Agenda packet — Reedley City Council, January 11, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

ALL CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE

TURNED OFF IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.

TUESDAY, January 11, 2022
Meeting Held in the Council Chambers
845 "G" Street, Reedley, California
www.reedley.ca.gov
The Council Chambers are accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, including auxiliary aids or to request translation services, should be made 48 hours prior to the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at 637-4200 ext. 212.

Any document that is a public record and provided to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours. In addition, such documents may be posted on the City's website.

Unless otherwise required by law to be accepted by the City at or prior to a Council meeting or hearing, no documents shall be accepted for Council review unless they are first submitted to the City Clerk by the close of business one day prior to said Council meeting/hearing at which the Council will consider the item to which the documents relate, pursuant to the adopted City Council Protocols.

The meeting will be webcast and accessed at: http://www.reedley.com/livestream.php *PLEASE SEE LAST PAGE OF AGENDA FOR ZOOM PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS* Robert Beck, Mayor Pro Tern
Ray Soleno, Council Member

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mary L. Fast, Mayor
Anita Betancourt, Council Member
Matthew Tuttle, Council Member
INVOCATION- Pastor Virgil Miller, Christ Lutheran Church

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

AGENDA APPROVAL -ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS

PRESENTATION

1. PRESENTATION TO CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT CROSS
PUBLIC COMMENT - Provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items of interest to the public within the Council's jurisdiction and which are not already on the agenda this evening. It is the policy of the Council not to answer questions impromptu. Concerns or complaints will be referred to the City Manager's office. Speakers should limit their comments to not more than three (3) minutes. No more than ten (10) minutes per issue will be allowed. For items which are on the agenda this evening, members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council as each item is brought up for discussion.

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
CONSENT AGENDA items are considered routine and a recommended action for each item is included, and will be voted upon as one item. If a Councilmember has questions, requests additional information, or wishes to comment on an item, the vote should not be taken until after questions have been addressed or comments made, and the public has had an opportunity to comment on the Consent Agenda items. If a Councilmember wishes to have an item considered individually or change the recommended action, then the item should be removed and acted upon as , a separate item. A Councilmember's vote in favor of the Consent Agenda is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Motions in favor of the Consent Agenda are deemed to include a motion to waive the full reading of any ordinance on the Consent Agenda. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items.

CONSENT AGENDA (Item 2-5) Motion 2nd
---- -----

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2021 - (City Clerk)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

3. UPDATE ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

GRANT AWARDED FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKWAY MASTER PLAN - (Community Development Department)

4. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF TRACT 6196 (SELF HELP), AND AUTHORIZE THE

CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE - (Engineering)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

5. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-003, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED IN TRACT MAP NO. 5263, MONTE VISTA ESTATES AND AUTHORIZE

THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE- (Engineering)
Staff Recommendation: Approve
2 PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES - With respect to the approval of ordinances, the reading of the title thereto shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete ordinance and unless there is a request by a Council Member that the ordinance be read in full, further reading of the ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council.

6. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ASSOCIATED

WITH THE REDESIGNATION OF THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNER OF

NORTH SUNSET AVENUE AND EAST MANNING AVENUE AND A SITE LOCATED NORTH E~ST OF THE INTERSECTION. OF NORTH SUNSET AVENUE AND EAST SPRINGFIELD AVENUE:

A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT No.· 2021-9, AN ADDENDUM To· THE CITY OF REEDLEY

CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2030, DATED DECEMBER 16,· 2021; AND
B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-1; AND
C. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005, AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY
APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-1 AND

AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE

CITY OF REEDLEY
Report, discussion and/or other Council action to approve, modify, and/or take other action as appropriate. - (Community Development Department)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

7. APPROVE MAYOR'S NOMINATION TO FILL THREE VACANCIES ON PLANNING COMMISSION Report, discussion and/or other Council action to approve, modify, and/or take other action as appropriate. - (City Clerk)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

WORKSHOP

8. CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST PRESENTATION- Police Department

RECEIVE INFORMATION & REPORTS
These items are formal transmittals of information to the Reedley City Council. They are not voted upon by the Reedley City Council. Members of the public who have questions on these items are suggested to call City staff members during regular business hours.

9. QUARTERLY EXPENSE & TRAVEL REPORT FOR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS - OCTOBER 1, 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021- Administrative Services
3 COUNCIL REPORTS

10.BRIEF REPORT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON CITY RELATED ACTIVITIES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE BROWN ACT AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

STAFF REPORTS

11. UPDATES AND/OR REPORTS BY CITY MANAGER AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS.

CLOSED SESSION

12. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
Conference with legal counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Claim from Vincent Anthony Hernandez

13. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
Conference with legal counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 - one (1) case

14.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
Conference with Labor Negotiators
Agency Representatives: City Manager & Assistant City Manager Employee Organization: Reedley Public Safety Employees Association & General Services Unit

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing revised agenda was accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 6TH day of January 2022.

Zoom Participation:

The City Council is encouraging members of the public to observe and participate in the Council meeting virtually, to maximize the safety of all meeting participants. Reasonable efforts will be made to allow written and verbal comments from participants communicating with the host of the virtual meeting. To do so, participants may "raise their hand" during public comment portions of the meeting using the electronic feature on the zoom program, and the City Clerk will inform the Mayor of the participant's desire to provide public comment. Due to the new, untested format of these meetings, the City cannot guarantee that participants who wish to provide public comment, either in writing or verbally, will occur as expected. The "chat" feature on Zoom will not be monitored or used during the meeting.

Members of the public who wish to provide written comments are encouraged to submit their comments to the City Clerk at [email protected] at least two (2) hours prior to the start of the meeting to ensure that the comments will be available to the City Council. Please indicate the agenda item number to which the comment pertains. Written comments that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the meeting. A copy of any written comment will be provided to the City Council at the meeting. Please note that written comments received will not be read aloud during the meeting, but will be included with the meeting minutes.
4 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021
A complete audio record of the minutes is available at www.reedley.ca.gov The meeting of Reedley City Council called to order by Mayor Pro-Tern Beck at 7:02 p.m. on Tuesday, December 14, 2021 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 845 "G" Street, Reedley, California.

INVOCATION -Jose L. Garza, Chief of Police

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Beck.

ROLL CALL
Council Members

Present:

Absent:

Robert Beck, Anita Betancourt, Ray Soleno, Matthew Tuttle, Mary Fast None.

Mayor Fast was in attendance on Zoom.

AGENDA APPROVAL - ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS
Council Member Betancourt motioned, Council Member Tuttle seconded to accept and approve agenda.

Motion unanimously carried.

PRESENTATION

1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES STAFF
Assistant City Manager, Paul Melikian introduced the new Accounting Technician. Nicolas Elizondo has been a city employee since 2019 with the streets division and has accepted the accounting technician position.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Valencia with the Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce thanked Council for the Christmas Tree and provided an update regarding future events.

CONSENT AGENDA (Item 2-12) Motion ____ 2nd ----
Mayor Fast requested to remove item 9 for further discussion. Mayor Fast thanked Marilu Morales, City Engineer for finishing the sidewalk project. Mayor Fast said it was a safety issue not having the sidewalks completed due to children on their way to school would walk in the roadway since there was no sidewalk available to them.

Council Member Soleno moved, Council Member Betancourt seconded to accept, approve and adopt all items listed under the CONSENT AGENDA.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2021 -Approved

3. RATIFY THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE USDA FOREST SERVICE -Approved

4. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SHIELD T3, LLC FOR COVID-19 TESTING SERVICES -Approved

5. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-117 AMENDING THE 2021-2022 ADOPTED BUDGET APPROPRIATING $1 ,341 IN THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RED RIBBON ACTIVITIES-Approved

6. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-119 DECLARING LISTED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS - Approved
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021

7. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-120, APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) REDUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM -Approved

8. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-121, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 6206 (ALMOND GROVE), AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE-Approved

9. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-122, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE REED A VENUE SIDEWALKS FROM I TO 8TH STREET AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE-Approved

10. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-123, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE

ROADWAY SAFETY SIGNING AUDIT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE-Approved

11. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-124 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL

AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY'S WASTEWATER TRUNKLINE UPSIZING ALONG OLSON AVENUE TO WWTP PROJECTApproved

12. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PERTAINING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

A. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-125 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

ESTABLISHING A SALARY AND BENEFIT SCHEDULE FOR UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES

RECLASSIFYING THE ASSIST ANT & AS SOCIA TE PLANNER POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS

FROM MID-MANAGEMENT TO NON-MANAGEMENT
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-126 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

ADOPTING MASTER SALARY TABLES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

REMOVING FLSA EXEMPT ST A TUS FOR THE ASSIST ANT & AS SOCIA TE PLANNER

POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS
-Approved

PUBLIC HEARING

13. CONSIDER ACTION RELATED TO ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ANNEXATION NO. 19) THE CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2005-1 (Public Services) WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:

A. RESOLUTION 2021-128, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

ANNEXING OF TERRITORY TO A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE

LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX, AND SUBMITTING LEVY OF TAX TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 19
B. RESOLUTION 2021-129, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

DECLARING RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ANNEXATION ELECTION, DETERMINING VALIDITY

OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 19
Assistant City Manager, Paul Melikian explained the Community Facilities District was imposed on new developments being processed by the City in November 2005, when the district was established. Since that time, all properties must petition to be annexed into the existing Community Facilities District when development is proposed.

To initiate the process for annexation of territory to the Community Facilities District, the City Council approved a resolution of intent on October 26, 2021. The resolution of intent set a public hearing for December 14, 2021. The action tonight will finalize the annexation of the territory to the Community Facilities District. 2 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021
Public Hearing Opened: 7:18 p.m.

City Clerk announced there were 4 envelopes mailed out with a total of 22 votes and 4 ballots have been returned.

Public Hearing Closed: 7: 19 p.m.

Council Member Soleno moved, Council Member Betancourt seconded to accept, and adopt RESOLUTION 2021- 128, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ANNEXING OF TERRITORY TO

A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX, AND

SUBMITTING LEVY OF TAX TO QUALIFIED ELECTORS, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 19 Motion unanimously carried.

Ballots were opened by City Clerk and she reported the following votes:

Yes Votes
Richard Sullivan-13 votes
Richard Torosian-7 votes
Hector Aleman-I vote
Maurice Donaldson-I vote
No Votes
None
s ummarv
Qualified Votes Cast Yes Votes No Votes
Landowner Votes
22 22 22 0
City Clerk announced enough yes votes were received therefore Council could proceed.

Council Member Tuttle moved, Council Member Soleno seconded to accept, and adopt RESOLUTION 2021-129, A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY DECLARING RESULTS OF A SPECIAL

ANNEXATION ELECTION, DETERMINING VALIDITY OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, AND DIRECTING

RECORDING OF AMENDED NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN, CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) ANNEXATION NO. 19 Motion unanimously carried.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Council Member Tuttle stated he would recuse himself for item C since he owns a business in the downtown but asked if he could stay for item A and B. City Attorney, Laurie Avedisian-Favini stated it would be okay for Council Member Tuttle to stay for A and B.

14. APPROVAL OF ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS AND SMALL BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE
A. RECEIVE UPDATE ON THE ST A TUS OF DOWNTOWN DINING PARK.LETS (No Action)
B. CALL FOR A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PERMANENT DINING PARK.LETS C. APPROVE A CITY OF REEDLEY FAc;ADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PROVIDING UP TO $25,000 IN MATCHING FUNDS FOR SELECT COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL PROPERTY

IMPROVEMENTS, AND GRANT THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT

PROGRAM GUIDELINES, INCLUDING PROMULGATION OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE

PROGRAM RULES NOT ENUMERATED
3 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021
D. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-127 AMENDING THE 2021-2022 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $150,000 IN CORONA VIRUS ST A TE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021 FOR ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE FORM OF A F A<;ADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Community Development Director, Rob Terry shared the background of how the parklets became to be. At the time of their placement, the parklets were funded solely through Federal and State covid support money with no impact to the city's local funding. To ensure cost effectiveness, while the units were anticipated to be utilized for 12-18 months they were designed in a manner that the main decking material could be replaced/upgraded, which would allow for an extended time of use out of the infrastructure if needed. In June this year Governor Newsom requested to extend outdoor dining allowances and options. The City notified the community that the parklets being properly utilized would remain in place until the end of the calendar year with additional outreach, discussion and council actions taking place over the next coming months to determine the future of the units.

Since the original placement of the parklets staff has had consistent communication with the parklet users, downtown business owners, Reedley Chamber of Commerce and the community at-large in regards to the desired future of the parklets. The overwhelming majority of the feedback has been positive. The community and business feel the units provide an additional level of service, aesthetic and activity to the downtown. The most common concern in regards to their placement and potential future is the impact they have on parking.

The staff report discussed plans to schedule a joint meeting with council and the Planning Commission in January 2022. However in just the last few days the variant has created more of an impact causing some of the restrictions to come back. Staff is recommending delaying the joint meeting to discuss the parklets until Spring of 2022.

Council Member Betancourt moved Council Member Soleno seconded to accept, and CALL FOR A JOINT PUBLIC

MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR

PERMANENT DINING PARKLETS
Motion unanimously carried.

Council Member Tuttle stated he would recuse himself for item C and D.

City Manager Nicole Zieba stated the goal of the fai;ade program is to improve the appearance of commercial buildings and corridors within the Reedley community, primarily within the downtown commercial core. At one time the city had a fai;ade improvement program which was through the Redevelopment Agency. When Governor Brown dissolved the redevelopment agencies the fai;ade program went away as well. Just recently, Community Development Director, Rob Terry was holding several community meetings, some of the people in attendance mentioned Reedley needed to have a fai;ade improvement program again. Other cities in the area announced they are using some of the American Rescue Plan Act Funding towards a fai;ade improvement program. With the proposed program it would be a 50% matching grant eligible fai;ade renovation, upgrade or maintenance expenditures to a maximum of $25,000 for any single business location. Approved grant funds are processed in a reimbursement fashion only after the approved work has been completed and confirmed by staff. The intent of the program will be to start with the downtown area and then broaden the program.

Council Member Betancourt stated she thought the program is a good idea however felt it should be available to all businesses city wide. Council Member Beck stated he agreed it should be expanded city wide.

Council Member Betancourt motioned but added she would like the program available to all properties with a commercial zoning designations would be eligible within the city limits as of December 14, 2021. Council Member Beck seconded to APPROVE A CITY OF REEDLEY FA<;ADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PROVIDING UP TO $25,000 IN MATCHING FUNDS FOR SELECT COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL PROPERTY

IMPROVEMENTS, AND GRANT THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM

GUIDELINES, INCLUDING PROMULGATION OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE PROGRAM RULES NOT

ENUMERATED
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Betancourt, Beck, Soleno, Fast.

None.

Tuttle.

None.
4 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021
Mayor Fast moved Council Member Soleno seconded to accept, and ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-127 AMENDING THE 2021-2022 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $150,000 IN CORONA VIRUS ST A TE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021 FOR ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE FORM OF A F Ac;ADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A YES: Fast, Soleno, Beck, Betancourt.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: Tuttle.

ABSENT: None.

15. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UTILIZING

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO RECRUIT A CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL City Manager Nicole Zieba explained the City of Reedley Building Official had retired. The city has experienced difficulty over the past four months attracting qualified applicants for the vacant City Building Official position through its usual recruitment channels. The Community Services Department is currently contracting with 4Leaf, Inc. for the critical building inspection services. The consulting firm is struggling to provide the city with enough hours due to the high demand for services from all of its clients. The cost of utilizing a consultant to provide these services far exceeds the cost of a full-time City position. After discussions with multiple agencies, professional associations and trade groups it was clear to staff qualified building inspectors are in short supply and it is a nationwide issue.

Several of Reedley's neighboring cities currently contract out for building inspecting services.

The city has contacted several recruiting firms that specialize in public agency placements and staff will be gathering information to make a decision on which firm to use. The city has not utilized the services of a professional recruiting firm in the past decade. Utilizing a recruiter offers several advantages, namely their extensive client networks, marketing experience, and ability to reach people who might not be looking for a new job. While the cost to hire a recruiter generally exceeds the cost of doing a recruitment in-house, the city is spending far more money to contract with a professional firm for building official services. The city will ultimately save money if a suitable candidate can be found to fill the position.

Council Member Tuttle moved Council Member Betancourt seconded to accept, and APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE

THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UTILIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO

RECRUIT A CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL
Motion unanimously carried.

WORKSHOP

16. DISCUSSION ON STORAGE UNIT GARAGE SALE ACTIVITIES
Community Development Director, Rob Terry presented regarding storage unit garage sale activities and policies within the City of Reedley. After receiving direction from Council the Community Development Department will be discussing a city code ordinance update at a future meeting.

17. RECEIVE, REVIEW, & FILE 2020-21 AUDITED CITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

18. REEDLEY AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2021

COUNCIL REPORTS

19. BRIEF REPORT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS ON CITY RELATED ACTIVITIES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE BROWN ACT AND REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

Council Member Tuttle:
• Introduced himself to the Kings Canyon Board of Trustees meeting and attended a meeting 5 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 14, 2021
Council Member Soleno:
• Stated he attended the Christmas Tree lighting and thought it was a nice event • Discussed the Christmas Parade and thought it was well attended Council Member Beck:
• Attended the Christmas tree lighting and stated the park is a great location for the tree • Discussed the Christmas parade and thought it was a successful event

STAFF REPORTS

20. UPDATES AND/OR REPORTS BY CITY MANAGER AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS.

City Manager, Nicole Zieba
• Discussed the Mid Valley lunch and the City was an award recipient for "Most ready for SB1383" • Provided a Covid update
Assistant City Manager, Paul Melikian
• Provided an update regarding utility shutoff status
Community Services Director, Sarah Reid
• Provided an update on the Camacho Park grant

CLOSED SESSION

21. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation
Claim from USA Waste of California, Inc. dba Waste Management of Fresno

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
City Attorney, Laurie Avedisian-Favini reported that no action was taken in closed session.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tern Beck adjourned the regular meeting at 9:23 p.m.

Mayor Mary Fast
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
6 DATE:

TITLE:

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
~ Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEMNO: p
January 11, 2022

UPDATE ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING GRANT AWARDED FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION AND PARKWAY MASTER PLAN
SUBMITTED: Rob Terry ~
Community Development Director
APPROVED:

City
Nicole
Manager
R. Zieba ✓

RECOMMENDATION
No action is needed. This information is being provided as an update on previously approved activities.

BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2021, the City of Reedley, in partnership with the Local Government Commission (LGC), submitted a Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant application to Caltrans to conduct the Reedley Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan. On June 22, 2021, staff was notified that the City had been selected as a conditional awardee in the amount of $265,537. The grant requires a local match of 11.4 7% of the total project, which equates to $34,403. Total project costs are identified as $299,940. On July 27, 2021, via Resolution No. 2021-076, the City Council formally accepted the grant award, and authorized the City Manager to sign grant agreement documents, when available.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recently provided the City with agreement documents, which were reviewed and signed by the City Manager, as authorized by the City Council. On December 20, 2021, Caltrans provided the City with an official Notice to Proceed letter, which authorizes the City to officially begin billable work associated with the awarded grant. Staff has already scheduled the project kick-off meeting for January 14, 2022.

Activities in the coming months will include contracting with sub-consultants, community outreach and engagement; analysis of existing plans, policies and conditions; and formulation of draft plans for continued discussion, input, and consideration. There are no actions being requested of Council at this time.

Page 1 of 2 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
The grant requires a local match of 11.47% of the total project, which equates to $34,403.

Due to the timing in which awarding was announced, funding in the FY 21/22 budget was not allocated for this project. As such, Council should anticipate a budget amendment to allocate the required match funds as part of the mid-year budget review.

PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS
On July 27, 2021, via Resolution No. 2021-076, Council formally accepted the grant award, and authorized the City Manager to sign grant agreement documents.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice to Proceed, dated December 20, 2021
Motion: ----- Second: -----

Page 2 of 2 ends

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 6

PLANNING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 126 16 I Fresno, CA 9372 1-2616
(559) 98 1-7066 I TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
December 20, 2021
Mr. Rob Terry, MPA, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Reedley
1 7339 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93652
Dear Mr. Terry:

GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
•
11:dtrcw;• •
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is pleased to inform the City of Reedley that Conditions of Grant Acceptance have been met and work for the below Transportation Planning grant is authorized to begin effective December 20, 2021 .

