A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate Project specific emissions by providing funds for the District's incentives programs. The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-specific regional impacts on air quality can be fully mitigated. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.
In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-specific regional emissions have been mitigated to less than significant. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the Draft EIR includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA. 3) Health Risk Screening/Assessment
A Health Risk Screening/Assessment identifies potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC's) impact on surrounding sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work-sites, and residences. T AC's are air pollutants identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A common source of T ACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. List of TAC's identified by OEHHA/CARB can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-aircontaminants The District recommends the Project be evaluated for potential health impacts to surrounding receptors (on-site and off-site) resulting from operational and multi-year construction TAC emissions.
i) The District recommends conducting a screening analysis that includes all sources of emissions. A screening analysis is used to identify projects which may have a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
District Reference No. 20200343
July 16, 2020
significant health impact. A prioritization, using CAPCOA's updated methodology, is the recommended screening method. A prioritization score of 10 or greater is considered to be significant and a refined Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed.
For your convenience, the District's prioritization calculator can be found at:
http:www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIG RITIZATION%20RM R%202016.XLS.
ii) The District recommends a refined HRA for projects that result in a prioritization score of 10 or greater. Prior to performing an HRA, it is recommended that the Project proponent contact the District to review the proposed modeling protocol.
The Project would be considered to have a significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the Project related health impacts would exceed the Districts significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk and 1.0 for the Acute and Chronic Hazard Indices, and would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.
The District recommends that Projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved.
For HRA submittals, please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
• HRA AERMOD model files
• HARP2 files
• Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodology.
More information on toxic emission factors, prioritizations and H RAs can be obtained by:
• E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]; or
• The District can be contacted at (559) 230-6000 for assistance; or • Visiting the Districts website (Modeling Guidance) at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox Resources/ AirQualityMon itoring. htm. 4) Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards. The District recommends that an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
District Reference No. 20200343
July 16, 2020
If an AAQA is performed, the analysis should include emissions from both Project specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.
Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance is available on line at the District's website www.valleyair.org/ceqa. 5) Cumulative Air Impacts
If an Environmental Impacts Report (EIR) is determined, in addition to the discussions on the topics identified above, the District recommends the EIR also include a discussion of whether the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or precursor for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in non-attainment. More information on the District's attainment status can be found on line by visiting the District's website at:
http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.
6) District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities not requiring permits. A project subject to District rules and regulation would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with regulatory requirements. In general, a regulation is a collection of rules, each of which deals with a specific topic.
Here are a couple of example, Regulation II (Permits) deals with permitting emission sources and includes rules such as District permit requirements (Rule 2010), and New and Modified Stationary Source Review (Rule 2201 ).
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found on line at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1 ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to this Project or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the District's Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888. 6a) District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission.
District Rule 2010 requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using best available control technology (BACT).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
District Reference No. 20200343
July 16, 2020
The proposed gas station (gasoline dispensing facility) is subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and will require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC). For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District's Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
In addition, please note that starting construction before receiving an A TC may result in a violation of District regulations and be subject to enforcement action.
Sb) District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM10 emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources associated with construction and operation of development projects. The rule encourages clean air design elements to be incorporated into development projects. In case the proposed development project clean air design elements are insufficient to meet the targeted emission reductions, the rule requires developers to pay a fee used to fund projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
The proposed commercial development of the Project (excluding the gas station) is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a project-level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 2,000 square feet of commercial space. When subject to the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required prior to applying for project-level approval from a public agency. In this case, if not already done, please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510.
An AIA application is required and the District recommends that demonstration of compliance with District Rule 9510, before issuance of the first building permit, be made a condition of Project approval.
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/lSR/ISRHome.htm.
The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/lSR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm .
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
District Reference No. 20200343
July 16, 2020
Sc) District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the Project would result in employment of 100 or more "eligible" employees.
District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more "eligible" employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan , employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.
Information about how District Rule 9410 can be found on line at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction. htm.
For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230-6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
6d) Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Regulation VIII , (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated , partially demolished or removed , the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). 7) District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District's comments be provided to the Project proponent.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Georgia Stewart by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5937.
Sincerely,
~
- ~--
For Arnaud Marjollet
Director of Permit Services
AM: gs
Moore, Ellen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
External
Hi Ellen,
Lockhart, Jonathan <[email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2020 6:30 AM
Moore, Ellen
RE: City of Reedley Request for Comment - ANX 2020-01 PreZone 2020-01 SPR 2020-01
I apologize for the delay for comments for this project. After review, it doesn't appear the Annexation Application, PreZone Application and Site Review Application affect any of our facilities. PG&E does have an overhead distribution line that services the field to the south that might be affected but without detailed plans for that area I cannot comment specifically.
As more detailed plans become available, PG&E would like to review again but at this time there are no comments or additional information needed.
Thank you,
~-· : Jon Lockhart I Land Agent
Pac ific Gas and Elec tric Company
Land Management
6 111 Bollinger Canyon Rd, 3rd Floor, 3350-I
San Ramon, CA 94583
Office (925) 244-36 13
From: Moore, Ellen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 7:00 PM
To: PGE Plan Review <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Reedley Request for Comment - ANX 2020-01 PreZone 2020-01 SPR 2020-01 *** **CAUTION: This email was sent from an EXTERNAL source. Think before clicking links or opening attachments.*****
Greetings,
The City of Reedley Community Development Department received entitlement applications for a development project.
Please see attached for your request for comment form for the following project:
Project Entitlements: Annexation Application No. 2020-01, Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01, and Site Plan Review Application No. 2020-01
APNs Included in Annexation and Pre-Zone: 368-350-17, -31, -32, & -33, 365-072-30T & -31 Acreage of Annexation: approximately 58 acres
APNs Within Scope of Site Plan Review Application No. 2020-01: 368-350-17, -31, -32, & -33 Acreage of Site Plan Review Application No. 2020-01: approximately 11 acres The deadline for comments/conditions is 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3, 2020.
Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Ellen Moore
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley CA 93654
Phone: (559) 637-4200 x 222
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/ Click the above link for department information and library (maps, applications, etc.) This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam.
2 Pacific Gas and
Electric Company
March 20, 2020
Ellen Moore
City of Reedley
1733 Ninth St
Reedley, CA 93654
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Ellen Moore,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PGEPlan Review@pge .com
6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A
San Ramon, CA 94583
Thank you for submitting the Annexation Application plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area.
If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E's facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en US/business/services/buildingand-renovation/overview/overview.page.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E's facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing . This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E's fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required .
This letter does not constitute PG&E's consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required .
Sincerely,
Plan Review T earn
Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Pacific Gas and
f!ectric Company
Attachment 1 - Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth81 1.org/imaqes/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811 . A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.
2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.
Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E's easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1 :4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E's Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating . Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1 :4.
5. Excavating : Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Pacific Gas and
Electric Compmw
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line 'kicker blocks', storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities , as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.
8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences , decks, patios , carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps , or any structure that could limit PG&E's ability to access its facilities .
9. Fencing : Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems . No trees, shrubs, brush , vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.
Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers , and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4') in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company
11 . Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an "Impressed Current" cathodic protection system . Any proposed facilities , such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E's facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company
Attachment 2 - Electric Facilities
It is PG&E's policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised , will not interfere with PG&E's rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E's transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as "RESTRICTED USE AREA - NO BUILDING."
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.
Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E's review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-toconductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&'s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall , fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.
5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E's fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.
Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer's expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E's easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company
8. Streets and Roads : Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E. 11 . Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed ; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer's expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E's overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor's responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/G095/go 95 startup page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E's towers . All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed .
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E's towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction .
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E's facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. 2022-004
An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Reedley Approving PreZone Application No. 2020-01 And Authorizing The Amendment Of The Official Zoning Map Of The City Of Reedley
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING PRE-ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2020-01 AND AUTHORIZING
THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
REEDLEY
WHEREAS, Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 pertains to the pre-zoning of six parcels totaling approximately 58 acres in preparation for annexation; and WHEREAS, the subject territory proposed to be pre-zoned is bordered by the Manning Avenue/I Street Intersection on the north, the Kings River on the west, residential homes on the south, and agricultural fields/commercial properties on the east (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, 368- 350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365-072-31); and
WHEREAS, Approximately 32 of the 58 acres would be pre-zoned into a Central and Community Commercial (CC) zone district, approximately 11 acres would be pre-zoned to the One Family Residential (R-1-6) zone district, and approximately 15 acres, which includes a portion of the Kings River, would be pre-zoned to the Resource Conservation and Open Space (RCO) zone district; and WHEREAS, the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 designates the subject territory with Community Commercial , Low Density Residential, and Open Space Planned Land Use Designations; and
WHEREAS, the pre-zoning for the proposed project identified in Pre-Zone Application No. 2020- 01 is consistent with the GPU Planned Land Use and Zoning District Consistency Matrix; and WHEREAS, Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 is consistent with the Reedley Municipal Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 3 (Zoning District and Map) and Chapter 22 (Amendments); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley, at a regular meeting on August 9, 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 a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for the project through Environmental Assessment No. EA 2020-018, and preparation of such has been conducted in the manner required by State CEQA regulations; and Section 3. The City Council FINDS that Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 is consistent with the Reedley General Plan Update 2030; and
Section 4. The City Council FINDS that Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 is consistent with the Reedley Municipal Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 3 (Zoning District and Map) and Chapter 22 (Amendments); and
Section 5. The City Council hereby APPROVES Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 and incorporates into the zoning law and map of the City of Reedley, as reflected on Map A; and Ordinance 2022-004
Section 6. The City Council hereby APPROVES the amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map to include the above changes and ADOPTS said updated map as the City's Official Zoning Map; and
Section 7. This Ordinance does not have to be codified in the Reedley Municipal Code because it is solely authorizing the update of the City's Official Zoning Map; and 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 within fifteen (15) days after its adoption; and
Section 9. 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. 2022-004 was introduced and given first reading by title only at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Reedley held on August 9, 2022, and was thereafter duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on September 13, 2022 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mary L. Fast, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Attachment:
Map A: Map of affected parcels related to Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 Ordinance 2022-004
MAP A
CITY OF REEDLEY
PRE- ZONE APPLICATION No. 2020-01
I
.
I
..
.
I
. ..
0 L&J
L&J
~
----- MANNING A VENUE
··-··7
.
/
.
I r.. ·•-•---~-r--:- ~•-- ------- ~-j
\,
. .
..
Q::- . . ' , .. it " " . . i ~ td . -~
(
.
.
(
. .
\ .. .. . \
LOCATION MAP
SC ALE: 1"=10,000'
/
L&J
1.:, ... => ·Z .
~ '>
< A
•';,..·, • A
0 ",
L&J
L&J · ~ -- .~ .. ✓
PRE-ZONE AREA MAP
SCALE: 1"=1,000'
LEGEND:
,--••-••--,
: : REEDLEY CITY LIMITS '--•• - •• ...J
r-··-••-•,
: • REEDLEY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
'--··-··...J
,·.
/ ✓ 'v"':<:
N
1" = 1000· I
SCALE IN FEET
0 500 1000
- PROPOSED PRE-ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) (32.10 ACRES) 2000
PROPOSED PRE-ZONING: R- 1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (10.80 ACRES) PROPOSED PRE-ZONING: RCO (RESOURCE CONS. & OPEN SPACE) (15.01 ACRES) (AREA INCLUDES KINGS RIVER PROPERTY)
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2022-076
A Resolution Of Application By The City Of Reedley Requesting The Local Agency Formation Commission To Take Proceedings For The Buttonwillow-Duff Reorganization
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-076
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF REEDLEY
REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE MANNING AVENUE REORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the proposed reorganization ; and WHEREAS, the specific changes of organization requested consist of annexation to the City of Reedley and detachment from the Fresno County Fire Protection District, the Kings River Conservation District, and Consolidated Irrigation District; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be changed is uninhabited, and on this day contains zero registered voters, according to information received from the County Elections Officer; and WHEREAS, a written description and map of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Reedley and the Reedley General Plan 2030; and
WHEREAS, the proposed change of organization is subject to and consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in the with the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Fresno and the City of Reedley; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed change are to provide opportunities for commercial development within the City of Reedley because more than 80% of the existing commercially designated land within existing City Limits is developed, and to ensure orderly development by annexing land that is adjacent to existing City of Reedley territory on three sides; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15 (Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June 2, 2022), prepared for the proposed change of organization in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
CC Resolution No. 2022-076
NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Reedley, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Fresno County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the reorganization of territory as described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This foregoing resolution is hereby approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Reedley held on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mary L. Fast, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Attachments
EXHIBIT "A" - Buttonwillow-Duff Reorganization (Annexation No. 2018-1 ), Area of Reorganization EXHIBIT "B" - Buttonwillow-Duff Reorganization (Annexation No. 2018-1), Geographic Description CC Resolution No. 2022-076
{
N
I
~CAi l IN FLFI
~
r-----7------ APNJ,6-,-J,0 - 1JT
l<PN.}65-0.)0-451
OJI.DrA
I I , I
-,,,
',,
EXHIBIT "A" - Manning Avenue Reorganization (Annexation No. 2020-01 ), Area of Reorganization -,..~:•-;·-. ,.,_-:;,_~. -r::-~-,.~;:~•.-•~ - I ~ \ h ~>r~.:, \\~ - \ ~~ l:~
VICINITY MAP
___ _ ,../ c::J ..... .,. '"" ,. 8E ~,mo '° ON OF"' ... " / .. ,,......, . ....
~ '-
~ -
0 5 66"J9'18"[ 17JJJ'
Q)ss9·,o·J•·E 35050·
Q) S 66°J9'18" E J9500'
0 S 6 4'1 ,f28" E 308.90'
@ S25"00'Jl " [ 11 7 45 '
@ S 0 3'5~)17'' W 165.00'
(!) S 17•49·11·w 194. 20'
@ 5 l8'J6'4 7- w !J.66"
® S 0 1'50'47" W 140.00'
@s 1y49•.a .s-c 49J. 22·
8 N89'51'08·w 2,22175'
@ NJ1 "4J'09-[ 4J5.65'
@ N 19·2rog· c 216 oo·
e N 20'56'09·[ 298.00'
@ N 2, ·25'45•[ 72 4 6 4'
@ss6'J9·1a" E z41_2s·
~\ LA1~0
R:O~u,oN NO I AC~ E;~' I 0~:;~~~o I ,~;~~-0
O[•NCJ.PORIIQN Of SlCT•CN n lii stCIION16,
1 \~S. R 1J( ., DU .tu
CHARLES A. HARAN
CONSUL TING CIVIL ENGINEER
0687 NORTI I BACKER AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93720
flt( SNOCOUN IY (559)824 - 3137
EXHIBIT "B" ANNEXATION NO. 2020 - 01
ANNEXATION TO CITY OF REEDLEY
GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
All that certain real property, situate in a portion of Sections 27 & 28, Township 15 South, Rang1 23 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, in the County of Fresno, State of California, described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 27, thence North 00°11 '00" East along the North line of said section, a distance of 2178.03 feet; thence, leaving said North line, South 27°29'38" West, a distance of 346.20 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Manning Avenue, said point also being the Point of Beginning:
Thence, (1) South 66°39'18" East 173.33 feet along said right-of-way line; Thence, (2) South 69°40'34" East 350.50 feet continuing along said right-of-way line; Thence, (3) South 66°36'18" East 395.00 feet continuing along said right-of-way line; Thence, (4) South 64°14'28" East 308.90 feet continuing along said right-of-way line; Thence (5) South 25°00'31" East 117.45 feet leaving said right-of-way line; Thence (6) South 03°55'17" West 165.00 feet;
Thence (7) South 17°49'17" West 194.20 feet;
Thence (8) South 18°36'47" West 13.66 feet;
Thence (9) South 01°50'47" West 140.00 feet;
Thence (10) South 13°49'43" East 493.22 feet;
Thence (11) North 89°51 '08" West 2,221.75 feet to a point on the centerline of Kings River; Thence (12) North 31 °43'09" East 435.65 feet along said centerline; Thence (13) North 19°27'09" East 276.00 feet continuing along said centerline; Thence (14) North 20°56'09" East 298.00 feet continuing along said centerline ; Thence (15) North 24°26'48" East 724.64 feet continuing along said centerline to a point on thE south right-of-way line of Manning Avenue;
Thence (16) South 66°39'18" East 241.25 feet along said right-of-way line to the Point of Beginning and containing 57.91 acres of land more or less.
