Microsoft Word - 4-F Residentia
DRAFT
TECHNICAL REPORT 2
WOODBURN RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Prepared by:
May 2005
.. ..
""'q
~ -
COMMUNITY
RES 0 U R ( E
PLANNING
WINTERBROOK PLANNING
310 SW Fourth, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204
November 2003
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3
RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS...................................................................................................... 3
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALySIS..................................................................................... 3
ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARy................................ 4
UPDA TES TO THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................................................ 4
RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS...................................................................................................... 4
Statutory Provisions Related to Residential Land Needs..................................................... 4
COORDINATED POPULATION PROJECTION................................................................................ 6
DETERMINE ACTUAL HOUSING DENSITY AND MIX................................................................... 6
Trends in the Housing Mix.................................................................................................. 6
Actual Development............................................................................................................ 9
Summary of Actual Housing Mix and Density..................................................................... 9
Woodburn Subdivisions 1998 to 2002 ................................................................................10
PROJECTED 20- YEAR RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS BASED ON ACTUAL DENSITy...................... .11
YEAR 2020 HOUSING AND BUILDABLE LAND NEEDS METHOD - ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1988-
2002......................................................................................................................................11
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................12
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION............................................................................................... .12
Education..................................................................................................................... .... .12
Age........................................................................................................................... ........ .14
Household Size................................................................................................................. .16
Households by Type.......................................................................................................... .17
Vacancy Rates.................................................................................................................. .19
Nativity....................................................................................................................... .......20
Income........................................................................................................................ .......21
Employment.................................................................................................................... ...23
Housing Ownership Costs in Relation to Income ...............................................................25
Housing Rental Costs in Relation to Income ......................................................................26
Actual Housing Costs........................................................................................................ 28
HOUSING NEED MODEL..........................................................................................................29
HOUSING NEED CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. .31
Measures...................................................................................................................... .....32
DETERMINE PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS .................34
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDABLE LAND NEEDS PROJECTION METHODS.... .34
Residential and Public / Semi-Public Land Needs Conclusions..........................................36
ENSURE DESIGNATION OF SUFFICIENT BUILDABLE LAND FOR NEEDED
HOUSING AND LIVABILITY (PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC) .................................................37
INTRODUCTION
Technical Report 2, Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis, projects the land area needed
for residential and public-semi-public uses for the 18-year planning period, from 2003 to 2020.
This analysis is based on the tentative coordinated population projection of34,919, which
represents an increase of 14,059 persons from Portland State University's 2002 population
estimate for Woodburn. 1
Residential Land Needs
In this document, we determine Woodburn's residential land needs based on the requirements of
HB 2709 (ORS 197.196) and Statewide Planning Goals 10 (Housing) and 14 (Urbanization).
We determine "actual housing mix and density" from 1988-2002, to arrive at a "base case"
scenario. We then conduct a detailed housing needs analysis, wherein we examine demographic
relationships and compare housing costs with household incomes in Woodburn. From this, we
determine buildable land needs for specific housing types (detached single-family, attached
single-family, manufactured homes on individual lots, manufactured dwelling parks, duplexes,
and multi-family) and densities. Finally, we determine the need for parks, schools, and other
public and semi-public land uses that typically are met on residential land. The result is the total
residential land need to accommodate the 14,059 population increase over approximately the
next 18 years.
Economic Opportunities Analysis
ECONorthwest prepared an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) in May 2001 that
considered Woodburn's comparative advantages and identified the types of employment and
industries that Woodburn can reasonably attract during the planning period. To address ORS
197.212 (Economic Development) and Goal 9 (Economy of the State) requirements,
ECONorthwest also determined the types of sites that will be needed to attract targeted
industries, in a subsequent document entitled Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries
(February 2003). These documents recognize the City's locational advantages and outline a
strategy for the City to target specific high-wage industries for future growth. Both documents
conclude the City will need additional land with specific size and access characteristics to
achieve the City's economic development goals. These two ECONorthwest documents serve to
determine Woodburn's employment land needs through 2020.
In March of2003, ECONorthwest also analyzed the effects of a successful economic
development strategy on household incomes, and therefore on housing needs, in a document
called Woodburn Occupation / Wage Forecast (Attachment B). This analysis concluded that:
1 ECONorthwest prepared Woodburn's Year 2020 population projection for review by Marion County in March,
2002. Via letter, Marion County Senior Planner Les Sasaki agreed that this projection was reasonable for planning
purposes. The Marion County Board of Commissioners has not formally agreed to this population projection, which
is why it is "tentative".
May 2005
3
. More than 50% of new jobs created between 2000 and 2020 are expected to pay less than
$30,000 annually on a full-time equivalent basis.2 This is a range of $7.00 to $15.00 per
hour expressed as an hourly wage. About 18% will pay between $30,000 and $39,000
annually, about 13% will pay between $40,000 to $49,000 annually, and about 12% will
pay more than $49,000 annually.
. The successful implementation of Woodburn's economic development strategy will have a
significant impact on the city's wage distribution. The strategy will result in fewer low-
paying retail and service jobs, and more high-wage manufacturing, construction, and
skilled occupations.
ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
In Technical Report 1, Buildable Lands Inventory, we determined the buildable land area, on a
parcel-by-parcel basis, within the existing (2002) Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
In this document we compare the buildable land supply with projected demand for residential
and public/semi-public land. This will enable the City to determine whether comprehensive plan
map amendments are necessary to meet long-term population and livability growth needs.
UPDA TES TO THIS DOCUMENT
The 2005 revisions to this Residential Land Needs Analysis are based on comments by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development, Marion County, and others regarding the
methods and results of the 2003 Buildable Lands Inventory and 2003-04 Land Needs Analyses.
Residential Land Needs
Statutory Provisions Related to Residential Land Needs
Woodburn is required to provide a 20-year supply of buildable residential land within its Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). Statewide Planning Goals 10 and 14, as well as ORS 197.295-
197.312 and OAR 660-07, set forth requirements for residential land use planning. In 1995 the
Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2709 (ORS 197.296) which supplements existing state
requirements for the analysis oflong-term residential land needs and provision of buildable
residential land within UGBs?
2 A full-time equivalent assumes 1980 hours annually. We recognize that many new jobs in Woodburn are likely to
be part-time jobs that will not equate to the annual salary estimates. The base data, however, do not make a
distinction between full-time and part-time employment.
3 This section reads as follows:
(3) As part of its next periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.628 to 197.650 following September 9, 1995, or any
other legislative review of the urban growth boundary, a local government shall:
(a) Inventory the supply of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary;
(b) Determine the actual density and the actual average mix of housing types of residential development that have
occurred within the urban growth boundary since the last periodic review or five years, whichever is greater; and
(c) Conduct an analysis of housing need by type and density range, in accordance with ORS 197.303 and statewide
planning goals and rules relating to housing, to determine the amount of land needed for each needed housing type
for the next 20 years.
May 2005
4
All jurisdictions over 25,000 are required to comply with the provisions of ORS 197.296 at
periodic review or any other legislative review of an urban growth boundary. ORS 197.296
contains two key objectives:
Housing: Ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix necessary to meet a
community's housing needs over the next 20 years, in accordance with ORS 197.303, Statewide
Planning Goal 10 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 7, Housing.
Land: Ensure there is enough buildable land to accommodate the 20-year housing need inside
the UGB.
HB 2709 set forth the following step-by-step requirements related to determine the amount of
residential land needed within a UGB. Tasks in bold are addressed in order in this document:
1. Reach agreement on a coordinated population projection with Marion
County.
2. Determine actual housing density and mix for the last 5 years or since the last
Periodic Review, whichever is greater.
3. Project 20-year residential land needs based on actual density.
4. Determine housing needs based on a comparison of housing costs and income
- which may be different from actual housing density and mix. Then:
a) determine the extent to which actual housing types and densities in
Woodburn have been responsive to Woodburn's housing needs; and
b) identify measures to increase densities within the UGB to minimize the
need to expand the UGB to meet identified housing needs.
(4) If the determination required by subsection (3) of this section indicates that the urban growth boundary does not
contain sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for 20 years at the actual developed density that
has occurred since the last periodic review, the local government shall take one of the following actions:
(a) Amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for 20
years at the actual developed density during the period since the last periodic review or within the last five years,
whichever is greater. As part of this process, the amendment shall include sufficient land reasonably necessary to
accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school
facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the local government that
has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary;
(b) Amend its comprehensive plan, functional plan or land use regulations to include new measures that
demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate
housing needs for 20 years without expansion of the urban growth boundary. A local government or metropolitan
service district that takes this action shall monitor and record the level of development activity and development
density by housing type following the date of the adoption of the new measures; or
(c) Adopt a combination of the actions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.
May 2005
5
5. Determine residential land needs for school facilities. We have also
determined residential land needs for parks.
6. Determine the buildable land area 4 available to meet housing needs, after
considering infill and redevelopment potential.
