18002) and heard testimony and comments on the draft City of Central Point 2018-38 Urbanization Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 867 does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the 2018-38 Urbanization Element as presented in Attachment "A". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2019 ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 5a' day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 867 (02/05/2019) 151 152 STAFF REPORT Ark CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT February 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM VIII -D Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director Consideration of the 2019 Population Element of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -18004. STAFF SOURCE Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner BACKGROUND The Planning Commission discussed the working draft Population Element on January 8, 2019, which is being updated to reflect the Portland State Population Research Center (PRC) Coordinated Population Forecast for Central Point's urban area (i.e. city limits and Urban Growth Boundary). On January 15, 2019 the Citizen's Advisory Committee discussed the draft Population Element update, and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. Since that time staff has distributed the draft Population Element for review and comment. No comments have been received to -date. A copy of the Population is included as Attachment "A." At the Planning Commission meeting on February 5, 2019 the Population Element will be presented at a public hearing to receive further public input. Staff will provide an overview of the Population Element followed by opening the public hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission may: 1. Close the public hearing and proceed to discussion and action; or, 2. Continue the public hearing to allow for further public discussion and comment. Population Element Overview: The purpose of the Population Element is to document the forecast population growth and demographic trends over a 20 -year period. This is an important component in determining whether there is sufficient land within the Urban Growth Boundary for housing, business and industry, and public services like parks, schools and transportation systems. The Population Element does not assess land use needs in and of itself but serves the basis for land use planning process implemented in other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. To forecast population growth, the City utilizes population estimates and forecasts produced by the PRC in accordance with ORS 195.033. ISSUES There are no known issues at this time. The most significant finding from the Population Element is the increase in the Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) between 2019 and 2039 resulting in 7,216 additional people added to the Central Point population during that time. 153 ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" — Population Element (Final Draft) Attachment `B" — Resolution No. 864 ACTION Consideration of Resolution No. 864 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Population Element and 1) approve, 2) approve with modifications, 3) deny, or 4) direct staff to prepare a revisions for consideration at the March 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 864. 154 Alk Population NIA, Demographics Element 2019-2039 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan 155 Review Draft Adopted Central Point City Council Ordinance No. 2030 Recertified Central Point City Council Resolution No. DLCD Acknowledged City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2 2. SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3 3. POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................... 3 3.1. Historic Growth Rate................................................................................................................ 4 3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population.............................................................................. 4 3.3. Race and Ethnicity.................................................................................................................... 5 3.4. Components of Population Growth........................................................................................... 5 3.5. Natural Increase........................................................................................................................ 6 3.6. Net Migration............................................................................................................................ 6 3.7. Age Characteristics................................................................................................................... 7 3.8. Household Types....................................................................................................................... 8 3.8.1.Family Households................................................................................................................. 8 3.8.2.Non-Family Households: ........................................................................................................ 8 3.8.3.Group Quarters........................................................................................................................ 9 3.9. Average Household Size; .......................................................................................................... 9 3. l O.Median Household Income....................................................................................................10 4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE.......................................................12 5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2016 to 2036.............................................................................12 6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS...............................................13 6.1. Age Characteristics.................................................................................................................13 6.2. Growth Rate............................................................................................................................13 6.3. Percentage Share of County....................................................................................................13 6.4. Race & Ethnicity.....................................................................................................................14 6.5. Source of Growth....................................................................................................................14 6.6. Household Characteristics.......................................................................................................14 6.7. Median Household Income.....................................................................................................14 7.Population & Demographic Goals & Policies.........................................................................................14 APPENDIXA.............................................................................................................................................15 Element 1 - Population and Demographics Page 1 156 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Population Element is to track the historic characteristics and growth of the City's population, and based on that information develop a 20 -year forecast of the population. Based on the 20 -year population forecast the City can plan for land and urban service needs to accommodate the population growth. The City's Population & Demographics Element (Population Element) was updated in 2016. The 2016 update accounted for two events that significantly affected the results of the City's 2008 Population Element. The first event was the Great Recession; the second was HB 2253 designating the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) as the sole and official provider of population forecasts for cities and counties throughout the state1.Together these two events necessitate an update of the City's Population Element. The Great Recession Within a year of completion of the Jackson County 2007 Population Element (Feb. 2007)2, which was the basis for the City's 2008 Population Element, the national economy was hit hard by the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009). The economic impacts of the Great Recession were severe and the recovery period extremely sluggish and tenuous. Because job losses were deep across all sectors of the economy and the recovery in job creation slow, the reliance on net migration as a key component to population growth had a significant impact on the City's 2008 population forecasts. HB 2253 Prior to 2013 Oregon law required that counties prepare coordinated population forecasts according to "generally accepted" demographic methods. The result was population projections throughout the state that were based on highly diverse methods of forecasting that varied from county to county, both in terms of frequency of completion and outcome. Recognizing that population forecasting is the foundation for long-term planning the Oregon legislature in 2013 approved House Bill 2253 assigning Portland State Population Research Center (PRC) the responsibility for preparing coordinated population forecasts for all counties and cities. The population forecasting requirements of HB 2253 were later adopted as ORS 195.033. The population forecasts presented in this Population Element are from the Coordinated Population Forecast 2018 through 2068 for Jackson County dated June 2018 prepared by PRC ("PRC Population Forecast') in accordance with ORS 195.033 and is attached to this Population Element as Appendix A. Typically, the City's Population Element is based on a 20 -year planning period. The PRC Population Forecast uses a fifty (50) year forecasting period with a four (4) year update cycle 4, allowing for consideration of both short and long term population change variables, and the re-evaluation of demographic trends and economic events used in prior forecasts. Consequently, every four years the City's Population Element will be updated using the latest PRC Jackson County forecast. ' The Portland Metro is exempt from this requirement. 2 Basis for determining the City's 2008 population projections. s ORS 195.003(6) 4 ORS 195.033(4) Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pagq2 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan This update represents the first update for the PRC Population Forecast for Jackson County. The next update is tentatively scheduled to occur in 2022. PRC's population forecasts are not considered land use decisions and as such are not subject to review or appeal other than as provided in ORS 195.033. However, the City's Population Element, because it contains policies based on assumptions beyond the PRC Population Forecasts, is considered a land use action and therefore subject to the procedural requirements of Section 17.96, Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments, City of Central Point Municipal Code. With the completion of each 4 -year cycle the Population Element will be reviewed for changes in forecasted population and any needed policy changes. If no policy changes are required then the Population Element will be re -certified by resolution of the City Council, including incorporation of the up -dated PRC Population Forecast as an appendix to the Population Element. If, for any reason, the policies of the Population Element need to be modified, then the Population Element shall be updated by ordinance in accordance with ORS 195.033. 2. SUMMARY When factors such as the economy, fertility, social trends, etc. are factored into the latest population forecast for the planning period 2019-2039 the result was a 12% reduction in the City's initial 2008 population forecast figures (29,006 vs 25,933). When measured in terms of the population's average annual growth rate (AAGR) the forecasted AAGR for the planning period dropped from 4.3% to 1.4%. Based on the forecasted growth rate it is projected that between 2019 and 2039 the City of Central Point is expected to realize a net increase in population of 7,216. Based on a projected average household size of 2.5 persons the population increase will result in the formation of 2,886 new households by 2039. The City's population is aging and is expected to continue to do so over the course of the planning period. Net in -migration will be the primary source of population growth (97%), while natural increases will continue to decline (3%). The City's population will also become racially and ethnically more diverse, a trend which is expected to continue throughout the planning period. 3. POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS The Town of Central Point was founded on February 26, 1889 and by 18907 had a population of 543. With the exception of the decade between 1910 and 1920 the City has steadily grown (Figure 1), and today is the third largest city in Jackson County. 5 Extended to 2036 from the Jackson County 2007 Population Element. 6 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 7 1890 U.S. Census Element 1 - Population and Demographics Paga 3 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 1. HISTORIC & FORECAST POPULATION, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, 1900-2039 30000 25000 c 20000 15000 a py 10000 5000 0 00 �o 00 0 til No N MO M� M� -1 11 101,�1 til til til �1 �1 �1 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ��O Source: U.S. Census and PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County - - - 2018 PSU 2016 PSU 3.1. Historic Growth Rate Between 2000 and 2007 the City of Central Point's average annual growth rate (AAGR) was 4.5%, three times Jackson County's AAGR of 1.5% (Figure 2). Since the Great Recession the City and County have experienced a significant slowdown in population growth, particularly from net in -migration. For the period 2010-2015 the City's AAGR dropped below I%, while the County's AAGR dropped to .6%. As Figure 2 illustrates the decline in AAGR is not an unusual event following recessions, but does bounce back as the economy improves. 14% 12% 1030 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1S -2% -4% FIGURE 2. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT HISTORIC AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 1910-2019 City AAGR ----County AAGR Source: U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 19 3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population. The City's percentage of the county population has consistently increased. In 1900 Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pag@4 1 l 1 % r♦ % %% 1 � 10 19 0 1940 1950 19 GO 1970 1980 1990 200 2010 2 City AAGR ----County AAGR Source: U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 19 3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population. The City's percentage of the county population has consistently increased. In 1900 Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pag@4 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Central Point's population accounted for 2.4% of the County's population, and remained fairly constant until 1970 when the City's percentage participation jumped from 3.1 % to 4.2%. By 2018, the City accounted for 8.7% of the County's population. 3.3. Race and Ethnicity Since the 2000 Census the City's racial diversity has continued to increase, particularly within the Hispanic Community, which more than doubled in size from 4% in 2000 to 9% in 2014 (Figure 4). During this same period the County's Hispanic population increased from 7% to 11% (Figure 5). FIGURE 4. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RACIAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE, 2000-2014 100% 0% 85% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000 2014 ■ White ■ Hispanic ❑ Other Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% FIGURE 5. JACKSON COUNTY RACIAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE, 2000-2014 X33% ■ White ■ Hispanic ❑ Other Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 3.4. Components of Population Growth. There are two basic sources of population growth: natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration (in -migration minus out -migration). Element 1 - Population and Demographics P4ga 5 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan 3.5. Natural Increase Growth occurring as a result of natural increase typically represents a very small percentage of a community's population growth. Since 2000 the City's net natural increase rate (Figure 6) went from 7.6 to 8.0 per thousand population, representing 3% of the City's total population increase during that period. During the same period the County's rate of natural increase dropped from 1.0 to 0.8 (Figure 7). 3.6. Net Migration. By far the most significant contributor to a community's population growth is net migration. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the predominant source of growth for Jackson County was due to net migration, which was responsible for over 80% of the county's population growth$. FIGURE 6. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT NATURAL POPULATION RATE*, 2000 and 2010 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 S0 6.0 4.0 0 00 Birth Rate Death Rate Net Change ■ 2000 ■ 2010 Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County 8 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Element 1 - Population and Demographics P4gj 6 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 7. JACKSON COUNTY NATURAL POPULATION RATE*, 2000 and 2010 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 11.5 4.0 2.0 10.7 Birth Rate Death Rate ■ 2000 02010 1.0 0_S Net Change Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County 3.7. Age Characteristics. Between 2000 and 2014 the City's median age increased from 34.4 to 37.5 reflecting the continued aging of the Baby Boom generation. For the County the median age changed from 39.2 to 42.7 during the same period. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the changes in the three major age cohort categories as a percentage of the City's and County's total population. FIGURE 8. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AGE STRUCTURE OF POPULATION, 2000 through 2014 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% D°fa 2000 2010 2014 Mo -14 E:]1�5-�4er ■ 65+ m U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau Aerican Fact in Element 1 - Population and Demographics Page 7 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 9. COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION, 2000 through 2014 100% 80% 60% 40% 20°a 0% 2000 2010 2014 00-14 1115-64 065+ U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder 3.8. Household Types. A by-product of population growth is household formation. The U.S. Census allocates the population to one of two household types; family and non -family. By definition a household consists of all the people occupying a housing unit9, which is the basic unit for residential land use planning. Since the early 1900's (Figure 10) these two household types (family and non -family) have been gradually changing in response to socio-economic conditions. The following is a brief overview of these characteristics as they relate to the City. In addition to the decline in average household size, the distribution of households by type has been gradually shifting from family to non -family households. 3.8.1. Family Households. Family households are comprised of two or more people who are related by marriage, birth, or adoption. Family households are most commonly represented by married -couples. Family households have, and continue to, dominate household types. Although the formation of family households continues to increase, it is doing so at a decreasing rate. In 1990, family households in the City accounted for 77% of all households. By the 2010 Census, and through 201410, family households represented 71% of total households. 3.8.2. Non -Family Households: Non -family households are comprised of single persons, or two or more people who are not related. In 1990, non -family households represented 23% of all households within the City. By 2010 non -family households represented 29% of all households. As the City's population grows older, the number of non -family households is expected to increase as the elderly lose spouses and the young postpone marriage, or get divorced. 9 U.S. Census, Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations 10 American Fact Finder, 2014 Element 1 - Population and Demographics Page 8 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 10. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT FAMILY vs. NON -FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 - 2010 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 2000 2010 ■Familyy []Non -Family U.S. Census& U.S. Census Bureau AmericanFad Finder 3.8.3. Group Quarters. To a much lesser extent there is a third, and smaller segment of the population that is housed in what is referred to as group quarters. Group quarters are defined as non -institutional living arrangements for groups not living in conventional housing units or groups living in housing units containing ten or more unrelated people or nine or more people unrelated to the person in charge. Examples of people in group quarters include a person residing in a rooming house, staff quarters at a hospital, college dormitories, or in a halfway house. The City's Group Housing population has historically accounted for a very small percentage of the population. Based on the 2000 Census City's Group Housing population accounted for 0.8% (106) of the City's total population and by 2010 had dropped to 0.4% (70) of the total population. 3.9. Average Household Size; Historically, the City's average household size has been gradually declining from 3.42 average persons per households in 1960 to 2.61 in 2010 (Figure 11). At 2.61 the Cities average household size exceeded the County's average of 2.40, and by 2010 is slightly higher than the U.S. average of 2.58. Element 1 - Population and Demographics P4%9 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 11. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1950- 2010, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT & JACKSON COUNTY 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: U.S. Census ■ City ■ County 3.10. Median Household Income. Figure 13 compares the median household income for the City of Central Point and the County from 2000 to 2014. As illustrated in Figure 12 the City's median household income over the past 15 years peaked in 2010 and by 2014 declined to $46,765. FIGURE 12. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2000-2014, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT & JACKSON COUNTY $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 2000 2010 2014 ■ City 4 County U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder In Figure 13 the median household income for 2010 and 2014 has been adjusted to 2000 dollars. The Great Recession's impact on median household income has not yet recovered from 2000 median income level, which is consistent with national and state changes in median household income. Figure 14 compares the changes in income distributions from 2000, 2010, and 2014. Element 1 - Population and Demographics PaW510 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 13. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEASURED TO 2000 DOLLARS $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 2000 2010 2014 ■ Median Household Income ❑ 2000 Dollars Source: 20O U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder FIGURE 14. HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 2010 - 2014 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2010 2014 Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder ❑ $100,000 or More 110 550,000 to $99,000 ■ $25,000 to $49,999 ❑ $10,000 to $24,999 ■ Less than $10,000 As of 2014 The City of Central Point had the second highest median income of all cities in Jackson County (Figure 15). Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pawl l 34% 11% 12 % 40% 34% 37% 20% 34% 29% 15% 15% 2000 2010 2014 Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder ❑ $100,000 or More 110 550,000 to $99,000 ■ $25,000 to $49,999 ❑ $10,000 to $24,999 ■ Less than $10,000 As of 2014 The City of Central Point had the second highest median income of all cities in Jackson County (Figure 15). Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pawl l City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan FIGURE 15. 2014 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 n rn o 30,000 o Ir oa m � c � 00� �n m o $20,000 r1)n Ln ^ m CCn n kD o VF $10,000 ro rr) �' iA rro v> ro DO ro rci ih ) ,&zflea �� ��� *� ,et Az \e -\-Z* Le Q -Ia C° Source: U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder 4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE The City's future population projections are from the Coordinated Population Forecast 2018 through 2068 Jackson County (Appendix A). These projections are based on the Cohort - Component method of population forecasting, which essentially relies on trends in age, fertility/births, mortality, and net migration. As the population of Jackson County continues to age the fertility rate will continue to decline. The decline in the fertility rate will be minimal, dropping from 1.9 in 2015 to 1.8 by 206511 Historically changes in fertility rates have not had a significant impact on the City's population growth. Similarly, the death rate, although increasing is expected to have a minimal impact on population growth over the next twenty years. When these two components are combined the net difference does not yield any significant increases in the population. As previously discussed of all the components of population change migration is the greatest contributor to population growth throughout the planning period. Migration is also the most volatile component and is very sensitive to changes in the economy, both positive and negative. 5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2019 to 2039 Over the course of the next twenty (20) years the City of Central Point's population is expected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.5%, taking the population from 19,101 in 2019 to 26,317 in 2039 (Table 1). During this same period the City's percentage of the County population is expected to increase from 8.5% to 9.9%. By 2068 Central Point will be the second largest City in Jackson County12. " Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 Jackson County 12 ibid Element 1 - Population and Demographics Pa1O712 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan TABLE 1. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND JACKSON COUNTY 2019 19,101 219,270 2020 19,714 235,066 2025 21,035 246,611 2030 22,920 257,256 2035 24,815 263,006 2039 26,317 264,951 Source: 2018 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County 6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS The following represents a general overview of the City's and County's population characteristics throughout the 2019-39 planning period. The information is taken from PRC's Coordinated Population Forecast 2018 through 2068, Jackson County. 6.1. Age Characteristics. Based on the projected County age cohorts (Figure 16) the City's population will continue to get older with the 65+ cohort claiming a larger percentage of the population. Although the City has a younger overall population it will experience a similar increase in the 65+ cohort over the next 20 -years. The aging of the population will also have an effect on the demand for housing services, ranging from reductions in household size to changing demand for housing types (i.e. senior housing). FIGURE 16. COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION, 2019 vs. 2039 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 6.2. Growth Rate. 2019 2039 ■ 0-14 1115-64 ■ 65+ The City's population will continue to grow, but at a decreasing average annual growth rate of 1.5% vs. the 2.9% experienced between 2000 and 2010. Similarly, the County's average annual growth rate is expected to decline to 0.9% vs. 1.1%. 6.3. Percentage Share of County. Element 1 - Population and Demographics PaM13 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan As illustrated in Table 2 the City's percentage of the County's population will continue to increase from 8.7% in 2016 to 9.9% by 2039. 6.4. Race & Ethnicity. The race and ethnicity of both Jackson County and the City of Central Point are expected to continue to diversify. However, over the 20 -year planning period the White, non -Hispanic population will remain the dominant race. 6.5. Source of Growth. The City's primary source of growth will come from net migration (90%+), which is heavily dependent on the economy. 6.6. Household Characteristics. As illustrated in Figure 11 the average household size has been declining since 1960. For the City of Central Point, the average household size has dropped from 3.42 in 1960, to 2.61 in 2010. It is expected that during the term of the planning period (2016 - 2036) the average household size will continue to decrease, but at a decreasing rate. The City of Central Point Regional Plan Element uses an average household size of 2.5. 6.7. Median Household Income. Changes in median household income will be a function of the strength of the general economy and the rate of inflation. Time will tell. 7. Population & Demographic Goals & Policies Goal - To maintain population and demographic forecasts as the primary data source for developing and implementing plans and programs for management of the City's growth. Policy I - Population Forecast. The population data presented in Table I is the acknowledged population forecast for the period 2019 through 2039 and is to be used in maintaining and updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to update the data presented in Table I based on the decennial U.S. Census. During the interim census periods adjustments to Table I will be based on the latest PRC Forecast (4 year cycle). Policy 2 - Average Household Size. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City will use an average household size of 2.5 for lands within the urban growth boundary. This figure will serve as the basis for determining the number of households expected to be formed throughout the planning period. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor and, if necessary, update the average household size through data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Policy 3 - Household Distribution. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City will use 70% as the percentage of households that are family households and 30% as Non - Family Households. These figures shall be used in maintaining and updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor and, if necessary, update the percentage offamily households through data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Policy 4 — Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Racial and Ethnic Diversity. The City acknowledges the changing racial and ethnic diversity of the community and will continue to develop the strategies and tools necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth meet the needs of all people within the Element 1 - Population and Demographics PaW14 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan community regardless of race or ethnicity. APPENDIX A - Coordinated Population Forecast, 2018 Through 2068, Jackson County Element 1 - Population and Demographics PaW15 Coordinated Population Forecast Jackson County Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) & Area Outside UGBs Population Research Center PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY Photo Credit: Lower Table Rock at sunset. Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives. Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068 Prepared by Population Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs Portland State University June 30, 2018 This project is funded by the State of Oregon through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. 1 173 Project Staff: Nicholas Chun, Population Forecast Program Manager Kevin Rancik, GIS & Research Analyst Rhey Haggerty, Graduate Research Assistant Joshua 011inger, Graduate Research Assistant Charles Rynerson, Research Consultant The Population Research Center and project staff wish to acknowledge and express gratitude for support from the Forecast Advisory Committee (DLCD), the hard work of our staff Deborah Loftus and Emily Renfrow, data reviewers, and many people who contributed to the development of these forecasts by answering questions, lending insight, providing data, or giving feedback. 174 How to Read this Report This report should be read with reference to the documents listed below—downloadable on the Forecast Program website (http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp). Specifically, the reader should refer to the following documents: x Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts—Provides a detailed description and discussion of the forecast methods employed. This document also describes the assumptions that feed into these methods and determine the forecast output. x Forecast Tables—Provides complete tables of population forecast numbers by county and all sub- areas within each county for each five-year interval of the forecast period (2018-2068). 175 Table of Contents ModifiedMethodology.................................................................................................................................6 Comparisonto Cycle 1 (2015-17)..................................................................................................................6 ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................7 14 -Year Population Forecast.........................................................................................................................9 HistoricalTrends.........................................................................................................................................10 Population...............................................................................................................................................10 Age Structure of the Population.............................................................................................................11 Raceand Ethnicity...................................................................................................................................12 Births.......................................................................................................................................................13 Deaths.....................................................................................................................................................15 Migration................................................................................................................................................15 Historical Trends in Components of Population Change........................................................................16 Housingand Households........................................................................................................................17 Assumptions for Future Population Change...............................................................................................20 Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas................................................................................20 Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas........................................................................................................21 ForecastTrends........................................................................................................................................... 22 Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change.........................................................................24 Glossaryof Key Terms.................................................................................................................................27 Appendix A: Surveys and Supporting Information.....................................................................................28 Appendix B: Specific Assumptions..............................................................................................................45 Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results.....................................................................................47 rd 176 Table of Figures Figure 1. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual GrowthRates (AAGR)................................................................................................................................. Figure 2. Jackson County and Sub -Areas -14 -Year Population Forecast .................................................. Figure 3. Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals (1975-2017) ..................................... Figure 4. Jackson County and Sub-areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) (2000 and 2010)......................................................................................................................................... Figure 5. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) ......................................... Figure 6. Jackson County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) ................................................ Figure 7. Jackson County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010) ......................................... Figure 8. Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) .................................................... Figure 9. Jackson County—Average Annual Births (2010-2045)............................................................... Figure 10. Jackson County—Average Annual Deaths (2010-2045)........................................................... Figure 11. Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates (2000-2010) ............................... Figure 12. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2001-2016) ......................................... Figure 13. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010) ..................................I Figure 14. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate ............ Figure 15. Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2018-2068) .................... Figure 16. Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR................................. Figure 17. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR ............................... Figure 18. Jackson County—Average Annual Net In/Out-Migration (2000-2010, 2010-2020, and 2020- 2043).......................................................................................................................................................... Figure 19. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2018, 2030, and 2043) ............................ Figure 20. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2015-2045) ......................................... Figure 21. Jackson County—Population by Five -Year Age Group.............................................................. Figure 22. Jackson County's Sub-Areas—Total Population....................................................................... 177 .8 .9 10 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 26 47 47 5 Modified Methodology The Population Research Center, in consultation with DLCD, has identified cost savings associated with a modified methodology for the latter half of the 50 -year forecast period (years 26 to 50). Based on feedback we have received, a 25 -year forecast fulfills most requirements for local planning purposes and, in an effort to improve the cost effectiveness of the program; we will place more focus on years 1 through 25. Additionally, the cost savings from this move will allow DLCD to utilize additional resources for local government grants. To clarify, we use forecast methods to produce sub -area and county populations for the first 25 years and a modified projection method for the remaining 25 years. The description of our forecast methodology can be accessed through the forecast program website (www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp), while the summary of our modified projection method is below. For years 26-50, PRC projects the county population using the annual growth rate from the 24th -25th year. For example, if we forecast a county to grow .4% between the 24th and 25th year of the forecast, we would project the county population thereafter using a .4% AAGR. To allocate the projected county population to its sub -areas, we extrapolate the change in sub -area shares of county population observed in years 1-25 and apply them to the projected county population. Comparison to Cycle 1(2015-17) To keep up to date with local trends and shifting demands, OPFP regularly updates coordinated population forecasts for Oregon's areas. Beyond the modification to our methodology and additional forecast region (from three regions to four), there are differences between the 2018 updated forecast for Jackson County and the 2015 version. The county level forecast is consistent with last round, though there are differences amongst the sub -areas. A number of Jackson County's sub -areas have grown at a slower pace than what we anticipated in 2015. As a result, our expectations of future sub -area shares of county population are different from last round. Central Point, Medford, and the area outside the UGBs are expected to capture larger shares of Jackson County's future population, while shares for all other sub -areas are consistent to or smaller than shares from last round. The full breakdown of differences by county and sub -area is stored here: www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-l-documents. 178 Executive Summary Historical Different parts of the county experience different growth patterns. Local trends within UGBs and the area outside them collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Jackson County's total population grew rapidly in the 2000s, with an average annual growth rate of just over 1 percent (Figure 1); however, some of its sub -areas experienced faster population. Central Point and Eagle Point posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.9 and 5.6 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period, while Jacksonville and Shady Cove also experienced growth rates above that of the county as a whole. All other sub -areas experienced average annual growth rates at or below that of the county as a whole. Jackson County's positive population growth in the 2000s was largely the result of substantial net in - migration. An aging population not only led to an increase in deaths but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This, along with more women having ov at of der ages has led to births stagnating in recent years. A larger number of births relative to deaths caused natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2014, though increasing deaths and stagnating births has transitioned t county to a natural decrease since 2015. Even still, net in - migration is far outpacing natural decrease, leading to steady population growth in more recent years (2012-15) (Figure 12). Forecast Total population in Jackson County, as a whole as well as within its sub -areas, will likely grow at a faster pace in the near-term (2018 to 2043) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by a growing natural decrease that will cut into population growth from net in - migration. Jackson County's total population is forecast to increase by nearly 53,000 over the next 25 years (2018-2043) and by more than 101,500 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2018-2068). 179 Figure 1. Jackson County and Sub -Areas -Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual Growth Rates (AAGR) Historical I Forecast Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. N 180 AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR 2000 2010 (2000-2010) 2018 2043 2068 (2010-2018) (2018-2043) (2043-2068) Jackson County 181,795 203,340 1.1% 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% Ashland 20,023 20,626 0.3% 21,501 23,625 24,177 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4% 419 444 452 -0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9% 19,101 27,803 38,008 0.9% 1.5% 1.3% Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6% 9,188 14,114 20,172 0.9% 1.7% 1.4% Gold Hill 1,173 1,228 0.5% 1,234 1,382 1,477 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1% 2,985 4,203 5,643 0.8% 1.4% 1.2% Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% 82,566 108,638 136,046 0.9% 1.1% 0.9% Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9% 4,861 5,967 7,124 0.2% 0.8% 0.7% Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6% 2,846 3,468 4,076 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9% 3,288 4,338 5,533 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7% 6,416 8,386 10,617 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% Outside UGBs 56,116 58,658 0.4% 64,865 69,857 67,527 1.2% 0.3% -0.1% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. N 180 14 -Year Population Forecast In accordance with House Bill 2254, which streamlined the UGB process based on long-term housing and employment needs, Figure 2 provides a 14 -year population forecast (2018-2032) for the County and its sub -areas. Populations at the 14th year of the forecast were interpolated using the average annual growth rate between the 2030-2035 period. The population interpolation template is stored here: www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-l-documents. Figure 2. Jackson County and Sub -Areas -14 -Year Population Forecast Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name 6 181 2018 2032 14 -Year Change AAGR (2018-2032) Jackson County 219,270 250,815 31,546 1.0% Ashland 21,501 23,337 1,836 0.6% Butte Falls 419 430 10 0.2% Central Point 19,101 23,662 4,562 1.5% Eagle Point 9,188 11,603 2,415 1.7% Gold Hill 1,234 1,319 85 0.5% Jacksonville 2,985 3,594 609 1.3% Medford 82,566 96,355 13,789 1.1% Phoenix 4,861 5,434 573 0.8% Rogue River 2,846 3,171 325 0.8% Shady Cove 3,288 3,846 558 1.1% Talent 6,416 7,483 1,068 1.1% Outside UGBs 64,865 70,582 5,716 0.6% Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name 6 181 Historical Trends Different growth patterns occur in different parts of Jackson County. Each of Jackson County's sub -areas were examined for any significant demographic characteristics or changes in population or housing growth that might influence their individual forecasts. Factors analyzed include age composition of the population, race and ethnicity, births, deaths, migration, the number of housing units, occupancy rate, and persons per household (PPH). It should be noted that population trends of individual sub -areas often differ from those of the county as a whole. However, population growth rates for the county are collectively influenced by local trends within its sub -areas. Population Jackson County's total population grew from roughly 114,000 in 1975 to nearly 217,000 in 2017 (Figure 3). During this 40 -year period, the county experienced the highest growth rates during the late 1970s, which coincided with a period of relative economic prosperity. During the early 1980s challenging economic conditions, both nationally and within the county, led to a decline in population growth rates. During the early 1990s population growth rates again increased but challenging economic conditions late in the decade again yielded declines. Following the turn of the century, Jackson County has experienced strong population growth between 2000 and 2017—averaging around 1 percent per year. Figure 3. Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals (1975-2017) 250,000 4.0% 3.5% ,200,000 0 3.0% 0150,000 2.5% 2.0% 2 c c � °100,000 --- --- 1.5% o ¢ 1.0% aU 50,000 --- ---- --- --- tLo 0.5 0 0.0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1 2000 2005 2616 2017 Population 113,850 133,000 136,445 146,389 167,330 181,795 192,054 263,346 216,960 AAGR 3.8% 3.2% 0.5% 1.4% 1 2.7% 1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 Censuses; Population Research Center (PRC), July 1st Annual Estimates 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2017. During the 2000s, Jackson County's average annual population growth rate stood at 1.1 percent (Figure 4). Central Point and Eagle Point posted the highest average annual growth rates in the county at 2.9 and 5.6 percent, respectively, while Jacksonville and Shady Cove also grew faster than the county as a whole (around 2 percent). Ashland and Gold Hill experienced minimal population growth, with growth 10 182 rates at or below half a percent. Only Butte Falls saw a slight population decline, recording an average annual growth rate of -0.4 percent. Figure 4. Jackson County and Sub -areas -Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) (2000 and 2010)1 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. Share of Share of Change AAG R County 2010 2000 2010 65.2% 2.3% 11.0% 10.1% ( 2000-2010) Jackson County 181,795 203,340 1.1% Ashland 20,023 20,626 0.3% Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4% Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9% Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6% Gold Hill 1,173 1,228 0.5% Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1% Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9% Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6% Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9% Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7% Outside UGBs 56,116 58,658 0.4% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. Share of Share of Change County 2000 County 2010 (2000-2010) 62.9% 65.2% 2.3% 11.0% 10.1% -0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 7.3% 8.7% 1.4% 2.7% 4.2% 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 0.1% 37.3% 37.7% 0.3% 2.4% 2.3% -0.1% 1.4% 1.3% -0.1% 1.4% 1.5% 0.1% 3.1% 3.0% -0.1% 30.9% 28.8% -2.0% Age Structure of the Population Similar to most areas across Oregon, Jackson County's population is aging. An aging population significantly influences the number of deaths but also yields a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years, which may result in a slowdown or decline in births. The shift in age structure from 2000 to 2010 illustrates this phenomenon (Figure 5). Further underscoring the countywide trend in aging, the median age in Jackson County increased from 39.2 in 2000 to 42.1 in 20102. 1 When considering growth rates and population growth overall, it should be noted that a slowing of growth rates does not necessarily correspond to a slowing of population growth in absolute numbers. For example, if a UGB with a population of 100 grows by another 100 people, it has doubled in population. If it then grows by another 100 people during the next year, its relative growth is half of what it was before even though absolute growth stays the same. 2 Median age is sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 and 2010 Censuses. 11 183 Figure S. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) Race and Ethnicity While the statewide population is aging, another demographic shift is occurring across Oregon: minority populations are growing as a share of total population. A growing minority population affects both the number of births and average household size. The Hispanic share of total population within Jackson County increased from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 6), while the White, non -Hispanic share deceased over the same time period. This increase in the Hispanic population and other minority populations brings with it several implications for future population change. First, both nationally and at the state level, fertility rates among Hispanic and minority women tend to be higher than among White, non -Hispanic women. However, it is important to note more recent trends show these rates are quickly decreasing. Second, Hispanic and minority households tend to be larger relative to White, non -Hispanic households. 12 184 2000 (Male) 2000 (Female) ■ 2010 (Male) 2010 (Female) 85+ 85+ 80-84 80-84 75-79 75-79 70-74 70-74 65-69 65-69 60-64 60-64 55-59 55-59 2 50-54 2 50-54 45-49 45-49 40-44 Amm. ■ 40-44 � 35-39 � 35-39 ;l 30-34 ;l 30-34 25-29 25-29 20-24 20-24 15-19 15-19 10-14 10-14 A 5-9 5-9 0-4 0-4 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% Percent of total population Percent of total population Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses Race and Ethnicity While the statewide population is aging, another demographic shift is occurring across Oregon: minority populations are growing as a share of total population. A growing minority population affects both the number of births and average household size. The Hispanic share of total population within Jackson County increased from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 6), while the White, non -Hispanic share deceased over the same time period. This increase in the Hispanic population and other minority populations brings with it several implications for future population change. First, both nationally and at the state level, fertility rates among Hispanic and minority women tend to be higher than among White, non -Hispanic women. However, it is important to note more recent trends show these rates are quickly decreasing. Second, Hispanic and minority households tend to be larger relative to White, non -Hispanic households. 12 184 Figure 6. Jackson County -Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) Hispanic or Latino and Race 2000 2010 Absolute Change Relative Change Total population 181,269 100.0% 203,206 100.0% 21,937 12.1% Hispanic or Latino 12,126 6.7% 21,745 10.7% 9,619 79.3% Not Hispanic or Latino 169,143 93.3% 181,461 89.3% 12,318 7.3% White alone 160,795 88.7% 170,023 83.7% 9,228 5.7% Black or African American alone 674 0.4% 1,227 0.6% 553 82.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,782 1.0% 1,874 0.9% 92 5.2% Asian alone 1,583 0.9% 2,304 1.1% 721 45.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 291 0.2% 562 0.3% 271 93.1% Some Other Race alone 198 0.1% 229 0.1% 31 15.7% Two or More Races 1 3,820 2.1%1 5,242 2.6% 1,422 37.2% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Births Historical fertility rates for Jackson County do not mirror statewide trends in Oregon as a whole. Fertility for women over 30 increased for the county and state (Figure 8) and, as a result, Total fertility rates increased in the former from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 7), while they declined for the latter over the same time period. Total fertility in the county and state remain below replacement fertility (2.1), indicating that future cohorts of women in their birth -giving years will shrink overtime without net in -migration. Figure 7. Jackson County and Oregon -Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010) Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 2000 2010 Jackson County 1.87 1.96 Oregon 1.98 1.81 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses Oregon Health Authority, Cen ter for Health Statistics. Calculations by Population Research Center (PRC). 185 13 Figure 8. Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) 0.14 ------------------------------ 0.12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - q m 0.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- U 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U N N 006 ------------ 0.04-----------/Y/ff- 0.02- - - - - - - Oregon 2010 Oregon 2000 Jackson 2010 Jackson 2000 --------------------- ------------------- ----------------- 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 4549 Five-year age groups Sources? U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. PRC Estimates. Oregon Health Authority, Centerfor Health Statistics. Calculations and Forecast by Papulation Research Center (PRC). Figure 9 shows the number of historic and forecasted births for the county. The number of annual births from 2000-10 to 2010-15 remained stable. Due a shrinking cohort of women in their birth giving years, births are expected to remain fairly stable throughout the forecast period, despite population growth. Figure 9. Jackson County—Average Annual Births (2010-2045) 4,500 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3,500 ----------------------------------------------------------------- N L E3,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7 2,500 ---------------------------------------------- C Q 2,00D ---------------------------------------------------------------- a� aA � 1,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------- a Q 1,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 500 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Births 2,254 2,328 2,326 2,377 2,400 2,449 2,530 2,613 Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Centerfor Health Statistics. Calculations and Forecastby Population Research Center(PRC). Nate: The years signify the end of the period far which average annual numbers were calculated. The average annual numbers far"2010" were calculatedfor the 2000-2010 period, with the remainingyears calculatedfor their preceding five yearperiods. 14 186 Deaths The population in the county, as a whole, is aging and contrary to the statewide trend, people of all ages are not necessarily living longer'. For both Jackson County and Oregon the survival rates changed little between 2000 and 2010, underscoring the fact that mortality is the most stable component, relative to birth and migration rates, of population change. Average annual deaths increased from 2000-10 and 2010-15 and are expected to increase steadily overtime (Figure 10). Figure 10. Jackson County—Average Annual Deaths (2010-2045) 4,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3,500 0 3,000 2,500 c 2,000 1,500 1,000----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 500---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Deaths 1,993 1 2,274 2,454 1 2,788 3,082 3,437 1 3,770 4,025 Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Calculations and Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC). Nate: The years signify the end of the period for which average annual numbers were calculated. The average annual numbers for "2010" were calculated for the 2000-2010 period, with the remaining years calculated for their preceding five-year periods. Migration The propensity to migrate is strongly linked to age and stage of life. As such, age-specific migration rates are critically important for assessing these patterns across five-year age cohorts. Figure 11 shows the historical age-specific migration rates by five-year age group, both for Jackson County and for Oregon. The migration rate is shown as the number of net migrants per person by age group. Jackson County's migration rates reflect the patterns of many other Oregon counties. Young adults (20- 29) leave the county seeking higher education and employment opportunities, but return in their 30's 3 Researchers have found evidence for a widening rural -urban gap in life expectancy. This gap is particularly apparent between race and income groups and may be one explanation for the decline in life expectancy in the 2000s. See the following research article for more information. Singh, Gopal K., and Mohammad Siahpush. "Widening rural -urban disparities in life expectancy, US, 1969-2009. " American Journal of Preventative Medicine 46, no. 2 (2014): e19 -e29. 15 187 and 40's with their children. Retirees made up a large proportion of net in -migrants in the 00's, but left the county shortly thereafter to areas with end -of -life care. Figure 11. Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates (2000-2010) 0.25----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.15-------------- --- -------------------------------- i N0.14----------------� ----------------------N------------------------------------------------------------------------- °Q ` i �� 1%. 'r a` Q.Q5 --- --- ---------- -------------------'r- - -- -------------------------------------- o 0- �- -------------- -------- ------------ lee ------ N e ' E 0.00 C p U 0.05--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � ---- -0.14 Jackson — — Oregon -015 ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------- C) Lo CCD It It CY) It SI CSI C? It It U7 U7 I? I? f_� OD u7 o psi o LD o u0 o u0 o u0 o u0 o Lr) o c0 �t �t U7 u7 [D (D r- r- CC) Five-year age groups Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Calculated by Population Research Center (PRC). Historical Trends in Components of Population Change In summary, Jackson County's positive population growth during the 2000s was the result of substantial net in -migration (Figure 12). The more births than deaths led to natural increase for Jackson County in every year from 2000 to 2014, but has since transitioned to a natural decrease. While net in -migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and late years of the last decade, the number of in -migrants recently (2012-16) has been increasing, far outweighing the emerging natural decrease. With this recent increase, net in -migration accounts for all of the population growth in the county, leading to strong population growth. IS: 188 Figure 12. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2001-2016) 4,000 --------------- 2.00% 3,500 ------- 1.75% a� 3,000 ------------------------------------ ----- --- ---------------------- --------------------------- 1.50% m a� c 2,500 1.25% o � � P a2,000 --- -------------- --- --- --- --------------------------------------------- --- 1.00 o � a c c c E 1500 -- - ----- --- -- -- ----------------------------- --- --- 0.75% Q E m c c o m - 1,000 - - - 0.50 L � V � E 500 - - --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- 0.25% O c 0 0.00% d Z -500 -0.25% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Net In/Out Mig. 1,960 2,294 902 1,434 2,567 3,459 2,834 2,164 952 364 381 644 1,636 2,055 2,637 2,858 Nat. Inc./Dec. 227 170 162 230 312 205 425 395 317 169 229 36 44 10 -37 -68 AGR 1.2% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.5% 1.9% 1.7% 1.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% Sources: Papulation Research Center, July 1st Annual Estimates 2001-2016 Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Calculated by Population Research Center {PRC]. Housing and Households The total number of housing units in Jackson County increased rapidly during the middle years of this last decade (2000 to 2010), but this growth slowed with the onset of the Great Recession in 2008. Over the entire 2000 to 2010 period, the total number of housing units increased by 20.1 percent countywide; this was more than 15,000 new housing units (Figure 13). Medford captured the largest share of the growth in total housing units, adding nearly 5,000 units over the last decade. Central Point also saw a large share of countywide housing growth, adding 2,130 units and increasing as a share of total countywide housing units by 1.2 percent. In terms of relative housing growth, Eagle Point had the highest growth rate; its total housing units increased nearly 93 percent (1,746 housing units) by 2010, and its share of countywide housing units increased by 1.5 percent. Housing growth rates may differ from population growth rates because (1) the numbers of total housing units are smaller than the numbers of people; (2) the UGB has experienced changes in the average number of persons per household; or (3) occupancy rates have changed (typically most pronounced in coastal locations with vacation -oriented housing). However, the patterns of population and housing change in Jackson County are relatively similar. 189 17 Figure 13. Jackson County and Sub -Areas -Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name Share of 2000 2010 AAG R (2000-2010) Jackson County 75,737 90,937 1.8% Ashland 9,289 10,735 1.5% Butte Falls 170 188 1.0% Central Point 5,072 7,202 3.6% Eagle Point 1,882 3,628 6.8% Gold Hill 520 557 0.7% Jacksonville 1,116 1,548 3.3% Medford 28,215 33,166 1.6% Phoenix 2,017 2,251 1.1% Rogue River 1,309 1,462 1.1% Shady Cove 1,200 1,533 2.5% Talent 2,453 2,853 1.5% Outside UGBs 22,494 25,814 1.4% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name Share of Share of Change County 2000 County 2010 (2000-2010) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 12.3% 11.8% -0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 6.7% 7.9% 1.2% 2.5% 4.0% 1.5% 0.7% 0.6% -0.1% 1.5% 1.7% 0.2% 37.3% 36.5% -0.8% 2.7% 2.5% -0.2% 1.7% 1.6% -0.1% 1.6% 1.7% 0.1% 3.2% 3.1% -0.1% 29.7% 28.4% -1.3% Average household size, or PPH, in Jackson County was 2.4 in 2010, a small decline from 2000 (Figure 14). Jackson County's PPH in 2010 was slightly lower than for Oregon as a whole, which had a PPH of 2.5. PPH varied across the county's UGBs, with all of them falling between 2.0 and 2.6 persons per household. In 2010 the highest PPH was in Central Point and Eagle Point with 2.6 and the lowest in Ashland and Jacksonville at 2.0. Occupancy rates tend to fluctuate more than PPH. This is particularly true in smaller UGBs where fewer housing units allow for larger relative changes in occupancy rates. From 2000 to 2010 the occupancy rate in Jackson County decreased slightly (Figure 14). A drop in occupancy rates was uniform across almost all sub -areas, with Butte Falls experiencing the highest decline at 5.8 percent between 2000 and 2010. Only Gold Hill saw an increase in occupancy rates, increasing by 2.5 percent during this time period. we 190 Figure 14. Jackson County and Sub -Areas -Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Calculated by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. 19 191 Persons Per Household (PPH) Occupancy Rate Change Change 2000 2010 2000-2010 2000 2010 2000-2010 Jackson County 2.5 2.4 -3.2% 94.4% 91.4% -3.1% Ashland 2.5 2.0 -18.0% 94.2% 90.0% -4.1% Butte Falls 2.2 2.5 18.5% 94.1% 88.3% -5.8% Central Point 2.8 2.6 -4.9% 96.8% 93.8% -3.0% Eagle Point 2.7 2.6 -2.6% 93.5% 89.5% -4.0% Gold Hill 2.8 2.4 -15.1% 89.8% 92.3% 2.5% Jacksonville 2.5 2.0 -19.5% 93.6% 89.0% -4.7% Medford 2.1 2.4 13.5% 95.4% 92.8% -2.6% Phoenix 2.5 2.3 -8.4% 94.5% 93.2% -1.4% Rogue River 2.3 2.1 -10.2% 92.7% 90.2% -2.5% Shady Cove 2.1 2.3 8.1% 89.8% 88.3% -1.5% Talent 2.3 2.3 -2.4% 96.1% 93.4% -2.7% Outside UGBs 2.4 2.5 4.1% 93.3% 89.7% -3.6% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Calculated by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. 19 191 Assumptions for Future Population Change Evaluating past demographic trends provides clues about what the future will look like and helps determine assumptions of likely scenarios for population change. Assumptions about fertility, mortality, and migration were developed for Jackson County's forecast and for each of its larger sub -areas'. Population change for smaller sub -areas is determined by the change in the number of total housing units, PPH, occupancy rates, and group quarters population. Assumptions around these components of growth are derived from observations of historical building patterns, current plans for future housing development, and household demographics. Our forecast period is 2018-2068. Jackson County's larger sub -areas include Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, and Medford, and smaller sub -areas include Butte Falls, Gold Hill, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove, and Talent. Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub -Areas During the forecast period, the population in Jackson County is expected to age more quickly during the first half of the forecast period and then remain relatively stable over the forecast horizon. Total fertility rates are expected to slightly decline throughout the forecast period (1.93 in 2015 to 1.88 in 2043), and fertility rates for women under 30 are expected to decline even more. Our assumptions of fertility for the county's larger sub -areas vary and are detailed in Appendix B. Changes in survival rates are more stable than fertility and migration rates; overall life expectancy is expected to increase slightly over the forecast period. In spite of the rent, Jackson County's aging population will increase the overall number of deaths throughout the forecast period. Migration is the most volatile and challenging demographic component to forecast due to the many factors influencing migration patterns. Economic, social, and environmental factors such as employment, educational opportunities, housing availability, family ties, cultural affinity, climate change, and natural amenities occurring both inside and outside the study area can affect both the direction and the volume of migration. We assume rates will change in line with historic trends unique to Jackson County. Net out -migration of younger adults and net in -migration of middle-aged individuals will persist throughout the forecast period. Countywide average annual net in -migration is expected to increase from 2,928 net in -migrants in 2015 to 3,196 net in -migrants in 2043. Net in -migration is expected to curb the results of a growing natural decrease, accounting for the all of Jackson County's population growth throughout the entire forecast period. ' County sub -areas with populations greater than 7,000 in the forecast launch year were forecast using the cohort - component method. County sub -areas with populations less than 7,000 in forecast launch year were forecast using the housing -unit method. See Glossary of Key Terms at the end of this report for a brief description of these methods or refer to the Methods document for a more detailed description of these forecasting techniques. 20 192 Assumptions for Smaller Sub -Areas Rates of population growth for the smaller UGBs are determined by corresponding growth in the number of housing units as well as changes in housing occupancy rates and PPH. The change in housing unit growth is much more variable than change in housing occupancy rates or PPH. Occupancy rates and PPH are assumed to stay relatively stable over the forecast period. Smaller household size is associated with an aging population in Jackson County and its sub -areas. If planned housing units were reported in the surveys, we accounted for them being constructed over the next 5-15 years (or as specified by local officials). Finally, for sub -areas where population growth has been flat or declining, and there is no planned housing construction, we temper population change. 21 193 Forecast Trends Under the most -likely population growth scenario for Jackson County, countywide and sub -area populations are expected to increase over the forecast period. The countywide population growth rate is forecast to peak in 2020 and then slowly decline throughout the forecast period. A reduction in population growth rates is driven by both (1) an aging population—contributing to steady increase in deaths—as well as (2) in -migration tapering in the long run to account for uncertainty. Jackson County's total population is forecast to grow by 101,582 persons (46 percent) from 2018 to 2068, which translates into a total countywide population of 320,852 in 2068 (Figure 15). The population is forecast to grow at the highest rate— 1 percent per year—during the near-term (2018- 2025). This anticipated population growth in the near-term is based on two core assumptions: (1) strong net in -migration and housing construction will continue into 2020; (2) net in -migration of retirees will continue. Over 4,800 in -migrants are forecasted in the near term, leaning to a continued population growth. This growth be tapered slightly by the nearly 350 more deaths than births that are forecast for the 2018-2025 period. Figure 15. Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2018-2068) 350,000 3.5% C7 300,000 3.0% c y 0 250,000 2.5% o 200,000 20% 2 c � 7 0 150,000 --- --- 1.5% 100,000 1.0% E a� 50,000 --- --- --- 0.5% 0 0.0% 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2068 Population 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 275,829 285,046 294,571 304,414 314,586 320,852 AAGR 0.9% 1.3% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC). Jackson County's four largest UGBs—Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, and Medford—are forecast to experience a combined population growth of nearly 42,000 from 2018 to 2043 and over 44,000 from 2043 to 2068 (Figure 16). The Medford UGB is expected to increase by more than 26,000 persons during the first half of the forecast period and almost 27,500 during the second half, at average annual growth rates of 1.1 percent and 0.9 percent. Both Central Point and Eagle Point are expected to increase at faster rates, with forecasted growth rates of at least 1.5 percent from 2018 to 2043 and just below 1.5 22 194 percent from 2043 to 2068. This growth translates to population increases for Central Point and Eagle Point of roughly 8,700 and 5,000, respectively, during the first half of the forecast period and 10,000 and 6,000, respectively, during the second half of the forecast period. Slower growth is expected in Ashland, where the population is expected to increase by just over 2,000 from 2018 to 2043 (0.4% AAGR) and 550 from 2043 to 2068 (0.1% AAGR). All larger UGBs, except Ashland, are projected to grow as shares of the total county population. Medford, Jackson County's largest UGB, and Central Point are expected to capture the largest shares of total countywide population growth during the entire forecast period (Figure 16). The population outside the UGBs is expected to grow by almost 5,000 people from 2018 to 2043 but is expected to shrink during the second half of the forecast period, declining by more than 2,300 people from 2043 to 2068. Its share is forecast to decline over the 50 -year period, composing about 30 percent of the countywide population in 2018 and 21 percent in 2068. Figure 16. Jackson County and Larger Sub -Areas -Forecast Population and AAGR The smaller UGBs are expected to grow by a combined number of over 6,100 persons from 2018 to 2043 and over 6,700 from 2043 to 2068 (Figure 17). Combined average annual growth rates for the small UGBs mirror expected countywide growth rates, and similar to the larger UGBs and Jackson County as a whole, population growth rates are forecast to decline for the second half of the forecast period. Jacksonville is expected to experience the highest growth rates -1.4 percent from 2018 to 2043 and 1.2 percent from 2043 to 2068 -adding a total of almost 2,700 people throughout the entire forecast period. Talent will experience the largest total population growth, increasing by around 4,200 over the forecast period. 