The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMar. 5, 2019 Planning Commission PacketA CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 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 x Memo from City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer regarding hearings process x February 6, 2019 letter from FEMA V. MINUTES Review and approval of the February 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Continue the public hearing and consideration of the Housing Element (2019-2039) of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No.: CPA - 18005. VIII. DISCUSSION A. Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment schedule. IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT I 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, John Whiting, Tom Van Voorhees, and Jim Mock and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner, Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Jim Mock made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. Amy Moore seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Kay Harrison, abstain. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. 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. Mike Oliver read the rules for a Public Hearing. The Commissioners had no bias, conflict of interest or ex parte contact to declare. Justin Gindlesperger said the zone change was from Single Family R-1-6 to Civic. He said Fire District 3 requested the change for future development, however there was no development plan under review at this time. He explained the criteria for approval 2 Planning Commission Meeting February S, 2019 Page 2 required that adequate public facilities be available to the site. He reviewed the public street classifications and said there is existing water service to the property. He explained there is storm drain available but the section near the property would need to be tied into another line on Upton road. Also sewer was available. Mr. Gindlesperger explained the need for compliance with the transportation planning Rule. He said the transportation impact analysis indicated there was no change in the functional classification of the street. He explained that although the intersections on Scenic were already at a failing level, the impact study showed no degraded performance. The Commissioners discussed the traffic on Scenic Avenue. They agreed the biggest impact from the proposed Fire Station would be when emergency vehicles are called out. They discussed signage and perhaps flashing lights to alert traffic. Mr. Gindlesperger said at the time of development, traffic and infrastructure issues would be addressed. The Public Hearing was opened John Patterson, Deputy Chief of Fire District 3 said the Fire Department will be extending Rock Way which will help relieve some of the traffic to and from Scenic Middle School. Additionally they have discussed signage and light alerts for traffic. He added improvements will be done at the time of development. He explained the site on Scenic Avenue will allow the call volume to be split between the South Central Point station and this new one which will favorably impact their response time. Brian Hamlin, Scenic Avenue Mr. Hamlin stated he supported the Fire Station and his concerns were associated with the traffic to and from the Middle School. He said he has seen accidents and experienced problems with people parking on his property. He said he had also observed people parking on the Fire District's property. Mr. Humphrey said this was something that would need to be addressed as plans proceeded. John Patterson added the extension of Rock Way would help traffic and they were discussing turn lanes on Scenic with the traffic engineer. The Public Hearing was closed. Amy Moore made a motion to approve the minor zone map amendment from R-1-6 to Civic at 1909 Scenic Avenue. John Whiting seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. B. Public Hearing to consider the Urbanization Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2019 Page 3 Mike Oliver said the rules for the public hearing would be a lilttle diferent because the next four items are legislative items. He read the rules for a legislative hearing. The Commissioners had no bias, conflict of interest or ex parte contact to declare. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey gave an overview of the Urbanization Element. He said it was last updated in 1983. It plans for the orderly and efficient movement of people from rural to urban land use, anticipates population and employment growth and its incremental increase in the demand for urban services. It develops growth boundary location criteria and establishes pre -requisites for adjusting the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is modeled after Statewide Planning Goal 14 with an emphasis on attaining the City's preferred future. The preferred future is determined by the Fair City Vision Strategic Plan and the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Mr. Humphrey reviewed the Purpose of the Fair City Vision Strategic Plan and the Regional Plan. The Strategic Plan identifies livability objectives of mission, vision and values which are incorporated in the Urbanization Element's goals and policies. The Regional Plan's purpose is to define a preferred future for the City including projected population and job growth over a 50 year period. It establishes minimum residential density requirements and Urban Reserve Areas (URA) to reserve land for future urban development. URAs were created to allow the City to reprioritize the direction in which it grows. He explained that when the URA's were created, preliminary requirements such as soil analyses were done which streamlined the process of amending the UGB. Mr. Humphrey reviewed the process for amending the UGB. He said the City needed to demonstrate a need for land to accommodate a 20 year urban population growth. He explained this includes housing, employment opportunities and livability. He stressed the need for maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the UGB fringe and assessment of environmental, energy, economic and social consequences. He said the City's objective is to maintain a livable community by promoting transportation choices, affordable housing, enhancing economic competitiveness and the small town character. The Commissioners asked for clarification of the UGB Amendment process. Mr. Humphrey explained the criteria for