For assessment purposes only. This description of land is not a legal property description as defined in the Subdivision !vf ap Act and may not be used as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described.
Attachment 4
Standards of Annexation
(Exhibit 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Reedley and County of Fresno)
EXHIBIT 1
STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION
• The proposal must be consistent with the adopted sphere of Influence of the city and not conflict with the goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. • The proposal must be consistent with city general and specific plans, including adopted goals and policies.
• Pursuant to CEQA, the proposal must mitigate any significant adverse effect on continuing agricultural operations on adjacent properties, to the extent reasonable and consistent with the applicable general and specific plan.
• A proposal for annexation is acceptable if one of the following conditions exist:
1. There is existing substantial development provided the City confines its area requested to that area needed to include the substantial development and create logical boundaries.
2. Development exists that requires urban services which can be provided by the City.
3. If no development requiring urban services exists, at least 25% of the area proposed for annexation has:
a) Approved tentative subdivision map (single-family residential) b) Approved site plan (for other uses including multi-family)
4. The annexation is to fulfill the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation which otherwise cannot be accommodated on lands currently within the city's incorporated boundary.
5. The annexation includes the full width of road right-of-way along the annexation boundary and does not result in the creation of bypassed segments of existing road rights-of-way.
• The proposal would not create islands. Boundaries must ultimately minimize creation of peninsulas and corridors, or other distortion of boundaries.
For any of the following circumstances listed below, a proposal for annexation is presumed to comply with all standards for annexation:
• The request for annexation is by a city for annexation of its own publicly-owned property for public use.
• The request for annexation is by a city in order to facilitate construction of public improvements or public facilities which otherwise could not be constructed. • The request for annexation is to remove an unincorporated island , substantially surrounded area , or otherwise address existing peninsulas and/or irregular boundaries. • The annexation is intended to mitigate or otherwise comply with standards/conditions required by another agency with respect to another development annexation.
Attachment 5
Proof of Publication and Public Noticing Map
Mid-Valley Times
11 30 G Street
Reedley CA
(559) 638-2244
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO Approximately 32 . acres Is proposed
to be pre-zoned
Notice Of Public Hearing
CUP2022-05 & VTS Map 6408
City Of Reedley
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Fresno
I am a citizen of th e United States and a resident of the Coun ty aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, an d not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of th e printer of the MID -VALLEY TIMES a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Fresno, State of Califo rnia, under the date ofJuly 4, 2019, Case Number 19CECG01981;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, h as been pu blish ed in each regular and entire issue of said newspap er and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
July 28, 2022
I certif11 {or declare) under penalty of perjur; that the for~olng is true and correct.
· · nexation ApplicaPara espaf\ol por ·favor tion No. 2020-01, comunlquese con Mar- Ordinance No.
ten Pimentel al (559) 2022-004 (Pre637-4200 x 225 zone Application CITY OF REl;DLEY No. 2020-01 ),
COMMUNITY DEVEL- 1
• Conditional Use fl
OPMENT DEPART- Permit Application
MENT No. 20220-5, and
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
Environmental
Assessment No.
2020-15, Annexation
AppUc;atlon No. 2020-
01, Ordinance No.
2022-004 (Pre-Zone
Application No .. 2020-
01 ), condltlonal Use
Permit Appllcatlon
No. 2022-05 & Vesting
Tentative Subdivision
vesting Tentative
subdivision Map
No. 640_8.
2, Annexation
Appllcatlon ~o.
2020-01 pertains
to requesting that
the Fresno Local
Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo) take
proceedings on
to the CC (Central
and Community
commercial) zone
district, approximately 11 acres
Is proposed to
be pre-zoned to
the R-1-6 (One
Family Reslden·
tlal) zone district,
and approximately
15 acres, which
includes a portion ·
of the Kings River,
is proposed to be
pre-zoned to the
RCO (Resource
conservation and
Open Space) zone
district.
Map No. 6408
on July 21 , 2022, ttie
Reedley Planning Commission recommended
that the City Council
approve Environmenthe annexation of.
58 gross acres into
the City of Reedley 4, condltlonal Use
Permit Appllc;atal Assessment No.
2020•15, Annexation
Application No. 2020-
01, Pre-Zone Applicatlon No. 2020-01,
conditional Use Permit
Application No. 20~2-05
and vesting Tentative
Subdivision .Map No.
6408, all as described
below.
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that in accordance with Sections
65090 and 65091
(Planning and Zoning
Law) of the Government Code; and, pursuant to the procedures of Title 1 o of the Reedley
Municipal Code, the
City Council of the City
of Reedley will conduct
a public hearing to consider the following: · ·
1. Envlronmental ·
Assessment No.
2020-15: pertains
to adopting the
Mitigated Negative
Declaration, dated
June 2, 2022,
pm J~1n";,d for Ar "
and detac;:hment
from the Fresno
county Fire Protection District, the
Kings River Conservation District,
and Consolidated
Irrigation District
(APNs: 368-350-
17 I 368•350•31,
368-350-32, 368-
350-33, 365-072·
30T, and 365-072-
31). The proposed
annexation site ls
bordered by the
Manning Avenue/I
Street Intersection
on the north, the
Kings River on the
west, resioential
home~ on the
south, and agrlcult~ral fields/commercial properties
on the east.
3. Ordinance No.
2022-004 (PreZona Appllcatlon
No. 2020-01 >
pertains to the
pre-zoning of four
parcels encom•·
passlng SB_ ~g~~ .. '-
in preparation· · · · · · ·
for annexation ·
consistent with
the Reedley 2030
General Plan.
tlon No. 2022-05
pertains to the
development of
approximately 13
acres for com·
mercial use as part
of a master plan
for the project site
(APNs 366-350·
17, 368-350-31,
368-350-32, .
and 368-350·
33). The master
plan includes
development of
1 o commercial
buildings totaling
approximately
56,773 square feet
with a total of 542
parking spaces
and 41 bicycle
parking spaces.
The master plan
is located on the
south Side of East
Manning Avenue
closer to the frontage of East Manning Avenue and
meets the 25%
imminent development requirement
for annexation.
Conditional Use
Permit Application
No. 2022-05 also
pertains to the
modification of the
open space buffer
between urban
development and
the Kings River
corridor.
5. Vesting Tentative
SltbdlvlslO!'l Map
No. 6408 pertains
to the subdivision
of four of the six
parcels (APNs
$B,-S5CM7, 36&,3$0•3:r I 36
6•
350-32, and 368·
350-33) totaling
approximately 13
acres into 15 par-
cels. Nirie parcels
for commercial
us.e,as identified
in the site plan for
ttie project, one
parcel partially
for open space/
recreational use,
and five remaining
parcels for future
development
included In the
annexation to the
City. The commercial parcels would ·
range in size from 0. 62 acres up to
2.52 acres.
REEDLEY CITY
OOUN,CIL
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Time: 7:00 p.m., or
thereafter
Place: City Hall Council rnu'l.rntl(ilr~
84.S ilG" Stre~t, Aeed~
ley, ·cA 93654
The City Council Meet-
ing Agenda will be
available for review on
the City of Reedley's
website at https-//reed-
ley ca gpv/ at least 72
hours in advance of the
meeting.
Any Interested person
may appear at the public hearing and present
te§timony, or speak
In favor or against the
project. If you challenge
the above applications
in court, you may be
limited to raising only
those Issues, you, or
someone else, raised
at the public hearing
described in this notice,
or In written correspon-
dence delivered to the
Reedley City Council
prior to the public hear-
ing.
NOTE: Government
Code Section 65091
(Ptannlng and Zoning
Law) requires that this
notice be sent to owners of property within
300 feet of the subject
property. The City of
Reedley, Community
Development Department has mailed this
notice to the property
ownefs\vithin 350 feet
of the prbJect.•·.•,,·' ··
Additional information
on the proposed application, includlng the
environmental assessment is available for
public review and may
be obtained from the
Community Development Department, 1733
Ninth Street, Reedley,
California 93654.
Please contact Ellen
Moore, City Planner at (559) 63,N2(]0, ext
2~2, "Or by if!l.rnaJI al
cllm;1.m,;mre(6~·reek ~ for more, infor- mation.
~arLiiQJ~
The meeting will be
webcast and accessed
aitm~mea~.1
~lltillmi1 • 1·•unC$HL~~ The C l'ty Council ts
encouraging members
of the public to observe
and participate in the
City Council meeting
virtually, to maximize
the safety of all meeting
participants. Reasonable efforts will be
made to allow written
and ver~al comments
from participants communicating with the host
of the virtual meeting.
To do so, participants
may "raise their hand"
during p1.,1blic comment·
portions of the meeting
using the electronic
feature on the zoom
program, and the clerk
will inform the Chair
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
Gcty C1ert- a'tJ. 1t,e,~
w~ w.QQ.olfie•Y~
{;f-'\,.g1?t at limast two, (2)
tmurs poor m lh0 s-1art
of the meeting to en-
sure 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 partlcular 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.
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 368-350-17, 368-
350-31, 368-350-32,
368-350-33, se5·.012-
30T, and 365-072-31
July 28, 2022
City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley , CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley .ca.gov
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Proof of Service by Mail
(required as per Reedley Municipal Code
SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing (City Council): for Annexation Application No. 2020-01 1 PreZone Application No. 2020-1 1 Conditional Use Permit 2022-51 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2021-21 Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
CITY OF REEDLEY
I am an employee of the City of Reedley.
On July 281 2022, I served the attached notice pursuant to Reedley Municipal Code on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail.
I declare, under penalty or perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 281 2022, at City of Reedley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley 1 California 93654.
Attachments: 1. Notice of Public Hearing
2. List of Addresses
3. Vicinity Map
Signature
Para espanol par favor comunfquese con Marlen Pimentel al (559) 637-4200 x 225
CITY OF REEDLEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15, Annexation Application No. 2020-01, Ordinance No. 2022-004 (Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 ), Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 & Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6408
On July 21 , 2022, the Reedley Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15, Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Pre-Zone Application No. 2020- 01 , Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6408, all as described below.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code; and, pursuant to the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Reedley will conduct a public hearing to consider the following :
1. Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15: pertains to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June 2, 2022, prepared for Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Ordinance No. 2022-004 (PreZone Application No. 2020-01 ), Conditional Use Permit Application No. 20220-5, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6408.
2. Annexation Application No. 2020-01 pertains to requesting that the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) take proceedings on the annexation of 58 gross acres into the City of Reedley and detachment from the Fresno County Fire Protection District, the Kings River Conservation District, and Consolidated Irrigation District (APNs: 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365- 072-30T, and 365-072-31 ). The proposed annexation site is bordered by the Manning Avenue/I Street Intersection on the north, the Kings River on the west, residential homes on the south, and agricultural fields/commercial properties on the east.
3. Ordinance No. 2022-004 (Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01) pertains to the pre-zoning of four parcels encompassing 58 acres in preparation for annexation consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan. Approximately 32 acres is proposed to be pre-zoned to the CC (Central and Community Commercial) zone district, approximately 11 acres is proposed to be pre-zoned to the R-1-6 (One Family Residential) zone district, and approximately 15 acres, which includes a portion of the Kings River, is proposed to be pre-zoned to the RCO (Resource Conservation and Open Space) zone district.
4. Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 pertains to the development of approximately 13 acres for commercial use as part of a master plan for the project site (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, and 368-350-33). The master plan includes development of 10 commercial buildings totaling approximately 56,773 square feet with a total of 542 parking spaces and 41 bicycle parking spaces. The master plan is located on the South Side of East Manning Avenue closer to the frontage of East Manning Avenue and meets the 25% imminent development requirement for annexation.
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 also pertains to the modification of the open space buffer between urban development and the Kings River corridor.
5. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6408 pertains to the subdivision of four of the six parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, and 368-350-33) totaling approximately 13 acres into 15 parcels. Nine parcels for commercial use as identified in the site plan for the project, one parcel partially for open space/recreational use, and five remaining parcels for future development included in the annexation to the City. The commercial parcels would range in size from 0.62 acres up to 2.52 acres.
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
Date: Tuesday , August 9, 2022
Time: 7:00 p.m., or thereafter
Place: City Hall Council Chambers
845 "G" Street, Reedley, CA 93654
The City Council Meeting Agenda will be available for review on the City of Reedley's website at https://reedley.ca.qov/ at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and present testimony, or speak in favor or against the project. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues, you , or someone else, raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Reedley City Council prior to the public hearing.
NOTE: Government Code Section 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) requires that this notice be sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property. The City of Reedley, Community Development Department has mailed this notice to the property owners within 350 feet of the project.
Additional information on the proposed application , including the environmental assessment, is available for public review and may be obtained from the Community Development Department, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654. Please contact Ellen Moore, City Planner at (559) 637-4200, ext. 222, or by email at [email protected] for more information.
Zoom Participation:
The meeting will be webcast and accessed at: https://reedley.ca.gov/city-council/city-council-live-stream/ The City Council is encouraging members of the public to observe and participate in the City 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 clerk will inform the Chair 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.
