HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 13, 2020 CAC packetCITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 13, 2020 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers Central Point City Hall
I• MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALLIINTRODUCTIONS
David Painter (chair) Cameron Noble, Cinda Harmes, Robin StrohCarrie Reed,
House , e Mike
III. MINUTES
Review and approval of August 11, 2020 minutes
IV- PUBLIC APPEARANCES
V- BUSINESS
A. Consideration of City of Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Applicant: City of Central Point.
B. Consideration of a proposal to amend the Central
Plan adding roughly 444 gross acres needed Point Comprehensive
to absorbgrowth in housing,
employment and parks and open space during the 2019 — 2039 planning
period. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -19001
VI. DISCUSSION
VII- MISCELLANEOUS
A. Community Development Update
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
August 11, 2020
I• MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Present were: David Painter (chair) Carrie Reed, Robin Stroh, and Mike House.
Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director,
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner, and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary.
'It- MINUTES Robin Stroh made a motion to approve the minutes of the Janu
2020 Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting. Mike House seconded the motion. Alary 14,
members said "aye -JI. Motion passed. 1
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
No public appearances
V. BUSINESS
A. Transportation System Plan (TSP) Minor Amendment. Consideration of a
revision to Project No. 230, Hwy 99 and Scenic Avenue to include traffic calming
improvements #i�om the City's jurisdictional boundary to interstate Exit 35. Th
amendment is needed for ODOT to obtain funding to construct the project. e
Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -2000.
Principal Planner Stephanie Holtey explained the Oregon Department of Transportation
received funding to signalize the intersection at Highway 99 and Scenic Avenue and m
p tion has
improvements to change from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with a center turn lane, extending make
jurisdictional boundary on Highway 99 north to Exit 35. In order to receive funding
the
project OI30T needs the City to amend its T�', g for the
this project. Currently Project No. 230 in the�City's TSP lists the signal buimprovements es not
with
the lane reconfiguration. The City is proposing the Minor Amendment to the TSP t t include
support
ODOT's project which will ultimately address traffic safety concerns at this location.
Mr. Humphrey elaborated on the traffic patterns and how the project would improve
flow.
p e traffic
David Painter invited comments from the audience. There were no comments orue
q shons.
CAC Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 2
Carrie Reed moved to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Cit
Council to initiate the minor amendment to the TSP. Mike House seconded the motion. All
members said "aye". Motion passed.
B. City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. Consideration of an
application to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan to add roughly 444
acres to the UGB for needed housing, employment, and parks and open space.
Applicant: city of Central Point. File No. CPA -19001.
Principal Planner Stephanie Holtey explained the UGB Amendment has come before the
CAC previously. She said the City is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add
roughly 444 acres of land to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for housing, employment
and parks and open space This is in response to forecast growth over a 20 year planning
Period from 2019 to 2439. There is a Iack of available buildable lands in the current UG
to meet the identified land need. She explained the City had identified Urban Reserve Areas
(URAs) during the Regional Planning Process in conjunction with Jackson County. She
added the City will take over jurisdiction of four roadways from the County to the City. She
explained there would be a minor amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary Management
Agreement between Jackson County and the City to impose a 40 acre minimum Iot size on
land divisions in the UGB since these lands will remain in the County until they are annexed
into the City.
Ms. Holtey said the UGB Amendment application was submitted to Jackson County on JuI
15, 2020. She explained all documents and information regarding the UGB Amendment
could be found an the City's website.
She reviewed common misconceptions about the UGB Amendment. She said Iand within
the UGB does not automatically come into the city limits. It is not subject to City land use
requirements and taxes. She added the City does not force annexation. Properties in the UGB
must request annexation and meet specific criteria, such as being contiguous to current City
limits and proximate to essential services such as water and sewer. She explained the Cit 's
Proposed UGB amendment complies with state, county and City requirements. y
Ms. Holtey said a policy is being added to the Urban Growth Boundary Management
Agreement to clarify how the lands in the UGB were going to be managed. She said and in
the County would be limited to 40 acre parcels prior to annexation into the City. This wa
recommended by the County to address efficient s
developed. Y Larger parcels are more easily
CAC Minutes
August 4, 2020
Page 3
Ms. Holtey explained the next steps in the process and said future meetings are not scheduled
at this time. This is because the application needs to be deemed complete by the County, As
soon as the meetings are scheduled it will be put on the website. She asked if the CAC would
agree to a meeting in September to get public input. The CAC agreed to meet on September
8, 2020.
Mr. Painter invited public comments
❑lana Inkl Gcbhard Road
Ms. lnkly said she had not heard any misinformation in her neighborhood but would be happy
to correct anything she heard. She and her husband were in favor of the amendment.
LaM Martin 2673 Ta lnr Road
Mr. Martin said he had been attending
represented 4 homeowners in the UGB wmeetings on this topic since 2007. He said he
ho desired to come into the City. He added there
were two other homeowners who were interested in joining with them. He said they had
Prepared a master plan at one point for their properties. He complimented the Planning
Department on the work that went into the UGB application.
Mr. Humphrey said it has been a long process. The City has been intentional in keeping
information available to the public and has received positive feedback from DLCD.
Ms. Holtey said there would be notices going out for the September CAC meeting. There
would also be information on the City's website and in the newsletter. She added staff has
been discussing ways to get the information to the public.
VI. DISCUSSION
PLANNING UPDATE
• The Planning Commission has approved the Central Point Station mixed use
development in Twin Creeks.
■ The Reed Building at 6th & Pine is progressing.
• Dusty's Transmission expansion has been approved.
• The parking lot at Crater is being paved.
■ Asante will be going ahead with the planned kindergarten at the 2°d Street location
• There will be a medical/dental building at Freeman and Bigham
CAC Minutes `
August 4, 2020
Page 4
• There is interest in the White Hawk development
■ The Premier Oil Car Wash has not been started yet.
■ Les Schwab has submitted for permits and still has some conditions to meet before
those can be issued.
• Rogue Valley Pet is proposing to build a warehouse/store on Federal way across
from Costco
• West Pine improvements are planned possibly next year
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Carrie Reed made a motion to adjourn. Mike House seconded the motion. All
members said "aye". The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the August 11, 2020 Citizens Advisory Committee were
approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee at its meeting of November 2020.
Chairman
CORRESPONDENCE
September 1, 2020
City of Central Point
Citizen's Advisory Committee
140 S. 3rd Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Dear Citizen's Advisory Committee:
RE: Urban Growth Boundary
Cynthia Pastorino
330 Meadow Lark Way
Centrall Point, OR 97502
Email: jpastorino@ak.net
Recently I received a letter from the Planning Department inviting written comments on the proposed
UGB proposal. Here are my comments, for what they are worth.
While no growth apparently is not an option, advocating for responsible growth is. My hope is city and
county planners will create a plan that improves the quality of life for current residents in addition to
those who have yet decided to invest in the community and call Central Point home.
I live near UGB-6A. I realize my neighborhood was once farmland and green space, and has since been
responsibly developed into residential single family homes. I'm most concerned with the commercial
and high density housing in the proposed UGB. It will be sad to see farmland and green space
transformed into a possible strip mail and cluster of unattractive high density apartments like Smith
Crossing in Twin Creeks. I do not see parks and open space designated in the current UG13-6A plan.
With this development will come more traffic, more noise and light pollution, more use of water, and a
definite change to the peaceful environment of this area of Central Point. Thoughtful consideration
must be given to how the livability of the area is impacted to make all this change and development
worthwhile.
I advocate for responsible, innovative growth that our city and county will look at with pride and not
regret. A cookie -cutter approach to developing this valuable land is a wasted opportunity. Assurances
that development will have a positive impact for current residents will go a long way. It's one thing to
pian for the future, but it should not be done at the expense of the quality of life for current taxpaying
residents.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Pastorino
Central Point Citizen
f0- It -IM le
Why I oppose annexation.
On a fixed income, another Tax will be to much.
To much traffic now, more if voted on, an increase
Danger to walkers, joggers, bikers and all kinds of
Foot traffic.
Grant road is narrow even if you take the small
Strip with the bar ditch.
Governments need to expand, ok but we with
Fixed income & meager savings in or age, 90
Would like those savings to be for our needs.
We and are needs increase daily,
that also taKES MONEY. NO WON PAYE TAX
FST HELP USI
NAUMES, INC.
REAL. ESTATE DiviSioN
September 8, 2020
Citizen's Advisory Committee
City of Central Point, Oregon (City)
Re: Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendments
Comments of Michael D. Naumes, President and CEO, Naumes, Inc.
My name is Mike Naumes and I reside at 1899 Carpenter Hill Road, Medford, Oregon.
I am President and CEO of Naumes, Inc., which owns approximately 17 acres in the
CP -3 UGB Amendment area.
I am writing today in support of the CP -3 UGB Amendments. In particular, I am writing
to support the City's inclusion of the Naumes, Inc. property on Penninger Road, just
east of 1-5 and southeast of the Jackson County Fairgrounds. This property has long
been unsuitable for commercial agriculture and its highest and best use is for
development consistent with the City's vision.
Finally, in a pear industry struggling for survival, it is important that the few of us
remaining that have closer in properties which are not suitable for agriculture have the
ability to sell them for a higher and better use at values that exceed agricultural values.
Sale of some of our more desirable development properties included in the Regional
Problem Solving 50 year growth plan has been the only way that our company has
survived in these difficult times.
Let's move forward and adopt the CP -3 UGB Amendments. This has been an
incredibly long process and needs to be brought to a successful conclusion.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
-A,- .4 k
Michael D. Naumes
President and CEO
Naumes, Inc.
Naumes, Inc. Direct: (541) 608-1723
PO Box 996 Main: (541) 608-1727
2 Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97501
To: Central Point Citizen Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, City Council and Jackson County
Commissioners
Subject: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Date: September 8, 2020
1. We would like to thank the City for selecting the south boundary of CP -6A as shown in Figure 16,
page 28 of the Location Analysis Report Alternative I A, excluding the older neighborhood south and
west of Grant Road and north of Beall Lane per the letter signed by many of the residents.
2. Protect the quality of life and property values of existing neighborhoods and residents. We would like
to know that our quality of life and the value of our property is just as important as that of people who
don't live here yet and as important as the profit that will be realized by the developers and builders.
The staff of the City of Central Point have been very helpful and willing to seriously consider our
input. However, the City's decision makers are nearly all City residents and appointed, or elected by
City residents and are not representing us or accountabletous. Statewide Planning Goal No. 1 is "to
develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process." Jackson County has no formal program for citizen involvement in
planning or development besides being on the County Planning Commission. By the time they see this
UGB Amendment proposal, almost all the work has been completed. They are unlikely to want to
make many changes. For this reason, as County residents, we feel that we have had no involvement or
input to any appointed or elected official during this process who is accountable to us in a meaningful
way.
Will we have input to the Master Plan for CP -6A? That is where the real effects of the new
development on our life and that of our neighbors will be determined. When and how will we have
input? Will it be meaningful or will it be "thank you for your input — next"??
We treasure our neighborhood for the peace and quiet. New development will bring more noise.
Page 98 of Findings of Fact "The City shall require property owners to master plan the land use and
design of new developments to control and minimize noise through such requirements as site
orientation, buffering, distance separation, insulation, and other design features. Finding, Noise
Policy 3: Development within the proposed UGB expansion areas will be subject to zoning
restrictions, including noise related standards following annexation. " This policy should be expanded
to include existing neighborhoods adjacent to new development. The noise standards should also
include restrictions on level and timing of noise during construction that will be heard in adjacent
existing neighborhoods.
To maintain peace and quiet, there should be no new street connections from the south end of new
development in CP -6A into the existing neighborhood west of Grant Road and north of Beall Lane.
Heritage Road has wonderful views of the Table Rocks that visitors always comment on and that add
to our property value. Will mitigation measures be included in new development to protect our view
and the property value that goes with it? Or are we expected to accept the loss while others profit?
3. An area with mature native oaks on Grant Road is currently included in an area proposed as Medium
and High Residential and Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Every conservation organization on the
West Coast including locally the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy and the Klamath Bird Observatory
emphasizes over and over the importance of protecting our remaining large native oaks as absolutely
crucial habitat for many bird and other wildlife species.
On page 41 under Findings of Fact, Goal 5, Open Space Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
Resources (purpose) To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces. Finding, Goal 5: Pursuant to Goal 5, the City is required to adopt programs and
regulations that protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic and open space
resources. Goal 5 resources that must be inventoried include: wetlands, riparian corridors, wildlife
habitat.... Conclusion, Goal 5: "As conditioned, the City will complete its Goal S planning prior to
annexation of lands newly added to the UGB consistent with the,goal to protect natural resources
and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces." On page 42 under Findings of Fact, Urban
Forestry Program: "Central Point is a Tree City USA and implements regulations (CPMC 12.36,
CPMC 17.75, and CPMC 17.67) and programs to increase the urban forest canopy in the City. " On
page 117 under Findings of Fact, Urbanization Policy 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 designs." Central Point is a Tree City that
desires connections between people and nature and yet proposes mowing down these invaluable
mature native oaks for neighborhood shopping and houses?? They should be protected in an area
zoned for open space or a park.
Why aren't there any acres designated for open space in CP -6A? Open space would be a perfect way
to protect the oaks or as a buffer between existing neighborhoods and new development similar to the
area of open space on Grant Road at Twin Creeks Crossing. There are 17 acres of core park allocated
to CP -6A and according to page 17, Findings of Fact, the exact location will be determined as a
function of development through the master planning process. We believe it is the City staff, in the
interest of residents, not developers, who should make the determination of where parks are located.
4. Traffic. We did not see that the impact of new development on traffic at the intersection of Haskell and
Pine was considered in the Traffic Impact Analysis. It's already backed up in the morning and even
sometimes in the afternoon. Much of the traffic from Taylor Road, West Pine Street and Haskell Road
funnels into this intersection. How will this be mitigated in the plans for 212 acres of new residential
development in CP -6A?
5. On page 88, Findings of Fact, Air Quality. Why is there no mention of regulating dust pollution during
construction of new developments?
6. On page 101, Findings of Fact, Fire Department Policies, "3. Provide for the preparation, adoption,
and implementation of a Fire Protection Master Plan for the community, preferably within the next two
years." Will the lessons learned from the tragic spread of wildfires into densely populated subdivisions in
northern California like Santa Rosa or the recent Peninger Fire right here in Central Point be incorporated
into this Master Plan? Will it include measures to prevent the spread of fires between unincorporated
areas (sometimes neglected), existing neighborhoods and new development? Home design and
construction standards, access, fences, and vegetation affect wildfire spread.
The questions we pose in these comments are not merely rhetorical. We believe we deserve answers
before this process is concluded. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, /s/ Katy and Duane Mallams, 2855 Heritage Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502
SEP - 8 2020
City of Central Point
Planing Dept
Central Point City Hall
140 South Third St.
Central Point OR97502
Stephen Young
3602 Old Stage Rd.
Central Point, OR 97502
September 8, 2020
I am a farmer who owns 40 acres of land adjacent to the proposed large parcel you plan to
annex and develop west of Grant Road. I have a cow calf operation which entails growing hay,
pasturing cows, as well as breeding cows. I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
First of all, the land is designated as Exclusive Farm Use Only which means exactly that!
Oregon has strong land use laws with the intent to stop or slow URBAN SPRAWL and
protect farm land.
The existing boundary on Grant Road is a natural choice and creates a better buffer between
houses and small farms. Putting medium and high density houses next to farms does not make
sense. Housing development already exists on the East side of Grant Road and shouid not be
allowed to go west. Farming creates dust, noise, nasty smells as well as safety issues.
The proposed housing development takes some of the best farm ground in the valley. The soil
is exceptional for growing crops, grass pastures as well as the new crop of hemp. Once this
land is taken out of farming it will never come back, Protect our farmland. Large developments
like Jackson Creek and Twin Creeks have already taken great farmland,
Other areas within the city are available to develop, Although, they are not large contiguous
parcels, they should be developed first. Granted, developers want nice flat ground which is
easy to build on, but other places to build should be looked at.
Traffic is already bad in this area due to the the developments mentioned above. At certain
times of the day, it is difficult to go to town. The traffic around May Richardson school is
horrible in the morning and when school Pets out. It will get considerably worse if thousands of
new homes are built.
I have lived in this valley for over 20 years. It has changed a lot. Some for the better some for
the worse. Some growth is understandable, but I came here because it was a semi -rural
area of small farms and open space. Thats why people want to live here. I grew up in Southern
California and saw it change into solid mass of development for hundreds of square miles.
There were no strong Land Use Laws like we have here in Oregon. If we don't try to save
this valley now, this valley will not be the rural valley I came here for.
I understand why some landowners want to develop their land. They can sell their property
for ten to twenty times the value of farmland. The city sees this as an opportunity to develop
large parcels to make planned communities to develop as they see fit. The developers
make a killing on easy to build housing tracks. The cities, the county and the State will
be rewarded with millions from fees, building permits, and property taxes.
In conclusion, I hope the County and State Urban Planning Commission can have the foresi ht
to save our valley from urban sprawl and save our precious farmland. g
Sincerely,
fe �
Stephen Young
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: VI -A
C�
��
AOM&
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
October 13, 2020
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey,AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
Consideration of City of Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II
BACKGROUND:
The City of Central Point is subject to a wide array of natural hazards. Although the occurrence and severity of
hazards has been historically limited, the City has experienced winter storms, floods and an increasing incidence
of wildfires. Hazard mitigation planning is important to understand the characteristics of potential hazards, risks
to people, buildings, infrastructure and property and what actions can be taken to lessen exposure to the identified
risks before a disaster events occurs.
The 2020 Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) updates the City's original NHMP approved in
2011. Periodic re-evaluation of the NHMP is conducted every 5 -years in accordance with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Local Mitigation Planning flandbook. Regular updates to the NHMP are
important to assure that the mitigation strategies account For changes in the community as growth occurs and new
information is available about hazards and mitigation best practices. It also helps to assure that the mitigation
strategies align with the Community vision, values and resource availability.
By keeping the NHMP updated every 5 -years, the City of Central Point is eligible to receive non -emergency
related disaster funding sources through FEMA, including the following Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance
Programs:
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) - Assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation
planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program — Provides funds annually for flood hazard mitigation and
planning.
• Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program — Provides funds annually for hazard mitigation planning and
projects.
• HMGP Post Fire Grant — Assistance to help communities implement hazard mitigation measures after
wildfire disasters.
• Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) — Supports states, local communities, tribes and
territories undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks from disasters and natural hazards.
Page 1 of 2
Access to these resources can be critical in leveraging limited resources to help protect people and property in
Central Point. Additionally NHMP planning implementation helps the City keep flood insurance premiums lower
community -wide through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS).
During this meeting, staff will review the updated mitigation plan and provide an overview of the natural hazards
and the expected impacts to Central Point. Attached is a copy of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, which
includes an introduction to natural hazard risks, risk assessments and the hazard profiles for Central Point.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in considering the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify local policies and actions that can be
implemented to reduce risk and future losses from hazards.
ACTION:
Consideration of the City of Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" —City of Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Page 2 of 2
Central Point Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan
2020 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE
CENTRAL POINT NATURAL HAZARDS STEERING COMMITTEE
Comments, suggestions, corrections, and additions are encouraged to be submitted from all interested
parties.
For further information and to provide comments, contact:
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II
Community Development Department
City of Central Point
140 South 3 I Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Telephone: 541-664-3321, ext. 245
Email: Justin. indles er er centras aintore on. ov
Table of Contents
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Scope.............................................................................................................................................5
1.2 2020 Update Highlights.................................................................................................................5
1.3 Acknowledgement of Participants................................................................................................6
1.4 Plan Organization..........................................................................................................................7
2 Central Point Community Profile........................................................................................................10
2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................10
2.2 Geography and Climate...............................................................................................................10
2.3 History......................................................................................................................................11
2.4 Economy......................................................................................................................................12
2.5 Demographics.............................................................................................................................12
2.6 Community Development & Land Use. ....................................................................................... 13
3 Planning Process..................................................................................................................................15
3.1 Background.................................................................................................................................15
3.2 Planning Process..........................................................................................................................15
4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment........................................................................................23
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................23
4.2 Understanding Risk......................................................................................... ........................23
4.3 What is a Risk Assessment?........................................................................................................24
4.4 Hazard Identification ..................................................................................................................25
4.5 Hazard Summaries......................................................................................................................25
4.6 Drought......................................................................................................................................26
4.7 Earthquake..................................................................................................................................29
4.8 Floods..........................................................................................................................................35
4.9 Landslides....................................................................................................................................40
4.10 Severe"Weather...........................................................................................................................43
4.11 Wind Hazard Data...................................................................................................... .............43
4.12 Winter Storm Hazard Data..........................................................................................................49
4.13 Volcano ......................
4.14 Wildfires ...................................... .
5 Mitigation Strategy ......................... ---......................... ....................................................................... 63
5.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................63
5.2 Mission Statement......................................................................................................................63
5.3 Mitigation Plan Goals..................................................................................................................63
5.4 Mitigation Actions.......................................................................................................................64
5.5 Progress/Updates to Previous Actions........................................................................................66
6 Plan Implementation & Maintenance...................................................................................................2
6.1 Implementation.............................................................................................................................2
6.2 Maintenance & Monitoring...........................................................................................................2
6.3 Incorporate into Existing Plans......................................................................................................3
6.4 Continued Public Involvement......................................................................................................3
Appendix B. Resources & References...........................................................................................................6
Appendix C. Process & Participation Documentation.................................................................................10
AppendixD. Critical Facilities
......................................................................................................................27
1 Introduction
The City of Central Point is subject to a wide array of natural hazards. Although the occurrence and
severity of hazards has been historically limited, the City has experienced winter storms, floods and an
increasing incidence of wildfires. Hazard mitigation planning is important to understand the
characteristics of potential hazards, risks to people, buildings,
infrastructure and property and what actions can be taken to lessen
exposure to the identified risks before a disaster events occurs.
The 2020 Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) updates
the City's original NHMP approved in 2011. Periodic re-evaluation of the
NHMP is conducted every 5 -years in accordance with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook. Regular updates to the NHMP are important to assure that
the mitigation strategies account for changes in the community as growth
occurs and new information is available about hazards and mitigation best
practices. It also helps to assure that the mitigation strategies align with
the Community vision, values and resource availability.
Hazard Mitigation is
defined as "Any
sustained action taken
to reduce or eliminate
the long-term risk to
human life and
property from
hazards."
By keeping the NHMP updated every 5 -years, the City of Central Point is eligible to receive non-
emergency related disaster funding sources through FEMA, including the following Hazard Mitigation
Grant Assistance Programs:
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) - Assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation
planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration.
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program — Provides funds annually for flood hazard
mitigation and planning.
Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program — Provides funds annually for hazard mitigation planning
and projects.
• HMGP Post Fire Grant—Assistance to help communities implement hazard mitigation measures
after wildfire disasters.
• Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) —Supports states, local communities, tribes
and territories undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks from disasters and
natural hazards.
Access to these resources can be critical in leveraging limited resources to help protect people and
property in Central Point. Additionally NHMP planning implementation helps the City keep flood
insurance premiums lower community -wide through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Community Rating System (CRS).
1.1 Scope
The 2020 NHMP assesses natural hazards and community vulnerability within the city limits and urban
growth boundary (UGB) (Figure 1). Since the 2011 NHMP was approved, the City has initiated an
application to add roughly 444 acres to the UGB for housing, non -industrial employment, parks and
open space and associated public facilities (Figure 2). Although the UGB Amendment has not been
approved at this time, the preliminary boundaries are shown here because the mitigation strategies to
reduce wildfire risk, particularly along the Bear Creek Greenway for example, will apply pending
approval of the UGB Amendment.
2020 Update Highlights
The 2020 Central Point NHMP is based on a comprehensive review 2011 plan. The risk assessment is
based on new hazard data, changes in development patterns and changes in risks to the community.
The NHMP update also considers mitigation efforts undertaken per the 2011 plan, along with changes to
the City's capabilities to identify new and revised efforts to minimize the impacts of hazards on the
community. Noteworthy changes to the community and priorities for the 2020 NHMP include:
■ New development — Since 2011, the City has added 706 new housing units and over 200,000
square feet and 75,000 square feet of commercial and light industrial building area.
• Strategic Plan Update —The City's Strategic Plan provides the overarching vision, mission, values
and goals that articulate the community's preferred future and guide the City as it grows over
the next 20 -years.
■ Flood Map Revision — In 2016, FEMA approved a Letter of Map Amendment revising flood zones
within the Twin Creeks Master Plan area. The net impact of this changes was removal of all
structures from the regulatory floodway and a reduction of the Special Flood Hazard Area (1%
annual chance floodplain).
• Urban Fire Incidence Increase —The City experienced two (2) wildfires ignited along the Bear
Creek Greenway in 2018 and in 2020. Each fire decimated portions of the Greenway, and either
threatened, damaged or destroyed structures as the fire spread. Although Central Point was
spared the devastation experienced in Talent and Phoenix in 2020, both events brought into
sharp focus the reality that all of Central Point is at risk from wildfire hazards and that the
frequency and severity of impacts necessitate elevating this hazard and mitigation actions to a
priority level.
• Mitigation Stakeholder Changes — There have been staffing changes among the mitigation
stakeholders due to retirements, new hires and position changes. During the update process,
new members to the stakeholder team were convened as part of the plan review, hazard and
risk assessments and mitigation strategy update. This helps to keep stakeholders informed and
engaged in mitigation planning and implementation efforts.
The updated NHMP for the City will help guide and coordinate mitigation and decision making for local
land use policy in the future. By committing to proactive mitigation planning and consistent
implementation activities, the City aims to reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery, avoid loss
of life and injury and ultimate create a safer and more disaster resilient community.
1.3 Acknowledgement of Participants
The City of Central Point would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that participated in
the development of the City's Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 update. The diversity of experience
and perspectives provided a resource for prioritizing the City's natural hazards, their potential impacts
on the community, and practical actions to mitigate those hazards.
Steering Committee
Nicholas Bakke, District Engineer, Rogue Valley Sewer Services
Spencer Davenport, Chief Financial Officer, Jackson County School District # 6
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II, Central Point Planning Department
Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner, Central Point Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, Director, Central Point Community Development
Mike Hussey, Deputy Chief/Operations, Jackson County Fire District # 3
Mike Ono, Environmental Services Coordinator, Central Point Public Works Department
Bobbie Pomeroy, Police Office Manager, Central Point Police Department
Matt Samitore, Director, Central Point Public Works Department
Derek Zwagerman, Building Official, Central Point Building Department
Contributors
Stacey Belt, Emergency Manager, Jackson County Office of Emergency Management
Ben Klayman, Director of Water Quality and Treatment, Medford Water Commission
Dave Jacob, Parks & Recreation Coordinator, Central Point Parks & Recreation
Ryan Haynes, Development Director, Housing Authority of Jackson County
Micah Horowitz, Senior Transportation Planner, ODOT Region 3
Christina Kruger, Regional Business Manager, Pacific Power Corp
Aaron Ott, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, City of Medford
Steve Vincent, Oregon Regional Business Manager, Avista
1.4 Plan Organization
The City of Central Point Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Community Profile
• Chapter 3: Planning Process
• Chapter 4: Risk Assessment
• Chapter 5: Mitigation Strategy
• Chapter 6: Plan Implementation and Maintenance
■ AppendixA—Adoption Resolution
• Appendix B — Resources & References
• Appendix C — Planning Process & Public Participation Documentation
• Appendix D— Critical Facilities
Figure 1.1: Acknowledged UGB
Legend
l_. j Urban Growth Boundary
j City Limits
AX
CENTRAL
POINT
tol
Fj
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary
2019
I
I
ti
I
1
1
- N'-
1
V
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary
2019
Figure 1.2: Proposed UGB Areas
Ak
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Proposed UGB Areas
f'. j
k
J-kNCounty
ft
eti
r.y
',.....
Legend
�.
' t..s
�.�
Proposed U66 Tax Lob;
••
y� J
1
•�'•,
Proposed UGBAmendmen!
1
1
�r«�.�ti !
� Urban Growth Boundary
•�••
L..-; City Limits
=—• ---.-
_
f F i '\
Ak
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Proposed UGB Areas
2 Central Point Community Profile
2.1 Introduction
The community profile provides information on the unique natural, social, and economic characteristics
of Central Point. Incorporated in 1889, the city is located in the "central point" of the Rogue Valley and
served as an important hub early on for commerce and transportation in the valley, providing
connection between the local resources and products to outside areas. Roughly midway between San
Francisco, to the South, and Portland, to the North, Central Point continues to serve as a link between
the Rogue Valley, and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.
2.2 Geography and Climate
Central Point is located in the Rogue Valley, near the confluence of Bear Creek with the Rogue River. The
topography in the City is generally flat with an overall elevation of approximately 1,200 feet above sea
level. The Rogue Valley is surrounded by mountains, including the Siskiyous to the south, Cascades to
the east, and the Coast Range and Umpqua Divide to the west and north.
