Agenda packet — Reedley City Council, March 12, 2024

ALL CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE

TURNED OFF IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024
Meeting Held in the Council Chambers
845 "G" Street, Reedley, California
www.reedley.ca.gov
The Council Chambers are accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, including auxiliary aids or to request translation services, should be made 48 hours prior to the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at 637-4200 ext. 212.

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

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

The meeting will be held in person and may be observed remotely via Zoom or at:
http://www.reedley.com/livestream.php.

Public comment may be made in person or submitted in writing. Members of the public who wish to provide written comments are encouraged to submit their comments to the City Clerk at [email protected] by the close of business one day 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.

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
Matthew Tuttle, Mayor Pro Tern
Mary Fast, Council Member

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Suzanne Byers, Council Member
Scott Friesen, Council Member
INVOCATION- Rev. Denny Joseph, St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

AGENDA APPROVAL - ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS

PRESENTATION

1. PRESENTATION FROM HEATHER IWAMURO, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

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

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

CONSENT AGENDA (Item 2-7)

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 2024 - (City Clerk)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

3. RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION OF CLAIM-ERNESTO A. CARRILLO (Administrative Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve Claim Rejection

4. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-017 AMENDING THE 2023-24 ADOPTED BUDGET APPROPRIATING $5,843 IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX FUNDS (PSST), FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW POLICE DISPATCH COMPUTER WORK STATIONS-(Police Department)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

5. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO FUND THE 2024 SUMMER EXPANDED LEARNING PROGRAMS AND SWIM PROGRAMS:

A. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH KINGS CANYON UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT (KCUSD) TO PROVIDE 2024 SUMMER PROGRAMS

AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AND T L REED SCHOOL SITES

INCLUDING TEN DAYS OF RECREATION SWIM FOR SUMMER
PROGRAMS FOR A COMBINED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $220,622
2 B. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-018 AMENDING THE 2023-24 ADOPTED BUDGET APPROPRIATING $222,523 IN THE GENERAL FUND TO

PROVIDE SUMMER PROGRAMS AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AND T
L REED SCHOOL SITES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024
C. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH KINGS CANYON UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT (KCUSD) TO PROVIDE HIGH SCHOOL INTERNSHIPS FOR THE 2024 SUMMER PROGRAMS AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY
AND TL REED SCHOOL SITES NOT TO EXCEED $30,568
- (Community Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

REEDLEY AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM -(Community Development)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

7. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020 ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 RATES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT 2005-01, INCREASING RATES FROM

CURRENT LEVELS BY CPI, AND SETTING DEPARTMENT ALLOCATIONS- (Administrative Services)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

8. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-021 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REEDLEY

MOVES ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKWAY MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY-Report, discussion and/or other Council action to approve, modify, and/or take other action as appropriate. - (Engineering)
Staff Recommendation: Approve

COUNCIL REPORTS

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

STAFF REPORTS

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

ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing revised agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 7th day of March 2024. uttarPf ~ RuthfeGreenwood, City Clerk
3 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING -February 27, 2024
A complete audio record of the minutes is available at www.reedlev.ca.gov The meeting of Reedley City Council called to order by Mayor Betancourt at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 845 "G" Street, Reedley, California.

INVOCATION - Nicole Zieba

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

ROLL CALL
Council Members

Present:

Absent:

Suzanne Byers, Mary Fast, Scott Friesen, Matthew Tuttle and Anita Betancourt None.

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

Motion unanimously carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

CONSENT AGENDA (Item 1-4)
Council Member Tuttle moved, Council Member Friesen seconded to accept, approve and adopt all items listed under the CONSENT AGENDA.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2024 -Approved

2. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRESNO CITY COLLEGE -Approved

3. APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE-YEAR SUBSCRIPTION

AGREEMENT WITH LEXIPOL FOR THE CORDI CO SHIELD LAW ENFORCEMENT WELLNESS APP - Approved

4. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-016, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

REEDLEY APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF SPECIFIED CITY RECORDS AS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A - Approved

WORKSHOP

5. REEDLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UPDATE
Erik Valencia President and CEO of the Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce provided an update on events and plans for the future.

6. PRESENTATION AND INFORMATION PERTAINING TO STRATEGIC CAPITAL PLANNING Assistant City Manager, Paul Melikian discussed the item which included fiscal success, sustainability and planning for future needs. Mr. Melikian discussed short term planning and long term forecasting for the City. At the conclusion of the presentation City Manager, Nicole Zieba answered questions that were asked by Council. 1 REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING -February 27, 2024

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

7. REEDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2023

COUNCIL REPORTS

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

Council Member Friesen:
• Shared about the annual police department flag lowering ceremony he attended Council Member Fast
• Discussed the annual flag lowering ceremony and thanked the department • Attended the Chamber of Commerce awards dinner
• Mentioned she assisted with a tour of city facilities that the Reedley 4H children participated in • Shared about the Senior breakfast she attended at the Community Center Council Member Byers
• Also discussed the flag lowering ceremony she attended • Attended the Southeast Regional Solid Waste Commission meeting and provided a briefreport Council Member Tuttle:
• Shared about an event in Tulare County he attended
• Mentioned the Chamber A wards dinner he attended
Mayor Betancourt:
• Attended the flag lowering ceremony
• Mentioned the Chamber A wards dinner she attended

STAFF REPORTS

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

City Manager Nicole Zieba:
• Thanked Sierra Kings Healthcare District for their contribution to health and wellness in the community • Discussed the upcoming council meeting schedule
City Engineer Marilu Morales:
• Provided an update regarding the Olson bridge closure

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Betancourt adjourned the regular meeting at 8:26 p.m.

Mayor Anita Betancourt
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
2 DATE: March 12, 2024

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
1:8] Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: 3 ----
TITLE: RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION OF CLAIM - ERNESTO A. CARRILLO SUBMITTED: Amar Bains, Accountant
REVIEWED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manager
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba. City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council reject the claim received from Ernesto Alonzo Carrillo on February 07, 2024. The claim was referred to Acclamation Insurance Management Services (AIMS) for investigation and recommendation to the City.

BACKGROUND
According to the Claim Form filed by the Law Office of Sanjay S. Schmidt on behalf of Ernesto Alonzo Carrillo, hereinafter referred to as "Claimant", on August 19, 2023, at approximately 9:49 pm, officers from the City of Reedley's Police Department came in contact with the Claimant and used force on him inflicting great bodily injuries. Claimant's attorney also alleges that City employees, who were in a position to stop the force, failed to intervene and stop the force and through their inaction and/or indifference allowed others to inflict serious injuries onto the Claimant. The claim further alleges that the wrongful conduct was done under color of the law, within the course and scope of their employment, and failed to properly and adequately train, supervise, monitor, instruct, investigate, and discipline their employees involved in this incident.

Based upon their investigation (review of the police report) AIMS found no evidence of negligence and/or liability on the part of the City of Reedley. The officers were attempting to apprehend Claimant for an active felony warrant. He did not comply with the officers' commands and they used appropriate force in the arrest.

AIMS has therefore recommended that the claim be rejected.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 912.4, the City Council must act upon a claim within 45 days after receipt. If there is no official action by Council, the claim is deemed to be rejected on the last day. Denial by minute order action provides a clearly defined rejection date and allows AIMS to begin their investigation and take appropriate action to resolve the claim in a timely manner.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Claim
TEL ( 415) 563 8SiH
FAX !415\ 22 .3 9 71 7
SSANJAY S. SCHM1DT
lH8 SUTTER STREET. SUlTE 810
SAN FRANC I SC O . CA 94109
February 6, 2024
S S @SAN JAYS C HM l D T LAW. CO M
RE: GOVERNMENT CODI{§ 910 CLAIM OF ERNESTO A. CARRILLO
(Gov. Code, § 910 ct seq.);
SUPPL.El\1ENT AL DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
VIA PRIORITY U.S. it/AIL (Signature Required) and EJ1AIL (courtesy copJ~ Ruthie Greemvood
City Clerk/Executive Assistant to City Manager for the City of Reedley Reedley City Flail
1 71 7 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654
T: (559) 637-4200, ext. 212
E: [email protected]
To Whom It May Concern:

Notice is hereby given of a Government Code § 910 claim by Ernesto Carrillo, 1588 North Hope Avenue~ Reedley~ CA 93654, against the CITY OF REEDLEY~ concerning an incident that occuned on or about August 19, 2023, which involved the use of force on Mr. Canillo that inflicted great bodily injuries.

Address for Notices:

Notices pe1iaining to this claim are to be sent to the Law Office of San_jay S.

Schmidt, 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810, San Francisco, CA 94109.

