HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 1190RESOLUTION NO. \\ ~l
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF~CENTRAL POINT SUPPORT FOR THE
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING (RPS)
PARTICIPANTS. AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the° City of Central. Point: has- been: an= long=standing _ participants in° the- Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) process; and:.
WHEREAS, the City of Central 'Point endorses the Guiding. Principles and the Goals and.
Policies of the RPS draft collaborative regional plan (the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Central Point intends to conduct public hearings relative to the
Participant's Agreement and the "Plan" following the Land Conservation and Development
Commission's (LCDC) consideration of these documents at their October 2008 meeting; and
WHEREAS,. the Central- Point. City Council desires to convey to the LCDC its satisfaction with
the~language in the proposed agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CENTRAL: POINT, OREGON that the City supports the language set forth in the agreement
wliich~is. found:in Exhibit A.
Passed` by the. Council
~, 20U8.
City Representative
and signed 6y me in_ authentication of its passage this ~~~day of
APPROVED by me this ~ day of Nv o6~2008.
~"
~°
G-~ ~
s
Mayor Hank Williams
~~ ~
Mayor Hank Williams
1 GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY
2 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT
3 version 08/28/08
4 (incorporating 5/13/08 County changes; 5/20/08 Cities changes;
5 5/28/08 additional County changes; 6/06/08 Attorney changes,
6 6/16/08 Policy Committee changes, 6/25/08 TAC changes, 7/01/08
7 Policy Committee changes, 8/5/08 Policy Committee changes,
8 8/19/08 Policy Committee changes; 8/28/08 MPO changes)
9
10 This REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
11 entered into this of , 2008 by and between Jackson County, the duly
12 incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville,
13 Talent, Eagle Point, Ashland, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
14 ("DECD"), the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), the Oregon Department
15 of Housing and Community Services ("ODHCS"), the Oregon Economic and
16 Community Development Department ("OECDD"), the Oregon Department of
17 Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), the
18 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS).
19
20 RECITALS
21 WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, Eagle
22 Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local Jurisdiction" and collectively, the
23 "Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the
24 draft collaborative regional plan (the "Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
25 incorporated by this reference, that expects to see a doubling of the population over the
26 long term future; and
27 WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing
28 demand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and
29 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the
30 Region's need to maintain its high quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its
31 natural environment; and
32 WHEREAS the Local Jurisdictions recognize that long-term planning for which
33 lands in the Region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban
34 reserve areas ("URAs") in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental
35 needs is best determined on a regional basis; and
36 WHEREAS a Plan is the RPS Policy Committee's recommended means of
37 elaborating the regional solutions to the identified regional problems; and
38 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving ("RPS") statute provides a
39 special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local Jurisdictions,
40 upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the
41 adoption ofpost-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully
42 comply with the regulations (the "Regulations") adopted by the Land Conservation and
43 Development Commission ("LCDC") to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the
44 "Goals"); and
45 WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local Jurisdictions must satisfy in order to
46 deviate from the Regulations is that all the participants in the RPS process enter into an
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 1 08/28/2008
1 agreement that: identifies the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the
2 problem; the mechanisms'for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the
3 implementation and effectiveness of those goals; and
4 WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the
5 regional planning process, and invitations were extended to every incorporated
6 jurisdiction (Jackson County, Eagle Point, Medford, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix,
7 Talent, and Ashland), school district (Ashland School District #5, Central Point School
8 District #6, Jackson County School District #9, Medford School District 549C, and
9 Phoenix-Talent School District #4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point, Medford, Rogue
10 River, and Talent Irrigation Districts) in the Region, plus the Medford Water Commission,
11 the Metropolitan Planning Organization, Rogue River Valley Sewer Services, Rogue
12 Valley Transportation District, and the appropriate state agencies (DECD, ODOT, ODA,
13 ODHCS, OECDD, and DEQ); and
14 WHEREAS the stakeholders mentioned above chose to exercise different levels
15 of participation and responsibility within the planning process, the "participants" (as the
16 term is employed in ORS 197.656(2)(b)), aze those jurisdictions and agencies that elect,
17 by signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems
18 identified hereinafter; and
19 WHEREAS this Agreement constitutes compliance with ORS 197.656.
20 NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement agree to commit to
21 comprehensive plan amendment processes based on the attached draft Plan (Exhibit A).
