HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 2019 CAC PacketCITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 15, 2019, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers at Central Point City Hall
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
David Painter (Chair), Cameron Noble, Cinda Harmes, Patrick Smith
III. MINUTES
Review and approval of October 23, 2018 minutes.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
V. BUSINESS
VI. DISCUSSION
A. Population Element. Discuss updates to the Population Element to address
changes to the population forecast for 2019-2039 planning period. File No.
CPA -18004.
A. Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI). Present and discuss the Working Draft
Residential BLI, a component of the Land Use Element. File No. CPA -18003.
B. Housing Element. Discuss the Housing Element (review draft), which has been
updated based on changes to the Population Element and BLI. File No. CPA -
18005.
C. Urbanization Element. Present the Working Draft Urbanization Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. File No. CPA -18002.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
October 23, 2018
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:03 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Present were: David Painter (chair), Larry Martin, Pat Smith, Cinda Harmes,
Cameron Noble. Sam Inkley was absent.
Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director and
Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary.
III. MINUTES
Cameron Noble made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2018. Pat
Smith seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Motion approved.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES — NONE
V. BUSINESS
I. DISCUSSION
A. Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning (map) Change proposal for
the properties in the Community Commercial land use designation and the C -2(M)
Zoning District. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No.: ZC-18006. Approval
Criteria: CPMC 17.96 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and CPMC 17.10, Zoning
Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments.
David Painter explained the purpose of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. He gave an
overview of the discussion item for the meeting and explained the procedures for citizen
participation. He read the procedural rules for the meeting.
Cinda Harmes acknowledged that she was acquainted with a resident of the C -2(M) district.
Mr. Humphrey said the C -2(M) district consisted of 33 tax lots totaling 12 acres. Six of those
tax lots are owned by the School District and comprise 6.7 acres. He said any changes made
to the zoning would need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the
study area and the surrounding zoning.
CAC Minutes
October 23, 2018
Page 2
Mr. Humphrey explained the C -2(M) district was created in 1993 and was intended to
enhance Central Point's attractiveness as a location for private medical practices and other
health facilities that might be directly or indirectly related to hospital -type activities. There
was a Central Point hospital at that time that gave rise to this zone and the residential property
surrounding it was anticipated to be used for medical offices, clinics, etc. but this never really
occurred. The old hospital building owned by Asante was recently purchased by Central
Point School District #6 with the intention of adding to their elementary school facilities.
The City received a letter from the School's legal counsel asking the City to consider re-
designating/rezoning the school property.
He outlined some options for rezoning:
A: The existing Community Commercial land use and C -2(M) Commercial Medical
District zoning has been designated a C2M Land Use Study Area because there are no longer
any active medical facilities that this zoning will facilitate. New property owners have
requested that the City initiate a zone change to allow the use of old medical buildings for
educational purposes. If the land that once housed medical uses is changed there is also the
question whether the abutting properties should also be changed. Normally homes that are
located in a commercial zoning district are considered legally non -conforming uses. In this
case the C -2(M) zoning district permits residential uses so property owners have not
generally had difficulty refinancing their homes
B: Rezone of all the C -2M area to R-1, Residential Single -Family District. This would
make the single family residences consistent and compatible with the surrounding low
density residential zoning. However, given the School District's stated plans for their new
property, the R-1 zoning would not permit kindergartens or nursery schools. The R-1 district
does permit public schools, parks and recreation facilities; churches; parochial and private
schools.
C: Rezone all the C -2M area to a combination of R-1, Residential Single -Family District
and Civic zoning. The school property could all be rezoned Civic in this scenario. This would
make the single family residences consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential
zoning and would allow the school district to develop uses that are permitted in the Civic
zoning district. Civic use types include public and private kindergarten as well as elementary,
middle schools, colleges and trade schools .
Mr. Humphrey said land use changes should not have any significant impact on public
facilities currently in place. Additionally there would be no change in traffic conditions. He
reviewed the permitted uses in each of the proposed zones.
Mr. Humphrey said the property could have both residential and Civic zoning. Civic would
be good for the school district and residential zoning more desirable for property owners.
Currently all school property but one in the City is zoned civic.
He said the City will initiate the zone change for the benefit of all property owners. No one
would have to pay to change their zone.
CAC Minutes
October 23, 2018
Page 3
The meeting was opened for public comment
Judy Randall
She felt the R-1-6 zoning would benefit the homeowners the best.
The committee asked what the zone was prior to the C -2(M) change. Mr. Humphrey said it
was residential.
Mr. Humphrey clarified that the R-1-6 zone would be the most compatible with the size of
the existing tax lots. He explained the School District was exploring the idea of using the
existing buildings on their property for centralized kindergartens so as to increase the
capacity of the existing elementary schools.
They discussed the implications of making the entire area residential. Mr. Humphrey said
that would limit options for the School District. They continued to discuss different kinds of
schools and what would be best for the School District as opposed to what would benefit the
residents most.
James Weathers
Mr. Weathers asked if changing the residential zoning to R-1-6 would increase taxes. Mr.
Humphrey explained taxes were based on assessed value of the home and would not be
increased because of the zone change. Mr. Weathers said he was in favor of the Civic zoning
on the school property.
Mr. Humphrey said he thought a combination of Civic and R-1-6 would be the most
beneficial zoning for all concerned. He added that there had been minimal response to the
notices which had been sent to property owners.
Cameron Noble made a motion to recommend to Planning Commission and City Council in
favor of Civic zoning for the School District property and a zoning of R-1-6 for residential
property. Cinda Harmes seconded the motion. All members said aye. Motion approved.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Planning update
The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing for the Housing
Needs Assessment.
There will be some changes to the CAC. Caitlyn Butler has moved and Larry Martin
and Sam Inkley may resign due to possible conflicts of interest regarding property
they own that may be affected by the UGB Amendment.
The railroad crossing is expected to be completed by early 2019.
The Brodiart buildings on South Front Street are almost completed
The Makers Space in the Crater Iron building is obtaining building permits
CAC Minutes
October 23, 2018
Page 4
The Pear Valley assisted living is almost done
Smith Crossing apartments have obtained permits for two more buildings
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Cinda Harmes moved to adjourn. Larry Martin seconded the motion. All parties said aye.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the October 23, 2018 citizens Advisory committee were approved
by the Citizens Advisory committee at its meeting of January 15, 2018.
Chairman
POPULATION ELEMENT
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2019
AGENDA ITEM VII -A
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Discuss the working draft changes to the Population Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: City of
Central Point. File No. CPA -18004.
STAFF SOURCE:
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
BACKGROUND
The City last updated the Population Element in 2016 based on the 2015 Coordinated Population Forecast
prepared by Portland State University (PSU) Population Research Center (PRC) ("PRC Forecast). Per ORS
195.033, PSU is responsible for preparing all coordinated population forecasts for counties in the state. The
PRC Forecasts are updated every four (4) years and serve the basis for comprehensive plans and land use
regulations. An updated PRC forecast was published on June 30, 2018. At this time, the City of Central Point
is preparing amendments to the Population Element consistent with the 2018 PRC Forecast. This is a
prerequisite to amending the Housing Element and amending the UGB.
The most significant change is to the 2018 PRC Forecast is the increased average annual growth rate and
subsequent population increase. Demographic characteristics for the Central Point population remain
consistent with the prior forecast acknowledged as part of the 2016 Population Element. A summary of
changes to the Population Element are listed below:
Over the next 20 -years (2019-2039) population within the Central Point urban area is expected to
increase at an average annual rate of 1.5%, which is up from 1.1% per the 2016 Population Element.
The primary cause of the increase is net in -migration, which has increased since the 2016 Population
Element was adopted.
• Central Point's urban area is projected to see a 13% increase in population between 2019 and 2039.
This will take the population from 19, 327 in 2019 to 26,317 in 2039.
• As projected in 2016, the median age of County residents is expected to continue increasing
reflecting the continued aging of the Baby Boom generation. Changes in the age structure between
2016 and 2018 are consistent with that trend.
Changes to the Population Element are limited to minor updates of the text, tables, and figures. No policies
changes are proposed.
ISSUES
None.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A" — Review Draft Population Element (Clean Copy) (Note: The Track Changes Version is
available upon request.)
ACTION
Discussion of the working draft of the Population Element.
RECOMMENDATION
Make a motion to the recommend the Planning Commission approve the Population Element update with any
changes or feedback deemed important by the CAC.
A
ATTACHMENT If -/1-"
Population
"k,
Demographics
A
Element
2019-2039
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Review Draft
Adopted Central Point City Council
Ordinance No. 2030
Recertified Central Point City Council
Resolution No.
DLCD Acknowledged
�t
A
ATTACHMENT If -/1-"
Population
"k,
Demographics
A
Element
2019-2039
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Review Draft
Adopted Central Point City Council
Ordinance No. 2030
Recertified Central Point City Council
Resolution No.
DLCD Acknowledged
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2
2. SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3
3. POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................... 3
3.1. Historic Growth Rate................................................................................................................ 4
3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population.............................................................................. 4
3.3. Race and Ethnicity....................................................................................................................5
3.4. Components of Population Growth........................................................................................... 5
3.5. Natural Increase........................................................................................................................ 6
3.6. Net Migration............................................................................................................................6
3.7. Age Characteristics...................................................................................................................7
3.8. Household Types....................................................................................................................... 8
3.8.1.Family Households................................................................................................................. 8
3.8.2.Non-Family Households: ......................................... .................................................. 8
3.8.3.Group Quarters........................................................................................................................ 9
3.9. Average Household Size; .......................................................................................................... 9
3.10.Median Household Income.................................................................................................... 10
4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE ....................................................... 12
5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2016 to 2036... .......................................................................... 12
6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS...............................................13
6.1. Age Characteristics.................................................................................................................13
6.2. Growth Rate............................................................................................................................
13
6.3. Percentage Share of County ....................................................................................................
13
6.4. Race & Ethnicity .....................................................................................................................
14
6.5. Source of Growth....................................................................................................................
14
6.6. Household Characteristics.......................................................................................................14
6.7. Median Household Income.....................................................................................................
14
7.Population & Demographic Goals & Policies.........................................................................................
14
APPENDIXA.........................................................................................................................•...................15
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 1
in
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Population Element is to track the historic characteristics and growth of the
City's population, and based on that information develop a 20 -year forecast of the population.
Based on the 20 -year population forecast the City can plan for land and urban service needs to
accommodate the population growth.
The City's Population & Demographics Element (Population Element) was updated in 2016. The
2016 update accounted for two events that significantly affected the results of the City's 2008
Population Element. The first event was the Great Recession; the second was HB 2253
designating the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) as the sole and
official provider of population forecasts for cities and counties throughout the state '.Together
these two events necessitate an update of the City's Population Element.
The Great Recession
Within a year of completion of the Jackson County 2007 Population Element (Feb.
2007)2, which was the basis for the City's 2008 Population Element, the national
economy was hit hard by the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009). The
economic impacts of the Great Recession were severe and the recovery period extremely
sluggish and tenuous. Because job losses were deep across all sectors of the economy and
the recovery in job creation slow, the reliance on net migration as a key component to
population growth had a significant impact on the City's 2008 population forecasts.
HB 2253
Prior to 2013 Oregon law required that counties prepare coordinated population forecasts
according to "generally accepted" demographic methods. The result was population
projections throughout the state that were based on highly diverse methods of forecasting
that varied from county to county, both in terms of frequency of completion and outcome.
Recognizing that population forecasting is the foundation for long-term planning the
Oregon legislature in 2013 approved House Bill 2253 assigning Portland State Population
Research Center (PRC) the responsibility for preparing coordinated population forecasts
for all counties and cities. The population forecasting requirements of HB 2253 were later
adopted as ORS 195.033.
The population forecasts presented in this Population Element are from the Coordinated
Population Forecast 2018 through 2068 for Jackson County dated June 2018 prepared
by PRC ("PRC Population Forecast') in accordance with ORS 195.033 and is attached to
this Population Element as Appendix A. Typically, the City's Population Element is
based on a 20 -year planning period. The PRC Population Forecast uses a fifty (50) year
forecasting period with a four (4) year update cycle 4, allowing for consideration of both
short and long term population change variables, and the re-evaluation of demographic
trends and economic events used in prior forecasts. Consequently, every four years the
City's Population Element will be updated using the latest PRC Jackson County forecast.
1 The Portland Metro is exempt from this requirement.
2 Basis for determining the City's 2008 population projections.
s ORS 195.003(6)
4 ORS 195.033(4)
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 2
is
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
This update represents the first update for the PRC Population Forecast for Jackson
County. The next update is tentatively scheduled to occur in 2022.
PRC's population forecasts are not considered land use decisions and as such are not
subject to review or appeal other than as provided in ORS195.033. However, the City's
Population Element, because it contains policies based on assumptions beyond the PRC
Population Forecasts, is considered a land use action and therefore subject to the
procedural requirements of Section 17.96, Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth
Boundary Amendments, City of Central Point Municipal Code.
With the completion of each 4 -year cycle the Population Element will be reviewed for changes
in forecasted population and any needed policy changes. If no policy changes are required then
the Population Element will be re -certified by resolution of the City Council, including
incorporation of the up -dated PRC Population Forecast as an appendix to the Population
Element. If, for any reason, the policies of the Population Element need to be modified, then the
Population Element shall be updated by ordinance in accordance with ORS 195.033.
2. SUMMARY
When factors such as the economy, fertility, social trends, etc. are factored into the latest
population forecast for the planning period 2019-2039 the result was a 12% reduction in the
City's initial 2008 population forecast figures (29,006 vs 25,933). When measured in terms of
the population's average annual growth rate (AAGR) the forecasted AAGR for the planning
period dropped from 4.3% to 1.4%. Based on the forecasted growth rate it is projected that
between 2019 and 2039 the City of Central Point is expected to realize a net increase in
population of 8,422 (6,945). Based on a projected average household size of 2.5 persons the
population increase will result in the formation of 3,369 (2,778) new households by 2039.
The City's population is aging and is expected to continue to do so over the course of the
planning period. Net in -migration will be the primary source of population growth (97%), while
natural increases will continue to decline (3%). The City's population will also become racially
and ethnically more diverse, a trend which is expected to continue throughout the planning
period.
3. POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS
The Town of Central Point was founded on February 26, 1889 and by 18907 had a population of
543. With the exception of the decade between 1910 and 1920 the City has steadily grown
(Figure 1), and today is the third largest city in Jackson County.
5 Extended to 2036 from the Jackson County 2007 Population Element.
6 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element
7 1890 U.S. Census
Element I - Population and Demographics
Page 3
`A
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 1. HISTORIC & FORECAST POPULATION,
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, 1900-2039
30000 -
25000
0 20000
a15000 - - - 2018 PSU
R, 10000 2016 PSU
5000
0 - -
q q q�a�,�a q 8'ry�',tiv,�'y'� ^vraN❑ry❑
Source: U.S. Census and PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
3.1. Historic Growth Rate
Between 2000 and 2007 the City of Central Point's average annual growth rate (AAGR)
was 4.5%, three times Jackson County's AAGR of 1.5% (Figure 2). Since the Great
Recession the City and County have experienced a significant slowdown in population
growth, particularly from net in -migration. For the period 2010-2015 the City's AAGR
dropped below 1 %, while the County's AAGR dropped to .6%. As Figure 2 illustrates
the decline in AAGR is not an unusual event following recessions, but does bounce back
as the economy improves.
FIGURE 2. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT HISTORIC
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 1910-2019
14%
I
12% —
109/0 — _.:i —
8%-
-� �L
r
4%% \%%
r ',
t ! ■ +�, �.
i! I ♦� _moi ter____.
0% !
1910 2� 19;
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Central Point's population accounted for 2.4% of the County's population, and remained
fairly constant until 1970 when the City's percentage participation jumped from 3.1% to
4.2%. By 2018, the City accounted for 8.7% of the County's population.
3.3. Race and Ethnicity
Since the 2000 Census the City's racial diversity has continued to increase, particularly
within the Hispanic Community, which more than doubled in size from 4% in 2000 to
9% in 2014 (Figure 4). During this same period the County's Hispanic population
increased from 7% to 11 % (Figure 5).
FIGURE 4. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RACIAL
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE,
2000-2014
100% 92-%
80% — —
60%
40%
20%
4% 4%
0%
86%
90� 54/0
2000 2014
■ White ■ Hispanic ❑ Other
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FIGURE 5. JACKSON COUNTY RACIAL
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE,
2000-2014
83%
■ White ■ Hispanic ❑ Other
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
3.4. Components of Population Growth.
There are two basic sources of population growth: natural increase (births minus deaths)
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 5
14
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
and net migration (in -migration minus out -migration).
3.5. Natural Increase
Growth occurring as a result of natural increase typically represents a very small
percentage of a community's population growth. Since 2000 the City's net natural
increase rate (Figure 6) went from 7.6 to 8.0 per thousand population, representing 3%
of the City's total population increase during that period. During the same period the
County's rate of natural increase dropped from 1.0 to 0.8 (Figure 7).