Date, Place, and other Circumstances Giving Rise to the Claim:

On or about August 19, 2023, CITY OF REEDLEY ("CITT') Police Department CRPD") officers, including, but not limited to, Reedley Police Department Officer came into contact with Ernesto A. Carrillo and used force on him, inflicting great bodily injuries. As a result of excessive and/or inappropriate force used on Mr. Carrillo, he suffered grievous, life-threatening injuries, including, but not limited to: a multifocal intracranial hemorrhage, multiple skull and facial fractures, and a T6 compression fracture. These grievous injuries required emergency procedures, including, but not limited to, a left side craniectomy for evacuation of the epidural hcmatoma) placement of an external ventricular drain, and a closed reduction of the nasal bone fractures by oral and maxillofacial surgery , among other procedures and treatment. This Government Code § 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo incident will be referred to hereafter as "the incident," -~ this incident," or any variation thereof. As a result of the great bodily injuries that were inflicted, Mr. Carrillo suffered various~ serious physical injuries and other harms and losses, both economic and noneconomic, that are ongoing and accruing.

The CITY employees that were directly involved in the use(s) of force, as well as those who were in a position to stop the force, but failed to intervene to stop it, who are, thus liable as integral participants, directly inflicted, or through their inaction and/or indifference al lowed others to inflict, serious injuries on Claimant.

Other Reedley Police Department employees that either used force , failed to intervene~ or otherwise integrally participated include, but may not be limited to:

The CITY employees that either used excessive force or integraily participated in the use of excessive force against Claimant caused great pain and suffering to Claimant. In addition, other employees as well as supervisors employed by the CI'fY's Police Department, whose identities are presently unknown to Claimant, were integral participants, failed to properly supervise, failed to intervene, or may have acted in concert with others and/or attempted to cover up illegal and/or unconstitutional conduct.

The wrnngful conduct of the involved law enforcement officers /public employees, as ,vell as that of their superiors (''Respondents'} proximately caused Claimanfs damages, as described below. The actions and omissions of Respondents were unlawful, done under color of la,.\-', within the course and scope of their employment with the CITY, and pursuant to unconstitutional customs, policies and procedures of the CITY OF REEDLEY / the REEDLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Respondents, including potentially . may also be liable for Claimant's injuries through their own acts and omissions, negligent and othenvise, by failing to properly and adequately train, supenrise, monitor~ instruct, investigate, and discipline their employees and agents that were involved in this incident.

This claim ·- and the actions and omissions of various employees of the CITY OF REEDLEY- could grve rise to causes of action w1der the following principles/legal theories:

1. The "Bane Act" - Civil Code Section 52.1 (b), including, but not limited to~ constitutional violations based on the following violations or rights:

1. Unlawful Seizure;

2. Exces·sive force;

3. False Imprisonment;

4. Violations of Article 1, § l 3 of the California
Constitution;

5. Various other violations ofhis rights under the California and U.S. Constitution; and,

6. Violations of his rights under Civil Code section 43.

11. Assault and Battery;
111. False Imprisonment and False Arrest;
1v. Negligence;
v. Negligent Hiring/Supervision;
Government Code § 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re : Ernesto A. Carrillo 2 vi. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
v11. Violations of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to Article 1, § 13;
v111. Civil Code §§ 43, 52 et seq.~ and,
1x. Any and all other causes of action reasonably inferable from the facts and circumstances of the case, the age or condition of the Claimant~ or any other facts, as reflected in the documents and records on file at present or from facts not yet krnmm.

General Description of Damages:

A general description of the damages, as far as they are known at the time this claim is being presented, includes 1 but is not limited to, the follO\ving:
a. Economic damages;
b. Medical special damages (past and future)~
c. Lost v.,1ages;
d. Loss of earning capacity;
e. Loss of household services;
f. Deprivation of constitutional rights;
g. Loss of liberty:
h. Pain and suffering;

1. Emotional distress and aJI related general damages;
J. All recoverable economic and non-economic damages; and, k. Exemplary, punitive, and statutory damages.

Claimant suffered fear, anxiety) pain and suffering, emotional distress, and economic and noneconomic damages. Claimant seeks all damages, costs, fees, and penalties allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § l 021.5; Civil Code §§ 52.1; 42 U .S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; and as otherwise allowed by law. Claimanf s damages include all recoverable special and general damages, deprivation of state and federal constitutional rights, exemplary damages, and statutory damages.

Claimant's damages are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court for the State of California (non-limited civil case).

Names of Public Emplo-yees, If Known:

At the tirne this claim is being presented, the names of the CITY OF REEDLEY employees whose tortious and constitutionally violative conduct directly gave rise to this claim are not knc)\vn.
1 1 The City of Reedley will be presumed to be on constructive notice of this claim as it relates to any employees not expressly listed herein, since the City has direct access and control to the relevant documentation concerning the incident underlying this claim. The City, thus~ already has constructive and actual knO\vledge of the identities of the responsible and involved employees. Additionally, Claimant, through his counsel, sent a request for various records to the City of Reedley, which records presumably would have Government Code § 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo 3 Furthermore, other agents/employees of the City of Reedley Police Department, including supervisory personnet and possibly other law-enforcement officers from other jurisdictions whose identities are presently tmknm:vn, also may have \-vTOngfully injured Claimants in this incident, or may have failed to intervene or otherwise acted as integral participants, in addition to acting or failing to act in a way that potentially gave rise to su )ervisorial liabilit r.

This Claim Would Not be a Limited Civil Case:

This claim would not be a limited civil case, based on the amount claimed; it exceeds $25,000.00
If you require clarification or supplemental information regarding the foregoing claim information in order to process, file , and othenvise fully consider this Government Code § 910 claim, please provide notification by U.S. Mail or telephone to the address and/or phone number above, at your earliest opportunity. It will be assumed that no additional information is needed, if no such notification is provided. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Very tru]y yours,
LA \V OFFICE OF SANJA Y S. SCHMIDT
Sanjay S. Schmidt
Attorney for Ernesto A. Carrillo
identified some or all of the public employees whose tortious and constitutionally violative conduct gave rise to this claim, but only one document was provided -- and it was not one of the City of Reedley Police Department reports concerning the incident.

Government Code§ 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo 4 SUPPLEMENTAL2 DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Mr. Carrillo hereby AGAIN demands that any and all evidence concerning or relating to the incident that occuned on or about January 9, 2024 referenced above be PRESERVED.

DEMAND IS HEREBY tv1ADE by Mr. Carrillo TO PRESERVE ALL BODY

WORN CAMERA VIDEOS, TASER CAM VIDEO AND AUDIO DATA, TASER DISCHARGE LOGS, OTHER TASER RECORDS~ DOCUMENTS, NOTES, TEXT MESSAGES, EMAILS, VOICE NOTES, or any other Electronically Stored Inform~tion ("ESI") concerning or relating in any way to this incident, as well as any and all other TAPES, RECORDINGS, VIDEOS~ DISPATCH RECORDINGS, AND DOCUMENTS as material evidence to Mr. Canillo's potential claims under federal and state law, including civil rights claims. J1r. Carrillo specifical(v demands that any such evidence be preserved, aml demandY that you notify al/ involved law enforcement officers (including all employees and any former employees of the RPD) and/or other third-parties (if you contend that a thirtl-par(v has custody or control over such e·vidence) involved of their duties (described below) to preserve such evidence.

Please be advised that: lf you or any City of Reedley Police Department employee fails to preserve !!!!.Y evidence, and/or if you fail to notify third parties that you know or reasonably should kno\v has possession of potentially relevant evidence, please be advised that evidence spoliation sanctions will be sought and likely obtained in any future litigation.

We hope and presume that you already have complied with all evidence preservation duties, which are freestanding duties under the law. However, in the event you have not already complied with your evidence preservation duties, you must immediately notify all employees of their duty to preserve ALL evidence, which includes all evidence requested or described explicitly or implicitly in this letter ( or which othenvise exists), and includes text messages~ voice notes, taser cam video and audio data, taser discharge logs, BWC footage, photographs, videos, handwritten notes, emails, and any other evidence whatsoever.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Mr. Carrillo hereby demands that any and all evidence concerning or relating to the incident referenced above be PRESERVED. The ''incident'· refers to the following: On or about August 19, 2023, Reedley Police Department officers came into contact with Ernesto A. Carrillo and used force on him, inflicting great bodily injuries. As a result of the force used on Mr. Carrillo. he suffered grievous, life-threatening injuries, including, but not limited to: a multifocal intracranial hemorrhage, multiple skull and facial fractures, and a T6 compression fracture . These grievous injuries required emergency procedures, including, but not limited to1 a left side 2 A preservation of evidence demand was previously served on the CITY and the REEDLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, via U.S. Mail and e-mail (directly to Chief of Police Jose L. Garza and City of Reedley 1\fanager Nicole R. Zieba), on January 9, 2024.