According to the Koppen Climate Classification, Central Point and the Rogue Valley experience a "warm
summer Mediterranean Climate."' This climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet
winters. The higher summer temperatures and lower rainfall are directly attributable to the surrounding
mountains creating a "rain shadow" for the City and the Rogue Valley. Rainfall occurs primarily in the
winter months, which can be chilly with temperatures dropping near or below freezing, with occasional
snow fall on the valley floor.
Climate Change
According to the 2015 Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
The most reliable information on climate change to date is at the state level. The state information
indicates that hazards projected to be impacted by climate change in Region 4 include drought,
wildfire, flooding, and landslides. Climate models project warmer drier summers and a decline in
mean summer precipitation for Oregon. Coupled with projected decreases in mountain snowpack
due to warmer winter temperatures, all eight regions are expected to be affected by increased
incidences of drought and wildfire. In addition, flooding and landslides are projected to occur
more frequently throughout western Oregon. An increase in extreme precipitation is projected for
some areas in Region 4 and could result in a greater risk of flooding characterized by increased
magnitude and shorter return intervals in certain basins. Landslides in Oregon are strongly
correlated with rainfall, so increased rainfall — particularly extreme events — will likely trigger
more landslides. While winter storms and windstorms affect Region 4, there is little research on
how climate change influences these hazards in the Pacific Northwest (2015)2
The 2020 update to the plan does not consider climate change separately; but instead focuses on how
the risks have changed over time since the previous plan was completed. Chapter 4 — Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment takes into consideration changes to development patterns,
1 Central Point, Oregon. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central _Point%2C_Oregon
2 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
2015.
population shifts, areas impacted by recent hazards, and new data on the hazards that affect Central
Point.
2.3 History
The settlement of Central Point and the Rogue Valley was influenced by the availability of the natural
resources to the people who have called it home. Central Point and the Rogue Valley were first home to
Native Americans, primarily by the Takelma, Latgawas, and Shasta, who camped, fished, and hunted
along the streams and rivers3. Europeans first began to explore the valley in search of furs, followed
soon after by pioneers that established the Applegate Trail, a safer alternative to the Oregon Trail'. With
the discovery of gold in Jacksonville along with the Oregon Donation Land Act in 1850, permanent
settlements were established in the valleys.
First settled in 1852, Central Point was located at a major crossroads connecting the mining and timber
areas of Jackson County with the Oregon -California Trail that traversed the valley north and south. The
original town center was located near present-day Interstate 5, but was relocated a Y2 -mile to the west
when the tracks of the Oregon -California Railroad bypassed the town in 1883.
According to an article in the Oregon Encyclopedia:
Central Point was incorporated in 1889. A year later, the town had 534 residents and had built a
city hall on Pine and Third Streets. Matthias Welch built a flour mill on Front Street in 1892,
which saved local farmers a trip to Medford. By 1910, the 761 people who lived in Central Point
had electricity, paved streets and sidewalks, city water and sewers, a YMCA, a city hall, a fire
station, a library, and a brick schoolhouse6.
With the increasing importance of agriculture, especially the nearby orchards, Central Point's location in
the valley provided a key connection between the fields and markets. After a brief stagnation between
the beginning and end of WWI, Central Point began to grow in the 1920's when US Highway 99 was
completed, bringing travelers and tourists through the valley. The opening of Camp White prior to WWII
and the need for lumber to construct barracks and other buildings keep the lumber mills in town busy.
Following the War, the mills kept running for another 40 years until a sharp decline in the 1980's
brought on by an economic recession and the spotted owl endangered species concerns.
Today, Central Point still benefits from its location near the center of the Rogue Valley providing a
connection for the surrounding agricultural producers, including vineyards and orchards, to the local
markets and Interstate -5 that connects the valley to outside markets. The wine industry, cultural
resources, and eco -tourism keep a steady stream of visitors and in -migration of new residents to Central
Point.
s Mullaly, A. (n.d.). Central Point. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 15, 2020, from
httos://orMnencycl.opedia.org/articies/central oint ##.XzHDl] hKiUk.
' Applegate -Sargent, A. (1921). A Sketch of the Rogue River Valley. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society.
22.1-11.
s LaLande, J. (n.d.). Bear Creek Valley. The Oregon Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from
htt s: ore onenc cla edia.or articles bear creek valla #.XzHD3ihKi(Jk.
e Mullaly, A. (n.d.). Central Point. The Oregon Encyclopedia, Retrieved July 15, 2020, from
https./joregonencyclopedia.org/articles/central oint #.XzH Db hKiUk.
2.4 Economy
As noted in the City's Economic Element':
Between the 1960s and 1970s, the City of Central Point rapidly expanded its residential
development. Because there was no corresponding development of commercial and industrial
industries, Central Point became a residential community largely inhabited by people who
commuted to nearby cities for work. During this period the forest products industry grew, and
residents of Central Point were able to find employment at the mills in Medford and White City.
Despite the historic reliance on trade and resource-based industries, Central Point has been successful in
diversifying the City's economy. There has been retail and industrial growth around Exit 33 on Interstate
5, including a new Costco Wholesale store. The artisan corridor along Hwy 99 hosts newer retailers
alongside long-time specialty food producers including the Rogue Creamery, which originally opened in
the 1930's, Lillie Belle Farms chocolates and a wine tasting room.
Prior to the pandemic and subsequent shutdown of the economy in early 2020, the state and local
economy were doing well, with a growing GDP and recovering, albeit slowly, from the Great Recession
(December 2007 —June 2009). As highlighted by the sudden onset of the pandemic, and noted in the
Economic Element, future economic conditions cannot be accurately predicted and the long-term
effects of the pandemic remain to be seen.
2.5 Demographics
The population of Central Point has grown steadily from 547 people counted in the 1890 Census, shortly
after the City's founding, to an estimated 19,101 people in 20198. Central Point is currently the third
largest city in Jackson County. The population growth rate has slowed from the approximate annual
growth rate (AAGR) of 6.6% between 1990 and 2000, when the City grew by 5,000 people. Following the
Great Recession, the City experienced a significant slowdown in population growth with an AAGR that
dropped below 1%9.
The population forecast projects continued growth over the coming 20 years. It estimates the
population of the urban area will grow to 23,662 people by 2032 and 26,317 by 2039. This growth
represents a 37% increase in total population between 2019 and 2039 and an Average Annual Growth
Rate of 1.5 percent.
' Economic Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance No. 2059, July 11, 2019.
s Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs
2018-2068, Population Research Center, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University; June 30,
2018.
' Population Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance No. 2052, March 14, 2019.
Figure 2-1: Population Change — 1980 — 2039
30,000
26,317
25,000 24
22,920
21,035
,
20,000 19,101 19 714
01 _ _
17,169
15,000
12,493
10,000 Lnr
61
6,357 7
5,000
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2039
Source: 2018 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
2.6 Community Development & Land Use
Although the Central Point continues to grow, sometimes at an accelerated rate, the City has been able
to maintain public services, provide adequate support infrastructure, and a highly livable community.
Through a proactive planning approach, such as increasing densities on residential lands, promoting
more diverse housing types, and providing live -work opportunities in a Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) district, the City was able to sustain growth and continue the efficient use of land. However, the
supply of lands within the urban limits has not kept pace with the projected needs.
The City's urban area encompasses approximately 3,100 acres. Based on the most recent analysis of
land needs, the City's forecast population growth for the 2019-2039 planning period requires more land
for housing, jobs, and parks than is available in the current UGB. As of July 2020, the City is preparing a
major UGB amendment to add approximately 444 acres of land to the existing UGB to accommodate the
expected population growth and land use needs across the City. Given the City's efforts to increase land
use efficiency over the years, there is little opportunity to further extend the life of the current UGB to
accommodate the 20 -year land needlo
The City's UGB amendment aims to provide a sufficient inventory of land that will allow the City to
continue to grow and provide the services and amenities that residents have come to expect, including a
diversity of housing opportunities, financial incentives, while maintaining a "small town character"".
io City of Central Point, Urban Growth Boundary Amendment for the Planning Period 2019-2039.
u ibid
Figure 2-2: Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Areas.
Legend
Proposed UGB T Loh:
Pfdp".A UGB Amendment
Urban GrmAh Boundary
Gdy Limits
CENTRAL
POINT
:i � IXPo i I,2
r:r
V
Central Point Urban Growth Bound
0
Amendment
Proposed UGB Areas
3 Planning Process
Requirements 44 CFR §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1):
An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to
develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning
process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to
plan approval,
2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as
businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning
process, and
3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical
information.
(The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was
Prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
The City's current Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) was prepared in 2011, the first stand-alone
hazard mitigation plan for Central Point. Since the development of that plan, FEMA guidance for local
hazard mitigation plans has been refined and updated. For example, communities are required their
mitigation plans every five years to reflect changes in development, progress in mitigation efforts,
changes in community priorities, and to remain eligible for Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program
funding, Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program funding, and Hazard Grant Mitigation Program
(HGMP) funding.
The 2020 update to the NHMP involves a comprehensive review and update of the existing plan. As part
of this plan update, all sections of the plan were reviewed and updated to reflect new data on hazards,
changes in risks, changes in development patterns, capabilities of the City's mitigation efforts,
participating stakeholders, and revised mitigation strategies. The update was prepared in collaboration
with city residents, the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
3.2 Planning Process
The planning process for updating the City's plan uses planning requirements from the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), along with FEMA's associated guidance. The Local Mitigation Planning
Handbook 12 recommends using four phases that are broken down into nine tasks. Each task represents
an important step in guiding the planning process to represent the City's current needs.
The updated plan will be used for compliance with the Floodplain Management Planning requirements
from FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS). In order to receive credit in this program, the NHMP must
follow the CRS 10 -step program. The 10 steps are also aligned with the four phases of mitigation
planning. Table 3.1 summarizes the steps used in the planning process, how they align with the four
guiding principles of mitigation planning, and the location of that information in the updated plan.
12 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Local Miti atian Planning Handbook 2013. 1-3.
Table 3.1: Mitigation Planning Process
Task 1: Determine the
Planning Area &
Resources
Task 2: Building the
Phase I: Organize Planning Team
Resources
Task 3: Create an Step 2
Outreach Strategy Public
Step 1: Organize
Resources
Chapters 1, 2 & 3.
Introduction, Community
Profile, Planning Process
Chapter 3.
Planning Process
Involve the I Chapter 3.
Planning Process
Task 4: Review I Step 3. Coordinate with Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
Community Capabilities other Agencies Planning Process & Hazard
identification
Phase II: Assess Task 5: Conduct a Risk
Risks Assessment
i
Phase III: Develop
the Mitigation � Task 6: Develop a
Strategy Mitigation Strategy
—� Task 7: Keep the Pla
Current
Phase IV: Adopt Task 8: Review and
and Implement Adopt the Plan
the Plan _
Task 9: Create a Safe
and Resilient
Community
3.2.1 Phase 1: Organize Resources
Step 4. Assess the
Hazard
Step 5. Assess the
Problem
Step 6. Set goals
Chapter 4.
Hazard Identification &
Risk Assessment
k —
Step 7. Review Possible Chapter 5.
Activities p
I Mitigation Strategy
Step 8. Draft an Action
Plan
n
Step 9. Adopt the Plan Appendix A. Plan Adoption
Step 10. Implement,
Evaluate, Revise
Chapter 6.
Plan Implementation &
Maintenance
The first phase of the 2020 NHMP update ensures that all the necessary resources are identified and in
place. Resources are the people, places and things needed to provide direction on good decisions for
preparing for and responding to a natural hazard.
3.2.1.1 Task 1. Determine the Planning Area and Organize the Planning Effort
The planning area for the 2020 NHMP update includes the City's urban area, which encompasses
approximately 3,100 acres of land. As of July 2020, the City is preparing a major Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) amendment to add approximately 444 acres of land to the existing UGB to accommodate the
expected population growth and land use needs across the City. The extended UGB defines the
Planning Area of the NHMP.
The Hazard Summaries in Chapter 4 identify the location and extent of each hazard. Impacts from each
of the hazards can vary in geographic extent from a state or regional perspective, to a more localized
impact that affects only a portion of the City. The planning process focused on the response by the City
and the impacts to infrastructure and residents within the planning area.
3.2.1.2 Task 2. Building the Planning Team
The 2020 update of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan initially started in 2016 as an effort with the
Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional NHMP update process. While the Central Point NHMP was not
updated, or included as part of that process, a Steering Committee was formed and the City began
informing the residents and leaders of the importance of natural hazard mitigation. The current update
reconvened the team from the previous efforts.
The Steering Committee determined that data collection, risk assessments and mitigation strategies
would be enhanced by the feedback from public agency stakeholders. Based on their involvement in
hazard mitigation projects or planning, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction,
representatives from the following agencies were invited to participate on the NHMP update. Some of
these participated at Steering Committee meetings while others reviewed drafts of the plan and
provided feedback by email.
Other Government and Stakeholder Representatives:
• Avista Natural Gas
Pacific Power & Light
Rogue Valley Sewer Services
■ Medford Water Commission
• Jackson County Housing Authority
• Jackson County Emergency Services
• City of Medford
• Oregon Department of Transportation
• Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Stakeholders were included in the planning process. Unlike the Steering Committee, stakeholders for
the update were not included in all stages of the planning process, but there input was included to
inform the Steering Committee and provide additional perspectives from the community.
The City of Central Point's Steering Committee members have varying degrees of expertise related to
natural hazards mitigation projects and planning. Table 2.2 below outlines staff expertise and overall
capabilities within the hazard mitigation categories promoted by FEMA's CRS Program.
Table 3.2: Steering Committee Expertise with Mitigation Categories
Planning ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
Department
1
Building ✓ ✓
✓
Division
Assessing the Problem/Assess the Hazard
Police ✓
✓
Department
June 17, 2019
Public Works ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
Parks and ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
Recreation
February 26, 2020
Geographic ✓
✓
Information
Systems
Fire District ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
No. 3
School
✓
District
Pacific ✓
✓
Power
Rogue Valley ✓
✓
Sewer
Services
During the planning process, the Steering Committee communicated through face-to-face and virtual
meetings and e-mail. The Steering Committee formally met six times during the planning period (April 1,
2019 to October 13, 2020). The purpose of these meetings is described in
Table 3.3. Agendas for each of
the meetings and lists of attendees are included in Appendix E.
Table 3.3 Steering Committee Meeting Schedule
3.2.1.3 Task 3. Create an Outreach Strategy
The planning process provides opportunities for the community to participate and comment on the plan
during its development. From the 2011 Plan:
Public participation is a key component of the mitigation planning process and offers citizens and
stakeholders the opportunity to express their ideas and priorities for hazard mitigation activities.13
" City of Central Point, Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011.
TopicMeeting Meeting
1
Kickoff
April 1, 2019
2
Assessing the Problem/Assess the Hazard
May 20, 2019
3
Setting Goals
June 17, 2019
4
Action Items — Review Activities
August 6, 2019
5
Mitigation Strategy — Create an Action Plan
February 26, 2020
6
Plan Review & Implementation
September 29, 2020
3.2.1.3 Task 3. Create an Outreach Strategy
The planning process provides opportunities for the community to participate and comment on the plan
during its development. From the 2011 Plan:
Public participation is a key component of the mitigation planning process and offers citizens and
stakeholders the opportunity to express their ideas and priorities for hazard mitigation activities.13
" City of Central Point, Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011.
In order to engage the public on the NHMP update, a series of public meetings were scheduled with the
Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), which is a volunteer board of Central Point residents that provides
feedback and opinions on planning matters. It is also open to the public and provides a forum to inform
residents of upcoming plans, code changes or other issues. The initial meeting with the CAC was
advertised in the City Newsletter.
The update process, meeting schedules and agendas were included on the City's website and
maintained by the Steering Committee. The website provides information about the mitigation planning
process, the benefits of mitigation to the community, access to planning documents and an additional
means of requesting public feedback.
Stakeholder participation was encouraged through one-on-one briefings and interviews. At each step of
the update, including discussion of new data or risk assessment, stakeholders were contacted for input
on the plan updates. A final presentation and request for comments on the plan updates was conducted
with stakeholders on September 29, 2020.
3.2.1.4 Task 4. Review Community Capabilities
Hazard mitigation planning involves identifying existing policies, tools, and actions that will reduce a
community's risk and vulnerability from natural hazards. Integrating existing planning efforts and
mitigation policies and action strategies into this multi -hazard mitigation plan establishes a credible and
comprehensive plan that ties into and supports other community programs. The development of each of
the existing plans listed below involved public input and adoption by their respective responsible
legislative body.
• Strategic Plan Forward, A City Wide Strategic Plan
The City of Central Point maintains a strategic plan in order to "... guide future decision-making
as the community grows and changes."14 The guiding value of Resilience from the Strategic Plant
is carried forward in the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan by providing a foundation for the City
and its residents to prepare for, adapt and respond to changes and sudden impacts.
• Central Point Comprehensive Plan
The Central Point Comprehensive Plan is the guiding policy document for land use and growth -
related planning for the City. In order to properly identify the community's risks, the Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan relies heavily on the Population Element, Land Use Element,
Transportation Element, and Regional Plan Element to identify the communities changing
demographics, future population growth, and the physical direction of future growth.
• Emergency Operations Plan
The City's Emergency Operations Plan establishes guidance for how the City will respond to a
major emergency or disaster. The guidance "... describes the roles and responsibilities of the
City departments and personnel when an incident occurs..."15 The emphasis of the plan is on
incident management instead of a hazard -specific response. It provides a framework for a
coordinated, City-wide response to a natural hazard event.
14 Central Point Strategic Plan 2040, September 8, 2020, Resolution No. 1639.
15 City of Central Point Emergency Operations Plan, pp 1-1, June 2012
+ Storm Drainage Master Plan
The Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) establishes a capital improvement program to address
stormwater capacity and water quality issues. The SWMP identifies areas within the City that
lack capacity and may be subject to widespread flooding. Major recommendations include
replacing under -sized components, incorporating water quality designs into upgrades, and
install retrofits on structural components.
Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Jackson County hazard mitigation plan is a county -wide mitigation plan that identifies and
assesses the hazards and associated risks throughout Jackson County. City of Central Point staff
participated in the multi -jurisdictional planning process and the data, risk analysis, and response
capacity is reflected in the City's 2020 updated plan.
• Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
The DLCD developed the statewide natural hazard mitigation plan as "... the most complete and
up-to-date description of Oregon's natural hazards and their probability, the state's
vulnerabilities, its mitigation strategies and implementation capability. Oregon's counties and
cities can rely upon this information when preparing local natural hazard mitigation plans."
(2015 )16
The plan segments the state into planning regions and identifies the southwest region as Region
4, which includes Josephine, Jackson and Douglas County (non -coastal). The regional assessment
provides region specific information for hazards, characteristics, and vulnerabilities and
provided baseline data for the City -specific update.
National Flood Insurance Program/FEMA Flood Insurance Study
An important aspect of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify and implement
mitigation actions that maintain consistency and compliance with existing efforts and
requirements. As a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
Central Point will continue to implement best practices to maintain compliance with NFIP.
Central Point also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS), which provides additional
benefits to residents through the City's flood protection measures. As of October 2019, Central
Point was listed as a Class 6 community in the CRS Program and the City will strive to maintain
good standing.
3.2.2 Phase 2: Assess Risks
3.2.2.1 Task 5. Conduct a Risk Assessment
The risk assessment process identifies hazards that are likely to affect Central Point and assesses the
overall risk to the City's assets — including residents, infrastructure, and critical facilities. A risk
assessment is a multi -step process that involves assessing the hazards and assessing the problem.
16 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
2015.
The hazard assessment identifies the individual hazards that impact Central Point and includes a
description of where the hazard will occur within City, the extent of the expected hazard within the City,
a history of when the hazard has occurred in the past, and the probability of any expected future
occurrences. The Steering Committee identified hazards by comparing the hazards in the previous plan
to hazards identified in the Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) for the Southwest Oregon
(Region 4), and researching past events in the area.
Assessing the problem examines how the City will be affected by each particular hazard and determines
potential impacts. Risks from a natural hazard event result because of the exposure of community assets
to the destructive forces of the hazard. The City's vulnerability to each hazard was reviewed and the Risk
Analysis was performed at the May 20, 2019 Steering Committee.
3.2.3 Phase 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
Develop a Mitigation Strategy
After identifying hazards and the City's vulnerabilities, the Steering Committee created a strategy to
reduce impacts and potential losses. The Steering Committee reviewed the existing mission statement
and goals from the 2011 plan and agreed that it continues to support the purpose and intent of the
updated plan. The goals provide the overall direction for the plan and articulates what the City hopes to
achieve through mitigation planning. Minor revisions to the existing goals were included to align with
the Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
In order to develop an updated mitigation strategy, the Steering Committee reviewed the mitigation
actions from the 2011 plan. The first step in the review determined which actions had been completed
since the development of the plan. A list of completed action items is included in Chapter 5.
Action items were developed to address the vulnerabilities and risks from each hazard Central Point.
The Advisory Committee started with the action items developed during the previous NHMP planning
process, and considered new options as the action plan was reviewed and analyzed in comparison to the
mission, goals and updated risk assessment. In order to assure a comprehensive range of actions,
specific items were developed for each hazard.
3.2.4 Phase 4: Implementation & Monitor Progress
Task 7. Keep the Plan Current
The Steering Committee developed and agreed upon an overall strategy for plan implementation,
monitoring and maintaining the plan overtime. Each recommended mitigation action includes key
descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding sources, to help initiate implementation. The
responsible agency assigned to each mitigation action item will be responsible for tracking and reporting
on each of their actions. The City's Planning Department will be responsible for coordinating the
monitoring process. An overall implementation strategy is described in Chapter 6: Plan Implementation
and Maintenance.
The 2011 plan established a schedule of yearly meetings after the adoption of the plan, or after a
significant disaster event, in order to review the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation
actions. The yearly meeting of the Steering Committee will evaluate the effectiveness of the updated
plan and provide a report that demonstrates progress.
FEMA guidance requires the City revisit and update the NHMP at a minimum 5 -year interval. With the 5 -
year time line, the Planning Department will document progress from the yearly progress meeting, using
that information to help support the next plan update. It is also anticipated that the Jackson County
Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan will begin an update within 3 years, prior to the
minimum required City update. At that time, the Planning Department will join the county -wide plan
update efforts and update the City plan at that time for inclusion in the county plan.
3.2.4.2 Task 8. Review and Adopt the Plan
After the Steering Committee reviews the final draft and presents to the Citizens Advisory Committee
for final comments, the 2020 update to the NHMP will be submitted to the State Hazard Mitigation
Officer (SHMO) at the Oregon Military Department — Office of Emergency Management (OEM).
Following a completeness review by OEM, the NHMP is sent to FEMA -Region X for review. This review
addresses the federal criteria outlined in the FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201. Upon acceptance
by FEMA, the City Council will adopt the NHMP on the dates included in the adoption resolution in
Appendix A: Adoption Resolution. Once the adoption is complete, final approval by FEMA occurs.
3.2.4.3 Task 9. Create a Safe and Resilient Community
The 2020 update to the NHMP reflects the City's commitment to protecting public safety and preventing
loss. Reducing the vulnerability to disasters and enhancing the capability of the City and its citizens to
respond effectively and recover quickly, makes the City more disaster resistant and disaster resilient.
In order for the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to be effective, it has to be implemented, continually
evaluated, and periodically updated. The steps outlined in this Chapter demonstrate the City's
comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation, logically thinking about hazards and risks to the City,
cost-effective mitigation efforts, and incorporating those efforts into on-going decision-making.
4 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
144 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(i), The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location and extent of all
natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of
hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii), The risk assessment shall include a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the
hazards described in paragraph (c)((2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of
each hazard and its impact on the community. All plans approved after October 1, 2008 must also address NFIP
insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. The plan should describe the vulnerability in
terms of:
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A), The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical
facilities located in the identified hazard area.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(8), An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in this
section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C), Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the
community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
4.1 Introduction
Central Point is subject to a wide array of natural hazards. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the
potential hazards and determine the potential impacts to the people, economy, existing and future
development, and the natural environment of the City. Some hazard events, such as earthquakes or
severe weather, may affect the entire city. Other hazards will only directly impact a portion of the city.
The risk assessment is the first step in the mitigation planning process and provides a framework for the
City to focus attention and resources on the greatest risks by mitigating or preparing for potential
hazards.
4.2 Understanding Risk
Risk is an uncontrolled, or unexpected, loss of something of value. FEMA defines risk as "the potential
for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of natural hazards with community assets"
(2013)17. As shown in Figure 4-1, the risks from a natural hazard event result because of the exposure of
community assets to the destructive forces of the hazard.
" Federal Emergency Management Agency. Local Mitigation Plannin Handbook, 2013. 5-1.
Figure 4-1 Understanding Risk
Source: Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (FEMA, March 2013)
Another way to describe risk is the exposure of assets to a natural hazard. In this case, exposure is the
quantity, value and vulnerability of a community's assets subject to one or more hazards. The more
exposed assets are, the higher the risk. Risk results only when there is an overlap between assets and a
hazard.
4.3 What is a Risk Assessment?
The risk assessment process identifies and profiles relevant hazards and assesses the exposure of lives,
property and infrastructure to these hazards. The process allows for a better understanding of Central
Point's potential risk to natural hazards and provides a framework for developing and prioritizing
mitigation actions to reduce risk from hazard events.
A risk assessment consists of the three steps shown in Figure 4.2. Each step builds on the information
and data gathered in the previous step in order to appropriately determine risks to the community.
Figure 4-2: Risk Assessment Process
Hazard Vulnerability Risk Analysis
Identification Assessment
As shown in the figure above, the first step in the process is Hazard Identification. This step not only
identifies the individual hazards, but also includes a description of where the hazard will occur within
City, the extent, or strength, of the expected hazard, a history of when the hazard has occurred in the
past, and the probability of any expected future occurrences.
The second step in this process is the Vulnerability Assessment. This step examines the overlap between
the natural hazards and the community assets. It examines how the City — the people, property, built
environment and natural environment — will be affected by each particular hazard.
The final piece to a risk assessment is the Risk Analysis. This step examines the information from the
previous steps and determines potential impacts. It identifies the potential for damages, losses and
casualties arising from hazards.
4.4 Hazard Identification
Central Point identifies eight natural hazards that could have an impact on the city. Table 4.1 lists the
hazards identified by the advisory committee. The list of hazards was developed by comparing the
hazards in the previous plan to hazards identified in the Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP)
for the Southwest Oregon (Region 4), and researching past events in the area. The City's 2011 Hazard
Mitigation Plan briefly addressed several other hazards which, as the plan states, "...pose minor or
negligible threats to Central Point." (2011)18 The steering committee considered each of the hazards
individually and while some still pose minor threats to the City, the risk from at least one hazard
changed significantly due to changes in local conditions and recent hazard occurrences since the
previous plan was completed.
Table 4-1: Central Point Hazard identification
Earthquake (Cascadia)
2
50
100
70
222
High
Floods
20
25
50
70
165
High
Wildfire
10
25
50
70
155
High
Winter Storm
Windstorm
20
20
5
5
10
10
70
70
105
105
Medium
Medium
Drought
20
5
10
70
105
Medium
Earthquake (Crustal_)
Volcano
Landslide
2
2
2
25
5
5
50
50
10
7
7
7
84
64
24
Low
Low
Low
4.5 Hazard Summaries
The following sections provide a description and overview of each hazard type. Each hazard summary
includes information on hazard history and past occurrences, the extent or location of the hazard within
or near the City, the probability of the hazard occurring in the future, and the vulnerability of the City to
damages from the hazard.
18 City of Central Point, Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011.
4.6 Drought
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
The Jackson County NHMP is cited to include a record of significant drought events throughout
Oregon and Jackson County.
Two (2) significant drought events have occurred since the previous NHMP.
The probability assessment of drought has been updated in consideration of past occurrences.
Drought is generally considered a period of abnormally dry conditions - one where a normal amount of
moisture, in the form of precipitation, groundwater or surface water, is not available to satisfy an area's
typical water needs. Droughts differ from other hazards; they are gradual events occurring over time
with no defined beginning or end, with impacts that can span a large geographic region. Impacts from
drought typically increase with the length of the drought as water supplies are gradually depleted and
not replenished at their normal levels/rates.
4.6.1 Location and Extent
According to the 2015 Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
Droughts can occur in any climatic region and at any time of the year. Oregon is continuously
confronted with drought and water scarcity issues, despite its rainy reputation. Droughts can
occur in Oregon in both summer and winter. While typically thought of as an issue that affects
Eastern Oregon, droughts can and do occur in Western Oregon, including Central Point ( 2015)19.
Since droughts typically affect larger areas, and occur as regional or statewide events, they affect more
than one city or county. A drought in Central Point will have impacts outside the city and affect Jackson
County, and neighboring cities. The overall extent and geographic impact depends largely on the
severity of moisture deficiency and the duration of the drought.
