Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 1, 2006i~° CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 1, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 705 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Connie Moczygemba, Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Chuc1C Piland, Wayne Riggs, and Pat Beck III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of July 1$, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pgs. 1 - 2 A. File No. 6082. A public hearing to consider a Site Plan application far the creation of a five (5}unit zero lot line structure located in a TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. The address is 126 North Third Street and is located north of Manzanita Street, west of North Fourth Street, east side of North Third Street and south of Laurel Street (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700). Home Brothers, LLC, Applicant. Pis. 3 - ~ B. File No. Ob095. A public hearing to consider a Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating eve (5) attached single family residential units on property located in a TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. The address is 126 North Third Street and is located north of Manzanita Street, west of North Fourth Street, east side of North Third Street and south of Laurel Street (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700}, Home Brothers, LLC, Applicant. VI. MISCELLANEOUS Pgs. s - 14 A. Update on Urban Growth Boundary Expansion B. Update on Regional Problem Solving VII. ADJOURNMENT PCO&4106 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 2006 i. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Damian Idiart, and Wayne Riggs were present. Camrnissioners Candy Fish and Mack Lewis were absent. Also in attendance were: Don Burt, Planning Manager; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence pertaining to items A & B on the agenda. IV. MINUTES Wayne Riggs made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2006 Planning Cornrnission meeting. Chuck Piland seconded the motion: ROLL CALL: ldiart, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. File No. 6082. A public hearing to consider a Site Plan application for the creation of a five (5) unit zero lot line structure located in a TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. The address is 126 North Third Street and is located north of Manzanita Street, west of North Fourth Street, east side of North Third Street and south of Laurel Street (Jackson County Assessor's rnap 37S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700). I~Iome Brothers, LLC, Applicant. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Planning Co»nrrissiorr eLfirrrrtes July 18, 2006 .Wage 2 Don Burt, Planning Manager, presented background infoz-~nation and some of the history pertaining to this site plan application. He informed cozrzmissioners that the project as submitted does z~ot comply with the standards ofthe TOD-HMR district. In an attempt to maintain a pedestz-ian friendly orientation to the street, access to the proposed units would have to be made from an alley. Applicants are aware of this requirement and are creating appropriate access to conform to design criteria for the TOD. In response to a query from Chuck Piland concez-ning the ability of the developer to build on the lots, Mr. Burt stated that it would depend on the floor plan of the units. Mr. Burt further recozrzn~zended a continuation of the public hearing in this matter to August 1, 200b at which tune applicants should have revised plans. Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, cozxzmented that Third Street was a collector street, and the Planning Department would prefer to limit access for this project to the alley. The public portion of the heaz-ing was opened. Rick Knight, an owner of property adjacent to the proposed development, came forward and expressed concerns regarding excessive traffic in the alley behind his properties and requested that the alley be improved and designated for one-way traffic only. The public hearing was continued to the regularly scheduled zxieeting of August 1, 2006. B. File No. 06095. A public hearing to consider Tentative Plan application for the purpose of creating five (5) attached single family residential units on property located in a TOD-HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. The address is 126 North Third Street and is located north of Manzanita Street, west of North Fourth Street, east side of North Third Street and south of Laurel Street (Jackson County Assessor's map 3'7S 2W 03DD, Tax Lot'7700}. Home Brothers, LLC, Applicant. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Planning Manager Don Burt recommended that the public hearing for this Tentative Plan application be opened and then continued in the saine manner as item A on the agenda. The public hearing was continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 1, 2006. C. File No. 05053. A public hearing to consider Final Development Plan for Northern Heights, a Planned Unit Development, comprised of riventy {20} individual tax lots located within an R-1-S, Residential Single Family zoning district. The property is located north of Victoria Way, south of Scenic Middle School, east of Comet Way, and west of Crown Avenue (Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 03AC, Tax Lots 100 & 9900}. Paul Grout, Applicant. Plarrrrirrg Conuni.r,rion rLlinrrres Jrrly 18, X006 Page 3 There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Planning Technician Lisa Morgan advised that the Warne of this Planned Unit Development has been changed to "Scenic Meadows". Ms. Morgan then presented a staff z-epart for this application including the findings and conditions of approval as presented in the packet. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Paul Grout, applicant, came faz-ward to answer any questions that commissioners might have. He indicated that f nal plat would be submitted very soar and Lot 21 would be landscaped. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Damian Idiart made a motion to adapt Resolution 703 recommending approval of the final development plan for Scenic Meadows, a Planned Unit Development, creating twenty (20) individual tax lots within an R-~-B, Residential Single Family zoning district (Jackson County Assessor's map 37 2W 03AC, Tax Lots 100 & 9900) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Wayne Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Idiart, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. D. File No. 05040. A public hearing to consider Final Development Plan for San Ignacio Place, Phase II, a Planned Unit Development, creating twelve (12) single family residential lots within an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district. The addresses are 3328 and 3286 Snowy Butte Lane, located west of US Highway 99, north of Beall Lane, and east of Snowy Butte Lane {Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W IODA, Tax Lots 6500 & 6600). Jeremy Richmond, Applicant. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, presented a staff report including findings and conditions of approval. Ms. Morgan advised there had been a change in ownership of this project following completion of Phase I. Connie Moczygemba raised a concern about maintaining vegetation in this and other types of developments. Don Burt indicated that staff will review past projects far satisfaction and maintenance of landscaping requirements. Damian Idiart expressed a desire to have applicants or their agents available at Planning Commission meetings. Dan Burt stated that although we can't force an applicant to be present, staff does encourage applicants or a representative to be present. Plafuting Conrrnissian rl~lirtrttes .r,~ly~ ls, zoo6 Page 4 The public portion of the hearing was opened, and there being na one present to come forward, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Chuck Piland made a motion to approve resolution 704 to approve a fnal development plan for Phase II of San Ignacio Place, a Planned Unit Development, on property Iocated at 332$ and 3286 Snor~vy Butte Lane (Jackson County Assessor's map 37 ZW IODA, Tax Lots 6500 & 6600) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff reports. Damian Idiart seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Idiart, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Don Burt presented the Planning Commission with updates: 1. Cade changes are still being reviewed by the City Council with a second reading scheduled for the next City Council meeting; 2. A streetscape plan is being put together for E. Pine Street and public meetings will be scheduled to obtain input. The Planning Cozxkmission will be able to impose improvements on future applications at a later date. 3. A Citizens Advisory Cornrnittee meeting was held on July 11, 2006 to discuss population projections and criteria to be used for the proposed Urban Growth Boundary expansion. Housing and economic needs analyses have been completed but the City is still behind on the amendment schedule. 