evaluating land to come into the UGB. It needs to be in excess of 10 acres, abut the current City limits, and be within 500 feet of urban services. In addition it should be proximate to mixed use and/or pedestrian friendly areas, and be compatible with nearby agricultural uses outside the proposed UGB. Other requirements were proximity to transportation infrastructure, and readiness for development. Proximity to the City Center would be evaluated using a concentric growth pattern. Planning Commission Meeting February S, 2019 Page 4 The Public Hearing was opened Katy Mallams, Heritage Road Ms. Mallams said the minutes of the January meeting mentioned notices were sent to local builders. She did not feel this was appropriate as residents in the Urban Reserve Area did not receive notice of the public hearing. She said she believed this was a conflict of interest. She added she had not been able to access the entire packet on the City's website and requested the public hearing be held open until the next meeting to allow for other residents to participate. Ms. Mallams said the Urbanization Element referred to sustainability and protection of natural resources and stressed the physical connections between people and nature. She said she would like to see specific criteria to protect mature trees, the water table, the quiet, the dark night sky, and wetland areas for natural habitat, especially birds. She added there should be criteria to reduce the speed of traffic. She suggested any development should work to reduce the speed of traffic in residential areas as much as possible. Larry Martin, Taylor Road Mr. Martin said he approved the Urbanization Element update and using the concentric growth pattern to evaluate properties' location proximate to the City Center. He approves of the population Element, BLI and Housing Element updates. He said he wants to see the UGB Amendment proceed. The Commissioners discussed the request to leave the public hearing open and the objection to the noticing procedure. Mr. Humphrey explained the process was legislative and notice had been published in the newspaper. He said the commissioners could decide whether or not to leave the hearing open if they felt there was information lacking or whether someone did not have the opportunity to comment. They discussed the fact that there was not a site specific noticing area. Mr. Humphrey added that when the UGB is amended, everyone within the URA's would be individually noticed by both the City and the County. Mr. Humphrey said the current hearing was specifically regarding amending the City's Comprehensive Plan. The notice had been published and notices were sent the local builders and developers at the request of the Planning Commission. The Commissioners clarified that the discussion was regarding the Comprehensive Plan and not the actual UGB Amendment. They asked Ms. Mallams for comments. Katy Mallams Ms. Mallams said that some of the items discussed at this hearing would impact the UGB Amendment. She said she has objections to the updates to the Comprehensive Plan and felt other residents might not have the opportunity to voice their opinions prior to the City Council's decision on the items. Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2019 Page 5 Mr. Humphrey said there would also be another public hearing at the City Council meeting. He requested the Commissioners make a decision whether to continue the public hearing or recommend it to the council. Public Hearing was closed. Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the changes to the Urbanization Element. Amy Moore seconded the motion. The Commissioners discussed noticing of the public hearing and agreed the City's obligations had been met. They verified the Citizen's Advisory Committee had also had a public hearing on these matters and there would be a public hearing at the City Council meeting which would be open for citizen participation. The Commissioners agreed the updates to the Urbanization Element were appropriate. Kay Harrison modified her motion to include using a concentric growth pattern as a locational factor. Amy Moore seconded the modification. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. 7:35 p.m. Mike Oliver announced a short break 7:47 p.m. Planning Commission meeting resumed C. Public Hearing to consider updates to the Population Element to address changes to address changes to the population forecast for 2019 — 2039. Mr. Oliver stated the rules regarding the public hearing stood as previously stated. Principal Planner, Stephanie Holtey gave an overview of the Population Element. She said the State requires the City to use Portland State University Population Research Center's Coordinated Population Forecast as the basis for the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations. These forecasts are updated every four years. She said the current Population Element is based on the 2015 forecast. A new forecast was published on June 30, 2018. The City is updating the Comprehensive Plan Elements for a pending UGB Amendment. She explained the methodology that was used in the population forecast. She stated the forecast used statistical information regarding births, deaths, and migration along with information regarding building permits and certificates of occupancy issued. The Commissioners asked if the City was required to use the PSU forecast to update the Population Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Holtey explained it was required in order to have consistent population updates. Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2019 Page 6 She said the forecast growth over the next 20 years increases the demand for housing. She stressed that no policies or goals are being changed, only the numbers are being updated to reflect the most current population forecast from Portland State University. The public Hearing was opened There were no comments The public hearing was closed. Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve updates to the Population Element to address changes to address changes to the population forecast for 2019 — 2039. Amy Moore Seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. D. Public Hearing to consider the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), a component of the Land Use Element. Mr. Oliver stated the rules regarding the public hearing stood as previously stated. Ms. Holtey gave an overview of the Buildable Lands Inventory. She explained it is a database that tracks availability of buildable land within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is based on the most current Assessor's Tax Lot information and includes local data regarding Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation, development status, housing types, accessary dwelling units, gross acreage and environmental acreage. She reviewed the City's overall land use distribution. She added that Buildable Land is defined by ORS 197.295(1) and means lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential uses. It includes both vacant and developed land which is likely to be redeveloped. She explained there are 83 acres of vacant land in the City's urban area available for development. Infill lands are residential lands greater than one half an acre already developed with a single family dwelling. Determining the City's infill acreage is based on a mathematic calculation that deducts the area for a large home site (i.e. 10,890 SF) from each partially developed residential property. The remaining acreage is considered "infill." She explained that the infill land area for each partially developed residential parcel is then added together and the result is the City's gross infill acreage. Ms. Holtey said the total infill acreage within the City is 194 acres. The City will need to determine what percentage of this acreage is likely to develop over the next 20 years. She explained the infill adjustment would be used to calculate residential land needed at the time of the UGB Amendment. Ms. Holtey said the City studied infill activity from 1996 — 2016 which showed 6% of the housing units or 8% of the land developed over that period of time from infill. The City has proposed a 20% infill adjustment or 39 acres for purposes of the BLI. Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2019 Page 7 Staff's recommendation, she stated, is consistent with policies in the adopted Housing Element to encourage infill development. She described factors which might impact infill development such as owner's preference, existing configuration of structure(s) on the lots and environmental impacts. By looking at all the factors 100% would not seem likely and would place a significant burden on the City's ability to efficiently and effectively address the City's housing needs. Ms. Holtey described some current development projects either proposed or under review which would include larger acreages, indicating the 20% infill adjustment would seem reasonable over the next 20 years. She added the current Housing Element is based on a 20% infill assumption. The Commissioners discussed the fact that 20% would not seem unreasonable given some of the larger lots available for infill. Ms. Holtey explained that redevelopment lands are partially developed residential land. The improvements are generally old and the land value exceeds the improvement value. She said the total redevelopment land within the City was 18 acres. Gross buildable land supply within the City including vacant, infill and redevelopment lands is 260 acres without applying any adjustments. When you apply the infill adjustment, and deduct out environmentally compromised land, the urban area has 105 acres of residential buildable land available for development over the next 20 years. The Commissioners asked if the City's housing needs would be monitored or adjusted over the 20 year period. Ms. Holtey explained that the Housing Implementation Plan which the Planning Commission and City Council had approved includes a 5 year action plan for reviewing housing needs in the City. She added one important component of the first 5 year review would be looking at infill and ways to encourage it specifically in the downtown area. Public Hearing was opened Katy Mallams, Heritage Road Ms. Mallams said she objected to the 20% infill adjustment. She said the proposed 305 acres the City wants to bring in is not reasonable. She wanted to see 100% of vacant land and at least 50% of infill and redevelopment land to reduce the gross acres needed. She thought that would bring the total land need down to about 178 acres. Ms. Holtey said that 50% of the infill would be 97 acres. She said redevelopment acreage was calculated differently. It was done using U.S. Census methodology for determining the redevelopment. She said that 100% of the vacant land was already incorporated into the methodology Public Hearing was closed Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 2019 Page 8 Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), a component of the Land Use Element as presented. John Whiting seconded. The Commissioners discussed the infill adjustment and the fact that not everyone would want to develop their property even if it met the criteria. They discussed the larger properties within the City which were likely to develop and projects currently proposed for development and agreed that although ambitious, 20% seemed a reasonable number. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. E. Public Hearing to consider updates to the Housing Element which has been updated based on changes to the Population Element and BLI Stephanie Holtey reviewed the purpose of the Housing Element was to reevaluate the City's land needs in light of the most recent population forecast from PSU. And the update to the BLI. She said staff recommends continuance of the public hearing to the March 5, 2019 Planning commission meeting as the time was after 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing was opened Jim Mock made a motion to continue the public hearing to the March 5, 2019 Planning commission meeting. Kay Harrison Seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; John Whiting, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Jim Mock made a motion to adjourn. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the February 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of March, 2019. Planning Commission Chair Consideration of the 2019 Housing Element of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan `r STAFF REPORT Ark CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT March 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 At the February 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, staff introduced the Housing Element. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued the item to the March 5, 2019 meeting. No public testimony was received at that time. The Planning Commission discussed the working draft Housing Element on January 8, 2019. At that time, the Planning requested further discussion and analysis of the likely contribution of infill development over the next 20 -years. This discussion occurred on February 5, 2019 as part of the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) item (CPA -18003). At that time staff presented infill adjustment alternatives and a scenario showing the location of current land use approvals and recent development inquiries roughly equivalent to acreage needed to account for 20% infill. After discussion and consideration, the Planning Commission voted to recommend a 20% infill adjustment, which is reflected in the final draft Housing Element (Attachment "A"). The Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) also had the opportunity to review the draft Housing Element at the January 15, 2019 CAC meeting. The CAC recommended the Planning Commission approve the Housing Element with a 20% infill adjustment. 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). Staff will present the final draft Housing Element on March 5, 2019 at the continued public hearing to receive further public input. 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. 11 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 changes. Table 1 Projected Residential Buildable Land Need 2019 to 2039 2018 Pop.t 19,101 2032 Forecastz 23,662 2039 Forecast 26,317 Population Increase 7,216 Persons/HH4 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Goss 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 ' 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 (Table 1) 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 April 2, 2019 Planning Commission meeting RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 866. 12 Housing Element 2019-2039 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan 13 Final Draft 3/5/2019 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....................................................................................................... 11 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........................................................................................... 15 5.6 Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents................................................................. 15 5.7 Summary, Household Characteristics............................................................................ 15 6. Housing Characteristics........................................................................................................ 16 6.1 Housing Age................................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Housing Type................................................................................................................. 16 6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................ 21 6.4 Housing Vacancy........................................................................................................... 22 6.5 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................ 23 7. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning............................................................................... 23 7.1 Housing Density............................................................................................................. 23 7.2 Land Use and Housing Type.......................................................................................... 27 7.3 Summary, Housing Density........................................................................................... 27 8. Buildable Residential Lands................................................................................................. 27 8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands......................................................................... 29 9. Housing Affordability........................................................................................................... 29 9.1 Renter Households......................................................................................................... 29 9.2 Owner Households......................................................................................................... 30 9.3 Summary, Affordability................................................................................................. 31 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 2137 14 10. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 31 10.1 Future Housing Tenure............................................................................................... 34 10.2 Future Housing Types................................................................................................ 34 11. Housing Goals and Policies............................................................................................... 34 Final Draft 1-30-2019 15 Page 3137 1. Summary Over the next twenty -years (2019-39) the City of Central Point's population is projected to add an additional 7,216 people, the equivalent of 2,887 new households. Most of the households will be the result of in -migration as the region continues to grow. The physical and demographic characteristics of these new households are not expected to significantly change. Single-family detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by multiple -family rental housing. The most significant housing challenge will be affordability. Regardless of housing type the cost of housing is taking a larger percentage of household income. 1.1 Residential Land Need To accommodate the housing demand the City will need an estimated 410 gross acres of residential land (Table 1). The City's current inventory of Buildable Residential Land totals 105 gross acres, requiring 305 gross acres of additional Buildable Residential Land. 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/H14 2.50 Household Increase 2,887 Average Cross Density 7.04 Needed Gross Residential Acres 410 Total Buildable Residential Acres 105 Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 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 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 standard requiring a minimum average density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre' for new ' City of Central Point Regional Plan Final Draft 1-30-2019 16 Page 4137 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 of residentially 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 Densit 10.95 4.41 7.04 ' Based on build -out of residentially 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 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 5137 17 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 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 5137 17 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 1311, 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 410 acres of gross residential land. After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (105 gross acres), there is a need for an additional 305 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table 5. 