23 195 AAGR AAGR Share of Share of Share of 2018 2043 2068 (2018-2043) (2043-2068) County 2018 County 2043 County 2068 Jackson County 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.7% -- -- -- Ashland 21,501 23,625 24,177 0.4% 0.1% 9.8% 8.7% 7.5% Central Point 19,101 27,803 38,008 1.5% 1.3% 8.7% 10.2% 11.8% Eagle Point 9,188 14,114 20,172 1.7916 1.4% 4.2% 5.2% 6.3% Medford 82,566 108,638 136,046 1.1% 0.9% 37.7% 39.9% 42.4% Outside UGBs 64,865 69,857 67,527 0.3% -0.1% 29.6% 25.7% 21.0% Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. The smaller UGBs are expected to grow by a combined number of over 6,100 persons from 2018 to 2043 and over 6,700 from 2043 to 2068 (Figure 17). Combined average annual growth rates for the small UGBs mirror expected countywide growth rates, and similar to the larger UGBs and Jackson County as a whole, population growth rates are forecast to decline for the second half of the forecast period. Jacksonville is expected to experience the highest growth rates -1.4 percent from 2018 to 2043 and 1.2 percent from 2043 to 2068 -adding a total of almost 2,700 people throughout the entire forecast period. Talent will experience the largest total population growth, increasing by around 4,200 over the forecast period. 23 195 Figure 17. Jackson County and Smaller Sub -Areas -Forecast Population and AAGR Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name Share of Share of Share of County 2018 AAGR AAGR 2018 2043 2068 (2018-2043) (2043-2068) Jackson County 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.7% Butte Falls 419 444 452 0.2% 0.1% Gold Hill 1,234 1,382 1,477 0.5% 0.3% Jacksonville 2,985 4,203 5,643 1.4% 1.2% Phoenix 4,861 5,967 7,124 0.8% 0.7% Rogue River 2,846 3,468 4,076 0.8% 0.6% Shady Cove 3,288 4,338 5,533 1.1% 1.0% Talent 6,416 8,386 10,617 1.1% 0.9% Outside UGBs 64,865 69,857 67,527 0.3% -0.1% Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC) Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name Share of Share of Share of County 2018 County 2043 County 2068 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 29.6% 25.7% 21.0% Jackson County's smaller sub -areas are expected to experience fairly uniform growth. As a result, there will be little change in shares of countywide population; the smaller UBGs are expected to capture 10.2 percent of countywide population during the first half of the 50 -year period and 10.7 during the second half. Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change As previously discussed, the number of in -migrants is forecasted to outweigh the number of out - migrants in Jackson County, creating a positive net in -migration of new residents that is expected to persist throughout the forecast period. Furthermore, the average annual net in -migration is forecasted to increase from the near-term rate of 2,214 individuals (2010-2020) to 2,981 individuals later in the forecast (2020-2043) (Figure 18). The majority of these net in -migrants are expected to be middle-aged and older individuals. 24 196 Figure 18. Jackson County—Average Annual Net In/Out-Migration (2000-2010, 2010-2020, and 2020-2043) 3,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ c 3,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ u2,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c c2,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1,500 -------------------------------- --------------------- ---------- 1,000 ----------- -------------------- 500--------------------------------------------------------------- 0 zona-znln 2010-2020 21120-2043 Jackson County 1,893 2,214 2,981 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Calculationsand Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC). Note: The average annual numbers were calculated for the 10yearperiods (2000-2010and 2010-2020) and the 23yearperiod (2020.2043). In addition to net in -migration, the other key component shaping Jackson County's forecast is the aging population. From 2018 to 2030, the proportion of the county population 65 years of age and older is forecast to grow from roughly 22 percent to 26 percent, and then to maintain that proportion through 2043 (Figure 19). For a more detailed look at the age structure of Jackson County's population, see the final forecast table published to the forecast program website (www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-1- documents). 25 197 Figure 19. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2018, 2030, and 2043) 2018 (Male) 2018(Feinale) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 fl- 55-59 50-54 m 45-49 � 40-4A � 35-39 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Percent of total population Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PEC) 2030 (Male) 2030(Female) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 i 65-69 - 60-64 - 55-59 - m 50-54 ;A 45-49 40-44 v a 35-39 v LL 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Percent of total population ■ 2043 (Male) 2043 (Female) 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 fl 55-59 50-54 45-49 rs � 40-44 v � 3539 v LL 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Percent of total population In summary, current population growth is expected to peak around 2020 before the average annual growth rates begins to taper (Figure 20). Net in -migration is expected to be steady throughout the forecast period, though the magnifying natural decrease will temper this growth, resulting in moderate population growth. Figure 20. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2015-2045) 4,000 E E 11 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 204045 2,429 2,991 3,117 3,170 3,196 411 -682 -988 -1,240 -1,412 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 198 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% O MA u -tea 3,000 2,000 C V O 7 Q 5 1,000 O Q � c 0 O L � V bfj 7 -1,000 O C z -2,000 2010-15 2015-20 Net In/Out-Mig. 1,500 2,928 mossom Nat. Inc./Dec. 54 -127 _AAGR 0.7% 1.3% Source: Forecast by Papulation Research Center(PEC) E E 11 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 204045 2,429 2,991 3,117 3,170 3,196 411 -682 -988 -1,240 -1,412 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 198 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% O MA Glossary of Key Terms Cohort -Component Method: A method used to forecast future populations based on changes in births, deaths, and migration overtime. Coordinated population forecast: A population forecast prepared for the county along with population forecasts for its urban growth boundary (UGB) areas and non-UGB area. Housing unit: A house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, group of rooms, or single room that is occupied or is intended for occupancy. Housing -Unit Method: A method used to forecast future populations based on changes in housing unit counts, vacancy rates, the average numbers of persons per household (PPH), and group quarter population counts. Occupancy rate: The proportion of total housing units that are occupied by an individual or group of persons. Persons per household (PPH): The average household size (i.e. the average number of persons per occupied housing unit). Replacement Level Fertility: The average number of children each woman needs to bear in order to replace the population (to replace each male and female) under current mortality conditions in the U.S. This is commonly estimated to be 2.1 children per woman. 27 199 Appendix A: Surveys and Supporting Information Supporting information is based on planning documents and reports, and from submissions to PRC from city officials and staff, and other stakeholders. The information pertains to characteristics of each city area, and to changes thought to occur in the future. There was one challenge to Phoenix's proposed forecast during the formal review period. PRC reviewed the challenge and adjusted the sub -area's final forecast. The cities of Ashland, Butte Falls, and Gold Hill did not submit survey responses. Talent indicated there were no updates from the 2015 survey. General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: City of Central Point Date: January 11, 2018 Observations about Population Distribution of population based on age, racial and ethnic groups Composition (e.g. children, the remains consistent with 2010 census. elderly, racial and ethnic groups) Observations about Housing Under Construction A 245 -unit multifamily development has been approved within the Twin Creeks TOD. The first phase consisting of 100 -units is currently under construction with completion anticipated by the end of 2018. Phase 2 construction of 145 -units will commence early 2019. A 16 -unit multifamily infill project near South Haskell Street was approved in 2016 and is nearing completion. Final phases of the North Village (5 and 2) are completing infrastructure improvements for final plat of 90 residential lots for single-family construction. Twin Creeks Phase 1 has final plat approval for 19 lots. All but five (5) have building permits issued for construction. Approved, Pending Construction Plans for development of the Eastside Transit Oriented Development District have been approved for 288 apartments, 30 townhomes, and 8 duplexes. This project was noted earlier but has been delayed to environmental remediation. Revised construction start is within the next 2 -years. A 50 -unit multifamily development has been approved on South Haskell Street for the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The estimated start of construction is Fall 2018. Housing Observation Summary: At this time, there are 746 units under construction or approved for development. There are an additional 84 units approved for assisted living/memory care within Twin Creeks (see reverse), and an additional 670+ units anticipated pending UGB amendment and/or submittal and approval of required master plan/subdivision applications. we 200 Planned Housing Dev.f Est. Year There is a preliminary master plan under development in the MMR Completion zone within the Eastside TOD. Minimum density for this zone is expected to yield a minimum of 89 units. There is a master plan under development within the LMR zone in the TOD Corridor. The preliminary housing yield is 27 single -family detached and attached housing. Submittal is anticipated in the Spring 2018/19. Pending UGB Expansion and Annexation, there is a preliminary conceptual development plan for 137 acres to include a mix of single - family attached and detached units (570+ units). A UG8 Amendment application is anticipated in Spring 2018. (See Planning Documents section for summary of Housing Element/need for additional residential acreage.) Summary: There are pending application to add an additional 690 estimated residential units. Future Group Quarters Facilities Pear Valley Senior Living is currently under construction and will add 60 assisted living and 24 memory care units. Future Employers Rogue Valley Microdevices has an approved CUP and Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct a 43,000 s.f. light manufacturing building. The business currently has 25 employees and is expected to double their staff following the move to Central Point. Infrastructure Pine Street is being improved to provide a more pedestrian friendly environment to support the Central Business District. The project is under construction and scheduled for completion near the end of 2018. The Twin Creeks Rail Crossing is under construction and will provide connectivity between the Twin Creeks activity Center and Highway 99/Front Street. Completion of this project in the Spring 2018 will allow addition development within the commercial core of the Twin Creeks Master Plan area, including possibly development of a new Asante Facility, which would add to the City's employment base. 29 201 Promotions (promos) and Promos: Hindrances (hinders) to Available urban lands with necessary infrastructure plus a fast and Population Growth; Other notes efficient land use process. Costco's recent relocation to Central Point brings additional visitors to the City and has generated interest in commercial and residential development. Urban Renewal is being implemented to make improvements to the downtown, and needed infrastructure that make Central Point more attractive to business and visitors. Hinders: Economy/market; although, economic conditions appear to be improving. Highlights or summary from Per the Housing Element, there is a need for the City to add 150 gross planning documents and studies acres of residential land to the UGB. The City has approved a on influences and anticipation of resolution of intent to expand the U G B into one of the City's urban population and housing growth. reserve areas to add new residential land. There is a resolution of intent to add acreage from the CP -6A urban reserve area. The preliminary concept identifies 570 units, but this number is expected to increase to meet minimum density requirements (currently under consideration in the Land Use Element update). 30 202 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: City of Eagle Point Date: 9/26/17 Observations about Population Majority is families and retirees, predominantly caucasian. Composition (e.g. children, the elderly, racial and ethnic groups) Observations about Housing Highest demand and best supply is SF detached. Multi -family (esp. affordable) is not a strong market here. Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year We estimate approx 100 bldg permits for new SF homes in FY Completion (for detailed information 2017-18. submissions please use the Housing Development Survey) Planned future construction of Group None. Quarters facilities Future Employers Locating to the Area Potentially 1- 2 new employers with 5 - 10 employees each in FY 2017-18. Capacity and condition of infrastructure Adequate capacity is in place for build -out of our current UGB. to accommodate growth. Any Promotions (promos) and Still have surplus land within UGB for near term growth. Hindrances (hinders) to Population Growth; Other notes Do you have a buildable lands inventory Urban Reserve Analysis with BLI being completed now by Rogue for your area/UGB? If yes, it would be Valley Council of Governments. helpful if you could please share it with our center in GIS format. Highlights or summary from planning Areas zoned Residential Farm (min 5 acre lots) account for much documents and studies on influences of the residential capacity, and it's these areas that will need to and anticipation of population and be rezoned to Single -Family Residential to accommodate the housing growth (including any plans for density increase required by our agreement with the state in UGB expansion and the stage in the order to expand our UGB. expansion process) Available land for future employment growth appears to be easily accommodated in the City's existing Light Industrial and Business Park zoning districts. 31 203 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: City of Jacksonville Date: December 21, 2017 Observations about Population Jacksonville has the highest median age (60.4) in Jackson County, Composition (e.g. children, the according to the 2015 ACS 5 -year estimate. The next highest point elderly, racial and ethnic groups) is Phoenix at 51.1. Observations about Housing Median house value well above the county average. Single-family units dominate, but accessory dwelling units are becoming more commonplace. Jacksonville currently has a deficit of multi -family zoned land Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year The city recently approved a 26 -lot subdivision that will be Completion available for development after the final plat is recorded in 2018. Future Group Quarters Facilities None anticipated Future Employers None anticipated Infrastructure Jacksonville contracts with the Medford Water Commission for domestic water and with Rogue Valley Sewer Services for sewage disposal, Because these are regional providers, they have adequate capacity to anticipate growth. Promotions (promos) and Jacksonville is nearing capacity under existing zoning, and the Hindrances (hinders) to general sentiment does not favor increasing densities. Much of the Population Growth; Other notes available land is on steeper slopes, and therefore more expensive to develop. Highlights or summary from Some decision -makers expect the final result of our recent BLI will planning documents and studies be a decision to pursue a UGB expansion. No applications are on influences and anticipation of active at this point. population and housing growth. 32 204 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: City of Medford Date: November 8, 2017 Observations about Population April 2010 U.S. Census data notes the following percentages: Composition (e.g. children, the elderly, racial and ethnic groups) - Under 5 years old – 7.2% - Under 18 years old – 24.1% - 65 years and older –16.2% Despite Medford's (the Rogue Valley's) well-established popularity as a retirement destination, Medford remains relatively younger than other communities in this region. In fact, the Medford School District is struggling to provide adequate physical space in at least 3 of its elementary schools and is assessing the feasibility of constructing a new middle school in the very near future. The Rogue Valley and Medford are also becoming more ethnically diverse with a rapidly growing Hispanic community. Observations about Housing We are currently averaging 28 new SFR permits monthly this year, but the City has already issued 224 building permits for single family detached homes and 114 permits for multi -family dwellings (duplex and larger) within the first 10 months of 2017. Unlike typical years, building and land use permits have continued to be submitted through the end of the calendar year—a period that is historically slower for development activity. In conversations with Mahar Homes, the largest single family home developer in the Rogue Valley, their staff have stated that all of their available lots, except one, are pre -sold in their last remaining large subdivision, Summer Field. They will be moving to their property across from Vista Pointe on McAndrews Road, waiting for approval of Medford's UGBA. Demand for multi -family formats is equally strong, and MH has stated that they can't keep up with the demand: most are leased or sold prior to completion. 33 205 34 206 The City has also partnered with the Housing Authority of Jackson County and other affordable housing providers to deliver several hundred dwelling units over the last several years. "The Concord", a 50 unit subsidized housing development, was completed in early 2017 and is the first significant residential development in Medford's downtown. "Newbridge Place" is scheduled to start construction in early 2018 and will provide 64 affordable units upon completion -20% of which are reserved for veterans. Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year Please review the attached sheet labeled "City of Medford Active Completion (for detailed Subdivision and Multi -Family Projects" information submissions please use the Housing Development Survey) Planned future construction of Bonaventure of Medford will be opening a group quarter facility Group Quarters facilities with 69 independent living suites, 55 assisted living suites and 23 memory care suites. Weatherly Court is assisted living/memory care senior housing being built including 78 units (with 97 beds). Rogue Valley Manor is building a 40 unit memory care facility. Future Employers Locating to the Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions, a high-tech company that Area manufactures pharmaceutical products, will be moving their headquarters complete with over two dozen executive and management jobs to Medford. Stewart Meadows is a very large Planned Unit Development which includes a large flagship Providence Medical office building (nearly constructed), retail, restaurants, offices and multi -family. A new phase of the Northgate Center is currently being developed north of Rossanley Dr. (Hwy 238). Offices, retail and restaurants are being proposed. The soon to be old Costco building on Hwy 62 will be subdivided to house two new large businesses with additional pads being built for other tenants. 34 206 Capacity and condition of The City currently has numerous sanitary sewer collection system infrastructure to accommodate constraints preventing zone changes east of Bear Creek. growth. The City is nearing completion of a Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan that addresses how we get the sanitary sewer system to meet the needs for development of the City out to the urban reserves. Capacity and condition of Our Transportation System Plan (TSP) is currently being updated infrastructure to accommodate and is showing that we will see transportation capacity constraints growth. around the South Medford Interchange and along the Crater Lake (con't) Highway corridor. The TSP will identify strategies to address these areas. Medford's existing street infrastructure is in very good condition. Any Promotions (promos) and Medford and the Rogue Valley is a desirable place to live. It is Hindrances (hinders) to understood that older adults are retiring here and families are Population Growth; Other notes moving here. Affordability and availability of needed and preferred housing types are significant challenges. Some issues include a low median household income ($41,931), high poverty rate (23.0%), low housing vacancy rates, and high housing prices and rent. Do you have a buildable lands Yes, we have a BLI in a GIS format and will share it. inventory for your area/UGB? If yes, it would be helpful if you could please share it with our center in GIS format. Highlights or summary from Population Element adopted in 2007 — estimates 115,869 people planning documents and studies by 2029 on influences and anticipation of population and housing growth Housing Element adopted in 2010; shows a need for 15,050 (including any plans for UGB dwelling units through 2029 expansion and the stage in the Medford has completed the local land use process to expand its expansion process) Urban Growth Boundary by 4,046 acres (511— developed/unbuildable; 1,877 —parkland; 1,658 — developable land). 