HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement A-19-185 with City of Sanger.pdfPage 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 2005 AMENDED AND RESTATED
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF FRESNO AND THE CITY OF SANGER
This Second Amendment to the 2005 Amended and Restated Memorandum of
Understanding (“Second Amendment”), is made and executed on this _____ day of
_______________, 2019, (the “Effective Date”), by and between the County of Fresno, a
political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “County”) and the City
of Sanger, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “City”).
County and City are each a “Party” to this Second Amendment and are sometimes collectively
referred to as “the Parties” to this Second Amendment.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into a comprehensive agreement covering
development, annexations, sales taxes, property taxes, and other matters, which is entitled
“Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding” between the County of Fresno and
the City of Sanger dated December 13, 2005, (hereinafter “MOU”); and
WHEREAS, the County of Fresno and City of Sanger entered a first amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding on October 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, City and County desire to amend the MOU provisions relating to City
annexations to address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”)
requirements and to accommodate streamlining in the annexation process in order to facilitate
the build-out of City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI); and
NOW, THEREFORE, County and City hereby agrees as follows:
1.Revised Exhibit 1, Standards for Annexation. “Revised Exhibit 1” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall replace “Exhibit 1” to the
MOU as of the Effective Date of this Second Amendment.
2.Addition of Section 2.4.2, to Article II, Annexations by City. Section 2.4.2 is
hereby added to Article II, Annexations by City, of the MOU to read as follows:
19-0377 Agreement No. 19-185
23rd
April
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.
'-\
2.4.2 The proposed annexation under this Section 2.4 shall not create an island
and shall minimize creation of peninsulas and corridors, or other distortion of
boundaries.
Other Terms of MOU Unaffected. Unless-expressly modified by the terms of this
Second Amendment, all other terms of the MOU remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment,
7 on the date set forth above.
8
9
10
11
12
13
COUNTY OF FRESNO, a Political
Subdivision of the State of California
("County")
By: __ __:::==-----='-----='-------
Nathan Magsig, Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors, County of Fresno
14 ATTEST:
Bernice E. Seidel
15 Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
County of Fresno, State of California
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:~ C,.,t,
Deputy
CITY OF SANGER, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of California
("City")
ATTEST:
REBECA PADRON
City Clerk, City of Sanger
By:~~ RebcaPadron, City Clerk
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR
APPR VA
By:, __ _.,__ __ '-+-4----------
Tim Chapa, City
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By: J,j~~
Hilda Cantu-Mo~ty Attorney
Page 2 of 2
REVISED EXHIBIT 1
STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION
The proposal must be consistent with adopted sphere of influence of the city and not
conflict with the goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
The proposal must be consistent with city general and specific plans, including adopted
goals and policies.
Pursuant to CEQA, the proposal must mitigate any significant adverse effect on
continuing agricultural operations on adjacent properties, to the extent reasonable and
consistent with the applicable general and specific plan.
A proposal for annexation is acceptable if one of the following conditions exist:
1. There is existing substantial development provided the City confines its area
requested to that area needed to include the substantial development and create
logical boundaries.
2. Development exists that requires urban services which can be provided by the City.
3. If no development exists, at least 25% of the area proposed for annexation has:
(a) Approved tentative subdivision map(s) (S.F. residential)
(b) Approved site plan (for other uses including multi-family)
The annexation is to fulfill the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
obligation which otherwise cannot be accommodated on lands currently within the city’s
incorporated boundary.
The proposal would not create islands. Boundaries must ultimately minimize creation of
peninsulas and corridors, or other distortion of boundaries.
For any of the following circumstances listed below a proposal for annexation is presumed to
comply with all standards for annexation:
The request for annexation is by a city for annexation of its own publicly-owned property
for public use.
The request for annexation is by a city in order to facilitate construction of public
improvements or public facilities which otherwise could not be constructed.
The request for annexation is to remove an unincorporated island, substantially
surrounded area, or otherwise address existing peninsulas and/or irregular
boundaries.The annexation is intended to mitigate or otherwise comply with
standards/conditions required by another agency with respect to another
development/annexation