The contents of that letter are hereby incorporated by reference, as though fully set forth herein.

Government Code § 9 l O Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo 5 craniectomy for evacuation of the epidural hematoma, placement of an external ventricular drain, and a closed reduction of the nasal bone fractures by oral and maxillofacial surgery, among other procedures and treatment
All evidence concerning or relating to this incident must be preserved, including, but not limited to, any and all BODY WORN CAMERA VIDEOS, T ASER CAM

VIDEO AND AUDIO DATA, TASER DISCHARGE LOGS, OTHER TASER RECORDS, DOCU1VlENTS, NOTES, TEXT MESSAGES, EMAILS, VOICE NOTES, or any other Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"), REPORTS, MV ARS, in Car Camera footage, any other video footage from any source, cell phone recordings or photographs, Dispatch Recordings~ other Recordings, Dispatch :Logs, CAD Logs, Pictures, Notes, or other documentation, regardless of the origin of the evidence. "'YOUt "YOURt "yout "your," or any variation thereof means and includes YOUR department') and all its employees and agents.

This letter is intended to preserve Mr. Carrillo's rights and to preserve any evidence that relates in any way to the incident. Please be advised that California law imposes a duty of preservation of relevant or discoverable evidence. See Cedars-Sinai v. Superior Court ( 1998) 18 Cal.4th 1. Under California law you, your employees, and all affiliated organizations must take all reasonable steps to preserve information and evidence pertaining to this incident and arc subject to sanctions for failing to do so . See VVillimns v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215; fVillard v. Caterpillar (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 892.

You arc hereby notified that failure to take the necessary steps to preserve evidence, including video, may result in serious sanctions or penalties.

Please be advised that federal law also imposes a duty of preservation~ \;vhich does not even require that a demand for preservation of evidence first be made. See Silvestri v.

GMC, 271 F .3d 583, 591-592 (4th Cir. 2001 ); King v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 181 F. App'x 3 73 , 378 ( 4th Cir. 2006). This duty to preserve requires a litigant to preserve what it kno\vs, or reasonably should knov~\ will be critical evidence in a pending action or one in the of11ng. See Leon v. JD)/ .s:vstems Corp., 464 F.3d 951 , 958-59 (9th Cir. 2006). 'The common law imposes the obligation to preserve evidence from the moment that litigation is reasonably anticipated.~- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. , 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 20 12) (citing Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 591 and collecting numerous other cases and treatises in fo. 19)). "lJnquestionably ~ there is a duty to preserve evidence that arises before litigation is filed .... [D]istrict courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that where a party should reasonably know that evidence is potentially relevant to anticipated litigation, that part)' is under the obligation to preserve that evidence.'' In re Toyota Motor Cm1J. Unintended Acceleration Afktg., 284 F.R.D. 485, 497 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (emphasis added) (citing numerous cases; omitted).

This Demand to Prescnc Evidence cannot be ignored. Our client may suffer adverse consequences if this Demand to Preserve Evidence is ignored. Destruction of evidence "in anticipation of a discovery request" exposes the destroying party to a wide range of sanctions.

Government Code § 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re : Ernesto A. Carrillo 6 The law imposes a duty to preserve evidence before litigation begins or before a discovery request. This duty requires a litigant to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, will be critical evidence in a pending action or one in the offing. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995); Leon v. JD)( Systems Corp. ~ 464 F.3d 951 , 958 (9th Cir. 2006); i-vm. T Thompson Co. v.

General Nutrition Corp., 593 F.Supp. 1443, 1156 (C.D. Cal. 1984).

Also, if you believe another department, company, agency, individual, or entity has custody, control, or possession of any documents, recordings, or ESl that is explicitly or implicitly referenced above, we hereby demand you notify them of this request and that you take reasonable steps to secure such documents, recordings, or ESL Alternatively, please IMMEDIATELY notify my office of any such department, company, agency, individual, or entity that has custody, control, or possession of any documents, recordings, or ESI that is explicitly or implicitly referenced above. If you do not notify my office~ we will presume that you have taken all necessary steps to notify such individuals or entities of their duties to preserve and also have taken the needed steps to preserve such evidence.

In addition to the standard categories of evidence referenced belmv, demand is hereby specifically made that the follmving evidence concerning the above-referenced incident, or any other such incidents, be preserved, and that the evidence not be disturbed in any fashion:
• All reports, MV ARS or body cam footage, In Car Camera ("dash camera") footage, other video footage, Dispatch Recordings, Dispatch Logs, CAD Logs, Pictures, cell phone videos, and all other documents or records concerning the incident;
• All BODY WORN CAMERA VIDEOS, T ASER CAM VIDEO AND AUDIO DA TA> T ASER DISCHARGE LOGS~ OTHER TASER RECORDS,

DOCUMENTS, NOTES, TEXT MESSAGES, EMAILS, VOICE NOTES
concerning or relating to the incident;
• ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE depicting Mr. Carrillo's at ANY TIME, until he is completely out of view from any camera;
• All video footage from before, during, and after the incident, including any footage received from any other agency or any other facility, irrespective of whether you believe the cameras captured the actual incident, or anything relevant, and irrespective of whether you believe the incident concerns your department or not;
• \\.l ith respect to any digital data or video, this data or video could be stored on a hard drive. Please stop all recording on this hard drive. Please dmvnload all data and video and preserve it. Even if you believe the data or video has been erased, you might be mistaken. Forensic experts arc able to retrieve "'erased'' data. The Government Code § 9 l O Claim to City of Reedley Re : Ernesto A. Carrillo 7 more times the video is recorded over, the more difficult it is to retrieve. Therefore, if a video of the event cannot be viewed, please isolate this hard drive and do not record anything on it We can coordinate an inspection protocol as soon as you wish. Until then~ please keep the evidence in its current state.

Please preserve any photographs, videos, notes, physical evidence, reports~ electronically stored information, or other materials, records, or documents directly or indirectly pertaining to this incident.

Please take notice that we are also hereby demanding that YOU preserve, in their original format, all documents, tangible things, and electronically stored information ("ESr') concerning or in any way relating to the subject incident referenced above. Your obligation to preserve this evidence is an ongoing one.

This Demand for Preservation of Evidence encompasses all record storage systems (both hard-copy and electronic), and both personal and business communication devices, including, but not limited to, cell phones, Personal Data Assistants C'PDAs''), and other devices, as \Vell as public and private email accounts and communication, text messages, and any other mediums of communication or data.

Special steps must be taken to preserve this evidence. You are obligated to make any necessary changes to your retention strategies to preserve all relevant information. Ln this case, we are requesting that you immediately save all digital, analog, and paper evidence, as \Vell as any video images and all other digital or analog files, whether by downloading them, burning them to disc, or employing some other method that is available to you, and we are demanding that you not allow the video from that date to be overwritten in the normal course of business. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212,218 (S.D.N.Y.2003).

All Electronically Stored Information ("ESI'') includes, but is not limited to:
• Digital communications (e.g., e-mail, voice mail, instant messaging, text messages) • Word processed documents (e.g., Word or WordPerfect documents and drafts) • Spreadsheets and tables (e.g., Excel or Lotus 123 worksheets); • Accounting Application Data (e.g., QuickBooks, Money, Peachtree data files):
• Image and Facsimile Files (e.g., .PDF, .TIFF, .JPG, .GIF images); • Sound Recordings (e.g., .WAV and .MP3 files) ~
• Video and Animation (e.g. , .A VI and .MOV files);
• Databases (e.g. , Access, Oracle~ SQL Server data, SAP); • Contact and Relationship Management Data (e.g., Outlook, ACT!)~ • Calendar and Diary Application Data (e.g. ~ Outlook PST, Yahoo, blog tools); • Online Access Data (e.g., Temporary Internet Files, History, Cookies); • Presentations (e.g .. Pl)\VerPoint, Corel Presentations) • Network A.ccess and Server Activity Logs;
• Project Management Application Data;
• Computer Aided Design/Drawing Files; and,
Government Code§ 9 IO Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo 8 • Back Up and Archival Files (e.g., Zip, .tar)
Special steps must be taken to secure and preserve all ESL because of the dynamic nature of ESI. The ESI requested to be preserved is for all custodians, including, but not limited to, the servers of the different depa11ments within your company, as well as their phones, laptops, desktops, hard drives and any other storage media, and any other employees of any other subcontractors not listed that have relevant ESI.