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365-072-31
REEDLEY CITY OF
U PARCEL
G 300 FARMS LLC
865 S FRANKWOOD
REEDLEY CA 93654
SHUBIN FAMILY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LP
PO BOX 9699
FRESNO CA 93793
MD PEACH INC
PO BOX 2678
ATASCADERO CA 93423
REEDLEY CITY OF
KRISTI FUJISAWA
2120 PARK PL 2ND FL
EL SEGUNDO CA 90245
RTOWN INVESTORS II LP
265 E RIVER PARK #465
FRESNO CA 93720
OTANI PROPERTIES
1960 13TH
REEDLEY CA 93654
OTANI PROPERTIES
1960 13TH ST
REEDLEY CA 93654
PAUL KORSINEN
370 W TEAGUE
FRESNO CA 93711
REEDLEY CITY OF
TONI LOUISE DELUCA
9288 KINGS RIVER RD
REEDLEY CA 93654
SAMANTHA DE SILVA
9240 S KINGS RIVER
REEDLEY CA 93654
MD PEACH INC
PO BOX 2678
ATASCADERO CA 93423
MD PEACH INC
PO BOX 2678
ATASCADERO CA 93423
WINNERFRED INC
720 HILLCREST LN
F ALLBROOK CA 92028
KRISTI FUJISAWA
6638 W KADOTA
FRESNO CA 93 723
ALLISON OTANI HOSODA
PO BOX 790
REEDLEY CA 93654
HIDEKI OTANI
PO BOX 790
REEDLEY CA 93654
UPARCEL
REEDLEY CITY OF
GEORGE PEREZ
13 7 PLEASANT RIDGE A VE
SAN JOSE CA 95127
OSCAR RUBIO
9202 S KINGS RIVER
REEDLEY CA 93654
MD PEACH INC
PO BOX 2678
ATASCADERO CA 93423
REEDLEY CITY OF
WINNERFRED INC
720 HILLCREST LN
F ALLBROOK CA 92028
REEDLEY CITY OF
OTANI PROPERTIES
196013THST
REEDLEY CA 93654
REEDLEY CITY OF
U PARCEL
REEDLEY CITY OF
STEPHEN J & JONELLE BORCICH
7215 S REED
REEDLEY CA 93654
DANIEL & MARIA LUISA CASTRO
244 N KINGSWOOD PKY
REEDLEY CA 93654
KAREN ROQUE
269 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
DELMA & PHILLIP J
MALDONADO
305 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
LUIS A & ANA I ESCARENO
264 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
MICHAEL K & LORAINE K
SCHELLENBERG
227 OAK
REEDLEY CA 93654
JOSE LUIS & DIANA TREVINO
324 S HEMLOCK
REEDLEY CA 93654
RICHARD & CORINA TAMEZ
326 OAKDR
REEDLEY CA 93654
U PARCEL
STATE CENTER JOINT
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
NORMA PATINO
290 N KINGSWOOD PKWY
REEDLEY CA 93654
GREGORY D & CAROLL GROFT
229 FALLBROOK CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
OTONIEL & DELIA SCHILLACI
285 FALLBROOK CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
KATHLEEN MARY DENTON
302 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
ANDREW CERVANTES
242 F ALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
RICKY J & LUCINDA M RIOS
245 OAK
REEDLEY CA 93654
MATTHEW & RAFAELA LOPEZ
301 NOAK DR
REEDLEY CA 93654
JAVIER & PORSCHE M
ESPINDOLA
3 244 MITCHELL
CLOVIS CA 93619
REEDLEY CITY OF
SW A YING PALMS II LLC
l 7719 E HUNTSMAN
REEDLEY CA 93654
SANDRA K HELM
1467 SMITH
KINGSBURG CA 93631
MARK A & LYNETTE MENDEZ
247 FALLBROOK CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
STEVEN P ST ADLER
301 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
JAYNE & GARY CLARK
290 FALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
JOSEF LOREDO
228 F ALLBROOK
REEDLEY CA 93654
PHILIP BRYAN & KAREN RENE
PAULS
267 OAK
REEDLEY CA 93654
MITCHELL M ABE
271 E CURTIS
REEDLEY CA 93654
KENNETH FUMIO & MARY
SOARES TATAMI
284 NOAK
REEDLEY CA 93654
LEO G & JANICE L TOEWS
266NOAKDR
REEDLEY CA 93654
MARIO & IRENE SANTOYO
275 N KINGSWOOD PKWY
REEDLEY CA 93654
ARNOLD R & MARYE
KRIEGBAUM
277 ROBINWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
TAMARA G KETSCHER
1336 W RIVERGLEN
REEDLEY CA 93654
TATSUMI T & ANDREA
ARAKAWA
304 DOVEWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
CHAD M THIESEN
1230 W RIVERGLEN
REEDLEY CA 93654
JANET KAREN ADAMS
295 ROBINWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
ROBERT YOSHIO & SUSAN
KIYOMI IKEMIY A
PO BOX 608
REEDLEY CA 93654
DONALD D & MARJORIE B
HAMBURGER
1415 W RIVERGLEN
REEDLEY CA 93654
[MAILED ON JULY 30, 2022]
SNAPCD
1990 E GETTYSBURG A VE
FRESNO CA 93 726-0244
JOHN J & FRANCES B ROGALSKY
224 NOAK
REEDLEY CA 93654
RUTH M NACHTIGAL
223 N KINGSWOOD
REEDLEY CA 93654
ROLAND D & STEPHANIE F
SCHREINER
276 ROBINWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
DAVIDJHUERTA
281 N DOVEWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
CAROLINE I HUEBERT
288 DOVEWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
MANUEL & AMY B RAMOS
291 KINGS
REEDLEY CA 93654
ROBERT J & KATHERINE H
HUEBERT
1445 I ST
REEDLEY CA 93654
PAL VIND ER SINGH & P ARAMJIT
KAURSANDHU
2866 DELEY AN DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90065
JOSEPH F. PICKETT
PICKETT & SONS
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
7310 N REMINGTON A VE
FRESNO CA 93711
JUAN L & CHRISTINA M
GONZALEZ FONSECA
317 N KINGSWOOD
REEDLEY CA 93654
WEINING & XAIOFANG LIANG
SONG
1416 W RIVERGLEN AVE
REEDLEY CA 93654
VALENTINA & NICK OLVERA
254 ROBINWOOD
REEDLEY CA 93654
ROBERT L & PATRICIA A
KRAUSE
293 DOVEWOOD CIR
REEDLEY CA 93654
SWINEY D & VIVIAN L LEROY
260 DOVEWOOD
REEDLEY CA 93654
JAMES ROBERT & JENNIFER LEE
LOOMIS
309 KINGS
REEDLEY CA 93654
RENE ELLER
PO BOX 607
REEDLEY CA 93654
KEVIN & LESLIE GROVE
1393 RIVERGLEN
REEDLEY CA 93654
DOUGLASS.CORDSANDSHANE
S. ANDERSON
COMMERCIAL REAL
ASSOCIATES INC.
7502 N COLONIAL AVE SUITE 101
FRESNO CA 93711
~ PARCEL QUEST
Haul i H u-.,1il.~
l'u'J.::,r,p1r1 1·J o \f'=!
r·
~ I
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
•,,',1:;;.~t 1-:f'!,;.dl:=-.,.-
f:1it::l0
200 m
:::
·-:,
S: 7,J.GI ;\~~y •/
,- ., '- .J
• • 1-
'i ., ~'>.',:I. , I , ,,
'/, .: : I/, l j :-: I, 1 ;..... ••• ;-
._.. • ,_ -1 ·:.cJ
·-=
,· ·1
-l'.,··
Exhibit A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15) dated June 2, 2022
CITY OF REEDLEY
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
FINDING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 2020-15
City of Reedley Manning Ave. Annexation 2020-01 Proiect LEAD AGENCY:
City of Reedley
Community Development
Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Contact: Ellen Moore, City Planner
e-mail: [email protected] .gov
Phone: (559) 637-4200 x 222
PROJECT LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Otani Properties
PO Box 790
Reedley CA 93654
The project site entails six parcels totaling approximately 58 acres. The parcels are Fresno County Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 368- 350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365- 072-31 . Two of the parcels (APNs 365-072-30T and 365-072-31) contain a portion of Kings River.
The project site is located within the City of Reedley's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno. Adjacent to the north, east and south is the City of Reedley. The site is bordered by the Manning Avenue/I Street Intersection on the north, the Kings River on the west, residential homes on the south, and agricultural fields/commercial properties on the east.
FILED WITH:
FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, 1st Floor
Fresno, California 93721-2600
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) would analyze the following project components: the annexation of Fresno County parcels consisting of a total of 58 acres and the proposed master planned development that would consist of various commercial uses, gas station, convenience store, car wash and hotel (13 of the 58 acres) as described below (Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 , Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 VTSM 6408). The project would not include analysis on the future planned uses for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021 -2 or the future open space improvements.
The proposed project would consist of four components:
• Annex six parcels into the City of Reedley (Annexation Application No. 2020-01) • Pre-zone approximately 58 acres into the City (Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01) • Develop approximately 13 acres for commercial use as part of a master plan for the project site (Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05)
• Subdivide approximately 13 acres into 10 parcels for commercial use and open space/recreational use (Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 VTSM 6408) Annexation Application No. 2020-01 pertains to the annexation of six parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350- 31 , 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365-072-31) totaling approximately 58 acres from the County of Fresno into the City of Reedley and detachment from the Fresno County Fire Protection District, the Kings River Conservation District, and the Consolidated Irrigation District. Two of the parcels (APNs 365-072-30T EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent Page 1
and 365-072-31) contain a portion of Kings River. The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the existing City of Reedley City Limits on the north, south and east sides, and is within the City of Reedley's adopted SOI.
The subject property has Community Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space land use designations pursuant to the City of Reedley 2030 General Plan.
Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 pertains to the pre-zoning of the site to be consistent with the City of Reedley's 2030 General Plan as part of the process to annex the property into the City. Approximately 32 of the 58 acres would be pre-zoned into a Central and Community Commercial (CC) zone district, approximately 11 acres would be pre-zoned to the One Family Residential (R-1-6) zone district, and approximately 15 acres, which includes a portion of the Kings River, would be pre-zoned to the Resource Conservation and Open Space (RCO) zone district.
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 pertains to the development of proposed subdivided parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, and 368-350-33) as part of a master plan. This master plan includes the proposed development of 10 commercial buildings totaling approximately 56,773 square feet (SF) with a total of 542 parking spaces and 41 bicycle parking spaces.
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTSM No. 6408) pertains to the subdivision of four of the six parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, and 368-350- 33) totaling approximately 13 acres into 15 parcels. Nine parcels for commercial use as identified in the site plan for the project, one parcel partially for open space/recreational use, and five remaining parcels for future development included in the annexation to the City. The commercial parcels would range in size from 0.62 acres up to 2.52 acres.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The City of Reedley has conducted an environmental analysis for the abovedescribed project. The project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) prepared for the Reedley General Plan 2030 Update (GPU). Therefore, the City of Reedley, as the lead agency, proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The completed environmental impact checklist, its associated narrative, and any proposed mitigation measure(s) reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies, as well as research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist and initial study narrative combine to form the record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines.
All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.
For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to potentially be of concern without mitigation to reduce the level of significance. Such an effect may be inherent in nature and magnitude of the project. The completed environmental checklist form indicated whether an impact would be less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and have been mitigated to the extent reasonably feasible as required by CEQA.
The project is not located on a site which is included on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code including, but not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others, and the information in the Hazardous EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent Page 2
Waste and Substance Statement required under subdivision (f) of that Section.
The initial study has concluded that the proposed project would not result in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the certified Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, as the lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) was certified, and that no new information which was not known and could not have been know at the time that the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) was certified, has become available.
Additional information on the proposed project, including a copy of the proposed environmental findings , may be obtained from the City of Reedley, Community Development Department, City Hall, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654 during normal business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM).
Electronic copies can be obtained by e-mailing [email protected] or by visiting the City of Reedley website at the following link: http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/Major Projects/ ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments may be submitted at any time between the date of this notice and close of business on July 5, 2022. Please direct comments to Ellen Moore, City Planner in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654, or phone: 559-637-4200, Ext. 222, or e-mail [email protected].
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15, Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Pre-Zone Application No. 2020- 01, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2021-2 (VTSM 6408) are scheduled to be considered by the City of Reedley Planning Commission on July 21 , 2022, where a recommendation would be made to the City Council.
The Commission meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers at Reedley City Hall, located at 845 G Street, Reedley, California 96354.
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
Ellen Moore, City Planner
DATE: June 2, 2022
Attachments: Location Map and Annexation Application No. 2020-01 Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-5
SUBMITTED BY:
Ellen Moore, City Planner
Community Development
Department
CITY OF REEDLEY
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (VTSM 6408) Sheet 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent Page 3
EA N o. 2020-15 Page 4
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01
Proposed Pre-Zoning : CC (Commun ity Commerical)
(32 .10 Acres )
Proposed Pre-Zoning : R-1-6 (Single-Family Residen ti al) (10.80 Acres)
Proposed Pre-Zoning: RCO (Resource Cons. & Open Space)
(Area Includes Kings River Property)
(15.01 Ac res)
Existing Zoning:
Lim ited Agricu lt ure 20 Acres (Fresno Co. Zoning)
Resource Conservation 40 Acres (F resno Co . Zon ing)
Open Conserva ti on (Fresno Co. Zon ing)
Pre-Zoning:
Central and Commun ity Commercial (CC)
One Fam ily Resident ial (R-1 -6)
Resource Co nservation and Open Space
0 500 1,000 N
Feet A
Imagery provid ed by 1'vlicrosojt Bing and it s licensors © 2022.
Parcel Do to provided by County of Fresno, 2021
EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent Page 5
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-5
l>'!.9£6 VIN\JO::lll't':l 'A370331:l
3nN3/lv E>NINNVW
lN31'1d073/130 7VIOlf3!'1VjQ:J A370331:l J. '. \JQ~ SNYld ::>U.V11'13H08 V
I
-- --- --------------- ------ ------ ---- --- -
EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent
~
l'--
w
~
w
I
0 <f)
z
~ 0...
../ w ~ r
en
0 w
<f)
0 0...
0 a:
0...