3.6. Net Migration.
By far the most significant contributor to a community's population growth is net
migration. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the predominant source of growth for
Jackson County was due to net migration, which was responsible for over 80% of the
county's population growths.
FIGURE 6. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT NATURAL
POPULATION RATE-, 2000 and 2010
18.0
16.0
14.0 —
12.0
10.0
tiI, .. 16.7
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Birth Rate
8 7 $.0
Death Rate Net Change
■ 2000 E2010
Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
8 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 6
15
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 7. JACKSON COUNTY NATURAL
POPiiLATION RATE*, 2000 and 2010
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0 11.t
4.0
2.0
Birth Rate
10.7
f
Death Rate
02000 02010
1.0 0.8
M M
Net Change
Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
3.7. Age Characteristics.
Between 2000 and 2014 the City's median age increased from 34.4 to 37.5 reflecting the
continued aging of the Baby Boom generation. For the County the median age changed
from 39.2 to 42.7 during the same period. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the changes in the
three major age cohort categories as a percentage of the City's and County's total
population.
FIGURE 8. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AGE
STRUCTURE OF POPULATION, 2000 through 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
SO% 61.9% 63.3% 60.6%
40%
30%
20% _
10% ,3.9% 2I'M 21.3
0%
2000 2010 2014
00-14 Ell
-q4 ■ 65+
U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact in er
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 7
16
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 9. COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE OF THE
POPULATION, 2000 through 2014
l00%
80%
60% —
64.0% 64.5%
63.6%
40%
200
0%
2000 2010
2014
00-14 1-115-64 ■65+
U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
3.8. Household Types.
A by-product of population growth is household formation. The U.S. Census allocates
the population to one of two household types; family and non -family. By definition a
household consists of all the people occupying a housing unit9, which is the basic unit
for residential land use planning.
Since the early 1900's (Figure 10) these two household types (family and non -family)
have been gradually changing in response to socio-economic conditions. The following
is a brief overview of these characteristics as they relate to the City. In addition to the
decline in average household size, the distribution of households by type has been
gradually shifting from family to non -family households.
3.8.1. Family Households.
Family households are comprised of two or more people who are related by
marriage, birth, or adoption. Family households are most commonly represented
by married -couples. Family households have, and continue to, dominate
household types. Although the formation of family households continues to
increase, it is doing so at a decreasing rate. In 1990, family households in the
City accounted for 77% of all households. By the 2010 Census, and through
201410, family households represented 71 % of total households.
3.8.2. Non -Family Households:
Non -family households are comprised of single persons, or two or more people
who are not related. In 1990, non -family households represented 23% of all
households within the City. By 2010 non -family households represented 29% of
all households. As the City's population grows older, the number of non -family
households is expected to increase as the elderly lose spouses and the young
postpone marriage, or get divorced.
9 U.S. Census, Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations
10 American Fact Finder, 2014
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 8
17
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGtiRE 10. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT FAMILY
vs. NON -FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 - 2010
90%
80%
-- -
--
70% —
-
60%
50% —
40%
30% —
20%
10%
2-30N.
25 V.
1990 2000 2010
■Family ❑Non -Family
U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau Americanl-act Finder
3.8.3. Group Quarters.
To a much lesser extent there is a third, and smaller segment of the population
that is housed in what is referred to as group quarters. Group quarters are defined
as non -institutional living arrangements for groups not living in conventional
housing units or groups living in housing units containing ten or more unrelated
people or nine or more people unrelated to the person in charge. Examples of
people in group quarters include a person residing in a rooming house, staff
quarters at a hospital, college dormitories, or in a halfway house.
The City's Group Housing population has historically accounted for a very small
percentage of the population. Based on the 2000 Census City's Group Housing
population accounted for 0.8% (106) of the City's total population and by 2010
had dropped to 0.4% (70) of the total population.
3.9. Average Household Size;
Historically, the City's average household size has been gradually declining from
3.42 average persons per households in 1960 to 2.61 in 2010 (Figure 11). At 2.61
the Cities average household size exceeded the County's average of 2.40, and by
2010 is slightly higher than the U.S. average of 2.58.
Element i - Population and Demographics
Page 9
18
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
3.10.
FIGURE 11. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1950-
2010, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT & JACKSON
COUNTY
4
3.5 — — — —
3
2.5
2 N (n
�1
1.5 rn M rr1 N
1 N N ry
0.5
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source: U.S. Census a City ■ County
Median Household Income.
Figure 13 compares the median household income for the City of Central Point
and the County from 2000 to 2014. As illustrated in Figure 12 the City's median
household income over the past 15 years peaked in 2010 and by 2014 declined to
$46,765.
FIGURE 12. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME,
2000-2014, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT & JACKSON
COUNTY
$60,000
$50,000 — — — —
$40,000
$30,000 — — —
$20,000
$10,000
2000 2010 2014
■ City ti County
U.S. Census & U,S, Census Bureau American Fact Finder
In Figure 13 the median household income for 2010 and 2014 has been adjusted
to 2000 dollars. The Great Recession's impact on median household income has
not yet recovered from 2000 median income level, which is consistent with
national and state changes in median household income. Figure 14 compares the
changes in income distributions from 2000, 2010, and 2014.
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 10
19
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 13. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT MEDIA\
HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEASURED TO 2000
DOLLARS
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
F
�
$30,000 ry . 00
N _ 00 III 1�
$20,000 1 p 1I
1Yf I �
$10,000
$ =. t
2000 2010 2014
■ Median Household Income El 2000 Dollars
Source: 2000 U.S_Census & U.S.Census Bureau American Fact Finder
FIGURE 14. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
DISTRIBUTION, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
2010 -
2014
100%
11%
12%
90%
80%
34%
70%
40%
34%
❑ $100,000 or More
60%
El $50,000 to $99,000
50%
-
® $25,000 to $49,999
40%
30%
..
❑ $10,000 to $2999
20%
_ _
■ Less than $10,000
10%
—
20%
0%
,—
—
2000 2010 2014
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder
As of 2014 The City of Central Point had the second highest median income of all
cities in Jackson County (Figure 15).
Element I - Population and Demographics
Page 11
20
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 15.2014 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
$ 60,000
$50,000
$40,000
i
n
of
$30,000 0
Ln
rn
0 W
`^
Ln
in
en
a
%a
O�1 0
$20,000
N ^
+/*
c4
D
'i
m
Cnn
%D
$10,000
rn
ry
n
i
r\aca Q°tiro
4a�y ,� .� Q��t
N ��6�a a*��L ¢�,eS Gd yQ�c� ccs
0
�`
rte
Q
$J4
6A
q�° C
Source: U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder
4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE
The City's future population projections are from the Coordinated Population Forecast 2018
through 2068 Jackson County (Appendix A). These projections are based on the Cohort -
Component method of population forecasting, which essentially relies on trends in age,
fertility/births, mortality, and net migration.
As the population of Jackson County continues to age the fertility rate will continue to decline.
The decline in the fertility rate will be minimal, dropping from 1.9 in 2015 to 1.8 by 206511
Historically changes in fertility rates have not had a significant impact on the City's population
growth. Similarly, the death rate, although increasing is expected to have a minimal impact on
population growth over the next twenty years. When these two components are combined the net
difference does not yield any significant increases in the population. As previously discussed of
all the components of population change migration is the greatest contributor to population
growth throughout the planning period. Migration is also the most volatile component and is
very sensitive to changes in the economy, both positive and negative.
S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2019 to 2039
Over the course of the next twenty (20) years the City of Central Point's population is expected
to increase at an average annual rate of 1.5%, taking the population from 19,327 in 2019 to
26,317 in 2039 (Table 1). During this same period the City's percentage of the County
population is expected to increase from 8.5% to 9.9%. By 2068 Central Point will be the second
largest City in Jackson Countylz
11 Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 Jackson County
12 ibid
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 12
21
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
TABLE 1. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND JACKSON COUNTY
2019
19,327
228,271
2020
19,714
235,066
2025
21,035
246,611
2030
22,920
257,256
2035
24,815
263,006
2039
26,317
264,951
Source: 2018 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS
The following represents a general overview of the City's and County's population
characteristics throughout the 2019-39 planning period. The information is taken from PRC's
Coordinated Population Forecast 2018 through 2068, Jackson County.
6.1. Age Characteristics.
Based on the projected County age cohorts (Figure 16) the City's population will continue to
get older with the 65+ cohort claiming a larger percentage of the population. Although the
City has a younger overall population it will experience a similar increase in the 65+ cohort
over the next 20 -years. The aging of the population will also have an effect on the demand
for housing services, ranging from reductions in household size to changing demand for
housing types (i.e. senior housing).
FIGURE 16. COUNTYAGE STRUCTURE
OF THE POPULATION, 2019 vs. 2039
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2019 2039
■0-14 1315-64 ■65+
6.2. Growth Rate.
The City's population will continue to grow, but at a decreasing average annual growth rate
of 1.5% vs. the 2.9% experienced between 2000 and 2010. Similarly, the County's average
annual growth rate is expected to decline to 0.9% vs. 1.1 %.
6.3. Percentage Share of County.
As illustrated in Table 2 the City's percentage of the County's population will continue to
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 13
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
increase from 8.7% in 2016 to 9.9% by 2039.
6.4. Race & Ethnicity.
The race and ethnicity of both Jackson County and the City of Central Point are expected to
continue to diversify. However, over the 20 -year planning period the White, non -Hispanic
population will remain the dominant race.
6.5. Source of Growth.
The City's primary source of growth will come from net migration (90%+), which is heavily
dependent on the economy.
6.6. Household Characteristics.
As illustrated in Figure 11 the average household size has been declining since 1960. For the
City of Central Point, the average household size has dropped from 3.42 in 1960, to 2.61 in
2010. It is expected that during the term of the planning period (2016 - 2036) the average
household size will continue to decrease, but at a decreasing rate. The City of Central Point
Regional Plan Element uses an average household size of 2.5.
6.7. Median Household Income.
Changes in median household income will be a function of the strength of the general
economy and the rate of inflation. Time will tell.
7. Population & Demographic Goals & Policies
Goal - To maintain population and demographic forecasts as the primary data source for
developing and implementing plans and programs for management of the City's growth.
Policy 1- Population Forecast. The population data presented in Table 1 is the acknowledged
population forecast for the period 2016 through 2036 and is to be used in maintaining and
updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to update the
data presented in Table I based on the decennial U.S. Census. During the interim census periods
adjustments to Table I will be based on the latest PRC Forecast (4 -year cycle).
Policy 2 - Average Household Size. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City
will use an average household size of 2.5 for lands within the urban growth boundary. This
figure will serve as the basis for determining the number of households expected to be formed
throughout the planning period. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor
and, if necessary, update the average household size through data provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Policy 3 - Household Distribution. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City
will use 70% as the percentage of households that are family households and 30% as Non -
Family Households. These figures shall be used in maintaining and updating the City's
Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor and, if
necessary, update the percentage of family households through data provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Policy 4 — Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Racial and Ethnic Diversity. The City acknowledges the
changing racial and ethnic diversity of the community and will continue to develop the strategies
and tools necessary to ensure that the benefits ofgrowth meet the needs of all people within the
community regardless of race or ethnicity.
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 14
23
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
APPENDIX A - Coordinated Population Forecast, 2018 Through 2068, Jackson
County
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 15
24
BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
25
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2019
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, Al
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM VIII -B
Discuss the 2019 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), a component of the Land Use Element.
Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -18003.
STAFF SOURCE
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
BACKGROUND
The Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) tracks the availability of buildable residential lands in
the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) sufficient to accommodate the residential needs for a 20 -year
planning period per OAR 660-005-0005(1). The last Residential BLI was completed in 2016 as part of the
Housing Element Update. Since that time, the forecast population for the next 20 -years has increased
enough to warrant re-evaluation of buildable residential lands, a prerequisite to updating the Housing
Element. At the January 15, 2019 Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting, staff will introduce basic
elements of the residential BLI and highlight the most significant findings.
As an overview, the City's urban area (i.e. city limits + UGB) consists of 2,972 acres of which 1,488
acres (50%) are designated for residential land use (Table 1).
Table 1. Land Inventory Comparison 2016 vs. 2019
Year 2016 2019
Land Use
Acres
%
Acres
6%
Residential
1,529
51.6%
1,488
50%
Commercial
236
7.9%
235
8%
Industrial
275
9.3%
265
9%
Civic
108
3.7%
121
4%
Open Space
175
5.9%
186
6%
Right -of -Way
641
21.6%
677
23%
Total
2,965
100%
2,972
100%
Buildable lands fall into two (2) general categories: 1) vacant land, and 2) redevelopable land. These are
lands that either have no improvements (i.e. vacant land) or, due to existing or expected market forces, are
already developed and likely to experience intensified residential land use (i.e. infill) or redevelop (i.e.
redevelopable through demolition).
26
Per the Residential BLI, there are 293 gross acres of vacant and redevelopable land of which 67% is infill
land. In calculating buildable lands, the City must determine which lands are suitable, available and
necessary for development during the 20 -year planning period. For this reason, the BLI deducts
environmentally constrained lands (i.e. floodways and floodplains) because these lands are either not
suitable or not likely to develop during the planning period. Similarly, infill lands pose a significant
challenge due to the fact infill parcels are generally smaller in size and comprised of several individual
owners who have diverse skill sets, objectives, and risk tolerance levels relative to residential
development. Given the City's need to address housing affordability concerns, counting all infill lands as
likely to redevelop of the next 20 -years is questionable. Between the period 1996-2016, infill activity
accounted for 8% of housing units and 6% of residential land usage (See Residential BLI, Appendix D).
For the purposes of the BLI, the infill is estimated to increase over the next 20 -years to 30% more than
doubling the rate of infill activity over the past 20 -years ("Infill Adjustment").
After deducting environmentally constrained land and applying the 30% Infill adjustment, the City has
125 net acres of residential buildable land for the period 2019-2039. At the meeting staff will provide an
overview the Residential BLI methodology particularly on the infill and redevelopment lands and impacts
to residential buildable lands and land need over the next 20 -years.
ISSUES
None.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A" — Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (Review Draft)
ACTION
Discuss the Residential BLI.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the Residential BLI.
27
Residential
Buildable
Lands
Inventory (BLI)
2019-2039
Review Draft, 12/10/2018
City of Central Point
12/31/2018
REVIEW DRAFT — 2019 Residential BLI Page 1 of 24
28
1. INTRODUCTION
The use and availability of buildable land is a critical component in tracking a community's rate of
growth, and the subsequent need for additional land to support future growth. The primary purpose
of the Residential Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) is to maintain a record of the availability of
buildable residential lands within the City's urban area (Figure 1). The BLI is prepared in
accordance with OAR 660-24-0050(1) requiring that cities maintain a buildable lands inventory
within the urban growth boundary sufficient to accommodate the residential needs for a 20 -year
planning period as determined in OAR 660-024-0040.
A
CENTRAL
POINT
Legend
RtSutcn �Rn1a�d Pukl r:]GtY L—t1
Gty NaRPobe* S9.&" S Figure 1 _
URBANRE
AREA, 2018
REVIEW DRAFT— 2019 Residential BLI Page 2 of 24
29
By definition the BLI is strictly a land inventory system. The BLI is not a policy document. The
BLI is used by other Comprehensive Plan elements as a resource for the development and
monitoring of policy.
The BLI is considered a living document that is continually updated as development activity occurs
and is entered into the BLI electronic data base (BLI2019).
2. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ZONING
The BLI maintains an accounting of all lands by land use classification and zoning. The City's
Comprehensive Plan contains six (6) land use classifications and sixteen (16) sub -classifications
(Table 1). Each of the land use classifications are supported by one, or more, of twenty (20) zoning
districts (Table 2). The Land Use Classifications and Zoning districts are defined and mapped in the
Land Use Element.