State Highway Acccount (SHA)
Grant Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22
RGA #/ Work 7 A 1286 Element#
Project Title Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan Grant Award $265,537
Local Match ( cash) $34,403
Local Match (In-Kind) $0
Total Local Match $34,403
% Local Match 11 .47%
Total Project Amount $299,940
Grant Expiration Date March 30, 2024 (time extensions are not allowed) Final Invoice Due May 30, 2024
As a reminder, City of Reedley is responsible for satisfying local match commitments in the amount shown above, including any local match amount above the minimum amount that is required with every invoice or request for reimbursement. The local match above is also part of the Restricted Grant Agreement between Caltrans and City of Reedley.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" Mr. Rob Terry, Community Development Director
December 20, 2021

Page 2 ends

Please contact me, at [email protected] or (559) 981-7066, to schedule an administrative kick-off meeting to discuss grant requirements and address any questions. I look forward to working with you and your staff on this important project.

Sincerely,
Lupita Mendoza
Associate Transportation Planner
Office of Planning-South
c: Kevin Mariant, Associate Transportation Planner, Caltrans, Headquarters Lorena Mendibles, Chief, Planning South Branch, Caltrans "Provide a safe and rel iable transportation network that serves a ll people and respects the environment" DATE: January 11, 2022

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
~ Consent Calendar
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: -=l=\-- y
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF TRACT 6196 (SELF HELP), AND

AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE
PREPARED: Seth Regier
Engineering Assistant ;j(')
SUBMITTED: Marilu Morales \ \ .).A
City Engineer JA
APPROVED:

City
Nicole
Manager
Zieba ~
~

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2022-002, accepting the construction improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion for Phase 1 of Tract 6196 (Self Help) located along the eastern portion of Church Ave. between Parlier Ave. and Aspen Ave. and between Church Ave. and Acacia Ave. and Aspen Ave. and Muir Ave.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An Encroachment Permit was approved on March 10, 2020 authorizing the construction of the proposed improvements required by Phase 1 of Tract 6196 (Self Help). Improvements were performed per the subdivision agreement and conditions of approval that were put in place by City Staff. All site improvements required for the development have been completed and accepted by the City Engineer. A one-year warranty bond was provided by the developer on December 8, 2021 to ensure quality workmanship was used for all items constructed within the City of Reedley's right of way. The performance and payment bonds provided by the developer will be released upon Council's approval of Resolution No. 2022-002.

Page 1 of 2 ends

PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS
City Resolution No. 2019-059 approving the Subdivision Map Improvement Agreement and Final Map for Phase One of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 6196.

City Resolution No. 2019-089 stating the City Council's intent to annex Phase 1 of Tract 6196 into the City's Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, ordering the City Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk an Engineer's Assessment Report and set a date for Public Hearing on November 12, 2019.

City Resolution No. 2019-107 approving the annexation of Tract 6196 Self Help into the City of Reedley's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, Zone Z.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with regard to the recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-002

2. Notice of Completion

Page 2 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002, ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 1 OF TRACT 6196 (SELF HELP), AND

AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION

WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, Phase 1 ofTract 6196 (Self Help) has been completed per the plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, there are no outstanding matters with the Developer regarding construction items; and WHEREAS, on January 11 th , 2022 the City held a public meeting at the City of Reedley Council Chamber, at 845 "G,, Street and to consider acceptance of the construction improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley using their independent judgment hereby resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference; and

2. The City Council using their independent judgment, hereby accepts the subject improvements; and

3. The City Council hereby accepts the subject project for maintenance in accordance with the provisions of the contract and applicable ordinances and policies; and

4. The City Council approves the Notice of Completion for the construction improvements for Phase 1 of Tract 6196 (Self Help) and hereby authorizes the City Engineer to transmit the attached Notice of Completion to the Fresno County Recorders' Office.

5. This resolution is effective upon adoption.

This foregoing resolution is hereby approved the 11 th day of January, 2022, in the City of Reedley, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Mary L. Fast, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF,
City of Reedley
No Fee-Gov/t. Code Sections
6103 and 27383
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

City of Reedley
Engineering Department
173 3 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion.

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The full name of the owner is: City of Reedley

3. The full address of the owner is: 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, CA 93654

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is: City of Reedley Right-of-Way

5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on : December 7th , 2021. The work done was: Phase 1 of TRACT 6196 - Self Help.

6. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was : Jim Crawford Construction Co. Inc.

7. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Reedley, County of Fresno, State of California, and is described as follows: Public right-of-way within the City of Reedley along the eastern portion of Church Ave. between Parlier Ave. and Aspen Ave. and, between Church Ave. and Acacia Ave., Aspen Ave. and Muir Ave.

8. The street address of said property is: N/A

9. Resolution No. 2022-002, Attached Hereto and Made a Part Hereof.

Dated: ____________ _
Marilu S. Morales, P. E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Engineer for the City of Reedley, the declarant of the foregoing notice of completion ; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(PERSONAL SIGNATURE OF THE INDIVID UAL WHO IS SWEARING TH AT THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION ARE TRUE.) Executed on _ __________ ____ , 2022, at _R_e_ed_l_ey.....,, ____ C_al_ifo_r_ni_a _ _ __________ _ _ (DATE) (CITY) (STATE) DATE: January 11, 2022

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
1:8J Consent Calendar
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: ~ ~
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-003, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED IN TRACT MAP NO. 5263, MONTE VISTA

ESTATES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF

COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO RECORDER'S OFFICE
PREPARED: Linda Thao L--1
Assistant Engineer
SUBMITTED: Marilu Morales _Mµ
City Engineer
APPROVED: Nicole Zieba
City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2022-003, accepting the public improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion for Tract Map No. 5263 Monte Vista Estates.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The final map for the Monte Vista Estates Tract No. 5263 was approved by City Council Resolution No. 2007-052 on August 14, 2007. This subdivision consists of 17 single family residences and is located between East Myrtle Avenue, East Elm Avenue, North Cedar Avenue, and South Buttonwillow Avenue. The public infrastructure improvements consisting of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities as well as street paving and ADA improvements have been completed and staff is now recommending this work for acceptance by the City of Reedley City Council. The subdivider has delivered to the City a one (1) year warranty bond in the amount of $32,041.50 as required per the Subdivision Agreement.

PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS
City Resolution No. 2007-052 accepting the final map of Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates.

Page 1 of 2 ends

City Resolution No. 2019-105 approving the Improvement Agreement and 50% Development Impact Fee (DIF) reduction for the completion of Tract 5263 (Monte Vista).

City Resolution No. 2020-053 stating the Council's intention to annex Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates, into the City of Reedley's Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and setting a time and place of hearing thereof.

City Resolution No. 2020-063 initiate proceedings for the annexation of Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates, into the City of Reedley's Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and setting a time and place of hearing thereof.

City Resolution No. 2020-071 confirming the diagram and assessment ordering the annexation and inclusion of Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates, into the City of Reedley's Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, Zone W.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with regard to the recordation of a Notice of Completion for the Project.

The City will now be responsible for maintaining the public infrastructure and improvements installed with Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-003

2. Notice of Completion

Page 2 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-003

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED IN TRACT MAP NO. 5263, MONTE VISTA ESTATES, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER

TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY OF FRESNO

RECORDER'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, the public improvements for Tract No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates, have been completed and are ready for acceptance by the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, the developer of said tract has deposited with the City the necessary security for the oneyear warranty on the public improvements; and WHEREAS, on January 11 th , 2022 the City held a public meeting at the City of Reedley Council Chamber, at 845 "G" Street to consider acceptance of the construction improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley using their independent judgment hereby resolves as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council using their independent judgment, hereby accepts the subject improvements.

3. The City Council hereby accepts the subject project for maintenance in accordance with the provisions of the contract and applicable ordinances and policies.

4. The City Council approves the Notice of Completion for the construction improvements contained in Tract Map No. 5263, Monte Vista Estates, and hereby authorizes the City Engineer to transmit the attached Notice of Completion to the Fresno County Recorder's Office.

5. This resolution is effective upon adoption.

This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Reedley this 11 th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN :

ABSENT:

Mary L. Fast, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF,
City of Reedley
No Fee-Gov/t. Code Sections
6103 and 27383
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

City of Reedley
Engineering Department
1733 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion.

Notice is hereby given that:

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The full name of the owner is: City of Reedley

3. The full address of the owner is: 845 "G" Street, Reedley, CA 93654

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is: Street right-of-way

5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on : December 3, 2021 . The work done was: Improvement Plans for Monte Vista Estates Tract No. 5263 approved on the 18th day of June 2020.

6. The name of the owner, if any, for such work of improvement was: Efrain Yanez Construction, Inc.

7. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Reedley, County of Fresno, State of California, and is described as follows: City of Reedley street right-of-way located between East Myrtle Avenue and East Elm Avenue on North Cedar Avenue and North Valencia Avenue.

8. The street address of said property is: N/A

9. The City of Reedley authorizes release of the surety bonds.

10. Resolution No. 2022-003, Attached Hereto and Made a Part Hereof.

Dated: ____________ _
Marilu S. Morales, P.E.

City Engineer

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Engineer for the City of Reedley, the declarant of the foregoing notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(PERSONAL SIGNATURE OF THE IN DIVIDUAL WHO IS SWEARING TH AT TH E CONTENTS OF TH E NOTICE OF COMPLETION ARE TRU E.) Executed on _____________ __ , 2022, at _R~e-"-e=dl..:... ey.,_,_ _ __ ,.,c_ C=al-'-- ifo~r-'-ni..:...a _ _________ _ (DATE) (CITY) (STATE) DATE:

TITLE:

BY:

FROM:

APPROVED:

January 11 , 2022

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
D Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
~ Public Hearing
ITEM NO: f.9

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE REDESIGNATION OF THE SOUTHWEST AND

NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH SUNSET AVENUE AND EAST MANNING

AVENUE AND A SITE LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH SUNSET AVENUE AND EAST SPRINGFIELD AVENUE:

A) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004, ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2021-9, AN ADDENDUM TO THE

CITY OF REEDLEY CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
2030, DATED DECEMBER 16, 2021; AND
B) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-1; AND
C) INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005,

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-1 AND

AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF

THE CITY OF REEDLEY
Ellen Moore, Senior Planner ~ Community Development Department Rob Terry, AICP, Director ~ Community Development Department Nicole R. Zieba
City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

Page 1 of 11 ends

a) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-004 adopting Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030, dated December 16, 2021; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-005 approving General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1; and
c) Hold an Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 2021-005, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Reedley approving Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 , and authorizing the amendment of the official Zoning Map of the City of Reedley

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 , and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) pertain to three separate sites with separate proposals in the City of Reedley. The following executive summary, subsequent table and subsequent map describe the individual proposals by site.

Site 1 is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of North Sunset and Manning Avenues. The site is an undeveloped area approximately one acre in size located at 645 and 677 East Manning Avenue, APN: 370-091-05 and -06, respectively. The site currently has a High Density Residential Land Use Designation and a RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning Designation, which means that the site could allow for the development of approximately 17-33 multi-family dwelling units. The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Change of Zone from RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). The project proponent proposes to construct a drive-through restaurant on the site, but no site plan has yet been submitted and is not part of this project.

Site 2 is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of North Sunset and Manning Avenues. The site is currently developed with First Southern Baptist Church, an apartment complex, and two single family residences. The site is approximately 1.5 acres in size and is located at 767, 787, 799, and 729 East Manning Avenue, APN: 370-093-02, -03, -04, and -13, respectively. To create continuity with surrounding land uses, the project includes a GPA from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on the parcel developed with the church and from High Density Residential to Community Commercial on the parcels developed with the residences. Additionally, the project includes a Change of Zone from RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) on the parcel developed with the church. No changes in zoning are proposed on the parcels with the residences. No development is currently proposed on this site.

Site 3 is located northeast of the intersection of North Sunset Avenue and East Springfield Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped and is approximately 2.65 acres in size and is located on the east side of Sunset Avenue, APN: 370-131-29. The project includes a GPA to make the General Plan designation and zoning classification on the site consistent. The General Plan designation would be changed from Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Residential (15-19 dwelling units/acre). No change is proposed for the zoning. No development is currently proposed on this site.

Page 2 of 11 ends

Project APN Existing Proposed Existing Zoning Proposed
Site Land Use Land Use Zoning
370-091-05 High Density Neighborhood RM-2 CN
1 Residential Multi-Family Zone Neighborhood 370-091-06 (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial District Commercial High Density Neighborhood RM-2 CN
370-093-13 Residential Multi-Family Zone Neighborhood
(15-29 DU/acre) Commercial District Commercial
2 370-093-02 High Density cc
Community Central and 370-093-03 Residential Commercial Community No Change 370-093-04 (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
Low Density High Density RM-2
3 370-131-29 Residential Residential Multi-Family Zone No Change (4-8 DU/acre) (15-29 DU/acre) District
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and Us licensors © 2021

Page 3 of 11 ends

Through Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, staff has determined that an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030, is appropriate for the project. The Addendum has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley.

Staff presented Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 , and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) to the Planning Commission for their consideration , to receive public comment, and to make a recommendation to the City Council, on December 16, 2021. Via Resolutions 2021-16, 2021-17 and 2021-18, respectively, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council take approval actions for each of the aforementioned items. See Attachment 4.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 , and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) pertain to three separate sites with separate proposals in the City of Reedley.

Site 1 is. located on the southwest corner of the intersection of North Sunset and Manning Avenues. The site is an undeveloped area approximately one acre in size located at 645 and 677 East Manning Avenue, APN : 370-091 -05 and -06, respectively. The site currently has a High Density Residential Land Use Designation and a RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning Designation , which means that the site could allow for the development of approximately 17-33 multi-family dwelling units.

The property ownership and current uses of Sites 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in the table below:

Property Ownership and Current Use of Site 1, 2, and 3
Project APN Address Property Owner Current Use Site
370-091 -05 645 E Manning Ave First Southern Baptist Church of Vacant Reedley* 1 370-091 -06 677 E Manning Ave First Southern Baptist Church of Vacant Reedley* 370-093-13 729 E Manning Ave First Southern Baptist Church of Church Reedley* 2 370-093-02 767 E Manning Ave Dale W & Guadalupe Martinez Apartment Complex

Page 4 of 11 ends

370-093-03 787 E Manning Ave Luis Alberto Zaragoza Pena Single Family Residence
370-093-04 799 E Manning Ave Salvador Medina Single Family Residence
3 370-131-29 n/a Juan R Sandoval* Vacant
*Property owner provided written authorization for GPA and/or Change of Zone Application The City of Reedley received an entitlement application proposing to change the zoning and general plan designations of two adjacent properties (APN 370-091-05 and 370-091-06, a.k.a.

Site 1) from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Planned Land Use Designations. The project proponent proposes to construct a drive-through restaurant on the site, but no site plan has yet been submitted and is not part of this project. In order to provide a more gradual transition between commercial and residential land uses along the Manning Avenue corridor, the City of Reedley is proposing to continue the commercial corridor along this section of Manning Avenue, which already has an established commercial corridor to the east and west of Sites 1 and 2.

Up to this point of this staff report, the proposed project was described as three separate sites.

The following section will reference those three sites but will describe them as they apply to each entitlement application .

General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and General Plan Consistency General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 pertains to redesignating APNs 363-091 -05 (645 E Manning Avenue), 370-091-06 (677 E Manning Avenue), 370-093-13 (729 E Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation , and redesignating APNs 370-093-02 (767 East Manning Avenue), 370-093-03 (799 East Manning Avenue), and 370-093-04 (799 East Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Community Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APN 370-131-29 from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation. The proposed redesignations are summarized in the subsequent table:

General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1
Project APN Address Existing GP Designation Proposed GP Site Designation
370-091 -05 645 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Neighborhood (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
1 370-091 -06 677 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Neighborhood (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
370-093-13 729 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Neighborhood (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
2 370-093-02 767 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Community (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
370-093-03 787 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Community (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial

Page 5 of 11 ends

370-093-04 799 E Manning Ave High Density Residential Community (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
Low Density Residential High Density
3 370-131-29 n/a Residential (4-8 DU/acre) (15-29 DU/acre) Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached to City Council Resolution 2022-005 shows what the proposed General Plan Amendment Application would look like on the City of Reedley General Plan Land Use Map.

The overall guiding land use principles described in the General Plan are designed to provide an overall direction to assist decision-makers in determining the appropriateness of a request to changing either a planned land use or zone district designation. Those guiding principles are described in detailed statements of goals and polices outlined in the approved GPU (GPU , 2.3 Land Use Element Guiding Principles).

Moreover there are also specific Land Use Element goals and policies, which when applied , would further indicate the appropriateness of the general plan amendment application . In this case, these goals and policies further support the general plan amendment, as well as , the potential future approval and/or development of the site for future businesses. Below are those directly applicable goal and policy statements:

LU 2.7K
LU 2.?L
LU 2.7.39
Designate sufficient commercial land to accommodate growth for the entire planning horizon .

Provide for the compatibility of commercial land uses with surrounding land uses.

Locations at an intersection are most appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial uses.

In addition , the Neighborhood Commercial Planned Land Use Designation is intended to "be composed of a mix of retail and service-oriented uses that will serve the immediate neighborhoods and provide a destination for local transit and places for social gathering of neighborhood residents. Future commercial centers will be designed with the pedestrian in mind and provide for connectivity to surrounding areas" (Reedley 2030 General Plan, page 42). The Community Commercial Planned Land Use Designation is intended to be located "outside the central core and provide a wide range of retail business and compatible services designed to serve the entire community" Reedley 2030 General Plan , page 34). Inclusion of a Neighborhood Commercial area that acts as a buffer between residential and a wider range of commercial uses provides for consistency to the intended land use pattern identified within the General Plan.

Therefore, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses. These factors have been evaluated as described above. Upon consideration of this evaluation , it can be concluded that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1 is appropriate for the subject property.

According to the 2015-2023 Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, Site 1 is included in the Reedley Housing Sites Inventory. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), a jurisdiction must maintain an adequate site inventory to accommodate its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period. According to the 2015-2023 Fresno County MultiPage 6 of 11 Jurisdictional Housing Element, Reedley has surplus capacity for all income levels and a total surplus of 1,510 units. However, because the City of Reedley is considering removing a parcel's residential designation, it would be best practice for the City to identify an additional site or sites that can accommodate the residential designation that is to be removed.

Site 3, which is not currently in the Reedley Housing Sites Inventory, is included as part of this project to offset the loss of housing caused by updating the zoning on Site 1 from residential to commercial uses. Based on the land use density of 15-29 dwelling units per acre in the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and based on its size, Site 3 is deemed adequate to replace Site 1 and to accommodate for the City of Reedley's RHNA pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2. By updating the General Plan designation of Site 3 from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, no net loss of housing would occur as a result of the project.

Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) and Zoning Ordinance Consistency
Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) pertains to redesignating APNs (370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13) from the RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) zone district designation to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation. The proposed redesignations are summarized in the subsequent table:

Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) Project ·Existing Zoning
Site APN Address Designation
370-091-05 645 E Manning Ave RM-2
Multi-Family Residential
1 370-091-06 677 E Manning Ave RM-2
Multi-Family Residential .
2 370-093-13 729 E Manning Ave RM-2
Multi-Family Residential
Proposed Zoning
Designation
CN
Neighborhood
Commercial
CN
Neighborhood
Commercial
CN
Neighborhood
Commercial
Exhibit A attached to Ordinance No. 2021-005 shows what the proposed Change of Zone Application would look like on the City of Reedley Zoning Map.

If General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is approved, which staff has determined is appropriate for the subject property as described above, the change of zoning for the proposed project remains consistent with the GPU Planned Land Use and Zoning District Consistency Matrix (GPU, Table 2-4, Page 30).

As previously mentioned, Site 1 is currently vacant. The project proponent proposes to construct a drive-through restaurant on Site 1, but no site plan has yet been submitted and is not part of this project. If General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-:1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) are approved, the project proponent can submit a Site Plan Review Application for Site 1 to construct a drive-through restaurant. A drive-through restaurant is a by-right use in the CN Neighborhood Commercial zone district if no alcohol is sold or served, which means that Community Development staff would take final action on the Site Plan Review Application, unless the application is appealed.

Page 7 of 11 ends

A portion of Site 2 (APN 370-091-13) is currently developed as a church. City staff is not aware of any proposals to redevelop this property, so it is assumed that the existing church use would continue to be operated. A church is allowed by-right in the proposed CC Central and Community Commercial zone district, so the existing church use on would remain a legal conforming use.