4. Staff rejected Waimart's application as being incomplete. IX. ADJOURNMENT Damian Idiart made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Wayne Riggs seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the July 18, 200{ Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Cornnr~ission at its meeting on August 1, 2006. Planning Camrnission Chair I -~o~~ Br~o~rH~~S, L~L~C STS PL~AI~ S"i-AFF REPORT ., ~§, SZ"A.F~' ~' Z' August 1, 2{)06 AGENDA ITEM: FILE NO» 06082 Site Flan Planr-ing ~partmer~t lorr7 Narrr~r;.pf~rey, AICP, Comrnaar7ity t)oveloi~rner~t Directort Assistsant City Administrator Site Plan Review of five {5) attached sitzgle family units ]orated at 126 r*lorth '1"bird Street, in a T!OD- HMR, High Mix Residential zoning district. "1"hr sufijcct property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700. {Applicants; 1-lomr Brothers) STAFF SOURCE: Dan Burt, Planning Manager BACKGROUND. ffi ~~. The applicant is proposing to demolish existing aging duplexes and ,~~,~ replace them with five {5) zero lot line single family residential stz~urtures, 0. also referred to in the ~1'OD District as attached row housing. Earl1 unit . will have a two car garage. The lot is ,18 of an errs. C?n July 18, 2006 this item was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and continued to the regularly schedule planning commission meeting of August 1, 2006. The purpose of the continuation was to allow the applicant time to prepare modifications to the plans as necessary to comply with the applicable development criteria of the "1"OD-HMR district. ISSUES: FINDINGS: Not available at this time, The applicant has not completed corrections in the site plan as necessary to comply with the minimum rode, The 120-day review period expires August 18, 2006. On July 31, 2006 the applicant submitted a letter of authorization to extend the 120-day time period an additional 60 days. ATTACHMENTSIEXHIBITS: Attachment "A" -Letter of Extension dated July 31, 2006 ACTIONr Consider request for time extension (Attachment "A"}. RECOMMENDATION; Arrept request for time extension (Attachment "A°') and continue the public hearing to the regularly schedule Planning Commission meeting of September 5, 2006. Horne Hrothers Site Ptan T'age 1 of 1 i ~ ~ r I P i ~ I I' d k 71~1f2pOcS ~.~ ~~ T`o: pity of Central Paint In regards to Site plan file # 60#2 and Ter.-tative ~lazx X095. We wa~~lcl lilac to have a GC}- day extension an the city 1201-d~~y rcvicvv g~;ris~cl clue to expire an Aug 1 ZOq~;. ~~ Sh~unc 1<lsclan ~iaiz~.e brothers a I , R GCIC1IGaQ'd c6L# 5fr~pk 9ElOrvl`t8/LO ltBL'~LLLb~ ~~Id~O.~e-~~ H OIVI I~ B ROTH I~ RS, L.rL.yG TI~I~I'T'ATI~I~ PLAIN STAFF REP RT CENTR~4L POINT ST1~F~ ~Ep{~RT August l , 2006 AGENT)A I'T'EM: FILE Nth. 06095 't"etitative Plan planning D~pa,rtment Tart? Ntrrnpftrey, AiCF Camn~unity l)r"veiapmerrt f7irectar! Assistant City Acl~t~inistratar Tentative Plat far five (5) lets laCated at 126 Narth '1'ilird StrcCt, in a TOl~-1-iMR, l-ligh Mix Residential zoning district. The subject prapCrty is idCntilied an the Jackson C«ua~ty Assessor's map as 37 2W 03DD, Tax Lot 7700. (Applicants: 1-lamc 13rathcrs) STAFF SOURCE: Dan Burt, Planning Manager I3ACKGI20TJND; ~; ~~• The applicant is proposing to demolish existing aging duplexes and ,~~ ~,: replace than with five (S} zero let line single family residential .:;;~~ tawnhausC structures, also referred to in the TC-D District as attached raw housing. The proposed tentative plat is presented in anticipation of ~° ~ ~y ,"~ approval of the Site Plan Review far the tawnlaausC develapmetat. The '^" ~';' ...~ property is .18 of an acre, ~"~~ ~. ~x, C?n Ju1y 18, 2006 this item was discussed at the Planning Cammissian meeting and continued to the regularly schedule planning Cammissian meeting of August 1, 2006. The purpose of the cantinuatian was to allow the applicant time to pz•epare modifications to the plans as necessary to camply with the applicable development Criteria of the '1'(JD-HMR dtstrtct. FTNI'3ING5~ Nat available at this time. ISSUES: The applicant has net completed Corrections in the site plan as necessary to camply with the minimum Cade. The 120-day review pe;°iad expires August 1$, 2006. On July 31, 2006 the applicant submitted a letter of authorization to extend the 120-day time period an additional 60 days. ATTACHMENTStEXHTBTTS: Attachment "A"' - Letter of Extension dated July 31, 2006 ACTION: Consider request far time extensian ~Attachrnent "A'"} COMMENDATION» AcCCpt request far time extensian (Attachment "A>') and continue the public hearing to the regularly schedule Planning Camission meeting of September 5, 2006. M..,,. Herne Brothers Tentative Plan Page 1 of 1 ~~ 7131 /2006 s To: City of Central Point ~ regards to Site plan file 6082 and 'l'`cntatzve plan # 6095. e wotalcl like to have a 60- day extension on the city 120-clay re~rietxr period due to expire o~x .f~u~ l ~ 2006. i---i' Shatic Elsdon , Hogue Brothers tCilllLOtl'd ~~,?