3. LAND INVENTORY
As of December 31, 2018, the City of Central Point's urban area contained a total of 2,972 gross
acres (Table 1 and 2). Public right-of-way, parks/open space and civic uses accounted for 33% of
the City's total gross acreage, while residential (50%), commercial (8%), and industrial (9%) land
accounted for the remaining acreage. When public right-of-way is removed, there are 2,271 (77%)
net acres within the City's urban area.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
30
Page 3 of 24
Table 1. City of Central Point
Urban Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Civic 121 0 121
TOTAL CIVIC 121 0 121 4%
OS 108 78 186
TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE 1 108 78 186 6%
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 554 123 677
TOTAL ALL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS 2,472 500 2,972 100%
Note: Total acreage based on GIS shape file for City and UGB 10/29/18
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
31
Page 4 of 24
Total City
Total UGB
Total UrbanjPerceintageCom
rehensive Plan Desi nation
Acres
Acres
Acres
VLRes
46
22
68
LRes
902
88
990
MRes
194
23
216
HRes
215
-
215
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
1,356
132
1,488
50%
NCom
15
8
23
TPCom
103
8
111
TCCom
12
3
16
GenCom
56
-
56
Em Com
29
-
29
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
215
20
235
8%
Llnd
79
119
197
HInd
40
28
68
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
118
147
265
9%
Civic 121 0 121
TOTAL CIVIC 121 0 121 4%
OS 108 78 186
TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE 1 108 78 186 6%
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 554 123 677
TOTAL ALL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS 2,472 500 2,972 100%
Note: Total acreage based on GIS shape file for City and UGB 10/29/18
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
31
Page 4 of 24
Table 2. City of Central Point
Urban Land Inventory by Zoning
C -2(m)
Total City
Total UGB
Total Urban Percentage of
Zoning
Acres
Acres
Area Acres Total
R -L
46
22
68
R-1-6
374
6
380
R-1-8
393
11
404
R-1-10
34
22
56
LMR
111
48
159
R-2
107
-
107
R-3
180
-
180
MMR
78
23
100
HMR
35
-
35
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
1.356
132
1,488 50%
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
554
C -2(m)
12 _
12
CN
3 8
10
C-4
103 8
111
C-5
12 3
16
EC
29 -
29
GC
56 -
56
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
215 20
235 8%
Note: Total acreage balances with GIS shape file for UGB 10/29/18
REVIEW DRAFT — 2019 Residential BLI
32
Page 5 of 24
M-1
M-2
79
40
119
28
197
68
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
118
147
265
9%
Civic
121
0
121
TOTAL CIVIC
121
0
121
4%
BCG
OS
35
73
76
2
110
76
TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE
108
78
186
6%
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
554
123
677
23%
TOTAL ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
2,472
500
1 2,972 1
100%
Note: Total acreage balances with GIS shape file for UGB 10/29/18
REVIEW DRAFT — 2019 Residential BLI
32
Page 5 of 24
4. DEFINITIONS and METHODOLOGY
To maintain consistency in the maintenance of the BLI the definitions and methodology
used in preparing the BLI are presented in Appendix "A" — Definitions and Appendix `B" —
Methodology.
5. BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LAND INVENTORY
Within the City's urban area, there are approximately 1,490 acres of residential land distributed over
four (4) residential land use classifications and seven (7) zoning districts. Approximately 260 acres
(17%) of the City's total residential land is considered buildable acres. Table 3 and 4 identify the
unadjusted distribution of the residential vacant land by vacant land type (vacant, infill,
redevelopment), and total buildable acres. Figure 2 illustrates the geographic distribution of the
City's residential buildable land inventory (12/31/2018).
In calculating the Residential Buildable Lands a determination must be made that the buildable
lands are suitable, available and necessary (OAR 660-008-0005(2)) for development throughout the
20 -year planning period. There are two basic classifications of buildable residential land:
a. Vacant Land —Lands on which there is no development. Infrastructure is available within
the 20 -year planning period.
b. Redevelopable Land —Lands on which development has already occurred but on which, due
to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period
(OAR 660-008-0050(7). Redevelopable Land is further categorized as:
i. Infill Land — These are lands which are partially developed, but have the potential
for infill development. Infra -structure is available; and
ii. Redevelopment (Demolition) Land — These are lands which are currently improved,
but the improvements are generally old and the land value exceeds improvement
value. Infra -structure is available.
Table 3
City of Central Point
Buildable Vacant Residental Land inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
The definition of "Buildable Land" uses the term "likely" in referencing redevelopable residential
land. For purposes of context the City refines the likelihood and reasonableness definition for
Redevelopable Land as follows:
5.1 Infill Lands Availability Adjusted. As defined in OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a) the infill
land classification accounts for an extraordinarily large percentage (67%) of the City's
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
33
Page 6 of 24
Qess) (less)
Total
Total
Emir. Envir.
Less
Total
Redev.
Infill&
Gross
Acres, Acres,
Total Net Publle
Total
Comprehensive Plan
Vacant Vacant
Vacant
Infill City&
Redev.
Vacant
Vacant Infill
Vacant Need
Buildable
Desi ]nn
city, UGBI
Acres
Infill CII UGB UGB
Acres
Acres
Lands Lands
Acres Acres
Acres
VLRes
-
-
10 4 1
14
14
- 1
14
14
LRes
17 7
24
47 48 10
105
129
5 13
111
III
MRes
46
46
19 17 1
37
84
6 2
75
75
HRes
12
12
49 5
53
66
Z 4
60
60
Vacanl Resldcnllal Acres
1 76 783
125 68 17
210
293
13 20
260
16D
[Percentage ofTotal Gross Vacant Acres
28%
43% 23%— 6%
72
The definition of "Buildable Land" uses the term "likely" in referencing redevelopable residential
land. For purposes of context the City refines the likelihood and reasonableness definition for
Redevelopable Land as follows:
5.1 Infill Lands Availability Adjusted. As defined in OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a) the infill
land classification accounts for an extraordinarily large percentage (67%) of the City's
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
33
Page 6 of 24
vacant residential lands inventory (Tables 3 and 4). As a vacant land classification the
reasonableness and likelihood of counting all Infill Land as being available for development
during the planning period is questionable. Infill Lands are small in size and comprised of
many individual property owners with a wide range of real estate development skills and
tolerance for risk. To assume that all Infill Land is available places a significant burden on
the City's ability to both effectively and efficiently address housing affordability. The City
acknowledges that Infill Land is an asset not be overlooked. The question is — to what
extent should Infill lands be reasonably expected to participate?
Table 4
City of Central Point
Buildable Residential Land Inventory by Zoning
For purposes of the BLI the City estimates that 30% of the Infill Land inventory is likely to
be developed during the 20 -year planning period. The 30% adjustment is acknowledged in
the Housing Element, along with a policy to encourage and monitor infill activity.
The 30% adjustment is based on a survey of infill development within the City between
1996 and 2016 (See Appendix "D"). Tables 5 and 6 adjust for the 30% infill land
participation.
5.2 Redevelopment (Demolition) Land. The City uses the U.S. Census Methodology to
determine the number of dwellings estimated to be demolished during the 20 -year
planning period. The methodology, and its application to the City are described in
Appendix "C". The redevelopment columns Tables 3 through 6 are based on the
methodology in Appendix "C".
Table 5
City of Central Point
Infill Availability Adjusted
Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
(less) (less)
(less)
(less)
Total
Total
Envir. Envir.
Total
Total
Envir.
Envir.
Gross
Less
Total Net
Total
Comprehensive Plan
Total
Vacant
Infill City &
Redev.
Infill &
Gross
Acres,
Acres,
Total Net
Public
Total
Infill Ci UGB UGB
Vacant Vacant
Vacant
Lands Lands
Infill
Clty &
Redev.
Vacant
Vacant
Infill
Vacant
Need
Buildable
zoillag
Ci ty, UGB'
Acres
Infill City
UGB
UGB
Acres
Acres
Lands
Lands
Acres
Acres
Acres
R -L
6 5 1
12
10
4
1
14
14
-
1
14
14
R-1-6
2
2
28
4
5
37
39
0
6
33
125
33
R-1-8
2 -
2
10
1
4
15
17
0
!
16
16
R-1-10
0
0
4
6
0
II
II
0
0
11
11
LMR
21 7
28
5
37
1
43
70
I1
fi
53
53
R-2
2 -
2
4
-
1
5
8
-
1
7
7
R-3
4 -
4
37
-
5
42
46
2
44
44
MMR
36 -
36
15
17
0
32
68
0
2
66
66
M4R
8
8
11
0
11
20
2
2
16
16
Total Residential Acres
76 7
83
125
68
18
211
293
13
20
260
260
Percent a of ,at Gross Vacant
Acres
1 281/4
42%
23%
6%1
72
For purposes of the BLI the City estimates that 30% of the Infill Land inventory is likely to
be developed during the 20 -year planning period. The 30% adjustment is acknowledged in
the Housing Element, along with a policy to encourage and monitor infill activity.
The 30% adjustment is based on a survey of infill development within the City between
1996 and 2016 (See Appendix "D"). Tables 5 and 6 adjust for the 30% infill land
participation.
5.2 Redevelopment (Demolition) Land. The City uses the U.S. Census Methodology to
determine the number of dwellings estimated to be demolished during the 20 -year
planning period. The methodology, and its application to the City are described in
Appendix "C". The redevelopment columns Tables 3 through 6 are based on the
methodology in Appendix "C".
Table 5
City of Central Point
Infill Availability Adjusted
Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
34
Page 7 of 24
(less) (less)
Total
Total
Envir. Envir.
Total
Redev.
Intl][ &
Gross
Acres, Acres,
Total Net
Total
Comprehensive Plan
Vacant Vacant
Vacant
Infill City &
Redev.
Vacant
Vacant Infill
Vacant
Buildable
Designation
ciw UGB'
Acres
Infill Ci UGB UGB
Acres
Acres
Lands Lands
Acres
Acres
VLRes
- -
-
3 1 1
5
5
- 1
4
4
LRes
17 7
24
14 14 10
39
63
5 13
45
45
MRes
46 -
46
6 5 1
12
58
h 2
50
50
liRcs
12
12
15 519
32
4
26
26
'Vacant Residential Acres
76 7
83
37 21 l7
75
158
13 20
125
125
Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres
52%]
24% 13% 11 %
48
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
34
Page 7 of 24
Table 6
City of Central Point
Infill Availability Adjusted
Buildable Residential Land Inventory by Zoning
6. Residential Land Need
The primary function of the BLI is to assist in the identification of residential buildable land needs
during a 20 -year planning period. Table 7 identifies the estimated need for buildable residential as
of 12/31/2018. Table 7 is based on input from the Population Element, the Housing Element, and
the BLI. As noted earlier the BLI is a living document that changes as changes in residential
development activity and policy occur.
Table 7
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.'
17,895
2032 Forecast
23,662
2039 Forecast
26,317
(less) (less)
8,422
PersonslHH'i
2.50
Household Increase
3,369
Average Gross Density5
Total
Total
Envir. Envir.
Total Btit l tlabl a Residents aI Acre56
125
.-kdd€ti anal deeded Grass Residential Acres
354
Total
Redev.
Infill &
Gross
Acres, Acres,
Total Net
Total
Vacant Vacant
Vacant
Infill City&
Redev.
Vacant
Vacant Infill
Vacant
Buildable
ZDIII09
City, UGB'
Acres
Infill City UGB UGB
Acres
Acres
Lands Lands
Acres
Acres
R -L
-
3 1 1
5
5
1
4
4
R- 1-62
2
8 1 5
15
17
0 6
10
10
'R-1-8
2
2
3 0 4
8
9
0 1
8
8
:R-1-10
0 -
0
1 2 0
3
4
0 0
4
4
'LMR
21 7
28
2 Il 1
13
41
Il 6
24
24
R-2
2 -
2
1 1
2
5
1
4
4
R-3
4
4
11 5
16
20
2
18
18
MMR
36
36
4 5 0
10
46
0 2
44
44
HMR
8
8
3 0
4
12
2 2
8
8
Total Residential Acres
76 7
83
37 21 18
1 76
158 13 20
1 125
125
Percentage of Total Gross Vacant Acres
1 52%1
24% 13% 11%1
48
6. Residential Land Need
The primary function of the BLI is to assist in the identification of residential buildable land needs
during a 20 -year planning period. Table 7 identifies the estimated need for buildable residential as
of 12/31/2018. Table 7 is based on input from the Population Element, the Housing Element, and
the BLI. As noted earlier the BLI is a living document that changes as changes in residential
development activity and policy occur.
Table 7
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.'
17,895
2032 Forecast
23,662
2039 Forecast
26,317
Population Increase
8,422
PersonslHH'i
2.50
Household Increase
3,369
Average Gross Density5
7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres
479
Total Btit l tlabl a Residents aI Acre56
125
.-kdd€ti anal deeded Grass Residential Acres
354
I Portland State University Population Research Centn. Ptclivaniuv Estimate, 2018
` Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population
Forecast for Jacks on County, its Urban Growth Bou odarics (MB), and Area Outside
UGiBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infrfl Availability
Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan Designation
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
35
Page 8 of 24
Li
■
L_
CENTRAL
Underdeveloped Residential > 0.5 acres
Underdeveloped Residential LI < 0.3
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
M
Residential Buildable Lands Inventory
2019
Page 9 of 24
APPENDIX "A" — Definitions
The 2019 BLI was last updated December 30, 2018
maintain the residential BLI.
Definitions
The following definitions are used in preparing and
Buildable Land, Residential: Residentially designated lots or parcels within the City's urban area,
including vacant and developed lots or parcels likely to be redeveloped that are suitable, available
and necessary for residential uses (OAR 660-008-0005(2)). Land ise�y considered "suitable
and available" unless it:
1. Is severely constrained by natural hazards as determined under Statewide Planning Goal 7;
2. Is subject to natural resource protection measures determined under Statewide Planning
Goals 5, 6, 15, 16, 17 or 18;
3. Has slopes of 25 percent or greater;
4. Is within the 100 -year flood plain; or
5. Cannot be provided with public facilities.
Developed Land, Residential: Residentially designated lots or parcels of less than one-half acre
that are currently occupied by a residence. (OAR 660-024-0050(2)(b).
Infill Acres, Residential: Developed Residential Land of one-half acre or more, less one-quarter
acre (10,890 square feet). OAR 660-024-0050(2)(a).
Land to Improvement Ratio (L:I Ratio): The ratio between the real market value of land and the
real market value of improvements as measured by taking the real improvement value of a parcel
divided by the real land value based on the Jackson County Assessor records.
Net Buildable Acre, Residential: Consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designated
buildable land, after excluding present and future rights-of-way for streets and roads (OAR 660-
024-0010(6)).
Planning Area: The area within an existing, or proposed, urban growth boundary. Cities and
counties with urban growth management agreements must address the urban land governed by their
respective plans as specified in the urban growth management agreement for the affected area (OAR
660-009-0005(7)).
Redevelopment Acres, Residential: Land zoned for residential use on which development has
already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong
likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the
planning period (OAR 660-008-0005(7)).
Note: The BLI uses a methodology developed by the U.S. Census to determine the rate of residential redevelopment based
on the age of structures. The specific methodology is presented in Appendix C, Methodology for State and County Total
Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017).
Urban Area: Land within a UGB (OAR 660-24-10)
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI Page 10 of 24
37
Vacant Acres, Residential: All residentially designated lots or parcels not currently containing
permanent buildings or improvements. For purposes of determination of the presence of permanent
buildings/improvements all residential lots or parcels with an improvement value of zero (0), as
determined by the Jackson County Assessor, are considered vacant.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
38
Page 11 of 24
APPENDIX "B" - Methodology for Calculation of Residential Buildable Land
The methodology used to inventory and calculate buildable lands is based on the definitions defined in
Appendix A. The base data source for identification of buildable lands is the Jackson County Assessor's
Records dated April 2018, which has been modified to include such additional information as
Comprehensive Plan designations, zoning, development status, etc. The modified database is referred to as
the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI2019.xls).
Step 1. Urban Area, Gross Acres — Using the City's GIS the total geographic limits of the City's
urban area are mapped and the gross acres within the limits of the shape file calculated by area
within the City Limits and UGB.
Step 2. Net Urban Area by Land Use and Zoning — Using BLI2018 sum by land use and zoning
all tax lots within the City's urban area (City Limits and UGB). Tax lots identified for street, road,
or access right-of-way (public or private) purposes are not included.
Step 3. Right -of -Way — Deduct the totals (City Limits and UGB) in Step 2 total from Step 1 total,
the balance representing acreage used for right-of-way for the City Limits and UGB.
The results of Steps 1— 3 are presented in Tables I and 2 of the 2019 Residential BLI.
Step 4. Buildable Acres, Residential. The methodology for calculating Buildable Residential Land
involves the following steps:
Step 4a. Residential Vacant Acres. The BLI identifies all tax lots by their land use
designation, development status, and improvement value. When the improvement value of
a property is zero the property is defined as Residential Vacant Land. The BLI sums the
acreage for all Residential Vacant Land by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the
UGB.
Step 4b. Residential Infill Acres. The BLI identifies all residential tax lots for their infill
potential. Residential properties in excess of .5 acres and with an improvement value in
excess of zero are defined as Residential Developed Land. By deducting 10,890 sq. ft. from
each Residential Developed Land record the balance is defined as Residential Infill Land.
The BLI then sums the Residential Infill Land for all residentially designated properties, by
land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB.
Step 4c. Residential Redevelopment Acres. The BLI identifies all residential tax lots by
the year the primary residence was built. Using the U.S. Census housing loss methodology
presented in Appendix C. The BLI then sums the Residential Redevelopment Land for all
residentially designated properties, by land use and zoning for the City Limits and the UGB.
Step 4d. Gross Vacant Residential Acres. Using the sum of the totals generated from
Steps 4a through 4c the BLI calculates the Gross Buildable Residential land by land use and
zoning for the City Limits and the UGB.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
39
Page 12 of 24
Step 4e. Environmentally Constrained Acres. The BLI includes information on the
acreage within each vacant and infill lot or parcel that is considered environmentally
constrained. The BLI sums the environmentally constrained land for all residentially
designated properties, by land use and zoning, developed, vacant, and infill/redevelopment.
Step 4f. Total Buildable Residential Acres. The BLI takes the results from Step 4d, less
the results from Step 4e, to yield Buildable Residential Land by land use and zoning.