0 w
(9
a:
~ z
w
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (VTSM No. 6408) Sheet 1 of 2 3 :::J 11\ a:.i :::11..:1..:1 • I NV.La
r------------;:.,,:;,-- om '-••- ·ium•-- --- i i ------~- EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent
I ,
I
I
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (VTSM No. 6408) Sheet 2 of 2 3:::JIJ\ a::1:::11.:::1.:::1 • INV.1.•
;n nm
~n n t rn
I n ;n rn
I·· 81 1:!l ii
EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent Page 8
State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
2022 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEE
CASH RECEIPT
DFW 753.Sa (REV. 01/01/22) Previously DFG 753.5a
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF REEDLEY
COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING
FRESNO COUNTY
PROJECT TITLE
I LEAD AGENCY EMAIL
EA NO 2020-15 CITY OF REEDLEY MANNING AVE ANNEXATION 2020-01 PROJECT RECEIPT NUMBER:
E202210000129
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (if applicable)
DATE
06/01/2022
DOCUMENT NUMBER
E202210000129
PROJECT APPLICANT NAME
CITY OF REEDLEY
PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER
PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS
1733 NINTH ST
PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box)
CITY
REEDLEY
STATE
CA
ZIP CODE
93654
[!I Local Public Agency D School District D Other Special District D State Agency CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
D Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
D Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND)
[!) Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document - payment due directly to CDFW D Exempt from fee
D Notice of Exemption (attach)
D CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
D Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) D Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) D County documentary handling fee
[!) Other NOi
PAYMENT METHOD:
$3,539.25 $
$2,548.00 $
$1,203.25 $
$850.00 $
$50.00 $
$
D Cash D Credit Ocheck Oother TOT AL RECEIVED $
SIGNATURE AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
X Jessica Munoz Deputy Clerk
ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB CO PY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK D Private Entity
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 DFW 753.Sa (Rev. 01012022)
CITY OF REEDLEY
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
FINDING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 2020-15
City of Reedley Manning Ave. Annexation 2020-01 Project LEAD AGENCY:
City of Reedley
Community Development
Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Contact: Ellen Moore, City Planner
e-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (559) 637-4200 x 222
PROJECT LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Otani Properties
PO Box 790
Reedley CA 93654
The project site entails six parcels totaling approximately 58 acres. The parcels are Fresno County Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 368- 350-17 , 368-350-31, 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365- 072-31 . Two of the parcels (APNs 365-072-30T and 365-072-31) contain a portion of Kings River.
The project site is located within the City of Reedley's Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Fresno. Adjacent to the north, east and south is the City of Reedley. The site is bordered by the Manning Avenue/I Street Intersection on the north, the Kings River on the west, residential homes on the south, and agricultural fields/commercial properties on the east.
FILED WITH:
FRESNO COUNTY CLERK
2220 Tulare Street, 1st Floor
Fresno, California 93721-2600
~~ l [E[D)
JUN O 1 2022 Tl~~l · . Ol ~0 ~~ .:·:!(,1/; ./ [1 -' ~·· -~,•t.. __ .. - ~ /", .. ... - ,' ·-_:;:; .. F-RESN6 tOUN1Y CLERK :{
B
·/ ~, 'i ···~~ :·:":: .. ; .. ... ., , DEPUTY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) would analyze the following project components: the annexation of Fresno County parcels consisting of a total of 58 acres and the proposed master planned development that would consist of various commercial uses, gas station, convenience store, car wash and hotel (13 of the 58 acres) as described below (Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01, Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 VTSM 6408). The project would not include analysis on the future planned uses for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 or the future open space improvements.
The proposed project would consist of four components :
• Annex six parcels into the City of Reedley (Annexation Application No. 2020-01) ~ Pre-zone approximately 58 acres into the City (Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01) • Develop approximately 13 acres for commercial use as part of a master plan for the project site (Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05)
• Subdivide approximately 13 acres into 10 parcels for commercial use and open space/recreational use (Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 VTSM 6408) Annexation Application No. 2020-01 pertains to the annexation of six parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350- 31 , 368-350-32, 368-350-33, 365-072-30T, and 365-072-31) totaling approximately 58 acres from the County of Fresno into the City of Reedley and detachment from the Fresno County Fire Protection District, the Kings River Conservation District, and the Consolidated Irrigation District. Two of the parcels (APNs 365-072-30T EA No. 2020- 15 Notice ofintent Page 1
and 365-072-31) contain a portion of Kings River. The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the existing City of Reedley City Limits on the north, south and east sides, and is within the City of Reedley's adopted SOI.
The subject property has Community Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space land use designations pursuant to the City of Reedley 2030 General Plan .
Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01 pertains to the pre-zoning of the site to be consistent with the City of Reedley's 2030 General Plan as part of the process to annex the property into the City. Approximately 32 of the 58 acres would be pre-zoned into a Central and Community Commercial (CC) zone district, approximately 11 acres would be pre-zoned to the One Family Residential (R-1-6) zone district, and approximately 15 acres, which includes a portion of the Kings River, would be pre-zoned to the Resource Conservation and Open Space (RCO) zone district.
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-05 pertains to the development of proposed subdivided parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31 , 368-350-32, and 368-350-33) as part of a master plan. This master plan includes the proposed development of 10 commercial buildings totaling approximately 56,773 square feet (SF) with a total of 542 parking spaces and 41 bicycle parking spaces.
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map VTSM No. 6408) pertains to the subdivision of four of the six parcels (APNs 368-350-17, 368-350-31, 368-350-32, and 368-350- 33) totaling approximately 13 acres into 15 parcels. Nine parcels for commercial use as identified in the site plan for the project, one parcel partially for open space/recreational use, and five remaining parcels for future development included in the annexation to the City. The commercial parcels would range in size from 0.62 acres up to 2. 52 acres.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The City of Reedley has conducted an environmental analysis for the abovedescribed project. The project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of the certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) prepared for the Reedley General Plan 2030 Update (GPU). Therefore, the City of Reedley, as the lead agency, proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The completed environmental impact checklist, its associated narrative, and any proposed mitigation measure(s) reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies, as well as research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist and initial study narrative combine to form the record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines.
All new development activity and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.
For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to potentially be of concern without mitigation to reduce the level of significance . Such an effect may be inherent in nature and magnitude of the project. The completed environmental checklist form indicated whether an impact would be less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. Effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and have been mitigated to the extent reasonably feasible as required by CEQA.
The project is not located on a site which is included on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code including, but not limited to, lists of hazardous waste facilities , land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others, and the information in the Hazardous EA No. 2020-1 5 Notice of Intent Page 2
Waste and Substance Statement required under subdivision (f) of that Section.
The initial study has concluded that the proposed project would not result in any adverse effects which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
With the project specific mitigation imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have additional significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the environment that are significant and that were not identified and analyzed in the certified Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Reedley General Plan Update 2030. After conducting a review of the adequacy of the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, as the lead agency, finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) was certified, and that no new information which was not known and could not have been know at the time that the Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010031106) was certified , has become available.
Additional information on the proposed project, including a copy of the proposed environmental findings , may be obtained from the City of Reedley, Community Development Department, City Hall, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654 during normal business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM).
Electronic copies can be obtained by e-mailing ellen [email protected] or by visiting the City of Reedley website at the following link: http://www.reedley.com/departments/community development/Major Projects/ ANY INTERESTED PERSON may comment on the proposed environmental finding. Comments may be submitted at any time between the date of this notice and close of business on July 5, 2022. Please direct comments to Ellen Moore, City Planner in the Community Development Department at City Hall, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654, or phone: 559-637-4200, Ext. 222, or e-mail [email protected].
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15, Annexation Application No. 2020-01 , Pre-Zone Application No. 2020- 01 , and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2021-2 (VTSM 6408) are scheduled to be considered by the City of Reedley Planning Commission on July 21 , 2022, where a recommendation would be made to the City Council .
The Commission meeting wil l be held at 5:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers at Reedley City Hall, located at 845 G Street, Reedley, California 96354.
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
Ellen Moore, City Planner
DATE: June 2, 2022
Attachments: Location Map and Annexation Application No. 2020-01 Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-5
SUBMITTED BY:
Ellen Moore, City Planner
Community Development
Department
CITY OF REEDLEY
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (VTSM 6408) Sheet 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 EA No . 2020-15 Notice oflntent Page 3
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Location Map and Annexation Application No. 2020-01
Ii lj Project Boundary
r: = = I! = ~1 City Boundary
0 250 S00
Feet
N
A
,
•., .. ,
., ..
lmageq• provided by M icrosof t Bin<J and its licensors <O 2020.
EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent
't..· ..
.. - ,1,, ...
'., ·-~~{ ··}·<t
·~-
/~
, ....... -- ~~·-.. --·
' .• W.Ci8E.1£-:r.0 <t
-:t{1f F? }:ht;; ,,. ·. ',,t• t h
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Pre-Zone Application No. 2020-01
ii ii Project Boundary
D Fresno County Parcels
Proposed Pre -Zoning. CC (Community Commencal)
(32.10 Ac res)
P1oposed Pre-Zoning: R-1-G (S1ngle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al)
(10.80 Acres)
Proposed P, e-Zoning: RCO (Resource Cons & Open Space)
(Area Includes Kings River Property)
(15.01 Acres)
Existing Zoning:
Limited Agriculture 20 Acres (Fresno Co. Zoning)
Resource Conservation 40 Acres (Fresno Co. Zoning)
Open Conservation (Fresno Co. Zoning)
Pre-Zan ing:
Central and Community Commercial (CC)
One Family Residential (R-1-6)
Resource Conservation and Open Space
0 500 1,000 N
Feet A Imagery provided by Micro5of1 Bing and Its //censors ,Q 2022.
Parcel Daca pro,idcd by County of Fresno, 2021.
EA No. 2020-15 Notice ofintent Page 5
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-5
V1
K9C5 VINl:IO:fflYO 'A370331:1
3nN31\V ONINNV\1
lN3Vld07 3/\30 7VIOl:l3Vllli00 A37033l:I
:1:io~ SNYld 0I.LVVi3H::>S
~z- ~
f'-.
w
2 w
I
0 (f)
I
z
:s '---'-- -----lo...
EA No. 2020-15 Notice of Intent
I
· I
I
I
I
I
------
./ w ~ f-
(/)
0 w
(f)
0 0...
0 a:
0...
0 w
0 a:
:s
z
w
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021-2 (VTSM No. 6408) Sheet 1 of 2 a1ao..ci._ .. 1aaa1 -:r,,/.1.
c • ao-•1-L 1•••1 •1•c• 'r::l 1
111AD"'l:J
4A. IVINlTIY la.-.
--,-.-..-.,.. ... 0._,_,,,I\
:3 :::J 11\
ml~{~~
l• ·~ l 6~ \X)< l ~
i a l_,_--r=-g -
r ~ ~
~
u I
UCt,,- 9
~ ~ ~ H!~ dVM:J~.'.i~i~~~'1nlil ., ~~ 6::3::Jl.:l.:IC INV.LC os -~ i3 i ~~I~ i d~~ • 3"
1 ---------;:-~,---ci~--;-IIL~•- - --- i ~ ---- --~-- 1 I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
"- I I ·, f-1 - I I
EA No. 2020-15 Notice oflntent Page 7
eioi2-{ 0000 \l,OJ
Environmental Assessment No. 2020-15
Tentative Subdivision Map Application No. 2021 -2 (VTSM No. 6408) Sheet 2 of 2 • laO-GLL t• D• I !Y'rl_, c • ac,-•"-"' (AeDI
Al 91Ca Y:t 11111AO"'l :::J ':3 /\V,'WtN'lTIV l O.,• 3 ::J 11\ EA No. 2020-1 5 Notice of Intent
B :3:::11.;1.;1 • INV.1.•
; ' ~ nrn
~u rn rn
in ~n H~
i • D G!l:SD
II ~q 'P ; l rn rn iU mi UH
~H n~ ,n n~ in ,in Hn
i, , ,, . ,., :11!:i 3! * ; ;s;!
A complete copy of the 140 page document
Manning Avenue Annexation 2020-01 Project
prepared by The City of Reedley with the assistance
of Rincon Consultants, Inc. is available for review
with the City Clerk during normal business hours
Or by visiting www.reedley.ca.gov
Please select:
Community Development/major projects/EA 2020-
15 Reedley Annexation 2020-01
DATE:
TITLE:
August 9, 2022
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
D Consent
~ Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: ----
APPROVE ITEMS RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 3
A. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT BECK
B. DISCUSS AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ACTIONS TO FILL VACANT DISTRICT 3 COUNCILMEMBER SEAT BY APPOINTMENT OR
SPECIAL ELECTION
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba
City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council accept the resignation of District 3 Councilmember Robert Beck, effective July 31, 2022, and provide direction to staff to proceed with actions to assist the Council to fill the vacancy by either appointment or special election.
BACKGROUND
Councilmember Robert Beck has served as a Councilmember for District 3 since 2011. Unfortunately, due to health reasons, Mr. Beck is no longer able to fulfil his duties as Councilmember, and has submitted his resignation letter from the Council. There are two years remaining on the four-year Council term for District 3. Government Code Section 36512 (b) provides that when a vacancy on the City Council occurs and there are not at least 130 days prior to the next general municipal election, the Council has 60 days to either fill the vacancy by appointment process or call a special election to fill the vacancy. Due to the effective date of the resignation, there are less than 130 days before the next general election.
Given the cost and delay of holding a special election to fill the vacancy, staff recommends that the City Council consider appointing a qualified resident to hold the office for the remaining two years of the term. Appointment must be made prior to September 30 to comply with State law.
The Council has broad discretion on selecting someone to fill the vacancy. The only qualifications for the replacement are that the selected person must reside in Council District 3 and be registered to vote
in that District. Council may open a brief recruitment to cast a wide net for potential candidates, or Councilmembers may provide the names of individuals they wish for the entire Council to consider for the appointment. Once a candidate/candidates have been identified, Council may interview interested candidates in a public Council meeting, or they may simply discuss the recommended candidates based on letters or applications submitted to the Council. Any interview, discussion, or other such conversation about filing the seat must be done publicly, following Brown Act regulations. The selection of the replacement must also be done publicly be placing an approval item on a subsequent City Council agenda.
In 2011, the City Council undertook a process to fill the remaining term of Councilmember Steve Rapada, upon his resignation from the Council. At that time, Council accepted applications from interested individuals. Applicants were invited to a regularly scheduled Council meeting and were asked to give a three-to-five minute statement to the City Council about who they were and why they were interested in the Council position. City Council then discussed the candidates openly and chose one candidate. At the next City Council meeting, a Resolution to appoint that candidate to the Council seat was approved by the City Council and the candidate was sworn into office and took their seat at the dais for the remainder of the meeting. Council may wish to follow this process again, or may establish a different process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be no cost to the City to fill the vacant Council seat by appointment process. There will be a cost of approximately $20,000-$30,000 to the General Fund should the Council desire to fill the vacancy through the special election process.
ATTACHMENT
Resignation letter, Robert 0. Beck
TO: MAYOR MARY FAST 07/26/2022
CITY MANAGER NICOLE ZIEBA
I HERE BY ISSUE MY RESIGNATION TO THE REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL EFFECTIVE 07/31/2022.
DUE TO MY DECLINING HEALTH, I CAN NO LONGER PROPERLY REPRESENT THE CITIZENS OF REEDLEY. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO SERVE MY COMMUNITY AND WORK WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF.