4.6.2 History
The most recent drought declaration for Central Point and Jackson County occurred in 2015. According
to the Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Oregon Office of Water Resources Drought Annex
State of Oregon Emergency Operations Plan from January 2016, "Record warm temperatures during
2015 contributed significantly to water supply shortages throughout the state. Warm temperatures led
to a winter with record -low or near -record -low snowpack, contributing to dry soils and vegetation, as
well as lower than normal streamflows and peak runoff occurring earlier in the year" (2016)20. In all, 25
counties in Oregon were under a state drought declaration, including Jackson County and Central Point.
"Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
2015.
21 Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Office of Water Resources Drought Annex, State of Oregon
EmergencyEmeLgency 0 erations Plan, 2016.
Figure 4-3 Drought Declarations in Oregon 2015
Source: Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Oregon Office of Water Resources (2016)
Drought is a common occurrence throughout Oregon, with notable events for Central Point in 1976-
1977, 1992, 2001 and 2015. The 2018 Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan 2' highlights significant drought events, as listed below:
■ 1904-1905: Statewide drought period for about 18 months.
• 1928-1941: A significant drought affected all of Oregon from 1928 to 1941. The prolonged statewide
drought created significant problems for the agricultural industry. The first of the three Tillamook Forest
burns occurred during this drought in 1933.
• 1976-1981: Low stream flows prevailed in western Oregon during the period from 1976-1981, but the
worst year by far was 1976-1977, the single driest year of the century.
• 1985-1997: A dry period lasting from 1985 to 1994 caused significant problems statewide. The peak
year was 1992 when the state declared a drought emergency. Drought status was declared by the
governor in 1991, 1992 and 1994.
a 2000-2001: Klamath drought intensifies; low snowpack in mountains worsen conditions. Drought
status was declared by the governor in 2001.
• 2005: February 2005 was the driest month on record since 1977, surpassing 2001 conditions. Above
normal temperatures contributed to decreased water availability for the summer. Stream and river
levels dropped significantly and watermasters regulated live flow use by irrigators. Drought conditions
also led to the use of stored water, when it was available.
• 2010: Determination of a State of Drought Emergency in Klamath County and adjacent counties
(including Jackson County) due to Drought and Low Water Conditions (EO -10-03).
21 Jackson County Emergency Management, Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2018
• 2014: Determination of a State of Drought Emergency in Jackson County due to Drought and Low
Water Conditions (EO -14-04).
• 2015: Determination of a state of drought emergency in Deschutes, Grant, Jackson, Josephine, Lane,
Morrow, Umatilla and Wasco counties due to drought, low snow pack levels and low water conditions.
4.6.3 Probability
Droughts in Jackson County are common occurrences with an average recurrence interval of
approximately 8 and 12 years. Based on the available data, the Advisory Committee assessed the
probability of experiencing a local drought as "high," meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to
35 years. This rating has increased since the previous NHMP.
4.6.4 Vulnerability
The Oregon NHMP states, "Droughts can affect commerce, agriculture, fisheries, and overall quality of
life in the three Southwest counties. Jackson and Josephine Counties were declared federal primary
natural disaster areas by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2013" (2015)x2.
The advisory committee rated Central Point as having a "low" vulnerability to drought hazards, meaning
less than 1% of city population and property will be affected by an "average" occurrence of drought.
This rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
4.6.5 Community Hazard Issues
As outlined in the Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Central Point purchases water from
the Medford Water Commission. Water supply for Central Point, and other Medford Water Commission
customers, is not highly vulnerable and rationing due to drought has not been implemented (2011)23.
Drought conditions have the greatest impact to the natural environment: increase to the risk of wildfires
and reduced stream flows impacting fish and wildlife. As discussed in the Wildfire Section, Central Point
and other urban areas in Jackson County, once considered outside of the defined areas of a wildland-
urban interface (WUI), are now considered at risk as demonstrated by the Peninger Fire in 2018, a fast
moving grass fire that started along the Bear Creek Greenway.
During times of drought, migrating fish can compete with other water consumption uses. Reduced
stream flows are at risk for increased temperatures, additional silt and sediment loads and habitat
fragmentation that put endangered salmonids at increased risk.
22 Oregon DLCD, 2015
23 Kenneth A. Goettel, Central Paint Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
The previous NHMP considered Central Point more vulnerable to a crustal earthquake than a large
Cascadia event. The rating for a Cascadia event has not changed since the previous NHMP; the rating
for a crustal earthquake has decreased.
Awareness of earthquakes in Oregon began to increase in the 1980's. Earthquakes in the 1990's,
including the Scott Mills and Klamath Falls earthquakes in 1993, demonstrated the potential hazards of
localized crustal earthquakes. In the 2000's, large-scale international earthquakes and the resulting
tsunamis highlighted additional risks to Oregon from offshore earthquakes.
The Oregon NHMP identifies four (4) types of earthquakes that may occur in the Pacific Northwest: 1)
the offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone; 2) deep intraplate events within the subducting Juan de Fuca
Plate; 3) shallow crustal events within the North American Plate; and 4) earthquakes associated with
volcanic activity2a.
4.7.1 Location and Extent
It is not possible to forecast the location or size of an earthquake; risks must be determined based on
the susceptibility of a specific area and the expected intensity of an earthquake. The City's Hazard
Mitigation Plan identifies four (4) main factors that are used to determine the overall severity of an
earthquake: 1) Magnitude, 2) Proximity, 3) Depth, and 4) Soil/Rock Condition s25. Larger magnitude
earthquakes affect larger geographic areas, with more widespread damage. However, as distance from
the epicenter increases, both vertically and horizontally, the intensity of the ground -shaking decreases.
The City's Hazard Mitigation Plan also notes that the intensity of ground -shaking varies not only as a
function of magnitude and distance, but also depends on the characteristics of the underlying soil and
rock26. Two hazards often associated with soil conditions include the amplification of ground -shaking
through soft soils and ground failure, or loss of strength, due to liquefaction. Figure 4-4 shows a
generalized map of Jackson County and includes the areas for potential liquefaction, where a soil
temporarily behaves as a liquid and is unable to support structures or other improvements. Central
Point is in an area of moderate liquefiable soft soil.
24 Oregon DLCD, 2015
21 City of Central Point, 2011
21 City of Central Point, 2011
Figure 4-4: Areas of Soft Soils
Ear��Yla Ma lLvardf — — �- —
41Ugrle L4 -fa -ZA SW Il
.. •...
. .. v.l h, .fig •rYl4ll.r�'ca. _ee�f�.l
f'�
��AWbar..gr
N.rrr}�rwlia.4ul..Qamrnr hwl.w•wMka4r ltr
1. a�af,
,f^
MTr<I .,! • ��[Illw ��. [aa{ri ti1/.1 �� nM+lr... 11 ci<
r, la,r r. .a[.1'�.rd�r s.larilts¢n
F'•
•
rµ,r.:.,1.T...�r....r1.I..eJr.,w..y...gaa. F. rwl,r♦-+
11 .
�dae Leve Y_ea peas lY warn ma tr,.Sr
AOL
Iall•IrI�
E�� > aalrlq.+.gw,lnlml[lran
Mrx141W•w•i••nlM.,n. ., I+rt.rl,�.
� � l
` i+•
I•. 59 1..=N�ar.11. a6nr [. .t�.li nYrw .
_
+1
. J1
. �"l�
41Ugrle L4 -fa -ZA SW Il
.. •...
. .. v.l h, .fig •rYl4ll.r�'ca. _ee�f�.l
f'�
■
uyYr.ti+rr Ylr.lYa...l rliluh�lpt.F+nll
r, la,r r. .a[.1'�.rd�r s.larilts¢n
rr-1:..A n f 1 �, i a.lr Ir lw •n�.Ir •4h ry. [ raa..
�[IIl}yY
AOL
hear !
IId�iMIA
A
I(
1: 6
, . [ �w
,1111111110- , 1W a
�F I+r7q NiL
Source: Jackson County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
I
The majority of the earthquakes shown in the figure above are low -impact events below a magnitude
(M) of 3.0, although six (6) mapped events are shown with M 3-5. The larger events may have been
slightly felt but little to no structural/property damage resulted. In order for liquefaction to occur, a
magnitude greater than 5 is needed, unless the soils are very soft and generally unsuitable for building
construction (Green & Bommer)". Therefore, the seismic hazard for Central Point is predominately from
major earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Smaller, crustal earthquakes in or near the City
could be locally damaging, but are not expected to produce widespread, major damage.
■ 1700 (January 26): Offshore, Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ)- Approximate 9.0 magnitude earthquake
generated a tsunami that struck Oregon, Washington and Japan; destroyed Native American villages
along the coast (additional CSZ events occurred approximately in 1400 BCE, 1050 BCE, 600 BCE, 400, 750
and 900)
• 1873 (November 23): 6.75 quake near California Border. Damage was reported along the coast and in
Josephine and Jackson Counties. Source is speculated to be originated from the Cascadia Subduction
Zone.
1920 (April 14): Quake centered near Crater Lake — No record of reported damage.
Z' Russel A. Green and Julian J. Bommer. Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that Can Trigger Liquefaction.
(Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research,
2018).
21 Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP (2018)
• 1993 (September 20): Klamath Falls Earthquakes, two (2) magnitude 5.9 and 6.0 earthquakes that
caused $7.5 million in damages and killed two (2; one heart attack, one crushed by a boulder while
driving); felt in Southern Oregon.
■ 1999 (November 28): This earthquake's epicenter was located 13.9 miles west-northwest of Klamath
Falls, almost precisely where two earthquakes originated six years prior. Ground motion was felt in
Medford, 45 miles away, but there were no reported injuries or damages.
4.7.3 Probability
The return period of earthquakes can be estimated based on the average time between past events.
Based on the historical record, the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) generates an earthquake every 500-
600 years. Establishing the probability for crustal earthquakes is difficult given the small number of
historical events that have occurred. As noted in the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan, earthquakes are
possible almost any place in the vicinity of or within Central Point based on the historical seismicity of
Western Oregon and analogies to geologically similar areas.
Central Point's Natural Hazards Advisory Committee believes the probability of experiencing a crustal
earthquake is "low", meaning one incident is likely within the next 75-100 years; the committee believes
that the probability of experiencing a Cascadia event is "high", meaning one incident is likely with the
next 10-35 years. Based on the available information, the Oregon NHMP Regional Risk Assessment
supports this probability rating for Central Point. The rating for a crustal earthquake has decreased
since the previous NHMP; the rating for a Cascadia earthquake has increased since the previous NHMP.
4.7.4 Vulnerability
The advisory committee rated Central Point as having a "high" vulnerability to the Cascade earthquake,
meaning more than 10% of the population or assets would be affected; the committee rated the City as
having a "moderate" vulnerability to crustal earthquake hazard, meaning between 1% and 10% of the
City's population or assets would be affected. The previous NHMP considered Central Point more
vulnerable to a crustal earthquake than a large Cascadia event. The rating for a Cascadia event has not
changed since the previous NHMP; the rating for a crustal earthquake has decreased.
4.7.5 Community Hazard Issues
The elevated risk of Central Point to earthquake is due to a number of factors, including the proximity of
crustal earthquake faults to the east, the Cascadia Subduction Zone to the west and the underlying soils
subject to a moderate level of liquefaction and amplification. Figure 4-5 shows the expected level of
earthquake damage along all known faults in Oregon that could impact Southern Oregon that have a 2 -
percent chance of occurring in the next 50 years. Based on the Simplified Mercalli Levels defined by
Madin and Burns (2013), Central Point is subject to Level VIII effects of shaking, meaning significant to
substantial damage in vulnerable buildings can be expected29.
29 Ian P. Madin and William J. Burns. Ground motion, ground deformation, tsunami inundation, coseismic
subsidence, and damage potential maps for the 2012 Oregon Resilience Plan for Cascadia Subduction Zone
earthquakes (Open -File Report 0-13-06). Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
(2013).
Figure 4-5: Earthquake Hazards based on Mercalli Levels
60
� EAaarr N�uw
Iia1NY YrirMf Mal i 1\ elaao Mas>ara � M Ytiaw
Rdsa6ury �rj
ki;Q16"ft Pas?
' ftWfnM
I
Source: Madin and Burns (2013)
In 1999, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) developed two
earthquake loss models for Oregon based on the two most likely sources of seismic events: 1) the CSZ,
and 2) combined earthquake events30. The CSZ event is based on a potential 8.5 earthquake generated
off the Oregon coast. The 500 -year crustal model does not look at a single earthquake (as in the CSZ
model); it encompasses many faults, each with a 10% chance of producing an earthquake in the next 50
years. The model assumes that each fault will produce a single "average" earthquake during this time.
Neither model takes unreinforced masonry building into consideration. The projected loss estimates are
calculated for all of Jackson County, which is projected to experience some of the greatest losses and
damages in Oregon.
Table 4-2 is taken from the Jackson County NHMP that accounts for inflation and adjusts the economic
loss data from DOGAMI's 1999 report. Loss data is presented for the entire area of Jackson County and
is specific to Central Point, individually. Adjusted for 2019 dollars, losses county -wide are expected to be
$831 million for the Cascadia model and approximately $1.85 billion for the 500 -year crustal model.
Whereas Jackson County is at greater risk to a crustal earthquake due to the location of faults in the
Cascade Mountains along the east boundary of the county, Central Point is at greater risk from a
Cascadia Subduction Zone event.
30 Yumei Wang and J. L. Clark. Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary Estimates of Future Eartquake Losses
(Open -File Report 0-98-3). Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (1999).
Table 4-2: Jackson County Earthquake Damage Summary
Injuries
Death
Displaced households
Shorter -term shelter needs
Economic losses for buildings
428
8
650
489
$38 million
831 million*
930
18
1,458
1,080
$1.2 billion
1.85 billion*)
Economic Losses to
Highways $10 million $34 million
($15.4 million*) ($52.5 million*)
Airports $2 million $8 million
($2.9 million*) ($12 million*)
Communication Systems $2 million $9 million
($3.1 million*) (13.9 million*)
Source: Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018)
Note: * - 1999 dollars were adjusted for inflation to represent estimated economic loss in 2019 dollars
using the Oregon State of Employment Department Inflation Calculator.
The greatest risk to Central Point is from older buildings that were constructed prior to seismic
construction requirements. As directed by Oregon Senate Bill 2 (2005), DOGAMI completed a statewide
seismic needs assessment, including a rapid visual screening (RVS), of critical infrastructure buildings31
RVS is used to identify and rank buildings to their risk of collapse in an earthquake.
Table 4-3 Rapid Visual Survey Scores
Schools
Central Point Elementary School
Crater High School
Jewett Elementary School
Richardson Elementary School
Scenic Middle School
Public Safety
Central Point Police Department
Jackson County Fire District #3
I.t
MITIGATED - 2019
MITIGATED
31 Don Lewis. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment: Implementation of Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 Relating to Public
Safety, Earthquakes, and Seismic Rehabilitation of Public Buildings (Open -Report 0-07-02). Portland, OR: Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (2007).
(600 S Front St)
Oregon State Police X
Source: DOGAMI Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Screening (2007)
As noted in the community profile, approximately 38% of residential buildings in Central Point were built
prior to 1990 and approximately 7% of structures built prior to the 1954 seismic standards. Prior to the
seismic standards, structures are likely inadequate to withstand the impacts of an earthquake. A
common construction technique prior to the 1960's was the use of unreinforced masonry buildings,
which are low level buildings, generally between three (3) and four (4) stories, with brick walls that lack
metal reinforcements for structural stability32. In the booklet, Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and
Earthquakes: Developing Successful Risk Reduction Programs (FEMA 2009)33, FEMA identifies
unreinforced masonry buildings as the most vulnerable category of construction at risk for seismic
damage in a community. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings in Central Point is not known. A
city-wide rapid visual survey is required to determine the risk of collapse for specific structures.
Damages to utility services, including water, wastewater, natural gas and electric power, are also
expected. From the Jackson County NHMP, "Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including
damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment
plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more
vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with
approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be much lower rate of pipe breaks in
other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the
affected area. (2019)34"
32 Tara Kulash, "Is My Home Going to Protect Me? And Other Portland Earthquake Questsion," The Oregonian, 22
April 2019.
33 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes: Developing
Successful Risk Reduction Program , 2009.
34 Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP (2018)
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
The Flood Insurance Rate Map was revised September 14, 2016.
A significant flood event occurred in November 2012, resulting in NFIP losses to properties in Central
Point.
FEMA defines a flood as "A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas" (2006)35. Flooding results when the volume of water, in the form of rain or
snowmelt, is in excess of the ability of streams, ditches, or the storm drain system to contain it. The
excess water is no longer confined to the streambed or in culverts and pipes, and flows across yards,
streets and other areas of the City.
Central Point is at risk of three (3) types of floods: 1) riverine floods, 2) urban floods and 3) dam failure.
Riverine floods occur when the water in a stream or river overtops the banks and spills onto the area
adjacent to the stream channel, called the floodplain. Urban floods occur when the storm system is
inadequate to handle the volume of runoff from nearby development or obstructions leading to flooding
of streets and other low-lying areas. Dam failures occur when a dam is overtopped or structurally fails
causing massive, wide -spread and sudden flooding.
4.8.1 Location and Extent
4.8.1.1 Riverine Floods
The City of Central Point has seven (7) streams that are identified as flood sources, including:
Bear Creek, which flows along the eastern part of the City;
Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek, Mingus Creek and Elk Creek, which flow through the City; and
Daisy Creek and Horn Creek, which are tributaries to Griffin Creek and Jackson Creek,
respectively.
Flooding along the creeks is most frequent from October through April during periods of heavy rain
and/or snowmelt. Because the drainage areas of these creeks are small, flash floods may occur where
the extent of flooding is influenced by runoff over a short period of time.
FEMA provides inundation maps for the creeks within the City, called the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The flood areas on the FIRM are quantified by magnitude, or the probability of occurrence in any
given year. Figure 4-6 shows the flood hazard areas mapped by FEMA for Central Point, which includes
the following flood risk zones:
• Zone AE: Areas with a one (1) percent annual chance of flooding with detailed flood hazard data,
including base flood elevations.
• Zone AO: Areas with a one (1) percent annual chance of shallow flooding, including average base
flood depths to the nearest whole foot only.
• Zone AH: Areas with a one (1) percent annual chance of shallow flooding, usually areas of
ponding, including flood depths to the nearest whole foot only.
" Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 Chapter 1 Part 59 [44CFR59.1], October 1, 2006.
• Zone X -Shaded: Areas of 0.2 -percent annual chance flood. No base flood depths are shown
within this zone.
• Zone X -Unshaded: Areas outside of the 0.2 -percent annual chance flood. No base flood depths
are shown within this zone.
Figure 4-6: Central Point Flood Hazard Map
Legend
Floodway _ Flood Zone AE Flood Zone AH Flood Zone AO
Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map; Map No. 41029C, Panels 1768F, 1769F, 1756F, 1757F (2016)
4.8.1.2 Urban Floods
Urban flooding can occur throughout the City where the storm system is overloaded by the amount of
water flowing into it or because of obstructions in the system that causes the water to back up. The
extent of urban flooding is difficult to predict, but the City has identified areas within the downtown that
lack facilities that may be more prone to urban flooding.
4.8.1.3 Dom Failure
Emigrant Dam is upstream of the City and could impact Central Point with flood waters along Bear Creek
in the event of a dam failure. The extent of flooding from Emigrant Dam would depend on several
factors at the time of the dam failure, including the water levels in Bear Creek and the amount of water
stored in Emigrant Lake behind the dam. Figure 4-7 is an inundation map that shows the areas along
Bear Creek that could be impacted by a dam failure.
4.8.2 Figure 4-7: Emigrant Dam Inundation Zone
Emigrant Inundatlon Impacts Summary
�amQi�ert ■+e Plan and Usn NoArumv,
=aweurl 98.E
]bald u N 0
Qv cy00" &pr.
b9utrhi 1T
IisT
0
1 1 a
!fid
Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2010)
4.8.3 History36
land
area
Ls®and
a�roams
- emgnnl�llYc_dem e�undugn
o'c f„6 FfxMHy
• 1890 (February): Heavy and consistent snowfalls from October to January, followed by rising
temperatures and 7 -inches of rain in the first five days of February. Widespread damage, including all
major bridges washed out, throughout Jackson County.
• 1962 (December): Heavy rain totaling 3 to 4 inches across the Rogue Valley that caused widespread
street flooding, with heavy damages to farmland across the valley.
• 1964 (December): Flooding along Mingus Creek and Daisy Creek, but no extensive damage. The
situation on Daisy Creek was aggravated by a channel obstruction on Griffin Creek. The Mingus Creek
situation was partly due to undersized drainage structures.
"Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP (2018)
• 1997 (January): The New Year's Day Flood. Six of seven creeks in the City experienced flood conditions,
with most extensive flooding and damage along Griffin Creek. Highway 99 was overtopped, the Crater
High School football field and track were flooded and properties along Comet Way and Nancy Avenue
were heavily impacted. In total, over 15 residences were evacuated at an estimated $310,000 in
damages City-wide.
• 2012 (November): Heavy rains resulted in at least four (4) NFIP losses in the area around Central Point.
4.8.4 Probability
From the Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan, "The frequency and severity of flooding (level of flood
hazard) is not determined simply by whether the footprint of a given structure is or is not within the
100 -year floodplain. A common error is to assume that structures within the 100 -year floodplain are at
risk of flooding while structures outside of the 100 -year floodplain are not." Despite the reference as
the '100 -year' flood, it has a one (1) percent chance of occurring in any year. (2011)37
Central Point is also located near the bottom of the drainage area for the creeks that flow from the
County. Given this location near the valley floor, increases in flows higher in the watershed could result
in floods in the City.
Central Point's Natural Hazards Advisory Committee believes the probability of experiencing a flood
event is "high", meaning one incident is likely with the next 10-35 years. This rating has not changed
since the previous NHMP.
4.8.5 Vulnerability
The advisory committee rated Central Point as having a "moderate" vulnerability to flood hazards,
meaning between 1% and 10% of the City's population or assets would be affected. There are currently
over 350 structures within the one (1) percent annual chance, or 100 -Year, floodplain boundary, with
approximately 112 of those located within the high hazard floodway, out of approximately 7,200 parcels
in the City. This rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
4.8.6 Community Hazard Issues
FEMA data provided to the City indicates that as of September 30, 2019, there were a total of 313 flood
insurance policies within Central Point representing $68,185,700 of insurance coverage in force. Of
these, 128 are located in A zones (100 -year floodplain areas); 57 standard and 23 preferred policies are
located in the B, C, and X zones (the area between the 100-yearand 500 -year floodplains, including the
500 -year flood). Historically, there have been 28 flood loss claims totaling $149,791. These included 20
claims for properties in A zones, and 4 standard and 4 preferred policies were for properties in B, C, and
X zones. Twenty (20) claims were paid to Pre -FIRM structures and 8 were for Post -FIRM structures.
There are currently no repetitive loss properties within Central Point.
Figure 4-8 shows the location of Critical Facilities throughout Central Point. There are currently three (3)
critical facilities in flood risk areas. The Oregon State Patrol barracks and Pacific Power substation on
Highway 99 are within the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain and a portion of the properties are
within the one (1) percent annual chance floodplain area. The Mae Richardson Elementary School,
37 City of Central Point, 2011
which serves as a Red Cross Shelter is located within the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. A portion
of the school property also extends into the one (1) percent annual chance floodplain.
Figure 4-8: Critical Facilities in Flood Hazard Areas
Source: City of Central Point Geographic Information Systems (2011)
Legend
Critial Facilities
Facility
C Bridge
it City Hall
Fre Department
* Law Enforcement
PPL Substation
Red Cross Shelters
M, Water Pump Station
Floodway
Flood Zone AH
Flood Zone AO
_ Flood ZoneAE
Flood Zone X Shaded
For Central Point, urban flooding due to storm water drainage problems have been minor. The storm
water systems are designed to handle more common small- to medium-sized runoff events and allow
minor street flooding to carry off stormwater that exceeds the system capacity.
Dam failures can also pose a risk to property owners downstream. According to the Bureau of
Reclamation, Emigrant Dam has a very low risk of failure. The inundation information presented in
Figure 4-7, which shows Interstate 5 completely inundation along with a significant portion of the City
that parallels Bear Creek, including residential, commercial, industrial , civic and open space land uses.
The dam failure inundation area does not show on the City's FIRM's because the risk exceeds the one (1)
percent annual chance mapped by FEMA.
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
This section was expanded to include probability and vulnerability assessments.
Landslide is a movement of earth material (i.e. rock, mud) or other material down a slope due to gravity.
Landslides are generally described by the type of material, nature of the slope failure and other
characteristics to classify the hazard. The USGS classifies landslides into five (5) types of movements: 1)
falls, 2) topples, 3) slides, 4) spread, and 5) flows38. Mudslides, a type of debris flow, and rock falls are
common examples of types of landslides.
4.9.1 Location and Extent
Landslides can occur almost anywhere; however, they are more common and predominately occur in
hilly or mountainous areas, or steep slopes with unstable soils. The topography of Central Point is
predominantly flat with minimal slopes. As shown in Figure 4-9, the risk of landslides is generally
confined to a few stream bank areas that are deeply incised.
Figure 4-9: Central Point Landslide Susceptibility
'r
... •5� f � L'�
1 I
L , f
a
Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer
4.9.2 History
From the Jackson County NHMP:
"Debris flows and landslides are a very common occurrence in hilly areas of Oregon, including
portions of Jackson County. Many landslides occur in undeveloped areas and thus may go
3s L.M. Highland and Peter Bobrowsky, The Landslide Handbook — A Guide to Understanding Landslides (Reston,
VA: US Geological Circular 1325).
unnoticed or unreported. For example, DOGAMI conducted a statewide survey of landslides
from four winter storms in 1996 and 1997 and found 9,582 documented landslides, with the
actual number of landslides estimated to be many times the documented number. For the
most part, landslides become a problem only when they impact developed areas and have the
potential to damage buildings, roads or utilities."39
Figure 4-10 shows the landslide inventory for Central Point and Jackson County. Whereas the landslide
inventory shows Central Point largely located on fan deposits, the material was deposited through
erosion along floodplains and alluvial outwash during uplift of the areas mountainous terrain40. There
are no documented landslides in Central Point.
Figure 4-10: Landslide Inventory
L.-Widn i—p"y
5z
NNc s�v
❑.wa
Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer
4.9.3 Probability
While there is near 100 -percent probability that a landslide will occur in this region, predicting where or
when it will occur is difficult41. Landslides are more likely in areas where they have previously occurred
and on slopes that are more susceptible. With the no past occurrences and minimally sloped
topography, the Advisory Committee assessed the probability of landslides in Central Point as "low",
meaning one incident is likely within the next 75 to 100 years. This rating has not changed since the
previous NHMP.
4.9.4 Vulnerability
The advisory committee rated Central Point as having a "low" vulnerability to landslides, meaning less
than 1% of city population and property will be affected by an "average" occurrence of landslide. This
rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
39 Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP, 2018.
40 David R Johnson, Soil Survey of Jackson County Area, Oregon (Washington, DC; Soil Conservation Service, 1994).
41 Oregon DLCD, 2015
4.9.5 Community Hazard Issues
As shown in Figure 4-9, Central Point's vulnerability to landslides is limited to a few stream banks that
are deeply incised. Possible landslides in these locations would be accurately described as bank failures,
which would be very localized and not occur along the length of a stream channel. The threat of loss to
life or property and damage to structures, including critical facilities, is minimal. The City's flood
protection requirements establish setbacks along the stream corridors and prevent the location of
structures within the areas at risk of bank failure.
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
Windstorms were previously considered part of winter storms and are considered separately in the
update to the NHMP. The vulnerability and probability ratings of windstorms has increased with the
update.
The probability assessment of severe weather has been updated in consideration of past occurrences.
The severe weather section includes information on both wind storms and winter storms. The most
common months for severe weather in Southern Oregon are from October to April, which is largely
influenced by deep low pressure areas that form over the Pacific Ocean. The storms are generally larger
events that affect larger geographic areas with impacts that extend beyond Central Point. These events
can produce heavy rains, snow, ice, severe cold and high winds. The impacts of most of the historical
storms listed below were felt in other communities in the Rogue Valley and even other parts of the
State.
Figure 4-11: Pacific Ocean Storm Track The Classic Cyclogenic Bombs
vyy�l
CLASSIC 901M
�8ylllnpdam
CYCLONES WITH
5.
OFFSHORE TRACKS
Qrylgi�t
.
-
dSssg
a�•Toc
DQi4
Qiym¢u
AAtu
a
Ayfaru
1
i
FOX0
pvnlggrntl
ail
tlSinm
05UG
uq.na
Mollh 807 O
11 ryab trIxt AfaAia tarttma!y
Of the 6Ych a GMH.
QMFR
T'.
TMit 41 �vyt i um i11Q p►
m food
payaiply fraCkt,
Stadana pnaraltF In vIa 1ag7t yr{nd
iMM■lona igWlWmy CYe Y
CMIH, YY!n lin 1ry :V to
d
E►R10F%:
from!t1 illnll" v w me Ansts
w I., alMr. w MAIM CQ"rpilyd eo
o4uo" nyar IM $Qw.