Step 5. Infill Lands Adjustment. The Infill Lands inventory is adjusted per the Infill Study in
Appendix D. An adjustment of 30% is used to determine the amount of Infill Land that will be
available during the 20 -year planning period (Tables 5 and 6). The 30% adjustment accounts for
"likelihood and availability" of Infill Lands (See Appendix D for Infill Methodology).
Note: Per the Regional Plan Element's measurement of residential development density as gross density it is important to note
that for residential purposes the Buildable Residential Land number is used as a net figure, it does not include lands for public
right-of-way, parks/open space, schools, or other public uses. For Employment lands public right -0f -way is excluded.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
40
Page 13 of 24
APPENDIX "C" — Methodology for Identifying Residential Redevelopment (Demolition)
Land
The City does not maintain records for demolitions necessitating the use of another methodology for
determining the number and rate of residential demolitions within the City's urban area. The methodology
used was found on the U.S Census web site and is referred to as Methodology for State and County Total
Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1, 2010 to July 1, 20171 (Methodology). The Methodology
was applied to the City of Central Point as follows:
Step 1. Demolition Rate by Region, Type of Housing Unit, and Age. The Methodology provided a loss
rate based on the region, type of housing unit, and age of housing unit (Table 1).
Table 1.
Housing Unit Loss Rate by Housing Type and Age,
Western Region
T e of Unit and Age
Loss Rate (Units
Lost/1,000 Units)
House, Apartment
10 Years or less (2008-2018)
0
11 to 30 years (1988-2007)
0.37
31 to 59 years (1959-1987)
0.54
60 or more years 1958 and Earlier)
0.64
Mobile Home
1.8
Source: Methodology for State and County Total
Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1,
2010 to July 1, 2017
Step 2. Determine Distribution of Housing by Age and Type. The BLI maintains an inventory of housing
by type, year built, and land use designation and zoning. Tables 2A through 2D identifies the housing
construction in Central Point by type and year built segregated into age categories as presented in Table 1.
1 https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2010-2017/2017-hu-
meth.pdf
REVIEW DRAFT — 2019 Residential BLI Page 14 of 24
41
Table 2D.
Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age
City of Central Point, 1958 and Earlier
I.nv
Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: -0.64 1,8
Table 2B.
Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age
City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007
Dwellin Units Built and Dw [ling Units Demolished, 1988-2007
nl llljstiJO& It elII hg
Uni fs Dc eli shed, 12§4. And Earlier
Total
Total
Total
Adjusted
Total
Adjusted
Annual
20 -Year 20 -Year
Total
Units,1988-
Housing
Total Mobile Less Prior Units, 1958 -
Demolitions,
Demolitions, Demolitions,
Demolitions,
Land Use Class
Units Built
Homes Period Earlier
SFR, MFR
SFR, MFR MH
1958 - Earlier
VLRes
23
23
0.0
0.3 -
0.3
LRes
190
1 189
0.1
2.4 0.0
2-5
MRes
204
1 203
0.1
2.6 0.0
2.6
HRes
1553
152
0,1
1.9 0.1
2.1
Residential Units
572
5 567
0
7 0
7
I.nv
Annual Demolition Rate per 1,000 Units: -0.64 1,8
Table 2B.
Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age
City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007
Annual Demolition Rate per 1.000 Units: 0.37 1.8
Table 2B.
Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age
City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007
Dwellin Units Built and Dw [ling Units Demolished, 1988-2007
Total
Total
Adjusted
Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year
Total
Housing
Total Mobile Less Prior
Units,1988-
Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions,
Demolitions,
Land Use Class
Units Built
Homes Period
2007
SFR MFR SFR. MFR MA
1988-2007
VI -Res
30
-
30
0-0 0.2
0.2
LRes
2,588
82 203
2,303
0.9 17.0 3.0
20.0
MRes
839
0 216
623
0;2 4.6
4.6
HRes
],444
365 158
92l
0.3 6.8 13.1
20-0
1. Residential Units
4 01
447 577
3,877
1 29 16
45
Annual Demolition Rate per 1.000 Units: 0.37 1.8
Table 2B.
Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Housing Type and Age
City of Central Point, 1988 - 2007
Annual Demolition Rateper 1,000 Units: 037 1.8
Step 3. Determine Annual Demolitions. Tables 2A through 2D apply the Methodology loss rates per 1,000
units (Table 1) by land use classification and age. Take the sum of the demolitions and multiply by 20
(projected years).
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
EPA
Page 15 of 24
Dwelling Units Built and Dwelling Units Demolished, 1988 - 2007
Total
Total
Adjusted
Annual 20 -Year 20 -Year
Total
Housing
TotalMobile Less Prior
Units,1988-
Demolitions, Demolitions, Demolitions,
Demolitions,
Land Use Class
Units Built
Homes Period
2007
SFR MFR SFR,MFR MH
1988 -2007
VLRes
30
- -
30
0.0 0.2 -
0,2
LRes
2,588
82 203
2,303
0,9 17.0 3.0
20.0
MRes
839
0 216
623
0.2 4.6 -
4.6
HRes
1,444
365 158
92l
0.3 6.8 13.1
20.0
Residential Units
4901
447 577
3877
1 29 16
45
Annual Demolition Rateper 1,000 Units: 037 1.8
Step 3. Determine Annual Demolitions. Tables 2A through 2D apply the Methodology loss rates per 1,000
units (Table 1) by land use classification and age. Take the sum of the demolitions and multiply by 20
(projected years).
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
EPA
Page 15 of 24
Step 4. Determine Projected Demolitions and Related Acreage. Multiply the annual loss by the density
for each land use classification. Take the sum of the annual demolitions and acreage and multiply by 20
(projected years) to get projected acres made available over the course of the 20 -year planning period Table
3.
Table 3
City of Central Point
Estimated Dwelling Unit Demolitions by Land Use Classification
2019-2039
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
43
Page 16 of 24
Average
Density
Total
(Units/Gross
Demolition
Land Use Class
Demolitions
Acre)
Acres
VLRes
1
1
1
LRes
39
4
10
MRes
8
7
1
HRes
42
9
5
Totals
91
17
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
43
Page 16 of 24
Methodology for State and County Total Housing Unit Estimates (Vintage 2017): April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2017
OVERVIEW
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the number of housing units for each year since the most recent
decennial census. With each annual release of housing unit estimates, the entire time series of estimates
beginning with April 1, 2010 is revised and updated. The estimates use building permits, estimates of non -
permitted construction, mobile home shipments, and estimates of housing loss to estimate change in the
housing stock. These component data come from various Census Bureau surveys.
We produce housing unit estimates for all states and counties annually. We release these estimates to the
public, and they are used as controls for several Census Bureau surveys, including the American
Community Survey (ACS), the American Housing Survey (AHS), and the Housing Vacancy Survey (HVS).
In addition to state and county housing unit estimates, we also produce subcounty housing unit estimates.
These estimates are central to the production of population estimates for cities and towns across the nation.
METHOD
We produce housing unit estimates using the components of housing change. In this model, we add
together the 2010 Census count of housing units, estimated new residential construction, and estimated
new mobile homes. From this sum we subtract the estimated housing units lost. The computation of
annual July 1 housing unit estimates is expressed by the following formula:
201 Census Housi New New Mobile _ Housing July 1
ng Units ♦ Residential + Homes Units Lost Housing Unit
Construction Fstimate
After these data are combined to produce a preliminary set of housing estimates, they are reviewed by
members of the Federal -State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE) and by local jurisdictions.
The final housing estimates may reflect updates from their review of the estimates. Each component of
the housing unit change model is described below.
2010 Census Housing Units
Every year, we re -tabulate the 2010 Census counts of housing units in current legal geographic
boundaries to form the base for the annual housing unit estimates. The base for the housing estimates
reflects annual geographic boundary updates from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) that are
legally effective as of January 1. The base also includes the results of completed Count Question
Resolution (CQR) actions and geographic program revisions incorporated into the Master Address File
(MAF)/TIGER Database through May of each estimate's year.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
44
Page 17 of 24
New Residential Construction
Residential construction is the largest component of housing change. We estimate new residential
construction in two parts: permitted constriction and non -permitted construction. The calculation of new
residential construction is represented by the following formula:
Permitted Construction
Building PA rmits Issued Permit T Non- i New
Completion permitted Residential
Rate Construction Construction
Permitted Construction
According to the Census Bureau, more than 98 percent of all new housing units are erected in places that
issue building permits. We calculate estimates of new permitted construction by multiplying the number of
residential building permits issued by a permit completion rate. Data on issued permits come from the
Building Permits Survey (BPS). t This survey includes reported permits from approximately 20,000
jurisdictions. These data are reported to the BPS by calendar year for cities and towns across the country.
Implicit in the method of using calendar year permits is an assumption of a six-month lag time between
when a building permit is issued and when the housing unit is completed. Thus, permits that are issued in
the first six months of a particular calendar year are not processed in the housing unit estimates until the
following year. For example, the July 1, 2014 housing unit estimates are based on permits issued between
January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Permits issued between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 w
ill be processed in the 2015 housing unit estimates.
The permit completion rates used to calculate new permitted construction are based on national estimates
of permits that are either abandoned or deemed "out of scope" by the Survey of Construction (SOC). 2.3
We update the completion rate every year, as new survey data become available. The 2014 permit
completion rate reflects the percent of building permits issued in calendar year 2013 that resulted in
completed housing units.
The Census Bureau conducts the BPS. Formure infonnation about this survey, s
ee httpY/www.ccnsw. LQI� Ya41 .ipn lbiisl,
2 Abandonodpernilsarrrperrrelsthat thcsurvey responden torbuildingpen itof£cehasindicatedthatconstruction
of the housing unit(s) authorised by that pemrit will not be completed using that pennit. Out ofscopepennits are those that were reported as
penrdts for new, privately -owned housing units by the building pemrit office, but it was later detemrined that the units did not meet thedefinAion of
new privately -own ed housing units (e.g., the units were intendedas grou p quartem, forcorrymmial usc,etc.).
3 TheCensusBureauconductstheSOC. Formore infornution aboutthissuryey,scehtt p llwww.c a ❑ 1a ry wl
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
45
Page 18 of 24
Non -permitted Construction
We calculate estimates of new non -permitted construction using data on new residential housing units
constructed in places that do not issue building permits. These data also come from the SOC. The estimates
of non -permitted construction are regional -level data that we distribute to all places that do not receive
building permits, based on each place's share of the region's total housing units enumerated in the
2010 Census. For example, if a place contained 5 percent of the region's housing units as of the 2010
Census, and does not issue building permits, we distribute 5 percent of the region's non -permitted units in
the SOC to that place. There is no lag time applied to the estimates of non -permitted construction. The
sampling frame for the SOC does not include any non -permitting areas in the West; therefore, we do not
distribute non -permitted housing units to places in that region.
New Mobile Homes
The data we use to create estimates of new mobile homes come from the Manufactured Homes Survey
(MHS).4 We calculate annual mobile home estimates by compiling monthly state shipment data from July
of the previous year through June of the current year. For example, the July 1, 2014 mobile home estimates
are based on mobile home shipment data from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. We distribute the state -
level mobile home estimates to each place within the state based on each place's share of the state's total
mobile homes. To do so, we use information from the Census 2000 long form on "type of structure" for
housing units.
Housing Unit Loss
We calculate housing unit loss by applying an annual loss rate to the housing stock. The vintage 2017
estimates of housing units lost are based on regional -level data from the 2009 and 2011 American
Housing Survey (AHS).5 A unit is counted as lost if a survey was completed in 2009, but it was listed as a
non -response (Type C, 30 —Demolished) in the 2011 survey.
The housing loss rates vary by type and age of structure, which are obtained from the 2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) single -year file. Housing units fall under one of three types: houses (including
apartments and flats), mobile homes, or other types of housing units. The vintage 2017 housing loss rates
are as follows:
4 The Census Bureau conducts the MHS. For more infometion about this survey, s
ee httnsJhvww.mnsus.goyllr rarams-survqNdnf*.hlml.
5 7heCenxuslAireauconcluctstheAlIS.Fonroreinfonrutionaboutthissurvey,seehttpV/www.cemus.gov/i)ograrrs-surveys/ahs/.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
46
Page 19 of 24
V2017 Housing Unit Loss Rates by Region, Type and Age
type of Unit
Loss Rate (Units Lost/1,000 Units)
Northeast outh Midwest West
IHouse, Apartment/Flat
.10 years or less
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
11 to 30 years
0.37
10.37
0.37
0.37
31 to 59 years
0.40
1.31
2.57
0.54
150 or more years
0.75
.3.68
6.85
0.64
[Mobile Homes
8.74
4.08
3.64
1.80
,ether Housing Units6
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
The rates of loss for units less than 10 years old is too small for us to estimate with confidence with the
data we have available, therefore, we assume that the rate is zero. We also assume that the "Other
Housing Units" are constantly churning and, since we have no growth component for this category, a loss
rate of zero seems appropriate.
Numeric estimates of loss are then calculated by applying the above rates to the base file as it is aged to
the current vintage year. The base file is given type and age of structure characteristics by applying
distributions calculated from the 2010 ACS single -year file. After aging the base from April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2010, the process iterates annually and units increase in age by 1 year at each iteration.
July 1, 2010 Housing Unit Estimates
We use one quarter of the 2010 permitted and non -permitted constriction, mobile homes, and housing
loss to produce the July 1, 2010 estimates. This represents the change in housing stock during the three
month period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010.
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
The preliminary housing unit estimates are distributed for review to members of the FSCPE. Some
FSCPE members provide revisions to the estimates, in the form of alternative housing component data,
based on information they compile from the jurisdictions within their respective states. Alternative
housing component data include local building permits, mobile home placements, demolitions, and
housing completions derived from non -permitted construction, certificates of occupancy and housing
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
47
Page 20 of 24
6 "Other Ho using Units" inc ludebo at s,recreational vehicles, and oflier types ofhousing arrangements.
REVIEW DRAFT -2019 Residential BLI
48
Page 21 of 24
ESTIMATES CHALLENGE AND SPECIAL CENSUS REVISIONS
Localities that challenge the Census Bureau's subcounty population estimates have the option of revising
the housing component data specific to their area.7 These revisions are included in the inial housing unit
estimates. The final estimates may also include other changes due to revisions that occur outside
the component estimation framework and are the result of special censuses' for full jurisdictions.
Special census revisions are reflected in the July 1, 2010 to July 1 of the year following the special census.
7 For alist ofacceptedsubcountypopulationchallenges, seehtipsl/www.ccnsus.gov/woaarrs- survevs/nooesdabout/challen
op -pro gram/ resu It s.hbTi
8 Special Census Program results are available here duc�ial gouas.html. For
a list ofaccepted special census results incorporated into thePopulation Estimates, see httpsY/www.census.gov/nrograms-
survees/ppXst/ab out/special-census.h tml.
49
2019 — 2039 Residential BLI
APPENDIX "D" — Infill Survey, City of Central Point, 2019-2039
The Infill Land classification in Table 3 and Table 4 represents an extraordinarily large percentage (67%)
of the City's buildable residential lands inventory. As a vacant land classification the reasonableness of
counting all Infill lands as being available for development during the 20 -year planning period is
questionable. Infill Lands are small in size and comprised of many individual property owners, each with
a varying range of market knowledge and risk tolerance. To assume that all Infill Lands are available
places a significant burden on the City's ability to both effectively and efficiently address housing
affordability. The City acknowledges that Infill Lands are an asset not be overlooked. The question is the
extent of participation as a component of the buildable lands determination?
To gather some insights into the role of Infill lands as a part of the City's residential buildable lands
inventory the City surveyed residential infill development activity between 1996 and 2016, a 20 -year
period. The findings of the survey are presented in Table 1. It was found that during the survey period
infill activity accounted for development of approximately 30 acres, with maximum yield of 270 housing
units. During the same period the City experienced development of 3,619 dwelling units. Assuming that
all infill units surveyed were developed during the survey period this would have accounted for
approximately 8% (Participation Rate, Housing) of the total housing built and 6% (Participation Rate,
Land) of the buildable residential consumed acres in the City from 1996 to 2016.
For Infill Land purposes it is recommended that the 6% Participation Rate be upwardly adjusted to 30%.
The 30% Participation Rate serves as a goal for future infill development. Throughout the 20 -year
planning period the Participation Rate should be tracked and policies adopted to encourage infill
development at the 30% rate, or greater.
The survey results are not absolutes, but instead provide a reference from which to view and evaluate the
role of Infill lands in the City's residential BLI. The Housing Element recognizes the findings of the Infill
Survey and sets a 30% Participation Rate for Land. The Residential BLI has been adjusted to recognize
the 30% participation rate as a reasonable measure of the availability of Infill lands. To be monitored over
the next 20 -years. The Housing Element further encourages the development of policies that will improve
the rate of participation.
Page 23 of 24
50
2019 - 2039 Residential BLI
Table 1.