~G 9b~Ol ~t~0~/G£,~LO lG~L9LL~b~ ~~I~~a:~ucc~~ ~~~~ l.~ - ~~ii~~'~~ ~.1~ Urban Growth Boundary Property Selection Criteria A. Planning Goal 14 identifies the fallowing criteria for identifying Iands to be included within an urban growth boundary: 1. The type, location and phasing of public facilities and services are factors which should be utilized to direct urban expansion. 2. The type, design, phasing and location of major pablic transportation facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, rail, mass transit, highways, bicycle and pedestrian) and improvements thereto are factors which should be utilized to support urban expansion into urbanizable areas and restrict it from raral areas. 3. Financial incentives should be provided to assist in maintaining the use and character of lands adjacent to urbanizable areas. 4. Local land use controls and ordinances should be mutually supporting, adopted and enforced to integrate the type, timing and location of public facilities and services in a manner to accommodate increased public demands as urbanizable lands become rn.ore urbanized. 5. Additional methods and devices for guiding urban land use should include but not be limited to the following: (1j tax incentives and disincentives; (2j multiple use and joint development practices; (3j fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques; and (4j capital improvernent programming. 6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal. B. Additionally, ORS 197.298 identifies the following criteria for inclusion of lands within an urban growth boundary: 1. Land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area ornon-resource land; then 2. Resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710; then 3. Land designated as marginal land pursuant to 4RS 197.247 (1991 Edition}; then 4. Land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture ox forestry, or bath. Note: (I) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate far the current use. (2} Y.and of lower priority under subsection (1} of this section maybe included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1 } of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a} Specific types of identified Iand needs cannot be reasonably accommodated o~i higher priority Iands; (b} Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c} Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. JACKSON COUNTY ,eA~, INTER - O F F I C E Developntenf Services Department t4[elissa Anderson, AICP PlonnerCll 10 South 4akdaJc Av<., Rm 100 Medford, aR 97501 Phonc:541.774-6918 Faz: 541-774-6791 andcrsma@ jacksottcounty.ocg To: Bill Molnar, Jeanell Wyntergreen, Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, Tom Humphrey, john Adam, Paul Wyntergreen, Rob Scott, Gretchen Melath, David Hassell, Margaret Dials, Ron Orman Frorn: Melissa Anderson, AICP Subject: Draft Population Projections Proposed for Jackson County Date: June 21, 2006 Attached is the updated version of the proposed population projections for Jackson County. It was Hated, after the population projections were revised and distributed to all of the cities an Thursday, June 1Sth, that there was confusion regarding the appropriate "RPS" population numbers to be considered, when maintaining consistency with the RPS process. Consequently, County staff and the consultant team have revised the population projections using the correct RPS allocations. The result are new population allocations in greater consistency with RPS, as well as consistency with the State OEA forecast. Due to the delay in distributing the final draft of the population projections, a work-session will be held with the County Planning Commission prior to setting a date far the public hearing. At the work-session, the consultant, Bab Parker of EcoNorthwest, will provide a presentation on the draft population projections for the County Planning Commission. City and State representatives, other governmental organizations, and interested parties are invited to attend the work-session. Participation is encouraged, so time will be reserved for public comment and discussion with the Planning Commission at this meeting: Subject: Jackson County Planning Commission