I
StWoni Wrvy 0Y nutwo of me n:pA
U !nd %tri y wny• NO -VM, Fvr MAMA%
nyal Nf ivw c"ivl, yo wiH t0
norlrrMal windy wrt ultks.
Source: The Strongest Windstorms in the Western Pacific Northwest 1950-200442
4.11 Wind Hazard Data
The windstorms considered in this chapter are storms with winds great enough to cause damage,
generally in excess of 50 mph. The wind speeds may be reached by sustained winds or gusts, and involve
42 Wolf Read. "The Strongest Windstorms in the Western Pacific Northwest 1950-2004," The Storm icing: The
Cimatology and Meteorvio of Windstorms That Affect the Cascadia Re ion of North America Includin the US.
Pacific Northwest and Southwest British Columbia Canada. 9 September 2004.
<htt s: climate.washin tan.edu storm[cin PNWStormRanics.htmf> (16 January 2020).
straight-line winds, excluding tornadoes. Strong winds can cause trees and limbs to fall and break, down
utility lines, damage buildings directly or from debris, and block transportation.
4.11.1 Location and Extent
Windstorms in Central Point are not as dramatic as those along the Oregon Coast or in the Columbia
Gorge. The predominate wind pattern for destructive winds reaching Central Point is from the
southwest because of storms forming over the Pacific Ocean, then traveling eastward. Some winds blow
from the east, but do not carry the same destructive forces as those from the west. The valley is,
however, susceptible to south winds that travel in the same direction as the mountains, as experienced
during the Columbus Day storm in 1962, which caused wide spread damage throughout the region43 .
Typically, mountainous terrain can slow down wind movement, which is why Central Point has lower
than expected wind hazards than other areas of Oregon. As shown in Figure 4-12, the maximum wind
speed that structures 33 -feet above the ground would experience is about 120 mph.
Figure 4-12: Wind Zone — 2017 Oregon Residential Specialty Code
N., a: V- am 111111
i rLLOMYI
no,
Iiw. i
s XOfIgW � UMtlK
L�OEI 11111GY IW!
kLM,
pN!l11111114 VAT
Lim11IM
OdK1At awY! u!F
iKUM
u All ands %iib full expIMM W i�,Van Minds ihAI lw dc!dpid 135'Q11'etu
h Arc., In HIK*1 Rirer and hIII Elnrnilch CcoWe_v wrrh full ¢xlire to CnIVmhn Rmerf In rye w-li .hull In
A-Alk,toi i 35 111C41aa"a,
. 113 1111th
I l iy3 rti�
IVmph
Source: 2017 Oregon Residential Specialty Code"
Central Point experiences an average of nine (9) thunderstorms annually. Thunderstorms can create
localized wind events by producing downdrafts of rain -cooled air. These downbursts are generated by a
column of sinking air that spreads out rapidly in all directions once it reaches the ground45. The straight -
43 Oregon DLCD, 2015.
44 International Code Council, 2017 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. (Country Club Hills, IL, 2017). 35.
45 Pacific Northwest Windstorm. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Norhtwest_windstorm
line winds from a downburst can produce gusts of 100 mph or greater and the damage may resemble
that caused by a tornado. Unlike winds produced by large low pressure areas off the coast of Oregon,
the damage from downbursts are more localized within Southern Oregon.
4.11.2 History
Windstorms have occurred frequently in Western Oregon, with each decade generally producing one or
two significant events that cause widespread damage. The most recent windstorm was associated with a
strong low pressure system in late November 2019 that produced gusts in excess of 58 mph at the
Medford Airport. The most significant storm in Oregon's recorded history is the 1962 Columbus Day
Storm. This storm produced heavy winds and extensive damage along the Coast, throughout the Rogue
Valley, Portland, and even into Eastern Oregon.
The 2018 Jackson County NHMP46 highlights significant windstorm events, as listed below:
2012 (Dec 16): After a lull in storm activity, a strong cold front brought high winds back to
portions of southern Oregon. 85 mph gusts.
2012 (Dec 19): The stormy pattern continued as another cold front brought high winds to
portions of southern Oregon. Peak gusts of 99 mph in some areas.
2013 (Sept 28): The first strong system of the season brought high winds to portions of southern
Oregon. Average gusts of 75 mph with peak gusts of 92 mph. The Oregon Department of
Transportation reported 8-9 trees down across Oregon Highway 230, 12 trees down across
Oregon Highway 62 and numerous trees down across Oregon Highway 138. Based on all this, it
is assumed that the winds in ORZO27 met high wind warning criteria. Average gusts of 75 mph
with peak gusts of 89 mph.
• 2014 (Feb 15): An incoming front brought high winds to several areas around southern Oregon.
Average gusts between 75-80 mph.
■ 2014 (Mar 5-6): An incoming front brought strong winds to portions of southern Oregon. Peak
gusts of 92 mph.
+ 2014 (Oct 22): A member of the public reported wind gusts estimated at 50-60 mph downed
several trees in the Dark Hollow area southwest of Medford. The tops of two large healthy trees
were broken, one an oak and the other a poplar. No property damage. The high winds lasted
around 45 minutes. Peak gust of 79 mph.
• 2014 (Oct 24-25): A strong front brought high winds to many parts of southwest and south
central Oregon. Peak gusts of 105 mph.
46 Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP, 2018
• 2014 (Dec 10): An incoming front on 12/10/14 brought strong winds to many parts of southern
Oregon and northern California. A rapidly developing low pressure system behind the first front
brought another round of high winds on 12/11/14. Both of these events were covered by a long
duration High Wind Warning. Average gusts of 79 mph with peak gusts of 84 mph.
• 2014 (Dec 11): An incoming front on 12/10/14 brought strong winds to many parts of southern
Oregon and northern California. A rapidly developing low pressure system behind the first front
brought another round of high winds on 12/11/14. Both of these events were covered by a long
duration High Wind Warning. Peak gusts of 117 mph. ODOT reported that a truck was blown
over on Highway 140 near Meridian Road.
• 2015 (Feb 5-6): The Medford Mail Tribune reported numerous trees down across southern
Jackson County. There were power outages due to trees falling across power lines. A falling tree
fell on a house and car in Ashland, damaging both. Peak gust of 124 mph.
• 2015 (Feb 7): The second in a series of fronts brought strong winds to many areas in Southern
Oregon. Peak gusts of 116 mph.
• 2015 (Feb 8-9): The third in a series of fronts brought strong winds to many areas in Southern
Oregon. Peak gusts of 94 mph.
• 2015 (Dec 3): A strong front brought high winds to parts of southwest and south central Oregon.
Peak gusts of 107 mph.
• 2015 (Dec 5-21): A series of 5 distinct windstorm events impacted many regions in Southwest
and south central Oregon. Peak gusts ranged from 76-88 mph.
• 2016 (Jan 16): Another in a series of cold fronts brought high winds to portions of the southern
Oregon coast and the higher terrain of the Cascades and Siskiyous. Peak gusts of 82 mph.
• 2016 (Jan 19): Another in a series of cold fronts brought high winds to portions of the southern
Oregon coast and the higher terrain of the Cascades and Siskiyous. Peak gusts of 102 mph.
• 2016 (Jan 21-22): The -peak gust was 92 mph recorded at 2200 PST. Earlier that evening, strong
winds were reported at Mount Ashland ski park. Kids were blown over in the parking lot. A ski
lift was also closed due to winds. A chaperone stated that this was the first time he has ever
been scared for the safety of skiers and snowboarders at Mount Ashland due to the weather.
• 2016 (Feb 17): One of the last of a series of fronts brought high winds to portions of southwest
and south central Oregon. Peak gust of 79 mph.
• 2016 (Feb 19): The last of a series of fronts brought high winds to portions of southwest and
south central Oregon. Peak gust of 91 mph.
• 2016 (Mar 1): A strong front brought high winds to portions of southwest and south central
Oregon. Peak gust of 87 mph.
• 2016 (Apr 13): Central Point reported a measured gust to 45 mph. A storage shed on the
property was blown apart by the winds. Large branches down. A spotter in Applegate reported 2
inch branches coming off of trees. Winds were estimated gusting to 45 mph. An estimated 998
customers were without power.
• 2019 (Nov 25): A strong low pressure system brought high winds with gusts recorded at
Medford airport of 58 mph. High Wind Warning and Winter Storm Warning combined for areas
of southern Oregon with winds, snow, winter weather, downed trees and power outages.
4.11.3 Probability
Wind speed probabilities for Central Point and Southern Oregon are shown in Table 4-4. Wind speeds
are for structures 33 -feet above the ground with return periods of 25, 50 and 100 years.
Table 4-4: Probability of Severe Wind Events
25 -Year Event 50 -Year Event 100 -Year Event
(4% annual (2% annual (1% annual
probability) probability) probability)
Region 4: 60 mph 70 mph 80 mph
Southwest Oregon (incl. Central Point)
Source: Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation flan (2015)
Based on the available data, the Advisory Committee assessed the probability of experiencing a local
wind storm as "high," meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35 years. This rating has
increased since the previous NHMP.
4.11.4 Vulnerability
While Oregon and the Pacific Northwest are vulnerable to strong cyclone -based windstorms, the
combination of vegetation, climate and terrain serve to increase the impacts of wind -related damages47.
Falling trees can damage buildings, down power lines, block roads and transportation corridors. Trees
are more likely to blow over during the winter when the ground is saturated, the time of year when
windstorms are more likely to occur.
Central Point's location within the central part of the Rogue Valley, away from heavily forested areas,
and the lack of direct impacts from past wind events, the Advisory Committee rated Central Point as
having a "low" vulnerability to windstorm hazards, meaning less than 1% of city population and property
47 Clifford Mass and Brigid Dotson Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington) htt s: journals.ametsoc.or doi full 10.1175 201OMWR3213.1
will be affected by an "average" occurrence of wind storms. This rating has increased since the previous
NHMP.
4.11.5 Community Hazard Issues
Impacts from windstorms include direct and indirect damages to buildings, fallen trees, downed utility
lines, blocked roads and streets, and windborne debris in yards, parks and other areas of the City.
High winds impact buildings with both positive and negative pressures48. Positive pressures are aimed
directly at the structure, pushing on walls, windows and doors. Negative pressures are created by
passing winds that create lift and suction and pulls on building components as it goes by. Wind speeds
also increase with height, creating greater wind loads for taller, multi -story buildings.
Manufactured homes are at risk from direct damages to home and indirect damages when failures occur
from damage sustained to the home's anchoring49. Attachments to the home, such as porches and
carports, increase the risk to manufactured homes by stressing the connections and weakening the
home's ability to withstand wind impacts. In 2019, manufactured homes accounted for 2% of the
housing units in Central Point, special attention should be given to securing these types of structures.
Whereas the risks within Central Point are fairly uniform due to limited topographic relief, the effects of
windstorms can extend beyond city limits. Roads blocked by fallen trees, downed utility lines or other
debris can impact emergency responses and affect travel and commerce throughout the Rogue Valley.
4e Tom Smith, "Wind Safety of the Building Envelope," Whole Building Desijgn Guide. 15 June 2017 <
htt s: www.wbd .or resources wind-safet -Buildin -envelo e>
49 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Understanding and Improving Performance of New Manufactured
Homes During High -Wind Events 2007.
4.12 Winter Storm Hazard Data
Winter storms in Central Point can take many forms and produce various types of precipitation, but generally
include temperatures low enough that snow or sleet occur, or ground temperatures low enough to allow ice
to form and accumulate. The storms start as large cyclonic low-pressure systems that move in from the
Pacific Ocean. These storms are not local events and can affect large portions of Oregon and/or the Pacific
Northwest.
4.12.1 Location and Extent
The National Climate Data Center has established climate zones for areas that have similar temperatures and
precipitation characteristics and Oregon is divided into 9 separate climate zone 50S. As shown in Figure 4-14,
Central Point is located in Zone 3: Southwestern Valleys. Most precipitation in this zone falls from November
to March and the winter months can be marked by snow, ice storms and extreme cold.
Figure 4-13: Oregon Climate Zones
Yir �w
Y'� W(j4C17 RI�'L' z 1
�w 9U1106t Qxl't7✓it �,«
x� z
EnCH ffA rnil;
s unluesn v F xivng s
11w�rs
Source: Oregon Climate Service
."MW W
Z« 0
Snow falls nearly every winter in southwestern Oregon, and the area can experience from 20 to 30 inches per
year. Average snowfall in Central Point is only about 7 -inches annually. There have been 5 years where in
excess of 20 inches of snow fell within the City, with the greatest total, 31 -inches, occurring in the winter of
1955-1956. Over the past 20 years, the average snowfall is only 2.3 -inches. There have been 8 years where
no recorded snowfall occurred.
Central Point also experiences ice accumulation through sleet and freezing rain. Sleet is rain that freezes
before it hits the ground and freezing rain is rain droplets that freeze once they contact a cold surface. For
so George H. Taylor and Alexi Bartlett, "Climate Zone 3: Southwest Interior," in The Climate of Oregon (Corvallis,
Oregon: Oregon State University. Oregon Climate Service. March 1993).
Central Point, ice thickness from a 50-year freezing rain event is approximately 0.25-inches, the point where
damage to utility lines and trees occurssl
4.12.2 History
Winter storms occur yearly in Central Point and are characterized with rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold
temperatures and wind. Snow accumulations are generally low and typically do not cause significant damage;
however, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. The Jackson County NHMPs2
recognizes seven (7) significant winter storm events, as listed below:
• 2012 (Dec 20— Dec 21): A long lasting winter storm occurred during this interval, caused by a
series of closely spaced storms. Trail and Ashland reported 6.5 inches of snow in 24 hours while
Gold Hill reported 5.9 inches in 24 hours. Significant snow was reported in the mountains during
this period, causing numerous highway closures including Interstate 5 through Siskiyou Summit.
• 2013 (Dec 6— Dec 7): A long lasting winter storm occurred during this interval, caused by a
series of closely spaced storms. The communities of Gold Hill, Trail, Eagle Point, Phoenix,
Ashland, Rogue River, Shady Cove, Ruch, White City, Butte Falls and Prospect reported between
3.5 and 14 inches of snow within 24 hours. Multiple vehicle accidents resulting from winter
conditions occurred along Old Highway 99 from Grants Pass to Gold Hill and on Highway 62 from
Medford to Eagle Point.
• 2014 (Jan 11): A strong front brought strong winds and heavy snow to portions of the southern
Oregon Cascades.
• 2015 (Nov 24 — Nov 25): The first big winter storm of the season brought heavy snow to some
locations in southern Oregon.
■ 2015 (Dec 12 — Dec 13): A series of systems brought heavy precipitation to southern Oregon.
The communities of Applegate, Phoenix, Medford, Ashland and Butte Falls reported between 3
and 9 inches of snow within 24 hours. Numerous power outages were reported around the
county and area roads were closed due to snow and fallen trees.
• 2015 (Dec 21— Dec 24): A series of storms made for a long lasting winter storm over southwest
and south central Oregon. At first, the snow was limited to higher elevations but lowered with
time to some of the west side valley floors.
• 2016-2017 (Dec. -Jan): A series of storms impacted the Rogue Valley including high winds, ice,
freezing temperatures, and snow accumulation of 12-24 inches in parts of the valley floor.
si American Lifelines Alliance. (2004). Extreme ice Thicknesses from Freezing Rain. Retrieved from
http://americanlifelinesailiance.com
52 Jackson County Emergency Management, Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2018
4.12.3 Probability
From the Jackson County NHMP:
The recurrence interval for a moderate to severe winter storm is about once every year;
however, there can be many localized storms between these periods. Severe winter storms
occur in western Oregon regularly from November through February. Jackson County
experiences winter storms a couple times every year, to every other year (2018 )51.
Based on the available data and research, the Advisory Committee determined the probability of
experiencing a winter storm in Central Point is "high," meaning one incident is likely with the next 10 to 35
years period. This rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
4.12.4 Vulnerability
The most likely impacts to Central Point from winter storms are road closures limiting access to/from some
areas, especially roads to higher elevations, power outages from downed transmission lines, and damages to
structures from tree falls. Central Point's location at lower elevation and the limited number of events
directly impacting the City, the Advisory Committee rated Central Point as having a "low" vulnerability to
winter storm hazards, meaning less than 1% of city population and property will be affected by an
"average" occurrence of winter storms. This rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
4.12.5 Community Hazard Issues
The damaging effects of winter storms extend beyond the limits of Central Point and have impacts for
the entire region. The closure or delays along the 1-5 corridor can adversely impact the economy locally,
regionally and statewide.
Additional hazard risks are examined in the Jackson County NHMP:
Winter storms which bring snow, ice and high winds can cause significant impacts on life and
property. Many severe winter storm deaths occur as a result of traffic accidents on icy roads,
heart attacks may occur from exertion while shoveling snow and hypothermia from
prolonged exposure to the cold. The temporary loss of home heating can be particularly hard
on the elderly, young children and other vulnerable individuals.
Property is at risk due to flooding and landslides that may result if there is a heavy snowmelt.
Additionally, ice, wind and snow can affect the stability of trees, power and telephone lines
and TV and radio antennas. Downed trees and limbs can become major hazards for houses,
cars, utilities and other property. Such damage in turn can become major obstacles to
providing critical emergency response, police, fire and other disaster recovery services.
Severe winter weather also can cause the temporary closure of key roads and highways, air
and train operations, businesses, schools, government offices and other important
community services. Below freezing temperatures can also lead to breaks in un -insulated
water lines serving schools, businesses, industries and individual homes. All of these effects,
if lasting more than several days, can create significant economic impacts for the affected
"Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP (2018).
communities and the surrounding region. In the rural areas of Oregon severe winter storms
can isolate small communities, farms and ranches (2018)54.
"Jackson County Emergency Management, NHMP (2018)
4.13 Volcano
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
This section was expanded to include vulnerability and has also been reformatted.
The eastern boundary of Jackson County is along the crest of the Cascade Mountains, which run from
British Columbia into northern California. The mountain chain contains more than a dozen volcanoes
and hundreds of smaller volcanic features. In the past 200 years, seven of the volcanoes in the Cascades
have erupted, including Mt. Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt. Rainier, Mount St. Helens, Mt. Hood, Mt. Shasta
and Mt. Lassen. The most recent eruption occurred on Mount St. Helens in 1980.
4.13.1 Location and Extent
According to the Oregon NHMP,
Southwest Oregon communities are close to several prominent volcanic peaks, one of which is a
national park (Crater Lake). The other peaks include Mount Bailey (elevation 8,363 ft.), Mount
Thielsen (9,182 ft.), and Mount McLaughlin (9,495 ft.). Of the three, Crater Lake (6,178 ft.) may
pose the greatest risk. It is a caldera and the remnant of a mountain (Mount Mazama) that
probably had an elevation between 10,800 and 12,000 ft. The massive eruption, which produced
the caldera, took place about 7,700 years ago. The long history at Mount Mazama strongly
suggests that this volcanic center will be active in the future (Bacon, Mastin, Scott, & Nathenson,
1997). The presence of the lake means that any future eruption likely will be violent; there are
many examples of explosive activity brought about by magma coming into contact with water
(2015)"5
Populations living near volcanoes are most vulnerable to volcanic eruptions and lava flows. The primary
danger around a volcano is generally within a 20 -mile radius; although, large explosive eruptions can
endanger people and property hundreds of miles away, primarily through ash fallout. Given the distance
to potentially active volcanoes in the Cascades, the risks to Central Point would primarily be through
secondary impacts of ash fallout that could contaminate the water supply, cause electrical storms,
create health problems and collapse roofs.
4.13.2 History
According to the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan:
Over the past 4,000 years in Oregon - a geologically short time period - there have been three
eruptions of Mt. Hood, four eruptions in the Three Sisters area, two eruptions in the Newberry
Volcano area and minor eruptions near Mt. Jefferson, at Blue Lake Crater, in the Sand Mountain
Field, near Mt. Washington, and near Belknap Crater. During this time period, the most active
volcano in the Cascades has been Mount St. Helens in Washington State with about 14
eruptions (2011 )56.
There has been no recent volcanic activity near Central Point.
ss Oregon DLCD, 2015
56 City of Central Point, 2011
4.13.3 Probability
The probability of a volcanic eruption is based on past activity at a specific volcano. Monitoring can
determine the frequency, magnitude and type of eruptions that have occurred, as well as, the current
background level of activity. Changes in activity at a volcano can forewarn of an upcoming event. The
1980 eruption on Mount St. Helens was preceded by a period of small earthquakes.
As described in the 2015 Oregon NHMP, return periods for ashfall from the Cascade Range are
estimated by the USGS and shown in the map below, Figure 4-14. These maps predominantly reflect
volcanic eruptions at Mount St. Helens, with 1 in 3 probability, because this volcano is much more active
than the other volcanoes in the Cascades. Mount Rainier and Mount Hood are in the 1 in 15 probability
range. These maps also show other mountains that are closer to Central Point. The map indicates an
annual probability of approximately 0.01 -percent for accumulation of 1 centimeter (about 0.4 inch) or
more of volcanic ash.
The Advisory Committee assessed the probability of experiencing a volcano hazard in Central Point a
"low" probability, meaning one incident is likely within the next 75 to 100 years. This rating has not
changed since the previous NHMP.
Figure 4-14: Probability of Accumulation of 1 Centimeter (0.4 inch) or more of tephra from
eruptions of Volcanoes in the Cascade Range.
Mount baker WASI.IINGTON.
" ^t plailer Ptak -
l
i
„IlOOMRaider
AIOU>tlal. Helone1
-1*16 • .Mount Adem6
1%
(YIZf CiL1N j
02%
,KW n1 Hood
01%
L - 7HoontjVeISO n
}
002%
�.
� .7hrct5laiera
• . Nawharry.Voleano
001%
Ins Man
+
001%
Crater Lake
4
i
(ALK-'ORNIA .Madf4lnelak
1L ' Mount ah 6614 i 0 r[Q�XO IOLOWTERS
1 � —
MOWS
Source: USGS Open -File Report 98-428 (1998)57
51 Hoblitt, R.P., et.al. 1998. Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington, Revised 1998: U.S. Geological Survey
Open -File Report 98-428 Map Plate 2
4.13.4 Vulnerability
Based on the available information, the Advisory Committee rated Central Point as having a "low"
vulnerability to volcanic hazard, meaning that less than 1% of the City's population or assets would be
affected by a major disaster. This rating has not changed since the previous NHMP.
4.13.5 Community Hazard Issues
There are no active volcanoes located in Jackson County, and Central Point is far enough from active
volcano areas to not be at risk from lava flows. Impacts to Central Point are primarily through secondary
impacts from ash fallout. Though unlikely, the impacts could be significant to the local water supply,
create health problems and collapse roofs of vulnerable structures. There is currently no analysis to
determine the numbers and types of buildings, including critical facilities, in the City that would be
vulnerable to a volcanic eruption.
4.14 Wildfires
Significant Changes since Previous NHMP:
A significant wildfire event within City limits occurred since the previous NHMP.
Jackson County and Josephine County completed a joint Community Wildfire Protection Plan that
updated the limits of the Wildland-Urban Interface in both counties.
Wildfires, also referred to as wildland fires or forest fires, are uncontrolled fires where vegetation,
including grasses, brush and trees, are the primary fuels of the fire. These fires become a risk when
development encroaches into wildland area. The increase of development into the interface, or the
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), results in greater wildfire risks through limited services like water
supplies and suppression capabilities, as well as other factors like the absence of fire -safe construction
practices and limited access to/from high-risk areas.
Fires may be started by natural causes, such as lightning, or human causes, either intentionally or
unintentionally. Once started, there are three (3) main factors that contribute to fire behavior, including
vegetation/fuel loads, weather and topography.
Fuel is the material that feeds a fire and is classified by volume and type. Certain types of plants
are more susceptible to burning or will burn with greater intensity. Fire intensity can increase
with the abundance of dense or overgrown vegetation, a higher ratio of dead plant matter
compared to living vegetation, and the amount of moisture content found in the vegetation.
■ Topography influences the movement of air and directs a fire's course. Steeper slopes can
increase the spread as warm air currents travel uphill.
■ Weather is the most variable factor. Temperature, humidity, wind and lightning can affect
chances for ignition and spread of fire. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low
humidity, can lead to extreme wildfire activity.
4.14.1 Location and Extent
Areas with the greatest risk to experience loss from a wildfire are the areas where development and
structures encroach into wildlands that are prone to wildfires. Central Point was originally thought to be
outside of a WUI, as reflected in the low level of risk identified in the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan.
In 2017, Jackson and Josephine Counties completed a joint Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
that updated the WUI for both counties in the RVIFP, 201758. The CWPP process is designed to identify
and prioritize areas for wildfire prevention and response efforts. The updated the WUI is shown in
Figure 4-15.
" Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Pian, (2017).
Figure 4-15: RVIFP Wildland Urban Interface
Source: Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2017
The updated WUI includes many urban and densely populated areas within Jackson and Josephine
Counties. As noted in the 2017 RVIFP:
Though many non -vegetated expanses do exist within metropolitan areas (shopping malls,
roads, parking lots, downtown sections, municipal and urban buildings, etc.) the vast majority of
Rogue Valley metropolitan areas and urban structures are located within % mile or less of
wildland areas. Wildfires create airborne burning embers that can travel % mile or more from
the fire. Structures, particularly those closely -spaced, as found in urban settings, are extremely
vulnerable to ignitions from burning embers, and the spot fires created by burning embers
(2017)59
Through the CWPP process, the Counties and the work group could define a WUI based on zoning and
focus fuel treatments where people live, or are likely to live. The mix of public and privately -owned
wildlands can make meaningful mitigation difficult. As the 2017 RVIFP notes: "To provide sufficient fire
protection for the population center, it is essential for wildfire planning efforts to include metropolitan
areas within the WUI boundaries, to ensure adequate suppression resources are available."(2017)60
In July of 2018, a fast-moving grass fire started along the Bear Creek Greenway near the east side of
Central Point. The wildfire, named the Peninger Fire, started near Jackson County Expo property, burned
along the greenway before it rapidly moved east along Peninger, Biddle and Hamrick Roads. Figure 4-16
59 Rogue Val ley Inte rated Com munit Wildfire Protection Plan (2017).
"Ro ue Va Iley Integrated Comm unit Wildfire Protection Plan (2017).
shows the fire's path that burned approximately 97 acres, singed 3 homes, destroyed 5 outbuildings and
damaged another outbuilding61
Figure 4-16: Peninger Fire Map
�f
Source: The Wild Coast Compass62
Outside Central Point city limits, Jackson County has experienced a large number of wildfires throughout
history. As part of the RVIFP, the CWPP examined fire history from 1992-2016 for Jackson and Josephine
Counties. Using data from the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF), there were an average of 296 wildfires per year, with an average of 7,808 acres burned63. As
shown in Figure 4-17, the numbers of wildfires ranged from 186 to 598 per year.
Figure 4-17: Wildfires Report in Jackson and Josephine Counties
Source: RVIFP (2017)
" Nick Morgan, "Body Found in Burned Area of Central Point Fire," Mail Tribune, 19 July 2018.
62 The Wild Coast Compass, www.wildcoastcomr)ass.com
63 Rogue Valley Inte rated Com munity Wildfire Protection Plan, (2017).
Despite the large number of fires ignited annually, only a small portion of those reached 36 acres or
greater (about 64 fires since 1992) showing that most fires are successfully suppressed after the initial
attack. As noted in the 2018 Jackson County NHMP, the majority of fires are started along travel
corridors and the edges of urban areas; however, the fires that grow to burn a large number of acres are
located near more remote areas (see Figure 4-18).
Figure 4-18: Large Fires (>= 36 acres) Fire Occurrence (1992-2015)
Source: RVIFP (2017)
4.14.3 Probability
According to the 2018 Jackson County NHMP,
Certain conditions must be present for significant interface fires to occur. The most common are
hot, dry and windy weather; the inability of fire protection forces to contain or suppress the fire;
the occurrence of multiple fires that overwhelm committed resources; and a large fuel load
(dense vegetation). Once a fire has started, several conditions influence its behavior, including
fuel, topography, weather, drought and development. Many of these conditions are
demonstrated across large areas within Jackson County, creating a significant collective risk
(2018).64
The Advisory Committee assessed the probability of experiencing a wildfire hazard in Central Point a
"high" probability, meaning one incident is likely with the next 10-35 years. Based on the available
information, the Oregon NHMP Regional Risk Assessment supports this probability rating for Central
Point. This rating has increased since the previous NHMP.
4.14.4 Vulnerability
The Advisory Committee rated Central Point as having a "moderate" vulnerability to wildfire hazard,
meaning that between 1-10% of the City's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster.
This rating is an increase since the previous NHMP.