7. Ensure that sufficient buildable land is designated for needed housing types
at density ranges likely to be achieved in the housing market, as well as for
public needs that occur within a residential plan designation.
8. Amend the UGB and/or adopt measures to provide sufficient buildable land
to accommodate projected 20-year residential land need.
Coordinated Population Projection
Winterbrook and ECONorthwest worked with the City, the County, and TGM administrators to
determine a coordinated population projection for the purposes of this study. The Interim-
approved by County Planning Staff for planning purposes - Woodburn 2020 population
projection is 34,919. This is an increase of 14,819 from the 2000 US. Census population of
20,100 (Average Annual Growth Rate of2.8%). This projection is the basis for projecting
residential and public semi/public land needs.
Determine Actual Housing Density and Mix
This step determines the actual mix and density of housing development in Woodburn from
1988-20025.
Trends in the Housing Mix
The housing mix (i.e., percentage of single-family, attached single-family, single-family
manufactured, duplex and multi-family dwelling units) is an important variable in any housing
needs assessment. Distribution of housing types is influenced by a variety of factors, including
the cost of new home construction, area economic and employment trends, and amount of land
zoned to allow different housing types and densities.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 below, through analysis of data from the 1990 and 2000 US. Census of
Population and Housing, give a snapshot of the status quo for housing development in
Woodburn. Since 1990 is within the study period, Tables 2 and 3 determine actual development
before and after the snapshot to examine trends.
4 Technical Report 1: Buildable Lands Inventory, responds to the buildable lands requirements ofORS 197.296.
5 ORS 197.296 requires a time period of 5 years or the last periodic review, whichever is greater, for the purposes of
this study. DLCD issued Woodburn's periodic review notice in 1988.
May 2005
6
Woodburn, 1990 US. Census of Population and Housing
In 1990, Woodburn had a total of 4,890 housing units. Of these, 3,504 (72%) were conventional
"stick-built" single-family residences. Multi-family and duplex units were relatively rare, at
16% and 2% respectively, while the 513 manufactured homes comprised 10% of the total
housing units.
May 2005
7
Table 1: Woodburn, 1990 Housing Summary
Single-Family Detached 3,504 72%
Multi -Family 772 16%
Duplex 101 2%
Manufactured Homes 513 10%
Totals 4,890 100%
Source: 1990 US Census
Woodburn, 2000 US. Census of Population and Housing
By the Year 2000, Woodburn had a total of6,784 housing units. Of these, 4,592 (68%) were
conventional "stick-built" single-family residences. Multi-family units were second highest at
20%, while duplex units and manufactured homes stayed at 2% and 10% respectively.
Single-Family 4,592 68%
Multi -Family 1,377 20%
Duplex 158 2%
Manufactured Homes 657 10%
Totals 6,784 100%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 3 describes the change in Woodburn's housing composition from 1990 to 2000. Woodburn
added 1,894 housing units from 1990 to 2000. Of these units, 57% were single-family, 32%
multi-family, 3% duplex, and 8% manufactured home. The most significant changes occurred in
a shift from single-family to multi-family development. Fully 32% of additional units between
1990 and 2000 were multi-family units, while in 1990, only 16% of the total housing stock was
multi-family.
Table 3: Woodburn, 1990-2000 Housing Type Changes
Single-Family 3,504 4,592 1,088 57%
Multi -Family 772 1,377 605 32%
Duplex 101 158 57 3%
Manufactured Homes 513 657 144 8%
Totals 4,890 6,784 1,894 100%
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census
May 2005
8
Actual Development
Actual development from 1988 to 2002 in Woodburn was determined through review of building
permits - for the 1988-1997 period by the McKeever/Morris Woodburn Buildable Lands and
Urbanization Project (February, 2000), and for the 1998-2002 period by Winterbrook Planning.
Woodburn, 1988-1997 Actual Development Mix
Of the 1,280 units approved between 1988 and 1997, 31 % were single-family detached, 29%
were multi-family, 2% were duplexes, and 38% were manufactured homes. New Woodburn
housing during this period developed at an average density of about 6.6 dwelling units per net
acre.
Table 4: Actual Development 1988-1997
SFR 394 31% 72.2 5.46
MFR 377 29% 25.1 15.02
Dup 22 2% 1.4 15.71
MH 487 38% 95.1 5.12
Total 1,280 100% 193.8 6.60
Source: McKeever-Morris - Woodburn Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project, 2000
Woodburn, 1998-2002 Actual Development Mix
Of the 904 units approved between 1998 and 2002, 59% were single-family detached, 36% were
multi-family, 1% were duplexes, and 36% were manufactured homes. New Woodburn housing
during this period developed at an average density of about 8.4 dwelling units per net acre, due
to a high proportion of high-density multi-family units and PUDs.
DSFR 556 59% 84.8 6.6
ASFR 0 0% 0 N/A
MFR 302 36% 16.5 18.3
Duplex 10 1% 1.1 8.71
MH 36 4% 5.0 7.26
Total 904 107.4 8.4
Source: Winterbrook Planning and McKeever/Morris.
Summary of Actual Housing Mix and Density
Table 6 summarizes the average actual housing mix and density in Woodburn for the years 1988-
2002. Overall, Woodburn has averaged 7.2 dwelling units per net buildable acre:
. Detached single-family housing has accounted for about 43% of all new units in
Woodburn. The average actual single-family residential density has been about 6 units
per net buildable acre.
May 2005
9
. We did not see any building permit information for attached single-family housing during
this time period.
. Multi-family housing has accounted for about 31 % of all new units in Woodburn since
1988. The average actual multi-family density in Woodburn has been about 16.3 units
per net buildable acre.
. Duplexes have accounted for 1 % of all new units in Woodburn. The average duplex
density has been about 12.6 units per net buildable acre.
. Manufactured housing has accounted for 24% of all new units in Woodburn. The
average actual manufactured housing density has been about 5.2 units per net buildable
acre.
SFR 950 43% 157.0 6.05
MFR 679 31% 41.6 16.31
Dup 32 1% 2.5 12.56
MH 523 24% 100.1 5.23
Total 2184100% 301.2 7.25
Source: City of Woodburn; Winterbrook Planning; McKeever-Morris
Woodburn Subdivisions 1998 to 2002
Winterbrook conducted a study of available subdivision and partition data for the years 1998
through 2002 as a comparison to the building permit data.
We were able to find complete information for 11 projects, comprising a total of 506 lots and
about 105 acres. This gross density was approximately 4.8 lots per acre. To determine net area,
we removed area dedicated for streets (Ded. Area), access easements (Access Area), and
required open space (Tracts Area). Subdivisions and PUDs were determined to have an average
of 26% of their area devoted to streets, access, and open space. This led to an average net
density of almost 6.6 units per net acre for subdivisions and PUDs during the time period
studied. It is important to note that a few of the major subdivision developments (Links at
Tukwila, Ironwood at Tukwila) were associated in a large PUD with a golf course in the northern
portion of Woodburn. This allowed high densities within the subdivisions, which Table 7 reflects
below, but a much lower gross density if the golf course were to be included.
Table 7: Woodburn Subdivision and PUD Summa ,1998-2002
Source: City of Woodburn; Winterbrook Planning
May 2005
10
Projected 20-Year Residential Land Needs Based on Actual Density
The "Base Case Scenario" as described below is based on "actual housing densities" observed
from 1988-2002 (Table 6), as prescribed by ORS 197.296(4)(a). Implementation of this base
case scenario does not require additional plan policy or code text amendments. Implementation
of this scenario would, of course, require comprehensive plan map, urban growth boundary and
(eventually) zoning map amendments.
Year 2020 Housing and Buildable Land Needs Method - Actual Development
1988-2002
For the scenario based on actual development we:
1. Determined the actual mix and density of dwelling unit (DU) types in new developments
(from 1988 to 2002).
2. Used ECONorthwest's projected and Marion County interim planning population
projection of34,919.
3. Applied the 2000 US Census ratio of institutional population to projected population
increase. Subtracted these 337 "institutional" people from the population growth for
purposes of dwelling unit need.
4. Assumed a projected average household size figure of2.9.6
5. Applied an average occupancy rate of 95% (or a vacancy rate of 5%7) to all housing
types.
We determined the number of needed dwelling units (DU) by multiplying the actual mix by the
population increase, dividing by household size, then dividing by occupancy rate. We
determined needed acres by dividing the number of dwelling units by actual density. We then
applied the above factors to create Table 8.
Table 8 shows a need for 4,968 dwelling units and about 680 net buildable residential acres,
using the above methods. Table 8 shows the housing mix and density experienced in Woodburn
over the last 14 years - one possible zoning allocation that can achieve 7.25 dwelling units per
acre. Table 8 does not include need for Public and Semi-Public uses, which is discussed in the
Public and Semi-Public section of this document.