Work-Session on Proposed Population Projections Date & Time: Thursday, July 13th at 9:00 am Location: Jackson County Auditorium, l~ Floor 10 S. Oakdale Ave., Medford if you have questions regarding the upcoming adoption process of the proposed population projections, please contact Melissa Anderson at 7'~4-6918; questions regarding methodology of the population projections should be directed to Bob Parker at 1-5~}1-346-3801. a~ ~CONorthwest ECONOMICS FINANCE Pt.ANNINO Phone • (549)887-4051 Suite 400 Other Offices FAX • (549) 344-0562 99 W. 90th Avenue PortEand • (503} 222-8060 infot~eugene.ecortw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3001 5eatde • (206} 672-2403 2l June 2UQ6 TO: Melissa Anderson CC: Bill Molnar, Jeanell Wyntergreen, Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, Torn Hurr~phrey, Jahn Adam, Paul Wyntergreen, Rob Scott, Gretchen Meloth, David Hussell, Margaret Dials, Ron Orman FROM: Bob Parker and Beth Goodman SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY POPULATION ALLOCATIONS FOR JACKSON COUNTY BACKGRQUN© Jackson County is in the process of updating its coordinated population forecasts consistent with ORS 195.036. The County contracted with ECONorthwest to assist with the technical aspects of developing updated forecasts and in updating the Population Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The memorandum provides an overview of methods ECO used to allocate the County's population to the eleven cities in Jackson County. It also presents a provisional allocation of population to the cities in Jackson County. The allocations are based population figures far Jackson County from the Long-Range State and County Population Forecast developed by the State Office of Economic Analysis. DATA SOURCES The population allocations presented in this memorandum build from ECO's analysis of a range of secondary data sources---primarily historical population data and forecasts from other planning documents. All of fire data used in developing the allocations are from easily available standard sources: • The U.S. Census of population and housing {1980, 1990, and 2000} provides decennial population figures as well as a broad range of demographic and socioeconomic variables; • The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA} provides long-term population forecasts {through 2040); • The Population Research Center at Portland State University provides annual population estimates and annexation history far incorporated cities; • The Phase I RPS report includes a set of forecasts that extended from 2004 to 2050 Preliminary Population Alloca#ion 2i ,lone 2006 ~CONorthwest Page 2 • The RTP includes a set of population forecasts for the Bear Creek AQMA and the incorporated cities within the AQMA. The forecasts presented with this memorandum should be considered preliminary and provisional. We say preliminary because ECQ has not reviewed all the data we would like to as part of this process. We say provisional because we assume the forecasts will change based an discussions with staff at the County, staff at the cities in .lackson County, and the County Baard of Commissioners. In short, we welcome comments and suggestions at this tune and will incorporate them into a set of revised fgures. Methods: 4~erview The literature identifies many accepted approaches to projecting or forecasting papulation. More robust approaches use component models (natural increase plus migration}.~ Simpler approaches extrapolate froze historic trends. At large geographic levels, migration becomes less of a factor making component models more accurate. For smaller regions, migration and other factors are more difficult to document. Appendix A discusses issues with small area forecasts in more detail. At the national or state level, population growth has a larger affect on employment growth. Standard cohort-component models can provide relatively accurate forecasts of population growth in larger areas where the migration component is small. Such models are frequently applied in areas where there is relative stability in demographic characteristics and vital statistics (e.g., birth and death rates}. Regional or city-level forecasts often use astep-down method based on a larger regional ar national forecast. The general concept is to estimate the portion of population regional population growth that will occur in the subregion. There are several variations on the step-down method, summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Basic population forecasting methods Method Description Trend extrapolation