64 Jackson County Emergency Management, Jackson Countv Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan,
2018
4.14.5 Community Hazard Issues
Southern Oregon, including Central Point and the surrounding areas of Jackson County, are identified in
the 2015 Oregon NHMP as one of the regions in the state most susceptible to wildfires. This
vulnerability assessment is the result of a high percentage of wildland acres subject to fire risk, smaller
communities within the WUI, high summer temperatures, rugged terrain and the likelihood of summer
thunderstorm activity (Oregon DLCD, 2015)15
Ignition sources are generally concentrated along travel corridors and at the edges of urban areas (RVIFP
2017)66. Debris -burning, equipment use and even arson contribute to wildlife ignition sources. Central
Point in bounded by rural areas on the west and north. There are several travel corridors that connect
the City to these areas, and north -south stream corridors, including the Bear Creek Greenway (the origin
of the 2018 Peninger Fire) that connect the City to the WUI and sources of wildland fires.
As noted above, metro areas within %-mile of wildlands are vulnerable to risks of wildfires. Areas of
Central Point within %-mile of wildlands, including the Bear Creek Greenway and the "metro edge" are
shown in Figure 4-19. There are approximately 1,170 residences within %-mile of the Bear Creek
Greenway, 1,970 residences within %-mile of the "metro edge" along the north and west sides of the
City. There are several critical facilities within the wildfire risk area, including the new Scenic Fire Station
along Scenic Avenue.
61 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
2015.
66 Rogue Valley integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan, (2017).
Figure 4-19: Central Point Wildfire Risk Areas
Source: Central Point Planning Department
CENTRAL
POINT
Wildland Urban Interface
— — — City Limits
Bear Creek Greenway
Prop. w/in 114 mile Greenway
Prop_ Min 1/4 mile N & W
1.000 2,000 4,000
Feet
The expected increase in population necessitates the expansion of City limits, and ultimately, urban -type
development and densities into current rural areas. Areas proposed for growth, to the west and north of
the current City boundaries (see Figure 4-20), are also areas currently within a certain level of risk for
wildfires. While densities will increase in these areas, services and responses, such as access routes,
emergency response from the new fire station, and water supplies, will increase commensurately. It is
anticipated that the level of risk to wildfires will stay the same in these areas.
Figure 4-20: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Legend
i
V
1
�.•.ri ,� 1'.Y
Proposed UGB Tax Lots :+\ w•
�q d
d UGB Amendment
1
ITr•• r '+
L..1 Urban Growth Boundary !•may ��. �S_e
• +City Limits .,.. t.•
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
CENTRAL Proposed UGB Areas
POINT
Source: Central Point Planning Department
5 Mitigation Strategy
44 CFR §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint
for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies,
programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to
reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a
comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of
each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure
44 CFR §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the
actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local
jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized
according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
5.1 Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to identify a strategy to reduce impacts and potential losses identified in
the City's risk assessment (See Chapter 4). Reducing the vulnerability to disasters and enhancing the
capability of the City and its citizens to respond effectively and recover quickly, makes the City more
disaster resistant and disaster resilient. As part of the 2020 plan update, the goals and objectives from
the 2011 plan were revisited, reaffirmed and refined. The updated plan reflects the updated risk
assessment and the City's progress in mitigation efforts.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan is to:
Facilitate and support policies, practices and programs that make Central Point more disaster
resistant and disaster resilient.
The Advisory Committee reviewed the mission statement from the 2011 plan and agreed that it
continues to support the purpose and intent of the updated plan. The mission statement was refreshed
and stated as shown above.
5.3 Mitigation Plan Goals
The mitigation plan goals guide future policies and activities aimed at reducing risk and preventing loss
from natural disasters. The goals listed here also explain what the City aims to achieve with the Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP).
As part of the 2020 updated plan, the Advisory Committee reviewed the 2011 plan goals in comparison
to the Oregon NHMP goals and determined that minor revisions would align with the existing goals the
State's mitigation plan goals.
Goal 1: Protect Life Safety
Protect life and reduce injuries resulting from natural hazards.
Goal 2: Protect Property
Identify buildings and infrastructure at risk from natural hazards, determine cost effective
mitigation actions, implement measures to mitigate risks and ensure that all new and reconstructed
buildings and infrastructure are designed to minimize damages in future disasters.
Goal 3: Enhance Emergency Response
Enhance emergency planning to facilitate effective response and recovery from future disaster
events.
Goal 4: Improve Education and Outreach
Improve public awareness of the risks from natural hazards by providing information on resources,
tools, partnership opportunities and funding sources to assist the community in implementing
mitigation activities.
Goal 5: Enhance Partnerships
Develop and enhance partnerships with public agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses,
industry and the general population to mitigate natural hazards.
Goal 6: Integrate Natural Resources Protection
Balance natural resources management, land use planning and natural hazard mitigation to
rehabilitate, restore and protect natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions.
Goal 7: Pursue Funding for Mitigation Activities
Continue to seek federal, state and local funds and increase the funding amounts dedicated to
implementing affordable natural hazard mitigation strategies.
5.4 Mitigation Actions
Mitigation actions are the specific projects and activities designed and implemented to reduce the
effects of natural hazards on Central Point. Losses from hazards can be reduced if preemptive
construction action is taken before a disaster strikes. Each action item helps the City achieve the
mitigation plan goals by reducing vulnerability to disasters and their negative impacts, and enhancing
the capability of the City to respond and recover quickly from future disasters.
5.4.1 Development
Action items were developed to address the vulnerabilities and risks from each hazard Central Point.
The Advisory Committee started with the action items developed during the previous NHMP planning
process, and considered new options as the action plan was reviewed and analyzed in comparison to the
mission, goals and updated risk assessment. In order to assure a comprehensive range of actions,
specific items were developed for each hazard.
All mitigation action items were identified in relation to the goals and objectives above and included a
range of options in line with the six types of mitigation actions described in FEMA guidance67, including:
Prevention: Government, administrative or regulatory actions or processes that influence the
way land and buildings are developed and built. These actions also include public activities to
reduce hazard losses. Examples include planning and zoning, floodplain regulations, capital
improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations.
67 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Developing the Mitigation Plan. 2003, 2-1
• Property Protection: Actions that involve either the modification of existing buildings or
structures to protect them from a hazard or the removal of structures from hazard areas.
Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and
shatter -resistant glass.
• Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and
property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include
outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and school-age and adult
education programs.
it Natural Resource Protection: Actions that minimize hazard loss and also preserve or restore the
functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control, stream
corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland
restoration and preservation.
• Emergency Service: Actions that protect people and property, during and immediately following
a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response services, and
the protection of essential facilities.
• Structural Projects: Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a
hazard. Such structures include dams, setback levees, floodwalls, retaining walls, and safe
rooms.
5.4.2 Process
Once a list of mitigation actions was developed, the Advisory Committee evaluated and prioritized the
items that are most suitable for Central Point to implement (refer to Table 5.2).
5.4.2.1 Benefit -Cost Review
FEMA requires that the prioritization of mitigation action items include a review of the benefits versus
the costs68. Central Point utilized benefit -cost analysis to prioritize mitigation action items by evaluating
available resources compared to the expected costs and the relative effectiveness of the action item.
The comparison of the benefits versus the costs associated with each mitigation action item followed a
Simple Listing process where the advantage of each action was compared to any disadvantages. An
evaluation through the Simple Listing process assigns a priority for each action based on criteria
determined by the Advisory Committee. This process was selected because not all costs are monetary,
the benefits and costs may not be easy to quantify, and costs may change for long-term projects that are
not implemented for up to 10 years.
5.4.2.2 Evaluation Criteria
The Advisory Committee recognized the regulatory requirement to prioritize the action items by benefit -
cost review to ensure cost-effective solutions. They also chose to focus on mitigating specific hazards,
"Federal Emergency Management Agency. Local Mi#i anon Plannin Handbook 2013. 5-1
achieve the goals and objectives of the Plan, balance the timing of implementation, and estimate costs
for overall prioritization.
5.4.2.2.1 Timeline
Each action developed for this plan contains a timeline for implementation, including both short-term
and long-term activities. The parameters for the timeline are as follows:
• Ongoing: Currently being funded and implemented under existing programs.
• Short -Term: To be completed in 1 to 3 years.
• Long -Term: To be completed in greater than 3 years.
5.4.2.2.2 Estimated Cost
Where possible, an estimate of the cost for implementing the action is included. Cost review and
estimates does not include the level of detail necessary for grant eligibility because the costs for long-
term projects could change dramatically by the time they are implemented.
The next step in the evaluation was item prioritization in order to clarify the importance of these
mitigation actions. The Advisory Committee developed a prioritization ranking to identify the actions
that are most achievable, has resource availability, and is considered a high leverage activity. The
parameters for priority are as follows:
High Priority: A project that meets multiple plan goals and objectives, benefits exceed costs, has
secured funding under existing programs, and can be completed in short-term time period.
Medium Priority: A project that meets at least one goal and/or objective, benefits exceed costs,
funding is not secured or would require special funding, and can be completed within 5 years
once funding is secure.
Low Priority: A project that will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has
not been secured, and/or the timeline for completion is considered long-term.
5.5 Progress/Updates to Previous Actions
As part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan update, the Advisory Committee reviewed and evaluated the
mitigation strategy from the 2011 plan to determine the status of the actions. The purpose of this was
to determine which actions were completed and determine which of the remaining actions, if any,
should be continued, revised or removed from the plan. Table 5.1 shows action items from the 2011
plan that have been completed.
Table 5.1: Completed Mitigation Action Items from 2011 Plan
Central Point Public Works
infrastructure in Central Point that
are at risk for one or more natural
hazards and implement mitigation
measures as resources become
available.
Evaluate the seismic vulnerability of
Earthquake critical city -owned buildings and
establish priorities to retrofit or
replace vulnerable buildings.
Flood Complete a Stormwater Master Plan
for the City
I
Complete an outreach strategy for
Flood the community in accordance with
CRS procedures
Formalize the City's Community
Severe Weather Forestry Program to organize tree
management efforts
Severe Weather Require new developments to
include undergrounded power lines
with other agencies to
identify and map critical
facilities and infrastructure
within the City.
Critical facilities screened as
Completed part of DOGAMI Rapid Visual
Screening. No city -owned
buildings are at seismic risk.
The Stormwater Master Plan
is completed, identifies
Completed problem areas and
incorporates the Griffin Creek
Mitigation Plan.
The outreach program is
Completed completed and ongoing to
maintain compliance with
CRS.
The City is recognized as a
Completed "Tree City USA" for the
formalized tree program.
As part of project approval
Completed and development,
underground power lines are
required.
5.5.1 NFIP Compliance
An important aspect of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify and implement mitigation
actions that maintain consistency and compliance with existing efforts and requirements. Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were first published for the City in 1980 and Central Point began
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1982. The FIRM for Central Point was
updated to include flood hazard information based on a flood study conducted by FEMA in partnership
with the City. The changes to the FIRM became effective on May 3, 2011.
As a participating community in the NFIP, Central Point maintains a floodplain management program
that supports community resiliency through preventive and corrective measures. Program activities
include education and outreach, flood protection assistance, drainage system maintenance, open space
preservation, higher regulatory standards that exceed minimum FEMA standards, and hazard mitigation
planning. The program is administered by three (3) Certified Floodplain Managers (CFM) in the Planning
and Public Works Department that review permits for development in the floodplain, inspect
development projects, and ensure the drainage system is maintained and cleared of obstructions.
Central Point also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS), which provides additional benefits
to residents through the City's flood protection measures. As of October 2019, Central Point was listed
as a Class 6 community in the CRS Program due to the robust floodplain program that is in good standing
with FEMA and CRS reviewers.
5.5.2 Updated Mitigation Action Plan
Action items identified and prioritized during the development of the NHMP are outlined in Table 5.2,
including a description of the action item, the timeframe for implementation, the Coordinating
Organizations responsible for implementation, the priority for the action, and the plan goals the action
is linked to.
r
V1
In
W
Or
In
--i Ln
Xk m
In
Ik m
C
~
N
~ M
O=
W 3
N 3 O
~ 3 O
N
C
=
d
O C d 7 0
(D D(
a O
U
v-
J 7
•o n m
7 n
an
3 7
any
Ji o a� n 7
J • a �. n
3 a
w (1 -0 C
z g c n$
w rD n O- m
o
J w
a m
W
o v
3 (D w m
o c n
(D J O
c
a
D^ aJNo < n ^,
m o°
m m
a° c N �.
o- a J
oq
< E
c
w a
c m
o 3 N
3' 3' m
3 n
w
o
to c C m<
7 N d i t/i
C J 3<
m m
3
m N 61
VIS
°:
O
7
3
-. J
•�. n
N
S
o
1D (M
C
a�
W (D
JC
M
�_ m v v a n
m 3 a
Dr
m 6: T
m
m
s o
_3 m
0,
o
tD C
a a 3 a
D'
3
a
K
m m D
O a
2
d o✓ a
m o' v
°
m j
°° aN C
-
N n^
O m <
COO �•
rD N-0
7 m N
-
n
.+• m
c
3=
N 7
O DJ (D
7
O N
J rD O.
3.
0.
3 <
DJ O m
3 c
Q' 7
0-
<�o 0 3
in7 C .t O-0
m
3
a o
7 C
m
J
a
n n N
3 v
(D
j J m m O
O
m S d
7 J F c S
< m H m
N
- n
m
N N
O! 7
C O
7 C
N m d
C 7
C< n J
7 Q
v _
.moi
m N
J v M c
3 H
7
n
<. M J
(D
o
A S J �' D,
o <
o m 'n K 0
0°
a
m n c
° m O 7
fD N O_
rD
— C N N Cn
-
-
OD On
0 D N °'
N 3 m
to
_d
S .J-' .+
- J v a'
N r
3
7 n
n m D, Dl
(Do
N
(p
7 LD.
,.., m Di N
O m 0
ON ; Q N
m
p
M 3 rr; of
3< 7 0
on 3�•
.. nN
J
d o J O
,7»
U
ro' 0 N Q
rD
C m 3
O
J ? (D
DQ•
K
M.
0 y D N
rD j
00
d
J n
n
o- -
(p
n m
_�.
7
DD
�
N
N
O
J
w
Vl
N
O
J
O
J
N
d
N
O
�
04
(D
d
N
DJ
O
3
DQ
O
j•
DQ
p p n
v
p p n
p n v
p n
p n
m<�
p�
<. v
�r<D 3
3
6
nC
�: r<D 3
b 3
r<D 3�
3 �CC.
< 3
3
3 L
3 �.
o. �.
0' 0
v C
3 J-
3
G
O
o
7 C
7
3-
0
C
'� 7 G
3 0
0
C
0 7
3-
0
C G
- J C
3 -• o
7
o
m-
'<
`
?
K
T
rD N
W
W
q'
LA
N W
a
(n
n
n n
7
OD
J
lm
K J
111 an
C
a
a�
m
v
�
nr
of
�
v
a
0 1
3
m
^ 3
rD
3
m
3
3
3
3
co
m
m
m
m
p
CD
M
2
00
=
�
m
n
o
0
m
m
n
m m
n
m
n
3
3
3
x
3
x
j
Prot
Err
EdL
Part
D-
X
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
(AD O
0 v
(AD O
O
O
O
O
2 M r
m n
p D^i
n^i
d
_
a
_
D^i
-
Gl O
C T
n C
C T
C
T
T
T
C T
f7
M J
Vt 7
m 7
m
V1
C
J
n
C
a
C
n
C
C
n
C
:^ n
�'1 OQ
0
7J UO
7
Ou
m
7
DQ
m
J
04
m
J
00
m
7
p OD
�
p
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
c
G)
3
N
N
m
N
-{ mm rD Or aN T r
nl 7 7 ° O J
3� 3 3 a v 3 as
m
�'m o° o w 3 o o< n O
ro d cL 5w m o a n_ -° DD o o MID CL
• a
CL o ° n K aJa n o °° m < °° < m 3 3 3 mEi- M
.*. a� r' m 7 D D D c
n CT 0 o n ^. RDF o F m .7+ f D c n a
5-0 `n (D d x T Dl W 3 M OS N N 7
J
ID .�. j 1n S O D_ n O J a S N :e N
J O O Dl °° Q< J' m n m rD J
S d .. N O d Q N N * a o m O_ .Z1 .O 3 rl
3 o N? d o < o 3 wo o 3. m
0 =t0 < o
rDQ C W-< .Dl. .�* a .�. N O N N C
a w C O J O ;a m CL
C M= m
m
3
-09
0— 2 m a x w 3 EP a �. o N m 0--a
J r J w_ _. m - F C d OA O m ri d
m O �^ p' ^ .^i v7i n to O In Dl 01 m n m
O< ID 7 7 C 0 7 7 r<D 7 O_ O J °
J 3 00
J C 7D d 7 G -, rD 3 "O
-< rD O n 3 D m + n 7 M C 3 C
O C S cr
O DD. m d
rD
C ° m 0 C n rD c
W 7 N 7 n
N J 3 N m 070 �• O O ° rDG •G o� i
O 3 m N n 'Y m 00 Q J 0 O m
cm
O v V p'
CL A W N
0 on
O 3 _O
J
GQ
O
CD °°
O. C
7 J
rD
ri
m
Ol
n
N
rD
Ol
O
7
o
J
DO
w
Ln
m
01
N
p n Q v O p v D n O n D n O n
° fp 0• ^. < c. c<
p n
p p n
m o
r<D 3 rD* r. v
N rD
5 c 3
7 m 3 a
�'
< 3
m
<
3
o < n
O O 3 OS
3
3
O,
3 7 O 31 3K G
CL
.� 2 7. <_
7
7
7 U 7
J O V1 M m V1 F
C •G
N m< is
m .�
m <.
=1
N
N
rl
7
O_
Con
rDS N Do n' S
O' 3 m •* C O
00 N
DD N
T 7
w
co
C
'O O O m
n fD J -
J
J
D
DO
w
Ll
O
m
co
p
v
7
c
ccr^
+
Ln
.�.
3' 3
o
w
ID
CL m
D<, < m o
p
p
0
p o
J
-{
3
3
E-
ID m
N
o0
m
m
x x x x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
x x x x
x x
x
x x
x
2 041'DC�l
On
d(D
D °
d
OD
n C
c T
J
m 7
c
N
N
rl
7
O_
7
CL
T 7
DQ
T 7
w
m
00
x rm
D
D
w
w
Ll
O
m
m
v
c
c
=
W
ID
G)
r
j
O N O 7 m - O S
r
W i N j
T
m 0 p
F 3 w
F 3��
3 w b oa
�' 3 �?
r 3 a
mm
7 Z]
m
n L+ m
n.
m C
^ n 0y4
C O ? O 7 3
^'
- =
7
CL
^
d Q A
ID
�
fD 7 7 d N
�,
N p O
f D
rD
S i
o'
m o, I rrD � a %°
^ d 7 O m N m
� �
-9 O S
O D
rD o o
N D
o a 3 F, rp n i 4
° 3 m
o
3 O
CL
m m
3
a 2
7 C
3 o c -' ro c m
r N-0 m 7 O_ m
7
173
C
m
7
d
S m
l' m 7
7 O n 3 m
m N m w .`�+
3 C Q
rD d m
ID m
N
f0. N N L l
K
�'
N
d O4 7
3O
l
m
7 N
N. �• o
LT O O C< m m 7
O
O O
4�j °
NO
S
O O pq'
N aq
a N
m O_ N 3 N O_
3 N 6 6 3
d
3
fD T. C
N
m S
ra. N Ex
C
d ° K m N
0
r�Y
N d
CL
N m
C
N
a s
O cm n S 7 ,a
:3
7
o m m
° m
cum a° 3 m _3 m
° D °
m
n-
N N
o
n a4
N
n K
° 7 U 0° 7 7
v, a.*
S-
O A
C
`" N
m 3 3 0, a w m
O
o m
3 m
ro
or U, 3 '-'
7
O
rano
3
0' c *1
rro mrD
o
—
•�
7
K 5M
O
D
O
W W
Ln Ln
W
Vl
p
7
O
04
a74
O
N
4 N
n
N
d
a4
O
3
aq
„
D
q o n
rD 3
v o n v o n o o n T
a g 0< < 6
v
v
m 3
.N. 3
o
a 3
_3
7, 0 3 n N o 3
0 3 3
..
r^
w c
3'-
v c* 1, c
7
'o c
7-•0
0
3 6 3'•rn3
m is r <
m
w
-
T
-
D
p
7
T
c
Q
n
N
n
D-
o O
O_
�
o
-<
N
n�
N O
lin N
m
o
-O <
7
N
O2.
j
m Q
_
1
O
m
n
C
4)
m
m o
o
a
C
�
r
a
n
o o
ma
c
q
i F 3'
3
3
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x ,
X
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
i
x
x
O
n
O
n
r ° r r
o
r
m o
f ,
y r
m o
C
C
o_
T C T
o d
C m
p d
C
7
O_
7
O_
C
ID C
7 m 7
Q N 0-
fl C
m 7
N Q
n C
m 7
N d
(TQT
7
O aq
T 7
p aq
� 7
D a4
N
N
N
O
c
m
O
c
M
°
c
^
m
O
m
w
r
O d O r o
N O L fD 3 A
3
O N N 7
3 Q
ID YC N O O
r
U rD O
N
IL rD
o
IL ro
N
<
3� Nn
_ 3 14 c
F 3 04
m
C T
3 c
3�
N 3 R
O d
C
3 a
71
rD
C
rD C C
a a
a
a
H 7 3
a a
NC
(D
° 3
rD
�
a n
0(Dv
.+ a °1 �^
V >
A ;)op
n
6 m
v
C
N
rD
_a d
r.
'Y
N
fD rD a 0
x
Vi l
0
S C
N
3
3
N
C U �+
3
3 0
�. p
d C
O
p<rD
rD
D a fD
O O
r°D rD
ro D
rD °
rD
3. £
o c
rD CL
m o
' a
v<
0 O
-O
S
rD 3 v
v
3 rD
- O
v a w
°qD
C) D
c D
S v
M-
M 7C
DD
0
W
;
a s
o
pp
O
.�. rD
3
3
n
rD O rD
*
N N
3 7
rD v+
N a rr
rD n
a M
rn
g
3 0' 3
CL 0 0
n.
m
3-
a o 0
m< 3
3 '"
N w 5' 3
nro
3
rD Di
0
S
A
o
3
<
C
a n d
"
rD rD
CL
CL
0 D°
]
o
n 0 a
rD
2 D
rD
l0 N
r�
p f0
N
r�
.n+ fi
3 n
<
O
0 rD
O ,�. 0
vi
0 3
n
3
3
a'a N
3
n
DrD
'DD =O
pOq
fD n
••. �.
w
CL
Da
Qac
�.s�'
0 m
oa
3 DO
a rD
3 `r
C
S to -O
N
3 3
N
C 7
O<
C �.
3
T
N
. rD 3
p
<
a D1 fD
N
S
3 D'0
-' N
°
S
O Ilii
f D
7
O <a
04 C
n
a
a rD
O n
N
F
n
rD
D o
o
rD
rD
p
O{
ul
w
N
N
�,
O
r
J
O
Go
z
r^
v
<
N
<
rD
{
N
DQ
7
°
C
d
C
w rD O C
6
�•
C Q
3< 3 c
a
v
6
0 3
n
Fl, '
a3
0 o 3n
N
0
c
c 3 3• o
0
im c -c
o 3
f2D
it
Q = < -
x
0
0
1t
3 0
F ID .�
c
"
2
v
D
R
n
v
s 0
s
N
x
o J O
o
0 3
D O O.
3
K
rDa
3
i
O a
3.
o
n
+
°
O
N O O
Dn°r
n°
�
d
m
C T
T
C
m
=
O d
C
0 3
C
rD C C
a a
a
a
H 7 3
a a
DO DQ
DOq
an
-0
V >
A ;)op
o4 DU
D D
rD
N
x
ID
C C
O
D N
IDD
N
C
n
rD
6 Plan Implementation & Maintenance
44 CFR §201.6(c)(4)(i), The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule
of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle.
44 CFR §20.6(c)(4)(ii), A process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan
into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
44 CFR §2a6(c)(4)(iii), Discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan
maintenance process.
Implementation and maintenance of the plan is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation
planning. This chapter outlines how this plan will be implemented and updated and is the conclusion of
Phase 4 of FEMA's 4 -phase guidance—Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress69.
6.1 Implementation
Upon adoption of this plan, the Steering Committee, led by the Planning Department, will oversee
implementation and maintenance. The primary duties of the Steering Committee in implementing the
plan include:
• Act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues;
• Disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants;
• Report on the progress of plan implementation and mitigation actions;
• Inform and solicit input from the public;
• Keep the concept of hazard mitigation in the forefront of community decision making.
The Steering Committee members will also monitor funding opportunities to help fund and implement
some of the more costly action items. Funding opportunities to be monitored include special pre- and
post -disaster funds, capital improvement budgeted funds, state or federal earmarked funds, and grant
programs, including those that can serve or support multi -objective applications.
Implementation extends beyond the duties and advisory nature of the Steering Committee. Each
recommended mitigation action includes key descriptors, such as a lead manager and possible funding
sources, to help initiate implementation. It is through the efforts of the responsible agency to promote
and highlight multi -objective benefits of each project to the City of Central Point, its stakeholders and
residents that will ensure implementation. Routine actions on the part of these agencies include
monitoring agendas, attending meetings, and promoting a safe and resilient community.
6.2 Maintenance & Monitoring
Plan maintenance is an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate plan implementation and to update the
plan as required or changing circumstances are recognized. In order to track progress and update the
mitigation strategies identified in the action plan, the Steering Committee will revisit this plan annually,
or after a significant hazard event or disaster declaration. The Planning Department is responsible for
initiating this review and convening members of the Steering Committee on a once yearly basis, or more
frequently as needed.
e9 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Local Mitigation Plannirr Handbook, 2013. 1-3.
The responsible agency assigned to each mitigation action item will be responsible for tracking and
reporting on each of their actions. A representative from the responsible entity will be responsible for
tracking and reporting on project status and provide input on whether the project as implemented
meets the defined objectives and is likely to be successful in reducing vulnerabilities. The yearly reports
to the Steering Committee will serve as the basis for the next plan update.
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires the City's plan to be updated, approved and adopted within
a five-year cycle. When the Steering Committee reconvenes for the update, they will coordinate with all
stakeholders participating in the planning process—including those that joined the committee since the
planning process began—to update and revise the plan. It is also anticipated that the Jackson County
Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan will begin an update within 3 years, prior to the
minimum required City update. At that time, the Planning Department will join the county -wide plan
update efforts and update the City plan for inclusion in the county plan.
6.3 Incorporate into Existing Plans
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated into the day-to-day functions and priorities of
government and development. The City already has programs and policies to reduce losses to life and
property from natural hazards. This plan builds upon the momentum developed through previous and
related planning efforts and mitigation programs and recommends implementing projects, where
possible, through these other program mechanisms. These existing mechanisms include:
■ Central Point Comprehensive Plan
• Central Point Municipal Code
■ Central Point Emergency Operations Plan
• Central Point Capital Improvements Plan
• Central Point Storm Drainage Master Plan
• Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan
• Jackson County Multi -Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Steering Committee members involved in the updates of these mechanisms and plans will be
responsible for promoting the findings and recommendations of this plan with these other plans, and
integrating them as appropriate.
6.4 Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is also imperative to the overall success of the plan's implementation. The
update process provides an opportunity to publicize success stories from the plan implementation and
seek additional public comment. Multiple public meetings or workshops will be scheduled during the
next update period to receive public input. The plan maintenance and update process will include
continued public and stakeholder involvement and input through attendance at designated committee
meetings, web postings, and press releases to local media. Public awareness of the plan and individual
flood mitigation strategies could be developed each spring prior to the beginning of runoff and flood
season. This can also occur in coordination with CRS public notification activities.
APPENDIX A. ADOPTION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CENTRAL POINT
ADOPTING THE 2020 NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of Central Point, Oregon finds and recites the following facts related to the
adoption of the Central Point Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan:
A. The City of Central Point recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property
within the community;
B. Implementing hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people and property
from future hazard events;
C. An adopted, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — approved hazard mitigation
plan is a pre -requisite for mitigation project funding eligibility under FEMA pre- and post -
disaster mitigation grant programs;
D. The City of Central Point engaged in FEMA -prescribed mitigation planning process in the
development of the Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
E. The Oregon Department of Emergency Management and FEMA Region X officials have
reviewed the City of Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan and approved it contingent upon this
official adoption of the participating governing body; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point by Resolution No. _ does hereby
resolve:
Section 1: The "City of Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan" is adopted as the official plan for
the City.
Section 2: The City of Central Point will submit this resolution to the Oregon Department of Emergency
Management and FEMA Region X officials to facilitate final approval of this plan.
PASSED by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this _day of _, 2020.
-.e
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
City Representative
endix B. Resources & References
American Lifelines Alliance. Extreme ice Thicknesses from Freezing Rain (2004). Retrieved from
httv://americanlifeiiiiesailiance.com
American Planning Association. Failing Dominoes: A Planner's Guide to Drought and Cascading Impacts
(2019).
City of Central Point, Central Point Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2011.
City of Central Point, Central Point Strategic Plan 2040, Resolution No. 1639.
City of Central Point, Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019, Ordinance No. 2059.
City of Central Point, Comprehensive Plan Papulation Element, 2019, Ordinance No. 2052.