6 The actual household size has risen sharply in Woodburn from 2.7 in 1990 to 3.1 in 2000. This increase can be
attributed largely to in-migration offamilies with small children. We project a return in household size over the
next 20 years (reflecting national trends and cultural shifts) to 2.9 persons per household. See discussion under
Household Size in the Demographics section of this document.
7 The 2000 US Census shows overall vacancy rates in Woodburn of 8%. This is a substantial increase from 1990' s
overall vacancy rate of 2.7%. We projected a midrange vacancy rate of 5%. See discussion under Vacancy Rate in
the Demographic Information section of this document.
May 2005
11
Table 8: Residential Land Need based on Actual Development
DSFR 43% 2,136 6.05 353.1
MFR 31% 1,540 16.31 94.4
Duplex 1% 49.68 12.56 4.0
MH 24% 1,192 5.23 228.0
Totals 100% 4,968 7.25 679.5
Source: City of Woodburn; McKeever-Morris; Winterbrook Planning
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Demographic Information
While housing needs can be projected based on past trends, there are other factors that should be
considered in a Housing Needs Analysis. Demographic information - statistics on age,
education, income, employment, and housing costs - provides insight into the nature of need.
The following sections compare Woodburn's demographic information with some other
Willamette Valley cities (Wilsonville, Salem, and Portland) as well as with Marion County and
Oregon as a whole, describe recent trends for each demographic factor, and analyze the
demographic information in relation to Woodburn's short and long term obj ectives. 8
Education
Overview. Tables 9, 10, and 11 below depict the educational achievement level of working-
age residents of Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon.
Educational levels are important in a housing needs analysis, as education levels are related
to potential income. An educated populace is also more attractive to potential employers,
which can lead to more jobs and more money to spend on housing.
Comparison. Compared to the other cities, Marion County, and Oregon, educational levels
in Woodburn are quite low. Woodburn has a much lower percentage of population with
college education than any of the comparators. In addition, Woodburn has a much higher
percentage of population with less than a high school degree.
Trend. From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of college graduates rose slightly in Woodburn -
the percentage of population with a bachelors degree or higher rose by a total of3% - but the
percentage of persons with less than a 9th grade education increased from 20% to 26%. In all
other comparators, education levels rose across the board. None of the other comparators
showed an increase in population with less than a 9th grade education.
Interpretation. The general educational level of adults in Woodburn is relatively low, and
the percentage of persons with no high school experience has risen over the last 10 years.
These lower educational levels can be explained by the large numbers of recent immigrants
(described in the Nativity section, and Tables 17, 18, and 19) who often are poorly educated.
8 1990 and 2000 data used in this analysis is from the 1990 and 2000 US Census.
May 2005
12
People with lower educational levels typically have lower incomes and generally cannot
afford higher-priced housing. Part of Woodburn' s economic development strategy is to
provide improved educational and job training services. As educational levels increase, so
will household incomes. Recent housing trends indicate an increase in multi-family housing,
which generally is more affordable than single-family housing. As Woodburn's newer
residents become better educated, they are more likely to afford homeownership, and to
demand more traditional single-family housing.
Table 9: Educational Attainment, 1990
Less than 9th grade 20% 1% 7% 6% 9% 6%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 17% 8% 12% 11% 13% 12%
High school graduate 30% 23% 26% 25% 29% 29%
Some college, no degree 20% 28% 26% 26% 25% 25%
Associate degree 5% 6% 8% 6% 7% 7%
Bachelor's degree 6% 24% 14% 17% 12% 14%
Graduate or professional degree 3% 8% 8% 9% 6% 7%
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 10: Educational Attainment, 2000
Less than 9th grade 26% 2% 8% 5% 9% 5%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 16% 5% 11% 9% 11% 10%
High school graduate 24% 20% 24% 22% 26% 26%
Some college, no degree 20% 28% 27% 25% 27% 27%
Associate degree 3% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7%
Bachelor's degree 7% 26% 15% 21% 13% 16%
Graduate or professional degree 4% 12% 9% 11% 7% 9%
Source: 2000 US Census
May 2005
13
Table 11: Educational Attainment Trends, 1990-2000
Less than 9th grade 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% -1%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma -1% -3% -1% -2% -1% -2%
High school graduate -6% -3% -2% -3% -3% -3%
Some college, no degree 0% 0% 1% -1% 2% 2%
Associate degree -2% 0% -1% 0% -1% 0%
Bachelor's degree 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 3%
Graduate or professional degree 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Age
Overview. Table 11 below depicts age distribution and median ages in Woodburn,
Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon. The age of a city's population is
important in a housing needs analysis because different ages can indicate different types of
housing requirements. For example, families with children are more likely to want single-
family homes, while young people just entering the work force are more likely to be looking
for rental housing. An older population is likely to desire smaller lot homes, townhouses, or
condominiums, as their household sizes are smaller (1-2 persons) and yard work can become
a burden.
Comparison. Woodburn has a high percentage of its population at the ends of the age
spectrum. In 2000,42% of Woodburn's population was under 25 years old, compared with
34% for Wilsonville, 37% for Salem, 31 % for Portland, 38% for Marion County, and 34%
for the state as a whole. Woodburn has retained a relatively large elderly population. In
2000, 18% of Woodburn's population was 65 years old or older, compared to 14% for
Wilsonville, 12% for Salem, Portland, and Marion County, and 13% for Oregon.
Trend. Woodburn has become noticeably younger over the last decade. In 1990, 36% of the
population was under 25 years old. In 1990, 26% of Woodburn' s population was 65 years old
or older. During the next 10 years, the under 25 cohort increased in Woodburn by 5%, while
the 65 and older cohort decreased by 8%. As shown in Table 14, Woodburn's age
distribution increased only in age groups between 10 and 44 years of age - by 8% total. This
is quite different from all other comparators. Every other comparator showed a substantial
increase (3-5%) in the 45-54 age cohort, while Woodburn remained the same at that age.
Interpretation. Woodburn has become relatively young city, with an unusually high
proportion of young adults and families. This trend can be explained in terms of immigration
of younger workers, who often have large families. However, Woodburn has retained a high
percentage of retirement-age residents, which can be explained by the presence of a large
senior housing development (Woodburn Senior Estates) and by long-term residents.
The lack of family wage jobs in Woodburn may have contributed to an out-migration of
working age people who were born in Woodburn.
May 2005
14
Typically, households at the bottom and top of the age pyramid have less disposable income
to spend on housing, while households headed by middle-aged workers have higher-paying
jobs and demand higher cost housing. Woodburn's policy is to provide more family-wage
jobs, thus retaining younger and middle-aged workers in the community. This will have the
effect of increasing demand for traditional single-family housing, and decreasing demand for
more affordable housing types such as apartments and manufactured homes.
Under 5 years 9% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7%
5 to 9 years 9% 6% 7% 8% 8% 7%
10 to 14 years 6% 6% 6% 3% 7% 7%
15 to 19 years 6% 6% 6% 4% 7% 7%
20 to 24 years 7% 7% 8% 5% 7% 7%
25 to 34 years 14% 19% 18% 20% 16% 16%
35 to 44 years 9% 18% 16% 15% 15% 17%
45 to 54 years 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 10%
55 to 59 years 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4%
60 to 64 years 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 4%
65 to 74 years 12% 8% 8% 11% 8% 8%
75 to 84 years 10% 5% 5% 4% 5% 5%
85 years and over 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1%
Source: 1990 US Census
Under 5 years 9% 8% 7% 6% 8% 7%
5 to 9 years 8% 7% 7% 6% 8% 7%
10 to 14 years 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7%
15 to 19 years 9% 6% 7% 6% 8% 7%
20 to 24 years 8% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7%
25 to 34 years 15% 16% 15% 18% 14% 14%
35 to 44 years 11% 15% 15% 16% 15% 15%
45 to 54 years 8% 12% 13% 15% 13% 15%
55 to 59 years 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5%
60 to 64 years 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%
65 to 74 years 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6%
75 to 84 years 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%
85 years and over 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Source: 2000 US Census
May 2005
15
Table 14: A e Distribution Trends, 1990-2000
Under 5 years 0% 1% 0% -2% 0% -1%
5 to 9 years 0% 1% 0% -2% 0% -1%
10 to 14 years 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0%
15 to 19 years 3% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1%
20 to 24 years 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%
25 to 34 years 1% -3% -3% -2% -2% -2%
35 to 44 years 2% -3% -1% 2% -1% -1%
45 to 54 years 0% 3% 4% 5% 3% 4%
55 to 59 years 0% 1% 1% -1% 1% 1%
60 to 64 years 0% -1% 0% -3% 0% 0%
65 to 74 years -4% -1% -2% -6% -2% -2%
75 to 84 years -3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
85 years and over -1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Household Size
Overview. Table 13 depicts the average household size, as well as the change in household
size, for Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon in 1990 and
2000. Changes in household size can have a significant affect on the number of housing
units a community will need to house its population. There are two probable affects on
housing demand from larger household sizes: first, families with many children typically
have less disposable income to spend on housing; second, these same families are likely to
spend a greater proportion of their incomes on housing, and prefer traditional single-family
homes.