THANK YOU
ROBERT BECK
MAYOR PRO TEMPE
DATE:
TITLE:
August 9, 2022
REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
D Consent
~ Regular Item
D Workshop
D ClosedSession
D Public Hearing
D Receive/Review
ITEM NO: 10 ----
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE REEDLEY RETIREE HEALTHCARE PLAN
A) RECEIVE & REVIEW THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT OF THE REEDLEY RETIREE HEALTHCARE PLAN (No Action)
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-074 AMENDING AND RESTATING THE TIERED
MEDICAL BENEFIT STRUCTURE FOR CITY OF REEDLEY RETIREES
INCREASING THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT
COVERAGE
SUBMITTED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manager~
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council A) receive and review the latest actuarial valuation report available for the Reedley Retiree Healthcare Plan: and B) consider adoption of Resolution No. 2022-07 4 amending and restating the Tiered Medical Benefit Structure for City of Reedley Retirees, increasing the City's contribution towards eligible dependent coverage for retirees under the Tier 2 benefit level to match Tier 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City's actuary, Bartel Associates, LLC, recently completed the required actuarial valuation of the Retiree Healthcare Plan ('Plan') as of June 30, 2021 . The Plan was established by resolution in 2013 and has been amended from time to time. The latest valuation report illustrates that the financial status of the Plan continues to improve, with unfunded liability decreasing from $6,807,000 at June 30, 2019 to $6,357,000 as of June 30, 2021. Most importantly, the Plan's funded ratio has increased from 3.3% to
6.8%. This improvement is due to several factors that are highlighted below:
• The City Council's commitment to making regular additional annual contributions to prefund the plan at 25% of expected annual premiums;
• A reduction in the number of current employees who are eligible for the future benefit. Only fulltime employees originally hired before January 1, 2014 are eligible to participate; • Fewer recent retirees have elected coverage than expected and some have dropped coverage; • The City's trust has experienced better than expected investment returns over the last two years.
Although past performance is not a reliable indicator of future financial performance, the City Council has continued to support meaningful actions that contribute to the long-term financial sustainability of the Retiree Healthcare Plan, and ensure that eligible retirees can continue to depend on this valuable benefit.
A brief presentation regarding history of the plan, cost mitigation measures, and current status will be provided at the City Council meeting.
Dependent Medical Coverage
In 2013, the City established a tiered retiree medical benefit to control future retiree medical costs while keeping it financially sustainable for those eligible for the benefits in the future. As part of this effort, the City set a maximum dependent coverage premium contribution for each benefit tier. Tier 1 benefits were granted to existing retirees and those City employees who retired on or before December 31, 2016. The maximum dependent coverage premium contribution was set at $500 monthly for Tier 1. Tier 2 benefits are granted to current eligible full-time City employees that were employed prior to January 1, 2014, among other eligibility requirements. The· maximum dependent coverage premium contribution was set at $250 monthly for Tier 2.
Dependent coverage contributions for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 benefit levels have not been adjusted since the Plan's establishment in 2013; and, due to the maximum contributions being a fixed dollar amount, they should be reviewed from time to time. This review is necessary to ensure that the dual goals are being achieved of: 1) City budget cost containment; and 2) Maintaining benefit value to City retirees who provided years of public service to the community.
Although the City's benefits broker has done an admirable job of assisting staff in managing plan costs, premiums have nevertheless increased over the last nine years. As a result, retirees under Tier 2 benefits are now paying more out of pocket for dependent premiums than in past years.
Due to the vastly improved financial position of the Retiree Healthcare Plan due to the factors highlighted above, staff recommend increasing the Tier 2 maximum dependent coverage premium contribution to $500, matching the benefit level under Tier 1.
BACKGROUND
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 75 requires that an actuarial valuation of the total OPEB liability is required to be performed at least every two years and information to be included in the City's financial statements. The City is compliant with this requirement.
The City established the tiered medical benefit for City of Reedley with the adoption of Resolution 2013- 083 to continue to provide benefits to retirees and employees, who at the time of adoption, were either enrolled in retiree medical benefits or had a reasonable expectation of being able to enroll in retiree medical benefits in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from accepting the latest actuarial valuation report, the cost of which was included in the Adopted Budget as a biennial item. The cost to increase the City's contribution towards eligible dependent coverage for retirees under Tier 2 benefit levels to match Tier 1 is approximately $9,637 annually, based on current plan premiums and enrollment. This cost represents 3.3% of the total annual plan cost; therefore, staff believes this is not a significant increase that will adversely affect the financial sustainability of the plan.
ATTACHMENTS
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Resolution No. 2022-07 4
B~RTEL c_it_y_o_fR_ ee_d_le_Y _________ _
_ TlssocIATES , LLC
Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation (Funding)
Final Report
July 28, 2022
Bartel Associates, LLC
411 Borel A venue, Suite 620
San Mateo, California 94402
Phone: 650/377-1617
www.bartel-associates.com
Email: [email protected]
City of Reedley
Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
The purpose of this report is to present the funded status of the City of Reedley Retiree Healthcare Plan as of June 30, 2021.
The City provides medical benefits to its eligible retirees using the City's group health benefit plans through a tiered benefit structure described most recently in Resolution No. 2017-090. The City pays different amounts for Tier 1 and Tier 2 retirees and their dependents depending on their age and service at retirement.
In addition, the City incurs an "implied subsidy" (IS) since the per capita healthcare costs ( expected claims plus administrative expenses) is higher for pre-Medicare retirees than the premium. Actuarial Standards of Practice No. 6 (ASOP 6) requires the implied subsidy be valued for agencies even if they are participating in pooled plans.
The City prefunds the OPEB benefit with CERBT's Strategy #1, with trust contributions targeted to be a percentage ofretiree premiums. GASB Statement No. 75 (GASBS 75) was implemented by the City for the 2017/18 fiscal year. GASB Statement 75 reporting information is provided in a separate report.
VALUATION RESULTS
Funded Status: The funded status of the combined plan is equal to the percentage of Actuarial Accrued Liability currently funded by Plan Assets. The following table summarizes the Plan's funded status for the prior and current valuations.
(Amounts in 000's)
June 30, 2019 June 30, 2021
• Discount Rate 6.75% 6.25%
• Present Value of All Future
Benefits $ 8,264 $7,834
• Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
• Future Retirees 2,985 2,755
• Retirees 4,052 4,064
• Total 7,037 6,819
• Plan Assets 230 462
• Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 6,807 6,357
• Funded Status 3.3% 6.8%
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Analysis of Changes in the Actuarial Accrued Liability. While actuaries select actuarial assumptions to be our best estimate of future experience, actual experience will never exactly match those expectations. Actuarial losses increase the actuarial accrued liability or reduce plan assets, while actuarial gains do the opposite.
If all had gone as expected, the actuarial accrued liability was expected to grow to $7,460,000 as of June 30, 2021, due to interest and participants earning benefits. The actuarial accrued liability at June 30, 2021 is $6,819,000, meaning the plan's liability is $641,000 less than expected. The biggest components of the decrease were:
• $209,000 increase due to changing the discount rate from 6.75% to 6.25%, net of the impact of reducing the inflation assumption
• ($269,000) (decrease) from other assumption changes: CalPERS new experience study, updated morality improvement scale, updated Kaiser trend, valuing implied subsidy for life, and spouse coverage
• ($43,000) (decrease) due to lower premiums than expected • ($505,000) (decrease) due to demographic experience. This includes the removal of several members when the City contracted out the solid waste operations, although this had a small impact on the actuarial accrued liability since some of these members were Tier 3 employees who were not eligible for benefits from this plan. The remainder of the decrease was mainly due to new retirees not electing coverage and existing retirees dropping coverage.
Better than expected investment return for the two years reduced the unfunded actuarial accrued liability by $105,000.
Plan Assets1
: Plan assets are invested with CalPERS' CERBT using Strategy 1. Following is a reconciliation of the value of the consolidated plan assets from June 30, 2019 through June 30, 2021.
It includes only amounts actually flowing through the CERBT accounts. • Market Value of Assets (Beginning of Year)
• Contributions
• Benefits Paid from Trust
• Administrative Expenses
• Investment Earnings
• Market Value of Assets (End of Year)
• Approximate Return
(Amounts in 000's)
2019/20
$ 230
53 (0)
_6
288
2.4%
2020/21
$ 288
85 (0)
~
462
26.5%
Market value of assets based on CalPERS ' Schedule of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position by Employer for the fiscal years ended in June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2021.
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Page3
Projected Benefit Payments: Following is a 10-year projection of benefit payments and contributions under the City's funding policy:
(Amounts in 000's)
Policy Trust
Contributions:
Im plied Subsidy 25% of Cash Total City
Cash Benefit Benefit Total Benefit Benefit OPEB
Year Payments Payments Payments Payments Contributions
2021/22 $ 280 $ 48 $ 328 $ 70 $ 398
2022/23 299 68 367 75 442
2023/24 309 71 380 77 457
2024/25 321 65 386 80 466
2025/26 338 81 419 85 504
2026/27 344 64 408 86 494
2027/28 360 74 434 90 524
2028/29 372 66 438 93 531
2029/30 384 68 452 96 548
2030/31 398 86 484 100 584
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
BASIC DEFINITIONS
Present Value of Benefits (PVB): When an actuary prepares an actuarial valuation, they first gather participant data (including active employees, former employees not in payment status, participants and beneficiaries in payment status) at the valuation date (for example June 30, 2021 ). Using this data and actuarial assumptions, the actuary projects future benefit payments. (The assumptions predict, among other things, when people will retire, terminate, die or become disabled, as well as what salary increases, general (and healthcare) inflation and investment return might be.) Those future benefit payments are discounted, using expected future investment return, back to the valuation date. This discounted present value is the plan's present value of benefits. It represents the amount the plan needs as of the valuation date to pay all future benefits - if all assumptions are met and no future contributions ( employee or employer) are made. The total June 30, 2021 retiree healthcare Present Value of Benefits is $7,834,000 using a 6.25% discount rate, with $4,064,000 of this for former employees who have already retired.
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL): This represents the portion of the present value of benefits that participants have earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis) through the valuation date. The total June 30, 2021 retiree healthcare Actuarial Accrued Liability is $6,819,000 using a 6.25% discount rate, with $4,064,000 of this for former employees who have already retired.
Plan Assets: This is funds that have been segregated and restricted in a trust so they can only be used to pay plan benefits. As of June 30, 2021, the total plan assets (CERBT account) are $462,000.
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL): This is the difference between the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Plan Assets. This represents the amount of the Actuarial Accrued Liability that must still be funded. If the Plan Assets exceed the Actuarial Accrued Liability, the plan has Surplus Assets. As of June 30, 2021, the City's UAAL is $6,357,000 ($6,819,000 AAL less $462,000 Plan Assets).
Normal Cost (NC): The Normal Cost represents the portion of the present value of benefits expected to be earned ( on an actuarial, not actual, basis) in the coming year. The total 2021/22 retiree healthcare Normal Cost is $120,000 using a 6.25% discount rate. This does not include expected CERBT administrative fees for the year.
Actuarial Cost Method: This determines the method in which benefits are actuarially earned (allocated) to each year of service. It has no effect on the Present Value of Benefits, but has significant effect on the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Normal Cost. The June 30, 2021 retiree healthcare valuation was prepared using the Entry Age Normal cost method. Under the Entry Age Normal cost method, the Plan's Normal Cost is developed as a level percent of payroll throughout the participant's working lifetime. This actuarial cost method is required by GASB Statement No. 75.
Implied Subsidy: An implied subsidy exists when the premium for a group of early retirees is determined by aggregating their experience with active employees. ASOP 6 requires that the implied subsidy for retirees be included for all valuations dated after March 31 , 2015. We valued the implied subsidy for the City's retiree healthcare plan.
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
SUMMARY OF RETIREE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS
Benefit Summary
• Eligibility • Retire directly from the City under CalPERS with 10 years City service
• 10 years not required for active employees with Tier 1 benefits;
• Future disability retirements assumed to require 10 years City service
• Tiers • Tier 1:
• Current retirees age 55 before 10/24/2013 and;
• Current actives at or over age 55 at retirement and retiring before 12/31/2016
• Tier 2:
• Current actives at or over age 55 at retirement and retiring on or after 1/1/2017
• Tier 3:
• Current actives hired or first becoming full time on or after 1/1/14 (not eligible for any City-paid retiree medical benefits)
• Benefits Effective • Retiree pre-Medicare benefit:
1/ 1/14 • Tier 1: Up to active employee's contribution2 • Tier 2 with 10 years City service: Smaller of 50% of
retiree premium or active employee's contribution
• Tier 2 with 20 years City service: Smaller of 80% of
retiree premium or active employee's contribution
• Dependent pre-Medicare benefit:
• Tier 1: Up to $500 per month total for all dependents • Tier 2: Up to $250 per month for only one dependent
• Retiree and one dependent post-Medicare benefit:
• Tier 1: 100% of City Medicare Supplement premium (less $10 per month if outside of City plans: "Freedom of
Choice")
• Tier 2 with 10 years City service: Smaller of 50% of City Medicare Supplement premium or active employee's
contribution
• Tier 2 with 20 years City service: Smaller of 80% of City Medicare Supplement premium or active employee's
contribution
• Other OPEB • No City contribution for retiree dental, vision, life insurance, or Medicare Part B reimbursement
$657.87, $1 ,370.48, & $1 ,917.79 for single, 2-paiiy, & family coverage, respectively in 2021.
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Actuarial Methods
The actuarial cost method used for this valuation is the Entry Age Normal ("EAN") cost method.
Under the EAN cost method, the Normal Cost for each participant is determined as a level percent of payroll throughout the participant's working career.
The Plan is assumed to be ongoing for cost purposes. This does not imply that an obligation to continue the Plan exists.
The actuarial value of assets is equal to the Market Value of Assets. The funding policy is assumed to continue to be paying the Pay-Go directly from City funds plus prefunding 25% of cash benefit payments into CERBT Strategy 1 annually. Asset values in this valuation are from CalPERS' "Schedule of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position by Employer" .
The implied subsidy was calculated for benefits in compliance with Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOP) No. 6 and the associated Practice Note. Because the benefit structure uses Medicare Supplement plans, age-based claims costs (implied subsidy) were included in the valuation beyond Medicare eligibility. Claims costs were based on City employees and retirees only.
Actuarial Assumptions
An actuary must follow current actuarial standards of practice, which generally call for explicit assumptions - meaning each individual assumption represents the actuary's best estimate.
Actuarial Assumptions June 30, 2019 Valuation June 30, 2021 Valuation • Discount Rate • 6.75% Expected long term rate of • 6.25%. Expected long term rate return for CERBT Strategy 1 of return for CERBT Strategy 1 based on Bartel Associates 2021
analysis.
• Funding Policy • City pays Pay-Go directly, plus • City pays Pay-Go directly, plus 25% of Cash Benefit Payments 25% of Cash Benefit Payments contributed to CERBT annually contributed to CERBT annually • General Inflation Rate • 2.75% per year • 2.50% per year • Aggregate Payroll • 3. 00% per year • 2.75% per year
Increases
• Mortality, Retirement, • CalPERS 1997-2015 Experience • CalPERS 2000-2019 Experience Disability, Termination Study Study
• Mortality Improvement • M01tality projected fully • Mortality projected fully generational with Scale MP-2019 generational with Scale MP-2021 City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Actuarial Assumptions June 30, 2019 Valuation
• Participation at • Retire with 20 years of service:
Retirement 80%
• Retire with less than 20 years of
service: 70%
• Medical Plan at • Covered: Based on current
Retirement election.