City of Central Point Infill Development Activity
1996 through 2016
Page 24 of 24
51
GROSS
SUBDIVISION
YEAR PLATTED N OF PARCELS
DUs
ZONING
LAND USE
ACRES 1
Whittle Partition
Feb -96
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Whittle Partition
Mar -96
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Whittle Partition
Mar -96
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Whittle Partition
Mar -96
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Countryside Village Phase II
Mar -96
5
is
R-3
Hiles
0.94
Lowe Partition
Jun -96
2
2
111-6
LRes
0.42
Countryside Village Phase II
Aug -96
3
9
R-3
HRes
0.56
Gutches & Gifford
Aug -96
2
2
131-6
LRes
0.42
Crown West Partition
Aug -96
6
LZ
R-2
MRes
1.50
Governor Partition
Aug -96
4
8
R-2
MRes
L00
Jangaard Partition
Jan -97
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Countryside Village
Feb -97
4
12
R-3
HRes
0.75
Fancher Partition
Jun -97
3
3
RI -6
LRes
0.63
Governor Partition
Jan -98
2
6
R-3
HRes
0.38
Snowy Mountain View Phase 1 Partition
May -98
6
IB
R-3
HRes
1,13
Forest Glen Partition
Jun -98
2
2
R-3
Hiles
0.13
Snowy Mountain View Partition
Sep -98
22
22
R-3
HRes
1.38
Sandlin Partition
Mar -99
3
9
R-3
HRes
0,56
Brink Partition
Apr -99
4
12
R-3
HRes
0.75
Thumler Partition
Jun -99
3
3
R1-6
Liles
0.63
Key West Proerties Partition
Jun -99
2
2
R1-8
LRes
0.42
Cavin/Smith Partition
Oct -00
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
LDS Partition
Oct -00
2
2
R1-10
LRes
0.42
Smith Partition
Jan -01
2
2
RI -6
LRes
0.42
Lafon Partition
Apr -01
2
2
R1-8
LRes
0.42
Giese Partition
Apr -01
2
2
R1-6
LRes
0.42
Orr Partition
Jul -01
2
4
R-2
Miles
0.50
Higinbotham Partition
Feb -02
2
4
R1-8
LRes
0.83
Williamson Partition
May -02
2
2
111-6
LRes
0.42
Dekorte Partition
May -03
3
3
RI -8
LRes
0.63
Ross Partition
Sep -03
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.50
Rogers Partition
May -04
2.
2
R1-8
Liles
0.42
Coffin Partition
May -04
4
8
R-2
MRes
0.50
Lamson Partition
May -04
2
2
LMR
Miles
0.13
A.R.E Properties
May -04
2
2
131-6
LRes
0.42
Lamson Partition
Oct -04
2
2
TOD-MMR
HRes
0.13
Twin Creek Partition
Mar -05
2
2
LMR
MRes
0.13
Castellano Partition
Jun -05
3
3
R1-6
LRes
0.63
Twin Creeks Partition
Jul -05
2
2
LMR
MRes
0.13
Grissom Partition
Sep -05
2
2
TOD-MMR
HRes
0.13
Magel Homes Partition
Oct -05
2
2
LMR
MRes
0.13
Dahl House Partition
Oct -05
3
3
R1-8
LRes
0.63
Williams Partition
Nov -05
3
3
LMR
MRes
0,19
Skillman Brothers Partition
Jan -06
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.25
Cascade Meadows Phase 1
Mar -06
3
3
TOD-LMR
Miles
0.19
Altus Construction
May -06
4
8
R-2
MRes
0.50
CoWest Partition
Jun -06
2
2
R1-10
LRes
0.42
Whitten Partition
Jun -06
3
3
RI -8
LRes
0.63
Lisk Partition
Jul -06
2
2
R1-10
LRes
0.42
Pattison Addition
Aug -06
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.25
Skillman Brothers Partition
Aug -06
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.25
Bursell Rd
Nov -06
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.25
Block 70 of Plat of CP
Dec -06
2
4
R-2
Miles
0.25
Danbrook Partition
Jan -07
2.
b
R-3
HRes
0.38
Rambo Partition
Oct -07
2
2
R -L
VI -Res
1.25
Brown Partition
Apr -08
1
1
RI -6
LRes
0.21
Hatten Partition
Dec -13
2
4
R-2
MRes
0.25
Lee Partition
Apr -15
2
2
R1-6
LRes
0.42
Kottke Partition
Apr -16
3
5
R-2
MRes
0.38
Lewellyn Partition
May -16
3
9
R1-8
LRes
0.63
Adams Partition
Jan -06
2
4
R-2
Miles
0.25
TOTALS
174
285
29.77
Units Constructed in the City, 1996.2016
3,619
601.40
Percentage
719%
5%.
Page 24 of 24
51
HOUSING ELEMENT
52
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2019
AGENDA ITEM VIII -C
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, Al
Community Development Director
Discuss the 2019 Housing Element (Review Draft), of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Applicant:
City of Central Point. File No. CPA -18003.
STAFF SOURCE
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
BACKGROUND
The Housing Element was last updated in 2017. At that time, the housing analysis looked at the 20 -year
population forecast (2018-2038) and buildable residential lands and identified a need to add 150 acres of
residential land to the urban growth boundary (UGB). Since that time, the Portland State Population
Research Center (PRC) updated the
Coordinated Population Forecast (PRC
Population Forecast) for Jackson County
(2018-2068) including the Central Point UGB.
Per the PRC Population Forecast, the
population and the demand for housing have
increased (Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, the most significant
changes to the Housing Element include the:
• Increased population forecast for the
next 20 -years, including the
corresponding number of needed
households.
Average gross density for 2019-3039
is prorated at 7.04 units per acre based
on the Regional Plan Commitment of
6.9units/acre until 2035 and 7.9
units/acre from 2035-2060.
Table 1
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop!
2032 Forecast`'
2039 Forecast
18,735
23,662
26,317
Population Increase
7,582
Persons/11H�
2.50
Household Increase
3,033
Average Gross Density
7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres
431
Total Buildable Residential Acres 125
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 306
Portland State University Population Research Center, Certified Estimate, 2018 Adjusted
for UGB population
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population
Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside
UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
• Residential acreage distribution is 4 City ofCentmlPoint Population Element, 2017-2037
modified to meet the minimum 5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
residential density standard decreasing 6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability
Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan Designation
low density (LRes), and increasing
medium (MRes) and high (HRes) density land allocations.
53
The text and tables have been updated and enhanced to address housing characteristics and residential
land need. However, no changes to policies are proposed as part of the Housing Element update. At the
Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting, staff will present an overview of the Housing Element changes
since 2017 including a summary of the findings and implications for future amendments to the UGB.
ISSUES
None.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "N'— Housing Element (Review Draft)
ACTION
Discuss the Housing Element.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the Housing Element update.
54
Housing Element
2019-2039
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
55
Review Draft
12-31-2018
Ordinance No.
DLCD Acknowledged:
Contents
1.
Summary..............................................................................................................................4
1.1 Residential Land Need.....................................................................................................
4
1.2 Housing Affordability......................................................................................................
7
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...........................................................................................
14
5.6 Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents.................................................................
14
5.7 Summary, Household Characteristics............................................................................
15
6.
Housing Characteristics........................................................................................................
15
6.1 Housing Age...................................................................................................................
15
6.2 Housing Type.................................................................................................................
16
6.3 Housing Value................................................................................................................
20
6.4 Housing Vacancy...........................................................................................................
21
6.5 Summary, Housing Characteristics................................................................................
22
7.
Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning..............................................................................
22
7.1 Housing Density.............................................................................................................
22
7.2 Land Use and Housing Type..........................................................................................
26
7.3 Summary, Housing Density...........................................................................................
26
8.
Buildable Residential Lands.................................................................................................
26
8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands.........................................................................
28
9.
Housing Affordability...........................................................................................................
28
9.1 Renter Households.........................................................................................................
28
9.2 Owner Households.........................................................................................................
29
9.3 Summary, Affordability.................................................................................................
30
Review Draft 12-31-18
56
Page 2136
10. Future Housing Demand and Residential Land Need ........................................................ 30
10.1 Future Housing Tenure............................................................................................... 33
10.2 Future Housing Types................................................................................................ 33
11. Housing Goals and Policies.......................................................................................------ 33
Review Draft 12-31-18
57
Page 3136
1. Summary
Over the next twenty -years (2019-39) the City of Central Point's population is projected to add
an additional 7,582 people, the equivalent of 3,033 new households. Most of the households will
be the result of in -migration as the region continues to grow. The physical and demographic
characteristics of these new households are not expected to significantly change. Single-family
detached owner -occupied housing will continue to be the preferred housing type, followed by
multiple -family rental housing.
The most significant housing challenge will be affordability. Regardless of housing type the cost
of housing is taking a larger percentage of household income.
1.1 Residential Land Need
To accommodate the housing demand the City will need an estimated 431 gross acres of
residential land (Table 1). The City's current inventory of Buildable Residential Land totals 125
gross acres, requiring 306 gross acres of additional Buildable Residential Land.
Table 1
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.]
2032 Forecast'`
2039 Forecast3
18,735
23,662
26,317
Population Increase
7,582
Persons/HH4
2.50
Household Increase
3,033
Average Gross Density5
7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres
431
Total Buildable Residential Acres 125
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 306
1 Portland State University Population Research Center, Certified Estimate, 2018 Adjusted
for UGB population
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population
Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside
UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
4 City of Central Point Population Element, 2017-2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 -2035
6 City of Central Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability
Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Aside from the Great Recession, which had a significant negative impact on jobs and housing,
the most significant influence on the City's housing program was the adoption of a development
Review Draft 12-31-18
58
Page 4136
standard requiring a minimum average density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre 1 for new
residential construction. The relevance of this new density standard becomes evident when
compared to the City's current average (1889 through 2018) gross density of 4.41 dwelling units
(Table 2). For purposes of comparison Table 2 also shows the City's 1980 maximum allowable
density. Unlike the new density standards, which are measured in terms of required minimums,
the 1980 densities were stated in terms of maximum allowed densities.
Table 2
City of Central Point
1980, Actual, and 2019-2039 Gross Density Comparision
Based on build -out ofresidentially designated lands
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
Table 3
City of Central Point
Gross Density Comparision Historic, 1980-2018, 2006-2018, and 2010-2018
1980
Actual
2019-2039
Actual
Maldmum
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
Avera a Gross Density
10.95
4.41
7.04
Based on build -out ofresidentially designated lands
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
Table 3
City of Central Point
Gross Density Comparision Historic, 1980-2018, 2006-2018, and 2010-2018
Source: City o£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
t City of Central Point Regional Plan
Review Draft 12-31-18
59
Page 5136
Actual
Actual
Actual
Historic
Developed
Developed
Developed
Average
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Density, 1980
Density, 2006
Density, 2010
Land Use Classification
Densities
2018
2018
2018
VLRes
1.31
1.51
1.65
-
LRes
3.85
4.14
5.22
5.06
MRes
6.02
7.85
9.71
9.21
HRes
7.11
9.56
19.97
22.04
AverNe Gross Density
4.41
5.42
8.42
7.99
Source: City o£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
t City of Central Point Regional Plan
Review Draft 12-31-18
59
Page 5136
Developable Residential acres in the higher density districts (MRes and HRes), and the
subsequent development of higher density housing. These higher densities do not represent the
City's long-term housing goal of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, but instead illustrates the
City's need to re -stock the low density (LRes) Buildable Residential acres and rebalance the total
Buildable Residential lands inventory to meet the minimum density objective.
Table 4.
City of Central Point
Comparison Historic Developed Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution vs. 2006-2018,
2010-2018 and Proposed New 2019-2039 Residential Acreage (Gross) Distribution
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLU, 2019
Table 5
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Percentage
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 BLU, 2019
Table 5
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Percentage
Distribution of
Needed
Needed
Developable
Developable
Residential
Residential
2018 Existing
Acres, 2019-
Acres, 2019-
Buildable
Surplus or
Land Use Classification 2039
2039
Residential Acres
(Shortage)
VLRes 4%
17
4
(13)
LRes 60%
258
45
(214)
MRes 20%
86
50
(36)
HRes 16%
69
26
1 (43)
Totals 100%1
431
125
(306)
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
To achieve the minimum density standard it will be necessary to modify the acreage distribution
within the City's residential land use classifications (Table 4). The redistribution is most
significant in the low density (LRes) classification where there was a 10% reduction from the
LRes historic participation. To offset this reduction the medium density (MRes) was increased
Review Draft 12-31-18
60
Page 6136
9% and a 1% increase in the high density (HRes) land use classifications.
As previously noted (Table 1) the City will need an estimated 431 acres of gross residential land.
After taking into consideration the City's current inventory of residential land (125 gross acres),
there is a need for an additional 306 gross acres of residential land distributed as shown in Table
5.
1.2 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability will continue to be a challenge for many households, improving and
declining as a function of the national economy. The City is very aware of the challenges in
addressing housing affordability. The Housing Element includes policies requiring the
development of a Housing Implementation Plan (the "HIP"). The specific purpose of the HIP
will be to monitor housing needs and affordability in the context of regional efforts by local
governments and the private sector, and to put into action those strategies that have the a positive
mitigating impact on addressing housing need and affordability in the City of Central Point.
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 7,582 vs. the 4,420 in
the 2015 PSU forecast. The magnitude of the 2018 increase is sufficient to warrant a re-
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
Review Draft 12-31-18
61
Page 7136
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
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.
Review Draft 12-31-18
62
Page 8136
4. Purpose
Over the course of the next 20 -year planning period (2019-39) the City's population is projected
to increase by 7,582 residents2. With an average household size of 2.5 persons3 there will be a
need for 3,033 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
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.
2 PSU
3 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element
Review Draft 12-31-18
63
Page 9136
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
■ 2000 ■ 2010 a 2015 ■ 2017
70%
City County
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
63%
62%
61%
State
Figure 2. Housing Tenure, Renter Occupied
38% 0 39%
37 /o
30%
■ 2000 M2010 02015 ■ 2017
39%
36% 370
34%
39% 38%
City County State
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
Review Draft 12-31-18
64
Page 10136
As a result of the Great Recession, and its impact on jobs and income, the owner
occupied percentages have been declining as foreclosures forced many to abandon their
homes and seek rental housing. Since the Great Recession, as jobs and wages gradually
improve, there should have been some movement back to ownership as the preferred
tenure. At the county and state level, although slightly lower, there have been some gains
in ownership, but at the City level ownership continued to decline. The reason for the
decline may be as simple as the increase in construction of rental units since 2015, which
may now have reached market capacity, or the result of the growing disparity between
increasing housing costs and lagging household income.
5.2 Age of Householder
A householder is a person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned or
rented. If there is no such person present then any household member 15 years old and
over can serve as the householder4. As illustrated in Figure 3 the dominant householder
age has been within the 35 to 64 category. As a result of the Great Recession, and the
subsequent loss in jobs and income, householders in this age category experienced a
reduction, 49% in 2010. Since the Great Recession, as job conditions improved this age
category as returned to its pre -recession level.
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.
22% 23%
1990
Figure 3. City of Central Point
Household Age Characteristics
❑HH 15 - 34 ■HH 35 - 64 ■HH 65+
49%
2000
2010
53% 53%
28% 28%
19% 19%
2015 2017
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Occupancy Characteristics
4 U.S. Census Glossary
Review Draft 12-31-18
65
Page 11136
5.3 Household Size
The average household size is computed based on occupied housing and total population.
Until the Recession the average City household size had been continually declining, and
projected to level -out at 2.5 persons per household. Since the Recession the average
household size has actually increased. The increase in household size also occurred at the
state and county. The primary cause for the increase in average household size is again
due to the Recession as many younger adults moved in with their parents or cohabitated
for affordability reasons. It is anticipated that as the economy improves and ages that the
average household size will continue its downward trend.
Figure 4 identifies the average household size. The Population Element identified an
average household size of 2.5 for planning purposes over the next twenty years.
Figure 4. Average Household Size
Cite of Central Point, 1990 - 2017
2.75
2.7 2.69
2.65
2.6
2.55 2 ;
2.5
2.45 2 4
2.4
2.35
2.3
2.25
2.2
1990 2000 2010
2.63
2.43
2015
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Housing Characteristics
2.56
2.46 ■ Cin,
a County
2017
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),
down slightly from 2015. At the county and state level median incomes have increased.
As with household ownership this decline may be a function of rental housing
construction since 2015.Pending continued improvement in the economy the median
household income should improve, which in turn should improve housing affordability.
During the Great Recession the most financially impacted household income group was
the $35,000 to $49,999 category. This group has almost recovered to pre -Recession
levels (Figure 6). The $50,000 to $74,999 income group is the largest group representing
approximately 25% of all households.
Review Draft 12-31-18
66
Page 12136
Figure 5. City of Central Point
Median Household Income
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
6. City of Central Point
Household Income Distribution
/i
i
i
nw
Less than $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000
$10,000 to to to to to to to or more
$14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999
— — 2000 2010 ----2015 —2017
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
Review Draft 12-31-18
67
Page 13136
■ City * County
o State
rn
m
�
� (D
N
p
0000
u7
LPI
N N O,
00
a--1
l0
Vf
N
�O
W
m
ar-1
M
61
14
't
69
-1
4A
4A
O
V!