City of Central Point, Emergency ❑ eration Plan, 2012.
City of Central Point, Urban Growth Boundary Amendment for the Planning Period 2019-2039.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 Chapter 1 Part 59 [44CFR59.1], October 1, 2006.
Disasters by Design, Dennis S. Mileti (1999).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Developing the Mitigation Plan. 2003,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, 2013.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Understanding and Improving Performance of New
Manufactured Homes During High -Wind Events, 2007.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and `earthquakes: Developing
Successful Risk Reduction Programs, 2009.
International Code Council, 2017 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (2017).
Jackson County Emergency Management, Jackson County Multi -Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan, 2018
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary
Estimates of Future Earthquake Losses (Open -File Report 0-98-3). Yumei Wang and J. L. Clark (1999).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Ground motion, ground deformation, tsunami
inundation, coseismic subsidence._ and damage potential maps for the 2012 Oregon Resilience Plan for
Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes (Open -File Report 0-13-06). Ian P. Madin and William J. Burns
(2013).
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment:
implementation of Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 Relating to Public Safety, Earthquakes, and Seismic
Rehabilitation of Public Buildings (Open -Report 0-07-02). Don Lewis (2007).
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan,
2015.
The Oregon Encyclopedia, Bear Creek Valley, J. LaLande (n.d.). Retrieved July 16, 2020, from
htt s: oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/bear creek valle #.XzHD3ihKiUk.
The Oregon Encyclopedia, Central Point. A. Mullaly (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2020, from
ilttps.-Iloreganencyclopedia.org/articles/c ntral pint #.XzHDkjyLiKiLJk.
Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Office of Water Resources Drought Annex, State of
Oregon Emergency Operations Plan, 2016.
Oregon Historical Society. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society - A Sketch of the Rogue River
Valley. Alice Applegate -Sargent (1921).
Oregon State University. Oregon Climate Service, The Climate of Oregon — Climate Zone 3: Southwest
Interior. George H. Taylor and Alexi Bartlett (1993).
The Oregonian, Is My Home Going to Protect Me? And Other Portland Earthquake Questions. Tara
Kulash (2019).
Portland State University. College of Urban and Public Affairs Population Research Center, Coordinated
Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban_ Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs
2018-2068. (2018).
Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan, (2017).
Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Jackson Count Area Oregon, David R Johnson (1994).
United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, Forests and Rangelands. Preparing a_ Community
Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities. (2004).
United States Geologic Survey. The Landslide Handbook —A Guide to Understanding Landslides. L.M.
Highland and Peter Bobrowsky.
United States Geologic Survey, Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier. Washington, Revised 1998: U.S.
Geological Survey Oen-File Report 98-428 Map Plate 2. R.P. Hoblitt (1998).
University of Washington. Office of Washington State Climatologist, "The Strongest Windstorms in the
Western Pacific Northwest 1950-2004," The Storm King. The Cirnatology and Meteorology of
Windstorms That Affect the Cascadia Legion of North America Including the US. Pacific Northwest and
Southwest British Columbia Canada. Wolf Read (2004).
University of Washington. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Major Extratro ical Cyclones of the
Northwest United States: Historical Review Climatology,and Synoptic Environment. Clifford Mass and
Brigid Dotson (2010).
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research,
Smallest Earth uake Maignitude that Can Trigger Liquefaction. Russel A. Green and Julian J. Bommer
(2018).
The Wild Coast Compass, www.wildcoastcoml3ass.com
Whole Building Design Guide, Wind Safety of the Building Envelope, Tom Smith (June 2017)
htt-gs://www.w bd.or resources wind-safety-buiIdin-envelo e>
Wikipedia,_Central Point, Oregon. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrat Point%2C Orego
Wikipedia, Pacific Northwest Windstorm. (n.d.). In. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific Norhtwest windstorm
Appendix C. Process & Participation Documentation
Public Involvement
The City of Central Point is dedicated to involving the public in the planning process and incorporating
public comments that help direct and improve the final plan update. The 2020 update for the Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan include three key components for public involvement:
+ Develop a Steering Committee composed of knowledgeable individuals from the City and
community and conduct committee meetings;
+ Conduct public meetings and presentations to identify common concerns about hazards,
promote hazard awareness, and discuss specific goals and action items in the mitigation plan;
and
• Maintain a hazard mitigation website to provide information about the mitigation planning
process and benefits of mitigation to the community, provide access to planning documents,
and request public feedback.
Steering Committee
The Steering Committee met on the following dates. Agendas for each of the meetings and lists of
attendees are included below.
1
Kickoff
April 1, 2019
2
Assessing the Problem/Assess the Hazard
May 20, 2019
3
Setting Goals
June 17, 2019
4
Action Items — Review Activities
August 6, 2019
5
Mitigation Strategy—Create an Action Plan
February 26, 2020
6
Plan Review & Implementation
September 29, 2020
An article in the City's newsletter, mailed to all water service customers announced the kick-off meeting
of the Hazard Mitigation Plan update. Meeting schedules and agendas were also advertised on a project
website maintained by the City.
A series of meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee presented the progress on the update
process and solicited feedback to incorporate into the final update. Steering Committee meetings were
Cc -sit zA Point Hazz u -d Mitigation Plan Update
C 14N I'Iaimiitig Team Nlexting
Meeting Agenda
CP
L.oeation: Cit} of Central Point - Sun Room
Date: April r, 2019
Time: 2:00 PM - 3-,30 PIl
Agenda details:
I. Welcome and Introductions
II. Planning Process Overview
a. Planning Objective
b. to -Step Planning Process (CRS)
e. Meeting Schedule and Plan Update Tirelitw
d. Public Outreach Strategy
1II. Update Considerations
a. Herd Mitigation Plan Rettiew (2oii)
i. Mission Statement, Goals. Action Iter Status
ii_ Relevaitce of mission statement and goals
b. Mitigation plan implementation mechanisms
L Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Plans, etc...
c. New hazards to consider
i. New or updated studies
IV. Next Steps
a. Citizen Advisory Comjnitt,ee - April q. wig
L. Public meeting to provide an overview of the existing plan and the update process
ii_ Summarize outeome of this meeting_ and solicit feedback
b. Prepare chaff nimAifications
c. Contact stakeholders and affe eted agencies
d. Evaluate the Hazards section and identify necessary changes
ANCentral P0111l lkir.ard Mitigation Plan Update
Planniug'[rant darling
Meeting Agenda
Location: CRR of Cental Point - Sun Rurnn
Date: May hid• 2(119
Time: moo ANI - 11.3o AM
Agenda details:
I. Recap and Summam
a. Assessing the HaLard
II. Assessing the Problem
a_ Hazard Matrix
l). Analysis Criteria
III. Assetti
it. Critical Faci]itte-�
b. Other Assets
I�'?. �lthleral3ihl}' A3seC4[19ent
it. Ranking each hazard
b. Probabilih' and Vulnerability
�'. Next Steps
a. Next Meeting -.lune 17, 2019 (tentatively)
i. Rev ie", %'ulnera bili ty Assessment Summary
ii_ "Set Goa k" -Step 6 of to Step Process
t.cntraI Iksint ILazard Nlitiption Plan Update
1'ia1111iugTrilstl NItti•tislg
Meeting kgenda
bw ation: City of Central Point - Sun Rooth
Dale: Juste 17, 2019
Time: 2*0 PSI - 3:90 PM
Ageiida (Iet.tiIs:
�. R ap anti Sammary
s. ►'ulnrrahility ,t+.c,;inrnt $u itnlary
II, sctlit►y; t;u.sl�
a. .liitisiuu Staiefr+itt[
i+. Ntitincstiuls I'Ian COILLS +sntI ObjiwtiVt'�:
III. NIM-kitiUh A A'603t itc111.1;
a. i.-Ni.tinx -- lomgrca�.
h, 4rw pmptiscd
tint Step,
a. \rxt .Wvling - Jula '3;i. 1-1I) sir t lc ni.+tl►cl►'j
i. Rc%-im% Mitigalion Action Items
ii. -Dntft aA Action Nan" titre ti 1d In SIvp 11r4wr."
ACentral Point I Iitzard Mitigation Putt Update
Manning'I'eaitt Mecting
Meeting Agenda
bwation: City of Central Paint - tion Room
Date; August 6, 2mg
Time: 2:00 PM - 3:00 I'M
.rkgCttd;l dVWi1S:
I. Recap and Sumnti.vy
a. Miligation action I1el11R
• Timeline
■ Oryinixadons
II. Action Priorilixation
a. Re' iew of fk efl u; and Costs
b. ;V;sign Priority
III. Implumentnt ion
Next Sleps
a. 0 fiam Ad�isory Co in m i ttee -AugoIM 2U`
It. `Re%iew the flan" - Step K of it) Stele I'r�nek�
• Funding
Structure of
■
• W�.w 4.. -
f�nrywNC
ro•q.w:•, ^,..
n/Nfd wTrr•N Mui
.n wr-.T...••
-I
Hazards
:T�+• i1Yi7
Risk Assessment Process
9/29/2020
Risk Assessment
ur•Mw wryy
Fllr.r• Yiry. wM
•`NIO Tb �..
wH*.fes
Identify Hazards
Qiaming to manage our risks
ro•q.w:•, ^,..
f.r.,
Natural
-I
Hazards
•hH Swrw.
�
-• F w• (wY .
i7vtr,7il ii: ,k Ho-- [ d S
aW-39
Discussion
kf-1a ..•y r....•...Ma •...J .., i, yy .r.•.r
s r.YJ r.firrr
�. r• icy". H ••{A n•r 7.e rr •yrrrr
9/29/2020
2019,12020 Update
Changes
- Significant
Wa.re• L.rwf..+•
�s ..r nr.w.7.
p..�.ry
n,rX,t.• ..wivo�.
• %-A H.f^-,O)v rig. fv
d.. ..
4.ry0NHr�}1.r•ll[r4
SrfvN MKIM r..a••
•...ir.+`'A•.r tea•
LA..A•i1r+,i [.�.•�
rl. ..... _.i
Ikw1. riruA Sn•. n
Next Steps
Af•ur rwrafr.r waw y..,A
�+.•Y�r�rp•.:+.Lwwl
rlXR■ •.rwr• CfY
vrl.•...-- W rr.
Vulnerability Assessment
Y•yY
!w r
•rr FT-_. _i.n� r
Risk Analysis
-ALw"i. - Pau t•unti4
-PQdkW�
H4..dAr -Conwdw
tow loss"
Ir st.srtiy
1-446.0-k
Exposure Analysis
Lam
i
Historical Analysis
9/29/2020
3
Public Meetings
The Steering Committee held public meetings on the following dates. Agendas for each of the meetings
are included below.
-_,Meeting
1Kickoff
Meeting Topic
April 9, 2019
2
Assessing the Problem/Assess the Hazard
Mitigation Strategy—Create an Action Plan
Sept. 10, 2019
3
Updated hazard summary, risk assessment,
vulnerability summary
Jan. 14, 2020
4
Plan Review & Implementation
Present draft to Planning Commission,
recommendation to City Council
October 13, 2020
5
Nov. 3, 2020
6
City Council Study Session — introduce update
7
City Council resolution to adopt update
Aprd - "$11 "Monih
In time for spring gardening and home improvement projects
April is designated as "Oregon Dig Safely Month or "811"
Month. "811" is the number to call for utility locations.
Calling before you begin any excavation prevents damage to
underground facilites, service interruptions and bodilyinfury.
The Utility Notification Center is open 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. They accept calls from anyone planning to dig
anywhere in the state. There is no charge for this service.
Calling before digging ensures that any publicly
owned underground facility is marked according to
the APWA color codes so that you can dig safely
Normally locates will be done in 2 to S days (not
including weekends and holidays) from the time you call,
depending on the location. So be sure to call far enough
in advance of the dale you want to begin work to give
the utility companies time to complete the locates. In
the event of an emergency, locates can be done sooner.
When you call you will be given a list of underground
facility owners in your area along with the time
schedule and a ticket number. Your ticket number
is your reference number for the particular job and
proof of your call to the Utility Notification Center_
So remember, call "811" before you dig. Don't risk hitting a
buried utility line_ "It's smart, it's safe, and it's the law",
[in•
•
1fT11117 118TH= CATIGM CENTER
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Meeting Announcement
Citizen Advicory Committee
Meeting Dale: Tuesday April 9, 2019
Time: &00 p.m.
Place: 1 a0 South 3'= Street
Central Point, OR 97502
the pvrPase of o 601"1 f4 nii ti gotian Plan h, re urate n 4onviwnity That a te01 ieni in rhe face at n natural
d iso stet by developing an wt def%iondng of she ha sarde and iheit porenhar imp nets. The City is updating
the Natural Hamrds "godon Flan to identify new hazards, dianget to the enreitt of pievioWy
Idenhfrd 6aeardt, and ways to respond to dl•,as:e.i when they da happen
4n Tuesday, April 9th, Stall will present the Citizen A"lory Corrrnirec on the mi6qa ion plan upda*e
prace ia. a discussion of the Ptori s Mmlon ad Corals and answer gtiesriens about ehe mi igafoo pfam The
Cty -oeld like year lnpift on the maig air on plan, as werl ps any comems w idea: that ye„ have
regrud ing theupdate of the ea is*q plan II you ham any qve itions or -Wd rile more information,
pkose cehtaet the CiGtr t Floodplain manager at (5411 664,3321 Ext. 245 or
April, 2019 www.centraointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
Ak
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
April `). 3019
Planning Department
Tom rtun%phwy, MCV,
Comrnu."Ity ('eW10wnent [hre(lo(f
Assistant City+ldminis€fator
AGENDA I1'EM: VI -A
Consideration of City of Central Point I lazard Mitigation Plan Applicant: City of Ccnlral Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II
B.-CCKCROUND:
The City of Central Point has a stand -atone hazard mitigation plan that was adopted in 2011 and nccds to be
updated to account for community changes since 2011- The Ilarard Mitigalion Plan cvaluales the City's
vulnerability to natural hazards and cstablish:s an action plan to reduce risk. In addition to providing a
framework for reducing the negative impacts of future disaster dents ( i.e, floods, earthquakes. severe weather,
etc.), maintaining a current plan is necessan- to retain eligibility for I ) pre- and pout -disaster federal funding,: and
3) flood insurance discounts through the Community Rating System.
The update to the Ilazard Mitigation Plan will identify nc-.v hazards. chances to the extent of previously identified
hazards, and ways to respond to disasters when they do happen. This will be the first of two (3) public meetings
regarding the Central Point I lazard Mitigation Plan update and is intended to ensure opportunities for citizens to
be involved in the planning process throughout the update. During this meeting. staff will review and facilitate
discussion of the existing, plan and scope of the update with an emphasis on the following:
• Mission Statement • The mission statement states the purpose and defines the prinuvy function of the
Ilarard Mitigation Plan. Dors the current mission statement answer the question. "\%'hy develop a hazard
miligalum plan'",
• Goals - The goals identify priorities and how the City intends to work towards reducing risks. Do
the goals represent the City's priorities with appropriate focus on efforts toward hazard mitigation"
• Assess the f I:vards - 'I he current plan identifies four 0 ) major categories: I ) Flood. 2) F.arthquakes. 31
Severe Weather. and a) other llararck including volcanic activity. wildfire. landslides, and drought.
Dors this list encompass the City's hazard information"
arc there other hazards that could impact the City?
Attached is a copy of chapter 4 of the I lazard \litigation Plan. which includes the \fission Statement and (foals.
The current Ilazard \litigation Plan is available on the Citv's wcbhage
Ih q kit ;:o% Iltxrdnlaln rrarc haran3-nutwation-elan) and will be available for review at
the meeting upon request.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in considering lie Ilarard Mitigation Plan is to identify local policies and actions that can be
implemented to reduce risk and future losses from hazards.
AC -TION:
C'onsidcraiion of the City of Ccnlral Point I lazanl Miligalion Plan,
ATTAC11MENTS:
Attachment "A" - C'haplcr 4, C'entral Point Hazard \litigation Plan
Figure C.
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT CENTRAL TornthrrWhrn,,W_P,
r V I NT 00mrnr1111y Devel airmen t lei rector!
Aisistam City AdmInlstrator
STAFF REPORT
September 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM: NI -A
Consideration of City of Central Point Ilazard Mitigation Plan Applicant: City of Central Point,
STAFF SOURCE.,
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner 11
BACKGROUND,
The City of Central Point has D stand-alone hazard mitigation plan that Sias adopted in 201 1 and needs to be
updated to account for community changes since ?01 1. The 11azard Mitigation Plan evaluates the City's
vulnerability to natural hazards and establishes an action plan to reduce risk. in addition to providing a
franxwork for reducing the negative impacts of future disaster events I i.e. floods, earthquakes, severe weather,
etc.!. maintaining a current plan is necessary to retain eligibility for I 1 pre- and post-distrster federal funding: and
2) flood! insurance discounts through the Community Rating System
The update to the Ha/alp ilitigation Plan is following FIA1 Vs 10-Skp pl:mning pr,•dtiss to identifyhamrds most
likely to impact Central Point. Through this process. rrsoatr ti• and nuti-.:xion activni,!: %%cre identified that will
prd-c•cnt damage or speed recovery from natural hazards. An action plan was then dcvelopcd to prioritize the
activities that arc most likely to prrvcnt or instigate losses, establishes a timeline for implementing the mitigation
efforts and makes Central Point more resistant to future hazards.
This is the second of two 12 t public mectinp regarding the Central Point I I azar! Mitigation Plan update. At the
April meeting, staff revidK►td the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Platt and pnavtded an mcrviciv ofthe update process.
During this meeting, staff will provide an overvicH, for each step in the planning process and facilitate discussion
on the proposed updates including updated goals, vulnerability surntnary, and prioritization of action items. A
copy of the updated Mitigation Action Plan is attached_
The current Hazard 'Mitigation Plan is available on the City's wcbpage
Ilttt vrwu..rulntl rtnh�rienn.. d tloodilLrtn Pagy. fivard-wilunifitnt-phin) and will be available for review at
the meeting upon request.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in considering the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify local policies and actions that can be
implemented to reduce risk and future losses from hazards.
ACTION:
Considleration of the City of Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan.
,ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" I Ia,1ard Mitigation Action Plan
Page I of 1
STAFF REPORT
V=_
AA
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
September 10. 2019
Planning Department
Tom Ilumphrry, AICI;
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
AGENDA ITEM: VI -A
Consideration of Cily of Ccnital Point Hazard Mitigation Plan applicant: City of Ccntral Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Justin Gindiesperger. Community Planner II
BACKGROUND:
The City of Central Point has a stand-alone hazard mitigation plan that was adopted in 2011 and needs to be
updated to account for community changes since 2011. The Hazard Mitigation Plan evaluates the City's
vulncrabilily to natural hazards and establishes an action plan to reduce risk. In addition to providing a
framework for reducing the negative impacts of future disaster events (i.e. floods. earthquakes. severe weather,
ctc.l. mat ntains nS a current plan is nceessary to retain eligibility fill' I i prc -Arid pa4t.disaslcr federal funding. and
2) flood insurance discounts through the comnnmrty Stating System.
The updalc to the IWard Muigal ion Plan is lollow ing FEi.IA*s Ill -Step planning prvecss to idenufi• hazards most
hkcly to uupw CcnlraI Point. Through this process. resources and mitigation aetn itics wcrc identified that will
prevent damage or speed recovery from natural hazards. An action plan was then developed to prioritize the
activities that are most likely to prevent or mitigate losses, establishes a timeline for implementing the mitigation
efforts and makes Central Point more resistant to future hazards.
This is the second of two (2) public meelings regarding the Central Point Ilamrd Mitigation Plan update. At the
April meeting. staff reviewed the 2011 1lazard Mitigation Plan and provided an overview of the update process -
During this meeting, staff will provide an overview for each step in the planning process and facilitate discussion
on the proposed updates including updated goals. vulnerability summary. and prioritization of action iicn-cs. A
copy of the updated Mitigation Action Plan is attached.
The current Hazard Mitigation Plan is available on the City's wcbpagc
(hat r www cciural ie tis on 4),: tioiwl l.uri 'a-': h.,z.rr.1-iron .,ta•n- +[.m) and will be available for review at
the meeting upon request.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in considering the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify local policies and actions that can be
implcmenled to reduce risk and future losses from hazards.
ACTION:
Consideration of the City of Central Point hazard Mittgalion Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" -1 {.,sed Mitigation Action Plan
Page I of 1
Hazard Mitigation Website
The Steering Committee maintained a website to provide information about the hazard mitigation plan
update process. This website includes an overview of hazard mitigation, how the planning process
works, meeting times, agendas and relevant information about the Central Point Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The web page is maintained by the project manager and modified as the project progresses towards
completion.
013 clynorlie Cartaatn
e
MIN
itatard mlug.Ftlon plarrnrng " essenllal tc* Ida-, fyloF and lory.!n enting acllont to to tedcice rialnagei lion nit u•r
L :dstNs A: S Cil lien andli3r uuslrlr.s CMp`el y`v .. are Il hlle7 :-� y41t! c date ._` n',c i flat UPnate of Central Folot Natuna"
Na: ata RA :.gallon Piarr Sykeeping Ihts plan z>n ant the elIE'r-e rot Pre -and post dlsdaer hu+drng and the
.,._rent f4SCd lhl,urance dl,C ollrll provlde4a:rrougtr lt,,t CC=It"€ilinit j+RD'. ��.^� IFStetT-
Plan Overview
T
he Central Point ++a:and ALingatlon Pan .taaz ,adopted t) tre City COurlcll In :ol t `rt plan ldrntidrs natural hatard, lhal
,mpact the City, evaik ales risk or damages 10 the, nn'_n,.y Arld C'Stabllshes a pncifiated action plan to red,ur
i atartt :Repacts over time, hijintaining a cof,01, r'atatd mitigation p1Y me -tarns the City s eligibility fog federal Cl -aster
and Cain, points W"fd flood Insulane a si?'^1t :r• •061 •' 1r"! `Jar I+ jl Flood • sur ante PrOgrom (NFIPj
Comrrad:r:°ty Rating Sy'Vern (Mi) AI this tune the C :y -a% ear -Cd a 20% &,:,v`?IaIK CIC Lunt for Cmtr al polot po:,,M% In
1=-C hlr, :l,k floodplain and a IV-) di-rounl ta' poune., ow os'"Gaexate r:. flood zones
Advisory Committee/Public Participation
.1f 1f"% t,,rnc- the City ii Completing It, S year mdgganon Pia-_ _;:+ate The p'anrllrsg p*OCeis I•. guided "MC %tern ulg
Connr.9tee, wlnith Is [on�prlsed at lndryldua s •ey.'e se ntiltf tl'± P- ,w?.�, st arenofdr+ groups
• City of central Pant Community oeedoprnerit 0 a palming & auadirg
• City of Central Point Park% & PUblle worts Cedar tnwtt
•
City of Ctntrai Point PdKe Lticjsaftrnc'rN/CERI Coordinator
• Fire DI%trict 83
• Paddle Poerlr & Light
• Schad District 0
• Chamber or Cornnierce
• Central Point Floodplain FbmMnt
Tne Steeritg Committee mil meet 4-1 t -me, duting tee Pla+'{•.a-g period pub ue PW!ICIpatWit is Important to Ih'3 W.annIng
P*OCess YOU are Invited fo attend the 5teering Cf, mm•ltee and punllr "'+Crit'r•Az wattt and nn5e% posted below] In
addition, Pfau may past cOrnmenl% attgh esfxa ".'. and CChem C's td Is even Pie 'r t"'e -poll Comment,' -,CC Stan "tow
Plannsng process & Schedule
I Mccurtg . Data
Steering Committee Meering Ppn1 2, 2019 "a2 OD p.m
al Central PC" City hail . Saul
Room
Ptarinlrig ctijeetives
Rtvgew planning ooie,cim e% area rewrw the pian nNsslon
a4hpn IRem% and noturat natard; ldentify any new
source. or Infolugai X -n te"xdtng na:.Yd5 nota technical
,Giant:, agenciN. ;East L':d'id rge revieayeci
Apr 119 .1017 at 0 00 p In, Present the 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plant, prewnl the plan
Public Meeting a 1 City Council Chanbels updae process, opparti.mes for public Involvement,
140 South 3fd Street MelYr nputilleatsack an nllssaarl goes, and speclac
CIMA,fa<Post-Car 97'02 hazards of concern.
Feb. 4. 2020 at 0:00 pm
Ory CoLowd CrwTAw ] Present D mining Ctemnfsstdn with progression d • . -: e
PUblIC Mtttlrg r 4 140 South 3r0 Street pfocem arra I'VAM rr..11'C0 hmard sutvRary acid Isk
Centra Point, Oft 97702 eLIC16whent ch -,,r--
Steerlrg Committee Meeting Sept 29, 2020 fkwters me ulna Orate plan. complete me FEMA Cross»as,
r 7 Central Pont Ory Hall --51st 1
Room astablISMOrnllnefic
May 20 2019
Public Matslrg a 7
Uttering Commlb.ee Mesteng
Cer*Lra' Porn Cray iaall -Sun
Discuss any new inflammationinflammationeltl
zon rlCed°� thr teutna
c
02
Centrai Pent, OR 97702
rr,.a:s I11CMIFy C teal faclilbes olid assets and dlsnns
Nov, 0]. 2020 at 0.'00 pan
RddT
rndzad mabrWranking,
steering Committee Meeting
lune 17. 2019
PiMew hdrard vtllnlerablllty ane ranting of risks, review
a 3
Central P0414 City Hall --Sun
goals and oEfecdvCs to detnssilne they address the hUdre s
6essaon
Roup
and asks.
Steering Committee Meeting
Al ugir.t 7, 2019
Review arta pria bee nmagation actions In the context of
64
Central PO4M City Hall.—Sun
fb ><
HMAC and rdsts-benelgs ahalysli
Sept, 10, 2019 at 0.'00 pm
Public Meeting A 2
/��..�..�e
City WYR3Ct S
Present prt;grelvon of update process, renew petard;
140 7oiRlt 3rd Str eel
SU
vulnerability S'i•r •r.yj and mltlgation actlon plan Items to
Central Poets, 09 97702
ensure they address Me hazards and asks.
;x 14, 2020 at 040 p"
Public hlcetlhg a 1
'It) Council Cha'flnef:
P SRr1t 00zen AdRsaryCCirkn114Ce With r{rtl:'ed tlatafd
140 $Oath 314 St=ear
Suri nary aid real assessment, vulnerability summary.
re•1lra Pc—, OR 97342
Feb. 4. 2020 at 0:00 pm
Ory CoLowd CrwTAw ] Present D mining Ctemnfsstdn with progression d • . -: e
PUblIC Mtttlrg r 4 140 South 3r0 Street pfocem arra I'VAM rr..11'C0 hmard sutvRary acid Isk
Centra Point, Oft 97702 eLIC16whent ch -,,r--
Steerlrg Committee Meeting Sept 29, 2020 fkwters me ulna Orate plan. complete me FEMA Cross»as,
r 7 Central Pont Ory Hall --51st 1
Room astablISMOrnllnefic
�rJUPMfbn& DOCiltt IMS
:S 201 r Cerrrd Pant KS" (I lk tbgaitlan Pin, 123 !kill
Put, is Vcrbngrr 1 "cls Imh 04092dr i122 B 191
's PI Y.f It Nr�tirl§ s : A,gcrrta Ifnn 09+]0+205 9t� Lill
pup pc Meeting x t iser'd.f item 017 t 4+20.-911 x/81
F,,ON re Veering a 4 Aper m term - 02M.420to {2 4r$1
Your name
Present draft to Otimn Advisory Comirwr tee, review the plan
mfs31on gods and anon Iterm. 015."e:uuties rbr public
3wal, �anvit carinnens and reedbacfi.
P exert d aR coPlanning Commissla rr4ew the plan
mesSton gods aid 41000n nems. 01 . +: Unitle% lbr publIC
Irmoly rnenk co triments did feedback
Present tM r.iisvd FNta'd Mltlgdldn Plan, address airy
questions
RrWILei p7 to Aampt the Plan to immng Fthi lappr0aa
Od. 13, 2020 at a..0 pm
Public Matslrg a 7
City P.aun" Charnmei.
140 South Std Street
Centrai Pent, OR 97702
Nov, 0]. 2020 at 0.'00 pan
Public Mleebng r 0
Ory Couto Charisbers
140 south 3rd sweet
Central Paves, OR 97702
City Coumll Meeting study
6essaon
TBO
City Council Meetig
t80
�rJUPMfbn& DOCiltt IMS
:S 201 r Cerrrd Pant KS" (I lk tbgaitlan Pin, 123 !kill
Put, is Vcrbngrr 1 "cls Imh 04092dr i122 B 191
's PI Y.f It Nr�tirl§ s : A,gcrrta Ifnn 09+]0+205 9t� Lill
pup pc Meeting x t iser'd.f item 017 t 4+20.-911 x/81
F,,ON re Veering a 4 Aper m term - 02M.420to {2 4r$1
Your name
Present draft to Otimn Advisory Comirwr tee, review the plan
mfs31on gods and anon Iterm. 015."e:uuties rbr public
3wal, �anvit carinnens and reedbacfi.