• Waived: Anthem HMO
• Medical Trend Increase from Prior Year
• Increase in future Non-Medicare Medicare
healthcare costs for all Year HMO&PPO
reasons except participant 2019 Actual Premiums/Claims aging. 2020 Actual Premiums/Claims 2021 7.25% 6.30%
2022 7.00% 6.10%
2023 6.75% 5.90%
2024 6.50% 5.70%
2025 6.25% 5.50%
2026 6.00% 5.30%
2027 5.80% 5.15%
2028 5.60% 5.00%
2029 5.40% 4.85%
2030 5.20% 4.70%
2031-2035 5.05% 4.60%
2036-2045 4.90% 4.50%
2046-2055 4.75% 4.45%
2056-2065 4.60% 4.40%
2066-2075 4.30% 4.20%
2076+ 4.00% 4.00%
• Cap Increases • Unrepresented active employee
contribution: medical trend
• Dollar caps for Dependents:
3 .00% per year
• Medicare Eligible Rate • 100%
• Everyone eligible for Medicare
will elect Part B coverage
• Spousal Coverage at • Currently covered: Same as
Retirement current elections
• Currently waived: 80% cover
their spouses at retirement
June 30, 2021 Valuation
• Same
• Same
Increase from Prior Year
Non Medicare
Year Medicare Kaiser Other
2019 n/a
2020 n/a
2021 Actual Premiums/Claims
2022 Actual Premiums/Claims
2023 6.50% 4.60% 5.65%
2024 6.25% 4.45% 5.45%
2025 6.00% 4.35% 5.25%
2026 5.75% 4.25% 5.05%
2027 5.55% 4.20% 4.90%
2028 5.35% 4.15% 4.75%
2029 5.15% 4.10% 4.60%
2030 4.95% 4.05% 4.45%
2031 -2035 4.80% 4.00% 4.35%
2036-2045 4.65% 3.95% 4.25%
2046-2055 4.50% 3.90% 4.20%
2056-2065 4.35% 3.85% 4.15%
2066-2075 4.05% 3.80% 3.95%
2076+ 3.75% 3.75% 3.75%
• Same
• Dollar caps for Dependents:
2.50% per year
• Same
• 80% cover their spouses at
retirement
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Actuarial Assumptions
• Surviving Spouse
Participation
• Dependent (Child)
Coverage at Retirement
• Spouse Age
• 2019/20 Medical Claims
Cost
• 2021/22 Medical Claims
Cost
• Future New Participants
• Data Quality
• Actuarial Modeling
• COVID-19
June 30, 2019 Valuation June 30, 2021 Valuation
• 100% if participant has spouse • Same
coverage
• Pre-65 • Same
• Actives: Not covered
• Retirees: same as current
coverage until 65
• Post-65: 0%
• Current actives: males 3 years • Same
older than females
• Current retirees: males 3 years
older than females if spouse birth
date not provided
Anthem HMO Anthem PPO Kaiser
Age M E M E M E
50 $611 $800 $699 $924 $710 $929
55 809 942 948 1,102 940 1,093
60 1,021 1,070 1,216 1,265 1,186 1,242
64 1,136 1,142 1,365 1,358 1,320 1,326
Anthem HMO Anthem PPO Kaiser
Age M E M E M E
50 $715 $779 $926 $929 $836 $912
55 926 933 1,102 1,063 1,083 1,091
60 1,184 1,112 1,323 1,231 1,385 1,301
64 1,430 1,307 1,573 1,419 1,673 1,529
65 343 318 343 318 343 318
75 404 362 404 362 404 362
85 431 383 431 383 431 383
• None: closed group
• Our valuation used census data provided by the City. We reviewed the data for reasonableness and resolved any questions with the City. We believe the resulting data can be relied on for all purposes of this valuation without limitation.
• Our valuation was performed using and relying on Pro Val, an actuarial model leased from WinTech. Our use of Pro Val is consistent with its intended purpose. We have reviewed and understand Pro Val and its operation, sensitivities and dependencies
• No adjustments to the assumptions have been made for COVID-19 since there is not yet enough data to evaluate the future impacts City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Actuarial Assumptions
• Basis for Assumptions
(6/30/21 Valuation)
June 30, 2019 Valuation I June 30, 2021 Valuation
• No experience study performed for this Plan
• CalPERS 2000 to 2019 experience study was used
• Mortality improvement is a Society of Actuaries table • Inflation based on our estimate for the Plan's long time horizon • Capital market assumptions based on 2021 Bartel Associates stochastic analysis, taking into account capital market assumptions of investment advisory firms
• Age-based claims costs estimated based on premiums and City's demographics for active employees and PEMHCA pooled data for the Medicare Supplement retiree plans, and Axene Health Partners' aging factors
• Short-term medical trend was developed in consultation with Axene Health Partners' healthcare actuaries. Long term medical trend developed using the Society of Actuaries Getzen Model of Long-Run Medical Cost Trends
• Medical coverage and participation assumptions based in part on Plan experience
Analysis of Expected Long Term Rate of Return on Plan Assets CERBT Investment Options
2022 Asset Allocation (approved by CalPERS Board March 14, 2022) Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Global Equity 49% 34% 23%
Fixed Income 23% 41% 51%
TIPS 5% 5% 9%
Commodities 3% 3% 3%
REITs 20% 17% 14%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Baiiel Associates calculated the expected long term rate of return for each CERBT fund by using stochastic modeling ( or "Monte Carlo" simulations) of the geometric average return over 20 years using 5,000 trials. The capital market assumptions used in the modeling were based on 8 independent Investment Advisors' 2021 10-year Capital Market Assumptions and where available, the investment advisors long-term trends. In addition, or modeling used a 2.5% inflation assumptions. The result of our modeling is as follows, with the resulting rates, net of investment expenses, likely to be achieved 50% of the time.
Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Expected long te1m rate of 6.25% 5.75% 5.25% return ( 50% likelihood) City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT DATA
Monthly Active Premiums
Effective January 1, 2022
Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family
Blue Shield HMO $ 696.67 $1 ,451.94 $2,069.91
Blue Shield PPO 719.59 1,500.10 2,138.69
Kaiser HMO 775.08 1,546.11 2,008.72
Pre-65 Retiree Premiums
Effective January 1, 2022
Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family
Blue Shield HMO $ 699.62 $ 1,454.89 $2,072.86
Blue Shield PPO ($500/$1 ,000) 722.54 1,503.05 2,141.64 Kaiser HMO 778.03 1,549.06 2,011.67
Monthly Post-65 Retiree Premiums
Effective January 1, 2022
Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family
RetireeFirst/United American $ 345.85 $ 691.70 $ 1,391.32 and Blue Shield HMO RetireeFirst/United American 345.85 691.70 1,414.24 and Blue Shield PPO RetireeFirst/United American 345.85 691.70 1,469.73 and Kaiser Freedom of Choice3 335.85 671.70 n/a
City's Contribution.
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Participant Statistics - Active Employees
Miscellaneous Fire
• Count 77 2
• Average:
• Age 41.2 49.9
• City Service 9.6 10.7
• Entry Age 30.9 38.8
• Salary $56,327 $100,734
• Total Salary (000's) 4,337 201
Participant Statistics - Active Employees
Tier 2 Tier3
• Count 51 53
• Average:
• Age 48.1 33.1
• City Service 16.2 3.0
• Entry Age 31.0 29.6
• Salary $72,902 $48,664
• Total Salary (000 's) 3,718 2,579
Participant Statistics - Retirees
Miscellaneous Fire
• Count
• Retired 29 -
• Disabled - -
• Survivor _l - -
• Total 32 -
• Average:
• Age 72.5 NIA
• Service Retirement Age 61.8 NIA
• Disabled Retirement Age - NIA
Police Total
25 104
37.2 40.4
8.9 9.5
27.6 30.3
$70,341 $60,550
1,759 6,297
Total
104
40.4 9.5
30.3 $60,550
6,297
Police Total
1 30
2 2
_J_ _A
4 36
70.4 72.3
55.9 61.6
46.3 46.3
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Current Retiree Medical Coverage
Pre 65
Plan Single 2-Party Family
Blue Shield HMO - 5
Blue Shield PPO - 1
Kaiser HMO - -
Waived - -
Total - 6
Current Retiree Medical Coverage
Post 65
-
-
-
-
-
Plan Single 2-Party Family
Blue Shield HMO 11 16 1
Blue Shield PPO - - -
Kaiser HMO - - -
Freedom of Choice - 2 -
Waived - - -
Total 11 18 1
Total
5 1
-
-
6 Total
28 -
-
2 -
30 City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Age
Under 50
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-80
80-85
85 & Over
Total
Average Age
Age
Under 50
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-80
80-85
85 & Over
Total
Average Age
Covered Retiree Medical Plan Coverage by Age
Miscellaneous
Medical Coverage
Single 2-Party Family
- - -
- - -
- 2 -
- 4 -
4 5 -
2 4 -
- 5 1
1 1 -
2 1 -
9 22 1
76.3 70.8 75.7
Covered Retiree Medical Plan Coverage by Age
Safety
Medical Coverage
Single 2-Party Family
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
2 - -
- 1 -
- 1 -
- - -
- - -
2 2 -
66.0 74.8 NIA
Total
-
-
2 4
9 6
6 2
3 32
72.5 Total
-
-
-
-
2 1
1 -
-
4 70.4
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Age <1 1-4
<25 1 -
25-29 3 8
30-34 1 9
35-39 - 5
40-44 - 1
45-49 1 3
50-54 - -
55-59 - -
60-64 - -
~ 65 - -
Total 6 26
Age <1 1-4
<25 - 1
25-29 - 6
30-34 1 3
35-39 - -
40-44 - 1
45-49 - -
50-54 - -
55-59 - -
60-64 - -
~ 65 - -
Total 1 11
Actives by Age and Service
Miscellaneous
City Service
5-9 10-14 15-19
- - -
- - -
5 1 -
4 2 2
6 1 2
2 1 -
- - 4
1 1 1
1 2 1
- - -
19 8 10
Actives by Age and Service
Safety
City Service
5-9 10-14 15-19
- - -
- - -
1 - -
3 1 -
2 - -
1 1 -
- - -
- - -
- 1 -
- - -
7 3 -
20-24 ~25 Total
- - 1
- - 11
- - 16
- - 13
- - 10
- - 7
1 - 5
- 5 8
1 1 6
- - -
2 6 77
20-24 ~25 Total
- - 1
- - 6
- - 5
- - 4
- - 3
1 1 4
1 1 2
- 1 1
- - 1
- - -
2 3 27
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
Age <1 1-4
< 25 1 1
25-29 3 14
30-34 2 12
35-39 - 5
40-44 - 2
45-49 1 3
50-54 - -
55-59 - -
60-64 - -
~ 65 - -
Total 7 37
Actives by Age and Service
Total
City Service
5-9 10-14 15-19
- - -
- - -
6 1 -
7 3 2
8 1 2
3 2 -
- - 4
1 1 1
1 3 1
- - -
26 11 10
20-24 ~25 Total
- - 2
- - 17
- - 21
- - 17
- - 13
1 1 11
2 1 7
- 6 9
1 1 7
- - -
4 9 104
City of Reedley, Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2021 Actuarial Valuation
ACTUARIAL CERTIFICATION
This report presents the City of Reedley Retiree Healthcare Plan ("Plan") June 30, 2021 actuarial valuation. The purpose of this valuation is to:
• Determine the Plan's June 30, 2021 Benefit Obligations • Determine the Plan's June 30, 2021 Funded Status
The report provides information intended for funding the City's Plan, but may not be appropriate for other purposes. Information provided in this report may be useful to the City for the Plan's financial management. Future valuations may differ significantly if the Plan's experience differs from our assumptions or if there are changes in Plan design, actuarial methods or actuarial assumptions. The project scope did not include an analysis of this potential variation.
The valuation is based on Plan provisions and participant data provided by the City as summarized in this report, which we relied on and did not audit. We reviewed the participant data for reasonableness.
To the best of our knowledge, this report is complete and accurate and has been conducted using generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. As a member of the American Academy of Actuaries meeting the Academy Qualification Standards, I certify the actuarial results and opinions herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Elizabeth Redding, FSA, MAAA, EA, FCA
Senior Consulting Actuary
Bartel Associates, LLC
July 28, 2022
This report was prepared by Kelcie Opp, Actuarial Analyst, [email protected] and Joseph Herm, Senior Actuarial Analyst, [email protected] RESOLUTION NO. 2022-074
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY
AMENDING AND RESTATING THE TIERED MEDICAL BENEFIT STRUCTURE FOR
CITY OF REEDLEY RETIREES
WHEREAS, Government Code § 2293 8 provides that a local agency which has elected to be subject to the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act ("Act") may choose to cease to be so subject by adopting a resolution and filing such resolution with the Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS") board of administration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley, with the approval of Resolution No. 2013- 057 on June 25, 2013, elected to cease to be subject to the provisions of the Act, and such resolution was filed with the PERS board as required by Government Code Section 22938; and WHEREAS, with the approval of Resolution No. 2013-057 and compliance with Government Code Section 22938, the City of Reedley is no longer subject to the Act and is therefore no longer required to provide medical benefits to its retirees as required by and as a condition of the Act; and WHEREAS, prior to approval of Resolution No. 2013-057, the provision of medical benefits for City retirees was not a negotiated benefit with employees or a benefit approved by the City Council through a salary or benefit resolution, but rather was only provided by the City as required by the Act and as a condition of the City being part of the PERS medical program; and WHEREAS, although not legally required to do so after opting out of PERS, with the approval of Resolution No. 2013-083 on September 24, 2013, the City chose to conditionally provide retiree medical benefits to current retirees and current full-time regular employees at that time subject to certain eligibility requirements and the City's right and absolute discretion to modify or eliminate such retiree medical benefits in the future; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2020-021 , adopted April 28, 2020, amended and restated Resolution 2017-090, which amended and restated Resolution No. 2016-102, which amended and restated resolution 2015-045, which amended and restated Resolution No. 2014-090, which amended and restated Resolution No. 2013-083; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make certain changes to the tiered retiree medical benefit schedule approved by Resolutions No. 2013-083, 2014-090, 2015-045, 2016-102, 2017-090, and 2020-021.