ESI is considered "electronic" if it exists in a medium that can only be read by a computer or other electronic device, including email, web pages, word processing files, audio and video files, images, computer databases, spreadsheets, emails, texts, inter-office communications, intra~office communications, Skype communications, and virtually anything else that is stored on a computing device. Media containing ESI includes, but is not limited to, servers, desktops, laptops, cell phones, hard drives, flash drives, PDAs and rvfP3 players. The media that is used to store this infonnation includes cache memory, magnetic disks (such as computer hard drives or disks), optical disks (such as DVDs or CDs), magnetic tapes and flash memory (such as "thumb" or "flash drives"), Cloud accounts, Dropbox accounts, servers, as well as social media accounts. ESI also includes a file's metadata ( electronically stored information about the characteristics of the data), which can include information about the file's origin or validity.

ESI resides not only in areas of electronic, magnetic, and optical storage media reasonably accessible to you and/or your company, but also in areas you and/or your company may deem not reasonably accessible. You and/or your company are obliged to preserve potentially relevant evidence from both these sources of ESI, even if you and/or your company do not anticipate producing such ESI in any related litigation.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THIS DEMAND COVERS
PRESERVATION OF INFORMATION IN ALL MEDIUMS AND FORMATS; THUS, IF A DOCUMENT EXISTS AS A HARD-PAPER COP\\ BUT ALSO

EXISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, THIS DEMAND REQUIRES
PRESERVATION OF BOTH VERSIONS.

The demand that you preserve both accessible and inaccessible ESI is reasonable and necessary. Pursuant to applicable rules of civil procedure, you must identify all sources of ESI you decline to produce in any related litigation and demonstrate to the court \Vhy such sources are not reasonably accessible. For good cause shown, the court may then order production of the ES I, even if it finds that it is not reasonably accessible. Accordingly, even EST that you deem reasonably inaccessible MUST be preserved in the interim so as not to deprive our client of their right to secure the evidence or the Court of its oppo11unity to adjudicate the issue.

Demand is hereby made to preserve all evidence, physical evidence, equipment, and records related to the ec1uipment involved in the incident, past and present, as well as this INCIDENT and any investigation of this incident, including, but not limited to:

Government Code § 910 Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Carrillo 9 • All "writings";3
• Recordings;
• Taser Records;
• Videos;
• DVDs;
• Dispatch Recordings;
• Dispatch Logs;
• Photographs;
• Physical evidence;
• Incident Reports;
• Installation, Maintenance and/or Repair Records;
• Physical property;
• All investigation records, including emails, text messages, correspondence, printouts;
• All electronically stored information, electronic documents, statements, notes, correspondence, and memoranda;
• ALL RECORDS OF Communications, including, but not limited to:
o Incoming and outgoing telephone calls
o Radio communications
o Texts and/or emails to and/or from any and all employees concerning or in any way relating to the INCIDENT;
o Texts and/or emails to and/or from or to any employees who texted and/or emailed those employees concerning or in any way relating to the INCIDENT; and
• All things related to or concerning in any way the INCIDENT referenced above.
• Any other Photographs and/or video, including. but not limited to:
· o Digital photographs and/or video whether it be on cell phones (official or private) or with officially (or non-officially) or privately issued video or digital cameras;
Often this evidence can be overwTitten if special steps are not taken to preserve it. You arc obligated to make any necessary changes to your retention strategies to preserve all relevant information. In this case, we are requesting that you immediately save the video images and all other digital or analog files, whether by downloading them, or burning them to disc or some other method that is available to you and are demanding that you not allow the video from that date to be overwritten in the normal course of business. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212~ 218 (S.D.N.Y.2003).

Please confirm~ in writing, the existence of any evidence. pertaining to the incident, provide a written description of that evidence, and acknowledge, in \.Vriting, your duty to preserve that evidence. If you fail to acknowledge this request in vvriting and set forth the 3 The term --·writings" used herein is to have the broadest possible definition as set forth in California Evidence Code § 250 and Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Government Code § 9 l O Claim to City of Reedley Re: Ernesto A. Omillo 10 description of evidence that will be preserved, \,ve \A/ill presume any and all evidence described directly or inferentially in the paragraphs above will be preserved in accordance with this letter~ and ,ve will rely on that presumption.

If you have any questions about the recordings, documents or items at issue, please contact attorney Sanjay S. Schmidt (address and telephone number listed above) before destroying any tapes, recordings, documents, evidence, writings> or items that have been requested or that may relate to this incident in any fashion, directly or indirectly.

Please contact our office if you have any questions or require clarification. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
LA \V OFlf[CE OF SAN.JAY S. SCHMIDT
Sanjay S. Schmidt
Attorney-at-Law
Government Code § 910 Clairn to City of Reedley Re : Ernesto A. Carrillo l 1

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned declares:
lam a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of San Francisco. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within above-entitled action; my business address is 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810, San Francisco, CA 94l09.

On the date below, I served:

RE: GOVERNMENT CODE § 910 CLAIM OF ERNESTO A. CARRILLO
(Gov. Code § 910 et seq.);

SUPPLEMENT AL DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
On the parties below by serving a true copy as follows:

Ruthie Greenwood
City Clerk/Executive Assistant to City Manager for the City of Reedley Reedley City Hall
1717 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654
T: (559) 637-4200, ext. 212
E: [email protected]
X REGULAR (CERTIFIED) MAIL - by placing a copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon, fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Francisco, CaJifornia. l am readily familiar with the office's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing~ and pursuant to those practices the envelope would be deposited in the United States Posta] Service the same day. - · _ BY FACSirvffLE - I sent such documents by way of facsimile to the offices of the addressee as set forth beknv . The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was 415- 223-9717.

X BY ELECTRONIC tv'lAIL- l sent such documents by way of electronic mail (e-mail) to the offices of the addressee as set forth below. The ernail address from which they were sent was:
lawfirm<fi)sanjayschmidtlaw .corn
I declared under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration is executed this February 7, 2024, at San Francisco, California.

DATE:

TITLE:

PREPARED:

SUBMITTED:

APPROVED:

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
~ Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: _L\ __
March 12, 2024
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-017 AMENDING THE 2023-24 ADOPTED BUDGET APPROPRIATING $5,843 FROM UNALLOCATED PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX

FUNDS (PSST) FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW POLICE DISPATCH COMPUTER

WORKSTATIONS
Marc A. Ediger, Police Commander ~
Jose L. Garza, Chief of Police ~Jd.--
Nicole R. Zieba · · /
City Manager \r'(

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 2024-017 amending the 2023-24 Adopted Budget appropriating $5,843 in the Public Safety Sales Tax fund for purchase of two (2) new Police Dispatch computer workstations and monitors.

BACKGROUND
The Reedley Police Department currently operates two (2) fully functional primary Dispatch Communications workstations. The operating system on each of these workstations is the Mark43 CAD system, which is operated and maintained through the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Each law enforcement agency in Fresno County (other than Fresno PD and Clovis PD) "piggyback" on this CAD system. As a result of recent software updates and upgrades to the Mark43 system, the computer operating system requirements have increased, which directly correlates to processor speed and RAM speed. In order to maintain an optimum operating speed for Dispatchers and Police Officers working on the CAD system, an upgrade of two (2) computer workstations and monitors is necessary.

FISCAL IMPACT
The attached Budget Amendment Resolution accepts a transfer of $5,843 from unallocated Public Safety Sales Tax Funds and appropriates it in the Public Safety Sales Tax Fund to use toward the purchase of critically needed Police Dispatch computer workstation upgrades.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Budget Amendment Resolution No. 2024-017

Page 1 of 1 ends

BUDGET AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION 2024-017
The City Council of the City of Reedley does hereby amend the 2023-24 Budget as follows:

SECTION I - ADDITIONS
Account Number Account Description Amount
003-4307-6021 PSST Computers & Peripherals $ 5,843
Total $ 5,843
Purpose: Purchase of two (2) critically-needed Police Dispatch workstations/ monitors

SECTION II - SOURCE OF FUNDING
Account Number Account Description Amount
003-2710 PSST Unallocated Fund Balance $ 5,843
Total $ 5,843 .