22 With this agreement, participants acknowledge that, notwithstanding the fact that the
23 draft Plan is the result of eight yeazs of collaborative and jurisdiction-specific planning, it
24 may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan as a result of the
25 comprehensive plan amendment process.
26
27 AGREEMENT
28 I. Recitals
29 The recitals set forth above aze true and correct and are incorporated herein by
30 this reference.
31
32 II. General Agreement
33 Signatories to this Agreement agree to abide by a Plan developed under
34 Regional Problem Solving, as adopted by participating jurisdictions into their
35 comprehensive plans, and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. Signatories
36 agree to maintain internal consistency with the adopted Plan on an ongoing
37 basis, and when necessary and appropriate, either to amend their comprehensive
38 plans and related policies, codes, and regulations to be consistent with the
39 adopted Plan, or to pursue amendments to the adopted Plan. The adopted Plan
40 shall be what is adopted as a result of Jackson County's comprehensive plan
41 amendment process.
42
43 III. Statement of Problems to Be Addressed [ORS 197.656]
44 The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project")
45 identified three problems to be addressed by the Project:
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 2 08/28/2008
2 PROBLEM # 1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
3 Planning
4 The Region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pressures that
5 will require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Greater Bear
6 Creek Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without infringing
7 on individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy. This Problem #1 shall be
8 referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management."
9
10 PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
11 Expansion
12 As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a tendency to
13 convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands
14 with significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated by the
15 Region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can
16 cause some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended
17 consequences, some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide
18 Planning Goals. This Problem #2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the
19 "Preservation of Valuable Resource Lands."
20
21 PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
22 Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation
23 between some of the communities in the Region, which jeopardizes important
24 aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem
25 #3 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Community Identity."
26
27 IV. Project Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(A)]
28 The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following goals with respect to
29 the Problems:
30
31 GOAL #1: Manage future regional growth for the greater public good.
32
33 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
34 economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
35
36 GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique
37 features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each
38 community within the Region.
39
40 V. Optional Techniques for Implementation [ORS 197.656(2)(B)]
41 (where "optional techniques for implementation" refers to strategies and
42 mechanisms to implement regional solutions that are in compliance with the
43 statewide goals and statutes, but which may not strictly adhere to Oregon
44 Administrative Rules). These optional techniques for implementation are those
45 identified as appropriate for implementation of the draft Plan. As stated in the
46 Recitals, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 3 08/28/2008
1 potentially these optional techniques for implementation, as aresult of the
2 public comprehensive plan amendment process.
3 A. PROBLEM #1: Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth
4 Planning
5 GOAL #l: Manage Future Regional Growth for the Greater Public Good
6 Op tional Implementation Techniques
7 (1) Coordinated Periodic Review
8 Signatory jurisdictions may engage in a coordinated schedule of regular
9 Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally
10 coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10 years,
11 and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the Plan. This coordinated
12 Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of an economy
13 of scale in generating technical information, and to incorporate a regional
14 perspective in the Periodic Review process, but it does not mandate a
15 simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions.
16 (2) Ten-year RPS Review
17 Signatory jurisdictions will abide by the review process described in Section VI
18 of this Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring
19 requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating jurisdictions flexibility
20 in responding to changing regional and local circumstances by establishing a
21 process and venue for amending the adopted Plan.
22 (3) Coordinated Population Allocation
23 Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, aatute-mandated
24 responsibility of the County, will reflect the proportional allocation of future
25 population within the adopted Plan and its future amendments consistent with
26 statute.
27 (4) Greater Coordination with the MPO
28 As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the Region, the
29 MPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan and
30 coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies critical to the
31 success of the adopted Plan. Of special focus will be the development of
32 mechanisms to preserve rights-of--way for major transportation infrastructure,
33 and a means of creating supplemental funding for regionally significant
34 transportation projects.
35
36 B. PROBLEM # 2: Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban
37 Expansion
38 GOAL #2: Conserve resource and open space lands for their important
39 economic, cultural, and livability benefits.
40 Op tional Implementation Techniques
41 (1) Long Range Urban Reserves
42 The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the
43 Region's urban population will incorporate and allow long-term production
44 decisions to be made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves.