4A
—
2000
2010
2015
2017
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
6. City of Central Point
Household Income Distribution
/i
i
i
nw
Less than $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000
$10,000 to to to to to to to or more
$14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999
— — 2000 2010 ----2015 —2017
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
Review Draft 12-31-18
67
Page 13136
5.5 Special Needs Housing
Certain minority groups within the general population have unique challenges and
needs that deserve consideration as part of this Housing Element. Often these
groups are ignored because they represent a small portion of the total population.
However, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that all citizens
have an opportunity for safe and decent housing. The City's most significant
contribution to addressing special housing is assurances that the City's zoning and
building regulations are not impediments and that the City works collaboratively
with other organizations to assure that special needs housing is not left behind.
5.5.1 Elderly Residents
The Baby Boom Generation is the fastest growing segment of the population at
both the national, state, and local level. By 2040 it is projected that nationally one
in eight persons will be at least 75. In 2014 that figure was one in sixteens.
Among individuals aged 80 and over more than 75% live in their own homes,
making "aging in place" the preference of most of the elderly population.
However, as this older demographic continues to grow, they will find themselves
in housing that is not suited or "... prepared to meet their increasing need for
affordability, accessibility, social connectivity, and well-being." As people age,
their physical needs change. Climbing stairs and turning doorknobs can become
more difficult impacting the ability to "age in place" becomes more difficult.
The majority of elderly residents are retired and living on pensions or other forms
of fixed income. As the costs of maintaining a household increase over time the
elderly are typically spending an increasing percentage of their income on
housing. As people age, they need housing that is structurally and mechanically
safe and that is designed to accommodate people with disabilities. Given the
widely varying circumstances of older adults, meeting their housing and housing -
related needs requires a range of responses.
5.5.2 Handicapped Residents
Residents who are physically handicapped suffer many of the same problems as
the elderly, such as fixed incomes and difficulty in maintaining property.
Strategies for elderly housing are applicable to handicapped households.
5.6 Poverty (Extremely Low Income) Residents
The federal government defines the 2017 poverty level between $12,600 and $41,320
depending on the household sizeb. In 2017 approximately 10% of all families within the
City were classified at or below the poverty level, up from 2015. At the County and State
level there was a decline in the percentage of families at or below the poverty level. The
increase in poverty level households correlates with the decline in median household
income. The construction of more single-family detached owner occupied homes will
change this trend.
5 The State of the Nation's Housing; Joint Studies for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2017
6 HUD User, FY 2015 Income Limits Documentation System
Review Draft 12-31-18
68
Page 14136
5.7 Summary, Household Characteristics
Since 2015 the City's percentage of owner occupied units has dropped below the county
and state level. The median household income in 2017 is lower than the county and the
state. Although the average household size increased this is expected to be a reaction to
the Recession, and will return to lower levels in the future as housing affordability
improves. As noted earlier the reduction in ownership and income may be a short-term
event resulting from rental housing construction since 2015.
Figure 7. Percentage of Families at or Below the
Poverty Level
171980 ■ 2000 ■ 2010 ■ 2015 ■ 2017
9
oai
12.20%
9
06
a�
0
Ch
.-i
County State
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
6. Housing Characteristics
The City's housing stock is approaching 7,000 dwelling units of various type, ages, and
value. In 1980 the City's housing inventory totaled 2,2917 dwelling units. By the end of
2018 the housing unit inventory within the City was 6,864 dwelling units. The following
describes the characteristics of the City's housing stock by age, type, tenure, and value.
6.1 Housing Age
Based on the age of the City's housing stock Central Point is considered a young
community. Most of the housing was constructed after 1980 (71 %). The older housing
stock (pre -1949) is concentrated in the original central area of the City. Because of its
age most of the City's housing stock is in very good physical condition.
7 City of Central Point Housing Element
Review Draft 12-31-18
69
Page 15136
Figure 6.1.
City of Central Point
Age of Housing Stock
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
n n,�
Built 1980 or later Built 1979 - 1950 Built 1949 or earlier
Source: City of Central Point, 2019 Residential BLI
6.2 Housing Type
The City's housing stock is comprised of seven (7) housing types as follows:
1. Single -Family Detached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be
occupied by only one family.
2. Single -Family Attached; a dwelling on a legally defined property designed to be
occupied by only one family, but has a common wall with other single-family
attached dwelling(s);
3. Duplex/Triplex/Apartments; a group of dwellings on a legally defined property
having 2, 3, and 4 or more dwelling units with separate entrances. This includes
two-story houses having a complete apartment on each floor and also side-by-side
apartments on a single legally described lot that shares a common wall.
Apartments that have accessory services such as food service, dining rooms, and
housekeeping are included within this definition;
4. Manufactured Homes; a dwelling on a legally defined property that is
constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and
plumbing facilities intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a
foundation in accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction
and safety standards and regulations.
5. Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Parks; a group of dwellings located on
a legally defined property (Mobile Home Park) that are constructed for movement
on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities
intended for residential purposes and that is constructed on a foundation in
Review Draft 12-31-18
70
Page 16136
accordance with local laws and federal manufactured construction and safety
standards and regulations and
6. Government Assisted, housing that provides the occupants with government
sponsored economic assistance to alleviate housing costs and expenses for needy
people with low to moderate income households. Forms of government assisted
housing include direct housing subsidies, non-profit housing, public housing, rent
supplements and some forms of co-operative and private sector housing.
The City's housing policies and zoning regulations allow for all of the above housing
types.
Historically (1889-1979), the City's housing preference has been for single-family
detached housing supplemented by apartments (Table 6). SFR attached units account for
less than .5% of the total housing inventory, but this is expected to change as attached
housing becomes more acceptable and is an affordable housing option. Between 1980
and 2018 the distribution of housing type by land use category is illustrated in Table 7. At
70% of the total housing stock the single-family detached home was still the preferred
housing type, followed by apartments (11%) and Duplex/Triplex (5%). As a housing type
Assisted Living housing accounts for approximately 1% of the total housing inventory.
Table 8 measures residential construction between 2006 through 2018 illustrating the
shifting of preferences in new residential construction. As a percentage of new
construction single-family detached, at 56%, was down from historical highs. Single-
family attached increased significantly (12%) from its historic level. For the duplex
housing types it was 5%, and for apartments it was at 25%. The purpose in comparing
various construction periods is to illustrate that during any given time span the housing
inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix depending on economic
circumstances.
The decline in single-family detached dwelling types was the due to the loss of jobs and
the subsequent reduction in income occurring as a result of the Recession. When
measured between 2010 (post -recession) to 2018 (Table 9) the preference for single-
family detached homes improved, whether or not it will continue improving to its post -
Recession levels remains to be seen. The point is that during any given time span the
housing inventory will respond with variations in the housing type mix.
It is worth noting (Table 6) that a significant number of single-family detached units are
located within the higher density land use classifications (24%). The reason for this is
primarily historic and regulatory. Many of the older single-family detached
neighborhoods have been designated as medium density (MRes) to encourage infill
development. On the regulatory side prior to 2006 new single-family detached dwelling
units were permitted in both the MRes and the HRes classifications as an acceptable
housing type. This practice was suspended in 2006 with amendments to the zoning code
requiring minimum densities in all residential zones, and the exclusion of single-family
detached dwellings in the medium and high density residential districts.
Review Draft 12-31-18
71
Page 17136
d
A
r9 O
O�Q O A w W 0
e •+ In cn — O p,
Lh ID
�A
N T to A
Review Draft 12-31-18
72
v
r9 �
J
CA
W T cn
A
e
A
rn w w 0,
a
�z
O
0
k
ft
d
0
C
d
i
C
e
C
c
f
W
A
J J
e
fo
A
�
�
,
,
W
e
J
U
w w
NiJ A
A
C
d
A
'y
x ri
'r°a
9
�
9
to
_
0
�O
Vr O
A
� �
O
ro
0 o
a �
C
W
U
ll.
F• e9
,
N
r
W
0
f
y �
b �
0
e
e
r�
5. y
O. R
0
� a
e
�0
r�
S. y
"
�
a
ro n
a
e
vi
o v,
d
A
r9 O
O�Q O A w W 0
e •+ In cn — O p,
Lh ID
�A
N T to A
Review Draft 12-31-18
72
d
A
O O
W W a, J A
e w rn
d �
J N rV N O
Page IS 136
C
r9 �
Q
e
w
J v7,
z
O
0
k
ft
d
C
i
k
e
c
f
fo
A
�
�
,
C
e9
W
e
J
U
w w
NiJ A
A
C
d
A
'y
x ri
'r°a
0 0
A
_
0
bx�
0
,
W
U
ll.
F• e9
0
W
W
f
y �
nA
re a
e
r�
5. y
ro A
0
a
d
A
O O
W W a, J A
e w rn
d �
J N rV N O
Page IS 136
E
(
�
§
Review Draft 12-31-18
73
q
!
&
@
E�
|
k4
�
)»
00
at
'
E
k�
�
■
)ChW
,��
a
2
�m
2'Qmm
,�■
.
E
)
�
�
$■
_
&�
#
#
K
¥J
�
�
2
eb
)
�
�5§
�
$ §
�
ƒ
„
Q(
7&
a
2�
IQ,,,.,1c
E■
c�
c
)'
Review Draft 12-31-18
73
q
!
&
@
P a s e 1936
|
�
�
E
�
�
■
�
■
�■
�m
2'Qmm
,�■
I
$■
_
&�
2
�
2
■■
�
$ §
�
ƒ
„
frp
a
2�
IQ,,,.,1c
E■
c�
�
e�
;«�Bs4■
P a s e 1936
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%
10.0
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
Souce U_S_ Census American FactFinder, Selected lHausing Cdarac" stics
Review Draft 12-31-18
74
❑ Less than $50,000
® $50,000 to $99,999
■ $100,000 to $149,999
■ $150,000 to $199,999
■$200,000 to $299,999
■ $300,000 to $499,999
❑ $500,000 to $999,999
Page 20136
In 2017 the housing value distribution (Figure 10) places 48% of the City's owner
occupied inventory in the $199,999 or less category, down from 55% in the 2017
Housing Element. A vacancy rate less than 5% is equivalent to market equilibrium supply
equals demand.
6.4 Housing Vacancy
Another characteristic of the housing supply is the vacancy rate. Vacancy rate is the
percentage of housing units (rental and ownership) are unoccupied or are available for
rent at any given time. The vacancy rate also serves as a measure of housing demand vs.
supply. As illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 the vacancy rates for owner and renter housing
have been increasing in both the City, while for the county and the state the vacancy rate
has been declining.
Figure 11. Owner Vacancy Rate Comparison 2000-
2017
■ 2000 ■ 2010 132015 ■ 2017
3.7%
2.8%
1.9% 1.8% 1.9%2.0% 2.4% 2.2%
1.7%
1.5% 1.5%
0.6%
City County Oregon
Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics
Figure 12. Renter Vacancy Rate Comparison, 2000-
2017
■ 2000 ■ 2010 132015 ■ 20177.9%
5.5%
5.0%
4.1% 4.3% 4.3%
2.9% 3.00 3.1%
City
County
5.6%
4.2% 3.7%
Oregon
Source: U.S. Census, American Communty Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics
Review Draft 12-31-18
75
Page 21136
6.5 Summary, Housing Characteristics
The City's housing inventory is typical of the region reflecting the western region's
preference for single-family detached housing. The housing stock is young and heavily
concentrated in the single-family detached category. The cost of housing is slightly on the
high side for the region, but typical for the state. The demand for housing, measured by
the vacancy rate in 2017, is strong.
7. Housing Density, Land Use and Zoning
In 2012 the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was approved by Jackson County. Shortly
thereafter the City of Central Point adopted its component of the Regional Plan as an element to
the City's Comprehensive Plan. In the City's Regional Plan Element it was agreed that all new
residential development within the UGB would be constructed at an average minimum density of
6.9 dwelling units per gross acre, and after 2036 the minimum density would increase to 7.9
dwelling units per gross acre. The targeted density for this Housing Element is 7.04 dwelling
units per gross acre.
7.1 Housing Density
Measured in 10 -year increments beginning in 1980 the City's average gross residential density
has been steadily increasing (Table 10). The causes and rates of increase have not been
specifically studied, but in general can be attributed to a variety of factors from changes in the
economy to improving efficiencies in housing development practices. In 2006 the City amended
its zoning ordinance setting mandatory minimum density standards for all residential zoning
districts. Until then the higher density zoning districts were allowed to build at much lower
single-family detached densities.
Table 10.
City of Central Point
Cummulative Average Gross Density by Land Use Classification
1980 through 2039
* Based on build -out
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Tables 11 through 14 identify the residential development activity between 1980 through 2018
and 2006 trough 2018 by land use designation and zoning. The information in Tables 11 through
14, by removing pre -1980 development, provides a different perspective from the density
Review Draft 12-31-18
76
Page 22136
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
Mlles
4.28
4.33
4.67
6.05 6.33
HRes
7.12
7.07
7.40
8.52 8.58
.Average Gross Density
3.77
3.80
4.19
4.67 4.73
* Based on build -out
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Tables 11 through 14 identify the residential development activity between 1980 through 2018
and 2006 trough 2018 by land use designation and zoning. The information in Tables 11 through
14, by removing pre -1980 development, provides a different perspective from the density
Review Draft 12-31-18
76
Page 22136
information in Table 10. The most significant difference is in the dramatic density increase post -
2006. This increase is attributed to the 2006 codified minimum density requirement and the
declining inventory of low density (LRes) designated lands.
Review Draft 12-31-18
77
Page 23136
Review Draft 12-31-18
78
n
r
e
e
o.
y
�
V
A
n
A
H
O
R
d
A �
d
~
W
N
A
UI
J 'V CA
R11
41
A
W W w In
oa tr> w O
n
S �
•+
�? %�'
N
In N A
6
b
w J �o
d
d
w
—
7
A
00
0o N o0
_Z
R
I
N
I I
N
� '
AtNi1
00
t9
O Q
I I I
B 8:
A
NO
10 O
M
p O
B
T
b
A to
a ro
A a
I
I I I
�
p g
pr 0. A
S. y
C
ro
.+
—
a
C7
n
••—
r h �
a
A
vii
o in
Cr
Review Draft 12-31-18
78
Page 24136
e.
V
c
y
A
H
O
d
d
W
N
w rn -4
R11
41
A
W W w In
oa tr> w O
p �
•+
�? %�'
N
In N A
6
b
w J �o
d
7
A
R
I
N
I I
N
NO
10 O
M
Q Q
B
T
b
A to
77
� O
�
p g
pr 0. A
7
a
r9 a
C
••—
B.eb
A
vii
o in
Cr
O
�
C
n
b
O 41
A w
A
VI
b J
0o VI
N
ON
O� vi A
Page 24136
Z
'°z
0
A
w
0
A
O
=�xxrxxxx
z A o
c
?
�
'ro
0
A �
w �
UI
J 00 0o J vi W A A��
S
UI
a 00 30 �• N N J � rf
A
P� oil
l0
w VJ O J O
Q,
K �
A
J oo N a �-• r � �
A %7
v
d
F
D
k
J
J In A D
0o
w N o0
W
w
O O
A
ry i"C, ra
T
O, p
00
`OS g
00
W
A
�
O
rn
A
p I I 1 1
a
D
A
G H
r�
i
U, -P,
N
N
O
v� N oa
A
A
v
y
O O
N
T T W A W N T J VI
y
Review Draft 12-31-18
79
d
et
J J J W N � O
W W
00 D
W y m
N T O 70 W J 00 OD '+ �
0.
Page 25136
v
A �
w �
A
_
'O J a A .-
S
UI
a 00 30 �• N N J � rf
A
K �
A
J oo N a �-• r � �
A %7
d
F
J
J In A D
W
w
A
t+
A
O
D
A
CL
i
U, -P,
J
v� N oa
y
O O
3
T
a N
A
O
A oo J
bxo0
o
a
F
N
a o0
k
A
A
O A
r�
0
0o a
ro a
d
et
J J J W N � O
W W
00 D
W y m
N T O 70 W J 00 OD '+ �
0.
Page 25136
7.2 Land Use and Housing Type
The City has four (4) residential land use classifications and seven residential zoning
districts. These classifications accommodate differing densities and housing types. Each
land use classification has assigned zoning districts. Within each residential land use
classification/zoning district the following housing types are allowed:
Table 15. Housing Type by Land Use Classification
Land Use
Class
SFR
Detached
SFR
Attached
Duplex
Triplex
Apt
Manuf.
Home
Mobile Home
Park
VLRes
R -L
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
LRes
R-1
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
MRes
R-2
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
LMR
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
HRes
R-3
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
MMR
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
HMR
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
7.3 Summary, Housing Density
Since 1980 the City's average gross density has been steadily improving. The ability of
the City to achieve a minimum density of 6.9 for the period 2019 through 2039 appears to
be very attainable.
8. Buildable Residential Lands
The 2019 Residential BLI identified a total residential land inventory within the City's urban
area of approximately 1,488 acres that are zoned and planned for residential use (Table 16). The
City's residential lands are distributed over four residential land use categories and nine zoning
districts. The largest of the residential classifications is the LRes (Low Density) at 67% of all
residential lands followed by the MRes (Medium Density) at 15%.