1,039 of the 1,658 acres are proposed for residential 35 207 development. City is working on the application to submit to the State. Regional Housing Study, to be completed by January 2018, is evaluating housing affordability and availability challenges and will recommend policy solutions. CCL: 208 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: City of Phoenix Date: 12/19/2107 Observations about Population Composition (e.g. children, the elderly, racial and ethnic groups) Observations about Housing The city hasn't had more than 20 new residential units in the last two years. The city is below density standards set by the Regional plan and will look at some areas of higher density housing in other expansion areas east of 1-5 Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year The city recently received permits for 15 new attached units Completion Future Group Quarters Facilities Future Employers Infrastructure Promotions (promos) and Hindrances (hinders) to Population Growth; Other notes 37 209 Highlights or summary from planning documents and studies on influences and anticipation of population and housing growth. The city plans to annex PH -3 area at some point, but there are a number of procedural and logistical issues that need to be resolved beforehand. The process to expand the UGB into the URAs may begin at 2018 at best, though these areas will be incorporated incrementally over time rather than all at once. 210 we Population Research Center PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY Population Forecast Formal Review Process and Appeal Form The 45 -day formal review process begins when the proposed population forecasts are posted c the forecast program website, March 31, 2018, and ends on May 15, 2018. Within this 45 -day period, a member of the public or an affected local government may file objections with PRC. IF YOU PLAN TO FILE AN OBJECTION TO A PROPOSED POPULATION FORECAST, PLEASE FIRST SEND AN EMAIL TO LOFTUS2 a@PDX EDU TO NOTIFY US OF YOUR INTENT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING YOUR APPEAL FORM AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION. These objections must be filed in writing using the below appeal form and must be submitted via US Mail or electronic mail to PRC by no later than 5:00 pm on May, 15, 2018. A valid objection must include data or other information to support the objection. Acceptable data and information may include: 1. Corrections or revisions to information that had been previously sent to PRC (e.g., General Demographic Survey, Housing Development Survey). 2. New information that was obtained after submitting a completed demographic c housing development survey during the forecast development period. 3. Evidence that any of the supporting information used to develop the forecasts is erroneous. 4. Other information that PRC determines is relevant. Please note there are three possible outcomes of the formal review period. First, if PRC does not receive an objection within the 45 -day period, the proposed forecast becomes the basis for the final forecast. Second, if PRC receives an objection within the 45 -day period, PRC will review the objection along with its supporting information, and make appropriate changes to the proposed forecast, which will be reflected in the final forecast. Third, PRC may overrule the objection as a reserved right, and affirm the proposed forecast, which would then be issued as the final forecast. Please nate that a separate appeal form must be filed for each unique geography (i.e., one completed form per county, UGB, or area outside UGBs). Date: May 14, 2018 Name: Josh LeBornbard Title/Organization: Department of Land Conservation and Development Address: 100 E. Main Street, Medford, OR 97501 Email: josh. lebombard a@state.or.us Phone: 541,414-7932 Which geography are you appealing? The county, UGB, or area outside UGB? 39 411 City of Phoenix Da you think the proposed po pulation forecast is too hi gh or too low? Unsure. See my emailed comments. For which five-year forecast time interval does your appeal apply? Are you challenging the proposed population forecast far certain five-year time intervals or the forecasts for aJl 50 years? First 20 years. Please provide evidence to support your appeal (See "Acceptable data and information" described above). PRC will not consider supporting information that is not attached to this completed appeal form. Population Research Center PO Bax 751 Portland OR 97207 (503) 725-3922 Loftus2pdx.edu PAM 40 Population Forecast Challenge 1 message LeBombard, Josh <:josh.lebombard@state_or_us> To: "loftus2@pdx.edu" <loftus2@pdx.edu> Cc: Nicholas Chun <nicchun@pdx.edu> Deborah, Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:48 PM Please seethe attached population forecast challenge form. Nick and I have been in communication aboutthis. My explanation for the challenge is below: 1. The area known as PH -3 should not be counted towards future population growth in the 20 year projection even if it is expected to be brought in by the City within that timeframe. This is due to the fact that the population growth numbers can and will and should be used by cities to expand their UGBs. There are two ways to look at this and both support the previous statement. 1) If existing population from PH -3 is used in the 20 year forecast, theoretically Phoenix could use that additional population to expand its boundary and not take in PH -3. 2) Phoenix could still expand into PH -3 even without the additional population allocated within the 20 year horizon because the UGB process is meant to accommodate a 20 year demand for new housing. PH -3 has limited ability to accommodate new housing needs. 2. Phoenix's population growth has been constrained by land availability for a number of years. The City is currently in the process of updating studies and plans to justify a UGB amendment. If the UGB amendment is successful, then new land will become available for Phoenix. There is a very goad likelihood that this will take place and result in higher population growth within the 20 year horizon. Cheers, Josh Josh LeBombard I Southern Oregon Re. ional Representative Community Services Division Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development Southern Oregon Regional Solution Center cJo Roque Workforce Partnership 1UU E Main Street, Suite A I Medford, OR 97501 Cell: (541) 414-7932 josh.lebombard@state.orus I www.oregon.gov/LCD Population Forecast_Appeal and_Review_Form 2018 LeBombard.pdf 41 213 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: Rogue River Date: 11/8/2017 Observations about Population We are seeing younger families moving into town but are still a Composition (e.g. children, the senior community. elderly, racial and ethnic groups) Observations about Housing Affordable housing is a big issue and available housing both rental and for sale is almost nonexistent. Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year At this time there are no plans for any large developments just Completion (for detailed infill of single family houses information submissions please use the Housing Development Survey) Planned future construction of None Group Quarters facilities Future Employers Locating to the There are two commercial developments on the horizon both just Area relocating and building new facilities, no increase in employment is expected. Capacity and condition of All infrastructures are adequate for the infill that is expected, but if infrastructure to accommodate annexation from the UGB happens that would need to be growth. reevaluated. Any Promotions (promos) and The biggest hindrance to growth and development in the city are Hindrances (hinders) to traffic related. The geographic constraints make solving this Population Growth; Other notes problem almost impossible. We are currently updating our TSP. Do you have a buildable lands The city does not have a buildable lands inventory for residential inventory for your area/UGB? If but did one about 15 years ago for commercial. yes, it would be helpful if you could please share it with our center in GIS format. 42 214 Highlights or summary from planning documents and studies on influences and anticipation of population and housing growth (including any plans for UGB expansion and the stage in the expansion process) The city has grown at about a 1% rate for the last 15 years and before that was in moratoriums for about 6 years and I don't see any change in this rate unless there is UGB annexation. 215 43 General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program Jurisdiction: Shady Cove Date: 1/10/2018 Observations about Population Contrast between very wealthy (high income housing) and strong Composition (e.g. children, the inventory of Manufactured dwelling in mobile home parks elderly, racial and ethnic groups) Observations about Housing Occupancy rates stable; Slow and steady construction on vacant lots Planned Housing Dev./Est. Year Completion Future Group Quarters Facilities Future Employers Infrastructure A private water company is constructing municipal -level water lines that will increase potential for urban density residential development in newly served areas. Promotions (promos) and Promos: Has enough land in and outside city for residential Hindrances (hinders) to development, enough to accommodate at least 3,500 persons. Population Growth; Other notes Hinders: Properties along primary physical attraction (Rogue River) are occupied; Distance from medical services; Highlights or summary from There haven't been any changes from the information the city planning documents and studies submitted in 2015, with the exception of the infrastructure on influences and anticipation of section. population and housing growth. Population growth is slightly less than projected for the period beginning in 1990. Current estimates are around 2,920 in 2014; the estimate for 2015 is 3,178. 44 216 Appendix B: Specific Assumptions Ashland We assume total fertility rates will remain stable throughout the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole; these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns, though there is greater movement of college-age and graduate cohorts within the sub -area. Butte Falls We assume the 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rate to remain stable throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate to decline to 85.3% and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 2.55 for the 25 -year horizon. There is no group quarters population in this sub -area. Central Point We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole; these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns. Eagle Point We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole; these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns. Gold Hill We assume the 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 92.3% percent and 2.39 for the 25 -year horizon, respectively. There is no group quarters population for this sub -area. Jacksonville We assume the 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate to be steady at 89% and persons per household (PPH) to decline to 1.96 for the 25 -year horizon. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 109. 45 PAN Medford We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole; these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates deviate from county patterns; we expect the net in -migration from all age groups. Phoenix We assume slow 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rates to pick up after 2025 and taper thereafter throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 90.2% percent and 2.06 for the 25 -year horizon, respectively. There is no group quarters population in this sub -area. Rogue River We assume the 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 93.2% percent and 2.27 for the 25 -year horizon, respectively. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 23. Shady Cove We assume slow 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rates to pick up after 2025 and taper thereafter throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 88.3% percent and 2.25 for the 25 -year horizon, respectively. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 2. Talent We assume the 5 -year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH) to be steady at 93.4% percent and 2.29 for the 25 -year horizon, respectively. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 16. Outside UGBs We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole; these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns, though we expect a net out -migration of the population 70+ to continue into the future. IVA 218 Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results Figure 21. Jackson County -Population by Five -Year Age Group Population 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Forecasts by Age 2055 2060 2065 2068 Jackson County 219,270 224,980 Group / Year 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2043 00-04 12,109 11,925 11,973 12,246 12,579 13,010 13,252 05-09 12,483 13,265 12,934 13,141 13,527 13,907 14,181 10-14 12,604 12,526 14,369 14,049 14,235 14,666 14,901 15-19 12,959 13,162 12,636 14,681 14,452 14,658 14,911 20-24 12,064 12,200 12,209 11,885 13,911 13,708 13,812 25-29 11,824 11,719 11,978 11,901 11,608 13,601 13,470 30-34 12,906 13,374 13,012 13,334 13,330 12,725 13,984 35-39 12,556 12,744 14,118 13,902 14,338 14,214 13,813 40-44 13,176 13,655 14,097 15,798 15,516 16,017 15,922 45-49 13,495 13,816 15,026 15,692 17,538 17,240 17,559 50-54 13,927 13,908 14,668 16,141 16,809 18,803 18,597 55-59 14,803 14,584 14,451 15,424 17,080 17,804 19,028 60-64 15,689 15,891 14,951 14,994 15,817 17,525 17,956 65-69 14,845 15,654 15,936 15,040 14,905 15,738 16,721 70-74 12,172 13,118 14,634 15,110 14,364 14,246 14,707 75-79 8,978 9,802 11,793 13,377 13,927 13,245 13,164 80-84 6,318 6,897 8,348 10,230 11,391 11,871 11,504 85+ 6,362 6,738 7,934 9,666 11,931 13,933 14,743 Total 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 272,226 Figure 22. Jackson County's Sub -Areas -Total Population Area/ Year 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2068 Jackson County 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 275,829 285,046 294,571 304,414 314,586 320,852 Ashland UGB 21,501 21,788 22,539 23,196 23,544 23,630 23,617 23,710 23,595 23,767 24,085 24,177 Butte Falls UGB 419 412 420 427 434 440 446 447 443 446 451 452 Central Point UGB 19,101 19,714 21,035 22,920 24,815 26,707 28,553 30,520 32,859 34,855 36,713 38,008 Eagle Point UGB 9,188 9,515 10,034 11,159 12,298 13,444 14,575 15,742 17,153 18,329 19,407 20,172 Gold Hill UGB 1,234 1,238 1,274 1,307 1,338 1,366 1,392 1,408 1,416 1,437 1,465 1,477 Jacksonville UGB 2,985 3,056 3,199 3,483 3,767 4,044 4,311 4,588 4,914 5,196 5,460 5,643 Medford UGB 82,566 84,966 88,985 94,210 99,640 105,225 110,950 116,134 121,936 127,319 132,583 136,046 Phoenix UGB 4,861 4,896 5,051 5,331 5,591 5,826 6,063 6,280 6,510 6,741 6,976 7,124 Rogue River UGB 2,846 2,891 2,958 3,114 3,258 3,389 3,521 3,635 3,751 3,872 3,999 4,076 Shady Cove UGB 3,288 3,338 3,463 3,749 3,995 4,213 4,422 4,652 4,915 5,152 5,380 5,533 Talent UGB 6,416 6,489 6,796 7,314 7,743 8,142 8,551 8,978 9,463 9,904 10,332 10,617 Outside UGB Area 64,865 66,676 69,314 70,402 70,835 70,483 69,428 68,952 67,615 67,396 67,736 67,527 47 219 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 864 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 2019-2039 POPULATION ELEMENT WHEREAS, the latest version of the Population Element was adopted in 2016 and needs to be updated to reflect the latest population projections produced by Portland State Population Research Center; and WHEREAS, Portland State Population Research Center is responsible population forecasting for Oregon counties and urban growth boundaries every four years per ORS 195.033; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the City staff report (File No. 18004) and heard testimony and comments on the draft City of Central Point 2019-39 Population Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 864 does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the 2019-39 Population Element as presented in Exhibit "A". PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2019 ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 5th day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 867 (02/05/2019) 220 0141 STAFF REPORT Ark CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT February 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM VIII -C Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICR Community Development Director Consideration of the 2019 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory—Land Use Element of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -18003. STAFF SOURCE Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner BACKGROUND On January 8, 2019 the Planning Commission discussed a review draft of the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). The BLI tracks the availability of buildable lands as defined in ORS 197.295(1), which includes lands that are available, suitable and necessary for development over the next 20 -years including vacant and partially developed lands that are likely to be redeveloped. During the Planning Commission's discussion staff presented a study of infill participation during the past 20 -years (1996-2016). The study found that residential infill development accounted for 6% of the total housing units constructed and 8% of the residential land supply during that time period. Consequently it is unlikely that 100% of the available infill lands will redevelop over the next 20 -years. However, infill is an important aspect of the City's development strategy and the City has adopted policies to support and encourage increased infill development. The question is what infill rate will best reflect the City's ability to increase infill during a 20 -time period. Provided below is a table comparing a 10%, 15%, 20%, 30% and 100% infill adjustment rate for buildable lands and the estimated impact on the City's additional residential land need over the next 20 -years. Vacant Acres �$� 83 83 83 83 Infill Acres 58 39 29 19 Redevelopment Acres MW 17 17 17 17 Total Available Buildable Acres 1293 158 139 129 119 (Environmental Constrained Acres) I -33 -33 -33 -33 -33 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE ACRES, 19-39 260 125 Mh 96 86 TOTAL ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL LAND NEED Ilng"hL 285 MM314 324 The Citizen's Advisory Committee discussed the draft Residential BLI, including infill, and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission based on application of a 20% infill adjustment. Since that time staff has distributed the draft Residential BLI for review and comment and no comments have been received. A copy is included as Attachment "A." 222 At the Planning Commission meeting on February 5, 2019 staff will present the final draft Residential BLI reflecting a 20% infill adjustment per the CAC's recommendation to receive further input from the Planning Commission and the public during a public hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission may: 1. Close the public hearing and proceed to discussion and action; or, 2. Continue the public hearing to allow for further public discussion and comment. ISSUES There are no known issues at this time. The most significant finding of the BLI will be the City's target infill participation rate over the next 20 -years. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" – Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (Final Draft) Attachment `B" – Resolution No. 865 ACTION Consideration of Resolution No. 865 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory—Land Use Element and 1) approve, 2) approve with modifications, 3) deny, or 4) direct staff to prepare a revisions for consideration at the March 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 865. 223 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) 2019-2039 Final Draft 1/28/2019 ` City of Central Point L 12/31/2018 0. REVIEW DRAFT— 2019 Residential BLI Page 1 of 23 224 1. INTRODUCTION The use and availability of buildable land is a critical component in tracking a community's rate of growth, and the subsequent need for additional land to support future growth. The primary purpose of the Residential Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) is to maintain a record of the availability of buildable residential lands within the City's urban area (Figure 1). The BLI is prepared in accordance with OAR 660-24-0050(1) requiring that cities maintain a buildable lands inventory within the urban growth boundary sufficient to accommodate the residential needs for a 20 -year planning period as determined in OAR 660-024-0040. rm— CENTRAL POINT 4nend 0 crr Su en Rai�we _Pans l��J Gi'r L.M�u 2 C.TyHaaaebaa -- avaann - nwsum! =I Gyms f3fa h ae.namr Figure I URBAN AREA, 2018 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 225 Page 2 of 23 By definition the BLI is strictly a land inventory system. The BLI is not a policy document. The BLI is used by other Comprehensive Plan elements as a resource for the development and monitoring of policy. The BLI is considered a living document that is continually updated as development activity occurs and is entered into the BLI electronic data base (BLI2019). 2. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ZONING The BLI maintains an accounting of all lands by land use classification and zoning. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains six (6) land use classifications and sixteen (16) sub -classifications (Table 1). Each of the land use classifications are supported by one, or more, of twenty (20) zoning districts (Table 2). The Land Use Classifications and Zoning districts are defined and mapped in the Land Use Element. 3. LAND INVENTORY As of December 31, 2018, the City of Central Point's urban area contained a total of 2,972 gross acres (Table 1 and 2). Public right-of-way, parks/open space and civic uses accounted for 33% of the City's total gross acreage, while residential (50%), commercial (8%), and industrial (9%) land accounted for the remaining acreage. When public right-of-way is removed, there are 2,271 (77%) net acres within the City's urban area. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 226 Page 3 of 23 Table 1. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation NCom Total City Total UGB Total Urban Percentage Comprehensive Plan Designation Acres Acres Acres of Total VLRes 46 22 68 TCCom LRes 902 88 990 16 MRes 194 23 216 - HRes 215 - 215 29 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,356 132 1,488 50% NCom 15 8 23 TPCom 103 8 111 TCCom 12 3 16 GenCom 56 - 56 Em Com 29 - 29 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 215 20 235 8% Lind 79 1 19 197 Hlnd 40 28 68 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL 118 147 265 9% Civic 121 0 121 TOTAL CIVIC 121 0 121 41% OS 1 108 78 186 TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE 1 108 78 186 6% PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 554 123 677 1 23% TOTAL ALL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS 1 2,472 500 2,972 1 100% Note: Total acreage based on GIS shape file for City and UGB 10/29/18 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 227 Page 4 of 23 Table 2. City of Central Point Urban Land Inventory by Zoning Civic Total City Total UGB Total Urban Percentage of Zoning Acres Acres Area Acres Total R -L 46 22 68 6% R-1-6 374 6 380 R-1-8 393 11 404 23% R-1-10 34 22 56 LMR 111 48 159 1 100% R-2 107 - 107 R-3 180 - 180 MMR 78 23 100 HMR 35 - 35 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 1,356 132 1,488 50% C -2(m) 12 - 12 CN 3 8 10 C-4 103 8 111 C-5 12 3 1 EC 29 - 29 GC 56 - 56 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 21520 235 8% M-1 79 119 197 M-2 40 28 68 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL 118 147 265 90/ Civic 121 0 121 TOTAL CIVIC 121 0 121 1 4% Note: Total acreage balances with GIS shape file for UGB 10/29/18 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 228 Page 5 of 23 BCG OS 35 73 76 2 110 76 TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE 108 78 186 6% PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 554 123 677 23% TOTAL ALL ZONING DISTRICTS 1 2,472 500 1 2,972 1 100% Note: Total acreage balances with GIS shape file for UGB 10/29/18 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 228 Page 5 of 23 4. DEFINITIONS and METHODOLOGY To maintain consistency in the maintenance of the BLI the definitions and methodology used in preparing the BLI are presented in Appendix "A" — Definitions and Appendix "B" — Methodology. 5. BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY Within the City's urban area, there are approximately 1,490 acres of residential land distributed over four (4) residential land use classifications and seven (7) zoning districts. Approximately 105 acres (7%) of the City's total residential land is considered buildable acres. Table 3 and 4 identify the unadjusted distribution of the residential vacant land by vacant land type (vacant, infill, redevelopment), and total buildable acres. Figure 2 illustrates the geographic distribution of the City's residential buildable land inventory (12/31/2018). In calculating the Residential Buildable Lands a determination must be made that the buildable lands are suitable, available and necessary (OAR 660-008-0005(2)) for development throughout the 20 -year planning period. There are two basic classifications of buildable residential land: a. Vacant Land —Lands on which there is no development. Infrastructure is available within the 20 -year planning period. b. Redevelopable Land —Lands on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period (OAR 660-008-0050(7). Redevelopable Land is further categorized as: i. Infill Land — These are lands which are partially developed, but have the potential for infill development. Infra -structure is available; and ii. Redevelopment (Demolition) Land — These are lands which are currently improved, but the improvements are generally old and the land value exceeds improvement value. Infra -structure is available. Table 3 City of Central Point Buildable Vacant Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation The definition of "Buildable Land" uses the term "likely" in referencing redevelopable residential land. For purposes of context the City refines the likelihood and reasonableness definition for Redevelopable Land as follows: 5.1 Infill Lands Availability Adjusted. As defined in OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a) the infill land classification accounts for an extraordinarily large percentage (67%) of the City's vacant residential lands inventory (Tables 3 and 4). As a vacant land classification the REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 229 Page 6 of 23 (less) (less) Total Total Envir. Envir. Less Total Redev. Infill & Gross Acres, Acres, Total Net Public Total Comprehensive Plan Vacant Vacant Vacant Infill City& Redev. Vacant Vacant Infill Vacant Need Buildable Designation city, UGB' Acres Infill City UGB UGB Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres Acres VLRes - - - 10 4 1 14 14 - 1 14 14 LRes 17 7 24 47 48 10 105 129 5 13 111 111 MRes 46 - 46 19 17 1 37 84 6 2 75 75 HRes 12 12 49 5 5366 2 4 60 60 VacaResidential Acres 76 7 83 125 68 17 210 293 13 20 260 260 Pentrcents a otTotal Gross Vacant Acres 28 % 43 % 23% 6%1 72% The definition of "Buildable Land" uses the term "likely" in referencing redevelopable residential land. For purposes of context the City refines the likelihood and reasonableness definition for Redevelopable Land as follows: 5.1 Infill Lands Availability Adjusted. As defined in OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a) the infill land classification accounts for an extraordinarily large percentage (67%) of the City's vacant residential lands inventory (Tables 3 and 4). As a vacant land classification the REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 229 Page 6 of 23 reasonableness and likelihood of counting all Infill Land as being available for development during the planning period is questionable. Infill Lands are small in size and comprised of many individual property owners with a wide range of real estate development skills and tolerance for risk. To assume that all Infill Land is available places a significant burden on the City's ability to both effectively and efficiently address housing affordability. The City acknowledges that Infill Land is an asset not be overlooked. The question is — to what extent should Infill Lands be reasonably expected to participate? Table 4 City of Central Point Buildable Residential Land Inventory by Zoning For purposes of the BLI the City estimates that 20% of the Infill Land inventory is likely to be developed during the 20 -year planning period. The 20% adjustment is acknowledged in the Housing Element, along with a policy to encourage and monitor infill activity. The 20% adjustment is based on a survey of infill development within the City between 1996 and 2016 (See Appendix "D"). Tables 5 and 6 adjust for the 20% infill land participation. 5.2 Redevelopment (Demolition) Land. The City uses the U.S. Census Methodology to determine the number of dwellings estimated to be demolished during the 20 -year planning period. The methodology, and its application to the City are described in Appendix "C". The redevelopment columns Tables 3 through 6 are based on the methodology in Appendix "C". Table 5 City of Central Point Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation (less) (less) (less) (less) Total Total Envir. Envir. Total Total Envir. Envir. Gross Less Total Net Total Comprehensive Plan Total Vacant Infill City & Redev. Infill & Gross Acres, Acres, Total Net Public Total Infill City UGB UGB Vacant Vacant Vacant Lands Lands Infill City & Redev. Vacant Vacant Infill Vacant Need Buildable ZoningCity'UGB' 3 Acres Infill Ci UGB UGB Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres Acres R -L - - - 10 4 1 14 14 - 1 14 14 14 R-1-6 2 - 2 28 4 5 37 39 0 6 33 105 33 R-1-8 2 - 2 10 1 4 15 17 0 1 16 16 R-1-10 0 - 0 4 6 0 11 11 0 0 11 11 LMR 21 7 28 5 37 1 43 70 11 6 53 53 R-2 2 - 2 4 - 1 5 8 - 1 7 7 R-3 4 - 4 37 - 5 42 46 - 2 44 44 MMR 36 36 15 17 0 32 68 0 2 66 66 HMR 8 - 8 11 0 11 20 2 2 16 16 Total Residential Acres 76 7 68 18 1 211 293 13 20 1 260 Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres 1 28% 42% 23% 6%1 72% For purposes of the BLI the City estimates that 20% of the Infill Land inventory is likely to be developed during the 20 -year planning period. The 20% adjustment is acknowledged in the Housing Element, along with a policy to encourage and monitor infill activity. The 20% adjustment is based on a survey of infill development within the City between 1996 and 2016 (See Appendix "D"). Tables 5 and 6 adjust for the 20% infill land participation. 5.2 Redevelopment (Demolition) Land. The City uses the U.S. Census Methodology to determine the number of dwellings estimated to be demolished during the 20 -year planning period. The methodology, and its application to the City are described in Appendix "C". The redevelopment columns Tables 3 through 6 are based on the methodology in Appendix "C". Table 5 City of Central Point Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 230 Page 7 of 23 (less) (less) Total Total Envir. Envir. Total Redev. Infill & Gross Acres, Acres, Total Net Total Comprehensive Plan Vacant Vacant Vacant Infill City & Redev. Vacant Vacant Infill Vacant Buildable Designation city, UGB' Acres Infill City UGB UGB Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres 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 1i10 5 14 27 2 4 2101 21 Vacant Residential Acres 75.8 7 83 25 14 17 56 138 13 20 5 105 Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres 1 60%1 18% 10% 121/61 40 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 230 Page 7 of 23 Table 7 Projected Residential Buildable Land Need 2019 to 2039 2018 Pop.' 19,101 2032 Forecast 23,662 2039 Forecast 26,317 Population Increase 7,216 Persons/H114 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Gross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 410 Total Buildable Residential Acres 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 305 ' Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 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 s City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan Table 6 City of Central Point Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Residential Land Inventory by Zoning 6. Residential Land Need The primary function of the BLI is to assist in the identification of residential buildable land needs during a 20 -year planning period. Table 7 identifies the estimated need for buildable residential as of 12/31/2018. Table 7 is based on input from the Population Element, the Housing Element, and the BLI. As noted earlier the BLI is a living document that changes as changes in residential development activity and policy occur. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 231 Page 8 of 23 (less) (less) Total Total Envir. Envir. Total Redev. Infill & Gross Acres, Acres, Total Net Total Vacant Vacant Vacant Infill City & Redev. Vacant Vacant Infill Vacant Buildable Zoning city, UGB' Acres Infill City UGB UGB Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres R -L 2 1 1 4 4 1 3 3 R-1-6 2 2 6 1 5 11 13 0 6 7 7 R-1-8 2 2 2 0 4 7 8 0 1 7 7 R-1-10 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 3 3 LMR 21 7 28 1 7 1 9 37 11 6 19 19 R-2 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 4 4 R-3 4 4 7 5 12 16 2 15 15 MMR 36 36 3 3 0 7 43 0 2 41 41 HMR 8 8 2 0 2 11 2 2 1 7 1 7 Total Residential Acres 1 76 7 83 25 14 18 1 56 1 13 20 1 105 1 105 Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres 1 59%1 18% 10% 13%1 41 6. Residential Land Need The primary function of the BLI is to assist in the identification of residential buildable land needs during a 20 -year planning period. Table 7 identifies the estimated need for buildable residential as of 12/31/2018. Table 7 is based on input from the Population Element, the Housing Element, and the BLI. As noted earlier the BLI is a living document that changes as changes in residential development activity and policy occur. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 231 Page 8 of 23 Lei Jk CENTRAL - Vacant Residential Land - Infill Land (Partially Developed > 0.5 ac) Redevelopment Land (LI <0.3) Figure 2. Updated December31,2018 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 232 Page 9 of 23 APPENDIX "A" — Definitions The 2019 BLI was last updated December 30, 2018. The following definitions are used in preparing and maintain the residential BLI. Definitions Buildable Land, Residential: Residentially designated lots or parcels within the City's urban area, including vacant and developed lots or parcels likely to be redeveloped that are suitable, available and necessary for residential uses (OAR 660-008-0005(2)). Land is -en�erallX considered "suitable and available" unless it: 1. Is severely constrained by natural hazards as determined under Statewide Planning Goal 7; 2. Is subject to natural resource protection measures determined under Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 or 18; 3. Has slopes of 25 percent or greater; 4. Is within the 100 -year flood plain; or 5. Cannot be provided with public facilities. Developed Land, Residential: Residentially designated lots or parcels of less than one-half acre that are currently occupied by a residence. (OAR 660-024-0050(2)(b). Infill Acres, Residential: Developed Residential Land of one-half acre or more, less one-quarter acre (10,890 square feet). OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a). Land to Improvement Ratio (L:I Ratio): The ratio between the real market value of land and the real market value of improvements as measured by taking the real improvement value of a parcel divided by the real land value based on the Jackson County Assessor records. Net Buildable Acre, Residential: Consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designated buildable land, after excluding present and future rights-of-way for streets and roads (OAR 660- 024-0010(6)). Planning Area: The area within an existing, or proposed, urban growth boundary. Cities and counties with urban growth management agreements must address the urban land governed by their respective plans as specified in the urban growth management agreement for the affected area (OAR 660-009-0005(7)). Redevelopment Acres, Residential: Land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period (OAR 660-008-0005(7)). Note: The BLI uses a methodology developed by the U.S. Census to determine the rate of residential redevelopment based on the age of structures. The specific methodology is presented in Appendix C, Methodology, for State and County Total Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017). Urban Area: Land within a UGB (OAR 660-24-10) REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 233 Page 10 of 23 Vacant Acres, Residential: All residentially designated lots or parcels not currently containing permanent buildings or improvements. For purposes of determination of the presence of permanent buildings/improvements all residential lots or parcels with an improvement value of zero (0), as determined by the Jackson County Assessor, are considered vacant. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 234 Page 11 of 23 APPENDIX "B" - Methodology for Calculation of Residential Buildable Land The methodology used to inventory and calculate buildable lands is based on the definitions defined in Appendix A. The base data source for identification of buildable lands is the Jackson County Assessor's Records dated April 2018, which has been modified to include such additional information as Comprehensive Plan designations, zoning, development status, etc. The modified database is referred to as the Buildable Lands Inventory (BL12019.xls). Step 1. Urban Area, Gross Acres — Using the City's GIS the total geographic limits of the City's urban area are mapped and the gross acres within the limits of the shape file calculated by area within the City Limits and UGB. Step 2. Net Urban Area by Land Use and Zoning — Using BLI2018 sum by land use and zoning all tax lots within the City's urban area (City Limits and UGB). Tax lots identified for street, road, or access right-of-way (public or private) purposes are not included. Step 3. Right -of -Way — Deduct the totals (City Limits and UGB) in Step 2 total from Step 1 total, the balance representing acreage used for right-of-way for the City Limits and UGB. The results of Steps 1— 3 are presented in Tables I and 2 of the 2019 Residential BLI. Step 4. Buildable Acres, Residential. The methodology for calculating Buildable Residential Land involves the following steps: Step 4a. Residential Vacant Acres. The BLI identifies all tax lots by their land use designation, development status, and improvement value. When the improvement value of a property is zero the property is defined as Residential Vacant Land. The BLI sums the acreage for all Residential Vacant Land by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB. Step 4b. Residential Infill Acres. The BLI identifies all residential tax lots for their infill potential. Residential properties in excess of .5 acres and with an improvement value in excess of zero are defined as Residential Developed Land. By deducting 10,890 sq. ft. from each Residential Developed Land record the balance is defined as Residential Infill Land. The BLI then sums the Residential Infill Land for all residentially designated properties, by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB. Step 4c. Residential Redevelopment Acres. The BLI identifies all residential tax lots by the year the primary residence was built. Using the U.S. Census housing loss methodology presented in Appendix C. The BLI then sums the Residential Redevelopment Land for all residentially designated properties, by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB. Step 4d. Gross Vacant Residential Acres. Using the sum of the totals generated from Steps 4a through 4c the BLI calculates the Gross Buildable Residential land by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 235 Page 12 of 23 Step 4e. Environmentally Constrained Acres. The BLI includes information on the acreage within each vacant and infill lot or parcel that is considered environmentally constrained. The BLI sums the environmentally constrained land for all residentially designated properties, by land use and zoning, developed, vacant, and infill/redevelopment. Step 4f. Total Buildable Residential Acres. The BLI takes the results from Step 4d, less the results from Step 4e, to yield Buildable Residential Land by land use and zoning. Step 5. Infill Lands Adjustment. The Infill Lands inventory is adjusted per the Infill Study in Appendix D. An adjustment of 20% is used to determine the amount of Infill Land that will be available during the 20 -year planning period (Tables 5 and 6). The 20% adjustment accounts for "likelihood and availability" of Infill Lands (See Appendix D for Infill Methodology). Note: Per the Regional Plan Element's measurement of residential development density as gross density it is important to note that for residential purposes the Buildable Residential Land number is used as a net figure, it does not include lands for public right-of-way, parks/open space, schools, or other public uses. For Employment lands public right-of-way is excluded. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 236 Page 13 of 23 APPENDIX "C" — Methodology for Identifying Residential Redevelopment (Demolition) Land The City does not maintain records for demolitions necessitating the use of another methodology for determining the number and rate of residential demolitions within the City's urban area. The methodology used was found on the U.S Census web site and is referred to as Methodology for State and County Total Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017' (Methodology). The Methodology was applied to the City of Central Point as follows: Step 1. Demolition Rate by Region, Type of Housing Unit, and Age. The Methodology provided a loss rate based on the region, type of housing unit, and age of housing unit (Table 1). Table 1. Housing Unit Loss Rate by Housing Type and Age, Western Region Type of Unit and Age Loss Rate (Units Lost/1,000 Units) House, Apartment 10 Years or less (2008-2018) 0 11 to 30 years (1988-2007) 0.37 31 to 59 years (1959-1987) 0.54 60 or more years (1958 and Earlier) 0.64 Mobile Home 1.8 Source: Methodology for State and County Total Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 Step 2. Determine Distribution of Housing by Age and Type. The BLI maintains an inventory of housing by type, year built, and land use designation and zoning. Tables 2A through 2D identifies the housing construction in Central Point by type and year built segregated into age categories as presented in Table 1. 1 https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2010-2017/2017-hu- meth.pdf REVIEW DRAFT — 2019 Residential BLI Page 14 of 23 237 Table 2A. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 2008 - 2018 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 1.80 Table 2B. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007 Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 2008 - 2018 Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1958 and Earlier Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1959 -1987 Less Prior Total Total Total Total Mobile Period Built Adjusted Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year Total (LRes Housing Homes SFR and Units Built, Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Land Use Class Units Built Installed MFR 2008-2018 SFR, MFR SFR, MFR MH 2008-2018 VLRes - - - - 0.0 0.2 - - LRes 203 82 203 203 0.9 17.0 3.0 20.0 MRes 216 0 216 216 0.2 4.6 - 4.6 HRes 158 1 158 1 0.3 6.8 13.1 20.0 Residential Units 577 1 447 577 577 1 - - - 45 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 1.80 Table 2B. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.37 1.8 Table 2C. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1959 - 1987 Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1988 - 2007 Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1958 and Earlier Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1959 -1987 Total Total Total Total Adjusted Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year Total (LRes Housing Total Mobile Less Prior Units, 1988 - Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Land Use Class Units Built Homes Period 2007 SFR, MFR SFR, MFR MH 1988-2007 Res 30 - - 30 0.0 0.2 - 0.2 Homes 2,588 82 203 2,303 0.9 17.0 3.0 20.0 MRes 839 0 216 623 0.2 4.6 - 4.6 HRes 1 1,444 365 158 921 1 0.3 6.8 13.1 20.0 Residential Units 1 4,901 1 447 577 1 3,877 1 1 29 16 45 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.37 1.8 Table 2C. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1959 - 1987 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.54 1.8 Table 2D. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1958 and Earlier Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1958 and Earlier Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1959 -1987 Total Total Total Adjusted Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year Total Housing Adjusted Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year Total Land Use Class Housing Total Mobile Less Prior Units, 1959 - Demolitions, SFR, Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Land Use Class Units Built Homes Periods 1987 MFR SFR, MFR MH 1959-1987 VLRes 92 2 30 60 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 LRes 3,891 85 2,515 1,291 0.7 13.9 3.1 17.0 MRes 1,009 2 899 108 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.2 HRes 1,831 456 1,079 296 0.2 3.2 16.4 19.6 Residential Units 6,823 545 4,523 1,755 1 19 20 39 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.54 1.8 Table 2D. Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age City of Central Point, 1958 and Earlier Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.64 1.8 REVIEW DRAFT- 2019 Residential BLI Page 15 of 23 238 Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1958 and Earlier Total Total Adjusted Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year Total Housing Total Mobile Less Prior Units, 1958 - Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions, Land Use Class Units Built Homes Period Earlier SFR, MFR SFR, MFR MH 1958 - Earlier VLRes 23 23 0.0 0.3 - 0.3 LRes 190 1 189 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.5 MRes 204 1 203 0.1 2.6 0.0 2.6 HRes 155 1 3 152 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.1 Residential Units 572 1 5 567 0 7 0 7 Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: 0.64 1.8 REVIEW DRAFT- 2019 Residential BLI Page 15 of 23 238 Step 3. Determine Annual Demolitions. Tables 2A through 2D apply the Methodology loss rates per 1,000 units (Table 1) by land use classification and age. Take the sum of the demolitions and multiply by 20 (projected years). Step 4. Determine Projected Demolitions and Related Acreage. Multiply the annual loss by the density for each land use classification. Take the sum of the annual demolitions and acreage and multiply by 20 (projected years) to get projected acres made available over the course of the 20 -year planning period Table 3. Table 3 City of Central Point Estimated Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Land Use Classification 2019-2039 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 239 Page 16 of 23 Average Density Total (Units/Gross Demolition Land Use Class Demolitions Acre) Acres VLRes 1 1 1 LRes 39 4 10 MRes 8 7 1 HRes 42 9 5 Totals 91 1 117 REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 239 Page 16 of 23 Methodology for State and County Total Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 OVERVIEW The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the number of housing units for each year since the most recent decennial census. With each annual release of housing unit estimates, the entire time series of estimates beginning with April 1, 2010 is revised and updated. The estimates use building permits, estimates of non - permitted construction, mobile home shipments, and estimates of housing loss to estimate change in the housing stock. These component data come from various Census Bureau surveys. We produce housing unit estimates for all states and counties annually. We release these estimates to the public, and they are used as controls for several Census Bureau surveys, including the American Community Survey (ACS), the American Housing Survey (AHS), and the Housing Vacancy Survey (HVS). In addition to state and county housing unit estimates, we also produce subcounty housing unit estimates. These estimates are central to the production of population estimates for cities and towns across the nation. METHOD We produce housing unit estimates using the components of housing change. In this model, we add together the 2010 Census count of housing units, estimated new residential construction, and estimated new mobile homes. From this sum we subtract the estimated housing units lost. The computation of annual July 1 housing unit estimates is expressed by the following formula: 201 1 Census Housi New New Mobile _ Housing July 1 ng Units # Residential Homes Units Lost Housing Unit Construction Estimate After these data are combined to produce a preliminary set of housing estimates, they are reviewed by members of the Federal -State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE) and by local jurisdictions. The final housing estimates may reflect updates from their review of the estimates. Each component of the housing unit change model is described below. 