The remaining portion of Site 2 (APNs 370-093-02, 370-093-03, and 370-093-04) is currently developed as an apartment complex and single family residences. City staff is not aware of any proposals to redevelop any of these properties, so it is assumed that these existing uses would continue to be operated. These three properties do not have to be rezoned as a result of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 because they are already zoned as CC Central and Community Commercial. These three properties also appear to be legal non-conforming uses, which means that the existing uses appear to have been lawfully established and maintained prior to the adoption of the Reedley Municipal Code. As such , if the properties are being used in a legal manner, the properties can continue to be used the same way as long as they comply with Section 10-15-7 of the Reedley Municipal Code pertaining to Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. If General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is approved, then the General Plan Designation and Zoning Designation of these three properties would be consistent, which would continue the Manning Avenue Commercial Corridor and make it easier for the property owners to redevelop their property in the future if they choose to do so.

As previously mentioned, Site 3 (APN 370-131-29) is currently vacant. The amount of development allowed on Site 3 would be the same before and after the GPA, because the zoning itself is not changing. If General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is approved, then the General Plan Designation and Zoning Designation would be consistent and the property owner of Site 3 can submit a Site Plan Review Application to construct a multi-family development. A multifamily development project is a by-right use in the RM-2 zone district, which means that Community Development staff would take final action on the Site Plan Review Application, unless the application is appealed.

BORDERING PROPERTY INFORMATION
Planned Land Use Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
Sites 1 and 2: High Density Sites 1 and 2: Single family and Residential Sites 1 and 2: RM-2 North Site 3: Public/Institutional Site 3: RCO multifamily residential uses Facility Site 3: Public school
Sites 1 and 2: Community Sites 1 and 2: Commercial uses East Commercial Sites 1 and 2: CC Site 3: Single family residential Site 3: Low Density Site 3: R-1-6 Residential uses
Sites 1 and 2: Low and High Sites 1 and 2: Single family and Density Residential Sites 1 and 2: CC, R-1 -6 multi-family residential uses and South commercial uses Site 3: High Density Site 3: RM-2 Site 3: Single family and multi- Residential family residential uses Sites 1 and 2: High Density Sites 1 and 2: RM-2 Sites 1 and 2: single family West Residential Site 3: RCO residential uses
Site 3: Open Space Site 3: RCO
CC: Community Commercial
RCO: Resource Conservation and Open Space
R-1-6: Single Family Residential (6,000 square feet minimum site area) RM-2: High Density Residential (15-29 DU/acre)

Page 8 of 11 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 25, 2014, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) prepared for the proposed Reedley General Plan Update 2030 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR provides a comprehensive single programmatic environmental document that will allow the City of Reedley to carry out the General Plan Update and evaluates direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed GPU, as well as project alternatives in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The General Plan Update 2030 EIR is available for review on the Community Development Department's "Major Projects" page on the City of Reedley's website, which can be found at the following link: (http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/Major Projects/) and at the Planning Division of the City of Reedley Community Development Department, located at 1733 9th Street Reedley, CA 93654.

Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted , shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley. See Attachment 5. According to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." The changes that are being proposed with the project are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. The project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified. This Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the 2030

Page 9 of 11 ends

General Plan EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.

This Addendum includes a description of the project, and a comparison of the impacts for all environmental issues' areas listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Reedley shall consider this Addendum to the 2030 General Plan EIR prior to making a decision on the project.

COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REVIEW/ACTIONS
On December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider the various applications associated with the actions proposed within this staff report. The Commission received a written staff report and presentation, and invited the public to comment. Multiple parties spoke both in favor and in opposition to the proposed amendments. After hearing all the testimony the City of Reedley Planning Commission, using their independent judgment, recommended to the City Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2021-9, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1, and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1), via Resolutions 2021-16, 2021-17, and 2021-18, respectively. See Attachment 4.

PUBLIC NOTICING
As part of the application submittal, the applicant provided written authorization from the First Southern Baptist Church of Reedley, who is the property owner of APNs 370-091-09, -06, and - 13, to submit a General Plan Amendment Application and a Change of Zone Application. City staff also reached out to the property owner of Site 3 to see if they were interested in the redesignation of their property, and the property owner provided written authorization. In April of 2021, City staff mailed a letter to the remaining property owners providing information about the proposed redesignations and indicated that the redesignations would be done at no cost to the property owner in an effort by the City to offer assistance to continue a commercial corridor along Manning Avenue and to maintain consistency with the intent of the adopted General Plan.

Pursuant to the Government Code Section 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) and Reedley Municipal Code, §10-22, it is required that a notice be published in a newspaper and be sent to surrounding property owners. For City Council actions, Public Hearing Notices were duly published in the Mid-Valley Times, and sent to surrounding property owners, on December 30, 2021. See Attachment 6.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time. All applicable application fees have been paid by the applicant prior to public hearings being scheduled. At the time of the preparation of this staff report, reimbursement for preparation of the environmental assessment is still outstanding and invoices will be provided to the applicant.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-004, adopting Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030, dated December 16, 2021

2. Resolution No. 2022-005, approving General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1

Page 10 of 11 ends

3. Ordinance No. 2021-005, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Reedley approving Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1, and authorizing the amendment of the official Zoning Map for the City of Reedley.

4. Planning Commission Resolution No.'s 2021-16, 2021-17, and 2021-18, Recommending to the City Council Approval of Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9; and General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1; and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005)

5. Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, Dated December 16, 2021

6. Proof of Publication and Public Noticing Mailing dated December 30, 2021

Page 11 of 11 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-004

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2021-9, AN ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF

REEDLEY CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PREPARED FOR THE REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2030, DATED DECEMBER 16, 2021 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs 363-091-05 (645 E Manning Avenue), 370-091-06 (677 E Manning Avenue), 370-093-13 (729 E Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APNs 370-093-02 (767 East Manning Avenue), 370-093-03 (799 East Manning Avenue), and 370-093-04 (799 East Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Community Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APN 370-131-29 from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs (370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13) from the RM-2 (Mu/ti-Family Residential) zone district designation to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 were evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if CC Resolution No. 2022-004

Page 1 of 3 ends

some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."; and WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 El R; and
WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified; and WHEREAS, this Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the City's General Plan Update 2030 EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect; and
WHEREAS, no public comments or appeals regarding the proposed environmental finding or project have been received to date; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission , at a Regular Meeting on December 16, 2021 , held a public hearing to review the general plan amendment application, change of zone application, and environmental assessment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission , using their independent judgment recommend that the City Council of the City of Reedley adopt Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley approves Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9 based on the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

2. The City of Reedley Community Development Department has determined that Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030, is appropriate for the project; and

3. Via Resolution 2021-16, the Reedley Planning Commission recommended to the City Council of the City of Reedley approval of Environmental CC Resolution No. 2022-004

Page 2 of 3 ends

Assessment No. 2021-9 following receipt of public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independent deliberation during an open public meeting; and

4. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted this 11th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
CC Resolution No. 2022-004

Page 3 of 3 ends

Mary L. Fast, Mayor
City Council
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-005

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-1
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs 363-091-05 (645 E Manning Avenue), 370-091-06 (677 E Manning Avenue), 370-093-13 (729 E Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APNs 370-093-02 (767 East Manning Avenue), 370-093-03 (799 East Manning Avenue), and 370-093-04 (799 East Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Community Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APN 370-131-29 from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), a jurisdiction must maintain an adequate site inventory to accommodate its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period; and
WHEREAS, According to the 2015-2023 Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, Reedley has surplus capacity for all income levels and a total surplus of 1,510 units; and
WHEREAS, because the City of Reedley is considering removing the High Density Residential Designation of APNs 363-091-05 and 363-091 -06 totaling approximately 1 acre in size, the City has identified an additional site that can accommodate the residential designation that is to be removed ; and
WHEREAS, a parcel approximately 2.65 acres in size (APN 370-131 -29) is proposed to be redesignated to High Density Residential and is deemed adequate to CC Resolution No. 2022-005

Page 1 of 4 ends

accommodate for the City of Reedley's RHNA pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2; and
WHEREAS, no net loss of housing would occur as a result of this project; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 was evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No. 2021 -9, dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."; and WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021- 005) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 EIR; and
WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission, at a Regular Meeting on December 16, 2021, held a public hearing to review the environmental assessment and general plan amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission , using their independent judgment recommended that the City Council of the City of Reedley approve General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code and the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, a CC Resolution No. 2022-005

Page 2 of 4 ends

Notice of Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and was mailed to surrounding property owners on December 30, 2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Reedley approves Site Plan Review Application No. 2021-13 and Environmental Evaluation No. 2021-15 based on the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

3. Via Resolution 2021-17, the Reedley Planning Commission recommended to the City Council of the City of Reedley approval of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 following receipt of public testimony, oral and written staff rep9rt, and independent deliberation during an open public meeting; and

4. The City Council of the City of Reedley finds that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is consistent with the guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and

5. The City Council of the City of Reedley finds that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is appropriate for the subject property; and

6. The City Council of the City of Reedley approves the following Conditions of Approval that shall apply to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1:
a. Development of APNs 363-091-05, 370-091-06, 370-093-13, 370-093-02, 370-093-03, 370-093-04, and 370-131-29 shall take place in accordance with all city, county, state and federal laws and regulations. b. If archaeological and/or animal fossil material is encountered during project surveying , grading, excavating, or construction, work shall stop immediately. If there are suspected human remains, the Fresno County Coroner Division shall be immediately contacted at (559) 600-3400. If remains or other archaeological material is possibly Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (phone number (916) 653-4082) shall be immediately contacted , and the California Archaeological Inventory/Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (phone number (805) 644-2289) shall be contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized archaeologists.

CC Resolution No. 2022-005

Page 3 of 4 ends

c. Developer shall coordinate with Alta Irrigation District (AID) prior to the development of APN 370-131-29 in accordance with the Comment Letter from AID dated August 31, 2021.

7. All other recommended conditions as notated within Reedley Planning Commission Resolution 2021-17 shall be adhered to; and

8. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption .

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted this 11th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Mary L. Fast, Mayor
City Council
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Attachment 1:

Page 4 of 4 ends

City of Reedley
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1
Exhibit 'A'
Project Information: APN(s): 370-091-02, 03, 04, 05, 06 & 13 Total Acreage: 2.567 acres
Existing Proposed
General Plan Planned Land Use
Designation:

General Plan Planned Land Use
Designation:

High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial &
Communit Commerical
Location Map 6
~·••1•••1- ··-··-··-·· t,.. i ! . ! Project !_ ', . ,r· . . •-~~.!.!f RAVE '// ~~-::~~n ~ t.... I : I
! :
.,#••..,fo E MANNING AVE w :.. •• •
:.,_.r....... w Q ~
-··~ .. 1 • > <( s-·-.. ; r·-·· .. w 1-- oi :_ .. :i ~ ~ ::i .. -... i i 0 W ~ •----g .. w z ~ • • •• W E DfNIJBAAVE ~ :: - •• .._,.o::: I- '=••-··' .... ::) •• , : ' co I •J ••, i ••~ "".• • o : ,._•• d I I
NORTH
Legend
i:7.·~~ Reedley Sphere of Influence
., .... , Reedley City Limits 1. .... ..

Reedley General Plan Planned Land Use Designations
Low Density Residential
- High Density Residential
- Open Space
- - Public/Institutional Facility
- Office Commercial
- Community Commercial . . . . • ........... ' Neighborhood Commercial City of Reedley
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1
Exhibit B
Project Information
APN: 370-131-29
Size: 2.65 acres
Zoning Designation: RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
Existing General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation:

Low Density Residential
4-8 units er acre
Location Map
:-•·· I :
r====! :_it t==1 Project
:: ·.., ,I"'"; J Location I! ., •
•••-• • --f.ARUER A'i_'fl u===== __ • ~--•· -I i n
j w·~---.
.-.·~ > '===1 ~/'..,""i. <( •
: ~ ~ w s,,..-.. i ·-··-··' <( '?,·· > d! '··-= ; 0 -<-,,'<' ~· : w ,.._"- I- -,[···-: I w CJ), >- -••-:: • 0::: · > _.I! •,. LUI Z :
0 I •'ir._ E OINUHAfr.VE 1- """"";:~
I
r,··-] :-.-. ~ ! 1r••41,, i ... , m (•" ii ·: ~ ··, • .,.... !! ·1, --r. •..-.:, . . ~-~
I ~ : ·-•• - I .--• 11 .. 1 I • " ..,. :: i
••• ,..., ii+• IL._ ..

High Density Residential
15-29 units er acre
0 125 250 500 Feet
Legend
..........
~ ..... : Project Location
General Plan Designation
- Open Space
- Public/Institutional Facility
High Density Residential (4-8 units per acre)
Low Density Residential (15-29 units per acre)
289 North L Street
Dinuba, CA 93618
Tel: (559) 591-0800
Fax: (559) 591-5190
www.altaid.org
August 31, 2021
Via E-mail Only ([email protected])
Ellen Moore, Associate Planner
City of Reedley - Community Dev. Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Board of Directors
Jack Brandt
President
Dan Astiasuain
Domenic Fino
Jerry Halford
John Kalendar
Tom Marshall
Larry Tout
Administration
Chad B. Wegley
General Manager!
Secretary
Marc A. Limas
Operations
Manager/Treasurer
Subject: General Plan Amendment App. No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application NO. 2021-1: Site 3, APN 370-131-29
Dear Ms. Moore:

This letter is in response to a notice from City of Reedley, Community Development Department, for the proposed General Plan Amendment App. No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application NO. 2021- 1: Site 3, APN 370-131-29, received August 23 , 2021 , requesting comments on the Change of Zone No. 2021-3 , generally located 385 feet north of the NE comer of E. Springfield Ave and N. Sunset Ave (Project).

Alta Irrigation District ("District") does have existing infrastructure ( Curtis Pipeline) running generally in a west-east alignment on the northside of APN 370-131-29. Since the Project is in its preliminary stages of development, the District reserves the right to comment on potential impact(s) to its facilities and other mitigation requirements until such time plans and specifications are provided for the Project. However, here is a summary of other key actions the applicant must take as part of the District's policies: i) execute an Encroachment Agreement, ii) execute a Pipeline Development Agreement, iii) possibility of pipeline replacement prior to occupancy of any buildings, iv) pay Encroachment Fees and other Project-related costs, etc. The District encourages the Developer to meet with the District during the early planning stages to discuss these items.

Should you have any questions about this letter please contact me at (559) 591-0800.

Sincerely,
Alta Irrigation District
L~
Luis M. Rios,
Resource Analyst I
c: File
3701 3129
k
3 Sa ndoval. Jua n R
, '.ii c,..,;
' ,I ,,,,1, 20231 Clayron Ave
Turnouts
Drops
Wells
• Head
gates
*
Ponds
+
Waterways
Kings Parcels (1·2020)
Tulare Parcels (7-2020)
Fresno Parcels (5·2021)
-0 )> (/) s:: !ll C C C/l <0<00"·
(l) C ro· S:: N~~O
0 w .. 0 ~ -..... ~ ro N::,
Oro N--,
---"9!..
-0
OJ
::J
)>
3 (l)
::J
a.
3 (l)
~
)>
-0
-0
z
0 N
0 N
!ll
::J
a.
0 ::J"
!ll
::J
co
(l)
s,
N
0 ::J
(l)
)>
-0
"Q_
c=;·
~ a·
::J
z
0 N
0 N
(/)
~ _w
)>
-0
z
w
--J
?
~
N
(0
~ A
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-1 AND

AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF

THE CITY OF REEDLEY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs (370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13) from the RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) zone district designation to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation on all three properties (see related General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 ); and WHEREAS, the change of zone application is consistent with the overall guiding land use principles described in the General Plan Update 2030, Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, specific Land Use Element goals and policies, which when applied, would further support the zone district reclassification; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff consulted with responsible and trustee agencies (City Departments and external agencies) regarding the change of zone, then conducted an environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) were evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."; and
WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Ordinance No. 2021-005 (Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 EIR; and WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified; and
WHEREAS, this Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the City's General Plan Update 2030 EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect; and WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission, at the regular meeting on Ordinance 2021-005

Page 1 of 3 ends

December16, 2021, held a public hearing, received a written staff report, invited public comment, independently deliberated, and recommended that the City Council of the City of Reedley approve Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 by adopting Ordinance No. 2021-005; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code and the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and was mailed to surrounding property owners on December 30, 2021.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley, at the regular meeting on January 11 , 2022, held a public hearing, received a written staff report, invited public comment, and independently deliberated.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Reedley does hereby ordain as follows :

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct; and Section 2. The City Council of the City of Reedley FINDS that Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030, is appropriate for the project; and Section 3. The City Council FINDS that the proposed Change of Zone Application is consistent with the subject property's 2030 General Plan Neighborhood Commercial Planned Land Use Designation; and
Section 4. The City Council FINDS that Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 is appropriate for the subject property; and
Section 5. The City Council hereby APPROVES Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 and incorporates the changes reflected therein into the zoning law and map of the City of Reedley , as reflected on Exhibit A; and
Section 6. The City Council hereby APPROVES the amendment to the Official Zoning Map and ADOPTS said updated map as the City's Official Zoning Map; and Section 7. The City Council hereby ADOPTS the following Conditions of Approval that shall apply to Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1:
a. Development of APNs 370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13 shall take place in accordance with all city, county, state and federal laws and regulations. b. If archaeological and/or animal fossil material is encountered during project surveying, grading, excavating , or construction, work shall stop immediately. If there are suspected human remains, the Fresno County Coroner Division shall be immediately contacted at (559) 600-3400. If remains or other archaeological material is possibly Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (phone number (916) 653-4082) shall be immediately contacted , and the California Archaeological Inventory/Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (phone number (805) 644- 2289) shall be contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized archaeologists.

Ordinance 2021 -005

Page 2 of 3 ends

c. A noise study shall be prepared prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed development on APNs 370-091-05 and 370-091-06 to ensure that noise sources emitted would not exceed threshold levels established in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
d. Developer shall coordinate with Alta Irrigation District (AID) prior to the development of APN 370-131-29 in accordance with the Comment Letter from AID dated August 31 , 2021 , as reflected on Attachment 1.

Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a summary of this ordinance to be published by one insertion in a newspaper of general circulation in the community at least five (5) days prior to adoption and again within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

Section 9. This Ordinance does not need to be codified because there is no text in the Municipal Code that needs to be revised ; and
Section 10. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption, as certified by the City Clerk.

ATTEST:

I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2021-005 was introduced and given first reading by title only at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Reedley held on January 11 , 2022, and was thereafter duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on January 25, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
City of Reedley
Attachments:

Mary L. Fast, Mayor
City of Reedley
Exhibit A: Map of affected parcels related to Change of Zone Application No. 2021 -1 Attachment 1: Comment Letter from Alta Irrigation District (AID) dated August 31 , 2021 Ordinance 2021-005

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit 'A' City of Reedley
Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance
No. 2021-005)
Project Information: APN(s): 370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13 Total Acreage: 1.96 acres
Existing
Zoning Designation:

Proposed
Zoning Designation
RM-2 Multi-Family Residential CN Neighborhood Commercial Location Map
~·· -·····-, • • •• • • ......... ..
•,.. =
1 i ! ! Project '.·
,, . ,r· . ... .8.fil-!~R AV'ti. i' Location 1 L. ,-··---1 i I :
~ ••._('9 E MANNING AVE _ w :.. •• :
:.,f•..... w . ~
-I:~ ! ~ s:-••'?
• r·-··• w 1- 01 •-··
:f ~ Cf') :::r•·-··• i
Ii ~ ~ ~ •-- •
... w z r; .,.•. w E DfNUBAAVE ~ . ....... 0::: 1-
: ·-··' .... ::J r,.j '·· a::i ~ : '·· rJ, I ''9.• . , .. : ..... .!
I
i
•• ,.. 1•11
.
.

MYRTLE A~
-
7 6
NORTH
Legend
i:.7.::~ Reedley Sphere of Influence
., .... , Reedley City Limits 1. .... ..

Zoning Designations
CC (Central & Community Commercial)
- CN(SP) Neighborhood Commercial (Specific Plan)
- CN (CN Neighborhood Commercial)
I I C-AO (Administrative & Office)
R-1 (SP)
R-1-6 One Family Residential
- RCO Resource Conservation & Open Space
- RM-2 Multi-Family Residential
- RM-3 Multi-Family Residential
RESOLUTION NO, 2021-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2021-9, AN ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF REEDLEY CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTi PREPARED FOR THE REEDLEY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2030, DATED DECEMBER 16, 2021 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs 363-091-05 (645 E Manning Avenue), 370-091-06 (677 E Manning Avenue), 370-093-13 (729 E Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation, and redesignating APNs 370-093-02 (767 East Manning Avenue), 370-093-03 (799 East Manning Avenue), and 370-093-04 (799 East Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Community Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation , and redesignating APN 370-131-29 from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation ; and
WHEREAS, Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs (370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13) from the RM-2 (Mu/ti-Family Residential) zone district designation to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) were evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9 , dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1 and PC Resolution No. 202 1-16
Environmental Assessment 202 1-9 Related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Apphcation No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) Page 1 of 3 Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021 -005) in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred ."; and WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021- 005) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 EIR; and
WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified ; and
WHEREAS, this Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the City's General Plan Update 2030 EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect; and
WHEREAS, no public comments or appeals regarding the proposed environmental finding or project have been received to date; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission , at a Regular Meeting on December 16, 2021 , held a public hearing to review the general plan amendment application , change of zone application, and environmental assessment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony , oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated .

PC Resolution No. 202 1-16
Environmental Assessment 202 1-9 Related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021- 1 and Change of Zone Application No. 202 1-1 (Ordinance No. 202 1-005) Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Reedley Planning Commission using their independent judgment hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Reedley adopt Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9 based on the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.

This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted this 16th day of December, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Perez, Conrad, Custodio, Luzania.

Hudson.

None .

None .
(~ •. _ ... __ _
Ron Hudson, Chair
City of Reedley Planning Commission
,fJ
PC Resolution No. 202 1-16
Environmental Assessment 2021-9 Related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021 -1 (Ordinance No. 2021 -005) Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-1
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs 363-091-05 (645 E Manning Avenue), 370-091-06 (677 E Manning Avenue), 370-093-13 (729 E Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation , and redesignating APNs 370-093-02 (767 East Manning Avenue), 370-093-03 (799 East Manning Avenue), and 370-093-04 (799 East Manning Avenue) from the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the Community Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation , and redesignating APN 370-131-29 from the Low Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation to the High Density Residential General Plan Planned Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its consistency with guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), a jurisdiction must maintain an adequate site inventory to accommodate its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period; and
WHEREAS, According to the 2015-2023 Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, Reedley has surplus capacity for all income levels and a total surplus of 1,510 units; and
WHEREAS, because the City of Reedley is considering removing the High Density Residential Designation of APNs 363-091-05 and 363-091-06 totaling approximately 1 acre in size, the City has identified an additional site that can accommodate the residential designation that is to be removed; and
WHEREAS, a parcel approximately 2.65 acres in size (APN 370-131-29) is proposed to be redesignated to High Density Residential and is deemed adequate to accommodate for the City of Reedley's RHNA pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2; and
WHEREAS, no net loss of housing would occur as a result of this project; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1 · was evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No . 2021-9, dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and PC Resolution No. 202 1-1 7
GPA Application No. 2021- 1 Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines , "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."; and WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021- 005) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 EIR; and
WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code and the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 2, 2021 , and was mailed to surrounding property owners on December 3, 2021 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission, at a Regular Meeting on December 16, 2021 , held a public hearing to review the environmental assessment and general plan amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and independently deliberated.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Reedley Planning Commission using their independent judgment hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley approve General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 based on the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

3. The Planning Commission finds that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 is consistent with the guiding land use principles, goals and policies of the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 and regulatory standards set forth in the Reedley Municipal Code and its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and

4. The Planning Commission finds that General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1 is appropriate for the subject property; and

5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1; and
6_ The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley adopt the following Conditions of Approval that shall apply to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1:

PC Resolution No. 2021-17
GPA Application No. 2021-1 Page 2 of 3
a Development of APNs 363-091-05, 370-091-06, 370-093-13, 370-093-02 , 370- 093-03, 370-093-04, and 370-131-29 shall take place in accordance with all city, county, state and federal laws and regulations.
b If archaeological and/or animal fossil material is encountered during project surveying , grading, excavating , or construction, work shall stop immediately. If there are suspected human remains, the Fresno County Coroner Division shall be immediately contacted at (559) 600-3400. If remains or other archaeological material is possibly Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (phone number (916) 653-4082) shall be immediately contacted , and the California Archaeological Inventory/Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (phone number (805) 644-2289) shall be contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized archaeologists.

If animal fossils are uncovered, the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley shall be contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized paleontologists. An assessment shall be conducted by a paleontologist; if the paleontologist determines the material to be significant, a recommendation shall be made to the City as to any further site investigation or preservation measures.
c Developer shall coordinate with Alta Irrigation District (AID) prior to the development of APN 370-131-29 in accordance with the Comment Letter from AID dated August 31, 2021 .

7. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption .

This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Reedley Planning Commission, in the City of Reedley, held on the 16th day of December, 2021, by the following vote:

ATTEST:

AYES: Custodio, Perez , Conrad , Luzania.

NOES: Hudson.

ABSTAIN : None.

ABSENT: None. ~ '
\~~-""--"--'0'Y'----=-v _ _ Ron Hudson, Chair
City of Reedley Planning Commission
Attachments:

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Attachment 1:

Map of affected parcels related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 (APNs 363-091-05, 370-091 -06 , 370-093-13 , 370-093-02, 370-093- 03, and 370-093-04)
Map of affected parcel related to General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 (APN 370-131-29)
Comment Letter from Alta Irrigation District (AID) dated July 23 , 2021 PC Resolution No. 2021-17
GPA Application No. 2021- 1 Page 3 of 3
City of Reedley
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1
Exhibit 'A'
Project Information: APN(s): 370-091-02, 03, 04, 05, 06 & 13 Total Acreage: 2.567 acres
Existing Proposed
General Plan Planned Land Use
Designation:

General Plan Planned Land Use
Designation:

High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial &
Communit Commerical
I -....--
Location Map 6 1 ~·:.i I I I I F~· . m li;;.:,,(19 •• ~ W1 !311 1 11Dla Legend J I i i ! i P ro ject ~ ~,;'\'r;.~J·).b!tR A.Vt--· ,l~r~::-~~-~~jn ~ O:una ~ Reedley Sphere of Influence NORTH
•t..~-/1 i !! ...... 1: Reedley City Limits ,,_l,; J, , ;.., . .Ji! 1. .... r1 /' f ~ _E f\ 111\N r-.H r• GAVE tu ~ ql Reedley General Plan Planned Land Use Designations -,, ... ~"'f ... ] 5 ~ c=:i Low Density Residential .'i ,..,,,., __ .i_.. -:.'!_ ~= i.,i,9?: j • w ~ c;;i ·-- ·- ~ High Density Residential :~ ;~ ~f :f"- •·· J td w ! .. _? [:=J Open Space • w I:: DI •.JUBA A\/E C:> . .. " ~~-."~er ~ ~~. e=3 Public/Institutional Facility f ..... .,1 ='"·•, i; .J .. 4 •,.. g ~ Office Commercial
:'. J ""l "",-:.-.:~""':'O ~ '-••-.!. Community Commercial C I Neighborhood Commercial
City of Reedley
General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1
Exhibit B
Project Information
APN: 370-131-29
Size: 2.65 acres
Zoning Designation: RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential)
Location Map
Proposed General Plan Designation:

High Density Residential
15-29 units er acre ,
Legend
_. ....... :-. •• 111 : Project Location
General Plan Designation
[=:J Open Space
0 125 250
c:J Public/Institutional Facility
500 Feet
High Density Residential (4-8 units per acre)
c=J Low Density Residential (15-29 units per acre)
289 North L Street
Dinuba, CA 93618
Tel: (559) 591-0800
Fax: (559) 591-5190
www.altaid.org
August 3 1, 2021
Via E-mail Only ([email protected],1
Ellen Moore, Associate Planner
City of Reedley- Community Dev. Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Board Qf Dir~tors
Jack Brandt
President
Dan Astiasuain
Domenic Fino
Jerry Haford
John Kalendar
Tom Marshal l
Larry Tout
Administration
Chad 8. Wegley
General Manager/
Secretary
Marc A Limas
Operations
Managerflreasurer
Subject: General Plan Amendment App. No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application NO. 2021-1: Site 3, APN 370-131-29
Dear Ms. Moore:

This letter is in response to a notice from City of Reedley, Community Development Department, for the proposed General Plan Amendment App. No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application NO. 2021- 1: Site 3, APN 3 70-131-29, received August 23 , 2021, requesting comments on the Change of Zone No. 2021-3, generally located 385 feet 1101th of the NE corner of E. Springfield Ave and N. Sunset Ave (Project).

Alta IlTigation District ("District") does have existing infrastructure (Curtis Pipeline) running generally in a west-east alignment on the nmthside of APN 370-131-29. Since the Project is in its preliminary stages of development, the District reserves the right to comment on potential impact(s) to its facilities and other mitigation requirements until such time plans and specifications are provided for the Project. However, here is a summa1y of other key actions the applicant must take as part of the District's policies: i) execute an Encroachment Agreement, ii) execute a Pipeline Development Agreement, iii) possibility of pipeline replacement prior to occupancy of any buildings, iv) pay Encroachment Fees and other Project-related costs, etc. The District encourages the Developer to meet with the District during the early planning stages to discuss these items.

Should you have any questions about this letter please contact me at (559) 591-0800.

Sincerely,
i\l lJ I ITiga. t,:·1n l~~~~~,::l
..,--:.-: ..,..,,,.---..,..--"---- _ ___ r •••' _.,.
-.,,,~ J':,.,..~t._"~--~- .--:-
Luis M. Rit s,---
Resource Analyst I
c; l·i l.'
_,
:,t!J1J12S1,-.,
Sanctovat, Juan R
(HtO
l,:li
20231 Clayton Ave
,Lj(i1;1
'I I c.'
Reedley, CA 93654
TUfflO-!JtS
~
Drops.

INeH§
ill>
Headq.=ite.s
* P !ill0'5
+
°Wl.ltffW;iiys
Kings Parcels (1-2020)
Tulare Parcels (7-2020}
Fresno Parcels {5-2021)
ID
} :,.
-a
~171ft~
lJ)>(/)s
Ql C C C/l co en cr · CD ems !'\.) ~ 0. 0
S.~6~
l\r (1)
N :::i 0 CD "-l ...,
....i.e!._
lJ
OJ
::.J
)>
3 CD
:::i
a.
3 CD
2 )>
"Cl
-0
z
0 N
0 N
..:...

OJ
::i
a.
()
::::r
Ql
::i
tO
CD
s,
N
0 :J
CD
)>
-0
"Q_
0 ~
o·
::.J
z
0 N
0 N
..:...

0. iii
_w
)>
lJ
z
w
----J
?
~
N
(!)
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2021-1 (ORDINANCE NO. 2021-005)
WHEREAS, Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) was submitted and pertains to redesignating APNs (370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13) from the RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) zone district designation to the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district designation is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Planned Land Use Designation on all three properties (see related General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 ); and WHEREAS, the change of zone application is consistent with the overall guiding land use principles described in the General Plan Update 2030, Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, specific Land Use Element goals and policies, which when applied , would further support the zone district reclassification ; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff consulted with responsible and trustee agencies (City Departments and external agencies) regarding the change of zone, then conducted an environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, the appropriateness of the proposed project has been examined with respect to its compatibility with surrounding existing or proposed uses; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) were evaluated and processed in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the City of Reedley certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106), prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 (Environmental Assessment No . 2021-9, dated December 16, 2021) has been prepared to assess the environmental effects of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred."; and WHEREAS, the changes that are being proposed with General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021-1 and Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021 -005) are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the City of Reedley General Plan Update 2030 EIR ; and
PC Resolution No. 2021-1 8
CoZ Application No. 2021-1 (Ord 202 1-005) Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified; and
WHEREAS, this Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the City's General Plan Update 2030 EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley Planning Commission, at the regular meeting on September 16, 2021, held a public hearing to review the change of zone and environmental assessment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony, oral and written staff report, and deliberated .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Reedley Planning Commission using their independent judgment hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley approve Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) based on the following:
·1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

3. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Change of Zone Application is consistent with the subject property's 2030 General Plan Neighborhood Commercial Planned Land Use Designation ; and

4. The Planning Commission finds that Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005) is appropriate for the subject property ; and

5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley approve of Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 through Ordinance No. 2021-005; and

6. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley adopt the following Conditions of Approval that shall apply to Change of Zone Application No . 2021 -1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005):
a. Approval of Change of Zone Application No. 2021 -1 and adoption of Ordinance No. 2021-005 is contingent upon final approval of General Plan Amendment Application No. 2021 -1.
b. Development of APNs 370-091 -05, 370-091 -06 & 370-093-13 shall take place in accordance with all city, county , state and federal laws and regulations . c. If archaeolog ical and/or animal fossil material is encountered during project surveying , grading , excavating , or construction , work shall stop immediately. If there are suspected human remains , the Fresno County Coroner Division shall PC Resolution No. 2021-18
CoZ Application No. 2021 - 1 (Ord 2021-005) Page 2 of 3 be immediately contacted at (559) 600-3400. If remains or other archaeological material is possibly Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (phone number (916) 653-4082) shall be immediately contacted, and the California Archaeological Inventory/Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (phone number (805) 644-2289) shall be contacted to obtain a referral list of recognized archaeologists.

If animal fossils are uncovered, the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley shall be contacted to obtain ·a referral list of recognized paleontologists . An assessment shall be conducted by a paleontologist; if the paleontologist determines the material to be significant, a recommendation shall be made to the City as to any further site investigation or preservation measures.
d. A noise study shall be prepared prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed development on APNs 370-091-05 and 370-091-06 to ensure that noise sources emitted would not exceed threshold levels established in the 2030 General Plan EIR.
7, This resolution is effective upon adoption.

This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Reedley Planning Commission, in the City of Reedley , held on the 16th day of September, 2021, by the following vote :

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN :

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Attachment:

Exhibit A:

Con rad , Luzania , Custodio , Perez.

Hudson .

None .

Non e.

Ron Hudson , Chair
City of Reedley Planning Commission
Map of affected parcels related to Change of Zone Application No. 2021 - 1 (APNs 370-091 -05, 370-091 -06 & 370-090-13)
PC Resolution No. 2021-18
CoZ Application No. 2021-1 (Ord 2021 -005) Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 'A' City of Reedley
Change of Zone Application No. 2021-1 (Ordinance
No. 2021-005··
Project Information: APN(s): 370-091-05, 370-091-06 & 370-093-13 Total Acreage: 1.96 acres
Existing
Zoning Designation:

Proposed
Zoning Designation
RM-2 Multi-Family Residential CN Neighborhood Commercial Location Map
~ ijj_ --ijl
-,,·-· -- r6
NORTH
Legend
t~.·~~ Reedley Sphere of Influence
., .... t Reedley City Limits 1. .... ..

Zoning Designations
r=:J CC (Central & Community Commercial)
CN(SP) Neighborhood Commercial (Specific Plan)
L=:I CN (CN Neighborhood Commercial)
CJ C-AO (Administrative & Office)
CJ R-1 (SP)
~ R-1-6 One Family Residential
C=:J RCO Resource Conservation & Open Space
- RM-2 Multi-Family Residential
_ ] RM-3 Multi-Family Residential
~ I
<
< ii5 -
I~,
0 1 I (.) l I
I I
Addendum to Reedley 2030 General Plan EIR, Using a CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist
Analyzing a Subsequent Project Under City of Reedley, Certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) Prepared for the Reedley 2030 General Plan Environmental Assessment No. 2021-9
December 16, 2021

1. Project Title:

Manning/Sunset Commercial Corridor Project
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2021-1
Change of Zone Application (CoZ) No. 2021-1 (Ordinance No. 2021-005)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, California 93654

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Ellen Moore, City Planner
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, California 93654
(559) 637-4200 ext. 222
E-mail: [email protected]

4. Project Location:

Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 370-091-05 and 06, 370-093-02, 03, 04, and 13, and 370- 131-29 (approximately 5 acres)

5. Project Applicant/Sponsor Name and Address:

Ghai Management Services Inc.
25 E Airway Blvd
Livermore CA 94551

6. General Plan Designation:

Site 1 Existing: High Density Residential
Site 2 Existing: High Density Residential
Site 3 Existing: Low Density Residential

7. Zoning Designation:

Site 1 Existing: RM-2
Site 2 Existing: RM-2
Site 3 Existing: RM-2
-1-

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project is comprised of three separate sites with separate proposals in the City of Reedley (Exhibits 1 and 2). The following sections and subsequent table describe the individual proposals by site.

Site 1
Site 1 is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of North Sunset and Manning Avenues (see Exhibit 2). The site is an undeveloped area approximately one acre in size located at 645 and 677 East Manning Avenue, APN: 370-091 -05 and -06, respectively. The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Change of Zone from RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). The project proponent proposes to construct a drive-through restaurant on the site, but no site plan has yet been submitted and is not part of this project.

Site 2
Site 2 is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of North Sunset and Manning Avenues (see Exhibit 2). The site is currently developed with First Southern Baptist Church, an apartment complex, and two single family residences. The site is approximately 1.5 acres in size and is located at 767, 787, 799, and 729 East Manning Avenue, APN : 370-093-02 , -03, -04, and -13, respectively. To create continuity with surrounding land uses, the project includes a GPA from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on the parcel developed with the church and from High Density Residential to Community Commercial on the parcels developed with the residences. Additionally, the project includes a Change of Zone from RM-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) on the parcel developed with the church . No changes in zoning are proposed on the parcels with the residences. No development is currently proposed on this site.

Site 3
Site 3 is located northeast of the intersection of North Sunset Avenue and East Springfield Avenue (see Exhibit 2). The site is currently undeveloped and is approximately 2.65 acres in size and is located on the east side of Sunset Avenue,.APN : 370-131-29. The project includes a GPA to make the General Plan designation and zoning classification on the site consistent. The General Plan designation would be changed from Low Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units/acre) to High Density Residential (15-19 dwelling units/acre). No change is proposed for the zoning. No development is currently proposed on this site.

Project Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Existing Proposed Zoning Site Zoning 1 High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial RM-2 Neighborhood (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial
2 High Density Residential Neighborhood RM-2 Neighborhood (15-29 DU/acre) Commercial, Commercial,
Community Commercial No Change
3 Low Density Residential High Density Residential RM-2 No Change (4-8 DU/acre) (15-29 DU/acre)
-2-

9. 10.

11. Surrounding land uses and setting:

Existing Land Use Existing Zoning
North Sites 1 and 2: High Density Residential Sites 1 and 2: RM-2 Site 3: Public/Institutional Facility Site 3: RCO
East Sites 1 and 2: Community Commercial Sites 1 and 2: CC Site 3: Low Density Residential Site 3: R-1-6
South Sites 1 and 2: Low and High Density Sites 1 and 2: CC, R-1-6 Residential Site 3: RM-2
Site 3: High Density Residential
West Sites 1 and 2: High Density Residential Sites 1 and 2: RM-2 Site 3: Open Space Site 3: RCO
CC: Community Commercial
RCO: Resource Conservation and Open Space
R-1-6: Single Family Residential (6,000 square feet minimum site area) RM-2: High Density Residential (15-29 DU/acre)
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

No permits required.

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
According to e-mail correspondence with Ellen Moore, City of Reedley Associate Planner, on August 9, 2021 , a Formal Notification of Determination that a project application is complete and Notice of Consultation Opportunity was mailed to the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yakut Tribe, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band on July 30, 2021 . Proof of delivery was provided by the United States Postal Service (USPS) indicating that the notice was delivered between July 31 and August 6, 2021 to all groups. To the date of the preparation of this addendum, there was no request for consultation received by the City of Reedley as of December 9, 2021.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments , lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources , and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation . Please also note that Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. -3-
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map
Fresno
Sanger
Pa rlier
Selma
Kingsburg 1
I
0 2.5 S Miles
Basemop provided by Esri and its licensors © 2021 .

N
11 I I City of Reed ley A
I
2J"
M odesto
Los Banos
-4-
Dinuba
Merced
Coalinga
Avenal
Fre sno
Lemoore * V!'l<1lia
Delano
B.ikersfield
Exhibit 2 Project Location
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and ,rs licensors '!') 2021 . -5-
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

According to Section 15164(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (El R) is the appropriate environmental document in instances when "only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent El R or negative declaration have occurred."
Environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, although none of the impacts would be potentially significant with application of mitigation measures identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR:

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Mineral Resources Emissions Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
-6-
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
~ I find that, although the project would result in adverse effects, these would not add new or more severe or significant adverse effects on the environment beyond those identified in the City of Reedley, certified Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Reedley 2030 General Plan.

Therefore, an EIR Addendum has been prepared .

XEllen~ C~ December 16, 2021
Community Development Department
-7-
EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record , one or more of the following :
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following :

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous El R;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous El R would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Reedley. According to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." The changes that are being proposed with the project are minor in the sense that they would not create potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to those already identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. The project would also not substantially increase the magnitude or severity of impacts that were previously identified. This Addendum does not require public circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the 2030 General Plan EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.