45 (2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 4 08/28/2008
1
2
3
4 (3)
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Signatory jurisdictions will apply the adopted Plan's set of agricultural
buffering standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the
rural/urbaninterface.
Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan aze available as
an option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently
preserving areas of sepazation between communities (community buffers).
These COSA strategies aze not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be
refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
C. PROBLEM # 3: Loss of Community Identity
GOAL #3: Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique
features, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each
community within the Region.
Optional Implementation Techniques
(1) Community Buffers
The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended azeas of critical
open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Region's important
azeas of community sepazation.
(2) Allocating to Comparative Advantages
The Region agrees to a distribution of the calculated need of residential and
employment lands necessary to support a regional doubling of the population.
This distribution, which depends on a number of factors that relate to the
compazative strengths and weaknesses of each of the cities, will allow each
community to develop its own balance of viability and individuality within the
lazger regional matrix.
(3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation
The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan aze available as
an option to jurisdictions interested in further accentuating or more permanently
preserving areas of sepazation between communities (community buffers).
These COSA strategies aze not mandatory for any jurisdiction, and may be
refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit.
34 VI. Measurable- Performance Indicators [ORS 197.656(2)(C)]
35 These measurable performance indicators aze those identified as appropriate for
36 monitoring purposes of the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may
37 become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these
38 measurable performance indicators, as a result of the comprehensive plan
39 amendment process.
40 The following aze measurable performance indicators:
41 1) On a regular basis, every 10 yeazs starting in 2012, the Region's
42 jurisdictions may participate in a process of coordinated periodic review.
43
44 2) On a regular basis, every 10 yeazs starting in 2012, all Signatories to this
45 Agreement will participate in the regulaz RPS review process. Jackson County
46 shall initiate the RPS review process by providing notice of the RPS review to
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 5 08/28/2008
1 each Signatory to this Agreement and requiring that each Signatory submit a
2 self-evaluation monitoring report addressing compliance with the performance
3 indicators set out in this Section to the County within 60 days after the date of
4 the notice. Jackson County will distribute these monitoring reports to all
5 Signatories.
6
7 3) Participating cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan that are
8 applicable to each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and
9 implementing ordinances, and will reference the Plan as an adopted element of
10 Jackson County's comprehensive plan. To incorporate applicable portions of the
11 RPS Plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, cities
12 will adopt at least the following:
13 a) urban reserve areas;
14 b) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas);
1 S c) agricultural buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas);
16 d) implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas).
17
18 4) Signatory jurisdictions will comply with the general conditions as listed in
19 Section X of this Agreement, and, as appropriate, the specific conditions of
20 approval for selected urban reserves, as described in the adopted Plan.
21
22 5) Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a designated urban
23 reserve will adopt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA).
24
25 6) Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first priority lands used
26 for UGB expansions by participating cities.
27
28 7) Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land
29 included in UGB expansions, will, on average over a 20-year planning
30 horizon, achieve at least the "higher land need" residential densities as
31 described in the adopted RPS Plan. The density offset strategy outlined in the
32 Plan is an acceptable mechanism to assist in meeting density targets.
33
34 8) Cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land
35 included in a UGB expansion, will be guided by the general distribution of land
36 uses proposed in the adopted RPS Plan, especially where a specific set of land
37 uses were part of a compelling urban-based rationale for designating RLRC land
38 as part of a city's set of urban reserves.
39
40 9) Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail to
41 allow the Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally significant
42 transportation infrastructure. This information should be determined early
43 enough in the planning and development cycle that the identified regionally
44 significant transportation corridors can be protected ascost-effectively as
45 possible by available strategies and funding. Conceptual plans for an urban
46 reserve in the RPS Plan are not required to be completed at the time of adoption
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 6 08/28/2008
1 of a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or
2 county comprehensive plan.
3
4 10) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with
5 the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan.
6
7 VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals [ORS
8 197.656(2)(D)]
9 These incentives and disincentives are those identified as appropriate to the
10 draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
11 adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these incentives and disincentives,
12 as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment process.
13 Incentives
14 1) Continued regional cooperation through the 10-year review process and
15 coordinated periodic review may improve the Region's ability to respond to
16 challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does presently.
17 2) Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the Region with a competitive
18 advantage, increase the attractiveness of the Region to long-term investment,
19 and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state.