2010 Census Housing Units Every year, we re -tabulate the 2010 Census counts of housing units in current legal geographic boundaries to form the base for the annual housing unit estimates. The base for the housing estimates reflects annual geographic boundary updates from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) that are legally effective as of January 1. The base also includes the results of completed Count Question Resolution (CQR) actions and geographic program revisions incorporated into the Master Address File (MAF)/TIGER Database through May of each estimate's year. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 240 Page 17 of 23 New Residential Construction Residential construction is the largest component of housing change. We estimate new residential construction in two parts: permitted construction and non -permitted construction. The calculation of new residential construction is represented by the following formula: Permitted Construction Building P rmits Issued Permit T Non- New Completion permitted Residential Rate C onstruction Construction Permitted Construction According to the Census Bureau, more than 98 percent of all new housing units are erected in places that issue building permits. We calculate estimates of new permitted construction by multiplying the number of residential building permits issued by a permit completion rate. Data on issued permits come from the Building Permits Survey (BPS).' This survey includes reported permits from approximately 20,000 jurisdictions. These data are reported to the BPS by calendar year for cities and towns across the country. Implicit in the method of using calendar year permits is an assumption of a six-month lag time between when a building permit is issued and when the housing unit is completed. Thus, permits that are issued in the first six months of a particular calendar year are not processed in the housing unit estimates until the following year. For example, the July 1, 2014 housing unit estimates are based on permits issued between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Permits issued between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 w ill be processed in the 2015 housing unit estimates. The permit completion rates used to calculate new permitted construction are based on national estimates of permits that are either abandoned or deemed "out of scope" by the Survey of Construction (SOC). 2,3 We update the completion rate every year, as new survey data become available. The 2014 permit completion rate reflects the percent of building permits issued in calendar year 2013 that resulted in completed housing units. The Census Bureau conducts the BPS. For more infomution about this survey, see http://www.census.2ov/constructionA2ps/. 2 Abandoned permtsarepermitsthatthesurveyrespondentorbuildingpermitoffice has indicatedthatconstruction of the housing unit(s) authorized by that pemit will not be completed using thatpenmt. Out ofs copepenmts are those that were reported as permits for new, privately -owned housing units bythe building permit office, but it was later detemined that the units did not meet thedefinition of newprivately -owned housing units (e.g., the units were intendedas groupquarters, forcommercial use, etc.). 3 The Census BureauconductstheSOC.Formoreinfomntionaboutthissurvey,seehttpJ/www.crosus.gov/econ/overview/coO4OO.htni. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 241 Page 18 of 23 Non permitted Construction We calculate estimates of new non -permitted construction using data on new residential housing units constructed in places that do not issue building permits. These data also come from the SOC. The estimates of non -permitted construction are regional -level data that we distribute to all places that do not receive building permits, based on each place's share of the region's total housing units enumerated in the 2010 Census. For example, if a place contained 5 percent of the region's housing units as of the 2010 Census, and does not issue building permits, we distribute 5 percent of the region's non -permitted units in the SOC to that place. There is no lag time applied to the estimates of non -permitted construction. The sampling frame for the SOC does not include any non -permitting areas in the West; therefore, we do not distribute non -permitted housing units to places in that region. New Mobile Homes The data we use to create estimates of new mobile homes come from the Manufactured Homes Survey (MHS).4 We calculate annual mobile home estimates by compiling monthly state shipment data from July of the previous year through June of the current year. For example, the July 1, 2014 mobile home estimates are based on mobile home shipment data from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. We distribute the state - level mobile home estimates to each place within the state based on each place's share of the state's total mobile homes. To do so, we use information from the Census 2000 long form on "type of structure" for housing units. Housing Unit Loss We calculate housing unit loss by applying an annual loss rate to the housing stock. The vintage 2017 estimates of housing units lost are based on regional -level data from the 2009 and 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS).5 A unit is counted as lost if a survey was completed in 2009, but it was listed as a non -response (Type C, 30 — Demolished) in the 2011 survey. The housing loss rates vary by type and age of structure, which are obtained from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) single -year file. Housing units fall under one of three types: houses (including apartments and flats), mobile homes, or other types of housing units. The vintage 2017 housing loss rates are as follows: 4 The Census Bureau conducts the MHS. For rwreinfortnation about this survey, see httpsl/www.census.gov/Zograrm -surveys/mhs.html. 5 The Census Bureauconducts the AHS. Fornure inforTration about this survey, see http l/www.census.gqy/Zograrrs -survM/ahs/. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 242 Page 19 of 23 V2017 Housing Unit Loss Rates by Region, Type and Age Type of Unit Loss Rate (Units Lost/1,000 Units) Northeast South Midwest West House, Apartment/Flat 10 years or less 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 to 30 years 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 31 to 59 years 0.40 1.31 2.57 0.54 60 or more years 0.75 3.68 6.85 0.64 Mobile Homes 8.74 4.08 3.64 1.80 Other Housing Units6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The rates of loss for units less than 10 years old is too small for us to estimate with confidence with the data we have available, therefore, we assume that the rate is zero. We also assume that the "Other Housing Units" are constantly churning and, since we have no growth component for this category, a loss rate of zero seems appropriate. Numeric estimates of loss are then calculated by applying the above rates to the base file as it is aged to the current vintage year. The base file is given type and age of structure characteristics by applying distributions calculated from the 2010 ACS single -year file. After aging the base from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010, the process iterates annually and units increase in age by 1 year at each iteration. July 1, 2010 Housing Unit Estimates We use one quarter of the 2010 permitted and non -permitted construction, mobile homes, and housing loss to produce the July 1, 2010 estimates. This represents the change in housing stock during the three month period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010. REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES The preliminary housing unit estimates are distributed for review to members of the FSCPE. Some FSCPE members provide revisions to the estimates, in the form of alternative housing component data, based on information they compile from the jurisdictions within their respective states. Alternative housing component data include local building permits, mobile home placements, demolitions, and housing completions derived from non -permitted construction, certificates of occupancy and housing 6 "OtherHousingUnits"includeboats,recreationalvehicles,andothertypesofhousingarrangements. REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI 243 Page 20 of 23 ESTIMATES CHALLENGE AND SPECIAL CENSUS REVISIONS Localities that challenge the Census Bureau's subcounty population estimates have the option of revising the housing component data specific to their area.7 These revisions are included in the final housing unit estimates. The final estimates may also include other changes due to revisions that occur outside the component estimation framework and are the result of special censuses$ for full jurisdictions. Special census revisions are reflected in the July 1, 2010 to July 1 of the year following the special census. 7 For alist ofacceptedsubcounty population challenges, seehttpsJ/www.census.gov/pro2rams - surve sy /pooest/about/challen ge-prommiresults.hhnl. 8 Special CensusProgramresults are available here httpsl/www.census'gov/programs -surveys/sMialcensus/data products/official counts.html. For a list ofaccepted special census results incorporated into thePopulation Estimates, see httpsl www.census.gov/pro¢rams- survM/pouest/ab out/special-c ensus.html. 244 2019 — 2039 Residential BLI APPENDIX "D" - Infill Survey, City of Central Point, 2019-2039 The Infill Land classification in Table 3 and Table 4 represents an extraordinarily large percentage (67%) of the City's buildable residential lands inventory. As a vacant land classification the reasonableness of counting all Infill lands as being available for development during the 20 -year planning period is questionable. Infill Lands are small in size and comprised of many individual property owners, each with a varying range of market knowledge and risk tolerance. To assume that all Infill Lands are available places a significant burden on the City's ability to both effectively and efficiently address housing affordability. The City acknowledges that Infill Lands are an asset not be overlooked. The question is the extent of participation as a component of the buildable lands determination? To gather some insights into the role of Infill lands as a part of the City's residential buildable lands inventory the City surveyed residential infill development activity between 1996 and 2016, a 20 -year period. The findings of the survey are presented in Table 1. It was found that during the survey period infill activity accounted for development of approximately 30 acres, with maximum yield of 270 housing units. During the same period the City experienced development of 3,619 dwelling units. Assuming that all infill units surveyed were developed during the survey period this would have accounted for approximately 8% (Participation Rate, Housing) of the total housing built and 6% (Participation Rate, Land) of the buildable residential consumed acres in the City from 1996 to 2016. For Infill Land purposes it is recommended that the 6% Participation Rate be upwardly adjusted to 20%. The 20% Participation Rate serves as a goal for future infill development. Throughout the 20 -year planning period the Participation Rate should be tracked and policies adopted to encourage infill development at the 20% rate, or greater. The survey results are not absolutes, but instead provide a reference from which to view and evaluate the role of Infill lands in the City's residential BLI. The Housing Element recognizes the findings of the Infill Survey and sets a 20% Participation Rate for Land. The Residential BLI has been adjusted to recognize the 20% participation rate as a reasonable measure of the availability of Infill lands. To be monitored over the next 20 -years. The Housing Element further encourages the development of policies that will improve the rate of participation. Page 22 of 23 245 2019 - 2039 Residential BLI Table 1. City of Central Point Infill Development Activity 1996 through 2016 Page 23 of 23 246 GROSS SUBDIVISION YEAR PLATTED #OF PARCELS DUs ZONING LANDUSE ACRES Whittle Partition Feb -96 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Whittle Partition Mar -96 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Whittle Partition Mar -96 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Whittle Partition Mar -96 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Countryside Village Phase II Mar -96 5 15 R-3 HRes 0.94 Lowe Partition Jun -96 2 2 111-6 LRes 0.42 Countryside Village Phase II Aug -96 3 9 R-3 HRes 0.56 Gutches & Gifford Aug -96 2 2 111-6 LRes 0.42 Crown West Partition Aug -96 6 12 R-2 MRes 1.50 Governor Partition Aug -96 4 8 R-2 MRes 1.00 Jangaard Partition Jan -97 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Countryside Village Feb -97 4 12 R-3 HRes 0.75 Fancher Partition Jun -97 3 3 R3-6 LRes 0.63 Governor Partition Jan -98 2 6 R-3 HRes 0.38 Snowy Mountain View Phase 1 Partition May -98 6 18 R-3 HRes 1.13 Forest Glen Partition Jun -98 2 2 R-3 HRes 0.13 Snowy Mountain View Partition Sep -98 22 22 R-3 HRes 1.38 Sandlin Partition Mar -99 3 9 R-3 HRes 0.56 Brink Partition Apr -99 4 12 R-3 HRes 0.75 Thumler Partition Jun -99 3 3 R1-6 LRes 0.63 Key West Proerties Partition Jun -99 2 2 R1-8 LRes 0.42 Cavin/Smith Partition Oct -00 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 LDS Partition Oct -00 2 2 R1-10 LRes 0.42 Smith Partition Jan -01 2 2 R1-6 LRes 0.42 Lafon Partition Apr -01 2 2 R1-8 LRes 0.42 Giese Partition Apr -01 2 2 111-6 LRes 0.42 Orr Partition Jul -01 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Higinbotham Partition Feb -02 2 4 R1-8 LRes 0.83 Williamson Partition May -02 2 2 R1-6 LRes 0.42 Dekorte Partition May -03 3 3 R1-8 LRes 0.63 Ross Partition Sep -03 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.50 Rogers Partition May -04 2 2 R1-8 LRes 0.42 Coffin Partition May -04 4 8 R-2 MRes 0.50 Lamson Partition May -04 2 2 LMR MRes 0.13 A.R.E Properties May -04 2 2 R1-6 LRes 0.42 Lamson Partition Oct -04 2 2 TOD-MMR HRes 0.13 Twin Creek Partition Mar -OS 2 2 LMR MRes 0.13 Castellano Partition Jun -05 3 3 R1-6 LRes 0.63 Twin Creeks Partition Jul -05 2 2 LMR MRes 0.13 Grissom Partition Sep -05 2 2 TOD-MMR HRes 0.13 Magel Homes Partition Oct -05 2 2 LMR MRes 0.13 Dahl House Partition Oct -05 3 3 R1-8 LRes 0.63 Williams Partition Nov -05 3 3 LMR MRes 0.19 Skillman Brothers Partition Jan -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Cascade Meadows Phase 1 Mar -06 3 3 TOD-LMR MRes 0.19 Altus Construction May -06 4 8 R-2 MRes 0.50 CoWest Partition Jun -06 2 2 R1-10 LRes 0.42 Whitten Partition Jun -06 3 3 R1-8 LRes 0.63 Lisk Partition Jul -06 2 2 R1-10 LRes 0.42 Pattison Addition Aug -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Skillman Brothers Partition Aug -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Bursell Rd Nov -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Block 70 of Plat of CP Dec -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Danbrook Partition Jan -07 2 6 R-3 HRes 0.38 Rambo Partition Oct -07 2 2 R -L VI -Res 1.25 Brown Partition Apr -08 1 1 R1-6 LRes 0.21 Hatten Partition Dec -13 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 Lee Partition Apr -15 2 2 RI -6 LRes 0.42 Kottke Partition Apr -16 3 6 R-2 MRes 0.38 Lewellyn Partition May -16 3 3 RI -8 LRes 0.63 Adams Partition Jan -06 2 4 R-2 MRes 0.25 TOTALS 174 285 29.77 Units Constructed in the City, 1996-2016 3,619 601.40 Percentage 7.9% 5% Page 23 of 23 246 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 865 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATING THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY SECTION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT WHEREAS, on April 20, 2017 the City Council approved Resolution No. 1497, declaring the City's Intent to initiate an Urban Growth Boundary amendment to add land for residential development; and, WHEREAS, the City is required to update its residential buildable lands inventory in accordance with the ORS 197.296(2) to demonstrate sufficiency of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary and additional residential land needs; WHEREAS, the City of Central Point, in accordance with Section 17.05.500 of the City of Central Point Municipal Code, initiated a Type IV Legislative change to the City's Comprehensive Plan to update the City's Buildable Land Inventory; and WHEREAS, the amendment has been prepared in compliance with ORS 197.296(2) and consistent with definitions and safe harbors provided by Oregon Administrative Regulations as relates to the calculation of buildable land; and WHEREAS, the amendment does not amend any policies of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, but only serves to provide a factual accounting of the City's buildable land inventory; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the City staff report and heard testimony and comments on the Buildable Land Inventory; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by the Resolution No. 865 does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council, the Residential Buildable Land Inventory as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" for final consideration and adoption. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2019 Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Resolution No. 865 (02/05/2019) 247 Approved by me this 5"' day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 865 (02/05/2019) 248 249 STAFF REPORT Ark CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT February 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM VIII -D Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director Consideration of the 2019 Housing Element of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -18005. STAFF SOURCE Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner BACKGROUND The Planning Commission discussed the working draft Housing Element on January 8, 2019. At that time, the Planning Commission regarding the infill adjustment and requested further discussion and analysis of the likely contribution of infill development over the next 20 -years. On January 15, 2019 the Citizen's Advisory Committee discussed the draft Housing Element update, including infill, and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission based on application of a 20% infill adjustment (Attachment "A"). Since that time staff has distributed the draft Housing Element for review and comment. The attached final draft addresses minor clarifying comments from the Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). At the Planning Commission meeting on February 5, 2019 the Housing Element will be presented at a public hearing to receive further public input. Staff will provide an overview of the Housing Element, including an overview of the infill adjustment analysis and comments from DLCD, followed by opening the public hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission may: 1. Close the public hearing and proceed to discussion and action; or, 2. Continue the public hearing to allow for further public discussion and comment. Housing Element Overview: The Housing Element includes an analysis of housing needs within the City's urban area over a 20 -year period and addresses the City's capacity to accommodate that need within the existing Urban Growth Boundary. Based on housing and demographic characteristics, past and forecast, the Housing Element sets forth goals and policies intended to encourage not only the provision of the needed number of various housing types at appropriate locations and densities, but also encourages provision of housing at prices that are commensurate with the capabilities of Central Point households. The last Housing Element was adopted in 2017, a little over a year ago. Since that time, population forecast changes and updated residential buildable lands information has resulted in an increased need in housing for the period 2019-2039 as illustrated in Table 1. The proposed amendment to the Housing Element addresses these changes and maintains the previously adopted policies without chagnes. 250 Table 1 Proje cte d Re s ide ntial B uildable Land Ne e d 2019 to 2039 2018 Pop.' 2032 Forecast 2039 Forecast 19,101 23,662 26,317 Population Increase 7,216 Persons/FfW 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Gross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 410 Total Buildable Residential Acres 6 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres I A 305 1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2 z 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 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan ISSUES There are no known issues at this time. The most significant finding from the Housing Element is the number of needed acres over the course of the next 20 -years as compared to the adopted 2017 Housing Element. Staff will address the findings of the Housing Element at the Planning Commission meeting, including comments received from DLCD. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" — Housing Element (Final Draft) Attachment `B" — Resolution No. 866 ACTION Consideration of Resolution No. 866 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Housing Element and 1) approve, 2) approve with modifications, 3) deny, or 4) direct staff to prepare a revisions for consideration at the March 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 866. 251 oil Housing Element 2019-2039 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan 252 Final Draft 1/29/2019 Ordinance No. DLCD Acknowledged: Contents 1. Summary................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Residential Land Need..................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Housing Affordability...................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Housing Types.................................................................................................................. 7 2. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 7 3. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing.................................................................... 8 4. Purpose....................................................................................................................................9 5. Household Characteristics...................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Household Tenure.......................................................................................................... 10 5.2 Age of Householder....................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Household Size............................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Household Income.......................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Special Needs Housing................................................................................................... 14 5.5.1 Elderly Residents.................................................................................................... 14 5.5.2 Handicapped Residents........................................................................................... 14 5.6 Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents................................................................. 14 5.7 Summary, Household Characteristics............................................................................ 15 6. Housing Characteristics........................................................................................................ 15 6.1 Housing Age................................................................................................................... 15 6.2 Housing Type................................................................................................................. 16 6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................ 20 6.4 Housing Vacancy........................................................................................................... 21 6.5 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................ 22 7. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning............................................................................... 22 7.1 Housing Density............................................................................................................. 