WHEREAS, the City must proactively manage ever rising healthcare costs with finite budgetary resources, and in order to properly manage the City's limited budget, the City Council continues to declare its intent not to create a permanent or vested right in the retiree medical benefits approved by Resolutions No. 2013-083 , 2014-090, 2015-045, 2016-102, 2017-090, 2020-021 and modified herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Reedley hereby resolves that the tiered retiree medical benefit schedule approved by Resolution No. 2013-083 on September 24, 2013 , and amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2014-090 on December 9, 2014, and amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2015-045 on May 13, 2015, and amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2016-102 on December 13, 2016, and fmiher amended and restated with the approval of Resolution 2017-090 on October 24, 2017, and further amended and restated with the approval of Resolution 2020-021 on April 28, 2020 is hereby amended and restated as follows:
1. Tier 1 - Benefits for current retirees and their dependents are as follows:
A) For current retirees and/or their dependents who are not yet eligible for Medicare:
i) For the retiree only, City shall contribute towards the retiree's monthly medical coverage at the same rate as the City contributes towards Umepresented employees' monthly medical coverage, as such contribution may be modified from time to time; and
ii) City shall contribute up to $500.00 monthly, total, for medical coverage of dependents who are not yet eligible for Medicare, with retirees responsible for paying the difference in cost between the medical plan and City contribution; and iii) The retiree must notify the City within thirty (30) days of the retiree's and/or dependent's eligibility for Medicare. Only the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner of an eligible retiree shall remain eligible for the dependent benefit until his/her death or remarriage.
B) For current retirees and/or their dependents who are eligible for Medicare:
i) City shall cover 100% of the monthly premium for a group Medicare Supplement plan, as identified and selected by the City, for retiree and 100% of the Medicare Supplement plan premium up to $500 monthly, total, for one Medicare-eligible dependent, with retirees responsible for paying the difference in cost between the medical plan and City contribution; and
ii) City shall contribute 100% of the amount that the City then currently contributes towards Umepresented employees' medical coverage up to $500.00 monthly, total, for medical coverage of dependents who are not yet eligible for Medicare, with retirees responsible for paying the difference in cost between the medical plan and City contribution; and
iii) Subject to availability, only cmTent retirees and their eligible dependents shall have access to a 'Freedom of Choice' option, whereupon the City, through its designated provider, will cover up to $251. 7 6 per month ("Cap") for each retiree and his/her one dependent, for the reimbursement of premium cost for a Medicare Supplement and/or prescription drug plan of their choice; and iv) The $251.76 Cap for the 'Freedom of Choice' option shall be adjusted annually, each January, by the change in premium (if applicable), from year to year, of the group Medicare Supplement Plan then currently being offered by the City to Medicare eligible retirees. The Cap shall always be $10.00 less than the group Medicare Supplement premium to help defray additional administrative costs of offering the 'Freedom of Choice' option. At no time shall the retiree/dependent receive in excess of the premium amount.
2 Resolution 2022-074
v) The 'Freedom of Choice' option shall not be available for new enrollment or reenrollment after December 14, 2016.
C) Minimum eligibility requirements for current City retirees:
i) All current retirees must be at least 55 years of age as of the effective date of this resolution in order to continue receiving retiree medical benefits for themselves or their dependents. Retirees or dependents who were not enrolled in a Cityprovided retiree medical benefit as of the adoption date of Resolution 2013-083 (September 24, 2013) are not eligible to enroll in or otherwise receive retiree medical benefits. Affected retirees will not be permitted to purchase coverage in the City's medical plans. Retirees turning 55 years of age after the effective date of this resolution shall not be eligible for this City benefit.
2. Tier 2 - Benefits for current full-time regular City employees are as follows, subject to the following eligibility requirements:
A) Minimum eligibility requirements for current full-time regular City employees. To be eligible for retirement medical benefits, a full-time regular employee must: (i) retire under a regular or disability PERS retirement and enroll in City provided retirement medical benefits within 120 calendar days from voluntary separation from City employment; (ii) be at least 5 5 years of age at time of retirement; and (iii) have been employed by the City for a cumulative total of at least ten (10) years as a full-time regular employee. Employee must be a full-time regular employee at the time of retirement. No purchase of service credit is allowed. Voluntary separation from City employment shall mean any separation other than termination for cause. Termination for cause shall be deemed involuntary separation, and shall preclude such terminated employee from eligibility in and for this benefit.
i) In order for an employee's dependent to be eligible for coverage, the dependent must be enrolled in the employee's plan at the time an employee retires, subject to the employee meeting minimum eligibility requirements.
B) Employees with at least ten (10) years of cumulative service with the City as a full-time regular employee upon Retirement:
i) If the retiree is not eligible for Medicare, the City shall contribute either 50% of the medical premium for the retiree only or 50% of the amount that the City then ctmently contributes towards Unrepresented employees' Employee Only medical coverage as such contribution may be modified from time to time, whichever is less, using the menu of medical plans available to City employees, or if not available, plans identified and selected by the City; and ii) If the retiree is eligible for Medicare, City shall cover either 50% of the Group Medicare Supplement plan premium for the retiree or 50% of the amount that the City then currently contributes towards Unrepresented employees' Employee Only medical coverage, whichever is less, for a Group Medicare Supplement plan as identified and selected by the City; and
3 Resolution 2022-074
iii) There shall be no coverage for more than one dependent; and iv) The City shall contribute 50% of the applicable plan premium up to $500.00 monthly, total, for eligible dependent medical coverage with retirees responsible for paying the difference in cost between the medical plan and City contribution.
C) Employees with at least twenty (20) years of cumulative service with the City as a fulltime regular employee upon Retirement:
i) If the retiree is not eligible for Medicare, the City shall contribute either 80% of the medical premium for the retiree only or 80% of the amount that the City then currently contributes towards Unrepresented employees' Employee Only medical coverage, whichever is less, using the menu of medical plans available to City employees, or if not available, plans identified and selected by the City; and ii) If the retiree is eligible for Medicare, City shall cover either 80% of the Group Medicare Supplement plan premium for the retiree or 80% of the amount that the City then currently contributes towards Unrepresented employees' Employee Only medical coverage, whichever is less, for a Group Medicare Supplement plan as identified and selected by the City; and
iii) There shall be no coverage for more than one dependent; and iv) The City shall contribute 80% of the applicable plan premium up to $500.00 monthly, total, for eligible dependent medical coverage with retirees responsible for paying the difference in cost between the medical plan and City contribution.
D) The retiree must notify the City within thirty (30) days of the retiree's and/or dependent's eligibility for Medicare. Only the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner of an eligible retiree shall remain eligible for the dependent benefit until his/her death or remarriage.
E) Full-time regular City employees who are working for the City in a full-time capacity as of September 24, 2013, (Date of Adoption of Resolution 2013-083) who retire on or before December 31, 2016, shall be eligible for the same City contributions to retiree medical benefits as current retirees as defined in Tier 1 above. Minimum eligibility requirements under Section 2.A shall still apply to subject employees, except that for the minimum eligibility requirement under Section 2.A (iii) shall not apply.
3. Tier 3 - No retiree benefits for future City employees:
A) No new employee or re-hired employee initially hired or re-hired on or after January 1, 2014 shall be eligible for the retiree or retiree dependent medical coverage provided herein, unless said employee was a full-time regular employee of the City prior to January 1, 2014.
B) Current part-time employees, notwithstanding the fact that they are currently employed by the City and may subsequently work for the City in a full-time regular capacity, shall 4 Resolution 2022-074
not be eligible for retiree medical benefits, unless they begin work in a full-time regular capacity prior to January 1, 2014 and satisfy all other eligibility requirements. In other words, for purposes of determining eligibility for the retiree medical benefits, the date of hire shall be treated as the date upon which the current part-time employee begins his/her assignment as a full-time regular employee.
4. Delinquent payments/reimbursements: For all benefit tiers, retirees and dependents shall be billed for any difference between the cost of their medical plan and City contributions towards their plan. Should retirees or dependents become delinquent in their payments, the City shall terminate coverage subject to applicable legal noticing requirements. Retirees or dependents who have their coverage terminated due to non-payment of premium contributions or otherwise separate from City provided medical benefits may not re-emoll in or receive City provided medical benefits.
5. The tiered retiree medical benefit schedule as amended and restated herein is intended to and shall be interpreted to supersede the tiered retiree medical benefit schedule approved by Resolution No. 2013-083 on September 24, 2013, and amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2014-090 on December 9, 2014, and further amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2015-045 on May 12, 2015, and further amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2016-102 on December 13, 2016, and further amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2017-090 on October 24, 2017, and further amended and restated with the approval of Resolution No. 2020-021 on April 28, 2020.
6. The City Council of the City of Reedley hereby retains the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to modify or terminate any benefit levels, coverage, medical plans, or eligibility requirements contained herein by subsequent resolution.
7. This resolution shall be effective beginning on August 9, 2022, and shall remain in effect until modified, terminated, or rescinded by subsequent resolution of the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mary L. Fast, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
5 Resolution 2022-074
4f /I
Reedley's River City Theater
Report to the City of Reedley
Marquee Laita
July 18th 2022
• April 2022
o RCTC hosted a couple weekend clean ups of our Loft space for costumes as well as cleaned the basement to make it easily accessible for small prop items, wigs, jewelry etc.
• In total 23 people attended the work days. Approximately 3 work days were hosted, bringing in volunteers from
ages 16-4 7, from Fresno, to Visalia, all surrounding cities of Reedley.
o RCTC held auditions for our upcoming Summer production "The Addams Family"
• The Auditions were attended by 3 5 people over the
course of 3 audition days
• The cast for "The Addams Family" is made up of
individuals from all backgrounds, most are from the
Reedley area and surrounding cities
• The Production is set to open mid July with anticipation of a good tum out
o RCTC worked with the city to help them host their Jeremy Elvis Pierce event
• Overall the cities event was a huge success, with a
packed house
• May 2022
• Hosting the city events is always so helpful to see the areas RCTC can grow and what we could potentially
accomplish
o The Board of Directors for RCTC met multiple times this month to discuss our upcoming kids camp, solidify our season shows for next year, and to talk about bringing in potential board members. • Along with that we discussed ways to bring in more
people as well as a potential for sponsorships from local and surrounding city businesses.
o RCTC was lucky enough to receive a sponsorship from Hobbs Grove for our production of The Addams Family
o RCTC hosted a Parent Meeting for our upcoming kids camp, bringing in 13 kids in total, we were able to offer 3 of those children full scholarship into camp
• The camp kids are from reedley and surrounding areas, with varying backgrounds, about half of the camp kids
are returners from last year and half are newcomers
• We are excited about the camp and hope we can keep it going and bring in even more children to the arts
o Finishing off our May month RCTC held our first fundraising event of the year a production titled Ladies of River City that highlighted all of the women that have been a huge part of the company, the production was directed by first time director Lana Lusk
• The production was a huge success, a sold out show, with many vendors, patrons, and cast being from out of town
and local
• June 2022
o Camp River City began for kids ages 7-17 on June 13th, they began working in various workshops to better their skills and teach them theater etiquette and stage directions etc.
• They will be performing their own production The
Addams Family Jr. July 28th-31st.
o RCTC hosted a good morning Reedley event on the 3rd Thursday of the month that was also a big success and exciting for our General Manager Marquee Laita to get her name out there and boost the company
7:36AM
07/i212.2
~hl3Mls·
· Reedl~y:•s River City Theatre c~~pany ·
·Balance Sheet" ·
ASSETS .
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
· Box Office TIii
CM eking RCTC
RCTC Savings
· Total Chocklng/S:ivll"\gs
rotal current Assets
Fixed AsMts
· ~umlture, fll<turos, & equip
Total Flxoo Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILl'TIES & EQUllV
LlablllUes
current Llabllltles
Other Current Ll:ibllltles
Sales Tax Payable
As of June 30, 2~22
Toti31 Other Current LlablllUos
Total Cumnt UabllltlM
Total Liabilities
Equity
RatalMd Earnln99
Rotalned Eamlng!l Adjustments
Notlncomo
Total Equlty
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
- ,..- -
_JUl"\30_,·:2_2·.
--45.00 .. a.is.ea ·:. · 26.-11:2.22
21,:214.oe ·
· "4 ,167.60
. 4,167.60
31,381.68
-8,886.83 .
-8,886.83
.a,eaa.e3
-8,886.83
74,63MB
16,380.73
~50,748.30
40,268.51
31,381.68
. - . ~ - - - - - - ... - -
.. ..
. . 7:33 At!' : . \· .· . . .
.. :•. ·07112122 · . :-.·.· · ..
; - Ctih Sasla . . ·.
! ,·
l'
i
f .
I
\
j
!
l
\
(
!
I
I
I
I
j
l
:-. . ' . -.. ·. -~ . .. . . . . . . •, . ·. . . . . .. . · ·. _ R~dlet~ 1Rlver;Clty The~tre Compa~y .. . -·. ·Profit_.&· Loss· · · · .. _ April.through Ju~o 2022 . .
. Ordinary ·1ncGM~nn . lttcaml . :. . . . . Mid! ca.n1, . . - · . ·. Praduet!M lncon..• . ears.tu .. ' . : . Pffld~on s·poMol' .
· ·. Ttdi.t SalH
T~I P.roduetlon lncam~
Tot:altncDm•_
-t3~Prottt
Eliponn·
Advffl)llnQ
Bank Sar &CC chlygu Focdmavera~ · B;r
~rtl
F~vt?aQ9 - Otntr
Total Foottm.vt~i,.
• -Insurance
Llabllltylnsutance
Woritman'a Comp Insur.inc•
Tobit lnturanc.
"Offlc.
.EqutplMnt
~its
.total Offlc.
"Pl.yri)tl~
Salarit1 Exp.MM
W1gu Expense
. Total Payroll E>tptnna_
Production ExpenMs
COltumM
Mu.le
Prol)I
Royalitlea
Sm
ShowAN
Production EltPtMU" 0tMr
totai Production~
Rtnt~
R.tpalrs and Matnttna~
OiSJ)()Ul .
Total R~lra and Malnltnlnca
\. .
L ______ _
799.,49
. . 6,000.~0
6)348;97 .
815.32
851.95
'813.60
1500.00
-830.00
210.20
2,080.87
158:30.
. 637.00
· 785.30
· 108.16
- 218.88
5,822.75
1,474.27
326.84
7,297.02
583.69
600;00
1,296,18 .
840.00·
728.66
2,4Q1.61
272.48
8,812.82
3,'IG0.00
7:33AM
07/i2!22
cash~sls
Reedley•s River City Theatre Company
Profit & Loss
April through June _2~22
laxes,Llcenses,Foos
CA Sales Tax
Taxes,Llcense!SiFeM - Other
'Total 'faxes,Llcenses,Fees
Telephone
Tot.al Expenso
Not Ordinary Income
Other Income/Expense
Other Income
Contributions
Fundralser
Hat Fundralser
Total Fundralser
Contributions - Other
Total Contributions
Grants
Total Other Income
Net Other Income
Net Income
Apr-Jun 22
1,874.50
4.00 362.45
366.45
766.34
23,272.18
-11,526.72
1,874.50
405.00
2,279.50
300.00
2,579.50
2,579.50
-8,947.22
Page2
~,z.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Thursday, January 27, 2022
A regular meeting of the Community Services Commission was called to order at 4:32 p.m. by Stephen Penner, Chairperson in the Redwood Room at the Reedley Community Center, 100 N. East Ave, Reedley, California 93654.