Comparison. In 1990, Woodburn had a larger average household size (2.7 persons per
household) than Wilsonville (2.3), Salem (2.4), Portland (2.3), Marion County (2.6), and
Oregon as a whole (2.5). By 2000, Woodburn's household size had increased to 3.11 while
Wilsonville and Portland stayed basically the same. Salem and Marion county increased to
2.5 and 2.7 persons per household respectively. The state of Oregon as a whole actually
declined very slightly in household size during this time period, from 2.52 to 2.51 persons
per household.
Trend. The state of Oregon as a whole was the only comparator to decline in household size
during this time period. Woodburn increased household sizes by 15%, while Wilsonville,
Salem, Portland, and Marion County increased by 1-5%.
Interpretation. The rise in household size in Woodburn can be explained largely by in-
migration of young and growing families, who typically have low educational levels and low
incomes (see discussion of Age, Education, and Income in this document). Woodburn's
immigrant families have been mostly of Central European or Hispanic heritage, two groups
that typically have more children and therefore larger household sizes. However, based on
the experience of other immigrant groups in America, household size can be expected to
more closely approximate County-wide averages as young families mature, children create
May 2005
16
their own households, educational and income levels increase, and the cultural expectations
change.
Part of Woodburn's economic development strategy is to provide improved educational and
employment opportunities. Thus, it is reasonable to project that household sizes will remain
high, but will more closely approximate household sizes in Marion County as a whole by the
Year 2020. Woodburn should plan both to provide affordable single family homes, and
maintain a supply of affordable multi-family housing opportunities, such as provided by
Nuevo Amanacer and Esperanza Court.
Table 15: Persons per Household 1990-2000
Average household size 1990 2.7 2.29 2.41 2.27 2.6 2.52
Average household size 2000 3.11 2.34 2.53 2.3 2.7 2.51
Trend 115% 102% 105% 101% 104% 100%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Households by Type
Overview. Tables 16, 17, and 18 below show the type of households in Woodburn,
Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and the state of Oregon, for 1990 to 2000.
Household type tells us the components of households - whether the households are serving
families, unrelated persons, a single householder, or if the householder is age 65 or older.
Household type is important to know in a housing needs analysis, as it explains what sectors
of the population are using the housing available.
Comparison. In 1990, Woodburn had a comparatively high percentage of family
households at 69%. Wilsonville was also at 69%, and Marion County was slightly higher at
70%, but Salem was at 63%, and Portland was lowest at only 56%. The state as a whole was
slightly lower than Woodburn for family households, at 68%. In 1990,28% of Woodburn' s
households were occupied by one person, compared to 24% in Wilsonville, 30% in Salem,
35% in Portland, and 25% in Marion County and Oregon. Woodburn had a large proportion
of householders aged 65 and above at 20%, substantially higher than the comparators, which
ranged from 8% in Wilsonville to 12% in Salem and Portland.
In 2000, Woodburn had the highest percentage of family households among the comparators
at 72% - 3% higher than Marion County, 6% higher than Oregon as a whole, 8% higher than
Wilsonville and Salem, and 19% higher than Portland. Woodburn had a comparatively low
percentage of householders living alone (24%) - equal to Marion County, 2% lower than
Oregon as a whole, 4% lower than Wilsonville and Salem, and 11 % lower than Portland.
Woodburn still had the highest percentage of householders aged 65 and above in 2000, at
16% compared to 9-10% for other comparators.
Trend. Woodburn moved from a high percentage of family households in 1990 (69%), to a
higher percentage (72%) in 2000. This is in opposition to trends among the comparators,
where Wilsonville dropped 6%, Salem remained constant, Portland dropped 3%, Marion
County dropped 1 %, and Oregon as a whole dropped 2%. Woodburn decreased substantially
(by 4%) from 1990 to 2000 in its percentage of householders living alone, compared to an
increase of 4% in Wilsonville, a decrease of 2% in Salem, no change in Portland, a decrease
May 2005
17
of 1 % in Marion County, and an increase of 1 % in Oregon as a whole. Woodburn's
percentage of householders age 65 and above also decreased more than all other comparators
- a 4% drop - compared to a 2% increase in Wilsonville, a 2% decrease in Salem, a 3%
decrease in Portland, a 1 % decrease in Marion County, and a 1 % decrease in Oregon as a
whole.
Interpretation. Woodburn increased from 69% to 72% in family households, and dropped
in all other categories. This means that a vast majority (calculated to 79%) of new households
between 1990 and 2000 in Woodburn were occupied by families. The 4% drop in
householders aged 65 and above in Woodburn reflects the younger age of new Woodburn
residents (see discussion under Age in this document). Woodburn should plan to meet the
needs of these young families as they become more established in the community and
integrated into the workforce. Woodburn should not just plan for development to serve the
existing and future young families, but realize many of the families now in Woodburn will a)
be able to develop wealth to afford ownership housing; and b) will have young adults moving
out of the family home and needing affordable rental housing.
Table 16: Households by Family Status 1990
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE 1990 Woodburn Wilsonville Salem Portland Marion County Oree:on
Family households (families) 69% 69% 63% 56% 70% 68%
Nonfamily households 31% 31% 37% 44% 30% 32%
Householder living alone 28% 24% 30% 35% 25% 25%
Householder 65 years and over 20% 8% 12% 12% 11% 10%
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 17: Households by Type 2000
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE 2000 Woodburu Wilsouville Salem Portland Marion Couuty Oreeou
Family households (families) 72% 64% 64% 53% 69% 66%
Nonfamily households 28% 36% 36% 47% 31% 34%
Householder living alone 24% 28% 28% 35% 24% 26%
Householder 65 years and over 16% 10% 10% 9% 10% 9%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 18: Households by Type 1990-2000
Family households (families) 2% -6% 0% -3% -1% -2%
Nonfamily households -2% 6% 0% 3% 1% 2%
Householder living alone -4% 4% -2% 0% -1% 1%
Householder 65 years and over -4% 2% -2% -3% -1% -1%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
May 2005
18
Vacancy Rates
Overview. Tables 14, 15, and 16 depict vacancy rates for Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem,
Portland, Marion County, and Oregon in 1990 and 2000. Vacancy rates are important in
determining future land needs, as they can affect market choice as well as development
trends.
Comparison. Woodburn in 1990 had the lowest overall vacancy rate of all comparators.
Woodburn's homeowner vacancy rates were fairly comparable at 1.3% to Wilsonville
(1.2%), Salem and Portland (1.6%), Marion County (1.1 %), and Oregon (1.4%). Woodburn's
rental vacancy rate in 1990 was less than half the rate of the other comparators - at 1.6%,
compared to 3.7% for Marion County, all the way to 9.9% for Wilsonville. In 2000,
Woodburn's homeowner vacancy rate was over twice as high as the other comparators -
5.9% compared to 2.3-2.6% for the others. Woodburn's rental vacancy rate was still fairly
low at 6.4%, compared to 9.5% in Wilsonville, 7% in Salem, 6.8% in Marion County, and
7.3% in Oregon as a whole. Only Portland came in lower, at 6.2%.
Trend. Woodburn's vacancy rates for both ownership and rental housing units rose
substantially between 1990 and 2000. The homeowner vacancy rate in Woodburn rose by
4.6% over the 10 years, compared to 0.7-1.4% rises in the comparators. The rental vacancy
rate in Woodburn rose by 4.8%, compared to a slight decline in Wilsonville (-0.4%) and rises
between 1. 5-3.1 % in the comparators.
Interpretation. In 1990, Woodburn had a very low vacancy rate, which indicates lack of
choice in the market for both ownership and rental housing units at that time. Since 1990,
Woodburn's population grew substantially (from 13,404 to 20,100), and Woodburn's
housing market responded by increasing housing unit supply by nearly 2,000 total units
(4,922 to 6,824). As explained in the Age, Household by Type, and Household Size sections,
the increase in population between 1990 and 2000 was mostly young families, with a high
average household size. This phenomenon has led to a fairly high vacancy rate among
ownership units in 2000, compared with Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and
Oregon.
However, one of Woodburn's goals is to increase the education and wage levels of its
residents by increasing educational and employment opportunities. As described in the Age
and Household Size sections, this policy direction taken by Woodburn should act to decrease
average household sizes, increasing the demand for housing units. It's important to maintain
choice and competition in the housing market, both to lower prices and to meet the wide-
ranging housing needs of Woodburn's diverse population, so the current vacancy rate should
not be considered a "problem". Nonetheless, we find it likely that Woodburn's vacancy rate
will move toward Marion County's overall vacancy rate over the next 20 years, due to
projected changes in age, income, employment, and culture.