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 6137 18 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 1311, 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 410 acres of gross residential land. After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (105 gross acres), there is a need for an additional 305 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table 5. 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 6137 18 Table 5 City of Central Point Required Buildable Residential Lands 2019-2039 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 - Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 7137 19 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 - Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 7137 19 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 8137 20 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 9137 21 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 22 Page 10137 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 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 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. Figure 3. City of Central Point Household Age Characteristics 54% 53% 53% 53% 1990 2000 2010 2015 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Occupancy Characteristics 4 U.S. Census Glossary Final Draft 1-30-2019 23 28% 19% n 1 2017 Page 11137 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. 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 City's Population Element identified an average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes over the next twenty years. 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 Point, 1990 - 2017 2.69 - 0 _.63 '.4s 1990 2000 2010 2015 2017 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics ■ City ■ County 5.4 Household Income 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), Final Draft 1-30-2019 24 Page 12137 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. Figure 5. City of Central Point Median Household Income ■ City ■ County ❑ State Q, O 00 W m `1 c.4 00 N p 00 Ln ... r� — in C 00 N Ln rn 00 2000 2010 2015 2017 Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 25 Page 13137 30,00% 25,000 24,40% 15,006 10.00°fin 5.00°l0 4.40°�0 . City of Central Point Household Income Distribution Less d= $10,000 515,000 525,000 $35,440 $.50,000 575.000 S100.Ob4 5150.000 $10,000 to to to to to to 10 or Mare $14,999 524,999 534,999 $49,999 $74,999 599,999 5149,999 — — 2000 2010 ----2015 2017 Source: US. CensusAmerican Facl Fin de r, 5 e lected Economic Characteristics 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 5 The State of the Nation's Housing; Joint Studies for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2017 Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 14137 26 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. Figure 7. Percentage of Families at or Below the Poverty Level 01980 ■ 2000 82010 ■ 2015 ■ 2017 e 0 � o o \° U) 12.20% ` c �? c g 11.20% o o c r 8.20% v: city Con my 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 6 HUD User, FY 2015 Income Limits Documentation System Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 15137 27 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. Figure 6.1. City of Central Point Age of Housing Stock 80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% i 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); 7 City of Central Point Housing Element Final Draft 1-30-2019 Page 16137 28 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. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety standards and regulations and 6. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing. The City's housing policies and zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing types. Historically (1889-1979), the City's housing preference has been for single-family detached housing supplemented by apartments (Table 6). SFR attached units account for less than .5% of the total housing inventory, but this is expected to change as attached housing becomes more acceptable and is an affordable housing option. Between 1980 and 2018 the distribution of housing type by land use category is illustrated in Table 7. At 70% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home was still the preferred housing type, followed by apartments (11%) and Duplex/Triplex (5%). As a housing type Assisted Living housing accounts for approximately 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 29 Page 17137 The decline in single-family detached dwelling types was the due to the loss of jobs and the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. When measured between 2010 (post -recession) to 2018 (Table 9) the preference for single- family detached homes improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post - Recession levels remains to be seen. The point is that during any given time span the housing inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix. It is worth noting (Table 6) that a significant number of single-family detached units are located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill development. On the regulatory side prior to 2006 new single-family detached dwelling units were permitted in the HRes classifications as an acceptable housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code requiring minimum densities in all residential zones, and the exclusion of single-family detached dwellings in the high density residential districts. Final Draft 1-30-2019 30 Page 18137 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 31 Page 19137 °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� aA �� xL-0 o w x S. w 7 + CP r d � o � q a 00 0 'o 'D �o y J N �D v, � O :O � f+.� 4� �• Final Draft 1-30-2019 32 S. O C C; 44 61 m Q O ,7 Page 20137 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 33 ❑ 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 21137 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. 