20 3) Adherence to the Plan may produce significant reductions in
21 transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of--way acquisition
22 costs and by improving the overall long-range coordination of transportation
23 and land use planning.
24 4) Adherence to the Plan will provide participating jurisdictions with
25 population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and based on the relative
26 strengths of the different participating jurisdictions.
27 5) The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state
28 agency support for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that may not
29 have been available to an individual city proposal.
30 6) Adherence to the Plan will permit jurisdictions to implement the flexibility
31 provided by the concept of the "Regional Community", in which cities, in the
32 role of "regional neighborhoods", enjoy a wide latitude in their particular mix,
33 concentration, and intensity of land uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts
34 contributes to a viable balance of land uses that is functional and attractive to
35 residents and employers and in compliance with statewide goals.
36
37 Disincentives
38 1) Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban
39 reserve will be required to go through the RPS Plan minor or major amendment
40 process prior to or concurrent with any other process.
41 2) The Region's failure to adhere to the, adopted Plan may damage its
42 competitive advantage, the attractiveness of the Region to long-term investment,
43 and southern.Oregon's profile in the state.
44 3)
45
46
DiscussionnDraft RPS IGA 7 08/28/2008
1 Adherence to the RPS plan may be a rating factor for MPO Transportation
2 Funding. Transportation projects of Jurisdictions not adhering to the adopted
3 Plan may be assigned a lower priority by the MPO when considered for funding.
4 4) Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of jurisdictions
5 signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan.
6 5) Jurisdictions signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Plan
7 may face issues over failing to observe their comprehensive plans, or may find
8 it difficult to make modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate from
9 the adopted Plan.
10 6) The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its
11 ability to implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will not
12 provide the participating cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual
13 mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses.
14
15 VIII. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process [ORS
16 197.656(2)(E) and (F)]
17 This progress monitoring system and amendment process is that which is
18 identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may
19 become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially this
20 progress and monitoring system and amendment process, as a result of the
21 public comprehensive plan amendment process.
22 Monitorine
23 Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared
24 responsibility. Each signatory city will be responsible for monitoring its
25 adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated into its
26 comprehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted Plan
27 incorporated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall
28 monitoring.
29 Adherence to the RPS Plan
30 The RPS Plan is directly applicable to comprehensive plan amendments, land
31 use regulation amendments, and the adoption of new land use regulations that
32 affect land in urban reserve areas and/or URA designation changes. The RPS
33 Plan shall not be directly applicable to other land use decisions by signatory
34 jurisdictions. Adherence to relevant RPS Plan provisions adopted by a
35 signatory jurisdiction as part of its comprehensive plan or implementing
36 ordinances will be addressed by the existing state and local mechanisms for
37 ensuring jurisdictional compliance with acknowledged comprehensive plans and
38 implementing ordinances.
39 RPS Plan Amendments
40 Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson
41 County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of a signatory
42 jurisdiction. In acknowledgement of the collaborative process by which the
43 adopted Plan was created, Jackson County will have available the assistance of
44 the signatory entities to this Agreement through a Technical Advisory
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 8 08/28/2008
1 Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed
2 basis, and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County.
3 (a) Technical Advisory Committee
4 The TAC will comprise planners and senior-level staff from signatory
5 jurisdictions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote, irrespective of
6 the number of participating representatives. Recommendations to the Policy
7 Committee or directly to Jackson County will be made by at least a
8 supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory
9 jurisdictions and agencies.
10 (b) Polic~Committee
11 The Policy Committee will comprise elected officials or executive staff
12 from signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each signatory jurisdiction will
13 designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each signatory jurisdiction
14 will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson County will be made by at
15 least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending jurisdictions.
16 State agencies, the MPO, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services, while Signatories,
17 will not be voting members of the Policy Committee.
18 When an amendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will
19 make a preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment
20 is a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment, as defined below, and will notify
21 Signatories of the County's preliminary determination. Based on its preliminary
22 determination, Jackson County will review the proposed amendment according
23 to the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major Amendments set out below.
24 Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following
25 provisions:
26 1) Minor Amendment
27 A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the adopted
28 Plan that:
29 a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of
30 this Agreement or specific conditions of approval described in the
31 adopted RPS Plan; and
32 b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city's
33 urban reserves established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more
34 than a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-urban reserve rural land.