Uses historical population growth rates and extrapolates them into the future. Ratio trend Uses current citylcounty ratio of population and extrapolates to the future. Comparative Past growth pattern is compared with growth patterns of larger, older areas. Should consider social, economic, political, and other variables. Source: ~CONorthwest These methods are relatively simple and rely on past trends as an indicator of future growth. A number of assumptions are implicit in these methods: (1}past growth is a good indicator of future growth; (2) factors affecting local population growth will not change substantially; and (3) selection of base year can significantly affect the forecast. ~ 'i'l~e OEA long-range forecasts use this methodology. Preliminary Population Alocation 2i June 20t}6 ECOiVorthwest Page 3 The allocation of population to the cities of Jackson County uses a "ratio trend" method described in Table 1 to allocate population to Jackson County cities. ECO reviewed historical population trends as a basis for future growth. Trend data reviewed as part of this analysis included annual population changes from the Census and from the Population Research Center at Portland State Universitv.~~ ECONo west considered s rat ifferent methods for allocating population to subareas of the County including a compoundin ethod, a ratio method, and astraight-line method. We selecte the ratio >Enethndolagy ause it is (1) consistent with historical population growth trends, ) it is a relatively si e approach that builds from historical data and assumptions about Tutu it and y growth policies, and (3) it assumes that the proportion of the County's population in the cities will change over tune, with faster growth in spine cities and slower growth in other cities. In summary, ECO selected the ratio rnethodalogy because: • It provides the best approximation of historical growth trends in Jackson County; • The County has not identified any constraints to population growth; • Jt is a simple method that implicitly considers factors that have affected historical population growth; • It provides a method of modeling annual variations in population growth that leave occurred in the past and will continue in the future; and • It is an accepted method for allocating population to the cities based on the OEA population forecast far Jackson County. METHODS: SPEC1FtCS The charge was to allocate population to the eleven cities in the County2, based on the OEA 2404 forecast for Jackson County. ECO started by developing population ratios for each city, based on historic and current population ratios. To project future population, ECO considered each city's attitudes towards growth and constraints to growth. We also considered the January 2006 population forecasts for the Regional Problem Solving process. We adjusted the ratios based on these considerations. This ensured that the population allocation was justifiable in the context of the individual jurisdictions-and that a reasonable amount of growth was being allocated to unincorporated areas. The fsrst step was to develop a 2005 base population. ECO used the PSU 2005 estimates for incorporated cities as the base population, 2 Later drafts of the population forecast and allocation will include allocations of population to the following unincorporated areas of Jackson County: White City, Applegate, Ruch, and Prospect. 3'Itiis has some limitation in that it does not include population within 1JGBs.'It~is limitation, however, is not a significant one given that the ratio method works from a control fatal {the County forecast) and allocates population to cities based on that total and other factors. Population in iJGBs is not one of the other factors. Preliminary Population Allocation 21 June 2006 ECONorthwest Page 4 The second step was to develop population ratios for each city. We divided tl~e forecasting period into two parts: 2006-2025 and 2026 to 2040. For the initial population allocation, we developed population allocations far 2026 and 2040.4 Table 1 shows the preliminary population allocation ratios by geographic area. The amount of population allocated to same cities differs from the preliminary population forecast that ECONorthwest completed in ]anuary 2006 for the Regional Problem Solving process. The reasons for the differences are (1} ECO used the OEA forecast to provide the total County population and allocated that population to the incorporated cities and unincorporated areas and (2} ECO allocated a reasonable amount of population to unincorporated areas of the County. Table 1. Preliminary population allocation and allocation ratios 2405 2026 2440 Population Ratio Po elation Ratio Population Ratio Ashland 20,880 10.73% 22,319 8.69% 23,056 7.75% B 445 0. 