This Addendum includes a description of the project, and a comparison of the impacts for all environmental issues' areas listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

The City of Reedley shall consider this Addendum to the 2030 General Plan El R prior to making a decision on the project. The 2030 General Plan EIR is available for review on the City's website 1 and at the Planning Division of the City of Reedley Community Development Department, located at 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654.
1 http://www. reed ley.com/departments/community development/Major Projects/ -8-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 20199, would the project:
a) Have a substantial Impact AES-2 No No No N/A
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage Impact AES-1 No No No N/A
scenic resources, including ,
but not limited to, trees , rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the Impact AES-1 No No No N/A
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of Impact AES-3 No No No N/A
substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area?
Impact
The project lies within the scope and study area of the 2030 General Plan EIR. As discussed in the 2030 General Plan EIR, the City's primary scenic and visual resources consist of the aesthetic land use pattern throughout the city and scenic vistas of surrounding agricultural land from the city's urban edge (City of Reedley 2013a). The 2030 General Plan EIR found no significant impacts to scenic vistas in the project area from future buildout of the 2030 General Plan.

As discussed in the Project Description (above), Site 1 and Site 3 are currently undeveloped areas, and Site 2 is developed with a church, an apartment complex, and single-family residences. A drive-through restaurant is anticipated to be proposed on Site 1, no changes are proposed to the existing structures on Site 2, and no development is proposed on Site 3.

The project sites do not include any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic structures, nor are the sites near or adjacent to a designated or eligible State scenic highway. -9-
The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from High Density Residential (HOR) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), and HOR to Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial on Site 2. The General Plan designation for Site 3 would also be changed from Low Density Residential to HOR. Additionally, the project would involve the rezoning of approximately 2.6 acres of Multi-Family Residential (RM-2) land to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Community Commercial (CC) land uses on Sites 1 and 2.

Rezoning would be consistent with the existing "Neighborhood Commercial" and "Community Commercial" uses to the north, south and east of the project sites. The project sites do not include any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic structures, nor are the sites near or adjacent to a designated or eligible State scenic highway.The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes, the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site. Implementation of the project would not adversely affect scenic vistas or scenic resources in the City of Reedley. Compliance with the zoning regulations and implementation of the 2030 General Plan's policies would ensure there would be no impacts to visual character associated with the project beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

The drive-through envisioned for Site 1 would be required to comply with local ordinances related to regulating light and glare. Therefore, impacts related to light or glare would be less than significant, and the project would not result in new or substantially increased aesthetic impacts beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for aesthetics impacts is required. -10-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Where Impact or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Was Analyzed Substantially Substantially Requiring or More in the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant Analysis or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
II.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland , are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Impact AG-1 No No No N/A
Unique Farmland , or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing Impact AG-2 No No No NIA
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning Impact AG-3 No No No N/A for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 12220(9)), timberland
(as defined by Public
Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest N/A; New No No No N/A
land or conversion of forest CEQA
land to non-forest use? checklist item
added
subsequent
e) Involve other changes in Impact AG-3 No No No NIA
the existing environment
which , due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
-11 -
Impact
Project Sites 1 and 3 are currently undeveloped areas, and Site 2 is developed with a church , an apartment complex, and single-family residences. The project sites lie within the scope and study area of the 2030 General Plan EIR, are within the existing Reedley City limits, and are designated as "Urban and Built-Up Land" by the California Department of Conservation's (DOC) Important Farmland Map (DOC 2016). The project sites are not under a Williamson Act Contract. The project sites were identified for commercial and residential development in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

The project sites are surrounding to the north, south , east, and west by built-up and urbanized areas within the Reedley City Limits. The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from High Density Residential (HOR) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), and HOR to Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial on Site 2. The General Plan designation for Site 3 would also be changed from Low Density Residential to HOR. Additionally, the project includes the rezoning of approximately

2.6 acres of Multi-Family Residential (RM-2) land to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Community Commercial (CC) land uses on Sites 1 and 2.

Therefore, since the sites are not zoned for agricultural uses, the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning , nor would it conflict with a Williamson Act Contract.

The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites therefore even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes, the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site. Additionally, the project would not encourage the conversion of adjacent agricultural land for additional development in the City of Reedley as the project sites are surrounded by urban uses.

The project would not conflict with any forest land or Timberland Production or result in any loss of forest land because the sites are zoned for residential and commercial uses, and there is no land located within the City that is zoned as forest land or timberland (City of Reedley 2014a).

Given the extent of residential and commercial uses to the north, east, west, and south of the project sites and the project being within an urbanized area, the project would not result in additional farmland being converted to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the project would be consistent with existing 2030 General Plan policies which require an orderly expansion of the Reedley City Limits, thus avoiding premature conversion of farmland . As such , no new or substantially increased agricultural or forestry resource impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for agricultural and forestry resources is required. -12-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially El R Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
Ill. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct Impact AQ-1 No No No N/A
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively Impact AQ-2 No No No N/A
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive Impact AQ-3 No No No N/A
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions Impact AQ-4 No No No N/A
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Setting
The project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin , which is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Specifically, the project site is located in Fresno County, which is designated as non-attainment for the federal and State eight-hour ozone standards, the State one-hour ozone standard, the State PM10 standard, and the federal and State PM2 s standard (SJVAPCD 2021a).

Thresholds of Significance
The SJVAPCD's current adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant emissions for construction and operational phases are shown in Table 1. -13-
Table 1 - Air Quality Thresholds of Significance - Criteria Pollutants Operational Emissions (tpy)
Pollutant/ Construction Permitted Equipment Non-Permitted Equipment and Precursor Emissions (tpy) and Activities Activities
co 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.s 15 15 15
tpy = tons per year; CO= carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; ROG = reactive organic gases; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM 10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2s = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Source: SJVAPCD 2015
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i .e., children , the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (SJVAPCD 2015b). Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include residences to the north, south , east, and west of all three sites. Additionally, Site 3 is immediately south of General Grant Middle School.

Impact
Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan
The SJVAPCD has prepared several air quality attainment plans (AQAP) to outline its strategy for achieving attainment for the State and federal ozone, PM10, and PM2.s standards for which it is designated non-attainment. Additionally, the 2004 State Implementation Plan Carbon Monoxide included strategies for reducing CO in San Joaquin Valley Air District (SJVAD); these standards are no longer relevant as SJVAD transitioned from maintenance area to an attainment area in 2018.

The SJVAPCD's previous AQAP for ozone is the 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

In 2020, the SJVAPCD prepared 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. As the SJVAD is designated non-attainment (extreme) for the more stringent 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, the 2020 RACT Demonstration outlines implementation of all reasonably available control measures . The SJVAPCD's AQAP for particulate matter is the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.s Standards (SJVAPCD 2021b).

Inconsistency with either of the AQAP would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact.

The primary way of determining consistency with the growth assumptions contained in the SJVAPCD AQAP is by determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure the project's population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQAP for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin .

As required by California law, City and County General Plans contain a Land Use Element that details the types and quantities of land uses that the city or county estimates will be needed for future growth , and that designate locations for land uses to regulate growth. The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) uses the growth projections and land use information in adopted general plans to estimate future average daily trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are then provided to SJVAPCD to estimate future air pollutant emissions in the AQAP. Existing and future emissions calculated for the -14-
AQAP are thus based on land uses from local general plans. The AQAP also detail the control measures and emission reductions required for reaching attainment of the air standards.

The applicable General Plan for the project is the 2030 General Plan , which was adopted in 2014. The 2030 General Plan outlines forecasted population growth through the year 2030. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the City's population in 2021 to be 26,087 persons and the average household size in 2021 to be 3.71 persons per household (DOF 2021). The project would reduce residential development rights on Sites 1 and 2 (2.57 acres) by redesignating them from High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial, respectively. To preserve the City's overall Housing Sites Inventory, the project would also create equivalent residential development rights on Site 3 (2.65 acres) by redesignating it from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. As such , the project would not result in a net increase in housing capacity, and there would be no impact on population change.

Therefore, the project would not contribute to growth in excess of that anticipated by the 2030 General Plan and , as discussed under Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions , would not result in the emission of criteria air pollutants in excess of SJVAPCD thresholds. Because the project is consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City of Reedley, it is therefore consistent with the growth and VMT assumptions applied in SJVAPCD's AQAP. No new or substantially increased impacts related to AQAP consistency would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed project does not include site plans for any of the project sites. As discussed in the Project Description (above), Site 1 and Site 3 are currently undeveloped areas, and Site 2 is developed with a church , an apartment complex, and single-family residences. The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on all three project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes, the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the sites.

A drive-through restaurant is envisioned on Site 1, no changes are proposed to the existing structures on Site 2, and no greater development is foreseeable on Site 3 than that which has already been analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. The specific site plan for Site 1 has not been finalized. Based on previous experience and surrounding development, a reasonable estimation of the size of the drivethrough restaurant is 3,000 square feet. For informational purposes, construction and operational emissions associated with development of a 3,000 square foot drive-through restaurant were estimated.

Construction
Construction activities associated with development of the envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would generate diesel emissions and dust. Existing zoning , High-Density Residential, would have allowed for the development of multi-family residential units. Construction of the drive-through would not result in greater emissions than those previously analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Emissions would be generated by construction equipment used on-site and vehicle trips associated with construction , such as worker and vendor trips. Emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 which incorporates air emission data and standard construction inputs for a variety of projects based on input such as acreage and building square footage . Construction was assumed to start at the earliest in 2022. The default construction duration (10 months) and equipment mix was utilized. No demolition or soil export/import would be required. Table 2 summarizes estimated construction emissions from development consistent with the proposed land use designations. As shown therein , emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Furthermore, although the project's construction emissions would not exceed thresholds , and the project would be subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review), and Rule 4102 (Nuisance). Implementation of these rules would further reduce the construction emissions. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which Fresno County is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state -15-
ambient air quality standard , and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially increased construction-phase impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Table 2 - Estimated Construction Emissions
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
ROG NOx co SOx PM10 PM2.s
Construction Emissions 0.2 1.3 1.4 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx= nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM 2.s = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model
See Appendix C for CalEEMod results .

Operation
Operational emissions modeled for the drive-through on Site 1 include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions (natural gas use), and area source emissions. Existing zoning , High-Density Residential, would have allowed for the development of multi-family residential units on Site 1. Operation of the drive-through would not result in greater emissions than those previously analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Emissions were modeled using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 which incorporates air emission data and standard operational inputs for a variety of projects primarily based on land use and building square footage.

Table 3 summarizes estimated operational emissions related to implementing a drive-through on Site

1. As shown therein , emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. The project operation is also subject to Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and will be required to further reduce NOx and PM10. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which Fresno County is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard , and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially increased operational-phase impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Table 3 - Estimated Operational Emissions
Annual (tons/year)
ROG NOx co SOx PM10 PM2.s
Emissions 0.5 0.6 3.4 <0.1 0.5 0.1
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG= reactive organic gases; NOx= nitrogen oxides ; CO= carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM 10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM 2s = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model
See Appendi x C for CalEEMod results .

Toxic Air Contaminants/Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include residences to the north, south , east, and west of all three sites. Additionally, Site 3 is immediately south of General Grant Middle School. -16-
The proposed project does not include site plans for any of the project sites. Reasonably foreseeable development consistent with the proposed land use designations, such as development of a drivethrough restaurant on Site 1, would not include land uses typically associated with toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions such as industrial uses or uses that require diesel-powered standby generators. In addition , as compared to development consistent with the existing land use designations, the project would not substantially increase vehicle traffic in the surrounding vicinity . As such , the project would not result in the creation of or exacerbate conditions at heavily congested intersections that could expose sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide hotspots. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide or T ACs, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially increased impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Odors
The SJVAPCD has identified common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, such as wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, and manufacturing plants (SJVAPCD 2015b). The proposed project does not include the types of facilities identified by the SJVAPCD as those known to produce objectionable odors. Reasonably foreseeable development consistent with the proposed land use designations may include uses such as restaurants which may generate odors associated with food preparation , however these odors would dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to be considered objectionable by a large number of people.

Therefore, the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially increased impacts related to odorous emissions would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Compliance with SJVAPCD regulations and implementation of the 2030 General Plan's policies would ensure there would be no new or substantially increased air quality impacts associated with the project beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for air quality impacts is required. -17-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial Impact BIO-1 No No No N/A
adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional project
would not adversely habitat,
wetlands, plants or wildlife,
migratory routes,
conservation plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial Impact BIO-2 No No No N/A
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in. local or regional
plans, policies, regulations
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial Impact BIO-3 No No No N/A
adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands
(including , but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling , hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with Impact BIO-4 No No No N/A the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery
sites?
-18-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
e) Conflict with any local Impacts BIO- No No No N/A
policies or ordinances 1 through
protecting biological BIO-4
resources , such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions Section 2.4 No No No N/A of an adopted Habitat Biological
Conservation Plan, Natural Resources
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact
The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes , the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site.

Conditions related to biological resources on and around the project sites have not changed since adoption of the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not designate any new areas for construction or development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Project Site 1 is located on a vacant, previously disturbed parcel surrounded by roads and urbanized development, and thereby offers limited biological value due to its disturbed state and proximity to urban areas. The site is surrounded by residential developments to the south and west, North Sunset Avenue to the east, and East Manning Avenue to the north. Therefore, the site does not offer a wildlife movement corridor. There are no riparian , wetland , or other sensitive natural communities located on Site 1. Therefore, no impacts related to these issue areas would occur.

The 2030 General Plan EIR found that special-status species have the potential to occur within the City, and buildout of new development projects would potentially result in significant impacts. To lessen potential impacts to a less than significant level, the 2030 General Plan EIR includes Goal 4.13C, to preserve native vegetation and protected wildlife and habitat, Policies COSP 4.13.4 (requiring environmental review for new development projects) and COSP 4.14.16 (incorporating existing trees into development projects), and Mitigation Measures 810-1 (special-status species site assessment), 810-2 (special-status species habitat evaluation), and 810-3 (nesting bird survey and protections) to help protect special status species. While Site 1 appears to include a single tree in its northwest corner, the site does not offer substantial habitat, nesting, or foraging grounds for special-status species.

Development of the drive-through restaurant would be required to comply with the 2030 General Plan's goals, policies, and mitigation measures; therefore, impacts related to special status species would be less than significant.

There are no additional local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources beyond those outlined in CEQA, therefore are no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. In addition, the project sites are not within any adopted habitat conservation plans, or natural -19-
community conservation plans; therefore, no conflicts with federal , state, regional, or local habitat conservation plans are expected.

No new or substantially increased impacts to biological resources would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

No additional mitigation for biological impacts beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR and the Standard Conditions of Approval are required.
-20-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial Impact CR-1 No No No N/A
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial Impact CR-1 No No No N/A
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human Impact CR-2 No No No N/A
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Impact
This section assesses potential impacts to cultural resources from the project. Conditions related to cultural resources on and around the project sites have not changed since adoption of the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not designate any new areas for construction or development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the 2030 General Plan EIR. At the time of its composition, the 2030 General Plan EIR, identified 30 previously recorded cultural resources in and within a one-mile radius of the General Plan Study Area . However, none of these structures exist on or within the immediate vicinity of the project sites, and the project sites are not within either a designated or proposed historic district.

According to a review of online historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that project Site 1 has been vacant since approximately 1998. However, prior to 1998, the site was developed with small structures before being cleared . Project Site 2 has been developed with structures since at least 1956. Project Site 3 was in use for agricultural purposes (orchards) from at least 1956 to 1969 and has been vacant since approximately 1998 (NETR 2021 ). Therefore, no structures would be impacted by the project. As such , no new or substantially increased impacts to historical built environment resources would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

The project sites have been previously disturbed by development, agricultural activities and periodic disking to prevent weed or grass overgrowth. Therefore, it is unlikely that any previously undiscovered archaeological resources remain on site. Furthermore, the project sites are relatively flat. Future construction of the drive-through restaurant on Site 1 would require minimal grading . Moreover, implementation of 2030 General Plan COSP Element policies 4.14.1 to 4.14.5 would ensure protection, preservation and identification of archaeological resources within the City (City of Reedley 2014). -21-
Therefore, no new or substantially increased impacts to archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources , would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

No human remains are known to exist on the project site, however there is a possibility of encountering unanticipated human remains during construction of the drive-through restaurant on Site 1. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission , which will determine and notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure that proper procedures are followed if human remains were to be uncovered on the site.

No new or substantially increased impacts to human remains would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for cultural resources impacts is required. -22-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially N/A; New No No No N/A
significant environmental CEQA
impact due to wasteful, checklist item
inefficient, or unnecessary added
consumption of energy subsequent
resources , during project to 2030
construction or operation? General Plan
EIR
b) Conflict with or obstruct a N/A; New No No No N/A
state or local plan for CEQA
renewable energy or energy checklist item
efficiency? added
subsequent
to 2030
General Plan
EIR
Setting
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2021 ). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting , appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. Most of California's electricity is generated within state with approximately 28 percent imported from the Northwest and Southwest in 2019; however, the state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021 a and 2021 b). In addition, approximately 32 percent of California's electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind , solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2021 a). In 2018, Senate Bill 100 accelerated the state's Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Electricity and natural gas service would be provided to the project by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Fresno County as a whole consumed approximately 352 million therms of natural gas in 2019 in both residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2021 c). Fresno County also consumed approximately 7,387 GWh of electricity in 2019 from residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2021 d).

Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 15.4 billion gallons sold in 2019 (CEC 2020). Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.8 billion gallons sold in 2019 (CEC 2020). Table 4 -23-
summarizes the petroleum fuel consumption for Fresno County, in which the project site would be located, as compared to statewide consumption.

Table 4 - 2019 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Proportion of
Fresno County California Statewide
Fuel Type (gallons) (gallons) Consumption1
Gasoline 376,000,000 15,365,000,000 2.4%
Diesel 49,000,000 1,756,000,000 2.8%
1 For reference, the population of Fresno County (1,026,681 persons) is approximately 2.6 percent of the population of California (39,466,855 persons) (DOF 2021 ).

Source: CEC 2020
Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project's energy consumption are discussed in detail in Section 111 , Air Quality, and Section VI 11 , Greenhouse Gas Emissions , respectively.

Impact
Construction Energy Demand
The proposed project does not include site plans for any of the project sites . The envisioned future drive-through restaurant on Site 1, would be required to comply with applicable regulations and would be anticipated to use standard construction techniques. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant. No new or substantially increased construction-phase impacts related to energy consumption would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Operational Energy Demand
The proposed project does not include site plans for any of the project sites. The future envisioned drive-through restaurant on Site 1 would be required to comply with applicable regulations such as California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards (CALGreen).

Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during operation . No new or substantially increased impacts relative to energy consumption would occur beyond those identified in the General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for energy impacts is required. -24-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Where Impact or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Was Analyzed Substantially Substantially Requiring or More in the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known Impact GEO-1 No No No N/A
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground Impact GEO-1 No No No N/A
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related Impact GEO-1 No No No N/A
ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? Impact GEO-1 No No No N/A
b) Result in substantial soil Impact GEO-2 No No No N/A erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic Impact GEO-3 No No No N/A
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading ,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive Impact GEO-4 No No No N/A
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
-25-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Where Impact or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Was Analyzed Substantially Substantially Requiring or More in the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
e) Have soils incapable of Impact GEO- No No No N/A
adequately supporting the 3, Impact
use of septic tanks or GEO-4
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly Section 2.6 No No No N/A
destroy a unique Cultural
paleontological resource or Resources
site or unique geologic
feature?
Setting
The project lies within the scope of the 2030 General Plan El R. As identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR, the City of Reedley and the surrounding County of Fresno area has no known active earthquake faults and is not in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (City of Reedley 2013a). The immediate Fresno area has low seismic activity levels, although shaking may be felt from earthquakes whose epicenter lie to the east, west, and south. The closest known major fault is the San Andreas Fault located approximately 70 miles to the west. The most serious geologic threat to Reedley would be from a major earthquake in the Eastern Sierra, which could cause flooding resulting from damage to dams on the upper reaches of the San Joaquin River.

Impact
According to the 2030 General Plan EIR, the project sites are not located within a designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone or on any active or potentially active faults (City of Reedley 2014a). The proposed GPA and rezoning would include the same planning area as the 2030 General Plan analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts directly or indirectly associated with fault rupture, and no mitigation would apply.