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. A vacancy rate less than 5% is equivalent to market equilibrium supply equals demand. As illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 the vacancy rates for owner and renter housing have been increasing in both the City, while for the county and the state the Figure 11. Owner Vacancy Rate Comparison 2000- 2017 ■ 2000 ■ 2010 112015 ■ 201 3.7% City County Oregon Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey; Selected Housing Characteristics Figure 12. Renter Vacancy Rate Comparison, 2000- 2017 02000 ❑2010 112015 020177.9% 5.5% 5.6% 5.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3%4.2%3.7 ° 2.9%I ^ I .3.0%n 3.1% n � City County Oregon Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics Final Draft 1-30-2019 34 Page 22137 vacancy rate has been declining. 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 35 Page 23137 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 De2!j!y 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 35 Page 23137 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 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 36 Page 24137 Final Draft 1-30-2019 37 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 37 O rz Page 25137 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 25137 e1 Ft m d � 4�v 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 � W 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 38 b A ~ A fD R O VA J A i+ N O\ O w W 00 J A Page 26137 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 26137 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 39 Page 27137 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 105 acres of Buildable Residential Land within the City's urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in Table 18. The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classifications is 3% and 36% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City's net buildable residential acreage is in the MRes (40%) and HRes (21%) classifications, representing over 60% of the City's buildable vacant residential acres (83 acres). 8 See City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI for definition. Final Draft 1-30-2019 40 Page 28137 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%. Final Draft 1-30-2019 41 Page 29137 (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%. Final Draft 1-30-2019 41 Page 29137 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 32% (Figure 14). Since the Great Recession the price of housing has continued to rise, exceeding the increase in wages. As of December 2018 average hourly wages were up 2.9% year -over -year, while the median home value in the U.S. was up 7.7%. It is expected that in 2019 local home values will continue to rise, but at a slower 3.79%9. 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 42 Page 30137 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 2,887 new dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. At a minimum density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre'1 the City will need approximately 41012 acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate the 2,887 new dwelling units. Given the existing Buildable Residential Lands (105 acres) the City needs an additional 305 acres of Buildable Residential Land (Table 19). As previously discussed the City has historically and consistently made gains in residential density (Table10). Since 1980, a time period representative of a balanced Buildable Residential Land inventory, the residential density pattern and land use distribution yielded an average gross density of almost 5.42 units per acre (Table 21). If new residential construction follows a similar land use and density pattern the City would not meet its 6.9 minimum density requirement. To achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of housing by land use classification; increase the minimum density requirements for each land use classification; or a combination of both. 10 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36 " City of Central Point Regional Plan Element 12 Rounded figure Final Draft 1-30-2019 43 Page 31137 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 44 Page 32137 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 44 Page 32137 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 45 Page 33137 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. Final Draft 1-30-2019 45 Page 33137 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 105 buildable acres of residential land (Section 8, Buildable Residential Lands). Table 23 identifies the current vacant acreage need, and where there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the 410 acres needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 305 new gross acres are needed to supplement the existing inventory. 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. In addition to availability of housing type the City needs to take into account the health aspects afforded well planned neighborhoods. The land use planning of new neighborhoods and the revitalization of existing neighborhoods needs to acknowledge the health, both social and physical, benefits to the City's residents in living in well planned neighborhoods. 11. Housing Goals and Policies Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Final Draft 1-30-2019 46 Page 34137 Policy 1. 1. Continue to support new residential development at the new minimum residential densities. Policy 1.2. Develop a Housing Implementation Plan that is regularly updated based current market conditions Policy 1.3. Provide an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement 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 Final Draft 1-30-2019 47 Page 35137 a residential mix and density consistent with the Housing Element. Policy 3.5. Monitor residential in -fill development activity and develop and enact programs that encourage the expanded use of in -fill as a component to the City's residential land use inventory. Goal 4. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of location, type, price and tenure, according to the projected needs of the population. Policy 4.1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs and housing types identified in the Housing Element. Policy 4.2. Based on the findings of the Housing Implementation Plan incentivize housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the private sector market forces. Policy 4.3. In larger residential developments (in excess of 5 acres) encourage a mix of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and income levels. Policy 4.4. Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in place by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible. Goal 5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing. Policy 5.1. As part of a Housing Implementation Plan periodically evaluate development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing Element and modify as appropriate. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Plan that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City's low- and moderate - income households. Policy 6.1. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable housing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds. Policy 6.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies. Policy 6.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing related services. Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive Final Draft 1-30-2019 48 Page 36137 and healthy neighborhoods. Policy 7.1. Encourage quality design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi -modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 7.2. Provide flexible development standards for projects that exceed minimum standards for natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency. Policy 7.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on the City's transportation system. Policy 7.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development served by public transit. Policy 7.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 17.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Final Draft 1-30-2019 49 Page 37137 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) 50 Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment Schedule 51 STAFF REPORT Ark CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT March 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM VIII -A Planning Department Tom Humphrey, AICP, Community Development Director Discuss the Residential Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment Schedule. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -19001. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Each urban area in Oregon is required to define an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Residential, commercial and industrial uses and other kinds of urban development are not allowed to sprawl past that boundary, while agricultural lands outside a UGB are preserved. Oregon's land -use system and UGBs are an attempt to make development choices intentional and public rather than piecemeal and inefficient. The City of Central Point has only adjusted its UGB once since 1983 and that was to expand its boundaries north to the Tolo Area in 2015 to bring in employment and open space land. The Regional Planning process (2000 -2012) effectively put a hold on UGB Amendments in the Rogue Valley until the participating jurisdictions came to agreement about a fifty (50) year growth horizon and the creation of Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Central Point no longer has a 20 year supply of land as required by Oregon's "20 -year land supply rule", ORS 197.296. This law requires cities, counties, and metropolitan service districts to maintain a sufficient supply of buildable lands to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years in to the future. City staff has systematically prepared conceptual plans in the URAs and participated with other jurisdictions in addressing a regional housing strategy and in mitigating the impacts of urban development on agriculture. We have updated the following elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as the Land Use Element/ Buildable Lands Inventory, Parks & Recreation Element, Population Element, Housing Element, Economic Element and the Urbanization Element. Some of these have been revised more than once. The City is now ready to initiate a `Residential' UGB Amendment which will be followed soon afterwards by an `Employment' UGB Amendment. Property owners from the various URAs have approached the City Council and expressed their interest in being included in these UGB Amendments. Locational factors identified in the updated Urbanization Element will be used (among other things) to evaluate candidate lands to be included in the UGB. This staff report and its attachments (Attachment A) provide a tentative schedule for the UGB Amendments. The schedule is as follows: March 5, 2019 — Planning Commission Public Hearing for Housing Element Update and recommendation to City Council 52 March 14, 2019 — City Council Second Reading of Ordinance for revisions to Urbanization Element, Population Element and Residential Buildable Lands Inventory March 28, 2019 - City Council Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance for revisions to Housing Element April 2, 2019 — Planning Commission Introduction of Draft Residential UGB Amendment Map, Employment Buildable Lands Inventory and Revisions to Economic Element April 9, 2019 — Citizen's Advisory Committee Introduction of Draft Residential UGB Amendment Map, Employment Buildable Lands Inventory and Revisions to Economic Element April 11, 2019 - City Council Second Reading of Ordinance for revisions to Housing Element May 7, 2019 — Planning Commission Public Hearing for Employment Buildable Lands Inventory and Revisions to Economic Element and recommendation to City Council May 13, 2019 — Submit Residential UGB Application to Jackson County Development Services May 23, 2019 - City Council Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance for revisions to Employment Buildable Lands Inventory and Revisions to Economic Element June/July 2019 — Joint City/County Planning Commission Public Hearing to Consider Residential UGB Amendment June 13, 2019 - City Council Second Reading of Ordinance for revisions to Employment Buildable Lands Inventory and Revisions to Economic Element July/August 2019 — Independent Hearings at City Council and County Commissioners ISSUES None. ATTACHMENTS Attachment "A" — Central Point Development News March/April ACTION Discussion of the Residential Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Schedule. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to make any changes necessary to the proposed schedule and/or Community Development News. 53