0.22% 580 0.20% Central Point 15,640 8.04% 23,875 9.30% 31,237 10.50% age ornt 3.90% 12,836 5.00% 1 ° Gold Nill 1,080 0.56% 1,476 0.58% 1,901 0.64% Jacksonville 2,490 1.28% 4,161 1.62% 4,383 i.47% Medford 70,855 36.43% 107,821 42.OD% 132,386 44.50% Phoenix 4,660 2.40% 6,675 2.60% $,032 2.70°1° Rogue River 1,995 1.03% 2,542 0.99% 3,137 1 A5% Shady Cove 2,645 1.36% 3,594 1.40% 3,867 1.30% Talent 6,255 3.22% 8,472 3.30% 9,817 3.30% White City 7,500 3.86% 11,424 4.45% 13,090 4.40% Other Uninco 52,485 26.98% 50,972 19.86% 49,052 16.49% Iota! County 194,515 100.00% 256,718 100.00% 297,496 100.00% Source: 2005 population estimates from Portland State University Center for Population Research; 2005 White City population estimate from the Medford Waler Gommission; Calculations by 1;CaNorthwesi. Table 2 shows a comparison of the change in population between 2005-2026 and 2005-2040. a 1'lZese time periods represent a 2b-year and a 35-year planning horizon. ..~. Preliminary Population Allocation 21 June 2006 ECONarthwest Page 5 Table 2. Comparison of population change between 2005 - 2026 and 2005 - 2040 Chan a 2005 to 2026 Chan a 24305 to 2040 2005 2025 2040 Percent Percent Pop. Fop. Pop. difference change AAGR dif#erence change AAGR Ashland 20,880 22,319 23,056 1,439 7% 0.32% 2,176 10% 0.28% Bute Falls 445 552 580 107 24% 1.03% 135 30% 0.76% Central Paint 15,640 23,875 31,237 8,235 53% 2.03% 15,597 100% 2.00% Eagle Point 7,5$5 12,836 16,957 5,251 69% 2.54% 9,372 124% 2.33% Gold Hil! 1,080 1,476 1,901 396 37% 1.50% 821 76% 1.63% Jadcsanville 2,490 4,16f 4,383 1,671 67% 2.48% 1,893 76% 1.63% Medford 74,855 107,821 132,386 36,966 52% 2.02% 61,531 87% 1.80% Phoenix 4,680 6,675 8,032 2,015 43°1° 1.73% 3,372 72% 1.57% Rogue River 1,995 2,542 3,137 547 27% 1.16% 1,142 57% 1.30% Shady Cave 2,645 3,594 3,867 949 36% 1.47% 1,222 46% 1.09% Talent 6,255 8,472 9,817 2,217 35% 1.45% 3,562 57% 1.30% White City 7,500 11,424 13,090 3,924 52% 2.02% 5,590 75°1° 1.60% Other tlnincor 52,485 543,972 49,052 -1,513 -3% -0.14% -3,433 -7% -0.19% Total CotJnty 194,515 256,718 297,496 62,203 32% 1.33% 102,981 53°1° 1.07% Source: 20Q5 population estimates from Portland State University Center for Population Research; 2005 White City population estimate from the t~Aedford Water Commission; Cabiaiations by ECONorthwest. NEXT STEPS ECO will incorporate the population allocations into a findings report that will be presented to the County Planning Carnzrtission at awork-session on July 13a' at 9:00 am. Following the work- session, adate will be set far a public hearing before the Planning Comtxtission for their consideration and recommendation to the County Board of Comtxtissioners. Apublic hearing will also be conducted before the Board of Commissioners, prior to adopting new population projections for the County. APPENDIX A. ISSUES WITH SMALL AREA FORECASTS Planning implies forecasting. To use policies to change the future in ways that decision makers think their constituents would find beneficial, one must first have an idea of what could ar is likely to occur in the absence of those policy changes. Forecasting is usually better, and better received, if it is based on a model of how the world works. In the context of housing and economic development, that understanding must certainly include how households and businesses make decisions about where to locate, and what types of buildings to occupy. In the context of land use and growth management, the main variables that one must forecast are population and employment, which are then used to forecast the demand for new built space (housing, offices, warehouses, retail stores, and so on). The demand for built space creates a derived demand for land on which to build that space. The amount of land needed depends on the type and density of space that will be built to accommodate population and employment growth. The type and density of development will be a function of market factors (demand and supply conditions} and public policy {especially about density and infrastructure, but also about transportation, economic development, environmental protection, and so on). This function of forecasting is central to Jackson County and its cities: it will allow cities to determine whether they have sufficient land available to accommodate 20 years of population and employment growth. The main point is that {1) forecasting growth requires a