Impact: Appropration of requested amount from the PSST Unallocated Fund Balance REVIEWED:
~ 3l<n/zi.,
Assistant City Manager
The foregoing resolution was approved by the City Council of the City of Reedley on March 12, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN : APPROVED:

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
DATE:

TITLE:

SUBMITTED:

APPROVED:

RECOMMENDATION
March 12, 2024

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
~ Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: 5 ----
APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO FUND THE 2024 SUMMER
EXPANDED LEARNING PROGRAMS AND SWIM PROGRAMS:

A) APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH KINGS CANYON
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (KCUSD) TO PROVIDE 2024 SUMMER

PROGRAMS AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AND T L REED

SCHOOL SITES INCLUDING TEN DAYS OF RECREATION SWIM FOR

SUMMER PROGRAMS FOR A COMBINED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$220,622
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-018 AMENDING THE 2023-24 ADOPTED BUDGET APPROPRIATING $222,523 IN THE GENERAL FUND TO

PROVIDE SUMMER PROGRAMS AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY
AND T L REED SCHOOL SITES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024

C) APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH KINGS CANYON

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (KCUSD) TO PROVIDE HIGH SCHOOL
INTERNSHIPS FOR THE 2024 SUMMER PROGRAMS AT

WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AND T L REED SCHOOL SITES NOT
TO EXCEED $30,568
Sarah Reid
Community Services Director
Nicole
City Manager
R. Zieba ✓ ~
Approve the following actions to fund the 2024 Summer Expanded Learning Programs and Swim Programs: A) Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) to provide 2024 summer programs at Washington Elementary and T L Reed School sites including ten days of recreation swim for summer programs for a combined amount not to exceed $220,622, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-018 amending the 2023-24 Adopted Budget appropriating $222,523 in the General Fund to provide summer programs at 1 Washington Elementary and T L Reed School sites, and C) Approve and authorize City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) to provide High School Internships for the 2024 summer programs at Washington Elementary and T L Reed School sites not to exceed $30,568.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Reedley provides services for the Expanded Learning programs at T L Reed and Washington Elementary School sites. Summer programs have been offered at Washington Elementary for the past eleven years and at T L Reed School for the past nine years. Services the City of Reedley provides include; hiring, training and supervision of personnel, payroll, budget management, reimbursement billing, coordination with the school principals, and providing a cell phone at each school site. The City of Reedley will also provide one employee at Washington Elementary and two employees at T L Reed School to support KCUSD Summer Learning Program. This additional support staff reports directly to the school administrations and assists with the needs for that day. With the City of Reedley providing these opportunities, it allows the Expanded Learning part time staff to stay employed throughout the summer which supports staff retention.

The City of Reedley will provide ten days in June to host recreation swim for KCUSD summer Expanded Learning Programs (ELP). Through the City of Reedley Aquatics program, one Pool Manager and six Lifeguards will be scheduled to work these dates and provide supervision. The City of Reedley is partnering with KCUSD and Community Youth Ministries (CYM) for these programs. The City of Reedley lifeguards will provide these services during days and times that do not conflict with the City of Reedley Aquatics program.

The High School Internship Program which started this last year, will continue into the summer ELP and end on July 3, 2024. This program provides high school students the opportunity to receive work experience while receiving compensation. The same students who were trained and are already working in the ELP will have the option to stay on for an additional couple week and assist with the summer programs.

It is important for Council to note that item (A) is requesting a total amount to not exceed $220,622 and item (B) is appropriating $222,523. The amounts are different because there are still appropriations from last summer available in the fund. The amounts take into account utilizing available funds from last summer and are requesting the difference. The budget amendment (B) will be closing out the summer accounts and funding will be consolidated into one account per site instead of separating summer program expenses and revenues from the regular school year program expenses and revenues. The additional requested appropriations match the contract with Kings Canyon Unified School District.

FISCAL IMPACT
The attached budget amendment requests $222,523 in appropriations for the General Fund to provide the 2024 Summer Program services for the recreation swim dates, High School Internship Program and the program costs at T L Reed School and Washington Elementary sites through June 30, 2024. The contract revenue will cover direct program costs and includes administrative fees for 14 days of programming during the 2023-24 fiscal year.

The summer programs fall over two different fiscal years. Summer program costs from July 1-19 will be provided in the next fiscal year, and are included in the City's Proposed 2024-25 Budget. 2 ATTACHMENTS

1. Memorandum of Understanding with the Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) to offer Expanded Learning Summer Programs at Washington Elementary and T L Reed School sites

2. Budget Amendment Resolution No. 2024-018

3. Memorandum of Understanding with the Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) to provide Internships for KCUSD high school students within summer ELP 3 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

KINGS CANYON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (KCUSD)
AND

CITY OF REEDLEY

TO OFFER EXPANDED LEARNING SUMMER PROGRAMS AT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY AND

THOMAS LAW (TL) REED SCHOOL
I. TERM
The effective dates of the Agreement are from April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024. The first day of service shall be on or after April 1, 2024.

II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Services will include recreation and enrichment programs (which may include intramural activities, performing arts, cultural topics, arts & crafts, and community service). Services will be provided each day that the Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) Summer Learning Program meets until this agreement expires on June 30, 2024.

City of Reedley will provide Site Coordinators and Recreation Leaders at Washington Elementary and TL Reed School. These employees will oversee the snack distribution, provide supervision, offer enrichment and recreational activities (which may include performing arts, cultural topics, arts & crafts, structured recreation, applied science, and community service) in a safe environment, conducive for the student-participant's personal growth. The student to staff ratio at each site will not exceed 20 students to each Recreation Leader.

City of Reedley will provide administration, recruitment, planning, coordination, professional development, field site supervision, and general implementation for the Expanded Learning Summer Programs at Washington Elementary and TL Reed School.

City of Reedley will provide professional development for each staff member including but not limited to classroom management, lesson planning, implementation, and child development principles. Ongoing evaluation, training and coaching of site staff are also included.

City of Reedley will complete reporting procedures required by KCUSD administration (e.g., attendance tracking, site profiles).

City of Reedley will provide personnel on days when KCUSD's Summer Learning Program is in operation, who will support site admin istration with daily tasks. City staff will take direction

Page 1 of 4 ends

from site administration in providing various activities for students who attend the Summer Learning Program. Services will be provided up to 5.0 hours per day each day the Summer Learning Program is offered. City will provide one (1) staff at Washington Elementary and two (2) staff at T L Reed School.

City of Reedley will provide lifeguards to oversee the Expanded Learning Summer Programs use of the Reedley High School Pool. The City will provide one (1) Pool Manager and six (6) Lifeguards for recreation swim times. Ten (10) days of recreation swim will be available Monday-Friday between the hours of 1:30pm-3pm.

City of Reedley will put in the Request for Facility with KCUSD for use of the Reedley High School Pool.

Ill. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN
The average number of daily students will be approximately 100-150 per site (with changes agreed to by both KCUSD and City of Reedley administration as deemed necessary). The students' participation in this project will increase their academic skills and their opportunities for personal growth. The goal of the projects is that participating students will demonstrate enhanced academic skills, leadership skills, self-concept, personal awareness, improved decision-making skills and self-motivation.

IV. MANNER OF PERFORMANCE
City of Reedley shall perform all services required in a competent and professional manner. All City of Reedley employee will have fingerprint clearance through DOJ and FBI, and have a negative TB test result on file (within four years of contract date). Each City of Reedley employee shall complete the City of Reedley employment application and screening process prior to participation. The City of Reedley After-School Program Director or Designee shall review, evaluate, and determine the acceptance of the Program to be produced under the terms of this agreement, in conjunction with KCUSD personnel or Designee.

V. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
All materials and supplies utilized as part of these programs will be purchased by City of Reedley (as part of the total fees for services).

VI. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE
City of Reedley shall render service(s) described above at the following locations: Washington Elementary, TL Reed School, and the Reedley High School Pool.

Page 2 of 4 ends

VII. COMPENSATION
The maximum to be paid to City of Reedley by KCUSD for all services and materials, including employer costs, provided under the terms of this Agreement shall not exceed $220,622. City of Reedley will invoice KCUSD in advance of services.

VIII. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers, agents, employees and members of its governing board, from and against any and all third party claims, demands, losses, judgments, liabilities, causes of action and expenses, including attorney fees and costs, of any kind or nature they may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of any person, or damage to property, or for any other act(s) arising out of or in any manner related to or connected with the indemnifying party's (including its officers, agents and employees) willful misconduct or negligence in performing, or failing to perform, its duties or obligations under this Memorandum of Understanding.

IX. LIABILITY INSURANCE
Without limiting City of Reedley indemnification, City of Reedley shall secure and maintain during the term of the Agreement, a comprehensive general liability policy using an occurrence policy form with combined single limits of one million dollars, ($1,000,000) with a three million ($3,000,000) aggregate limit. KCUSD shall be named as an additional insured on the policies.

X. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement terminates effective June 30, 2024. Any party may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason upon written 30 days' notice. In the event of early termination, City of Reedley shall be paid for satisfactory work performed to the date of termination.