35 In the case of Ashland, which did not establish urban reserves during the
36 development of the Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban reserve or
37 expand its UGB of not more than 50 acres will be considered a minor
38 amendment.
39 Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves during
40 the term of the Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment process for
41 further alterations to its urban reserves. Should a city exceed its limit of 50
42 acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve rural land during the
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 9 08/28/2008
1 planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further
2 expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land.
3 Any participant jurisdiction may initiate a minor amendment to the adopted
4 Plan. The proposing jurisdiction must clearly identify the nature of the minor
5 amendment, and specify whether the minor amendment would require any other
6 signatory jurisdiction to amend its comprehensive plan. Should any signatory
7 jurisdiction other than the proposing jurisdiction and Jackson County be
8 required to amend their comprehensive plans as a result of the proposed minor
9 amendment, the affected signatory jurisdiction will be a party to the minor
10 amendment proceeding.
11 Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a minor
12 amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required
13 processes for a comprehensive plan amendment. Noticing will be in
14 compliance with state statute.
15 Signatories and affected agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's
16 and proposing jurisdiction's final decision on each minor amendment request
17 within five working days of the adoption of the final decision.
18 2) Major Amendment
19 A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the adopted Plan
20 that does not meet the definition of a Minor Amendment
21 (a) If multiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for a
22 major amendment, a lead jurisdiction will be selected by the affected
23 jurisdictions;
24 (b) notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will be
25 forwarded by Jackson County to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies;
26 (c) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will
27 meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a
28 recommendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a
29 supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one);
30 (d) decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be
31 noticed, and will meet as a Policy Committee and consider the proposal
32 and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. Attending
33 jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and
34 (e) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation to Jackson
35 County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple
36 majority plus one).
37
38 Jackson County's process, and the proposing jurisdiction's process, for a major
39 amendment to the Plan will be equivalent to the state and local required process
40 for a comprehensive plan amendment in addition to the above provisions.
41 Noticing will be in compliance with state statute.
42 Signatories and affected agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's
43 final decision on each major amendment request within five working days of the
44 adoption of the final decision.
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 10 08/28/2008
2 IX. Newly Incorporated City
3 Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the
4 adopted Plan incorporate while the adopted Plan is in effect, and should the
5 newly incorporated city desire to become a signatory to the Agreement,
6 increased population will be added to the regional target population adequate to
7 accommodate the projected population growth of the newly incorporated city
8 for the remainder of the adopted Plan's planning horizon. The addition of a
9 newly incorporated city to the adopted Plan, the establishment of urban reserves,
10 and other such actions shall be accomplished through the major amendment
11 process.
12
13 X. Conditions to Agreement
14 General Conditions
15 The Signatories agree that the Plan shall comply with the general conditions
16 listed below, which apply to all jurisdictions signatory to the plan. These
17 general conditions are those which have been identified as appropriate to the
18 draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
19 adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these general conditions, as a
20 result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
21 1) Agricultural Buffering
22 Where appropriate, cities shall apply the agricultural buffering guidelines
23 developed through the Regional Problem Solving process.
24 2) Transportation
25 The Plan shall include policies to:
26 a. Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant
27 north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to provide
28 mobility throughout the Region.
29 b. Designate and protect corridors for locally-owned regionally
30 significant arterials and associated projects within the MPO to ensure
31 adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize right
32 of way costs.
33 c. Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding
34 to mitigate impacts arising from future growth.
35 These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the
36 latest update of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional
37 Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the RPS Plan through individual
38 city and county Comprehensive Plan amendments. Participating cities will
39 incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan relative to transportation that are
40 applicable to each individual city into that city's comprehensive plan and
41 implementing ordinances, and will reference the larger regional plan as an
42 adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan.
43
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 11 08/28/2008
1 Conditions of Approval
2 Specific conditions of approval apply to selected urban reserve areas, and are
3 described in the adopted Plan. The signatory jurisdictions agree to abide by
4 these conditions. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make
5 adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially the conditions of approval, as a
6 result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process.
7
8 XI. Amendments to the Agreement
9 Amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus (all
10 parties in agreement) of the Signatories to the Agreement.