Table 14: Vacancy Rates, 1990
Homeowner vacancy rate 1.3% 1.2% 1.6% 1.6%
Rental vacancy rate 1.6% 9.9% 4.0% 4.7%
Overall Vacancy Rate 2.7% 6.7% 3.9% 5.6%
Source: 1990 US Census
1.1%
3.7%
3.9%
1.4%
5.3%
7.6%
May 2005
19
Table 15: Vacancy Rates, 2000
Homeowner vacancy rate 5.9% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3%
Rental vacancy rate 6.4% 9.5% 7.0% 6.2%
Overall Vacancy Rate 8.1% 7.3% 5.8% 5.7%
Source: 2000 US Census
2.5% 2.3%
6.8% 7.3%
6.0% 8.2%
Table 16: Vacancy Rates Trend, 1990-2000
Homeowner vacancy rate 4.6% 1.4% 0.9% 0.7% 1.4% 0.9%
Rental vacancy rate 4.8% -0.4 % 3.0% 1.5% 3.1% 2.0%
Overall Vacancy Rate 5.3% 0.6% 1.9% 0.1% 2.2% 0.6%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Nativity
Overview. Tables 17, 18, and 19 describe nativity and place of birth for residents of
Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon as a whole from 1990
to 2000. Nativity is an important factor to look at in a housing needs analysis, as past and
current population stability can be used to make assumptions regarding future population
stability, as well as social and economic stability, over the next 20 years.
Comparison. In 1990, Woodburn had a much lower percentage of native population (as
opposed to foreign born) than all the other comparators - 81 % native population in
Woodburn, compared to 92-96% in Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and
Oregon. In 1990, 11% of Woodburn' s population had entered the United States in the
previous 10 years, compared to 1-4% for the rest of the comparators. In 2000, only 65% of
Woodburn's population was "native", while Portland and Marion County were at 87%,
Salem at 88%, and Wilsonville and Oregon were at 92%. In 2000,22% of Woodburn' s
population entered the United States in the previous 10 years, while the rest of the
comparators ranged from 4-7%.
Trend. All the comparators studied in this document decreased in native population as a
percentage of the whole - Woodburn decreased by 17%, Wilsonville and Oregon by 4%,
Portland by 5%, and Salem and Marion County by 6%. The overall trend was also a higher
percentage of recent US immigrants - Woodburn's population that entered the US over the
previous 10 year period increased by 11 %, while the other comparators rose by 2-4%.
Interpretation. Woodburn's foreign-born population has been increasing at a much higher
rate than Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon as a whole. Much of the
increase is comprised of recent immigrants to the US. These recent immigrants bring with
them a different culture and lifestyle - a diversity that is valued in Woodburn - that also
includes such demographic impacts such as higher household sizes and lower educational
levels (see discussions under Household Size and Education). Over the next 20 years,
Woodburn intends to increase opportunities for education and employment, which should
allow recent immigrants and their growing children an opportunity to adapt to a lifestyle that
is more akin to native and long-term Oregon residents.
May 2005
20
Recent substantial nativity changes and trends in Woodburn residents indicate a population
currently in flux - we expect the large scale inmigration will slow as a percentage of
population growth over the next 20 years, which should bring such demographic statistics as
household size and vacancy rates back toward Marion County norms.
Table 17: Nativity and Place of Birth, 1990
Native population 81% 96% 94% 92% 94% 95%
Foreign-born population 19% 4% 6% 8% 6% 5%
Entered the U.S. 1980 to 1990 11% 1% 3% 4% 3% 2%
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 18: Nativity and Place of Birth, 2000
Native 65% 92% 88% 87% 87% 92%
Foreign born 35% 8% 12% 13% 13% 8%
Entered 1990 to March 2000 22% 4% 6% 7% 7% 4%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 19: Nativity and Place of Birth Trends 1990-2000
Native population -17% -4% -6% -5% -6% -4%
Foreign-born population 17% 4% 6% 5% 6% 4%
Entered the U.S. Previous 10 Years 11% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Income
Overview. Tables 20,21, and 22 depict household income for Woodburn, Wilsonville,
Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon in 1989 and 1999. Goal 10 requires local
governments to provide affordable housing opportunities for existing and future residents.
This is done by comparing household income with housing costs, to determine the type and
density of housing types that are needed in a community.
Comparison. In 1990, Woodburn had a substantially lower median household income than
the other comparators - $22,253, compared to $38,456 for Wilsonville, $25,236 for Salem,
$25,592 for Portland, $26,876 for Marion County, and $27,250 for Oregon as a whole. The
breakdown of income brackets for 1989 shows that 57% of Woodburn's households were
earning incomes ofless than $25,000 at that time. The comparators had substantially lower
percentages of householders in the lower income ranges - 29% in Wilsonville, 50% in
Salem, 50% in Portland, 46% in Marion County, and 46% in Oregon as a whole.
In 1999, median household incomes in Woodburn rose to $33,722, compared with $52,515 in
Wilsonville, $38,881 in Salem, $40,146 in Portland, $40,314 in Marion County, and $40,916
in Oregon. Woodburn maintained the highest percentage of households earning under
May 2005
21
$25,000, with 33% - compared to 19% in Wilsonville, 30% in Salem, 29% in Portland, 27%
in Marion County, and 28% in Oregon as a whole.
Trend. Median household income in Woodburn grew by 152% between 1989 and 1999,
compared with 137% for Wilsonville, 154% for Salem, 157% for Portland, and 150% for
Marion County and Oregon as a whole. The increase in median household incomes was
generally on pace with income growth in the comparators, but Woodburn started at a much
lower base, so incomes rose less in actual dollars for Woodburn residents than for all other
comparators.
Interpretation. Household incomes in Woodburn are low, compared with Wilsonville,
Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon as a whole. Woodburn has kept pace with
income growth trends (from a percentage standpoint), but started with and maintains a lower
base income. Discussion of housing costs to income levels in the Owner Costs and Rental
Costs sections will allow us to determine if housing costs are out of range for Woodburn
residents.
Of note, Woodburn's Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECONorthwest, 2000) prescribes
specific steps for Woodburn to increase education and household income by allowing for and
encouraging higher-paying jobs to locate in Woodburn. The economic effects of achieving
the program outlined in the EOA were described in the Woodburn Occupation / Wage
Forecast (ECONorthwest, 2003). Woodburn residents are forecast to shift into higher income
ranges, due mainly to development of more manufacturing job opportunities as opposed to
minimum-wage retail. To the extent that Woodburn's economic strategy is successful, the
greater income should lead to greater demand for traditional single-family housing ownership
and its potential for wealth accumulation, and relatively less demand for rental housing.
Less than $5,000 7% 2% 6% 7% 5% 6%
$5,000 to $9,999 12% 6% 11% 11% 9% 10%
$10,000 to $14,999 12% 7% 11% 11% 10% 10%
$15,000 to $24,999 26% 14% 22% 21% 22% 20%
$25,000 to $34,999 20% 15% 17% 17% 18% 18%
$35,000 to $49,999 15% 23% 17% 16% 19% 18%
$50,000 to $74,999 8% 21% 12% 11% 12% 13%
$75,000 to $99,999 1% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
$100,000 to $149,999 0% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2%
$150,000 or more 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Median household income (dollars) 22,253 38,456 25,236 25,592 26,876 27,250
Source: 1990 US Census
May 2005
22
Table 21: Income Comparison, 1999
Less than $10,000 9% 4% 9% 10% 8% 9%
$10,000 to $14,999 8% 4% 7% 6% 6% 6%
$15,000 to $24,999 16% 11% 14% 13% 13% 13%
$25,000 to $34,999 20% 13% 15% 14% 15% 14%
$35,000 to $49,999 19% 16% 18% 17% 19% 18%
$50,000 to $74,999 18% 20% 20% 20% 21% 20%
$75,000 to $99,999 6% 15% 9% 9% 9% 10%
$100,000 to $149,999 3% 12% 5% 7% 5% 7%
$150,000 to $199,999 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2%
$200,000 or more 0% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Median household income (dollars) 33,722 52,515 38,881 40,146 40,314 40,916
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 22: Income Com arison Trends, 1989-1999
Less than $10,000 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%
$10,000 to $14,999 -3% -2% -4% -5% -3% -3%
$15,000 to $24,999 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
$25,000 to $34,999 -6% -2% -7% -7% -7% -6%
$35,000 to $49,999 -1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
$50,000 to $74,999 4% -2% 3% 3% 3% 2%
$75,000 to $99,999 -2% -6% -3% -2% -2% -3%
$100,000 to $149,999 3% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3%
$150,000 to $199,999 0% -1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
$200,000 or more 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Median household income 152% 137% 154% 157% 150% 150%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Employment
Overview. Tables 23,24, and 25 below depict the percentage of working age (16 and older)
population in the labor force, and levels of unemployment for Woodburn, Wilsonville,
Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon. Labor force statistics can aid in a Land Needs
Analysis by helping to describe both the economic status of a community and age-related
factors, as most persons age 16 and above and not in the labor force are either involved in
education (high school / college) or retired.