Although no active faults have been mapped across the project sites, seismic events caused by active and potentially active faults in the region could result in seismic ground shaking on the project sites. A seismic hazard cannot be completely ruled out; however, effects can be minimized by implementing requirements specified in the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with existing building standards and 2030 General Plan goals and policies would minimize potential safety hazards from seismic ground shaking and potential ground failure/liquefaction , and ensure impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. Additionally , since the project sites, like the entire City of Reedley, are located on the level San Joaquin Valley floor, risks from landslides would generally be less than significant.

Figure 1 O of the 2030 General Plan El R identified soil types located within the existing sphere of influence (SOI) generally have low to moderate potential for water and wind erosion . Soils in the -26-
Greenfield , Atwater, and San Joaquin series exist on the project sites. The Greenfield and Atwater soil series are minimally expansive, and therefore would be unlikely to cause damage to structures or flatwork such as paved areas. San Joaquin soils are considered highly expansive however, conformance with CBC requirements would reduce any potential impacts related to soil expansion to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the proposed GPA and zoning updates do not designate any new areas for construction or development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to result in unstable soils or to be damaged from expansive soils would be the same as analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed GPA and zoning changes would result in no new or more severe impacts related to unstable or expansive soils beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

The proposal for Sites 2 and 3 does not involve development and no impacts would occur, therefore these sites will not be discussed further in this section.

The 2030 General Plan contains a range of goals and policies which will serve to minimize potential soil impacts. The most important of these includes the following policies:

SE 5.2.1
SE 5.2.2
Proposed development projects may be subject to a variety of discretionary action and conditions of approval. The actions and conditions are based on adopted City plans and policies essential to mitigate adverse effects on the environment including the health, safety, and welfare of the community. For example, the City may require preliminary soil (Reedley Municipal Code, Section 11-4-2-0), geotechnical or seismic reports when the subject property is located on land exhibiting potentially unstable soil conditions, suitability for additional development, or other hazardous geologic conditions.

Development should be prohibited in areas where corrective measures to affect the geologic hazard are not feasible.

Implementation of the above policies contained in the 2030 General Plan would ensure that exposure to geologic hazards are minimized and that users of the site are not exposed to substantial geologic related hazards.

To be considered a fossil , an object must be more than 10,000 years old . According to the 2030 General Plan EIR, the geologic materials underlying the Reedley area (non-marine deposits and non-marine terrace deposits) are less than 10,000 years old . Given its geological age, the City, and thereby the project sites, would not be conducive to paleontological resources, and no significant impacts would occur as part of project implementation. However, given that deeper ground disturbances would occur during construction of future projects such as the drive-through on Site 1, the possibility exists that unanticipated paleontological resources may be uncovered. A Condition of Approval (refer to Appendix A) relating to unanticipated fossil discovery has been required by the City to ensure that if any resources are uncovered, the appropriate assessments are conducted , and qualified personnel are retained for further site investigation and preservation measures. This COA would reduce potential impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

No new or substantially increased impacts to geological resources would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for geology and soils impacts is required. -27-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas Impact CC-1 No No No N/A
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable Impact CC-1 No No No N/A plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Setting
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHG emissions contributing to the "greenhouse effect," a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth's atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth's surface and warms it. The surface, in turn , radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning , decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). 2 Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and 2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (2014) Fifth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25. -28-
nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2020).

Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth's temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days , more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018).

Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving _the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation , such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017).

SJCAVPD Regulations
In August 2008, the SJVAPCD governing board adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP directed the SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project specific GHG emissions on global climate change in the context of promoting GHG reductions consistent with AB 32, SB 32, and the CARB Scoping Plan.

Municipal Regulations
In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted two guidance documents for assessing impacts of GHG emissions from new development projects: Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (2009a) and District Policy-Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (2009b). The guidance provided in both documents can be utilized to determine the significance of project-specific and cumulative impacts for GHG emissions from stationary source and land use development projects.

Projects can be determined as having a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact by: 1) using any combination of SJVAPCD GHG emission reduction measures to meet Best Performance Standards, 2) complying with an approved GHG plan or mitigation program, or 3) reducing GHG emissions by at least 29 percent. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA and projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified -29-
in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources and have a certified CEQA document.

In December 2015, the City of Reedley adopted its municipal CAP to address GHG emissions from municipal operations and 2030 General Plan buildout. The CAP outlines the City's near-term, mid-term, and far-term GHG emission reduction goals. The City's GHG emission reduction goals are (City of Reedley 2015a):
• Near-term: Reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. • Mid-term: Reduce emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. • Far-term: Reduce emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

In the absence of a revised CAP that directly addresses SB 32, the adopted SJVAPCD CCAP and Reedley's municipal CAP remain the most appropriate GHG reduction plans with which to assess an individual project's consistency with statewide policies to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, if the project is consistent with the applicable GHG reduction plan , then its GHG emissions impacts are considered individually and cumulatively less than significant.

Impact
The proposed project does not include site plans for any of the project sites.

As discussed in Section 111 , Air Quality, construction and operational emissions were estimated for the drive-through restaurant envisioned on Site 1.

Construction of the envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of the operation of construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport project materials. Construction of the envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would generate a total of approximately 196 MT of CO2e (see Appendix C for CalEEMod output files). This GHG emission construction estimate is for informational purposes only and may vary substantially depending on the specific land uses developed on the sites.

Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions (electricity and natural gas use), water conveyance and wastewater treatment emissions, solid waste disposal, and area source emissions. Operation of the envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would generate a total of approximately 593 MT of CO2e (see Appendix C for CalEEMod output files).

These GHG emission estimates are for informational purposes only and may vary substantially depending on the specific land uses developed on the sites.

Land use development consistent with the proposed land use designations would be required to comply with applicable measures from the City's CAP. The City's CAP and the FCOG-adopted RTP/SCS, which outlines the region's desired land use pattern through 2042 in order to reduce GHG emissions, are based on the population and land use scenarios contained in local General Plans (FCOG 2017). As discussed in Section Ill , Air Quality, the project would eliminate residential development rights on Sites 1 and 2 and would create equivalent residential development rights on Site 3. As such, the project would not result in a net increase in housing capacity, and there would be no impact on population change.

Because the project would be within the growth assumptions contained in the 2030 General Plan , the project would be consistent with all applicable GHG emission reduction plans, including the SJVAPCD's CCAP, the City's CAP, and FCOG's RTP/SCS. These impacts were considered in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the project would be consistent with the 2030 General Plan. No new or substantially increased impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for GHG emissions impacts is required. -30-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant Impact HAZ-1 No No No N/A
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant Impact HAZ-1 No No No N/A
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions Impact HAZ-2 No No No N/A
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which Impact HAZ-3 No No No N/A is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located Impact N-3 No No No N/A
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or
working in the project area?
-31-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
f) Impair implementation of Impact HAZ-4 No No No N/A
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or Section 2.8 No No No N/A
structures, either directly or Hazards and
indirectly, to a significant risk Hazardous
of loss, injury or death Materials
involving wildland fires?
Setting
According to a review of online historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that project Site 1 has been vacant since approximately 1998. However, prior to 1998, the site was developed with small structures before being cleared . Project Site 2 has been developed with structures since at least 1956. Project Site 3 was in use for agricultural purposes (orchards) from at least 1956 to 1969 and has been vacant since approximately 1998 (NETR 2021 ).

According to a review of the online State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database, the online Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, and the online DTSC hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List), there are no hazardous material release sites in the vicinity of the project sites (SWRCB 2021a, DTSC 2021a, DTSC 2021b).

Additionally, review of CalGEM online oil/gas well records show that the project sites are not located within an oil/gas field and there are no oil or gas wells located in the vicinity of the subject properties (CalGEM 2021 ). According to a review of the CalRecycle on line SWIS database, there are no landfills in the vicinity of the project sites (Cal Recycle 2021 ).

According to a review of the United States Department of Transportation online National Pipeline Mapping System database, there are no natural gas or hazardous liquid pipelines in the vicinity of the project sites (USDOT 2021).

The closest educational facilities to project Site 1 and 2 are St. La Salle School and General Grant Middle School, located approximately 0.2-mile northwest and 0.25-mile southwest of the project sites, respectively. The closest educational facil ities to project Site 3 are Lincoln Elementary School and General Grant Middle School, located approximately 0.25-mile and 0.1-mile northwest, respectively.

The subject properties are not located in any airport safety area or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the project site is the Reedley Municipal Airport, which is a public airport located approximately 4.8 miles to the north-northwest. Furthermore, there are no wildland areas within the vicinity of the project sites, as the surrounding area is developed and urbanized.

The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes , the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site.
-32-
Construction Impacts
Grading and construction activities for the drive-through on Site 1 could use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site preparation and building construction . However, all existing and future development within the City would continue to adhere to county, state and federal regulations regarding the transportation , storage, use and handling of hazardous materials. Through implementation of 2030 General Plan policies, enforcement of the City's related zoning regulations, County, state, and federal enforcement of the hazardous materials regulations for which they are responsible, and implementation of the City's emergency operations plan in the event of a hazardous materials release incident, impacts on public health and safety from use and/or accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced . Additionally, Site 1 is not located on a known hazardous materials site, nor is it located in close proximity to one (SWRCB 2021 a; DTSC 2021 a, 2021 b). Therefore, impacts related to the handling and release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Operation of a drive-through facility on Site 1 could use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during operation. However, all existing and future development within the City would continue to adhere to County, State and federal regulations regarding the transportation, storage, use and handling of hazardous materials. Through implementation of 2030 General Plan policies, enforcement of the City's related zoning regulations, County, state, and federal enforcement of the hazardous materials regulations for which they are responsible, and implementation of the City's emergency operations plan in the event of a hazardous materials release incident, impacts on public health and safety from use and/or accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels.

The closest educational facilities to project Site 1 are St. La Salle School and General Grant Middle School, located approximately 0.2-mile northwest and 0.25-mile southwest of the site, respectively.

Implementation of the 2030 General Plan policy mitigations and regulatory requirements would reduce risks from release of hazardous emissions within 0.25-mile of a school. In addition, the future proposed use as a drive-through restaurant would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as any uses/handling of potentially hazardous materials would continue to be handled in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

Site 1 is not located near an industrial and agricultural area of the City, and impacts related to accidental release of, or transportation , storage, use and handling of, hazardous material would be less than significant. Furthermore, the operation of the drive-through facility would not require the transportation , storage, use or handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Policy SE 5.6.1 requires the consideration of hazardous materials risks as part of the City's development planning and development review process.

Site 1 is not located in any airport safety area or private airstrip. The nearest airport to the project site is the Reedley Municipal Airport, which is a public airport located approximately 4.8 miles to the northnorthwest. Urban areas have overhead and buried power, gas, rail , and communication utility lines.

Regulations require that contractors verify precise locations of these lines and avoid damaging them during construction activities; again , environmental assessment can rely on compliance without specific additional mitigation.

The City's Emergency Operations Plan was developed to protect and preserve life, property, and the environment in the city (City of Reedley 2020). The submittal of project plans for Site 1 in conformance with the City's Emergency Operations Plan and California Fire Code standards would be a condition of -33-
project approval and compliance would be confirmed as part of the Building Permit plan check process.

As with any development, access to and through the area of the project would be required to comply with required street widths as determined in the 2016 California Building Code, City of Reedley Municipal Code and Standard Plans and Specifications, and the California Fire Code. Development of Site 1 would not differ substantially in terms of its character or types of emergency situations that could arise from it; therefore, the impairing implementation or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would not occur.

There are no wildland areas near Site 1, as surrounding areas are developed and urbanized; therefore, the project would not result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Operations of any residential development on Site 3 would be consistent with the analysis in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Additionally, the development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations.

No new or substantially increased exposure to hazards and hazardous materials would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for hazardous materials and hazardous facilities impacts is required.
-34-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality Impact HYD-1 No No No N/A
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease Impact HYD-2 No No No N/A
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial Impact HYD-3 No No No N/A
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase Impact HYD-3 No No No N/A
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii) create or contribute Impact HYD-3 No No No N/A
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood Impact HYD-3 No No No N/A
flows? & Impact
HYD-4
-35-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami , Impact HYD-5 No No No N/A or seiche zones , risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct Impact HYD-2 No No No N/A
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Setting
The City of Reedley lies directly over the Kings Basin from which the City extracts its water supply. The Kings Basin is a large groundwater subbasin located within the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley Basin, in the Central Valley of California. The groundwater basin covers an area of 1,530 square miles (California Department of Water Resources 2006).

Storm water flows into street collection systems and enters the storm drain inlets where it is conveyed through sub-surface drainage piping to one of several storm water retention basins located throughout the City of Reedley. There are also two well-defined areas in the City that collect stormwater runoff which flows directly to Alta Irrigation District (AID) facilities. (City of Reedley 2018b).

To support storm drainage facilities the City has created and implemented an impact fee program (City of Reedley 2018c). Development of the drive-through on Site 1 would be subject to this development impact fee to ameliorate potential impacts to the stormwater drainage system from increased industrial development. The development impact fee is charged and collected at the time a building permit is issued.

Impact
According to the 2030 General Plan EIR, implementation of the 2030 General Plan would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would result in a less than significant impact. The proposed GPA and zoning updates would include the same planning area as the 2030 General Plan. Hydrological conditions related to soils and hydrology on and around the project sites have not changed since adoption of the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not designate any new areas for construction or development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, potential for the proposed project to result in erosion or the loss of topsoil that could degrade surface water quality would be the same as the 2030 General Plan analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed GPA and zoning updates would result in no new or more severe impacts related to unstable or expansive soils beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

The project sites are approximately 130 miles from the Pacific Ocean and are not located in a 100-year flood hazard area, tsunami or seiche zone (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2021 ), nor does the project propose structures within such an area. Given its location and limited proposed -36-
infrastructure, the project would have no impact related to exposing people or structures to a significant risk of flooding or inundation.

The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes , the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site. Development of the envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would result in roughly the same amount of soil disturbance and conversion of pervious to impervious surfaces as assumed by the 2030 General Plan. As with the 2030 General Plan , construction activity associated with the envisioned drive-through, including grading , could have the potential to degrade water quality due to sediment erosion or the presence of contaminants located within the soils, but short-term stormwater pollutant discharges would be mitigated through compliance with the applicable NPDES permitting process, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Additionally, the proposed future drive-through facility on Site 1 would not involve any operations that would substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would have less than significant impacts to water quality.

According to the City website, the water supplier for Site 1, and the entire City of Reedley, is the City of Reedley Water Division (CRWD) (City of Reedley 2021 ). The future drive-through facility would utilize water provisions from the CRWD, and thereby would not require increased demand on local groundwater supplies.

Since Site 1 is relatively flat, construction activities for the future drive-through restaurant would result in a minimal amount of soil disturbance. Additionally, the facility would be required to be in compliance with Section 8-5-10-1 of the Municipal Code, which outlines minimum performance requirements to limit the square-footage of impervious surfaces within the city stormwater service area, as well as reduce runoff and improve water quality. With compliance of these requirements, the future drive-through facility would not interfere with groundwater recharge or majorly alter existing drainage patterns; nor would it result in any significant impacts related to groundwater management, or impede or redirect flows.

Development of the future drive-through on Site 1 would be required to comply with all applicable plans, permits, and regulations governing water quality within the City, and would not increase the City's use of groundwater. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The project would result in similar development intensity compared to the 2030 General Plan land use and zoning . The impacts related to stormwater were discussed in the 2030 General Plan EIR under Impact HYD-1 (City of Reedley 2013a) and 2030 General Plan Policy CIR 3.10.17, which requires developments to pay storm drainage impact fees , consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan. No new or substantially increased impacts related to hydrological resources or water quality would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for hydrology and water quality impacts is required. -37-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an Section 2.14 No No No N/A
established community? Effects Found
Not to be
Significant
b) Cause a significant Section 2.14 No No No N/A
environmental impact due to Effects Found
a conflict with any land use Not to be
plan, policy, or regulation Significant
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Impact
As described in the Project Description, the existing Land Use Designations for Project Sites 1 and 2 (High-Density Residential) are consistent with their existing zoning of RM-2. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zoning update for Sites 1 and 2 to Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial uses, and therefore would remain consistent with the 2030 General Plan Land Use and Zoning District descriptions.

Site 3 has an existing Land Use designation of Low-Density Residential yet is currently incompatibly zoned RM-2 (High-Density Residential). The project includes a GPA to update the Land Use designation for Site 3 to match its zoning of RM-2. Therefore, the updates proposed by the project would create consistency between the 2030 General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the project sites.

Buildout of the project would not result in impacts related to physically dividing an established community because, with implementation of the proposed GPA, project Sites 1 and 2 are bounded by similar, existing commercial uses to the north , south, and east, and Site 3 by similar, existing highdensity residential uses to the south. Implementation of the project would not construct buildings or remove roadways in a location that would prevent travel from one project site to another, in any direction.

The project would not result in impacts related to conflict with adopted plans, policies or regulations, as it would comply with the those of the 2030 General Plan , which was found to be consistent with the SJVAPCD's AQMPs, FCOG RTP/SCS, and the Valley Blueprint (City of Reedley 201'3a).

The project would be consistent with the designated land uses; therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2030 General Plan Land Use and Zoning District descriptions (2030 General Plan , Table 2-4, Pages 33-34).

The project is consistent with a variety of 2030 General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies, including the following :
-38-
LU2.5E
LU 2.5.2
LU 2.7.5
LU 2.7.34
LU 2.7.39
LU 2.7.40
Encourage a concentrated urban land use pattern that prioritizes development of in-fill and by-passed parcels, provides for the economically efficient provision of urban services, and maintains Downtown as the core of the City.

New development will only be approved in sequential fashion contiguous to existing development to ensure orderly extension of municipal services and unnecessary conversion of agricultural lands. Development standards shall incorporate measures to preserve and protect agricultural land as set forth in Policies LU 2.5.1 through LU 2.5.18 and COSP 4.3.1 through 4.3.4
Encourage and support within existing neighborhoods in-fill development.LU 2.7.21 Mixing of residential uses, densities and lot sizes shall be encouraged, while maintaining traditional neighborhood values and emphasizing concepts for livable, walkable neighborhoods.

Neighborhood Commercial uses shall be sited in locations where they can function as "activity nodes" for surrounding neighborhoods.

Locations at an intersection are most appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial uses.

Community Commercial designations shall be located primarily at the following locations:
(a) Manning Avenue east of Columbia Avenue
The project would be consistent with implementing the 2030 General Plan and supporting orderly growth consistent with surrounding uses. Implementation of the project would not result in new or substantially increased land use impacts beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for land use impacts is required. -39-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of Section 2.14 No No No N/A
availability of a known Effects Found
mineral resource that would Not to be
be of value to the region and Significant
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of Section 2.14 No No No N/A
availability of a locally- Effects Found
important mineral resource Not to be
recovery site delineated on a Significant
local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Impact
The Fresno County General Plan Update Background Report provides information on the location and types of mineral resources located in the County. The Background Report shows that there are no areas indicative of significant mineral deposits, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists (classified as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-2) (Fresno County 2000). The City has not previously or currently designated important mineral resources recovery areas within or immediately adjacent to the City of Reedley. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on mineral resources.

No new or substantially increased impacts to mineral resources would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for mineral resource impacts is required. -40-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in :
a) Generation of a Impact N-1 No No No N/A
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive Impact N-2 No No No N/A
ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located Impact N-3 No No No N/A
within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
Setting
The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes, the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site. Noise is generally defined as "unwanted sound ," which is a subjective determination of measurable physical phenomena. Ambient noise levels are a major determinant of "quality of life." Noise levels not only affect the utility and enjoyment of property, they directly affect property values and affect human health.

Noise is an important factor which can influence the quality of life in the City of Reedley. Such exposure to excessive noise levels can adversely affect human health. Therefore, it is important to recognize the interrelationship of the noise element to land use, housing, circulation, and open space. The purpose of the 2030 General Plan Noise Element is to identify noise sources that exist within the City and planned Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Noise Element also establishes goals and policies to minimize potential adverse impacts from transportation and stationary noise to sensitive land uses such as residences , schools, churches , and hospitals. The nearest sensitive receivers to project Site 1 are single-family residences located directly west of the property line. -41 -
The City Noise Element establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) for exterior noise levels in outdoor activity areas. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single-family residences and patios and common open space areas in multi-family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. Furthermore, the Noise Element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dBA DNL.

The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep. Applicable Noise Element standards from the 2030 General Plan are shown below in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5 - Allowable City-Wide Transportation Source Noise Exposure Noise Sensitive New Transportation
Land Uses Noise Sources
Indoor 45 45
Outdoor 60 60
Source: Table 6.1.2-A of the 2030 General Plan

1. This table is applicable to noise sources created by either new development and/or new transportation projects.

2. Based on an evaluation of the existing condition and proposed project, the Community Development Director may allow exterior exposure up to 65 dB DNL where practical application of construction practices has been used to mitigate exterior noise exposure.