XI. By entering into this MOU all parties recognize and agree:

A. To work collaboratively as partners to ensure the success of the programs.

B. That this agreement may be modified at any time by written consent.

C. That certain information received in the course of business is confidential according to law and policy and agrees to respect requirements in this regard.

D. That availability of funds may have a bearing on the ability to implement all or parts of this agreement.

E. That City of Reedley and KCUSD shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in the performance of these services.

Page 3 of 4 ends

WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the day and year first written below:

KCUSD:

John Campbell
Superintendent
Date
City of Reedley:

Nicole Zieba
City Manager
Date

Page 4 of 4 ends

BUDGET AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION 2024-018
The City Council of the City of Reedley does hereby amend the 2023-24 Budget as follows:

SECTION I - ADDITIONS
Account Number Account Description Amount
001-4662 .1030 KCUSD Summer TL Salaries - OIT - Close Out Overage $ 1,193 001-4664 .1030 KCUSD Summ Wash Salaries - OIT - Close Out Overage $ 1,431 001-4664 .2020 KCUSD Summ Wash Special Supplys - Close Out Overage $ 2,337 001-4661.2020 KCUSD Washington Special Supplies - Addition $ 49,466 001-4661.1020 KCUSD Washington PT Salaries -Addition $ 53,308 001-4661.1041 KCUSD Washington FICA - Addition $ 4,078
001-4661.1071 KCUSD Washington WC - Addition $ 2,721
001-4663.2020 KCUSD TL Reed Special Supplies - Addition $ 52,937 001-4663.1020 KCUSD TL Reed PT Salaries - Addition $ 48,825 001-4663.1041 KCUSD TL Reed FICA - Addition $ 3,735
001-4663.1071 KCUSD TL Reed WC - Addition $ 2,492
Total $ 222,523
Purpose:The Expanded Learning Program funding is being consolidated to one account per site instead of separating summer program expenses and revenues from the regualr school year programs expe_nses and revenues. The additional requested appropriations match the contract with Kings Canyon Unified School District for June summer program expenses and revenues.

SECTION II - SOURCE OF FUNDING
Account Number Account Description Amount
001-4662 .1020 KCUSD Summer TL Salaries - PIT - Close Out $ 5,200 001 -4662 .1041 KCUSD Summer TL PIT SS & Med - Close Out $ 306 001-4662 .1071 KCUSD Summer TL PIT Work Comp - Close Out $ 155 001-4662 .2020 KCUSD Summer TL Special Supplys - Close Qut $ 28,126 001-4662 .2593 KCUSD Summer TL EAP-Erma-Crime - Close Out $ 5 001-4662 .7015 KCUSD Summer TL HR ISF Transfer - Close Out $ 1,599 001-3855 KCUSD Summer Program TL Reed - Close Out $ 60,208 001-4664 .1020 KCUSD Summ Wash Salaries - P/T - Close Out $ 14,118 001-4664 .1041 KCUSD Summ Wash PIT SS & Med - Close Out $ 1,050 001-4664 .1071 KCUSD Summ Wash PIT Work Comp - Close Out $ 500 001-4664 .2593 KCUSD Summ Wash EAP-Erma-Crime - Close Out $ 4 001-4664 .7015 KCUSD Summ Wash HR ISF Transfer - Close Out $ 2,002 001-3856 KCUSD Summer Program Washingtn - Close Out $ 13,117 001-3824 Washington KCUSD Revenue - New Revenue $ 82,550 001-3838 TL Reed KCUSD Revenue - New Revenue $ 13,583
Total $ 222,523
Impact: Any remaining appropriations in 4662 and 4664 are being transferred to the school year accounts (4461 and 4663) and the summer program accouts are being closed. Contracts with Kings Canyon Unified School District matches the revenue the City will receive for overseeing the summer programs during the month of June.

REVIEWED:
<Zet~3/66[Z'-1
Assistant City Manager City Manager
The foregoing resolution was approved by the City Council of the City of Reedley on March 12, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: APPROVED:

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Memorandum of Understanding

BETWEEN

KINGS CANYON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

AND CITY OF REEDLEY
TO PROVIDE INTERNSHIPS FOR KCUSD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITHIN THE ELPs I. TERM
The effective dates of the Agreement are from June 1- June 30, 2024. The first day of service shall be on or after June 10, 2024.

II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
City of Reedley {CITY) will provide paid internships for approximately fourteen {14) Kings Canyon Unified School District (KCUSD) High School students within the Expanded Learning Program {ELP). These students will have been pre-screened and trained by HS administrators and meet the following requirements:
• Junior or Senior year (Seniors preferred)
• GPA 3.0 or above (preferred)
• 7th Period Elective class (preferred)
• Well-rounded student (e.g., already involved in t he Student Transition Program, Mentoring for Success Program, etc., preferred)
Interns will be placed at K-5 and K-8 schools within the KCUSD and assigned to ELP staff. Interns will be involved in the following activities/tasks:
• Assist with preparation of age appropriate enrichment activities • Assist with lesson planning and evaluations
• Assist with preparation and implement of age-appropriate recreation activities • Provide consistent supervision of children at all times • Assist with maintaining a class environment conducive to student growth and participation by using classroom management techniques
• Affirm/encourage/praise student abilities and value each student • Contribute to a supportive team atmosphere
• Attend and actively participate in team meetings, as assigned • Attend field trips
Interns will be expected to present themselves in a professional manner at all times and have appropriate language, attitude, attire, and content when around children. In addition, they will be expected to follow all CITY, school, and KCUSD policies. Interns will not be permitted to work unsupervised when interacting with children or with middle school students.

Page 1 of 3 ends

CITY will pay the interns at the minimum wage rate for their time worked. Interns will work approximately 30 hours per week, during the summer program.

CITY will provide administration, planning, coordination, professional development, field site supervision, and general implementation for the internship program, in conjunction with administrators from each KCUSD High School that has students in the program.

CITY will provide professional development for each intern including classroom management, restorative justice, lesson planning and implementation, and child development principles. Ongoing evaluation, training and coaching of the interns are also included.

CITY will complete reporting procedures required by KCUSD administration (e.g., attendance tracking, site profiles).

Ill. PURPOSE OF PROGRAM
To provide opportunities for students to participate in "world of work" experiences within the education field. These types of internships help add relevance and make connections from what students are learning in the classroom to the work setting. In addition, these internships will provide a path for qualified interns to acquire an ELP staff position upon graduation, and reduce the onboarding and training time needed when transitioning into a staff role. As such, the Internship Program will benefit both the students and the program provider.

IV. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE
CITY shall render services described above at the following locations: T.L. Reed School and Washington Elementary.

V. COMPENSATION
The maximum to be paid to CITY by KCUSD for all services and materials, including employer costs, provided under the terms of this Agreement shall not exceed $30,568. Interns will be paid at the minimum wage rate for their time worked. For these services, CITY will invoice KCUSD in advance of services provided.

VI. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party shall indemnify, hold harmless and, if requested, defend the other party, its officers, agents, employees and members of its governing board, from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, judgments, liabilities, causes of action and expenses, including attorney fees and costs, of any kind or nature they may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of any person, or damage to property, or for any other act(s) arising out of or in any manner related to or connected with the indemnifying party's (including its officers, agents and employees) willful misconduct and/or negligence in performing and/or failing to perform its duties and/or obligations under this Memorandum of Understanding.

Page 2 of 3 ends

VII. LIABILITY INSURANCE
Without limiting CITY's indemnification, CITY shall secure and maintain during the term of the Agreement, a comprehensive general liability policy using an occurrence policy form with combined single limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) with a three million {$3,000,000) aggregate limit. KCUSD shall be named as an additional insured on the policies.

VIII. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement terminates effective June 30, 2024. Any party may terminate this agreement at any time for any reason upon written 30 days' notice. In the event of early termination, CITY shall be paid for satisfactory work performed to the date of termination.

IX. By entering into this MOU all parties recognize and agree:

A. to work collaboratively as partners to ensure the success of the programs.

B. that this agreement may be modified at any time by written consent.

C. that certain information received in the course of business is confidential according to law and policy and agrees to respect requirements in this regard.

D. that availability of funds may have a bearing on the ability to implement all or parts of this agreement.

E. that CITY and KCUSD shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in the performance of these services.

WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of the day and year first written below:

KCUSD:

John Campbell
Superintendent
Date
CITY:

Nicole R. Zieba
City Manager
Date

Page 3 of 3 ends

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 12, 2024
~ Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: ----
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF REEDLEY AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO

THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER THE HOME INVESTMENT

PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
SUBMITTED: Rodney L. Horton, Director ~ -
Community Development Department
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba
City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Reedley adopt Resolution No. 2024-019, authorizing the City of Reedley to apply to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds not to exceed $5,000,000 to provide project financing to rehabilitate the Reedley Elderly Apartments. The Reedley Elderly Apartments is an existing 23-unit affordable rental community, situated at 172 South East Avenue.