Comparison. In 1990, only 50% of Woodburn residents age 16 and above were in the labor
force, compared with 69% in Wilsonville, 59% in Salem, 67% in Portland, 62% in Marion
County, and 64% in Oregon as a whole. Woodburn in 1990 had a fairly low unemployment
May 2005
23
rate, at 3%, compared with 4% for Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon as a whole.
Wilsonville had a lower unemployment rate in 1990 of 2%.
In 2000, 56% of Woodburn residents age 16 and above were in the labor force, compared
with 72% in Wilsonville, 63% in Salem, 69% in Portland, 64% in Marion County, and 65%
in Oregon as a whole. Woodburn's unemployment rate was fairly standard among the
comparators, at 5% - the same as Salem, Portland, and Marion County, but slightly higher
than Wilsonville (3%) and Oregon (4%).
Trend. From 1990 to 2000, Woodburn had the highest increase of population in the labor
force of any comparator, with a 5% shift - substantially higher than Wilsonville and Salem
(3%), Portland (2%), or Marion County and Oregon (1 %). Unfortunately, Woodburn's
unemployment rate also increased more than any comparator during this time period - an
upwards shift of 2% - compared to 1 % in Wilsonville, Salem, and Marion County, and 0% in
Portland and Oregon as a whole.
Interpretation. Woodburn's labor force has grown at a much higher rate than any of the
comparators. Although Woodburn has a high, but declining, percentage of retired residents,
the working age population in Woodburn is growing younger, so the labor force is growing
and expected to grow further. These young workers need jobs near where they live, so
Woodburn has made the policy choice to increase job opportunities in its UGB, consistent
with the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis. Otherwise, Woodburn's increasing
labor force will face three unacceptable options: ( a) join the unemployment roles, (b)
commute to jobs outside of Woodburn, or (c) leave the area. Because Woodburn is taking
active steps to increase local employment opportunities, Woodburn residents are expected to
enjoy increases in income that will allow for better choice in housing options.
Table 23: Labor Force Status, 1990
In labor force 50% 69% 59% 67% 62% 64%
Unemployed 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Not in labor force 50% 31% 41% 33% 38% 36%
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 24: Labor Force Status, 2000
In labor force 56% 72% 63% 69% 64% 65%
Unemployed 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4%
Not in labor force 44% 28% 37% 31% 36% 35%
Source: 2000 US Census
May 2005
24
Table 25: Labor Force Status Trends, 1990-2000
In labor force 5% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1%
Unemployed 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Not in labor force -5% -3% -3% -2% -1% -1%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Housing Ownership Costs in Relation to Income
Overview. Tables 26, 27, and 28 depict total owner costs as a percentage of monthly household
income for Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon. The relation
of owner costs to income is very important in a housing needs analysis, as it indicates the
affordability of the homeownership housing mix in a community.
Comparison. In 1989, 59% of Woodburn's homeowner households were paying less than 20%
of their income on housing. This was less than the comparators, as 51 % of households in
Wilsonville and 56% of households in Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon could say
the same. The percentage of households paying 30% of more of their household income on
homeownership was 17% in Woodburn in 1989. This also was lower than all comparators-
Wilsonville was at 20%, Portland at 19%, and Salem, Marion County, and Oregon were at 18%.
In 1999, 52% of Woodburn households had home ownership costs that amounted to less than
20% of total household income. This was still higher than all the comparators, which ranged
from 46-49%. However, 28% of Woodburn' s owner households were paying 30% or more of
their income, compared to 23% in Wilsonville, 26% in Salem, 28% in Portland, and 25% in
Marion County and Oregon.
Trend. From 1989 to 1999, Woodburn's housing ownership costs have increased in relation to
household income, as have all the comparators. Woodburn started at a lower base in 1989, so the
percentage increases are more substantial than in the comparators. The percentage of Woodburn
homeowners paying 30% or more of their household income on housing increased by 11 %,
compared to 3% in Wilsonville, 8% in Salem, 9% in Portland, and 7% in Marion County and
Oregon as a whole.
Interpretation. The high percentage of Woodburn homeowners in the highest cost bracket
indicates a need for either lower cost homeownership options or an increase in household
income. Woodburn's demographics are undoubtedly responsible for some of the relatively high
costs. As described in the sections related to Age, Household Size, and Income, Woodburn grew
rapidly from 1990 to 2000, and much of the growth consisted of young families. A high
proportion of young homeowners at the beginning of their mortgages will tend to lead to higher
ownership costs. As the households and the mortgages mature, and better employment options
are available, housing costs in relation to household income will naturally decline.
May 2005
25
Table 26: Owner Costs, 1989
Less than 20 percent 59% 51% 56% 56% 56% 56%
20 to 24 percent 13% 16% 16% 15% 16% 15%
25 to 29 percent 9% 13% 10% 9% 10% 10%
30 to 34 percent 3% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6%
35 percent or more 14% 14% 13% 13% 13% 12%
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 27: Owner Costs, 1999
Less than 20 percent 52% 49% 46% 46% 48% 49%
20 to 24 percent 12% 16% 17% 15% 16% 15%
25 to 29 percent 7% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11%
30 to 34 percent 6% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7%
35 percent or more 22% 14% 18% 20% 18% 18%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 28: Owner Costs Trends, 1989-1999
Less than 20 percent -7% -2% -9% -11% -8% -7%
20 to 24 percent -1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
25 to 29 percent -1% -2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
30 to 34 percent 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%
35 percent or more 8% 0% 5% 7% 5% 5%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Housing Rental Costs in Relation to Income
Overview. Tables 29, 30, and 31 depict gross monthly rent as a percentage of monthly
household income for Woodburn, Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon.
This is important in determining housing needs, as it portrays the affordability of the rental
housing mix in comparison to household income for a community.
Comparison. In 1989, Woodburn rental housing was not very affordable to Woodburn
residents - 26% of Woodburn renter households were spending less than 20% of their
income on housing, which was less than Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and
Oregon as a whole (32-34%). On the other side of the scale, 34% of Woodburn rental
May 2005
26
households were paying over 35% of their income on housing - compared to 21 % in
Wilsonville, 31 % in Salem and Portland, and 30% in Marion County and Oregon.
In 1999, 30% of Woodburn renter households were spending less than 20% of their income
on housing, which was fairly close to the comparators - Portland and Oregon as a whole
were lower (28% and 29%), while Marion County, Salem, and Wilsonville were higher
(31 %,32%, and 36% respectively). Woodburn retained a slightly higher percentage of renter
households paying over 35% of their income on housing - 34% compared with 29% for
Wilsonville, 31 % for Marion County, 32% for Salem and Oregon as a whole, and 33% for
Portland.
Trend. Woodburn rental costs as compared to income remained fairly constant from 1989 to
1999. The percentage of Woodburn renters paying the lowest amount (under 20%) of their
income on rent grew from 26% to 30%. Salem remained stable. The other comparators
generally increased rental costs in relation to household income - Wilsonville' s percentage of
renters paying 35% or more of household income on housing increased by 8%, Marion
County by 1 %, and Portland and Oregon as a whole by 2%.
Interpretation. Compared to the listed comparators, Woodburn renters pay a slightly
higher percentage of household income for their housing costs. However, as rental housing
trended toward less affordable among the other comparators, Woodburn remained fairly
stable from 1989-1999. Considering the demographic changes described in the Age, Income,
Labor Force, and Nativity sections - a younger population of recent immigrants, with
relatively high unemployment - that Woodburn did not lose rental affordability from 1989-
1999 indicates a success of the housing mix provided. The increase in rental units and choice
described in the Vacancy Rates section has allowed the market to provide relatively
affordable rental units to Woodburn's population growth. Woodburn's economic strategies,
consistent with the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, should increase household
incomes, thereby increasing rental affordability further in Woodburn.
Table 29: Rental Costs, 1989
Less than 20 percent 26% 34% 32% 32% 33% 32%
20 to 24 percent 16% 22% 14% 15% 14% 14%
25 to 29 percent 13% 13% 12% 11% 12% 11%
30 to 34 percent 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8%
35 percent or more 34% 21% 31% 31% 30% 30%
Source: 1990 US Census
May 2005
27
Table 30: Rental Costs, 1999
Less than 20 percent 30% 36% 32% 28% 31% 29%
20 to 24 percent 13% 15% 14% 14% 15% 14%
25 to 29 percent 11% 10% 12% 13% 11% 12%
30 to 34 percent 8% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8%
35 percent or more 34% 29% 32% 33% 31% 32%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 31: Rental Costs Trends, 1989-1999
Less than 20 percent 4% 2% 0% -4% -2% -3%
20 to 24 percent -3% -7% -1% -1% 1% -1%
25 to 29 percent -2% -3% 0% 1% -1% 0%
30 to 34 percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
35 percent or more 0% 8% 0% 2% 1% 2%
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Actual Housing Costs
Overview. Tables 32, 33, and 34 depict median rent and home prices for Woodburn,
Wilsonville, Salem, Portland, Marion County, and Oregon. These raw numbers are also
important to look at for a Housing Needs Analysis, as they depict real (not purely relative)
housing cost differences between communities.