P exert d aR coPlanning Commissla rr4ew the plan
mesSton gods aid 41000n nems. 01 . +: Unitle% lbr publIC
Irmoly rnenk co triments did feedback
Present tM r.iisvd FNta'd Mltlgdldn Plan, address airy
questions
RrWILei p7 to Aampt the Plan to immng Fthi lappr0aa
endix D. Critical Facilities
Oregon State Police 4500 Rogue
Valley Hwy
Jackson County
Address
Facility y
Hazard Risk
51
Source W
Central Point City
140S.3 �d
Administration/
None
City of Central Point
Hall/ City Police
Chance
Overpass
Flood
E. Pine
Dept.
Street
Emergency Services
Overpass
Central Point Public
399S.5 th
Support/ Emergency
None
City of Central Point
Works
Street
Services
Central Point
450 S. 4th
High
Elementary
Street
School
Seismic Risk
School District # 7
655 N. 3rd
1% Annual
Crater High School
Street
School
Chance
School District # 7
Flood
Jewett Elementary
1001
Manzanita
School/ Red Cross
None
School District # 7
Street
Shelter
Mae Richardson
Elementary
200 W. Pine
School/ Red Cross
1% Annual
School District # 7/
Street
Shelter
Chance
City of Central Point
Flood
Scenic Middle
1955 Scenic
School/ Red Cross
School
Avenue
Shelter
None
School District # 7
Fire Station —Scenic
1909 Scenic
Ave.
Avenue
Emergency Services
None
Fire District # 3
Fire Station — S.
600 S. Front
Front Street
Street
Emergency Services
None
Fire District # 3
Oregon State Police 4500 Rogue
Valley Hwy
Jackson County
0.2%
Expo
1 Peninger
Road
Shepherd of the
600 Beebe
Valley
Road
Upton Road
Chance
Overpass
Flood
E. Pine
Street/Biddle Road
None
Overpass
PPL Substation 4485 Rogue
Valley Hwy
Infrastructure - bridge
0.2%
Utilities—Electric Annual
substation Chance
Flood
OSP/ Central Point
Jackson County/ City of Central
Point
Shepherd of the Valley Catholic
Church
City of Central Point Public
Works
ODOT/Central Point Public
Works
Pacific Power & Light
0.2%
Emergency Services
Annual
Chance
Flood
1% Annual
Red Cross Shelter
Chance
Flood
Red Cross Shelter/ Child
C
Ca
None
Infrastructure — bridge
Infrastructure - bridge
0.2%
Utilities—Electric Annual
substation Chance
Flood
OSP/ Central Point
Jackson County/ City of Central
Point
Shepherd of the Valley Catholic
Church
City of Central Point Public
Works
ODOT/Central Point Public
Works
Pacific Power & Light
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
Summary
CENTRAL
POINT
October 13, 2020
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Consideration of a proposal to amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan adding roughly 444 gross
acres needed to absorb growth in housing, employment and parks and open space during the 2019-2039
planning period. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. CPA -19001.
Background
The City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was first established in 1983. The purpose of the UGB is to
set aside a 20 -year supply of land that can be brought into the City through the annexation process. Once
in the City these lands can be developed to urban standards, which allow a more compact development
form than what occurs in rural areas. When lands in the UGB cannot provide for 20 -years of growth, a
city has the option of amending its policies and regulations to meet growth needs inside the current UGB
and/or it can add new land to the UGB for the uses(s) that are in short supply. At this time, the City of
Central Point is proposing a UGB amendment to add land needed for housing, non -industrial
employment, parks and open space and associated public facility uses.
Amending the UGB is a rigorous process that requires the following:
1. Demonstrated Land Need. Demonstrate there is a land need that cannot met in the current UGB.
The City evaluated its land needs when it updated the Comprehensive Plan Population, Housing,
Economic and Parks Elements. At that time, the City looked at the available lands within the
current UGB, forecast population growth for the 2019-2039 planning period and the impact that
growth would have on each land use category. A summary of the City's land needs relative to the
proposed UGB Amendment is provided in the application narrative (Attachment "A").
2. Location Analysis. When determining the proposed UGB location, it was necessary to consider,
weigh and balance a variety of factors, including but not limited to the ability of selected land to
efficiently accommodate need; whether public facilities and services could be provided in an
orderly and economic fashion; the impact on the economy, society, environment and energy; and
agricultural mitigation of farm lands outside the proposed UGB. Additionally, the City set forth a
variety of location factors that were used to determine the most suitable and necessary lands for
this UGB Amendment. A summary of the Location Analysis is provided in the application
narrative (-Attachment "A"). The full Location Analysis report is available online as Exhibit 5 to
the City's application (litt s://www.centra! ointore on. ov/cd/ a e/2019 -urban- owtli-
boundai -amendment)
3. Compliance with County and City Policies and Regulations. Once the City's land needs and
proposed UGB location were established, it was necessary to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law to assure the proposal is consistent with the policy and regulatory framework
set forth by the state, county, and city. The legal Findings are included in the City's application,
which is available online at the above cited location.
At the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, City staff will present the proposed UGB
Amendment. The CAC serves as the community sounding board and, after receiving feedback from the
public on the matter, will make a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council
on the proposal. Written and oral comments are invited up to the close of the CAC meeting(s) where this
item is considered.
Issues
None.
Attachments
Attachment "A" — Central Point UGB Amendment Application: Sections 1 and 2 (Introduction &
Background)
Action
After hearing the Staff Report and public input, the CAC may make a motion and vote to recommend
approval, approval with changes or deny the proposed UGB Amendment. If additional time is needed or
deemed appropriate, the CAC may also continue the meeting to October 13' and defer the motion until
that time.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the proposed UGB Amendment at either the September or October CAC
meeting.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Central Point Urban Groirth Boundartil ,4mendinew
City File V , CPA -19001
Comm,, File No.: TBD
Before the City of Central Point City Council and the Jackson County Board of Commissioners is
consideration of an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan adding approximately 444 gross acres
to the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to provide residential, employment, and parks and
open space to accommodate forecast growth for the next 20 -years, 2019-2039.
Applicant:
City of Central Point
140 South 3`d Street
Central Point, OR 97502
1. Introduction
Findings of Fact
and
Conclusions of Law
The City of Central Point requests an amendment to the City and County Comprehensive Plans to add
approximately 444 acres of land (51 tax lots) for residential, employment, parks and open space, and
associated public facility uses. The proposed UGB amendment ("UGB Amendment") responds to the
following:
x Forecast Growth. The City is expected to add 7,216 people to its population between 2019 and
2039 primarily as a result of net in -migration.' To accommodate growth Central Point will need
housing, employment opportunities, parks and public facilities.
Land Needs Exceed Buildable L d Supply. The City does not have a sufficient buildable land
supply for housingz°', commercial and other employment4°5, and parks6 to accommodate growth.
Due to the City's efforts over the past 20 -years to increase land use efficiency through Transit
Oriented Development (TOD), performance zoning, imposing maximum density and off-street
parking standards, and adoption of a minimum average density over the next 50 -years', the City
is now looking to expand its UGB.
Availability of Urban Reserve Areas URAs . Adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan as the City's Regional Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan (City Council
Ordinance No. 1964) established eight (8) URAs that are first priority lands available for UGB
expansion.
' Portland State University Population Research Center, "Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County and
Urban Growth Boundaries." June 2018.
2 City of Central Point Residential Buildable Lands Inventory. Ordinance No. 2053, March 14, 2019.
'City of Central Point Comprehensive Plant Housing Element. Ordinance No. 2057, April H, 2019.
4 City of Central Point Employment Buildable Lands Inventory. Ordinance No. 2058, June, 11, 20196.
s City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element. Ordinance No. 2059, July 11, 2019.
b City of Central Paint Comprehensive Plan Parks Element. Ordinance No. 2045, July 19, 2018.
' City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Regional Plan Element. Ordinance No. 1964, August 9, 2012.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 1 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
The purpose of these findings is to demonstrate that the City's proposed UGB Amendment is consistent
with the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA) between the City and County, and
the goals and policies of the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules, Oregon Revised
Statutes; the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Ordinance, and the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Including this introduction, these findings will be presented in four (4) parts as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
3. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
4. Summary Conclusion
1.1 Application
The Central Point UGB Amendment application constitutes a Major Revision per the Central Point and
Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA). In accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 1599 (Exhibit 1), the City of Central Point requests the following land use
approvals:
Amend the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Legislative) to add 444
gross acres and 51 tax lots to the Central Point UGB (Figure 1, Exhibits 2-3). The proposed
amendment is to retain the County land use and zoning designations as "Urbanizable Area"
until such time the properties are annexed into the City.
2. Amend the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Legislative) to add 444 acres
to the Central Point UGB and designate land uses for the properties to be included (Figure 2).
3. Transfer jurisdiction of the following roadways from Jackson County to the City of Central
Point per the Urban Reserve Area Management Agreement (URMA):
• Beebe Road from Hamrick to Gebhard Road;
• Gebhard from Beebe Road to Wilson Road;
• Grant Road from the Twin Creeks Crossing to Beall Lane; and,
• Taylor Road from Silver Creek Drive west to the proposed westerly UGB boundary.
4. Amend the UGBMA to add Urban Growth Policy 1(D) as follows, "Prior to annexation of
urbanizable lands, no land division shall be approved by the County which creates lots less
than forty (40) acres in size." (Exhibit 4)
The following supportive actions will occur prior to annexation of lands added to the UGB:
1. Amend Central Point Municipal Code Title 17 to adopt gross density requirements and
development standards consistent with the City's minimum average density commitment per
the Regional Plan Performance Indicator 2.5.1 (County) /4.1.5.1 (City).
2. Amend the Public Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan including updated public
facility master plans that include the adopted UGB expansion areas.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 2 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
3. Amend the Environmental Element to complete Goal 5 planning for the UGB areas.
Figure 1, Proposed UGB Expansion Areas, City & County Comprehensive Plans
:.. _.
�V
�.14
� f
fex �n
Legerad � �n'
pupur7 Van AOMsW "i
Nr. 04 r N1%
I N Gmgvw 1
t,, Unsla
A;�-
A
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Proposed UGS Areas
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 3 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 2, Proposed City Land Use Designations, General Land Use
i
4.�
•i� i
•+S
s■r.r,i�. _.
I P*r`ld I
ftimad IC7 A4 Lord u.. I ��
� z'9 «s »•..
N
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Proposed UGB Land Use
CENTRAL
POINT"
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 4 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
4N ✓fNaA'Yc
-
P4vpmd?,9 lardLYr
.v,. �:r.
� - F
c•,s :war aaasa
P OP&.W CP=281-1,.I U:,t
ofmowNw
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Proposed UGB Land Use
CENTRAL
POINT"
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 4 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
1.2 Procedural Requirements
The subject application is a major legislative UGB Amendment (Type IV) subject to joint city and county
review in accordance legislative procedures in Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO).
Amendments to the UGB are governed by the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement
(UGBMA) between Jackson County and the City of Central Point adopted per Ordinance No. 2001
(Exhibit 1). The proposed UGB Amendment is a Major Revision, which is subject to mutual City and
County review.
1.3 Approval Criteria
The above amendments are governed by the UGBMA between the City and Jackson County and
additional state, county and local criteria as set forth below:
1.3.1 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
ORS 197.298 — Priority of Land to be included in urban growth boundary
1.3.2 Statewide Planning Goals/OARS
Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 — Land Use Planning
Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands
Goal 4 — Forest Lands
Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces
Goal 6 — Air, Water, Land Resources Quality
Goal 7 — Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Goal 8 —
Recreational Needs
Goal 9 —
Economic Development
Goal 10
—Housing
Goal 11
— Public Facilities and Services
Goal 12
— Transportation
Goal 13 — Energy Conservation
Goal 14 — Urbanization
Goals 15-19 — Address Willamette Valley and Ocean and Coastal Resources, which do
not apply to the City.
1.3.3 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
OAR 660-024 — Urban Growth Boundaries
1.3.4 Jackson County Comprehensive Plan
Regional Plan Element: Performance Measures 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 2.17, 2.18, 2.20
Transportation System Plan: Policies
Urban Lands Element: Policy 1
Map Designations Element
1.3.5 Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (LDO)
Section 3.7.3(E)
1.3.6 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
General Policies
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 5 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Citizen Involvement Element
Population Element
Housing Element
Economic Element
Parks Element
Land Use Element
Regional Plan Element
Public Facilities Element
Transportation System Plan
Urbanization Element
1.3.7 Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.76 — Comprehensive Plan and
Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
1.4 Exhibits
Exhibit 1
— City Council Resolution No. 1599
Exhibit 2
— Jackson County Application Form
Exhibit 3
— Tax Lot Inventory
Exhibit 4
— UGBMA with proposed revisions
Exhibit 5
— Location Analysis Report
Exhibit 6
— Maps
Exhibit 7
— Regional Plan Progress Report
Exhibit 8
— Mailing Labels
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 6 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
2 Central Point UGB Amendment Background
The City's UGB Amendment aims to provide a sufficient inventory of land that is both available and
suitable for urbanization over a 20 -year planning period. The current UGB was first established in 1983
and amended in 2014 and 2015 to add roughly 50 acres of open space and industrial land. Aside from
these minor amendments, no land for housing or commercial employment has been added to Central
Point's UGB in 36 -years. Based on the most recent analysis of land needs, the City's forecast population
growth for the 2019-2039 planning period requires more land for housing, jobs, and parks than is
available in the current UGB. Given the City's efforts to increase land use efficiency over the years, there
is little opportunity to further extend the life of the current UGB to accommodate the 20 -year land need.
Consequently, the City is proposing a major UGB Amendment to add land for needed housing, jobs and
parks.
In 2012 the City adopted the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan as the City of Central Point
Regional Plan Element ("Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan established eight (8) Urban Reserve Areas
(URAs) that serve as first priority land for UGB amendments. The Regional Plan includes twenty (20)
performance indicators, including but not limited to minimum average density commitment for lands
newly added to the UGB from the URAs, and requirements to prepare conceptual land use and
transportation plans and meet benchmarks for providing new housing and employment in mixed-
use/pedestrian friendly areas. The performance indicators have influenced the determination of the City's
land need for housing and the location of proposed UGB expansion areas.
UGB Amendments are governed by state, county, and city criteria designed to minimize impacts to
valuable agriculture and forest lands, while promoting compact and livable urban development. To
accomplish this, the City evaluated its land need needs relative to forecast growth and considered
opportunities to accommodate growth within the current urban area. Subsequently the City established a
study area and evaluated lands based on priorities and criteria set for in the Oregon State Administrative
Rules (OARS), Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan to identify
the most suitable location for the Central Point UGB.
2.1 Land Need
The City's land needs are set forth in Table 1 and the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, including the
following Elements:
• Population Element (Ordinance No. 2030) — Adopts the most recent Portland State University
Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County and Urban Areas and sets forth the number
of persons per household based on historic trends in Central Point.
• Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), Land Use Element (Ordinance No 2053) — Adopts
the updated inventory of available buildable lands for the 2019-2039 planning period. The
Residential BLI finds that there are 105 acres of buildable lands available and likely to develop
during the 2019-2039 planning period.
• Housing Element (Ordinance No. 2057) — Adopts the City's analysis of housing needs based on
the PRC Forecast and Residential BLI to determine the City's residential land needs..
• Employment Buildable Lands Inventory, Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 2058) Adopts the
updated inventory of available buildable lands for employment use based on use and parcel size.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 7 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
The Employment BLI finds that the City has 147 acres of buildable employment lands likely to
develop over the 2019-2039 planning period. Most of the vacant lands that are available and
likely to develop are for industrial and retail use.
Economic Element (Ordinance No. 2059) — The Economic Element was prepared in accordance
with Goal 9 and acknowledged by DLCD. It sets forth the City's gross employment land needs
over the short- and long-term, identifies the needed site types by use, and the City's target
markets for employment capture.
Parks and Recreation Element (Ordinance No. 2045) - The Parks and Recreation Element sets
forth the inventory of current parkland in the UGB and land in the URAs outside the UGB that
are owned by the City, and identifies performance standards for core parks (i.e. community and
neighborhood), and associated land needs to provide core park recreation opportunities for the 20 -
year planning period.
I able 1, bummaN
of 2L -Year land
need bv land use tate a
Housing
Need
Employment,
Persons per
Regional Job Level of 3.5 acres per
Household'
2.5
Growth 28,840 Service (LOS) 1,000 Residents
Total' Standard
Household
Increase
2,887
Job ° 2039 26,317
6'8 �0
Cat re Rate Population
Average Gross
,u
7.04
Total CCP Job Total Parkland
1,948
Density"
Growth Acres Needed 92.1
Needed Gross
Commercial:
Existing
Residential
Needed Acres
Parkland Acres
37.29
Acres
410
Buildable
83
Acres
61
Add'd Acres
21
Buildable
Institutional
Residential
Needed Acres
Acres' �
105
Buildable
18
Acres
Add'tl Acres
18
Other
Needed Acres
Additional
Buildable
34
Core Parkland
Additional
Acres
0
55
Acres Needed
Needed Gross
Add'tI Acres
34
Residential
305
TOTAL
Acres
EMPL. ACRES
NEEDED:
NET
74
GROSS
93
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
LAND NEED:
453
s City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population Flement, 2019-2039.
9 City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Elrmcnt, 2019-2039.
14 City of Central Paint Comprehensive Plan Regional Plan Element, 2015-2035-
11
015-2035_11 City of Central Point Residential Buildable Lands inventory, 2019-2039.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 8 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
To address the identified land needs and deficient available buildable land supply inside the current urban
area, the City is amending its UGB (Table 2).
Table 2, Proposed UGB by Location and Land Use Classification
CP -213
110
13
17
21
4
0
0 3 147
CP -4D
1
0
0 0 22
CP -3
0
18
0
1
15 2 36
CP -6A
212
5
17
0
0 6 240
TOTALS
323
35
55
5
15 11 444
For the purposes of this UGB Amendment, the City discounted environmentally constrained lands and
existing right-of-way to determine `reasonably developable' acreage as defined in the Regional Plan
(Table 3 and Exhibit 5)." When establishing the study area, the City eliminated SFHA lands with the
exception of 3.4 acres in CP -2B. The SFHA land at this location is owned by Jackson County. Following
the Pre -Application Conference, the City modified the proposed land use from Medium Density
Residential to Parks and Open Space per the County's suggestion. Based on this land use adjustment, the
SFHA discount was not necessary since open space and parks are generally compatible with floodplains.
Table 3. Central Point UGB Proposal with Reasonably Developable Acreage
Land Use Analvsis CP -213 CP -3 CP -4D CP -6A
Total
Residential
Gross Acreage 130 0 1 235
366
Parks Adjustment 17 0 0 17
34
Gross Residential (Minus Parks) 113 0 1 218
332
Environmental Constraints:
High Risk Flood Hazard Area N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Mapped Wetlands 3 N/A N/A 0
3
Total Environmental Constraints 3 0 0 0
3
Existing Right -of -Way 3 0 0 6 1
9
Reasonably Developable Residential Acreage 107 0 1 212 i
320
Employment
Gross Acreage 13 20 0 5
38
Environmental Constraints:
0
High Risk Flood Hazard Area 0 0 0 0
0
Mapped Wetlands 0 0 0 0
0
Existing Right -of -Way 0 2 0
3
12 Oregon Department of State Lands, Statewide Wetland Inventory Mapper. Eittps:llmaps.dsl.state.or.uslswil
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 9 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Total Adjustments
0
0
0
0
0
Reasonably Developable Employment Acreage
13
18
0
5
35
Parks & Open Space
704
Needed Gross Residential Acres
410
Core Parks
17
0
21
17
55
Bear Creek Greenway
0
15
0
0
15
Open Space
4
1
0
0
1
Gross Parks and Open Space Acreage
21
16
21
17
71
TOTAL GROSS UGB ACREAGE
147
36
22
240
444
TOTAL REASONABLY DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE
136 1
18
22
234
410
The following sections present evidence from the City's Comprehensive Plan Elements used to support
this UGB Amendment application.
2.1.1 Residential Land
Over the 2019-2039 planning period, the City's projected to add 7,216 people equivalent to 2,887 new
households. Most of the growth in housing is expected to result from people moving to Central Point
from in -migration. According to the Housing Element, single-family detached owner -occupied housing
will continue to be the preferred housing type followed by multi -family housing. A summary of the City's
residential land needs is provided in Table 4.
Table 4, Projected Residential Buildable Land Need,
2019-2039
2018 Pop.'
19,101
2032 Forecast`
23,662
2039 Forecast'
26,317
Population Increase
7,216
Persons/HH"
2.50
Household Increase
2,887
Average Gross Density'
704
Needed Gross Residential Acres
410
Total Buildable Resldential Acres
105
Additional M1rrttctl GYoss Residential Acres
305
Portland Slate University Population Research Center, Preliminary Estimate, 2
Portland State University Population Research Center, Coordinated
Population Forecast for Jackson County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB),
and Area Outside UGBs 2018-2068
Based on PSU Interprolation Worksheet
City of Ccntral Point Population Element, 2017 - 2037
s 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
The City has not added any residential lands to its urban area since the UGB was established in 1983.
Since that time, the City has implemented several efficiency measures that have contributed significantly
to increased land use efficiency and longevity of the residential land supply (Table 5).
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 10 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Table
5, Residential efficiency measures summary
No.
Description
1
Increases in the permitted density on existing
Increased in 2000 and 2013 in the TOD and ETOD:
residential land
min. density increased from 3.1 to 7.7 units per acre.
2
Financial incentives for higher density housing
May be considered as part of the City's Housing
Implementation Plan (HIP).
3
Provisions to allow density bonus in exchange for
City has allowed PUDs since 1989. These allow
amenities
exceptions for amenities.
4
Removal or easing of approval standards or
Per the HIP, the City is working on evaluating and
procedures
amending standards.
5
Minimum density ranges
Minimum density standards were established in 2006.
6
Redevelopment and infill strategies
The City approved a HIP, which includes looking at
infill and redevelopment. Strategies.
7
Authorization of housing types not previously
Per the HIP, the City is preparing text amendments to
allowed
allow Cottage Housing.
8
Adoption of an average residential density
Per the Regional Plan, the City adopted an average
standard
density standard (6.9/7.9 u/ac, gross)
9
Rezoning or re -designation of nonresidential land
The City has not proposed re -designating
nonresidential land due to needs for employment.
10
Minimum/Maximum parking standard
The City adopted a minimum/maximum parking
standard in 2006 to increase efficiency.
1 l
Infill participation increase
In the BLI/Housing Element, the City increased infill
participation increase from 6% (historic) to 20%
(next 20 -years).
The proactive approach to increasing land use efficiency satisfies the criteria in ORS 197.296(9). The
most significant of these include adopting Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations and
minimum density standards in residential zones, and increasing forecast infill participation rates for the
2019-2039 planning period as compared to historic rates.
2.1.1.1 Transit Oriented Development
The City adopted Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District and Corridor regulations in 2000,
which were applied to 435 acres and later expanded in 2013 to include an additional 125 acres.
This measure has increased density and more livable community areas by allowing more diverse
housing types, providing minimum parks and open space requirements for each dwelling unit,
allowing lots to be clustered around large common open spaces and parks, and providing
opportunities for mixed uses and multi -modal transportation options. The result in an average
density of 7.9 to 12.8 units per acre within master planned TOD developments (i.e. Twin Creeks,
Snowy Butte Station and Cascade Meadows). Expansion of the TOD District in 2013 on the
City's east side increased the planned minimum gross density for that area from 3.1 units per acre
to 7.7 units per acre.
2.1.1.2 Minimum Density
Prior to 2006 the City had a maximum density standard in its residential zones based on the
assumption at the time that developers would favor larger numbers of units. This wasn't the case.
As shown in the Housing Element, adoption of minimum density standards contributed
significantly to increasing the City's average gross density from 3.77 units per gross acre (1889 -
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 11 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
1979) to 8.42 units per gross acre (2006-2018).13 Although the increase for the time period is
partly associated with increased demand for multifamily housing post -recession, it clearly shows
that minimum density standards have been effective in increasing overall land use efficiency
within the current UGB.
Table 6, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification,
1889 through 1979
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 7, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980-2018
1•
Number and Type of Dwelling Units
+ Mobile Total
SFR SFR Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted Developed Gross
Land Use Classifi
VLRes
LRes
MRes
Snurce: City of Ccntml Point 2019 Residential BLI
30
Number and Type
of DwellingUnits
2,573
49
8
5
603
IMobile
70
130 -
358
53
171
12 439 114
3,564
Total
249
12 569 319
SFR SFR
3%
5%
Mobile
Home
Mixed Use
Assisted
Developed
Gross
Land Use Classification
Detached Attached
Duplex
Triplex Apartment flame
Park
Residential
Living
Unixs
Dwsfty
VLRcs
45
_
45
1.20
LRes
1,256 1
6
3
4 4
1,274
3.32
MRes
215 8
18
15
39 1
3 i1
296
4.29
HRes
167
20
15
232 5
53
1493
Sa 341
1
7.12
Total Units
i 83 9
4A
33
275 10
53
1
2
2.108
3.77
Percents a ofTalol
80% 0%
2%
2%
13% 0%
3%
0%
0%1
100%
Source: City of Central Point 2019 Residential BLI
Table 7, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 1980-2018
1•
Number and Type of Dwelling Units
+ Mobile Total
SFR SFR Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted Developed Gross
Land Use Classifi
VLRes
LRes
MRes
Snurce: City of Ccntml Point 2019 Residential BLI
30
Nltfti mMA Typ NafTMn ii:Jin+ 1:Wii,
2,573
49
8
5
603
27
70
130 -
358
53
171
12 439 114
3,564
119
249
12 569 319
70%
3%
5%
0% 11 U. 2N
Park Residential [Aving Units Density
30 1.51
76 2,711 4.14
15 845 7.85
287 11 60 1,505 9.56
363 11 75 5.091 5.42
Table 8, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2006-2018
5CN( •Q r; c ffsWA 12"J:i 10 3" 34 evI RJ
13 Tables 6-9, Housing Element.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 12 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Nltfti mMA Typ NafTMn ii:Jin+ 1:Wii,
MolidLe
Dr4l.
3fR
:#F'Cf
%14 1111h
IJFMO NUM4 Uff
A�N �
Off.th@ed
Arron
lraa! l r['lasaH.xlo■
OrtaiLnl
Mlaiul
1 I'r Thais* A riMPRit Tlmt#
Ettir! RAM liandlal
f lr
Cam
VE.P.■■
t
t.55
if<.ez
'yl
ly
',.Itlr..
11�
r.
tr is
ri
?wti
3 i1
7.4.1 QsitM
4155
94
Sa 341
1
131
9 41
1L42
Psveea raf7r�tal
46%
1"1
446 0% 34% :i•c
05s fist
2
1
5CN( •Q r; c ffsWA 12"J:i 10 3" 34 evI RJ
13 Tables 6-9, Housing Element.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 12 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Table 9, City of Central Point Housing Inventory by Type and Land Use Classification, 2010-2018
Number and -1% pe of l di ng Units
S -U—: cay -W-t.,i Point 2019 R,, id��Lid Bu
Prior to annexing lands newly added to the UGB, the City will be amending the minimum
densities in residential zoning districts to achieve the minimum average density set forth in the
Regional Plan. Recommended minimum densities for zones associated with the proposed land
use designations are listed in Table 10. These zones support a variety of housing types needed to
respond to market demands and provide options that include but are not limited to the preferred
housing types identified in the Housing Element.
Table 113, Residential Land Use Classifications
ZoningDistrict Density/Gross Acre Density/Gross . cre
`'erg• Low Density Residential Res
Net Lot Size
Net Lot Size
R -L 1
Mobile
Total
35,000 s. ft.
Low Density Residential Res
SFR
SFR
R-1-6 6
R-1-8 5
R-1-10 4
Mobile Home Mixed Use Assisted
Developed
Net
Gross
Land UseClassi5cation
Detached
Attached Duglez Triplex
Apartment
Park Residential Living
Units
Dens i[v
Deni ty
VLRes
-
_
_Homy
N.A.
N.A.
MMR 15
LRcs
144
21 4 -
-
-
169
6.32
5.06
MRCS
94
17 12
71
15
209
11.51
9.21
HRes
28
82
110
27.55
22.04
Total Units
Y3
66 16 _
153
rt
ARR
a OR
oa
S -U—: cay -W-t.,i Point 2019 R,, id��Lid Bu
Prior to annexing lands newly added to the UGB, the City will be amending the minimum
densities in residential zoning districts to achieve the minimum average density set forth in the
Regional Plan. Recommended minimum densities for zones associated with the proposed land
use designations are listed in Table 10. These zones support a variety of housing types needed to
respond to market demands and provide options that include but are not limited to the preferred
housing types identified in the Housing Element.