BACKGROUND
Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) has approached the City regarding a partnership to acquire funding to renovate an existing affordable residential community. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development issued a Notice of Funding on January 19, 2024, announcing the availability of funds under the HOME program. The City of Reedley would be the applicant and SHE would take the lead on completing the improvements. The HOME funds would contribute to the rehabilitation of the Reedley Elderly Apartments, a 23-unit affordable rental community, situated at 172 South East Avenue. The Reedley Elderly Apartments provide affordable housing for low-income individuals with a specific targeted focus on seniors whose income is below 50% of area median income. The community consist of all single-bedroom dwelling units. The HOME loan amount would be up to $5,000,000 with an

Page 1 of 3 ends

additional $150,000 to the City of Reedley for administrative costs. The HOME loan offers a loan interest rate of 3% with a term of 55 years from the date of the recordation of the Notice of Completion for the project. Lastly, there is no liability to the City as the applicant, and no funding commitment on the part of the City.

Below is a summary of the proposed improvements to the site:

Exterior/Grau nds
• Repair all concrete walkways, ramps, and patios
• New ADA/City Compliant trash enclosures
• Add or replace existing wood fence at property lines
• New unit signage, monument sign, and directory
• Remove existing mailboxes and replace with modular mailboxes and parcel lockers • Add pergola, benches, table, BBQ, and trash receptacle • Exterior lighting - remove and replace exterior building lighting fixtures with LED • Install new security cameras, monitor, and recording device.

Buildings/Units
• New kitchen countertops in all units
• Replace unit privacy fences with wood screens
• Insulation in attic space or where new roof sheeting is replaced • Repair existing roofing, replace sheeting, T&G as needed, replace all fascia as needed • Add new gutters and downspouts
• New front doors and hardware for all units
• New interior hardware
• Redo living room closets
• Remove existing unit window and slider and replace with T-24 compliant windows • New frameless mirrors, toilet paper holder, curved curtain rod, shower curtain, grab bars, and towel bar in bathrooms
• Remove and replace existing unit appliances with new GE energy star appliances • Remove and replace window blinds
• Mechanical
o Replace sinks, supply lines, and ¼ turn angle stops
o Remove and replace tub and shower enclosure and rough in new drain line o Remove and replace central water heathers
o Install new building isolation valves
o Remove and reinstall existing solar water heating with correct attachment system
o Replace bathroom exhaust fan motor with new to existing can and exhaust duct with humidistat controls

Page 2 of 3 ends

o Remove and replace all roof-mounted A/C units - new program thermostats and registers
• Electrical
o General electrical repairs in units
o Install GFCI outlets in all unit kitchens, baths, and disposals o Install smoke detectors/CO combo packs in units
o Remove and replace kitchen, bath, living, and bedroom fixtures with LED o Add 2 additional surface mount outlets per unit
• Finishes
o Repair unit drywall
o Prime and paint exterior
o Prime and paint interiors
o Install new vinyl plank flooring
• Common areas and laundry room
o Remove and replace finishes including painting, flooring, cabinets, countertops, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, lighting fixtures, doors, and hardware

FISCAL IMPACT
Self-Help Enterprises will complete the HOME application and all necessary due diligence at no cost to the City. If no award is given, then there is no additional obligation to the City. If the HOME application is successful and funds awarded, the City would receive $150,000 in activity delivery ·money. These funds would help offset any staff time used to complete annual reports and general contract management. The City's oversight commitments would be minimal, mostly booking yearly-accrued interest to the soft loan, since the project will be income certified and monitored through the tax credit program. SHE will provide all the information needed for reporting purposes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2024-019

Page 3 of 3 ends

HOME loan offers a loan interest rate of 3% with a term of 55 years from the date of the recordation of the Notice of Completion for the project.

Below is a summary of the proposed improvements to the site:

Exterior/Grounds
• Repair all concrete walkways, ramps, and patios
• New ADA/City Compliant trash enclosures
• Add or replace existing wood fence at property lines
• New unit signage, monument sign, and directory
• Remove existing mailboxes and replace with modular mailboxes and parcel lockers • Add pergola, benches, table, BBQ, and trash receptacle • Exterior lighting - remove and replace exterior building lighting fixtures with LED • Install new security cameras, monitor, and recording device.

Page 2 of 3 ends

o Install smoke detectors/CO combo packs in units
o Remove and replace kitchen, bath, living, and bedroom fixtures with LED o Add 2 additional surface mount outlets per unit
• Finishes
o Repair unit drywall
o Prime and paint exterior
o Prime and paint interiors
o Install new vinyl plank flooring
• Common areas and laundry room
o Remove and replace finishes including painting, flooring, cabinets, countertops, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, lighting fixtures, doors, and hardware

FISCAL IMPACT
Self-Help Enterprises will complete the HOME application and all necessary due diligence at no cost to the City. If no award is given, then there is no additional obligation to the City. If the HOME application is successful and funds awarded, the City would receive $150,000 in activity delivery money. These funds would help offset any staff time used to complete annual reports and general contract management. The City's oversight commitments would be minimal, mostly booking yearly-accrued interest to the soft loan, since the project will be income certified and monitored through the tax credit program. SHE will provide all the information needed for reporting purposes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2024-019

Page 3 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-019

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE

CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER THE HOME

INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley, a political subdivision of the state of California (hereinafter the "City"), wishes to apply for and receive an allocation of funds through the 2022-2023 HOME Investment Partnerships Program; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (the "Department") is authorized to allocate HOME funds made available from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). HOME funds are to be used for the purposes set forth in Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, in federal implementing regulations set forth in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 92, and in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations commencing with section 8200; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Funding Availability announcing the availability of funds under the HOME program (the "NOFA"); and
WHEREAS, in response to the 2022-2023 HOME NOFA, the City of Reedley, a local government entity (the "Applicant") wishes to apply to the Department for, and receive an allocation of, HOME funds.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Reedley as follows:

1. In response to the 2022-2023 HOME NOFA, the Applicant shall submit an application to the Department to participate in the HOME program and for an allocation of funds not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) for the following activities and/or programs:
• The rehabilitation of Reedley Elderly apartment project, a 23-unit rental project located at 172 South East Avenue, Reedley, CA 93654.

2. If the application for funding is approved, then the Applicant hereby agrees to use the HOME funds eligible activities in the manner presented in its application as approved by the Department in accordance with the statutes and regulations cited above. The Applicant may also execute a standard agreement, any amendments thereto, and other related documents or instruments necessary or required to participate in the HOME Program (collectively, the required

Page 1 of 2 ends

documents).

3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee(s), to execute in the name of the City of Reedley, all required documents.

This forgoing resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Reedley this 12th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk

Page 2 of 2 ends

DATE: March 12, 2024

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
[8J Consent
D Regular Item
D Workshop
D ClosedSession
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: 7 ----
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020 ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 RATES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT 2005-01, INCREASING RATES

FROM CURRENT LEVELS BY CPI, AND SETTING DEPARTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUBMITTED: Paul A. Melikian, Assistant City Manager
APPROVED: Nicole R. Zieba, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-020 establishing the Fiscal Year ("FY") 2024-25 annual tax amount for properties within the Reedley Community Facilities District No. 2005-1. Staff recommends that the current tax rate be raised by the CPI instead of the higher maximum allowable rate, and to allocate the funds for the 2024-25 fiscal year at the existing 15% for Fire, 7 4% for Police, 9% for Parks, and 2% for Administration costs.

BACKGROUND
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows a City to establish a Community Facilities District (CFO) to finance a variety of services. The Reedley Community Facilities District 2005-1 was established in 2005 to finance operational expenses associated with public safety (police and fire) and park maintenance. Services provided within the CFO area do not supplant General Fund activities which are established at a baseline historic spending level using 2005-06 appropriation levels.

RATES
In March 2023, the City Council set the maximum tax rate for Reedley Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 in accordance with the procedures for establishing rates in the enacting resolution. Each year, the City Council must review the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for San FranciscoOakland-Hayward area and adopt the upcoming year's tax rates. The CPI change over the last 12 months was 3.67%, and an increase to the rates is proposed for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Per Council Resolution No. 2005-109, the proposed rates are brought forth each year for consideration of two items:
1) setting the annual CFO tax amount for the upcoming fiscal year and 2) establishment of the allocation of revenue to City Departments for the upcoming fiscal year. The following table summarizes the tax rates adopted for FY 2023-24 and the proposed FY 2024-25 tax rates based on recommended change to the Category I tax rates. If a lower tax rate is considered , it must be universally applied to each development type within Category I within the CFO.