Comparison. In 1990, Woodburn's median rent was fairly midrange at $402 per month-
compared to $494 in Wilsonville, $387 in Salem, $397 in Portland, $401 in Marion County,
and $408 for Oregon as a whole. Median home value in Woodburn for 1990 was
comparatively quite low at $51,900 - compared to $121,400 in Wilsonville, $60,300 in
Salem, $59,200 in Portland, $59,900 in Marion County, and $67,100 for the state of Oregon.
In 2000, Woodburn's median rent was still fairly midrange at $599 per month - compared
with $746 in Wilsonville, $560 in Salem, $622 in Portland, $574 in Marion County, and
$620 for Oregon. Woodburn's median home price remained the lowest among the
comparators at $114,800 - compared with $227,900 in Wilsonville, $131,100 in Salem,
$154,900 in Portland, $132,600 in Marion County, and $152,100 in Oregon as a whole.
Trend. Woodburn's median rent increased by nearly $200 from 1990-2000. This was higher
than Salem or Marion County (increases of $173), but lower than Wilsonville ($252),
Portland ($225), and Oregon ($212). Home prices in Woodburn, already the lowest among
the comparators in 1990, increased by the lowest amount from 1990-2000. Home prices
increased only about $63,000 in Woodburn, compared with about $107,000 in Wilsonville,
$71,000 in Salem, $96,000 in Portland, $73,000 in Marion County, and $85,000 in Oregon as
a whole.
May 2005
28
Interpretation. Median rent in Woodburn, while lower than several comparators, including
Oregon as a whole, is slightly higher than median rents in Salem and Marion County, its two
closest comparators. This seems incongruous at first glance, considering the lower income
levels of Woodburn (see section on Income in this document). However, there are two other
factors that are likely to influence median rent in Woodburn - the amount of new rental
housing, and household size. Woodburn has increased its supply of rental housing recently
(see sections on Vacancy Rate as well as Actual Development). New housing is usually more
expensive than older housing, and logically will lead to higher rents unless there is a
substantial oversupply of rental units. Woodburn also has the largest household size among
the comparators, and most of the household growth is in the form of families (see sections on
Household Size and Households by Family Status), which leads to a higher need for larger
rental units (2-3 bedroom rather than 1 bedroom). Larger rental units logically cost more than
smaller rental units. These two factors may be skewing the rent upward in Woodburn. As
household sizes begin to decline in Woodburn over the next 20 years (see section on
Household Size), and the recently developed apartments become older, median rent can be
expected to drop relative to comparator communities.
Median home value in Woodburn has been low and continues to be comparatively far lower
than other communities in this analysis, as well as the county and state. This means that
Woodburn is providing relatively affordable housing. Woodburn residents can expect to pay
less for a house than in most other places around the state. In addition to planning for
economic stimuli as indicated in the Economic Opportunities Analysis, Woodburn should
continue to encourage low cost housing options.
Table 32: Housing Costs, 1990
Median Rent (dollars)
Median Home Value (dollars)
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 33: Housing Costs, 2000
Median Rent (dollars)
Median Home Value (dollars)
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 34: Housing Costs Trends, 1990-2000
Median Rent (dollars)
Median Home Value (dollars)
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census
Housing Need Model
May 2005
29
The ODCED has developed a Residential Land Needs model that bases housing needs on
projected income by age cohort, related to assumptions of types and cost for various housing
types over the next 20 years. As described in the brief summary below, it is a complex and
sophisticated model:
The Housing/Land Needs Models utilize Excel spreadsheets containing components such
as templates for inputting specific data that is relevant to a community's housing and/or
land needs and graphs for displaying model results. There are two models - one for
housing need only and one for housing and the land needed to support that housing - with
three versions of each model using parameters appropriate to urban, college or resort
(U), medium size rural (M), or small rural (S) communities.
The models and their associated templates are designed to use inputted data to calculate,
analyze, and display the housing and/or land needs for each community. These files have
up to 21 worksheets containing 19 templates and 11 graphs that perform different
functions in the needs analysis.
The model requires a large number of user assumptions to complete many of the 21 worksheets.
These assumptions range from those that are fairly standard in a needs analysis (e.g. projected
population, vacancy rates, household size) to some that may be unique to the model (e.g. the user
must determine what percent of each of five rental housing types will be in each of six rent
ranges for the next 20 years). One of the most difficult aspects of the model is that it uses
different rental and price ranges than the Census, so the user either has to make assumptions
regarding splits in price and rental ranges, or must perform a complete rental survey (including
single family house rentals) combined with a full analysis of tax assessor price data. Since we
did not have a budget to do a complete rental survey as part of this process, the inputs we used
could not be backed on-ground data. A full copy of the Residential Land Needs Model is
provided as to this document.
Winterbrook ran the model using the tentative coordinated population projection of34,919, a 20-
year timeframe, household size of2.9, and approximately 100 other assumptions related to
housing type, rental status, and price/rent levels (See Attachment A). Projected income by age
cohort inputs for the Model were provided by ECONorthwest. The Model produced the result
shown on Table 35. Approximately 385 net acres are needed for Low Density Single Family
(LDSF), 116 for Medium Density Single Family (MDSF), 94 for High Density Single Family
(HDSF), 15 for Manufactured Dwelling Park (MDP), 27 for Low Density Multi-Family
(LDMF), 57 for Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF), 14 for High Density Multi-Family
(HDMF), and 6 for Mixed-Use (MU). The total acreage needed to serve the 2020 dwelling unit
growth of approximately 5,000 units was indicated to be about 714 net acres. When compared
with existing housing supply, the total additional acreage needed for 2020 was indicated to be
about 339 acres, as shown on Table 36.9
9 Note that this does not include land for public uses such as parks and schools, as it is purely dwelling units.
May 2005
30
Table 35: 2020 Needed Net Acres for Housing
Source: The Housing/Land Needs Model; Winterbrook Planning
Table 36: 2020 Additional Net Acres Needed for Housing
Source: The Housing/Land Needs Model; Winterbrook Planning
Winterbrook used the Housing Needs Model results as a base and a guide for this Housing Needs
Analysis. Discussions with Woodburn staff, review of the Woodburn Economic Opportunities
Analysis, and demographic factors analyzed above were also factors in the Housing Needs
Conclusions we reached below.
Housing Need Conclusions
Woodburn has two major cohorts: a rapidly growing young population that will continue to grow
and mature over the next 20 years, and an elder population that should remain fairly stable.
Currently, Woodburn is doing fairly well, but can improve in providing opportunities for
affordable housing. Part of the affordable housing "problem" is that the new, young population
lacks the financial resources of established families.
A major part of Woodburn's economic opportunities analysis is to take advantage of its growing
workforce by offering the opportunity for jobs to locate in the area. If Woodburn is successful in
attracting these jobs, the buying power of residents will improve in relation to housing needs.
So, while Woodburn can benefit from a wider range of housing types, and should allow the
opportunity for multi-family and small lot single-family residences to develop, it is important to
continue to supply traditional single-family housing as well.
Currently, Woodburn has two residential plan designations: Low Density Residential and High
Density Residential. These designations are implemented by three zones: Residential Single
Family, Retirement Community Single Family Residential, and Medium Density Residential.
In order to better represent and implement the housing types indicated as needed by the Land
Needs Model and by our demographic analysis, we created two new plan designation overlays: a
Nodal overlay and Vertical Mixed Use overlay. The nodal overlay would be applied to Single
Family Residential, producing Nodal Low Density Residential (Nodal LDR) or Medium Density
Residential, producing Nodal Medium Density Residential (Nodal MDR). The Vertical Mixed
Use (VMU) overlay would be applied to downtown commercial areas. The two original plan
designations, plus the overlays produce five distinct plan areas:
. Low Density Residential: This plan designation allows stick-built single-family homes,
manufactured dwellings (not parks), and some duplexes. Approximately 30% of new
May 2005
31
dwelling units would fall into this designation. Capacity of residential exceptions areas
adjacent to the 2002 Woodburn UGB totaling 295 units was subtractedfrom this need.
. Nodal Low Density Residential: This overlay would allow smaller lot single family
homes, zero lot line single family dwellings, and manufactured homes in Low Density
Residential areas. Approximately 30% of new dwelling units would fall into this
designation.
. Medium Density Residential: This plan designation allows duplexes, manufactured
dwelling parks, and medium density multi-family dwellings. Approximately 20% of new
dwelling units would fall into this designation.