Table 113, Residential Land Use Classifications
ZoningDistrict Density/Gross Acre Density/Gross . cre
`'erg• Low Density Residential Res
Net Lot Size
Net Lot Size
R -L 1
4
9,000 s. ft.
35,000 s. ft.
Low Density Residential Res
R-1-6 6
R-1-8 5
R-1-10 4
8
6
5
4,000 s. ft.
6,000 s. ft.
7,000 s. ft.
6,000 s. ft.
7,000 s. ft.
9,000 s. ft.
Medium Density Residential (MRes)
7 10
3,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
7 10
3,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
High Density Residential [[Res
R-3 15
20
N.A.
N.A.
MMR 15
20
N.A.
N.A.
HMR 20
50
N.A.
N.A.
.,..Y � —La.. sun �UILIPicucusive rian i-anu use Cdemeln, LU1tS-2wis,
2.1.1.3 Infill Participation Increase
Historically, residential infill projects have accounted for a low percentage (6% of the land
demand)14. Infill lots by their nature are more difficult to develop due to existing development
constraints and cost. As part of the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory and Housing Element,
the City committed to increasing the rate of infill participation in residential land use from 6% to
20%. This aligns with the City's housing policies and a recently approved Housing
Implementation Plan (HIP) that establishes a 5 -year action plan to increase housing supply and
encourage affordability. The City will be looking at regulatory changes to remove barriers and
ease the approval process by enacting more clear and objective standards. The City recently
updated its regulations to eliminate barriers to constructing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
14 Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, 2019-2039.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 13 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Additional actions to be evaluated include incentives to promote housing infill projects through
Urban Renewal and other programs.
As a result of the actions taken to promote a more compact development form, there is limited capacity
(i.e. 105 acres) to accommodate housing needs inside the current urban area. Consequently 305 gross
additional acres are needed to meet the City's 20 -year housing needs.
2.1.2 Employment Lands
The City evaluated its employment needs based on the requirements in OAR 660-009-0015.15 This
requires reviewing national, state, regional and local economic trends, identifying types and numbers of
sites needed to accommodate growth, inventorying vacant employment lands, and assessing the
community's potential for growth.
Over the 2019-2039 planning period, the City is expected to see a 38% increase in its population
accounting for 7% of the County's forecast population growth. The City's analysis assumes that job
growth over the planning period will be proportional to the population capture rate (Table 11).
Table 11, City of Central Point Job Capture Rate, 2019-2039
Central Point's Capture Rate of Job Growth 1 6.2%1 7.3%1 6.8%
Source: 2019 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson and Josephine Counties
According to the Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the City has 633 acres of employment
lands in the urban area.' 6 There are 61 commercial and 87 industrial acres available and suitable for
development with most of the vacant acreage in the industrial category. Based on evaluation of parcel size
by industry type, the Employment BLI shows that large, medium and small sites for office use, and large
sites for retail use are deficient in the urban area.
" City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019-2039. Ordinance No. 5059. July 11, 2020.
16 The Employment BLI (Ordinance No. 2058) was prepared in accordance with OAR 660-024-0050(1) to inventory
employment land available over a 20 -year planning period in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 14 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Average
Popualtion Share,
City/County
Estimated 2019
Estimated 2039
2019-203921s
Central Point's Population 217
19,101
26,317
Jackson County's Population 216
219,270
264,951
Josephine County's Popuialion_ 18
86,423
97,377
Total Po elation of Both Counties
305,693
362,328
Central Point's Capture Rate of Job Growth 1 6.2%1 7.3%1 6.8%
Source: 2019 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson and Josephine Counties
According to the Employment Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI), the City has 633 acres of employment
lands in the urban area.' 6 There are 61 commercial and 87 industrial acres available and suitable for
development with most of the vacant acreage in the industrial category. Based on evaluation of parcel size
by industry type, the Employment BLI shows that large, medium and small sites for office use, and large
sites for retail use are deficient in the urban area.
" City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Economic Element, 2019-2039. Ordinance No. 5059. July 11, 2020.
16 The Employment BLI (Ordinance No. 2058) was prepared in accordance with OAR 660-024-0050(1) to inventory
employment land available over a 20 -year planning period in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 14 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 3, Vacant Acreage by Percentage Distribution and Parcel Size
�� .. �.,.. �._.0 .. �....-..,..a._....r..,._...�....._..�.....»...�..�.��.� - -- -........_.µti.-.
w.....� . _ ...
3rd -
The City is poised to experience growth across all sectors of the economy over the 20 -year planning
period and is especially well suited to accommodate growth in specialty foods, trucking and
transportation, healthcare and retail services. In total, this City is expected to add 1,948 new jobs by 2039
(Table 12).
Table 12, Central Point's 20 -year Job Forecast by Industr
Central Point's Total Job
Southern Oregon's Growth Capture at 6.8%
20 -Year Job of Regional Forecast
Industry Sector Forecase02 (21)39)
Construction & Natural Resources
4,280
289
Manufacturing
1,900
128
Transportation & Uthlities
660
45
Wholesale Trade
200
14
Subtotal Industrial Jobs
7,040
476
Retail Trade
1,960
132
Financial
640
43
Services (professional, business, health,
private education, hospitality, information)
14,500
980
Subtotal Commercial/Services Jobs
17,100
1,155
Institutional/Government 1,640 111
Other 3,060 207
Total New Jobs 28,840 1,948
The City calculated land needs using the employee/acre ratio provided in the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) Industrial and Other Lands Analysis Guidebook." Based on
comparison of needed acres with the buildable acres by employment sector, the City identified a need to
add 23 gross acres including commercial and institutional/government uses to accommodate short-term
employment growth and 93 gross acres by 2039 (Table 13).
" According to the DLCD Industrial & Other Employment Lands Guidebook, there are typically 8-12 industrial
sector jobs per acre, 14-20 commercial and service sector jobs, 6-10 institutional and government jobs per acre, and
6-10 other employment jobs per acre.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 15 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Table 13, Central Point's Employment Land Needs
Sector
Industrial
Commercial/Service
Other/Uncovered
Total Enwlovme
New Buildable Acres
Needed by 2039
21
18
34
74
Gross Employment
Acres Needed, 2019-
2039
27
23
43
93
Short -Term Gross Acres
Needed, 2019-2024
11
23
As part of this UGB Amendment, the City is proposing 35 acres of employment land, including large and
medium sites for retail and office, as well as spatially appropriate employment lands to serve mixed-
use/pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in CP -2B and CP -6A.
2.1.3 Parks & Open Space Lands
Parks and recreation provide many community benefits to health and wellbeing, the economy,
environment and overall quality of life. Accordingly, the City has set forth several objectives to provide
high quality, diverse parks and open spaces to assure equitable access for all residents. The Parks Element
articulates Central Point's vision and objectives for parks and recreation, inventories the existing parks
system, identifies gaps needed to attain parkland performance standards and sets forth policies needed to
achieve the City's long-term parks and recreation objectives. The UGB Amendment proposal aims to
include parkland and open spaces consistent with the City's identified land needs and policies to optimize
parks and recreation benefits as the City grows over the 2019-2039 planning period.
The Parks Element evaluates parkland needs within the current urban area and the City's URAs. The
analysis evaluates the existing parks system relative to the City's preferred level of service standards as
follows:
Core parks target level of service standard is 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Core parks include
Community and Neighborhood Parks:
o Community Parks provide diverse facilities are designed for organized or intensive
active recreation use, such as organized sports or similar sport activities. They are
generally 10-40 acres in size and serve residents within a 2 -mile drive, walk or bike ride.
o Neighborhood Parks reflect traditional parks design concepts that provide for
unstructured, unorganized play and limited active and passive recreation. They are
typically 0.25 to 5 acres in size and serve residents within '/Z mile.
Open Space lands have no numeric level of service standard. Land acquisition for open space is
typically associated with preserving sensitive natural areas and providing connections between
neighborhoods and regional trail networks, such as the Bear Creek Greenway.
At this time, the City has roughly 18 acres each of Community Park and Neighborhood Parks and 82
acres of open space lands. The City also has pocket parks, special recreation facilities (e.g. Joel Tanzi
Skate Park, Civic Field, and Skyrman Arboretum) and 4.9 miles of trails that offer both active and passive
forms of recreation for Central Point residents and visitors.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 16 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Based on evaluation of forecast growth, the City needs approximately 55 acres of core parkland. Figure 4
shows the distribution of core park target acquisition areas including the CP -2B and CP -6A expansion
areas. The City owns land in CP -41) planned to be developed as Boes Park. This will be a core park that
must be brought into the UGB before funding and parks development can occur. Other core parks
location will be generally consistent with the locations identified in Figure 4 with the exact location being
determined as a function of development through the master planning process.
Although no open space is identified as needed due to the absence of a numeric performance standard, the
City proposes inclusion of open space parcels on Bear Creek in CP -2B and CP -3 to preserve sensitive
natural areas and to take jurisdiction of Bear Creek Greenway lands that are currently surrounded by the
City limits.
Figure 4, Core Parkland Needs/Distribution Map
1 L'P R3. 1'TM1f
51 41
+F !
a I� R I s7 i
.A,. J*I
44
•
y
*"
�F*,
_
:w.. g �.1.'� 1' lw _ PbrX41As
M1L
01. 1.1.
11.4;1ii•Ni ,•.
�^~••C^PYI'■ 7Lf' �! P'; 7b�1
� I
1®.. t.. ..L ti,
Y 1, 'Y'15.'. i'•
y
���TT � J
err
t.�
.S
rt
91
k
��� ti+ `R16 L
i
I
I`
~�ti...
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 17 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
M1L
01. 1.1.
11.4;1ii•Ni ,•.
�^~••C^PYI'■ 7Lf' �! P'; 7b�1
� I
1®.. t.. ..L ti,
Y 1, 'Y'15.'. i'•
y
���TT � J
i6P V. f! rJ@.'
}.JL. .,.J .I. •..
91
-. ....+.i.
L L
.. Yr ..J...
Source: Parks Element
of the Comprehensive Plan
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 17 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
2.1.4 Public Facility Land Needs
Public Facilities and services are necessary to accommodate the City's growth in a timely, orderly and
economic manner. The needs for water, stormwater, transportation and sewer services in terms of facility
type, location, and capacity are defined in the City's Master Plans for water, stormwater and
transportation, and by Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) for sewer. For the purposes of this UGB
Amendment, land needs are reported as gross acreage including up to 25% for public facilities such as
streets and schools. 18
To better understand capacity issues, improvement needs and cost, the City hired Brown and Caldwell to
evaluate the proposed UGB expansion areas on the water system, and Southern Oregon Transportation
Engineering to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis. The UGB expansion areas do not include improved
storm drainage systems, so it will be necessary to complete facility planning for stormwater prior to
annexation. RVSS evaluated sewer and concluded that the proposed expansion areas can be served by
existing sewer infrastructure with a mainline extensions in CP -6A and CP -213.
2.1.4.1 Water System Master Plan Update
The City is in the process of updating its Water System Master Plan, which evaluates the existing storage,
piping and distribution system relative to growth and performance standards for municipal water systems.
Early in the planning process for the UGB Amendment, the City requested evaluation of high priority
areas for inclusion in the UGB as part of the alternative boundary scenario planning (). Following a public
process, the City Council selected a preferred alternative and adjustments were made to incorporate
public comments and add land for employment use in CP -3. A more extensive technical analysis was
conducted to identify potential system deficiencies and capital improvements needed to accommodate
growth over the 2019-2039 planning period. Results of this analysis are provided in Technical
Memorandum No. 2, which is attached to the City's Location Analysis Report (Exhibit 5).
The report found that when the City takes down the existing 1M Gallon water storage tank in town due to
its age, its replacement will need to be upsized to 2M Gallons to accommodate growth inside the urban
area and proposed UGB expansion areas. Additionally, piping and distribution improvements will be
needed to maintain adequate fire flows. The improvements are being added to the Capital Improvement
Project list and water financing plan, as necessary demonstrate that adequate water facilities and services
are planned or available at the time of annexation. Expansion of the City's water system will occur as a
function of development, including construction facilities to serve new subdivisions and site
developments and System Development Charges (SDCs) pay for the impact of development on the larger
water system.
2.1.4.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering was hired to evaluate the impacts of the proposed UGB
Amendment on existing and planned infrastructure. Although the requirement to comply with the State
Transportation Planning Rule does not apply to UGB Amendments that retain County zoning
designations until annexation, the City's municipal code requires a TIA for any proposal that amends a
comprehensive plan land use designation. Additionally, the TIA provides important information regarding
the adequacy of state, county and some city facilities over the planning period and identifies mitigation
that can be applied to assure the transportation network continues to meet applicable performance
standards as the City grows. The TIA is provided as an attachment to the City's Location Analysis Report
(Exhibit 5).
18 OAR 660-024-0040(10).
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 18 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
The TIA studied 25 existing intersections and 11 new intersections based on planned improvements and
feedback received from Jackson County Roads, the Oregon Department of Transportation and City of
Central Point Public Works Department. Based on the Study Area, City staff submitted a request to
ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) to evaluate alternative growth scenarios using
the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO) Travel Demand Model. Following selection of a
preferred alternative with amendments, TPAU performed additional analysis that was utilized by
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, along with updated traffic counts, to prepare the TIA.
The TIA analyzed existing year 2019 conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and future year 2039
no build and build conditions during the p.m. peak hour to determine what impacts the proposed UGB
expansion will have on the transportation system. The findings of the analysis conclude that the proposed
UGB amendment can be approved without creating adverse impacts to the transportation system with
mitigation. Two intersections are shown to exceed their applicable performance standards under future
year 2039 no build conditions. Four additional intersections exceed performance standards under future
year build conditions. Traffic impacts and mitigation are summarized below:
Future Year 2039 No -Build Mitigation
1) Gebhard Road/Pine Street. Addition of a third west bound through lane from Table Rock
Road to Interstate 5 northbound ramps, and dual eastbound and south bound left turn lanes
are recommended to help with corridor congestion.
2) Upton Road/ Scenic Avenue. Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout is recommended
when warrants are met.
Future Year 2039 Build Mitigation
3) Gebhard Road/Beebe Road. This new connection in the future is planned as a two-way, stop -
controlled intersection in the City of Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP). Beebe
Road approaches are stop controlled and Gebhard approaches have free movements north and
south. Eastbound movements on Beebe Road are shown to operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "F" which exceeds the City's LOS "D" or better performance standard. Based on
analysis of options, a roundabout is recommended to mitigate higher demand associated with
increased traffic volumes and to blend with roundabouts planned to the north.
4) North Grant Road/Twin Creeks Crossing. This intersection is planned to become a 4 -way
intersection in the future with increased traffic generated from eastbound traffic moving from
CP -6A. It exceeds both City and County performance standards as a two-way stop controlled
intersection but meets both when modeled as an all -way stop controlled intersection. When
warranted, it is recommended that stop signs be installed on all approaches.
5) Gebhard Road/Wilson Road. This intersection is currently a two-way stop -controlled
intersection with stop signs on the Gebhard Road approaches and free movements on Wilson.
In the future year, it exceeds County performance standards due to increased traffic volume
to/from Wilson Road. The TIA shows that performance standards can be met by installing
stop signs on Wilson Road when warranted to make this an all -way stop controlled
intersection.
6) Upton Road/CP-2B. This future intersection will incorporate a new street connection from
CP -213 URA to Upton Road, and is shown to exceed the County's performance standard due
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 19 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
to increased traffic to/from Upton Road. The TIA shows that performance standards can be
met with implementation of a center turn lane on Upton Road when warranted.
As shown, the proposed UGB Amendment is consistent with the UGBMA and, although not subject to
the TPR, can meet performance standards consistent with the City and County TSPs with mitigation.
2.2 Location
The City of Central Point UGB Amendment encompasses an area of approximately 444 acres (Figure 1,
Central Point UGB Amendment Area). It includes lands within four (4) URAs, including 240 acres in CP -
6A, 145 acres in CP -213, 23 acres in CP -4D, and 38 acres in CP -3 (Figure 3, Location Reference). There
are 51 tax lots within the proposed UGB expansion areas with a total of 34 rural dwellings (Figure 6-9,
Aerial Maps, Exhibit 3, Tax Lot Inventory).
Figure 5, Proposed UGB Amendment Locational Reference
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 20 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
X 1
L6(Mml
.A 0M 4 Llb
Lir.
LJ 11wf i A wsa w Ala"
M it U� kral
rr.+c s-0 ir.r
M zM YTS RM d
A*.Ztwp�twF
mIPA q.N MM
p►.Y %" hid
M ay.a N. -d un
AX
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Pint Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Pmposed UGB Study Ams Map
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 21 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 6, CP -213 UGB Expansion Aerial Map
[Agend
�"'rs,op�..b ld[IBr...e�tlon.rA i.......•' G1� Lmm
PMPQW we 14. k+ta �.~v Jd4e►:.PrpiMh MwwMwy
Central Point Urban Growth Bounda
CENTRAL
POINT
Amendment
Eastside UGB
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 22 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 7, CP -3 UGB Expansion Aerial Map
Proposed UGB Tax Lots = CNT Lwrkft
DProposed tFGB A.=M.nl 1:0 U�t. c3.0, B..M y
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Eastside UGB
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 23 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 8, CP -413 UG13 Expansion Aerial Map
Legend
,"I'm....
X Proposed UOB Amendmml ED GRy LJmllz
Pmpos d UQB Thz Luis ED Uman GIDS h Srn dwy
CENTRAL
POINT
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Eastside UGB
CP -4D
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 24 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
C„ 7
F ! u';� '�1 fi .s
0
F4, qr
L r -j
t5 R
ti
r,Tfar,i[1fv�1 OR r
0
rA
L
it
1P.,
L H
ft.
F ! u';� '�1 fi .s
0
F4, qr
L r -j
Figure 10, Current County Zoning Map
L&a
��er
�Illl IWC IN-M—M C-.ny Lpnkm
. • . ^ �. r® u. rain
.... •. .. w.r n..�ir eltaj
A
CENTRAL
POINT
N)
win
•t
i
r
ti
i
1 �
i
Central Point Urban Growth Bou
Amendment
County Zoning
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 26 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
2.3 County Land Use and Zoning
The current County land use is divided between two (2) general land use categories: Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) (86%) and Residential (12%). Table 14 identifies the current County zoning by acreage and
percentage. Figures 7-10 shows the current County zoning.
Table 14, Current & Proposed County Zoning
DistrictCounty Zoning
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
380
86%
Rural Residential RR -5
32
7%
Rural Residential (RR -2.5)
20
5%
Urban Residential (UR -1)
1
0%
Existing Right -of Way
11
3%
TOTAL
444
1000%
The City's UGB Amendment request designates the proposed UGB Expansion Areas to be recognized as
Urbanizable Land (UA) per the County Comprehensive Plan and retains the County's zoning designations
until such time lands are annexed into the City. During the interim time, the Urban Growth Boundary
Amendment (UGBMA) will govern joint management of lands in the proposed UGB expansion areas
(Exhibit 4).
2.4 Proposed City Land Use
The proposed UGB Amendment will apply residential, commercial, civic, and parks and open space
general land use designations and identify areas that will be part of a Mixed-use/Pedestrian Friendly Area
as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(8) and required by the Regional Plan Performance Indicator 4.1.6 (2.6
City Regional Plan Element). This term is used by the City synonymously with the term "Activity
Center" per the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Table 15 identifies the proposed land use
designations by acreage and percentage. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed land use pattern and Figure 11
delineates the proposed Activity Centers.
Table 15, Proposed Land Use by Gross Acreage & Percentage
Proposed
PercentageDesignations Totals
Residential
—Very Low Density
1.0
0.2%
Low Densi
85.7
19.3%
Medium Density
205.5
46.2%
High Density
40.6
9.1%
Total Residential
332.9
74.9%
Employment
General Commercial
17.5
3.9%
Employment Commercial
0.0
0.0%
Neighborhood Commercial
12.9
2.9%
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 27 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Industrial, General
0.0
0.0%
Industrial, Light
0.0
0.0%
Civic
4.9
1.1%
Total Employment
35.3
7.91
Parks & ❑ en Space
Core Parks
56.3
12.7%
Bear Creek Greenway
15.1
3.4%
Open Space
5.0
1.1%
Total Parks & Open Space
76A
17.2%
TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE
444.6
100.0%
The following sections describe the land use designations as defined in the Central Point Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Element:
2.4.1 Residential Land Use
There are four (4) residential land use classifications and nine (9) supporting zoning districts. The four (4)
land use classifications, their zoning designation, and minimum and maximum densities are provided in
Table 16.
VLRes (Very Low
Density)
LRes (Low Density)
MRes (Medium
Density)
Single -Family
R -L 1 to 4
Detached
Single -Family
R-1-6 4 to 8
Detached and Attached
R-1-8
R-1-10
Single -Family
R-2 7 to 20
Attached, Plexes and
LMR
Apartments
HRes (High Density) Single -Family R-3 20 to 50
Attached, Plexes, MMR
Apartments HMR
Source: City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Ordinance No. 2043, March 8, 2018
The proposed UGB Amendment designates residential land use based on the minimum gross densities in
Table 16. At the time of annexation, zoning districts will be assigned in conformance with this UGB
Amendment proposal.
2.4.1.1 Very Low Density Residential (VLRes)
The purpose of the VLRes classification is to encourage, accommodate, maintain and protect a suitable
environment for residential living at very low densities on lands that are impacted by environmental
constraints, or agricultural buffering needs. This land use designation accounts for just over l % of the
City's residential land supply. It is supported by the Residential Low Density (R -L) zoning district.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 28 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
The proposed UGB expansion areas include 1 acre of VLRes lands in the CP -4D expansion area. This
property is already developed with a single-family detached dwelling. Pending inclusion in the UGB this
property will be eligible to add one (1) accessory dwelling unit (ADU). No further land development at
this location is anticipated.
2.4.1.2 Low Density Residential (LRes)
The LRes land use classification supports the need for low density housing and represents the City's R-1
zoning district. The LRes classification represents the largest residential land use category, accounting for
60% of the City's residential acreage. The purpose of this land use classification is to accommodate the
demand for single-family attached and detached housing. In accordance with recent legislation, zoning
regulations will be amended to allow duplexes on zones within the LRes land use classification. The
minimum density is 4 dwelling units per gross acre (R-1-10), with a maximum of 8 dwelling units per
gross acre.
The UGB proposal includes roughly 84 acres within the LRes land use classification. Although it can
support three (3) residential zones, the minimum gross density (4 units/acre) was applied to assure
achievement of the minimum average gross density. At the time of annexation, the accompanying zone
map amendment will meet the minimum gross density needed to provide at least 334 housing units.
2.4.1.3 Medium Density Residential (MRes)
The MRes classification's preferred location is within 1/2 mile of activity centers and/or transit facilities.
The MRes classification allows for a mix of detached and attached dwelling units either owner and/or
renter occupied, subject to compliance with the minimum and maximum density requirements Table 16.
The MRes designation covers two zoning districts; the R-2 and the LMR districts. The LMR district is a
performance based zoning district that applies to all new development within the UGB. The R-2 district
applies to older areas of the City that are already developed. To avoid non -conforming issues properties in
the R-2 retains separate development standards from the LMR district, but may in -fill, or redevelop using
LMR standards.
The proposed UGB Amendment includes roughly 197 acres of land within the MRes land use
classification. Per the Land Use Element, these lands will be zoned Low Mix Residential at the time of
annexation. The minimum average gross density for the MRes land use classification and LMR zone is 7
units per acre, which will provide at least 1,377 housing units.
2.4.1.4 High Density Residential (HRes)
This land use classification supports high density housing. The HRes classification's preferred location is
within 1/2 mile of activity centers and/or transit facilities.
The HRes classification supports three zoning districts; the R-3, the Medium Mix Residential (MMR),
and the High Mix Residential (HMR) (Table 16). The only distinguishing factor between the R-3 and
MMR zoning districts is that the R-3 district is typically in the older areas of the City and were developed
under older standards, while the MMR and HMR are applied to new development within the UGB,TOD
and CBD overlay. The HMR district is the City's highest density residential zoning district, which was
initially reserved for use in the TOD district/corridor, but is now allowed outside the TOD
district/corridor.
The proposed UGB Amendment includes about 38 acres of land within the HRes land use classification.
Based on the minimum average gross density, this land can accommodate a minimum of 571 housing
units if all of the land is zoned MMR. No R-3 zones will be allowed in the UGB per the Land Use
Element.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 29 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 11, Existing and Proposed Activity Centers
' Aspard uca NiMr�..aru�
taiel�+p�clnrn�r csnbn� f
1rge�sr�wodFRi�#t.nlr IN/y �
rWhAL rbrCwMr *
aruPO.Wu ►►fit Wrasaey.h r,f r11f,W
City of Central Point UGB Amendment
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
i
i
Central Point UGB Amendment
Existing and Proposed Activity Centers
2019-2039
Page 30 of 120
y
1
i
ti�
1
Central Point UGB Amendment
Existing and Proposed Activity Centers
2019-2039
Page 30 of 120
2.4.2 Commercial Land Use
The City's commercial land use classification is comprised of three secondary classifications:
• Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
• Employment Commercial (EC); and
• General Commercial (GC)
The proposed UGB Amendment includes land use designations in the NC and GC classifications.
2.4.2.1 Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Neighborhood Commercial, provides for small neighborhood convenience retail and services needs of
adjacent residential neighborhoods. To assure that Neighborhood Commercial districts are sized to
service neighborhood needs. Neighborhood Commercial districts should be limited to approximately 3-5
acres with a typical service area of 3 miles. The NC district should be located along collector and/or
arterial streets and designed to complement the retail and service needs of abutting residential
neighborhoods. The design of this commercial district should be at a scale and architectural character that
complements and functionally compatible with the neighborhood and emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle
convenience.
The UGB Amendment includes two (2) NC districts, including eight (8) acres in CP -213 and roughly 5
acres in CP -6A. Both proposed NC districts are located along Collectors and are intended to serve
residential neighborhoods proposed for inclusion in the UGB, as well as existing residential
neighborhoods within 3 miles.
The proposed NC land use area in CP -213 is sited adjacent to a future east/west Collector between Upton
and Gebhard Road and land owned and operated by the Rusted Gate Farm to the north. This group
recently acquired approximately 154 acres within and adjacent to the CP -213 URA (Figure 12). By siting
NC lands in proximity to Rusted Gated, the City aims to provide an opportunity for neighborhood scale
retail, services, and other uses that are supportive of Rusted Gate Farm's vision to create an agro-tourism
hub. As an example, a cider house and restaurant may not be appropriate on County land in the Exclusive
Farm Use. If sited in the City, there are options to create destination businesses that could be mutually
beneficial to the Farm and urban environment.
The proposed NC land use area in CP -6A is at the intersection of Taylor and Grant Road, just west of the
Latter Day Saints Temple site. This NC land use area may provide opportunities for neighborhood scale
professional offices, retail and service uses that may be more dynamic given the proximity to this Civic
site and higher density, walkable residential neighborhoods.
2.4.2.2 General Commercial (GC)
The GC classification is designed to accommodate commercial, business, and light industrial uses that are
most appropriately located along or near major highways or arterials and are largely dependent of
highway visibility and access.
The UGB proposal includes roughly 18 acres of GC lands within the CP -3 UGB expansion area. This
area was included to satisfy the need for commercial employment lands. It is the last infill GC
commercial lands along the East Pine Street (County Arterial) corridor. Additionally the property owners
have requested its inclusion in the UGB with the intent to develop the site with uses supported by the GC
zone.
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 31 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions
Figure 12, Rusted Gate Farm/CP-2B UGB Expansion Area Location Reference Map
■' N
ir - 46
e nr4 �w. i i
•- t y '• F
a I.
K.
,
_ - . �� �tr�u .t�,r.,�i���*• t��e—res i,r
•'Fv�_ Fr4hkx•J �'w A7�17?' _
2.4.3 Civic Land Use
Lands designated for this use consist of a variety of uses considered to be public in nature or perform
public services, particularly public schools, which account for the largest percentage of acreage in this
classification.
The proposed UGB includes roughly 5 acres of lands designated for Civic use along Gcbhard Road, a
Collector.
2.4.4 Parks and Open Space Land Use
Parks and recreation land uses are addressed in the Parks Element. The Central Point UGB Amendment
proposes roughly 55 acres of core parkland, 5 acres of open space and 15 acres of Bear Creek Greenway.
2.4.5 Proposed Land Use Conclusion
As shown in this application, the City of Central Point has demonstrated need for land uses that cannot be
accommodated within the current UGB. This determination is based on current population forecasts,
buildable lands inventories, and analysis of housing, employment and parks. At full build -out, the City's
UGB will provide at least 2,886 dwelling units, of which 2,265 (78%) and 35 acres (100%) of commercial
and civic lands within Mixed-Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas. This exceeds the City's commitment to
provide 39% of new housing units and 48% of new employment opportunities in Mixed-Use/Pedestrian
Friendly Areas per the RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan.
The Findings of Fact in Section 3 address the UGB Amendment relative to the applicable criteria
City of Central Point UGB Amendment Page 32 of 120
Findings of Fact & Conclusions