11
12 XII. Termination of Participation
13 A signatory jurisdiction may petition Jackson County for termination of its
14 participation in the Agreement. Jackson County will convene a meeting of the
15 Policy Committee to consider such a petition. A jurisdiction's petition may be
16 granted by a supermajority (simple majority plus one) of the Signatories to the
17 Agreement. A jurisdiction that has terminated its participation with the consent
18 of a supermajority of the Signatories to the Agreement shall not be considered
19 to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan.
20 Should a jurisdiction terminate its participation in the Agreement without
21 approval of the supermajority of Signatories to the Agreement, it will be
22 considered to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan, and may be subject to
23 the Disincentives in Section VII and applicable legal and legislative
24 repercussions. For remaining jurisdictions, the validity of this Agreement will
25 not be adversely impacted by a jurisdiction's termination of participation, by
26 supermajority decision or otherwise.
27 Under this section, "Signatories" refers to all Signatories to the Agreement
28 except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
29
30 XIII. Termination of the Agreement
31 This agreement may be terminated when one or more of the following occur(s):
32 1) A supermajority (simple majority plus one) of Signatories agree that the
33 Agreement is terminated;
34 2) The doubled regional population is reached;
35 3) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed.
36 No signatory jurisdiction will be penalized under the conditions of this
37 Agreement due to a supermajority decision to terminate.
38 Under this section, "Signatories" refers to all Signatories to the Agreement
39 except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
40
41 XIV. Applicability
42 Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to their
43 comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in
44 effect for each jurisdiction at the time that its and Jackson County's
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 12 08/28/2008
1 implementing comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations are
2 adopted and acknowledged.
3
4 Once the RPS plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan
5 amendments and land use regulations, a jurisdiction's failure to adhere to the
6 Plan as adopted or subsequently amended will expose that jurisdiction to the
7 usual legal and legislative repercussions from non-compliance with
8 acknowledged comprehensive plans.
9
10 Signatories acknowledge that statutory authority over land use regulation
11 ultimately resides with the Oregon legislature. Additionally, signatories to this
12 agreement recognize that the provisions of the Plan may be determined in the
13 future to be in conflict with existing or yet to be adopted statutes.
14
15 Signatories to this agreement expressly recognize that land use regulations and
16 actions must otherwise comport with the statutes and other applicable
17 regulations of the State of Oregon other than those LCDC regulations for which
18 the adopted RPS Plan authorizes less than full compliance.
19
20 Therefore, Signatories agree that, when conflicts between statute and the Plan
21 arise, Oregon statute shall prevail.
22
23 XV. Severability
24 Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under
25 any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions
26 shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties. The Agreement shall be
27 reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and
28 enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention
29 of the stricken provision.
30
31 XVI. Entire Agreement
32 This Agreement contains the entire agreement, between the parties and
33 supersedes all prior negotiations, discussions obligations, and rights of the
34 parties regarding the subject matter of this agreement. There is no other written
35 or oral understanding between the parties. No modification, amendment or
36 alteration of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by
37 the parties hereto.
38
39 XVII. Counterparts
40 This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties, each of which shall
41 be deemed original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
42 instrument, binding on all parties hereto.
43
44 XVIII. Authority to Execute Agreement
45 Each person signing of behalf of a governmental entity hereby declares that he
46 or she, or it has the authority to sign on behalf of his or her or its respective
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 13 08/28/2008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 entity and agrees to hold the other party or parties hereto harmless if he or she
or it does not have such authority.
Subsequent to the execution of the Agreement, "Signatories" refers to the
original signatories or their designated representatives.
8 Chairman, Mayor, City of Ashland
9 Jackson County Board of Commissioners
10
11
12
13 Mayor, City of Talent Mayor, City of Phoenix
14
15
16
17 Mayor, City of Medford Mayor, City of Jacksonville
18
19
20
21
22 Mayor, City of Central Point Mayor, City of Eagle Point
23
24
25
26
27 Director, Oregon Department of Land Director, Oregon Department of
28 Conservation and Development Transportation
29
30
31
32
33 Director, Oregon Department of Director, Oregon Economic and Community
34 Environmental Quality Development Department
35
36
37
38
39 Director, Oregon Department of Director, Oregon Housing and Community
40 Agriculture Development Department
41
42
43
44
45 Chair, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services
46 Planning Organization
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 14 08/28/2008
4 Chair, Land Conservation and
5 Development Commission
Discussion Draft RPS IGA 15 08/28/2008