22 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type.......................................................................................... 26 7.3 Summary, Housing Density........................................................................................... 26 8. Buildable Residential Lands................................................................................................. 26 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands......................................................................... 28 9. Housing Affordability........................................................................................................... 28 9.1 Renter Households......................................................................................................... 28 9.2 Owner Households......................................................................................................... 29 9.3 Summary, Affordability................................................................................................. 30 Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 2136 253 10. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 30 10.1 Future Housing Tenure............................................................................................... 33 10.2 Future Housing Types................................................................................................ 33 11. Housing Goals and Policies............................................................................................... 33 Review Draft 12-31-18 254 Page 3136 1. Summary Over the next twenty -years (2019-39) the City of Central Point's population is projected to add an additional 7,582 people, the equivalent of 3,033 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. 1.1 Residential Land Need To accommodate the housing demand the City will need an estimated 431 gross acres of residential land (Table 1). The City's current inventory of Buildable Residential Land totals 4,15 105 gross acres, requiring 30&-305 gross acres of additional Buildable Residential Land. Table 1 Projected Residential Buildable Land Need 2019 to 2039 2018 Pop.' 17,916 2032 Forecastz 23,662 2039 Forecast 26,317 Population Increase 8,402 Persons/HH4 2.50 Household Increase 3,361 Average Gross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 477 Total Buildable Residential Acres6 Jk 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 372 1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Certified Estimate, 2018 Adjusted for UGB population 2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UCBs 2018-2068 3 Based on PSU hiterprolation 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 Designation Aside from the 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 4136 255 standard requiring a minimum average density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre' for new residential construction. The relevance of this new density standard becomes evident when compared to the City's current average (18 89 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. Table 2 City of Central Point 1980, Actual, and 2019-2039 Gross Density Comparision Based on build -out ofresidentially designated lands Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 Table 3 City of Central Point Gross Density Comparision Historic, 1980-2018, 2006-2018, and 2010-2018 1980 Actual 2019-2039 Actual Maximum Historic Minimum Developed Allowed Average Required Gross Gross Gross Gross Land Use Classification Density' Densities 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 Based on build -out ofresidentially designated lands Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 Table 3 City of Central Point Gross Density Comparision Historic, 1980-2018, 2006-2018, and 2010-2018 Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 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 ' City of Central Point Regional Plan Review Draft 12-31-18 256 Page 5136 Actual Actual Actual Historic Developed Developed Developed Average Gross Gross Gross Gross Density, 1980 Density, 2006 Density, 2010 Land Use Classification Densities 2018 2018 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 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 ' City of Central Point Regional Plan Review Draft 12-31-18 256 Page 5136 Developable Residential acres in the higher density districts (MRes and HRes), and the 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. 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 Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 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 431 acres of gross residential land. After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (125 gross acres), there is a need for an additional 306 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table 5. 1.2 Housing Affordability 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 the a positive mitigating impact on addressing housing need and affordability in the City of Central Point. Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 6136 257 Historic Percentage New Percentage Buildable Developed Residential Acres, Residential Acreage Land Use Classification pre -2018 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 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 431 acres of gross residential land. After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (125 gross acres), there is a need for an additional 306 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table 5. 1.2 Housing Affordability 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 the a positive mitigating impact on addressing housing need and affordability in the City of Central Point. Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 6136 257 Table 5 City of Central Point Required Buildable Residential Lands 2019-2039 rercenrage Distribution o Needed Needed Developable Developable 2018 Existing Re side ntial Re s ide ntial Buildable Acres, 2019- Acres, 2019- Residential Surplus or LandUse Classification 2039 2039 Acres (Shortage) VLRes 4% 16 3 (13) LRes 60% 246 35 (211) MRes 20% 82 46 (36) HRes 16%1 66 1 21 1 45) Totals 100%1 410 1 105 1 (305) Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 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. 1.3 Housing Types 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 - Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 7136 258 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 8136 259 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 2PSU 3 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 9136 260 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. 5.1 Household Tenure 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%). Figure 1. Housing Tenure, Owner Occupied 02.000 02010 02.015 ■2.017 70% city county state Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics 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 improve, 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. 5.2 Age of Householder 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 261 Page 10136 Figure 2. Housing Tenure, Renter Occupied ■ 2000 ❑ 2010 ❑ 2015 ■ 2017 38% ct7% 39% rte, 39% 37% rte, 39% 38% City County State Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics over can serve as the householder 4. 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. 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. 4 U.S. Census Glo Review Dra Figure 3. City of Central Point Household Age Characteristics ❑HH15-34 ■HH35-64 ®HH 65+ 54% 53% 53% 53% 1990 2000 662 2010 2015 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, ccpancy Characteristics 2017 11136 5.3 Household Size 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 Cites Population Element identified an average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes 2.75 2.7 2.65 2.6 2.55 2.5 2.45 2.4 2.35 2.3 2.25 2.2 Figure 4. Average Household Size City of Central Paint, 1990 - 2017 2. 1 2. '. 0 2.69 1990 2000 2.4 2010 2.63 2.43 2015 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics over the next twenty years. 5.4 Household Income 2.=6 2.46 ■ City ■ County 2017 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), 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. Review Draft 12-31-18 263 Page 12136 Figure 5. City of Central Point Median Household Income ■ City u County ❑ State m D Lmj cD 0 N Ln p N N 65 CO r -I r• .., ir, � C OO N Ln 2000 2010 2015 2017 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics 6. City of Central Point Household Income Distribution 30.00N 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% - 10.00% 5.00% T � 0.00% Less than $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000 $10,000 to to to to to to to or more $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 — — 2000 2010 ----2015 2017 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics Review Draft 12-31-18 264 Page 13136 5.5 Special Needs Housing 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 sixteens. 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 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. 5.6 Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents 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. 5 The State of the Nation's Housing; Joint Studies for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2017 6 HUD User, FY 2015 Income Limits Documentation System Review Draft 12-31-18 265 Page 14136 Figure 7. Percentage of Families at or Below the Poverty Level 01980 ■ 2000 M2010 ■ 2415 ■ 2017 e 0 � o 12.20% ` �4 u \° c $ 11.20% e0 00 a, ao r County State Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics 5.7 Summary, Household Characteristics 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 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 2,29 1 7 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. 6.1 Housing Age 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. 7 City of Central Point Housing Element Review Draft 12-31-18 266 Page 15136 Figure 6. 1. City of Central Point Age of Housing Stock 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Built 1980 or later Built 1979 - 1950 Built 1949 or earlier Source: City of Central Point, 2019 Residential BLI 6.2 Housing Type 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); 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 267 Page 16136 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 I% 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. 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 both the MRes and 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 medium and high density residential districts. Review Draft 12-31-18 268 Page 17136 A M Co O F fD O a Iro l�' to �'• o fD � a � � � � O f9 C � O f9 O G7 n oil W N cA p y C A x W W O J O W --1 Vi O� Vi w N n N-P�, p O p O d � d A 9 00 � Y! C Do C, Z G � C H CD N 00 A fD CD a a rD CD N .. , bxo bxo '�'' J O\ x J '�' eD W fn U CD m 'D c o o fnov, o d d � A ►� � A 0 �, O H+ A N IJ .•i O Wp y ,M A " C r e r to c.n .-• O , a O 41 W 01 A� G d d A ^'S Review Draft 12-31-18 269 Page 18136 °c royx�r x � y �'d•-] r� m'S CP w w A yp L IQ eb ep w .�.� (i rp feD .�•' .4•n A d ¢ A b N W i A ~A A O, N �- ~ O.2 G a O\ oo J h+ M ,p � o� �a •O d O SO d A ►+ P1 a N M rc � W Ls i,FQ o o �a x' C� CP xL-0 o r x w S. w 7 + CP r d � o � q a 00 'o 'D�o y Review Draft 12-31-18 270 S. O C C; 44 61 m Q O ,7 Page 19136 6.3 Housing Value 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. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 9. City of Central Point, Median Owner Occupied Value $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 1990 2000 2010 2015 2017 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics Figure 10. City of Central Point, Percentage Housing Value Distribution, 2015 "0/ Soirce: U.S. Census_ mericanFactFinder, Selected Housing Chu acteristics Review Draft 12-31-18 271 ❑ Less than $50,000 ❑ $50,000 to $99,999 ■ $100,000 to $149,999 ■ $150,000 to $199,999 ■ $200,000 to $299,999 ■ $300,000 to $499,999 ❑ $500,000 to $999,999 Page 20136 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. A vacancy rate less than 5% is equivalent to market equilibrium supply equals demand. 6.4 Housing Vacancy 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. 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 vacancy rate has been declining. Figure 11. Owner Vacancy Rate Comparison 2000- 2017 ■ 2000 02010 112015 ■ 2017 3.7p'o City County Oregon Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics Figure 12. Renter Vacancy Rate Comparison, 2000- 2417 ■ 2000 112010 ❑2015 ■ 20177.9% 5.5 °'0 5.6% 5.0% 4.1°/a 4.3% 4.3%4.2%3.7% 3.7 2.9%M .3.0%F 3.1% n City County Oregon Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics Review Draft 12-31-18 272 Page 21136 6.5 Summary, Housing Characteristics 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. 7.1 Housing Density 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. Table 10. City of Central Point Cummulative Average Gross Density by Land Use Classification 1980 through 2018 * Based on build -out Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI Tables 11 through 14 identify the residential development activity between 1980 through 2018 and 2006 trough 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 22136 273 Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Density, Density, Density, Density, Density, Land Use Classification 1980 1990 2000 2010 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 Densit 3.77 3.80 4.19 4.67 4.73 * Based on build -out Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI Tables 11 through 14 identify the residential development activity between 1980 through 2018 and 2006 trough 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 22136 273 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. Review Draft 12-31-18 274 Page 23136 Review Draft 12-31-18 275 go r � � a o m m C� O p d O `3 d A W N VI a W 01 U to O w R U] A I A A I a 00 --1 d N n N A C A d 00 W N 00 C R I I I �O O 00 h W N I I R N N O Illm� a� r000 a VI A I I - O, W W y OI m y I� m 5• y I I p R m b m a 00 v m � d m 00 _ �O In y O m N J � N 'A to Review Draft 12-31-18 275 O rz Page 24136 go r o c O `3 d W N VI a W 01 U to O w Q A W W 00 W O N n N A ¢, d C A �O O 00 R N N a VI A I m O, W W O O a� I Imp a 00 v m � H m mfD c m �yI m cn o v. t7 m o _ p m d O rz Page 24136 e1 Ft m d � 4�d V� V�d 7 r O N A � VI _ v 00 00 J A oil A VA 01 00 00 M -1 W 00 J O W N+ J W O w W O J O p Q1 �` VA �o 00 N m v 00 00 � k lJ lJ 01 W N O\ 01 W l0 R k �+ H+ N r Z 00 W N 00 r. J In ? �D O O b p O d0 � CDV A C ► ft C y � A CD O A� CD 10 r y A O o0 p, A ? d J W A cn i i i i i i CD O Vi A O\ W N CD y A N O\ O\ W A W N O\ J to y Review Draft 12-31-18 276 b A ~ A fD R O VA J A i+ N O\ O W W 00 J A Page 25136 d A VA 01 00 00 VI -1 W 00 J O W to U m W N d �+ N O lh O 00 00 J J In ? �D F+ W w i i i i i i CDV A ft C H+ CD O 10 Ay C. J W A cn i i i i i i CD O �1 cn N oo ,..' n O O A � O A o0 J ro p O th A N 0 00 �1 C A J J K r b A ~ A fD R O VA J A i+ N O\ O W W 00 J A Page 25136 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type 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 SFR SFR Duplex Triplex Apt Manuf. Mobile Home Class Detached Attached Home Park VLRes R -L Yes No No No No Yes No LRes R-1 Yes No s ,dIEEEK MRes R-2 vP� LMR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HRes R-3 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HMR No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 7.3 Summary, Housing Density 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 277 Page 26136 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. Table 16. City of Central Point Residential Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI Table 17. City of Central Point Residential Land Inventory by Zoning District Zoning Total City Total UGB Total Urban Percentage Comprehensive Plan Designation Acres Acres Acres 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 17. City of Central Point Residential Land Inventory by Zoning District 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 As of the end of 2018 there were approximately 12105 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 (76 acres). 8 See City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI for definition. Review Draft 12-31-18 278 Page 27136 Table 18. City of Central Point Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation 0.20 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BId 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands 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. 9.1 Renter Households 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%. Review Draft 12-31-18 279 Page 28136 (less) (less) Total Total Envir. Envir. Total Redev. Infill & Gross Acres, Acres, Total Net Total Comprehensive Plan Vacant Vacant Vacant Infill City & Redev. Vacant Vacant Infill Vacant Buildable Designation Ci t UGB' Acres Infill City UGB UGB Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres 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 1 76 7 83 25 14 17 1 13 20 1 105 105 Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres 60%1 18% 10% 12%1 40 Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BId 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands 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. 9.1 Renter Households 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%. Review Draft 12-31-18 279 Page 28136 Figure 13. Renter Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing ■ 2000 122010 112015 ■ 201'' 54% 57% Stn/ 56% 57% 54% ---. E: -)oz City County State Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics 9.2 Owner Households 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 57% (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. Figure 14. Owner Households Paying 30% or More of Income on Housing 02.000 02.010 02.015 02.017 44% City County State Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics 9 Zillow, www.zillow.com/central-point-or/home-values Review Draft 12-31-18 280 Page 29136 9.3 Summary, Affordability 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: 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 22,887 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. At a minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre 11 the City will need approximately 441012 acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate the 2,22,887 new dwelling units. Given the existing Buildable Residential Lands 0105 acres) the City needs an additional 305306 --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 " City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 12 Rounded figure Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 30136 281 Table 19 Projected Residential Buildable Land Need 2019 to 2039 2018 Pop.' 2032 Forecast 2039 Forecast 19,101 23,662 26,317 Population Increase 7,216 Persons/H114 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Gross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 410 Total Buildable Residential Acres 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres JL305 1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2 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 PSLT Interprolation Worksheet 4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037 5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan 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 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 Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 Review Draft 12-31-18 282 Page 31136 Historic Percentage New Percentage Buildable Developed Residential Acres, Residential Acreage Land Use Classification pre -2018 Distribution, 2019-2039 VLRes 4% 4% LRes 70% 60% MRes 11% 20% HRes 1 15% 16% Totals 1 100% 100% Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 Review Draft 12-31-18 282 Page 31136 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). Table 21. City of Central Point Cummulative Average Gross Density by Land Use Classification 1980 through 2039 * Based on build -out Source: City of Central Point 2019 Res idential BLI Table 22 City of Central Point Required Buildable Residential Lands 2019-2039 1983 Minimum Maximum Required Distribution o Allowable Actual Gross Gross Gross Density, 1980 Density, Land Use Classification Density* 2018 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 Res idential BLI Table 22 City of Central Point Required Buildable Residential Lands 2019-2039 Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 The proposed densities and land use allocations are explained as follows: x 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. x LRes — The LRes classification represents the R-1-6, R-1-8, and R-1-10 zoning districts. Review Draft 12-31-18 283 Page 32136 Percentage Distribution o Needed Needed Developable Developable 2018 Existing Residential Residential New Dwelling Buildable Acres, 2019- Acres, 2019- Units, 2019- Residential Surplus or Land Use Classification 2039 2039 New Density 2039 Acres (Shortage) VLRes 4% 16 1.00 16 3 (13) LRes 60% 246 4.00 984 35 (211) Mlles 20% 82 7.00 574 46 (36) HRes 16% 66 20.00 1,312 21 (45) Totals 1 100%1 410 7.04 1 2,887 1 105 1 (305) Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019 The proposed densities and land use allocations are explained as follows: x 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. x LRes — The LRes classification represents the R-1-6, R-1-8, and R-1-10 zoning districts. Review Draft 12-31-18 283 Page 32136 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. x MRes — The MRes classification represents the LMR and R-2 zoning districts. The allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 11 % to 20%. x 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 125 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 479 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 306 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. 10.1 Future Housing Tenure 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. 10.2 Future Housing Types 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 it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land supply, and where appropriate make adjustments. 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. 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 Review Draft 12-31-18 284 Page 33136 Policy 1.3. Provide an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measure 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 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. Review Draft 12-31-18 285 Page 34136 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 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. Review Draft 12-31-18 286 Page 35136 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). Review Draft 12-31-18 287 Page 36136 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 866 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL POINT 2019-2039 HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the latest version of the Housing Element was adopted in on April 20, 2017 and needs to be updated to reflect the latest population projections and housing needs; and, WHEREAS, the City of Central Point has received and accepted the Coordinated Population Forecast 2018-2068, Jackson County, Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) & and Areas Outside UGBs (PRC Forecast) prepared by the Population Research Center, Portland State University in accordance with ORS 195.033, Area Population Forecasts, Rules; and WHEREAS, the PRC Forecast for the City of Central Point has been used to update the 2019 Population Element (File No. CPA -18004); and WHEREAS, the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory has been updated based in accordance with ORS 197.296(2) to establish the sufficiency of buildable lands (File No. CPA -18003); and WHEREAS, the Housing Element update does not amend any policies of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, but only serves to update the analysis of housing needs based on the updated Population Element and Residential Buildable Lands Inventory; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the City staff report and heard testimony and comments on the 2019-39 Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by the Resolution No. 866 does hereby accept, and forward to the City Council, the 2019-39 Housing Element per attached Exhibit "A" for final consideration and adoption. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 5th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 5t' day of February, 2019. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. 866 (02/05/2019) 288