consideration of many variables that interact in complicated ways, and (2) any forecast of a single future is bound to be wrong-there are many possible futures that are more or less likely depending on one's assessment of the likelihood of the assumptions. In conjunction with the forecasts, it is useful to describe the limitations of small areas forecasts. The fact that the PSU estimates significantly underestimated the 2400 population of several Oregon cities, underscores one of the key problems that emerge with small area population estimates and forecasts. Following is a discussion of why small area forecasts are highly uncertain: • Projections for population in most cities and counties are not based on deterministic models of growth; they are simple projections of past growth rates into the future. They have no quantitative connection to the underlying factors that explain why and how much growth will occur. • Even if planners had a sophisticated model that links all these important variables together {which they do not), they would still face the problem of having to forecast the future of the variables that they are using to forecast growth (in, say, population or employment), In the final analysis, all forecasting requires making assumptions about the future. Preliminary Population Allocation 21 June 2006 I~CONorthwest Page 7 • Comparisons of past population projections to subsequent population counts have revealed that even much more sophisticated methods than the ones used in the study "are often inaccurate even for relatively large populations and for short periods of time."5 The smaller the area and the longer the period of time covered, the worse the results for any statistical method. • Small areas start from a small base. A new subdivision of 200 homes inside the Portland Urban Growth Boundary has an effect on total population of 0.02%. That same subdivision in Eagle Point would increase the community's housing stock by more than 8%-and population by a similar percentage. • Especially for small cities in areas that can have high growth potential (e.g., because they are near to concentrations of demand in neighboring metropolitan areas, or because they have high amenity value for recreation or retirement), there is ample evidence of very high growth rates in short-term; there are also cases (fewer) of high growth rates sustained aver l0 to 30 years. • Public policy makes a difference. Cities can affect the rate of growth through infrastructure, land supply, incentives and other policies. Such policies generally do not have an impact on growth rates in a region, but may cause shifts of population and employment among cities. Because of the uncertainty associated with small area forecasts, many forecasts present ranges of future population. ORS 195.036 is not explicit on the issue of whether ranges are appropriate (or legally acceptable}, however, the OEA forecasts are point forecasts (e.g., the reflect one rate and a single future population) as are coordinated forecasts at the city level.b Cities have many reasons to use point forecasts: among the most important are projections of future revenues, need for infrastructure, and need for land. These factors provide sufficient rational for cities to develop and adopt point forecasts. That fact, however, does not mean they are any more accurate. In summary, the longer the forecast, the greater the potential that actual population growth will vary from the forecast. This implies that cities should closely monitor actual population growth so that either (1}plans can be modified to account for variations, or (2} policies can be implemented that increase the likelihood of achieving the population growth. One final comment on forecasts: population forecasts are often viewed as "self-fulfilling prophecies." In many respects they are intended to be; local governments create land use, transportation, and infrastructure plans to accommodate the growth forecast. Those planning documents represent a series of policy decisions. Thus, how much population a local government (particularly cities) chooses to accommodate is also a policy decision. In short, the forecast and the plans based on the forecast represent the city's future. vision. SMurdoclc, Steve I~., et. al. 1991, "valuating Small-Area Population Projections." Tournal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, ldo. 4, page 432. 6 ECQ is unaware of any coordinated forecasts that present ranges. It is not uncommon, however, for cities to consider ranges of population and errEployment during planning exercises.