Table 6 - Allowable Stationary Source Noise Exposure
Daytime Nighttime
(7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) (10:00 PM to 7 AM)
Hourly Leq, dBA 55 50
Maximum Level, dBA 70 65
Source: Table 6.1.2-B of the 2030 General Plan

1. As determined within outdoor activity areas of existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, if outdoor activity area locations are unknown, the allowable noise exposure shall be determined at the property line of the noise sensitive use.

Impact
Construction
Construction of a drive-through on Site 1 would require noise-generating equipment and vehicles that would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. Construction of the project would generate noise associated with construction equipment and vehicle use. Construction noise may generate noise levels up to 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet. However, construction of the drive-through would not be any more intense than what would occur on Site 1 under the existing zoning already evaluated in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and construction would be temporary, intermittent, and within the acceptable daily construction hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. -42-
The use of construction equipment can cause ground vibrations that diminish in strength with distance from the source. Buildings founded on the soil in the vicinity of a construction site may be affected by these vibrations, with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels.

Typically ground vibration does not reach a level where it damages structures unless the structure is extremely fragile. Vibration source levels for typical construction equipment are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 - Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Approximate Ground Velocity in Decibels at 25 feet
(inch/second)
Type of Equipment
Small Bulldozer 58
Loaded Trucks 83
Source: FTA2018
According to the 2030 General Plan EIR, if the vibration level at a sensitive land use (i.e., residential use) reaches a ground velocity of 85 vibration decibels (VdB), most people would typically be annoyed by the vibration (FTA 2018). The intermittent use of construction equipment and temporary duration of construction activity would ensure that vibration levels do not adversely affect nearby residences.

Vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Project Site 1 is immediately adjacent to single family residences to the west, with a street buffer between single family residences to the north and south, as well as a church to the east. East Manning Avenue, directly north of Site 1, is a main two-to-four-lane roadway which generates traffic noise.

As noted in the 2030 General Plan EIR, Mitigation Measure N-3(c) is required to analyze stationary noise sources. A Condition of Approval (COA) has been included for this project which would require a noise study to be conducted prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the drive-through facility to ensure that noise sources emitted would not exceed threshold levels established in the 2030 General Plan EIR. This study would include methods for reducing noise levels if required. These methods could include, but would not be limited to, block walls, vegetation , placement of drive-through lane to reduce noise, etc. Adherence to City noise exposure regulations in Table 5 and Table 6, 2030 General Plan Noise Element policies NE 6.1.5 and NE 6.1.6, and implementation of the noise COA would ensure acceptable noise levels form the envisioned drive-through on Site 1; impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially increased noise impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for noise impacts is required. -43-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial Section 2 .14 No No No NIA
unplanned population growth Effects Found
in an area, either directly (for Not to be
example, by proposing new Significant
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial Section 2.14 No No No N/A
numbers of existing people Effects Found
or housing, necessitating the Not to be
construction of replacement Significant
housing elsewhere?
Impact
The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from High Density Residential (HOR) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) on Site 1, and HOR to Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial on Site 2. The General Plan designation for Site 3 would also be changed from Low Density Residential to HOR. Additionally, the proposed project would rezone approximately 2.6 acres of MultiFamily Residential (RM-2) land to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Community Commercial (CC) land uses on Sites 1 and 2.

Site 3 is included in the project to offset the loss of housing caused by updating the zoning on Site 1 from residential to commercial uses. By updating the General Plan designation of Site 3 from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, no net loss of housing would occur as a result of the project. Additionally, the amount of development allowed on Site 3 would be the same before and after the GPA, because the zoning itself is not changing . Therefore , there would be no impact to population change. Furthermore, the proposal for Site 2 does not involve development and therefore, no population impacts would occur.

The proposed future drive-through restaurant on Site 1, would not create a substantial number of jobs in the City. Additionally, with approval of the proposed project, Site 1 would be zoned for Neighborhood Commercial uses, and would not be developed with residences. Therefore, the project would have no impacts related to population increases (either directly or indirectly). The site is currently vacant so no housing would be displaced as a result of the project and no replacement housing would be required to be constructed elsewhere. No new or substantially increased impacts related to population and housing would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for population and housing impacts is required. -44-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities , need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios , response
times or other performance
objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection? Impact PS-1 No No No N/A
Police protection? Impact PS-2 No No No N/A
Parks? Impact PS-4 No No No N/A
Schools? Impact PS-3 No No No N/A
Other public services? Impact PS-5 No No No N/A
Impact
The project sites are located within the existing City limits of the City of Reedley and are currently within the existing service areas for police and fire protection. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, no residential uses are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no population increase would occur, and there would be no increased demand for park or school facilities as a result of project implementation.

The proposal for Sites 2 and 3 does not involve development and no public service impacts would occur.

The proposed future drive-through restaurant on Site 1 would require emergency service protections and would be within the service areas covered by the Reedley Police Department (RPO), Reedley City Fire Department (RCFD). However, implementation of the drive-through would not result in a substantial increase demand in services from the RPO and RCFD, nor would new or replacement facilities need to be constructed as a result of the drive-through's implementation. Therefore, no new or substantially increased impacts related to public services would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for public service impacts is required -45-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project Impact PS-4 No No No N/A
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include Impact PS-4 No No No N/A
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Impact
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not include the construction of new residential uses. Additionally, the total development potential of all three sites would remain the same because the existing development potential for Site 1 is being transferred to Site 3; therefore, there would be no increase in potential residential development as a result of this project. No population increase would occur, and no subsequent increased demand for recreational facilities would result.

Additionally, the proposed project sites are not currently developed with recreational facilities.

Therefore, no new or substantially increased impacts to recreational facilities would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for recreation impacts is required. -46-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program , Impact T-1 to No No No N/A plan, ordinance or policy Impact T-5
addressing the circulation
system , including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict Section 2.12 No No No N/A or be inconsistent with Traffic and
CEQA Guidelines section Transportatio
15064.3, subdivision (b)? n
c) Substantially increase Impact T-2, No No No N/A
hazards due to a geometric Impact T-3
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate Impact T-4 No No No N/A
emergency access?
Setting
Reedley's surface transportation system is composed of numerous city streets, which , in some cases, connect to county roads on the periphery of the City. Other system modalities include public transit systems, fixed route transit services, paratransit services, general aviation , and freight rail services.

Where service is available, public transportation is utilized primarily by a transit-dependent population , i.e., the elderly, students, low-income residents, and the physically handicapped. These segments of the population generally have limited access to automobiles. Implementation of the 2030 General Plan Circulation Element would improve the existing regional transportation and circulation system (City of Reedley 2014a).

The City requires Traffic Impact Studies for projects which may cause an adverse effect based upon the number of vehicle trips generated by the project, location of the project relative to the existing circulation system, and actual or assumed level-of-service of surrounding streets or intersection. The 2030 General Plan policy is stated below:

CIR 3.2.28 Development resulting in any of the following shall be required , as part of the special permit approval process, to have a licensed engineer complete a traffic impacts study.

The scope of that study shall be determined by the City Engineer and paid for by the developer.
-47-
(a) 500 vehicle trips per day; or
(b) 250 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips; ~:>r
(c) 25 Percent increase to existing traffic conditions from the development project.

Impact
Access to and from the project sites would be provided by existing roads. Site 1 includes existing access via Manning Avenue to the north, North Sunset Avenue to the east, and East Linden Avenue to the south . Site 2 includes existing access via Manning Avenue to the north and North Sunset Avenue to the west. Site 3 includes existing access via a pedestrian-only path to the north and North Sunset Avenue to the west. Additional access points could be required to be designed for large trucks and/or emergency vehicles to be able to maneuver onto the project site and the site is designed to provide adequate turnaround space for large vehicles. No hazardous designs are proposed as part of the project that would prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the project sites. The proposed future drivethrough on Site 1 of the project would be reviewed by the City of Reedley and the City of Reedley Fire Department to ensure ingress/egress is adequate and maintained for emergency response vehicles as required by City standards . Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to incompatible design, use, or emergency access.

The 2030 General Plan EIR assumed development would occur on the project sites, therefore, even with approval of the GPA and zoning changes , the project would remain consistent with the development intensity assumptions for the site. Construction of the envisioned future drive-through restaurant on Site 1 would generate temporary traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker traffic . However, construction traffic would be temporary, and the movement of construction equipment would be limited to the project site during the construction period.

Therefore, construction traffic would not substantially interfere with the City's circulation system and no significant impacts would occur.

Patrons of drive-through facilities are typically people who live in the area of the drive-through or who drive by the area regularly. Therefore, these patrons would not contribute to an increase in VMT. It is possible that the drive-through may slightly reduce VMT in the City due to offering another drive-through restaurant option that may be closer to some neighborhoods than others, thereby allowing customers to not drive as far to visit such an establishment. As such, the project would not significantly increase VMT in the surrounding area.

The applicant would be required to pay the City of Reedley's Transportation Impact Fee to contribute to citywide transportation improvements. The envisioned drive-through on Site 1 would not result in substantial adverse impacts to the existing circulation system or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs intended to facilitate the adequate operation of the City's circulation system. Project conditions of approval and applying fair share development impact fees would serve to reduce any transportation related impacts directly caused by the project.

No new or substantially increased traffic impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for transportation impacts is required. -48-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 2107 4 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is :
a) Listed or eligible for listing N/A; New No No No N/A in the California Register of CEQA
Historical Resources, or in a checklist item
local register of historical added
resources as defined in subsequent
Public Resources Code to 2030
section 5020.1 (k), or General Plan
EIR
b) A resource determined by N/A; New No No No N/A
the lead agency, in its CEQA
discretion and supported by checklist item
substantial evidence, to be added
significant pursuant to subsequent
criteria set forth in to 2030
subdivision (c) of Public General Plan
Resources Code Section EIR
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe?
Impact
Conditions related to tribal cultural resources on _and around the project sites have not changed since adoption of the 2030 General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not designate any new areas for construction or development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the 2030 General Plan El R. The project sites are not eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, nor are they within the vicinity of such resources; therefore, no impacts would occur.

A Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation was conducted as part of the City's 2030 General Plan EIR process, and the tribal representatives did not offer any comments or concerns regarding the 2030 General Plan. The project sites are within the General Plan Study area , and the 2030 General Plan El R concluded that the potential for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be found during construction projects cannot be ruled out. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097 , and Section 7050.5 of California's Health and Safety Code , any resource discoveries would require the cessation of construction activity and notification of the Native American -49-
Heritage Commission (NAHC) prior to construction resuming , which would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

The project sites have been historically disturbed for urban development and agriculture, thereby reducing the potential for previously undiscovered human remains to occur on the project sites. The project does not propose any land use or zoning changes that would result in additional site disturbance beyond what was evaluated for General Plan buildout in the 2030 General Plan EIR, and development of the drive-through on Site 3 would require compliance with PRC Section 5097 and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. As such, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

No new or substantially increased impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for tribal cultural resources is required. -50-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the Impact UTIL- No No No N/A
relocation or construction of 1 and Impact
new or expanded water, UTIL-2
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water Impact UTIL- No No No N/A
supplies available to serve 3
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination Impact UTIL- No No No N/A
by the wastewater treatment 4
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the
provider's existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in Impact UTIL- No No No N/A
excess of State or local 4
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal , Impact UTIL- No No No N/A
state, and local management 4
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Impact
The proposal for Sites 2 and 3 does not involve development and no impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems would occur, therefore these sites will not be discussed further in this section. -51-
The City currently operates its own wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located at 1701 West Huntsman Avenue in Reedley, California. The WWTP Phase 1 project was completed which expanded the plant's capacity to five million gallons per day (mgd) and constructed new percolation ponds (City of Reedley 2017b). The WWTP has also been designed to accommodate future expansion to a total capacity of seven mgd (City of Reedley 2006). At total plant build-out, the WWTP could accommodate anticipated growth for the next 20 years. The WWTP is currently operating at approximately 2.3 mgd (City of Reedley 2018b) and per discussions with City staff, the WWTP is currently operating with 50 percent available capacity. According to the City of Reedley Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan , new percolation ponds (approximately 20 acres total) will be constructed within the WWTP boundary and will enable the plant to continue to provide 100 percent effluent reclamation via percolation (City of Reedley 2006). The proposed future drive-through on Site 1 would produce a negligible increase in wastewater production , well within the treatment capacity at the WWTP. Therefore, the drive-through would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements or necessitate the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities , and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed future drive-through on Site 1 would utilize existing street connections to the City water, wastewater, electrical, natural gas, and storm drainage systems. The increment of additional service demand would be minimal and well within the available capacities of each of the public utility systems , therefore impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed under Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the 2030 General Plan contains goals and policies to reduce water demand and increase water use efficiency, with which the future drive-through on Site 1 would comply. Furthermore, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) identifies adequate water supplies for the Site 1 service area, through the planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the future drive-through facility would be required to be in compliance with Section 8-5-10-1 of the Municipal Code, which outlines minimum performance requirements to limit the square-footage of impervious surfaces within the city stormwater service area, as well as to reduce stormwater. With compliance, the drive-through would not result in impacts related to stormwater drainage.

As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City has created and implemented an impact fee program , which would apply to the future drive-through restaurant, to reduce potential impacts to the City's stormwater infrastructure, which would be consistent with the 2030 General Plan Policy Cl R 3.10.17, and would be consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan.

Implementation of the future drive-through on Site 1 would generate construction waste upon development. The closest active and permitted landfill, the City of Clovis Landfill , is located approximately 27 miles northwest of project Site 1, has an active operational status with 2,000 tons per day of allowable throughput, and a remaining capacity of 7.7 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2019b).

However, the drive-through restaurant is not anticipated to contribute to an exceedance of the receiving facility's allowable daily capacity, and impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially increased impacts related to utility and service systems would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for utilities and service system impacts is required. -52-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially El R Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Im pact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones , would the project:
a) Substantially impair an Impact HAZ-4 No No No N/A
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing N/A; New No No No N/A
winds, and other factors , CEQA
exacerbate wildfire risk, and checklist item
thereby expose project added
occupants to, pollutant subsequent
concentrations from a to 2030
wildfire or the uncontrolled General Plan
spread of a wildfire? EIR
c) Require the installation or N/A; New No No No N/A
maintenance of associated CEQA
infrastructure (such as checklist item
roads , fuel breaks, added
emergency water source, subsequent
power lines or other utilities) to 2030
that may exacerbate fire risk General Plan
or that may result in EIR
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or N/A; New No No No N/A
structures to significant risks , CEQA
including downslope or checklist item
downstream flooding or added
landslides, as a result of subsequent
runoff, post-fire slope to 2030
instability, or drainage General Plan
changes? EIR
Impact
The Wildfire issue area was added to the CEQA checklist subsequent to the 2030 General Plan EIR, however impacts related to wildfire were evaluated in the 2030 General Plan EIR as part of its evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials. The City's Emergency Operations Plan was developed to protect and preserve life, property and the environment in the city. Development of the project sites would introduce new residential and commercial uses on the site but would not differ from the types of emergency situations that may potentially arise compared to the surrounding uses. As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , and Section XVII , Transportation, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan ; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. -53-
The project sites are designated Local Responsibility Areas for fire protection responsibility and are not located in a designated very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) (Calfire 2021 ). There are no wildland areas near the project site, as urban area surrounds the site and surrounding non-urban areas are developed with light industrial and agricultural operations. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires , and would not result in impacts.

The project would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

No new or substantially increased wildfire related hazards would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR.

Therefore, no project-specific mitigation for wildfire impacts is required. -54-
Do 2030
Any General Plan
Do Proposed Substantially EIR Mitigation
Changes Do Any New Important Measures
Where Impact Involve New Circumstances New Address/
Was or Involve New or Information Resolve New
Analyzed in Substantially Substantially Requiring or More the 2030 More Severe More Severe New Analysis Severe
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE General Plan Significant Significant or Project AREA EIR Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the Impact BIO-1 No No No N/A
potential to substantially through
degrade the quality of the Impact BIO-4,
environment, substantially Impact CR-1 ,
reduce the habitat of a fish Impact CR-2
or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have Section 3.0 No No No N/A
impacts that are individually Cumulative
limited, but cumulatively Impacts
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have Sections 2.1 No No No N/A
environmental effects which through 2.14,
will cause substantial Section 5.0
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.

Compliance with all the applicable 2030 General Plan El R Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in Appendix A would ensure that project implementation would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Implementation of the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Therefore, no new or substantially increased impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. -55-
b) The potential for adverse cumulative effects were considered in the response to each question in Sections I through XVII of this Addendum. In addition to project specific impacts, this evaluation considered the project's potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable within the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions section of this Addendum . As a result of this evaluation , there is no substantial evidence that, after mitigation, there are cumulative effects associated with this project. No new or substantially increased cumulative development impacts would occur beyond those identified in the 2030 General Plan El R.
c) In the evaluation of environmental impacts in this Addendum , the potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings were considered in the response to certain questions in Sections 111.

Air Quality, VII. Geology and Soils, IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials , X. Hydrology and Water Quality, XI . Land Use and Planning, XIII. Noise , XIV. Population and Housing, XV. Public Services, XVII. Transportation , and XIX. Utilities and Service Systems. As a result of this evaluation , there is no substantial evidence that there are adverse effects to human beings associated with this project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation established in the 2030 General Plan El R. Therefore, the project has been determined not to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

In summary, given the preceding analysis, mitigation from the 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2010031106) and Standard Conditions of Approval (Appendix A), it may be concluded that the project:
• Would not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
• Would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish/wildlife or native plant species (or cause their population to drop below selfsustaining levels), does not threaten to eliminate a native plant or animal community, and does not threaten or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. • Would not eliminate important examples of elements of California history or prehistory. • Would not have impacts which would be cumulatively considerable even though individually limited.

Therefore, there are no mandatory findings of significance and no new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those disclosed in the 2030 General Plan EIR that would occur as a result of the project.

The preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary per Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. -56-
Attachments, Exhibits, and References
Appendices
A Mitigation from the 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) and Standard Conditions of Approval
B Reedley 2030 General Plan, dated February 18, 2014 can be accessed at the following link:
(http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/Major Projects/) and at the Planning Division of the City of Reedley Community Development Department, located at 1733 9th Street Reedley, CA 93654
C Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions Modeling D
References Cited
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed August 2021).

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2021. "Well Finder." https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder (accessed July 2021 ).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder [Interactive Database]. https://maps.conservation.ca .gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed July 2021 ).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. "E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark." May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed August 2021 ).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca .gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates/ (accessed August 2021 ).
__ . 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail: City of Clovis Landfill (1 0-AA-0004). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4529?sitelD=347 (accessed August 2021 ).
__ . 2021. "Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search." https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed July 2021 ).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021 a. Envirostor [Interactive Database]. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca .gov/?surl=8a66q (accessed July 2021 ). __ . 2021b. "Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List)." https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ (accessed July 2021 ).

California Department of Water Resources. 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin : Kings Subbasin. January 20, 2006. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5 022 08 KingsSubbasin .pdf (accessed July 2021). __ . 2021 a. "Geo Tracker." https://geotracker.waterboards.ca .gov/ (accessed July 2021 ).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2021 . Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer [Interactive Database]. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed July 2021).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. "California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CECA 15) Results." https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportationenergy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed August 2021). -57-
__ . 2021. "California's Petroleum Market." https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2021 a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation (accessed August 2021 ).
__ . 2021 b. "Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California." https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-markeUsupply-and-demand-natural-gascalifornia (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2021 c. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed August 2021 ).
__ . 2021 d. Electricity Consumption by County.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed August 2021 ).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. Flood Map 06019C2680H. Last updated: October 2020. https://msc.fema .gov/portal/home (accessed July 2021 ).

Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG). 2017. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2018 - 2042. July 26, 2017. https://www.fresnocog.org/projecUregionaltransportation-plan-rtp/ (accessed August 2021).

Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. October 3, 2000. https://www.co .fresno .ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398 (accessed July 2021 ).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. __ . 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and Ill to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research , LLC (NETR). 2021. NETR Online, Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed July 2021 ).