. Nodal Medium Density Residential: This overlay would allow slightly higher densities
than MDR, and would allow condominiums, townhouses, and rowhouses.
Approximately 20% of new dwelling units would fall into this designation.
. Vertical Mixed Use: Housing is allowed above retail in Woodburn's downtown
commercial area and the proposed nodal commercial area. Approximately 1 % of new
dwelling units would fall into this category. 10
As shown in Table 37 below, this proposed implementation of the new Nodal overlays
results in a residential land need of 527 net acres through 2020 - about 150 net acres less
than would be needed if actual development trends were extended without measures (as
shown in Table 8), and about 180 net acres less than the Housing Needs Model indicated (as
shown in Table 35).
Table 37: Residential Land Needs
Source: Winterbrook
Measures
Table 38 provides more detail on the proposed distribution of housing by type and
comprehensive plan designation, with projected net density. In order to achieve the densities
projected for each housing type, amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code are required. Thus, Woodburn will need to adopt "measures" to increase
density and provide for more affordable housing, as proscribed by ORS 197.296. These
measures are addressed in detail in the Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments proposed in
the 2005 Plan, and briefly outlined as follows:
10 Over 100% due to rounding.
May 2005
32
. Plan for higher density - Woodburn planned for new development through 2020 to
come in at an overall density of 8.3 -8.9 dwelling units per net buildable acre. This is
significantly higher than the actual density of about 7.3 dwelling units per net buildable
acre developed between 1988 and 2002.
. Multi-Family Mix - Woodburn planned for a ratio of65% single-family, manufactured
home, or attached single family (with nearly 50% of the single-family as "small lot"
single-family) and 35% duplex or multifamily for new development in Woodburn
through 2020.
. Modify Plan and Zones - Woodburn created two new overlay designations, Nodal and
Vertical Mixed Use, in order to better fit housing type needs and allow for higher density
in mixed-use node areas. We also modified the small lot single-family zone to apply to
more than just the "Retirement Community" and created a new high density residential
zone.
. Mixed- U se Node - Woodburn has designated a nodal development area, in the southwest
portion of Woodburn near Parr Road. This area will have a mix of multi-family, small lot
single-family, and rowhouses, as well as a small neighborhood commercial center and a
location fairly near new industrial jobs.
. Minimum Density Standards - Woodburn has incorporated minimum density standards
for new subdivisions and planned developments in each of its residential zones. This
standard is designed to achieve approximately 80% of maximum permitted densities.
Table 38: Housing Need by Type and Density Table and Explanation
1426 30o/t 8 SFR Nodal *
48 lo/t 8 SFR
48 lo/t 8 RM*
190 4o/t 8 RM
95 2o/t 12 RM / Nodal *
ulti-Family 808 17o/t 14 RM
ulti-Family 618 13o/t 18 RM / Nodal *
ulti-Family 24 0.50o/t 16 VMU*
ulti-Family 24 0.50o/t 16 CN / Nodal *
Totals / Percentages / 4753 100o/t 8.4
Cumulative Density
* Indicates measures needed.
May 2005
33
DETERMINE PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS
Public and semi-public facilities such as schools, hospitals, churches, government buildings, and
parks will expand as population increases. Such lands are necessary to address Goal 14, Factor 2
"livability" requirements. 11 Such uses typically locate on land designated for residential use. We
have analyzed such need in conformance with ORS 197.296(4)(a).
Public and semi-public land needs are shown on Table 39 below. Park standards described in the
1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update were used to determine the
need for buildable and unbuildable (natural area parks) land to accommodate parks and schools.
Summary of Public and Semi-Public Buildable Land Needs Projection
Methods
. Schools - The Council used the ratio of developed school land to population in the 1999
Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update, about 5 acres per 1,000
residents, and extended that ratio to the Year 2020 Woodburn population to determine
land needed for schools. Woodburn School District reviewed our projection and
determined that Woodburn needed approximately 48 additional acres beyond our
projection to meet school needs through 2020.12 Woodburn currently has about 115 acres
of land for schools, and needs approximately 223 acres by 2023. This leaves an unmet
need of 108 acres for schools to accommodate a new high school, a new middle school
and two new elementary schools.
. Parks - Winterbrook used the 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive
Plan Update to project park needs through 2020. The 1999 Update recommended a ratio
of 7 acres per 1000 population to project need for neighborhood and community parks.
The Council took a 2020 population of34,919, applied the ratio, and then subtracted
existing park lands to determine needed park acreage. The Parks Plan indicates that some
of Woodburn's park needs will be met on school lands. The Council assumed 50% of all
needed 2020 school lands would also serve to meet park needs, and added that to the
parks supply. Woodburn currently has about 87 acres of parks and recreational land in
use (plus about an additional 112 acres of2020 school lands), and needs about 262 acres
total to meet the recommended ratio. This leaves an unmet need for about 63 acres of
park lands.
. Institutional- Woodburn currently has 500 residents who live in "institutions",
according to the 2000 US Census, and has had no additional institutional development
from 2000-2002. The Council applied the existing ratio to a projected 2020 population of
34,919, to determine an institutional population growth of approximately 337 through
11 Goal 14, Factors 1 and 2 read as follows:
1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC
Goals;
2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability.
12 August 30, 2004 letter from Woodburn School District. The District has a 20-year planning horizon. In order for
the second new high school to be operational by 2023, the land will need to be purchased in or before 2020.
May 2005
34
2020. The Council applied a ratio of30 residents per net acre (the maximum allowed
under current zoning), which translated to an II-acre need in this category.
. Religious - The Council applied a ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 population growth for
religious uses. The 2002-2020 population growth forecast of 14,059 translated to a need
for approximately 28 acres for religious use.
. Natural Areas - The Council put protected greenways and wildlife corridors into this
category. The 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update did
not project a need for natural areas. Since these uses most often occur on constrained
(unbuildable) land, the Council did not identify a separate buildable land need for natural
areas.
. Government - The Council assumed that public and government employment growth
would be accommodated through intensification of existing government employment
areas. Projected government employment growth through 2020 is 252 employees. Using
similar employee/acre ratio as commercial employment would yield a land need of
slightly less than 13 acres. Since this need is assumed to be accommodated in existing
government employment areas, no additional residential land need results from
government land need.
Supply of public land was determined in Technical Report 1, Buildable Lands Inventory.
Since public/semi-public uses typically locate on residential land, Woodburn needs
approximately 210 additional net buildable acres of residential land to meet its 2020 Public
and Semi-Public Land Needs.
Table 39: Year 2020, Public and Semi-Public land Needs
Schools Net Acres 115 223 -108
Parks Acres 199 262 -63
Institutional Net
Acres 0 11 -11
Religious Net Acres 0 28 -28
Natural Areas Acres* 129 92
Government Net
Acres* 5 13
Total Net Buildable
Residential Deficit
Source: Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update; 2000 US Census; Winterbrook Planning
* These acreages are not counted toward total residential deficit.
Based on Woodburn's plans, and actual ratios compared to population growth, Woodburn
will need about 108 net buildable acres for schools, about 63 acres for parks, 11 acres for
institutional uses, and about 28 acres for religious uses between 2000 and 2020. Since parks,
schools, institutional uses, churches, fire stations and similar public/semi-public uses
typically require a location in a residential zoning district, such public and semi-public needs
add to the demand for vacant buildable residential land within Woodburn's Year 2020 UGB.
May 2005
35
Residential and Public / Semi-Public Land Needs Conclusions
Table 6 shows a comparison of residential supply (dwelling unit capacity) versus dwelling
unit demand through 2020. Public/Semi-Public lands are included in the residential need
totals as described in the Public/Semi-Public section in this document. Dwelling unit capacity
was determined in Technical Report 1, Buildable Lands Inventory. Woodburn requires
approximately 210 additional net buildable acres of Residential land to meet its 2020 housing
and public/semi-public land needs for "housing and livability".
May 2005
36
ENSURE DESIGNATION OF SUFFICIENT BUILDABLE LAND FOR NEEDED HOUSING
AND LIVABILITY (PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC)
Table 40 shows a comparison of residential supply (dwelling unit capacity) versus dwelling unit
demand through 2020. Public/Semi-Public lands are included in the residential need totals as
described in the Public/Semi-Public section in this document. Dwelling unit capacity was
determined in Technical Report 1, Buildable Lands Inventory. Woodburn requires significant
redesignation ofland inside the UGB, and approximately 225 additional acres of Residential land
outside the UGB (after applying the capacity of all adjacent residential exceptions areas toward
LDR needs) to meet its 2020 housing and public/semi-public land needs for "housing and
livability" .
Table 40: 2020 Residential Land Needs with Measures
LOR 403 217 186
Nodal LOR 0 186 (186)
MOR 108 69 39
Nodal MOR 0 54 (54)
VMU 0 0 0
Public 210 (210)
Totals 511 736 (225)
May 2005
37