The four (4) residential land use classifications and their related zoning districts are:
1. Very Low Density Residential (VLRes);
a. Very Low
2. Low Density Residential (LRes);
a. R-1-6
b. R-1-8
c. R-1-10
3. Medium Density Residential (MRes);
a. LMR
b. R-2; and
4. High Density Residential (HRes).
a. R-3
Review Draft 12-31-18
80
Page 26136
b. MMR; and
c. HMR
Table 16 identifies the City's residential land allocations by land use classification. Table 17
provides the same information by zoning district.
Table 16. City of Central Point
Residential Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 17. City of Central Point
Residential Land Inventory by Zoning District
Zoning
Total City
Total UGB
Total Urban
Percentage
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Acres
Acres
Acres
of Total
VLRes
45.87
21.86
67.73
5%
LRes
901.86
87.77
989.63
67%
MRes
193.58
22.56
216.14
15%
Hres
214.51
-
214.51
14%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
1,355.83
132.19
1,488.01
100%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 17. City of Central Point
Residential Land Inventory by Zoning District
Zoning
Total City Total UGB Total Urban
Acres Acres 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
1006%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
As of the end of 2018 there were approximately 125 acres of Buildable Residential Land8 within
the City's urban area. The vacant acreage in each land use classification is illustrated in Table 18.
The vacant acreage available in the single-family VLRes and LRes land use classifications is 3%
and 36% respectively of the total vacant land use inventory. The bulk of the City's net buildable
residential acreage is in the MRes (40%) and HRes (21%) classifications, representing over 60%
of the City's buildable vacant residential acres (76 acres).
8 See City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI for definition.
Review Draft 12-31-18
81
Page 27136
Table 18.
City of Central Point
Infill Availability Adjusted
Buildable Residental Land Inventory by Comprehensive Plan Designation
S --City oFC:. lNb,l2l119ReAi .IWnli
8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands
The City's Buildable Residential Land inventory is currently under represented by the LRes
classification and over represented in the higher density residential land use classifications
(MRes and HRes).
9. Housing Affordability
Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied, is typically measured as a percentage
of household income. A standard benchmark for housing affordability is when housing costs are
less than or equal to 30% of total household income. When housing costs exceed 30% of
household income affordability becomes an issue.
9.1 Renter Households
As illustrated in Figure 13 the Great Recession had a significant impact on rental housing
affordability as the percentage of renter households paying more than 30% increased
from 37% to 50% by 2010, and by 2017 had continued to rise to 57% of all renter
households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that
in 2015 there was a slight decline, but by 2017 there was a slight increase in the number
of renter households paying more than 30%.
Review Draft 12-31-18
82
Page 28136
(less) (less)
Total
Total
Envir. Emir.
Total
Redev.
Infill &
Gross
Acres, Acres,
Total Net
Total
Comprehensive Plan
Vacant Vacant
Vacant
infill City&
Redev.
Vacant
Vacant Infill
Vacant
Buildable
Designation
City' UGB1
Acres
hrfillCity UGB UGB
Acres
Acres
Lands Lands
Acres
Acres
VLRes
-
-
3 1 1
5
5
- 1
4
4
LRes
17 7
24
14 14 10
39
63
5 13
45
45
MRes
46 -
46
6 5 1
12
58
6 2
50
50
HRes
12
12
83
IS - _ 5
37 21 17
19
32
4
16
26
Yxrant Besidcmial Acres
76 7
75
I58
13 20
125
125
Percent a of Total Cross Vacant Acres
-52%- 24% 13% ll%
48
S --City oFC:. lNb,l2l119ReAi .IWnli
8.1 Summary, Buildable Residential Lands
The City's Buildable Residential Land inventory is currently under represented by the LRes
classification and over represented in the higher density residential land use classifications
(MRes and HRes).
9. Housing Affordability
Housing affordability, whether renter or owner occupied, is typically measured as a percentage
of household income. A standard benchmark for housing affordability is when housing costs are
less than or equal to 30% of total household income. When housing costs exceed 30% of
household income affordability becomes an issue.
9.1 Renter Households
As illustrated in Figure 13 the Great Recession had a significant impact on rental housing
affordability as the percentage of renter households paying more than 30% increased
from 37% to 50% by 2010, and by 2017 had continued to rise to 57% of all renter
households. At the county and state level the experience was much the same except that
in 2015 there was a slight decline, but by 2017 there was a slight increase in the number
of renter households paying more than 30%.
Review Draft 12-31-18
82
Page 28136
Figure 13. Renter Households Paying 30% or More of
Income on Housing
■ 2000 ■ 2010 132015 ■ 2017
54% 57%
0 56% 57% 54%
53/0 51% 52%
40%
City County State
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
9.2 Owner Households
To a lesser extent the rate of affordability in owner households followed the same pattern
as renter households. By 2017 owner households paying more than 30% of income on
housing increased from a pre -Recession 25% to 57% (Figure 14). Since the Great
Recession the price of housing has continued to rise, exceeding the increase in wages. As
of December 2018 average hourly wages were up 2.9% year -over -year, while the median
home value in the U.S. was up 7.7%. It is expected that in 2019 local home values will
continue to rise, but at a slower 3.79%9.
Figure 14. Owner Households Paying 30% or
More of Income on Housing
■ 2000 E2010 ❑ 2015 0 2017
44%
33% 32%
City County State
Source: U.S. Census American FactFinder, Selected Economic Characteristics
9 Zillow, www.zillow.com/central-point-or/home-values
Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 29136
83
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 7,582 residents. With an average household size of 2.5
persons per household10 an additional 3,033 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 43112 acres of residentially planned lands to accommodate the
3,033 new dwelling units. Given the existing Buildable Residential Lands (125 acres) the City
needs an additional 306 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 11). If new residential construction follows a similar
land use and density pattern the City would not meet its 6.9 minimum density requirement. To
achieve the minimum density standard it is necessary to either re -allocate the distribution of
housing by land use classification; increase the minimum density requirements for each land use
classification; or a combination of both.
10 City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element, 2016-36
11 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element
12 Rounded figure
Review Draft 12-31-18 Page 30136
84
Table 19
Projected Residential Buildable Land Need
2019 to 2039
2018 Pop.1
18,735
2032 Forecast
23,662
2039 Forecast3
26,317
Po elation Increase
7,582
Persons/HH4
2.50
Household Increase
3,033
Average Gross Density
7.04
Needed Gross Residential Acres
431
Total Buildable Residential Acresb 125
Additional Needed Gross Residential Acres 1 306
Portland State University Population Research Center, Certified Estimate, 2018 Adjusted
for UGB population
2 Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated Population
Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside
UGBs 2018-2068
3 Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
City of Central Point Population Element, 2017- 2037
5 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element, 2015 - 2035
6 City ofCentral Point Buildable Lands Report, 2019 - 2039, Table 5. Infill Availability
Adjusted Buildable Vacant Land by Comprehensive Plan Designation
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 Mlles. 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 BL.[, 2019
Review Draft 12-31-18
85
Page 31136
Historic Percentage
New Percentage Buildable
Developed Residential Acres,
Residential Acreage
Land Use Classification
pre -2018
Distribution, 2019-2039
VLRes
4%
4%
LRes
70%
60%
MRes
11%
20%
HRes
15%
16%
Totals
100%
100%
Source: City of Central Point Residential BL.[, 2019
Review Draft 12-31-18
85
Page 31136
By adjusting both the mix and density of the various residential land use classifications the
needed 3,033 dwelling units can be accommodated on 479 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 Residential BLI
Table 22
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Percentage
1983
Minimum
Maximum
Required
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 Residential BLI
Table 22
City of Central Point
Required Buildable Residential Lands
2019-2039
Percentage
Distribution of
Needed
Needed
Developable
Developable
New
2018 Existing
Residential
Residential
Dwelling
Buildable
Acres, 2019-
Acres, 2019- New
Units, 2019-
Residential
Surplus or
Land Use Classification 2039
1 2039 Density
2039
Acres
(Shortage)
VLRes 4%
17 1.00
17
4
(13)
LRes 60%
258 4.00
1,034
45
(214)
MRes 20%
86 7.00
603
50
(36)
HRes 16%
69 1 20.00
1,379
26
(43)
Totals 1 100%
431 7.041
3,033 J
125
1 (306)1
Source: City of Central Point Residential BLI, 2019
The proposed densities and land use allocations are explained as follows:
• VLRes — The VLRes classification supports the R -L (Rural) Low Density) zoning
district. The allocation of very low density lands has remained constant at 4%. The
allocation retention was based on the finding that as the City expands into the UGB/URA
Review Draft 12-31-18
86
Page 32136
there will be environmental and agricultural conflicts which may necessitate larger lots as
a buffering mitigation strategy.
LRes — The LRes classification represents the R-1-6, R-1-8, and R-1-10 zoning districts.
The allocation of low density residential lands has been reduced from a previous 70% to
60%. Historically the LRes has been the preferred land use category, with an emphasis on
single-family detached housing. The single-family detached preference is likely to
continue into the future. The LRes classification experienced the most quantitative
changes in both density and land use allocation.
MRes — The MRes classification represents the LMR and R-2 zoning districts. The
allocation of medium density residential lands increased from 11% to 20%.
HRes — The HRes classification represents the MMR, HMR, and R-3 zoning districts.
The allocation of the high density residential lands was increased from 15% to 16%. The
minimum density increased slightly with the conversion from net density to gross
density.
The City currently has an inventory of 125 buildable acres of residential land (Section 8,
Buildable Residential Lands). Table 23 identifies the current vacant acreage need, and where
there is a shortage, the additional needed acreage by land use classification. Of the 479 acres
needed to satisfy the future demand a total of 306 new gross acres are needed to supplement the
existing inventory.
10.1 Future Housing Tenure
It is expected that the long-term mix of owner (70%) and renter (30%) occupied housing will be
the preferred tenure mix in the long run. If the future tenure mix does not trend toward the 70/30
mix then issues in affordability should be evaluated and appropriate measures in housing type
and affordability addressed.
10.2 Future Housing Types
For the foreseeable future the preferred housing type will be the single-family detached dwelling.
The only impediment to this choice will be affordability, which will rise and fall with changes in
the economy. It is expected that attached single-family will continue to improve as a housing
choice. The City's current land use regulations provide for a wide variety of housing types, and
should continue to do so throughout the planning period. Over the course of time the City needs
to monitor, through it HIP, any changes in housing type demand against deficiencies in land
supply, and where appropriate make adjustments.
11. Housing Goals and Policies
Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's
current and projected households.
Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at the new minimum
residential densities.
Review Draft 12-31-18
87
Page 33136
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
a residential mix and density consistent with the Housing Element.
Review Draft 12-31-18
88
Page 34136
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
and healthy neighborhoods.
Review Draft 12-31-18
89
Page 35136
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).
Review Draft 12-31-18
90
Page 36136
URBANIZATION ELEMENT
m
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2019 (CPA -18002)
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey,AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
Consideration of the Urbanization Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan (File No. CPA -18002)
(Applicant: City of Central Point)
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The City's Urbanization Element was last acknowledged in 1983 and is in need of updating to account for over 30
years of incremental changes that have occurred. The Urbanization Element is modeled after Statewide Planning
Goal 14, Urbanization; which establishes as a statewide goal the need for all communities to:
"Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban
population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to
provide for livable communities. "
The purpose of the City's Urbanization Element is modeled after the Statewide Planning Goal 14 purpose, but
with an emphasis on attaining the City's preferred future as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of
the City's Urbanization Element is to:
"Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in accordance with the
goals and policies of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan as necessary to accommodate
projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient
use of land, as necessary to provide for the City's preferred future. "
Central Point's preferred future is currently guided by two documents; the Fair City Vision 2020 and The Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. The City has also adopted revisions to its Population Element, Housing
Element and Land Use Element which will provide additional direction for projected urban residential and
employment growth.
Aside from a demonstration that there is a need to accommodate the City's long-range population
growth and related land needs there is a requirement that the boundaries within which the City's urban
lands are located be given some forethought. The location of the City's urban growth boundary (UGB) and
changes to the UGB are determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197.020,
and with consideration of the following locational criteria:
1. Properties that abut either the City Limits, or the current UGB.
Page 1 of 2
92
2. Properties that are in excess of 10 acres.
3. Properties that abut or are within 500 ft. of basic urban services; i.e. water, sewer, storm water,
transportation.
4. Properties that are proximate to, or include, mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas.
5. Compatibility with nearby agricultural uses outside the proposed UGB.
6. Proximity to transportation infrastructure.
7. Lands that have been master planned.
8. Readiness for development
Attached is a working draft of the Urbanization Element for the Citizen Advisory Committee's consideration and
input. These criteria will be discussed in further detail during the meeting. The last two criteria are being
introduced with this revision to the Urbanization Element and may minimize the land speculation that often
occurs during UGB Amendments.
ISSUES:
The primary issues in considering the Urbanization Element are ensuring there is agreement between state and
local purposes and that the City's choice of locational criteria is reasonable and justifiable.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" — Working Draft of Urbanization Element
ACTION:
Consideration of the Draft Urbanization Element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Make a motion to the recommend the Planning Commission approve the draft Urbanization Element update with
any changes or feedback deemed important by the CAC.
Page 2 of 2
93
City of Central Point
COMPREHENSIVE PUN
Chapter 2 — Urbanization Element, 2010
City of Central Point
ATTACHMENT
URBANIZATION
ELEMENT 2018-2038
Draft
tomh
12/4/2018
94
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Urbanization Element.......................................................................................................... 3
APreferred Future.................................................................................................................................... 3
Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020............................................................................................ 3
The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (Regional Plan)................................................................. 5
Livability........................................................................................................................................................ 6
PLANNING TIME FRAME, 2018-2038................................................................................................................
7
UrbanizationFactors....................................................................................................................................
7
PopulationElement..................................................................................................................................
7
HousingElement......................................................................................................................................
8
EconomicElement....................................................................................................................................
8
Parks and Recreation Element.................................................................................................................
9
LandUse Element.....................................................................................................................................
9
PublicFacilities Element...........................................................................................................................
9
EnvironmentalElement............................................................................................................................
9
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT..............................................................................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.............................................................................
Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Urban Growth Boundary Location Criteria.................................................................................................
10
Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Procedures....................................................................................10
MajorAmendment.................................................................................................................................
10
Minor Urban Growth Boundary Adjustments........................................................................................
11
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT......................................................................................
11
URBANIZATION GOALS & POLICIES.....................................................................................................................
12
Goal.........................................................................................................................................................12
Policies....................................................................................................................................................
12
Page 2 of 13
95
INTRODUCTION
Urbanization is defined as the movement of people from rural to urban environments, and from urban
environments to other urban environments. This movement can be motivated by any number of reasons;
such as jobs, housing, health care, retirement, and education. The product of urbanization is realized in
the incremental increase in the demand for urban services such as housing, and supporting physical and
social infrastructure, and the land necessary to support the urbanization process. Urbanization has its
most negative impact when the demand for support infrastructure exceeds supply, resulting in a reduction
in livability as evidenced by overcrowded schools, poor health care, traffic congestion, urban blight,
inadequate utility services, environmental pollution, housing affordability, etc. Urbanization is not
responsible for the building of functional, or dysfunctional cities, beautiful, or blighted cities, it is merely
the process that fuels the building of cities. The quality of the built city is a function of a community's
ability to define and diligently pursue a preferred future.
Over the course of the next twenty years Central Point's population will continue to increase, fueling the
urbanization process and resulting in millions of dollars in public and private investment for housing,
businesses, and infrastructure. The outcome of that investment will be defined by the City's prcferred
future, and the urbanization strategies, policies and implementing ordinances adopted to attain that
preferred future.
PURPOSE OF THE URBANIZATION ELEMENT
The significance of urbanization on the economic, environmental, and general welfare of communities
throughout the state is acknowledged in Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization; which establishes as a
statewide goal the need for all communities to:
"Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use
of land, and to provide far livable communities. "
The purpose of the City's Urbanization Element is modeled after the Statewide Planning Goal 14 purpose,
but with an emphasis on attaining the City's preferred future as described in the Comprehensive Plan, The
purpose of the City's Urbanization Element is to:
"Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in accordance with
the goals and policies of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan as necessary to
accommodate projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, as necessary to provide for the City's preferred
future. "
A Preferred Future
There are two documents; the Fair City Vision 2020 and The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
that together define the City's preferred future, and as such serve as the cornerstone of the Urbanization
Element, Because of the significance of their role in defining the City's urbanization these two
documents are briefly discussed in the Urbanization Element.
Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision 2020) -Vision 2020
addresses the City's unique identity and livability objectives, and the mission, vision, and values
Page 3 of 13
96
on which the City's urbanization program is based, By keeping the focus on livability, the City
will not only be able to maintain its policy focus but also be able to attract the type of innovative,
responsible and community -minded residents and businesses that will contribute to the pursuit of
a successful future for the City of Central Point.