1. ROLL CALL AND INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS
A. Commissioners Present: Stephen Penner, Chairperson; Darren Minami, Vice Chairperson; Shirley Ito; Angelina Rodriguez (arrived at 4:47pm); Maria Rodriguez.
B. Commissioners Absent: John DeFore; Maria Hernandez.
C. Youth Representatives: Present- Roman Ramos Absent- Emily Medina Delgado(excused)
D. Staff Present: Sarah Reid, Community Services Director; Elizabeth Amaya, Office Assistant; Madison Mitchell, Recreation Supervisor.
E. Others Present: None.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner S. Ito, seconded by Commissioner Minami that the minutes of September 23, 2021, and November 16, 2021, be approved with one minor change fixing the spelling of Darleen Toews name in the November minutes. The motion carried.
3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - None.
4. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
Reid informed Commissioners that a few of their terms were expiring soon and encouraged them that if they would like to reapply to serve on the commission to fill out the application and turn it into Community Services staff or the City clerk.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Recommendation of Community Recreation Grants - Commissioner Penner excused himself from this item as he is the chair for the Parks and Recreation Foundation, who applied for a Community Recreation Grant.
This item was discussed at the November 16, 2021 meeting with no consensus met. Reid mentions to Commissioners that the Commission is not held to distributing grants to just 6 recipients, the Commission is able to split the funds any way they see fit. There were 7 applications turned in on time with 1 late application that Commission is not recommending to receive a grant because it was late. Commissioner A. Rodriguez voiced concerns about Reedley High Band Boosters donating money to other programs. Commissioner Minami mentioned that he is reviewing applications and thinking about which programs have a tougher time at fundraising funds. Commissioner Minami mentions that Band Boosters does multiple fundraisers compared to smaller programs to get funds through fundraisers. Commissioner Minami believes that if the Commission recommends that 6 groups get funds that they would look at
MINUTES
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Thursday, January 27, 2022
the ones that would need more assistance with funds. Commissioner Ito liked the idea of all 7 applications receive $300 instead of 6 applications receiving $350 grants, so that all groups would receive some funds. It was recommended by Commissioner Ito to split the 6 - $350 grant funds into 7 - $300 and seconded by Commissioner M. Rodriguez, 3 ayes and 1 no.
Motion Carried.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Clean California Local Grant Program - A new grant through CalTrans is available because of a surplus related to COVID funding. Applications are due February 1st. The goal of this project is to beautify public spaces and agencies may apply for up to $5 million dollars. This grant has a matrix to calculate what a financial match would be, and the City qualifies for a $0 match. The grant required public input and 43 responses came in from the public survey. The project is for Cricket Hollow and Reedley Beach. Both spaces are busy during the peak season from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend. Ideas for these spaces have been discussed for years to make them more user friendly and clean up the area. Cricket Hollow would see improvements in the parking lot, a restroom demo and relocation, additional lane for park entrance removing eucalyptus trees, and rehabilitating the Police Department K-9 area.
Reedley Beach would see improvements for the parking lot, rehabilitation of the existing restroom, and removing eucalyptus trees. The City is requesting $3.7 million to cover the costs of these improvements.
Commissioner M. Rodriguez asked if there was a thought of including picnic tables into the grant application.
B. Sierra Kings Health Care District Mini Grant - Madison Mitchell discussed with commissioners that the City will be reapplying for the Sierra Kings Health Care District Mini Grant. This grant will be used to offer free swimming lessons to qualifying families in Reedley. In the Summer of 2021, the grant served 128 youth participants but is able to accommodate 140 students. Water safety is crucial point with the Kings River flowing through the City. This year's grant will focus on staff time, facility use, and recognition of students. Grant is due February 16. It was recommended by Commissioner M. Rodriguez that the City reapply for the Sierra Kings Health Care District Mini Grant, seconded by Commissioner Ito. Motion carried.
C. Recreation Trails Program - Based on the Master Plan for the Reedley Sports Park, the phase that is discussed is Traver Creek Corridor. Within the phase, there was a $2 million creek restoration. After City staff looked into the location, there was not much the City could restore since part of the restoration was not City property. It was determined that staff could continue the fence all through the Sports Park to Dinuba Ave, and to add similar asphalt for a designated walking trail. This is a competitive grant that will take care of the fencing , asphalt, and lighting. Staff can apply for
MINUTES
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Thursday, January 27, 2022
the grant for up to $2 million dollars. Staff is using survey results from a previous survey to use as public input for this grant application.
Application is due March 1st . It was recommended by Commissioner A.
Rodriguez and seconded by Commissioner M. Rodriguez to move forward with the application process. Motion Carried.
7. YOUTH REPRESENTATIVES' REPORTS
A. Emily Medina Delgado - Emily is continuing her Tumbling Classes with the City and will be moving class to Monday & Wednesdays.
8. Roman Ramos - Roman was contacted by the College of Future Medical Leaders to participate in a program where students will be able to watch a live surgery be performed and ask questions. Roman mentioned that at his church he was recognized to be a alter server; has participated with church since 5th grade. Swim season is approaching and they will be having a new coach. During the holiday season, Roman participated in the St. Anthony's Food Center distribution and had a good turnout.
8. STAFF REPORTS
A. Sarah Reid, Community Services Director - Reid mentioned that the City received an Active Transportation Planning Grant that will include planning the parkway to the north end of town. Staff is getting ready for all the spring sports; Youth Baseball and Adult Basketball. Jodi is keeping the seniors busy.
Staff sees that the seniors love participating in events/programs that involve food. Staff anticipates the lunch program to return July 1st. Seniors that are participating in the Home Delivered Meal Program will continue to receive those meals. With the FMAAA lunch program, there are many regulations because of COVID, and staff is waiting to move forward until restrictions loosen. Reid also mentioned that staff is starting to look at next fiscal year's budget and will soon bring that to commission. The Community Center Kitchen is undergoing a remodel which will open up the kitchen for cooking classes in the future. Reid mentions that Amaya now holds a full-time position with Administrative Services for the City; Alexis has taken the position of office assistant. Reid mentioned that she will be out of the office from February 8th- 15th , Madison Mitchell will be in charge if anything comes up in her absence.
B. Madison Mitchell, Recreation Supervisor - Mitchell reports that there will be a paint night for an ages and a parent's night out in the month of February.
Some classes that are open and happening: Tumbling, Beginning Ballet, and Beginning Jazz/Ballet. Family dance was canceled due to low tickets sales and staff will be reevaluating to see if staff will continue to put together the Family Dance in the future. Mitchell mentioned that families stated it is because of COVID, they refrained from purchasing tickets to the dance.
Babysitting Classes will take place in February and April for 11 - 16-year-old participants. Fee is $45 for 3 - 2-hour classes.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Thursday, January 27, 2022
9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
A. Commissioner M. Rodriguez - Participated and enjoyed in events during the holiday season like the Christmas Tree, participated in a 5K run. Wants to continue to participate in community events and encourage her family to participate as well.
8. Commissioner A. Rodriguez - Noticed that she has not been participating in many community events due to COVID. Mentioned that she noticed that the shade sails at Citizens Park were not quite finished, but were eventually put up. Mentions she has been walking.
C. Commissioner Ito - Ito commend Jodi for doing everything for the seniors and the program. She admires that Jodi is providing opportunities for seniors to gather together and interact with each other. Mentioned that the senior Pizza & Bingo event was a full house for the month of February. Ito instructed Water Aerobics for the month of January and has positive comments towards the lifeguard. Mentions to Commission that Hobby Time is coming back to the Senior Center
D. Commissioner Minami - Minami had Reedley High School updates. Currently serving as the Athletic Director and as the Varsity Girls Basketball Coach.
Construction for the Softball fields for JV and Varsity field should be completed sometime in March. Parking lot in for the baseball field and aquatics complex will be done soon. AG will be getting new fencing as well.
Baseball season will be starting soon as well. New soccer field is being used and appreciated. VROP Culinary Arts class got a remodel of their kitchen.
E. Commissioner Penner - Penner mentioned that he was out of town in Oregon for a month and is happy to be back.
10. ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:41p.m.
• •
REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - July 07, 2022 The regular meeting of the Reedley Planning Commission was held Thursday, July 07, 2022, in the City of Reedley Council Chambers, 845 "G" Street, Reedley. Chair Custodio called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance - led by Commissioner Perez.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Jayne Clark, Pete Perez, Patrick Turner, Alberto Custodio.
Commissioners Excused: Rosemary Luzania.
City Staff Present: Rodney Horton, Community Development Director, Ellen Moore, City Planner, Marlen Lazaro, Community Development Technician, Joe Garza, Chief of Police.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Custodio opened the public comment period at 5:02 p.m. and closed the public comment period at 5:03 p.m. after noting there was no public comment.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Regular Meeting, May 19, 2022 - Recommend Commission Approve Commissioner Clark moved, Commissioner Turner seconded, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting, May 19, 2022, as amended. Motion carried by the following vote:
A YES: Clark, Turner, Perez, Custodio.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Luzania.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Consideration of Environmental Assessment No. 2022-8, Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-4 Through Resolution No. 2022-07. staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
a) APPROVE Environmental Assessment No. 2022-8, a Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 (Class 32/lnfill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. b) APPROVE Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-4, authorizing the establishment of a cocktail lounge and a banquet facility for smaller parties located at 1105 G Street, and authorizing the request to apply for a Type 48 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License, which would allow for the sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits on the premises of a proposed cocktail lounge and a proposed banquet facility located at 1105 G Street (APN 368-202-01 ).
City Planner E. Moore presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission asked questions of staff. City Staff responded to questions. Heather Ground, The Applicant and partner of Hidden Hollow, responded to questions and made comments about the project. Joe Garza, City of Reedley Chief of Police, answered questions on the issue of public safety. Chair Custodio opened the public comment period at 5:42 p.m. Maria Orozco, property owner of 1040 G Street, expressed her concerns and spoke in opposition to the project. Melissa Lopez, resident in the City of Reedley, spoke in support of the project. Wendy Martinez, Owner of Hotel Burgess, 1726 11 th Street, spoke in support of the project. Chair Custodio closed the public comment period at 5:51 p.m.
Commissioner Perez moved, Commissioner Turner seconded, whereas the Planning Commission, using their independent judgement, Approved Environmental Assessment No. 2022-8, and Conditional Use Permit Application No. 2022-4 Through Resolution No. 2022-07. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Perez, Turner, Clark, Custodio.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
• •
REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - July 07, 2022 ABSENT: Luzania.
WORKSHOP
3. Introduction of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Staff and Presentation Director R. Horton introduced Brian Spaunhurst, Executive Officer for LAFCo. Amanda Castro, LAFCo Analyst, provided a workshop presentation. Brian Spaunhurst made additional comments about the workshop. City Planner E. Moore responded to questions of staff.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director R. Horton provided an update on community development activity.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• July 21 , 2022 -Annexation, Pre-Zone, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Subdivision Map • August 4, 2022 - None at this time
• August 18, 2022 - None at this time
• September 1, 2022 - WTSM Map Renewal
• Tuesday, September 13, 2022 - Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop: Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (MJHE) Study Session & Reedley Zoning Code Update (RZCU) • September 15, 2022 - None at this time
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Custodio adjourned the meeting at 6: 18 p.m.
(
2 Alberto Custodio, Chair
Reedley Planning Commission
CONSIDERATION OF
ANNEXATION APPLICATION NO. 2020-01
PRE-ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2020-01,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO.
2022-05, VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP NO. 6408, AND RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2020-15
City Council Presentation
Regular Meeting – August 9, 2022
PROJECT LOCATION
Western Sector of City of
Reedley
South side of East Manning
Avenue
58 gross acres
Agricultural and fallow land,
Kings River
Subject Properties
REEDLEY
GENERAL PLAN Outside of Reedley
City Limits
Inside of Reedley’s
Adopted Sphere of
Influence
City Limits
Boundary
ANNEXATION
APPLICATION NO. 2020-01
Annexation into the City
of Reedley
Detachment from County
of Fresno Fire Protection
District, Kings River
Conservation District, and
2 parcels from the
Consolidated Irrigation
District
STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION
Does not conflict with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act
Discourage urban sprawl
Encourage orderly governmental boundaries
Preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands
Consistent with Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the County of Fresno and the City
of Reedley
25% Imminent Development
PRE-ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2020-01
Pre-zoning required for
proposed annexation area
Consistent with the Reedley
General Plan
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 2022-05
13-acre master
plan development
10 commercial
buildings
56,773 square feet
total
542 parking spaces
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2022-05
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2022-05
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2022-05
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2022-05
Request for 66 ft
easement from
western property line
General Plan
Policy: 200 ft
buffer between
Kings River
Corridor and
development
VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 6408
Subdivision of land
to match
development of
CUP 2022-05
Consistent with
Reedley Municipal
Code and
Subdivision Map Act
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CUP 2022-05 AND
VTSM 6408
New construction within the project shall be
reviewed for substantial conformance
By-right uses would go through Site Plan Review
Process (public noticing not required)
Conditional uses would go through Conditional
Use Permit Process (public noticing required)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2020-15
An Appendix G Checklist from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines was prepared
The project was determined to be a subsequent project that was not fully within the scope of the certified Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Reedley 2030 General Plan
The City of Reedley, as the Lead Agency, proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2020-15
Notice of Intent to adopt a finding of a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately filed and noticed on June 2, 2022.
Any comments on the MND were due by 5 p.m. on July 5, 2022 Staff received comment letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Comment letters do not change the impacts assessed in EA 2020-15
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Public Hearing Notice for Planning Commission Meeting
published in MVT on July 7, 2022 and mailed to surrounding property owners on July 8, 2022
No comments from the public were made during public
hearing
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
adoption of EA 2020-15, approvals of Annexation Application No. 2020-01, Ordinance 2022-004, CUP 2022-05, and VTSM 6408, and authorization of submittal of LAFCo application
PUBLIC NOTICING
Public Noticing required at least 10 days prior
to public hearing
Notice of Public Hearing published in the MidValley Times on July 28, 2022 Notice of Public Hearing mailed to property
owners on July 28, 2022
RECOMMENDATION
a) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-075, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2020-15, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DATED JUNE 2, 2022, AND
APPROVING ANNEXATION APPLICATION NO. 2020-01, PREZONE APPLICATION NO. 2020-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2022-05, AND VESTING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 6408
RECOMMENDATION
b) INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2022-004, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REEDLEY APPROVING PRE-ZONE APPLICATION NO. 2020-01
AND AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY
c) ADOPT 2022-076, A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE
CITY OF REEDLEY REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
MANNING AVENUE REORGANIZATION