Reedley, City of. 2006. Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan . September 2006. https://reedley.ca.gov/download/wastewater-treatment-plant-master-plan-final-september2006/ (accessed August 2021). __ . 2013a. Draft Program EIR Reedley General Plan 2030. January 8, 2013. http://reedley.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Draft-Prog ram-EI R-City-of-Reed leyGeneral-Plan-1-8-2013. pdf (accessed July 2021 ). __ . 2014a. The City of Reedley California General Plan 2030. h http://reedley.wpengine.com/wpcontenUuploads/2019/12/Reedley-General-Plan-2030-Adopted-February-18-2014-1 . pdf (accessed July 2021 ).
__ . 2015a. Climate Action Plan. December 8, 2015. Available at: http://reedley.wpengine.com/wpcontenUuploads/2019/12/City-of-Reedley-Climate-Action-Plan .pdf (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2017b. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. February 2017. https://reedley.ca .gov/download/adopted-urban-water-managementplan/?wpdmdl=7567 &refresh=60c290d64a97f1623363798 (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2018b. City of Reedley Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Environmental Assessment No. 2017-7. April 26, 2018. http://reedley.wpengine.com/wpcontenUuploads/2019/12/EA-2017-7-Adopted-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-and-lnitialStudy. pdf (accessed August 2021). -58-
__ . 2018c. City of Reedley ADOPTED Master Fee Schedule. Last Revised June 2018. https://reedley.ca.gov/download/citywide-master-feeschedule/?wpdmdl=6617&refresh=60c28f3f81 db51623363391 (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2020. City of Reedley Emergency Information Webpage. 2020. https://reedley.ca.gov/policedepartmenUemergency-information/ (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2021 . City of Reedley Water Division Webpage. 2021 . https://reedley.ca .gov/publicworks/water-division/ (accessed August 2021 ).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17, 2009. http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/ghg/ghg idx.htm (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2009b. District Policy - Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. December 17, 2009. http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/bps/BPS_idx.htm (accessed August 2021). __ . 2015b. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI .pdf (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2021 a. "Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status." https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm (accessed August 2021 ). __ . 2021 b. "Air Quality Attainment Plans." http://valleyair.org/Air Quality Plans/air-qualityplans.htm (accessed August 2021 ).

State of California. 2018. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed August 2021 ).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. GeoTracker [Interactive Database]. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/ (accessed July 2021 ).

United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2021. "National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer." https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ (accessed July 2021 ).United States Energy Information Administration. 2021 . California State Profile and Energy Estimates. February 18, 2021 . https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed August 2021). __ . 2021 a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca .gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electri c-generation (accessed August 2021 ).
__ . 2021 b. "Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California." https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-markeUsupply-and-demand-natural-gascalifornia (accessed August 2021).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. "Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases." Last modified: October 23, 2020. epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed August 2021 ).
-59-
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
For
Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010031106) &
Reedley General Plan 2030 Update
February 18, 2014
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street, City Hall
Reedley, California 93654
(559) 637-4200

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Reedley General Plan 2030 Update (GPU) project has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097 and Public Resources Code, Section 21081 .6. This MMRP lists applicable mitigation measures from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation measures from the EIR to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels .

Because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is programmatic in nature (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168), the goals and policies contained in the proposed GPU serve as the primary means of avoiding or reducing impacts identified for each environmental topic evaluated . Once the proposed GPU is adopted by the City, all future development projects must be substantially consistent with the proposed GPU and its policies. Consequently, the City's implementation of the GPU policies would serve as a mitigation tool for avoiding or reducing project-specific and cumulative environmental effects of resulting from buildout of the City pursuant to the GPU.

Implementation of many of the proposed policies would serve to avoid or significantly reduce and lessen the environmental effects of new development. See Draft Program EIR, Table S-1, Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary (Pg. S-3) and Recirculated Draft Program EIR, Table S-1 , Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary (Page S-5).

This programmatic level EIR references GPU policy implementation as the primary tool by which potential environmental impacts of buildout of the SOI will be avoided or reduced . The GPU policies were applies to a level of less than significant level and are not explicitly identified as mitigation measures within this MMRP.

Where proposed GPU goals and policies may not serve to reduce a significant impact to a less than significant level, mitigation measures are proposed for that purpose. Where the GPU policies may not serve to adequately mitigate significant impacts to a less than significant level, mitigation measures are identified. The City may rely on General Plan policies to mitigate environmental impacts under CEQA (See Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App 4th ). Therefore, these mitigation measures were designed as an enforceable commitment and not merely adopted to be disregarded. The Mitigation Measures themselves are designed to fill "gaps" that may exist between the level of impact avoidance or reduction provided by implementation of GPU goals and policies, and the level of impact avoidance or reduction needed to mitigate significant impacts to a less than significant level. In this case, both GPU policies and additional mitigation measures were included in the reporting program.

The following MMRP identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures for the project are performed . The City of Reedley, as lead agency, will also be responsible for providing a date that each mitigation measure is verified as completed . The MMRP provides a commenUverification date column for the responsible entity to provide notes and remarks and provide a date the measure was completed . The timing of implementing the mitigation measures in the MMRP is identified in each measure.

The performance of the mitigation measures is the responsibility of the project applicant. The project applicant is responsible to provide evidence to the City of Reedley that the mitigation measures are performed and completed . The City of Reedley , as lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that implementation of all mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this program.

Mitiga tion Mo nitoring and Reporting Program Page 2
City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
Impact Mitigation Measure Timing of Responsible CommenWerification Implementation enc /Department Date -...,,,._

2.2 Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1 : Land Use Policies:

Conversion of
approximately 2,983 LU 2.5.1: In areas outside the city limits, the City I LU 2.5.1: Ongoing City of Reedley, County acres of Prime shall encourage Fresno County to: of Fresno & Local Area Farmland , Unique a) Maintain an exclusive agricultural zone district. Formation Commission Farmland , or b) Maintain a minimum permitted lot size for Farmland of I agricultural land which ensures that the land can be Statewide Importance I used for commercial agricultural purposes. to non-agricultural
use. LU 2.5.2: New development will only be approved in LU 2.5.2: Ongoing City of Reedley, County sequential fashion contiguous to existing of Fresno & Local Area 1 development to ensure orderly extension of Formation Commission municipal services and unnecessary conversion of
agricultural lands. Development standards shall
incorporate measures to preserve and protect
agricultural land as set forth in Policies LU 2.5.1 1 through LU 2.5.18 and COSP 4.3.1 through 4.3.4.

LU 2.5.3: The City shall oppose formation of new LU 2.5.3: Ongoing City of Reedley land conservation contracts on land adjacent to the
City's boundaries. The City shall also work with
owners of land within the SOI who wish to file for
non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts in advance
I of urban development
I LU 2.5.4: Within one year of the adoption of the LU 2.5.4: Within City of Reedley, County GPU, the City shall adopt a right-to-farm ordinance one year of the of Fresno & Local Area j which will require purchasers of residential , adoption of the Formation Commission industrial and/or commercial properties within close GPU. proximity to existing agricultural uses to
acknowledge that their land borders, or is in close
proximity to , agricultural land and will endure the
potential impacts of that interface. The goal of this
proposed ordinance is to promote and protect
existing agriculture operations, allowing farmers/
ranchers to conduct operations when urban land =:-. =
-~~~--
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 3
City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
uses extend into natural resource areas or are side- i
by-side, and, address the subject of frequent
nuisance complaints. This Ordinance shall be
implemented through a right-to-farm covenant to be
recorded against the dominant and subordinate
I properties
LU 2.5.5: The City shall discourage the LU 2.5.5: Ongoing development of peninsulas of urban development 1 into agricultural lands. I LU 2.5.6: In cooperation with Fresno County, LU 2.5.6: Ongoing Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO), community and agricultural industry
stakeholders, the City shall adopt and maintain a
1 SOI consistent with the goals and policies of this
GPU. The sphere of influence shall serve the mutual
interest of the County and City by preserving
agricultural uses from incompatible or unplanned
urban uses.

LU 2.5.7: Require contiguous development within LU 2.5.7: Ongoing the SOI unless it can be demonstrated that the
development of contiguous property is infeasible.

An analysis of the fiscal impacts on public utilities
including water, surface transportation , and service
shall be required as part of the application to annex
new territory into the City.

LU 2.5.8: The City shall not support annexing land LU 2.5.8: Ongoing for residential development until at least eighty
(80%) percent of the existing residentially
designated land inside the city limits is developed
1 LU 2.5.9: Work with Fresno County and Fresno LU 2.5.9: Ongoing LAFCO to maintain agricultural designations in
I areas outside the Reedley SOI.

Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
City of Reedley
City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley , County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley , County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission

Page 4 ends

City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
I LU 2.5.10: Continue to maintain a Memorandum of
1 Understanding (MOU) with Fresno County which
clearly sets forth the following :
a) The County shall not approve any discretionary
development permit for new urban development
within the City's SOI unless that development has
first been referred to the City
b) That the development is orderly.
c) County shall require development standards of
the City of Reedley, when development is within the
existing SOI.
d) The City application for the annexation of any
new territory be consistent with the Cortese-Knox
Act.
e) City initiated annexation shall have development
eminent, with at least fifty (50) percent of the
proposed area having an approved site plan and/or
tentative map.

LU 2.5.11 : The Plan should foster the
establishment of a concentrated urban
development pattern, with land outside the planned
urban area being designated exclusively for
Agriculture .

LU 2.5.12: New urban development should occur
in an orderly manner with initial development
occurring on the available undeveloped properties
within the City's limits which would be considered
in-fill, by-passed parcels or in parcels in close
proximity to the urban core, places of employment
and established neighborhoods
Mitiga tion Monitoring And Reporting Program
LU 2.5.10: Ongoing / City of Reedley, County
of Fresno
LU 2.5.11 : Ongoing I City of Reedley
LU 2.5.12: Ongoing j City of Reedley

Page 5 ends

City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
LU 2.5.13: The City should promote and provide
urban services to development within the City as a
means of controlling and directing growth.

LU 2.5.13: Ongoing City of Reedley
' LU 2.5.14: Initial development shall incorporate the LU 2.5.14: Ongoing City of Reedley necessary infrastructure to accommodate future
. development for the surrounding area consistent
i with the goals and objectives of the GPU .

I Reimbursement agreements or other mechanisms
· may be provided to the developer as a means to
share the equitable burden of costs.

LU 2.5.15: Provide transitional design between LU 2.5.15: Ongoing I City of Reedley land use types and high quality urban uses.

LU 2-5.16: The City shall encourage in-fill projects LU 2.5.16: Ongoing I City of Reedley 1 that incorporate pedestrian-oriented design.
1 LU 2.5.17: The City shall propose plan areas and LU 2.5.17: Ongoing I City of Reedley 1 zone districts that can accommodate mixed use
planning that will provide a combination of
residential, commercial services and employment
opportunities all within close proximity.

LU 2.5.18: From the adoption date of this GPU, the
City shall annex a maximum of five hundred (500)
acres from within the existing SOI (@1,797-acres).

Only when a Farmland Preservation Program is
1 adopted for implementation shall the City propose
I additional lands for orderly annexation. The
Farmland Preservation Program is discussed in
great dettaH tn Secnon 4.3 Agri-culture
i Agriculture Policies:
! COSP4.3.1: Support the efforts of the County of
· Fresno and agricultural and community
stakeholders to preserve and protect farmlands
outside the centralized core of the City.

Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
LU 2.5.18: From
the adoption date
of this GPU, the
City shall annex a
maximum of five
hundred (500)
acres from within
! the existing SOI
· (@1,797-acres).

COSP4.3.1 :

Ongoing
City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Loca I Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley
--11

Page 6 ends

City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
r : COSP4.3.2: Maintain a 20-acre minimum parcel
j size for agriculturally designated parcels to
i encourage viable agricultural operations and to
f prevent parcelization into rural residential or
ranchette developments.
• COSP4.3.3: The City shall prepare and adopt a
Farmland Preservation Plan (FPP). This plan shall
include a set of policies, standards and measures
to avoid the unnecessary conversion of agricultural
: lands.

For each policy, standard or measure, the plan
shall include a discussion of the following: ( 1) How
the policy would minimize a potential detrimental
. effect caused by urban development; (2) Whether
I and how the policy would assist in avoiding the
premature conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; (3)
How the policy, standard or measure would be
integrated into the entitlement process; and, ( 4)
How the policy, standard or measure would be
enforced through the regulatory environment.

The FPP shall include the following policies:
a) The City shall protect agriculturally designated
areas, and direct urban growth away from
productive agricultural lands into urbanized or
underdeveloped portions of the City.
b) The City shall collaborate with the Fresno
County Local Area Formation Commission
(LAFCo), Fresno County and land owners to
encourage minimum parcel sizes of 20 acres or
more for land designated for agriculture and/or
evidence of commercial agricultural use prior to
entering into new Williamson Act contracts.

Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
COSP4.3.2:

Ongoing
City of Reedley, County
of Fresno
COSP4.3.3: See I City of Reedley, County
LU2.5.18. The City of Fresno & Local Area
shall prepare and Formation Commission
deliver to the City
Council an annual ,
report FPP,
describing progress
made toward the
preparation,
adoption and
implementation of
! the final FPP

Page 7 ends

City of Reedley, Gene
ral Plan 2030
· c) The City shall not protest the renewal of
: Williamson Act Contracts with regard to land
~ located within the City's SOI, but not adjacent or in close proximity to the City's current boundary,
: where the land's minimum parcel size is at least 20
1 acres and the land owner has provided evidence
satisfactory to the City that the land is currently
: being used for commercial agricultural operations.

I d) The City shall support the efforts of public,
i private, and non-profit organizations to preserve
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance located in Fresno County
through the dedication of conservation easements
and the preservation of range land held as
environmental mitigation.
: e) The City shall encourage the installation of solar ! and wind energy production facilities in agricultural areas so long as they do not result in a tax burden to Fresno County, do not result in permanent water . transfers from productive agricultural land, do not
! hinder agricultural operations on adjacent land, or
do not require cancellation of Williamson Act
contracts.

In addrtion, these facilities should
include ded
ications of agricultural land and habitat
mitigation, measures to control erosion, and assurrar-ice-s for flnanc:lng decomrnis:siioning activriies.
f) The City shall actively collaborate with landowners, cities, state and federal agencies, colleges, universities, stakeholders, and
community-based organizations to continue to
expand agricultural preservation in the surrounding
Fresno County area.
g) The City shall discourage public agencies from
locating facilities, especially schools, in existing
____ _____ a_,,,,g_ri_c_u_ltu_r_a_l_a_re_a_s_. _____ _________ _ _ Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Pag:e 8
Crty of Reedley, General Plan 2030 - ··--h-) _T_h_e_C_ ity_ s_ha_l_l _e_nco_ u_r_ag_e_ th_e_vo_l_u-nt_a_ry_m_e_r_ge_r __________________________ _ of antiquated subdivision lots that conflict with
adjacent agricultural uses.

The FPP shall include the following implementation
measures:
a) A provision designating the Community
Development Department as the department
responsible for the preparation and implementation
of the FPP, once adopted and directing the
Department to prepare annual reports to the City
Council describing progress made toward the
preparation, adoption and implementation of the
final FPP
b) The creation of a community outreach program
to encourage current agricultural land owners'
continued participation in programs that preserve
farmland, including the Williamson Act,
conservation easements, and USDA-funded
conservation practices.
c) Amend the Reedley Municipal Code within 12
months of adoption of the GPU to provkie at least
for the following:
1 ) Amend the zoning ordinance to require a
minimum 100-foot buffer between new residential
development and existing agricultural operations,
and to establish design/maintenance guidelines for
developers and property owners_ The 100-foot
buffer will create an appropriate transitional space
between urban and agricultural land uses so as to
facilitate continued agricultural operations.
2) Amend Chapter 10-6A, the Residential Estate
(RE) District section, which is intended to provide
living areas that combine both the urban and rural
setting_, to add provisions to prevent premature
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
c) Amend the I City of Reedley I
Reedley Municipal 1
Code within 12
months of adoption
of the GPU.

P;1ge 9
Crty of Reedley, General Plan 2030
conversion of agricultural land, which could cause
incompatible land uses and potential conflicts.
3) Amend the subdivision ordinance to facilitate the
' voluntary merger of antiquated subdivision lots that
; conflict with adjacent agricultural uses.
4) Amend the zoning ordinance to include
provisions requiring that environmental review
expressly analyze the potential for a proposed
entitlement or pennit to create incompatibilities with
agricultural uses through traffic generation,
groundwater contamination, storm-water drainage
disposal and/or the deterioration of air quality.
d) The City shall manage extension of public
utilities and infrastructure to avoid extending them
into agricultural areas before those areas are
committed to conversion of urban uses.

COSP 4.3.4: In conjunction with the preparation, COSP 4.3.4: See adoption and implementation of the Farmland LU2.5 .18
Preservation Plan described in Policy COSP 4.3.3, The City shall not the City shall develop and consider the adoption of support the a program that shall require new development annexation of lands within the SOf to fund farmland preservation efforts. in excess of a total The goal of this program is to preserve designated of 500 acres wrthin Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland the City's existing of Statewide Importance (together "Farm land") that SOI until this otherwise runs the risk of being converted to program, or a urbanized development. This program shall act as a program that mitigation program in response to the necessary accomplishes the agricultural land conversion that occurs as a result same goals, has of the City's expansion into rts SOI. The City shall been adopted and not support the annexation of lands in excess of a other actions and total of 500 acres within the City's existing SOI until approvals this program, or a program that accomplishes the necessary to the same goals, has been adopted and other actions implementation of and approvals necessary to the implementation of the program have City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
.__ __________ th_e-----"- p_rog--=-r_a_m_ h_a_v_e_been ~l"!]p_,!eted. Among other been completed. ll Mitiga tion Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 10
City of Reedley, General Plan 2030 - ! provisions, the program shall include the following i evaluation and performance requirements:
! a) Program Goal: As Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance
within the City's SOI is converted to urban uses,
secure the pennanent preservation of other Prime
\ Farmland, Unique Fannland, and Farmland of
Statewide Importance within Fresno County on a 1
for 1 basis.
b) Evaluation Process: To accomplish the program
. goal, as part of the entitlement application process ! J Farmland proposed for conversion will be evaluated
! using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) model issued by the California Department
of Conservation. The LESA model provides an
analytical approach for rating the relative quality of :
i land resources based upon specific factors, such as
i soils, site acreage, water availabilrty, and
'. surrounding land uses. The LESA model
! worksheets are provided in Appendix A, Evaluation
; and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, California
Department of Conservation
! c) Fee Program: The City shall develop and adopt
a fee program consistent with the requirements of
the Mitigation Fee Act that will require applicants
seeking to annex Farmland within the City's SOI to
pay a fee to the City of Reedley equivalent to the
cost of preserving Important Farm land on a 1 to 1
basis with land converted to urban uses. The Crty
shall use the fees to fund an irrevocable instrument
(e.g. an easement) to permanently preserve
farmlands via a Trust for Farmland Funds
Disbursements.
d) Alternative to Payment of Fee: As an alternative
to the payment of the fee described in subsection
(c), applicant shall provide documentation
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program Page 11
City of Reedley, General Plan 2030
- satisfactory to the City that demonstrates that
applicant has entered into a binding agreement with
one or more property owners or a third-party
organization acceptable to the City of Reedley (e.g.
the Sequoia Riverlands Trust) to permanently
preserve farmland equivalent in acreage to the
Farmland proposed for annexation into the City.

The agreement shall identify an irrevocable
instrument that will be recorded against the
preserved property.
e) This program will also involve the City
maintaining a current list of organizations and
owners of Farmland that can facilitate the
acquisition of conservation easements so as not to
unduly delay the annexation of the land into the City
and completion of the proposed development.

Impact AG-2: Conflict Land Use Policies:
with Existing Zoning
or Williamson Act
contracts existing on
land within the
proposed expanded
SOI
LU 2.5.1 : In areas outside the city limits, the City LU 2.5.1: Ongoing shall encourage Fresno County to:
a) Maintain an exclusive agricultural zone district.
b) Maintain a minimum permitted lot size for
agricultural land which ensures that the land can be
used for commercial agricultural purposes.

LU 2.5.2: New development will only be approved in
sequential fashion contiguous to existing
development to ensure orderly extension of
municipal services and unnecessary conversion of
agricultural lands. Development standards shall
incorporate measures to preserve and protect
agricultural land as set forth in Policies LU 2.5.1
through LU 2.5.18 and COSP 4.3.1 through 4.3.4.

LU 2.5.4: Within one year of the adoption of the 1 GPU, the City shall adopt a right-to-farm ordinance which will require purchasers of residential,
industrial and/or commercial properties within close
roximitv to existino aqricultural uses to
Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
LU 2.5.2: Ongoing
LU 2.5.4: Within
! one year of the
adoption of the
· GPU.

City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley, County
of Fresno & Local Area
Formation Commission
City of Reedley

Page 12 ends

Reedley City CouncilJanuary 11, 2022

Reedley City Council
January 11, 2022