Maintaining an acceptable level of livability consistently rises to the top as one of the primary
challenges confronting all communities as they grow. For Central Point livability is a point of
pride and the primary reason people are attracted to the City as a place to live, work, and play. In
1998 the City adopted its first strategic plan to guide its general growth and decision making
process. This plan served the community well and was updated in 2007 as Central Point
Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision Plan). The significance of the Vision Plan is that it
defines basic livability objectives to be applied by elected officials in their deliberation on issues
related to the City's urbanization.
Participants in the Vision Plan attribute Central Point's livability to a matrix of factors. The
citizens of Central Point realize that their preferred level of livability does not come about by
chance, but rather is intentionally created through collaborative community efforts, innovative
planning, public policy, and effective and efficient implementation strategies.
The Vision Plan's livability objectives are presented in three core elements; Mission, Vision, and
Values. These core elements are carried forward and incorporated in the Urbanization Element's
goals and policies.
Our Mission. "It is the mission of the City of Central Point to build and maintain a
highly livable community by working in harmony and being a catalyst for partnership
with all members of the community, public and private. "
Our Vision. To create a community:
■ With a "small town " commitment and feel that promotes community pride,
safety, and friendliness.
Page 4 of 13
97
■ That provides consistent quality in guiding growth, beautifying and strengthening
the downtown area, and providing adequately for City services, while being
flexible and updating citizens.
■ Where we workjointly with our community schools, libraries, and public/private
institutions to increase opportunities for the development of our youth and our
citizens.
■ Where city, county, state, and federal agencies work together as partners with a
"can do" attitude.
■ That protects our unique identity — People know when they are in the "Heart of
the Rogue Valley"— Central Point.
Our Values. In achieving the City's mission and vision it is important to set forth a
system of values on which to base our behavior in addressing the urbanization
challenges. These values are:
Growth: We value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere.
Public Safety: We value a professional ,service oriented public safety policy that
gMmoles u sense of safety and security in our city.
Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is
modern, eJJident. and sensitive to the environment.
Community: We value a clean and attractive city with parks, open space and
recreational opportunities.
Service: We provide the highest level ofservice possible in the most efflcient and
responsible manner.
The Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan (Regional Plan) -
establishes the basic planning timeframe and
urbanization needs, goals, and policies for the
region and its participating cities, including the City
of Central Point. The Regional Plan is the product
of a regional land -use planning project involving
Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford,
Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County (Participants).
The purpose of the Regional Plan was to define a
preferred future of the Participants to accommodate
projected population and job growth to the year
2060, an approximate 50 year planning period. The
most significant products of the Regional Plan are
the establishment of minimum residential density
requirements and, through the establishment of
urban reserve areas (URAs), the efficient use of
land by each of the Participants. The purpose of the
98
Cemnl Point
UIOM� R�w1v�s low
URA is to reserve land for future urban -level development. The method of establishing an urban
reserve is defined in state law (see ORS 195.137-145).
The State legislature's findings in the bill creating the urban reserve statute are succinct in stating
their value:
"The Legislative Assembly finds that ... long-range planning for population and
employment growth by local governments can offer greater certainty
for... commerce, other industries, other private landowners and providers of
public services, by detemlining the more [likely] and less likely locations of
future expansion of urban growth boundaries and urban development."F
The Regional Plan provides Central Point with an additional 1,720 gross acres in the 8 urban
reserve areas. The goal of the plan is to protect the valley's farmland while allowing
urbanization to progress in areas planned to accommodate growth. This plan also provides
participants with a roadmap for the future to ensure that as urbanization occurs, the necessary
infrastructure is able to be put in place to support projected growth.
LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES
Although the primary objective of the state's Urbanization Goal is the efficient use of land, it is important
that we do not lose sight of maintaining a livable community. The ultimate goal of the Comprehensive
Plan is to provide a roadmap for the City of Central Point to maintain and enhance the livability of the
City as it continues to grow. The SPOT chart (below) identifies the Strengths, Problems, Opportunities
and Threats facing Central Point as it moves forward. The livability principles identified in this section
can be incorporated into each comprehensive plan element to encourage the development of a livable
community. A description of each element and how they relate to the Urbanization Element and livability
is described below.
pm!(Ltco
�`a tStiW�. F�IA��Nf �, �J[iR�ll+G u IwilNw E� 1wW+ELL
Y YRUw kJ �1
-
Y� ar�nu iN..
f r,� fwnlq t E�� t, ,l � • �+ � (Xc�k1.�i,+1.E.uaf- �s� � :7LIkdI, �FE�
110-4401W inw r 1 511 � • 1 i 1w ,5r, 11 -filirF4w.E�6Nf:
-b"I*Wft �rMurr c. ,`�iM kit�r+r►�t�" uu�►fua+ CaM[�+iles. �
FlA1FFi11G ��`; uag u
. nI_1W
tuo Of
t,#,,v r'" r
SWW
''a
r i _a
if �+� 4 GKrS�N1r.
zr.r.+wn
tFL�GLA►�
R�ldA�J F1±
I�L1t+�Ri4
�"j�A��
�_1��FEg+/�!
�t�Jlrfr: lf.1EAlYSgMaoa�.
The six livability principles and the City's aligned Vision are:
ORS 197.139
99
Page 6 of 13
1. Promote transportation choices
Continue to support the development of safe, reliable and economical transportation choices that
improve the City's multi -modal transportation mix to decrease household transportation costs,
improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.
2. Promote equitable, affordable housigg
Expand housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase housing
mobility and lower the cost of housing and transportation.
3. Enhance economic competitiveness
Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers,
educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business
access to markets.
4. Support existing neighborhoods
Continue targeting funds toward existing neighborhoods — through strategies like transit -oriented,
mixed-use development, and redevelopment, to increase community revitalization and the
efficiency of public works investments.
5. Coordinate and leverage investment policies
Align the City's capital improvement programs to collaborate, leverage funding, and increase the
accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for the City's future growth.
6. Value our neighborhoods
Enhance the unique "small town" characteristics of the City by investing in healthy, safe, and
walkable neighborhoods.
PLANNING TIME FRAME, 2018 — 2038
The urbanization needs of the City are based on two timeframes; a twenty (20) year time frame
addressing the City's urban land needs, and an extended timeframe (an additional 30 years) addressing the
planning period identified in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, which is based on a doubling
of the region's population by approximately 2060. For purposes of this Urbanization Element the
planning period 2018 to 2038 will be used, with the Regional Plan's timeframe serving as a longer term
review.
URBANIZATION FACTORS
The Urbanization Element's primary responsibility is to establish criteria (goals and policies) that manage
the physical direction of the City's planned growth. To do this it must rely on the other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. The following is a brief description of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan
and their key contributions to the Urbanization Element.
Population Element
The basic input to the urbanization process is population growth. In accordance with ORS
195.033'Portland State University's Population Research Center (PRC) is responsible for
preparing population projections for all counties and cities in the state, and updating their
projections on a four year cycle. In June 2015 PRC completed the City's first population forecast,
the Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 ("2015 Population Forecast'). By
Page 7 of 13
100
2038 the City's population is expected to reach 23,0852. Based on PRC forecast the City will
need sufficient lands to serve the needs of an additional 5,736 people. The City's latest PRO's
Certified Population Estimate for 2017 is 17,7093.
The Population Element maintains the City's population and demographic forecasts, and is the
resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's population and
demographic characteristics.
Key Contribution,. Population forecasts.
Housing Element
Housing is a key component of any city's urbanization and is directly related to Livability
Principle No. 2 above. The Housing Element supports the Urbanization Element by analyzing
trends that affect the City's housing needs during the planning period. The City's Housing
Element provides an assessment of current and future housing needs to ensure that there are a
variety of housing options for Central Point including varying densities and affordability. The
Housing Element aims to ensure that future, residential design standards, infrastructure and
development help to preserve the small town feel of Central Point, protect agricultural land and
provide housing to all citizens at all income levels.
The Housing Element maintains the City's housing goals and policies, and is the resource
document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's housing needs.
Key Contribution: Residential acreage needs.
Economic Element
The City's livability is dependent on a dynamic, diversified, and growing economic base that
complements and reinforces the small town character goal (Livability Principle No. 3) . Central
Point will be regionally competitive with policies that attract and retain businesses and
employment for its citizens, provide essential services and maintain a strong tax base. Economic
competitiveness and prosperity will be the means of supporting a quality of life that is distinctive
among Valley communities. The economic element will support and facilitate the City's
Urbanization Element through the development and implementation of policies and
implementation measures that promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities within
the City's urban area, improving the health, welfare, and prosperity of its citizens. The Economic
Element provides a written framework for meeting the City's economic goal to diversify its
economic base.
The Economic Element maintains the City's goals and policies related to the City's economic
growth. It is also the resource document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the
City's economy.
Key Contribution: Employment acreage needs.
2 City of Central Point Population Element, 2016
3 Portland State University First Supplement to July 1, 2017 Certificate of Population Enumeration,
12/31/2017
Page 8 of 13
101
Parks and Recreation Element
The long-term parks and recreation needs of the City are described in the Parks and Recreation
Element. The Parks and Recreation Element not only determines the acreage needs of the City,
but also identifies the general location of the City's future community and neighborhood parks.
Key Contribution: Parks and recreation acreage need and general location.
Land Use Element
The use of land and its percentage distribution are common indicators of how a community grows
and responsibly expands its infrastructure. The Land Use Element addresses the City's past,
present and future use of land and also introduces the concept of `Activity Centers'.
The Land Use Element maintains the City's land use goals and policies, and is the resource
document for the Urbanization Element in all references to the City's land use.
Key Contribution: Geographic distribution of urban land.
Public Facilities Element
The Public Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan is directly related to Livability Principle
No. 5 and will address and assure the provision of city services. These services include sewer,
storm drainage, and water. As the city grows, these services will have to be able to meet the
needs of citizens in newly developed areas as well as continue to provide for current residents.
This element provides an assessment of the current public facilities to meet citizens' needs. Also,
any future extension of services will be guided by this element to ensure that future growth is
supported by an adequate and efficient network of public facilities in order to meet the needs of
all its citizens.
Key Contribution: Existing and planned availability of public facilities.
Transportation Element (Transportation System Plan)
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is directly related to Livability Principle
No. 1 and No. 5 by providing quality roads and other modal options to city residents and
businesses. As growth occurs, the City will have to ensure that all residents have access to
transportation and that the roads and other modes of transportation are able to accommodate the
community's needs. Future improvements to the transportation system will be guided by this
element to ensure that future growth is supported by an adequate and efficient network of roads in
order to meet the needs of all its residents.
Key Contribution: Existing and planned availability of the City's transportation system.
Environmental Element
The purpose of the Environmental Element is to identify the goals and policies addressing both
the City's environmental assets and potential disasters, and to integrate those policies with the
Urbanization and Land Use Elements. There is no one specific livability goal for environmental
protection; instead, environmental protection is woven throughout all of the livability goals. This
element will support the Urbanization element by providing goals and policies that encourage
sustainability and protection of natural resources that occurs simultaneously with growth in
Central Point.
Page 9 of 13
102
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LOCATION CRITERIA
Aside from a demonstration that there is a need to accommodate the City's long-range
population growth and related land needs there is a requirement that the boundaries within which
the City's urban lands are located be placed with forethought. The location of the City's urban
growth boundary (UGB) and changes to the UGB shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary
locations consistent with ORS 197.020, and with consideration of the following locational criteria:
1. Properties that abut either the City Limits, or the current UGB.
2. Properties that are in excess of 10 acres.
3. Properties that abut or are within 500 ft. of basic urban services; i.e. water, sewer, stormwater,
transportation.
4. Properties that are proximate to, or include, mixed use/pedestrian friendly areas.
5. Compatibility with nearby agricultural uses outside the proposed UGB.
6. Proximity to transportation infrastructure.
7. Lands that have been master planned.
8. Readiness for development
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Periodically it will be necessary to amend the City's urban growth boundary due to changes in
circumstances. The procedures for the review and amendment of the Urban Growth Boundary are as
follows:
Major Amendment
Major revisions to the Urban Growth Boundary or Urban Growth Boundary Management
Agreement will be considered amendments to both the city and county comprehensive plan, and
as such are subject to a legislative review process. A major revision shall include any UGB
amendment that would necessitate revisions to the intent of the city or County comprehensive
plan goals, policies, or text, that has widespread and significant impact on the immediate area,
such as quantitative changes for substantial changes in population, or significant increases in
resource impacts, qualitative changes in land use itself, such as conversion of residential and
industrial use, or spatial changes that affect large areas, or many different ownerships. Any
change in the policies of the Urbanization Element is considered a major revision.
Major revisions will be considered by the city and county at five-year intervals the date of
adoption of the EGP and urbanization policies. If the city and County governing bodies find that
prevailing circumstances have a significant effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, a major revision can be considered in less than five years. A request for a
major revision can be initiated by an individual or group, citizen's advisory committee, affected
agencies, and governing bodies. Parties should file adequate written documentation with the city
and County governing bodies. Final legislative acts on major revisions requests shall be based on
the following factors:
Page 10 of 13
103
a. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted population trends, to
satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment opportunities;
b. The orderly and economic provision of key urban public facilities and services;
c. The maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area;
d. Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences;
e. The compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the city and County
comprehensive plans; and
f. The state-wide planning goals.
Major revision proposals shall be subject to a mutual city and County review and agreement
process involving affected agencies, citizen advisory committee, and the general public. if the
city and county cannot agree on a major revision, or until an acceptable revision is mutually
agreed upon and adopted, both jurisdictions will continue to use existing UGB, areas of
regional planning concern boundaries, and urbanization policies.
Minor Urban Growth Boundary Adjustments
Minor adjustments to the UGB may be considered subject to similar procedures used by the
city and county in hearing zoning requests. A minor revision is defined as one focusing on
specific individual properties, and not having significant impact beyond the immediate area
of the change. An application for a minor UGB amendment can be made only by property
owners, their authorized agents, or by a city or County governing body. Written application
for a minor adjustment may be filed with the Jackson County Department of Development
Services on forms prescribed by the County. The standards for processing an application are
as follows:
a. Final action on the minor use of UGB adjustment shall be based in the same six
factors required for major revision requests as listed in the preceding section, major
revisions.
b. Application shall be reviewed by the affected city and County citizens planning
advisory committees annually.
c. Strategic, location of roads, golf courses, or other visible public or semi-public open
spaces;
d. Compliance with the City's Agricultural Mitigation standards;
e. All UGB amendments shall include adjacent streets and other transportation rights-of-
way;
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Development within the UGB, but outside the City Limits shall be subject to the policies of the most
recent Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA), jointly adopted by both the City
and the County.
Page 11 of 13
104
URBANIZATION GOALS & POLICIES
Goal
"Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in accordance
with the goals and policies of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan as necessary to
accommodate projected urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, as necessary to provide for the City's preferred
future.
Policies
1. All urban level development shall conform to city standards, shall be consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan, and shall meet all requirements of the City Zoning
Ordinance and Map.
2. Urban facilities and services must be adequate in condition and capacity to
accommodate the additional level of growth, as allowed by the comprehensive plan,
prior to and or concurrent with land -use changes.
3. To maintain an inventory of buildable lands within the UGB in all land use
classifications sufficient to accommodate the City's most recent 20 -year population
projection¢.
a. Vacant lands within the UGB that have farm or open space tax benefits are
not classified as vacant until such time as the farm or open space tax benefits
are removeds.
b. At the time of the population projection updates the City shall evaluate the
need to expand the UGB.
c. The calculation for In -Fill lands available for development shall be
discounted based on their likelihood of developing during the planning
period. A determination of the in -fill acreage likely to develop shall be
maintained in the Buildable Lands Inventory, including the methodology of
determining the term "likely".
4. Promote compact, orderly and efficient urban development by guiding future
growth to vacant sites and redevelopment areas within the established areas of the
city, and to urbanizable lands where future annexation and development may occur.
5. Promote efficient and economical patterns of mixed land uses and development
densities that locate a variety of different life activities ,such as employment,
housing, shopping and recreation in convenient proximity; and that are, or can be
made, accessible by multiple modes of transportation —including walking,
bicycling, and transit in addition to motor vehicles —within and between
neighborhoods and districts.
4 ORS 197 requires that Portland State University, Population Research Center provide updated
population projections on a 4 -year cycle.
5 ORS 197.756
Page 12 of 13
105
6. Provide an adequate level of urban services, including but not limited to public
water, wastewater, storm water management systems, environmental services and
an urban multi -modal transportation system as urban development occurs within
the City s UGB.
7. Maintain and reinforce the City's small town image by emphasizing and
strengthening the physical connections between people and nature in the City's land
development patterns and infrastructure design.
8. Create opportunities for innovative urban development and economic
diversification. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments
shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already
inside the urban growth boundary.
9. The City of Central Point General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map and zoning
designations for unincorporated urbanizable land, and all other city development
and building safety standards, shall apply only after annexation to the city; or
through a contract of annexation between the city, Jackson County, and other
involved parties; or after proclamation of an annexation having a delayed
effective date pursuant to ORS 222.180(2).
Page 13 of 13
106