Current Adopted Proposed Rate
Building Type Rate (3.67% increase)
Single Family Home $1,016.91 per unit $1,054.1912 per unit Multi-Family Residential $757 .14 per unit $784.8962 per unit Affordable Housing $513.21 per unit $532.0217 per unit
Non-Residential $0.27 per square foot $0.2846 per square foot Infill Non-Residential $0.14 per square foot $0.1423 per square foot Undeveloped $825. 78 per acre $856.0514 per acre
Under existing Council policy, each year as properties develop, they are annexed into the district. For FY 2024-25, it is anticipated that the District will serve 48 units from the property owner of parcel 370- 020-078, which has a legal settlement with the City, 857 single family homes, 118 multi-family units, 115 affordable housing units, non-residential properties totaling 159,657 square feet, infill non-residential totaling 339,027 and 228.94 acres of vacant land. If additional properties develop, they will also be served, and the City will levy for FY 2024-25. The projected FY 2024-25 revenue is $1,368,988 based on the recommended increase to current tax rates.

Although the rate may be set by the City Council at any amount as long as it is applied uniformly within each of the two Tax Categories, staff recommends that the current rate increase by CPI, instead of the maximum allowable rate. The recommendation is based on the anticipated costs to provide services to the CFO areas, which includes those incremental cost increases for personnel costs and those that vendors pass to the City. According to the attached memos covering Police, Fire, Parks Maintenance Services, and Administration Services, the anticipated costs to service the CFO area are $1 ,142,753, $233,505, $118,049 and $26,436 respectively, for a total of $1 ,520,743. The amounts collected at the proposed rate's do not fully cover the costs of providing services. The anticipated difference in cost for service not including prior year CFO activity, will come from the General Fund (see table on following page); therefore, setting the rate at less than the proposed tax rates will further impact the General Fund budget for next fiscal year.

The maximum special tax rates are to be increased every year by CPI in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment that established the CFO. The City increased rates in FY 2023-24 since public services to the CFO have continued to grow and outpaced the estimated revenue every year since inception of the special district. This funding deficit has required an annual subsidy offset from the City's General Fund. For the FY 2024-25, should Category I properties in the CFO (all properties except undeveloped land) be levied at the maximum special tax rates, the remaining funding deficit to service the CFO would be less than the estimated revenue from a maximum assessment on parcels of Category 11 properties (undeveloped land). In other words, if CFO tax rates were increased to their maximum allowable levels for next year, the General Fund would not have to offset the funding deficit from CFO assessment revenue to cover the cost of providing police, fire and parks maintenance services.

Page 2 of 3 ends

ALLOCATIONS
The Special Tax Report establishing the CFO identified the use of CFO funds at a specific allocation amount for each service. The City Council has the annual discretion to change the amount based upon budgetary needs and requirements. The following table summarizes the prior years and proposed allocation for next year, which remains unchanged from the last five fiscal years.

Current Proposed
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 24-25 Fire Services 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Police Services 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%
Parks Services 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Administration 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Each service receives its appropriate share of the adopted revenue amount each year and that balance is restricted and carried over each year if / when revenues exceed expenditures. The following table summarizes estimated CFO fund balances as of June 30, 2024, the estimated revenue for next year broken out by Department percentage allocations, then netting out the estimated expenses to get to the required General Fund offset.

Summary of Carry Over, Revenue, Expenditures and General Fund Offset Estimated FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25 FY 2024-25
Balance on Estimated Estimated Required General
June 30, 2024 Revenue Expenditures Fund Offset
Fire $2,593 $205,348 $233,505 $25,564
Police 13,271 1,013,051 1,142,753 116,431
Parks 1,821 123,209 118,049 0
Administration 978 27,380 26,436 0
Total $18,663 $1,368,988 $1,520,743 $141,995

FISCAL IMPACT
If the proposed rate is established, which is recommended to increase by CPI from the current year, the FY 2024-25 General Fund budget will realize an estimated expenditure relief of $1,368,988 for Fire, Police and Park services for parcels within the CFO boundary.

Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2024-020

2. Fire, Police, Parks & Administration FY 2024-25 Budgetary Requirements

3. 2023 CPI-U for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward

Page 3 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY DETERMINING SPECIAL TAX RA TES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-1 (PUBLIC

SERVICES)
WHEREAS, in proceedings heretofore conducted by this Council pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"), this Council on November 8, 2005, adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Reedley Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing Recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien" finalizing the formation of the City of Reedley Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Public Services) (the "District") pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, California Government Code Section 5331-1 et seq. (the "Law"); WHEREAS, the City Clerk executed and caused to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Fresno a notice of special tax lien in the form required by the Law.

WHEREAS, Maximum Special Tax Rates were established as follows:

Category I includes each Developed Parcel within the District for which a building permit has been issued prior to July 1 of the current Fiscal Year. Said Maximum Special Tax shall increase each Fiscal Year thereafter by an inflation factor which is the Annual All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area.

The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied annually on Taxable Property in Category I beginning with the Fiscal Year starting July 1, 2024 ending June 30, 2025 is as set forth in Table 1 below
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CATEGORY I

DEVELOPMENT TYPE MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE
Single Family Residential $1,237.7750
(per dwelling unit)
Multi-Family Residential $ 919.9679
(per dwelling unit)
Non-Residential $ 0.3345
(per gross building square foot)
Affordable Housing $ 618.8875
(per dwelling unit)
Infill Non-Residential $0.1673
(per building square foot)
Category II includes each Parcel within the District that is not included in Category I.
2 The Maximum Special Tax that may be levied annually on Taxable Property in Category II beginning with the Fiscal Year starting July 1, 2024 ending June 30, 2025 is as set forth in Table 2 below per Net Developable Acre (said amount to be levied prorata for any portion of an acre). Said special tax shall increase each Fiscal Year thereafter by an inflation factor which is the Annual All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area.

TABLE 2
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CATEGORY II
Special Tax Per Net Developable Acre
$ 1,003.6014 per acre

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY AS FOLLOWS:

1. The following Special Tax Rates shall be levied for the ensuing 2024-2025 fiscal year on all eligible properties in the District per the Rate and Method of Special Tax.

ADOPTED SPECIAL TAX RATES FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CATEGORY I

DEVELOPMENT TYPE SPECIAL TAX RATE
Single Family Residential $1,054.1912
(per dwelling unit)
Multi-Family Residential $ 784.8962
(per dwelling unit)
3 Non-Residential
ross buildin s uare foot
Affordable Housing
er dwellin unit
Infill Non-Residential
$ 0.2846
$ 532.0217
$ 0.1423
ADOPTED SPECIAL TAX RATE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CATEGORY II
Special Tax Per Net Developable Acre
$ 856.0514 per acre

2. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

This Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Reedley this 12th day of March 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
4 Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

MEMORANDUM
!February 21, 2024
Paul Melikian, Asslstant City Manag,er
Jose L. Garza, Chief of Polke
OFF]L E OF rm~ :IIIEF( F P( LICE
843 "G" Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Community FacUity Distri·ct Budget Ne1eds: 2024-2025 Fiscal Vear In reviewing the forecast for housing assessments. for the fiscal year 2024-2025., it's projected that 857 new single-family homes, 115 affordable housing units, and 118 multi-family units wm be assessed. Based o·n these prroJections and using the average Fresno County household size of

3.16 indiividuafs, ifs estimated that Reedleis population wm increase by roughll-y 3.,.444 people ..

In 202.3, the Reedl:ey Police Department handled 28,143 servi,ce caUs., equating to about 1.0 calls per resident, given the population of 25,811~ This was a 4% increase from the previous year.

Assum~ng ·foll occupancy of the new housing,, this would elevate the population to 2.9,25.S and potentially lead to an estimated 1.0 service calls per new resident annually.

For the poHce services, this poputation rise could mean a.n additional 3,444 servke calls, maintaining the current call rate. The cost of handling a call has risen to an averag,e of $331..81, markl,ng a 3.67% increase from the last year, culminating in a totail service cost of approximate·ly $1,142.,.753.00. This estimate covers various operational costs, induding ufficer response time, dijspatch op,erations, record-keep·ing, fuel, and supervisory duties,. Ifs important to note that this figure is conservative and doesn•·t account for the potential increase i·n standard patrol• hours, the impact of additional: traffic from new residents, or the increased demands on commercial e·stablis.hments ..

Respectfu ~ I y,
~ .. ~o~!~-~
,J:~11 ~.A\)~\ rt. r rr~, ~,
·. ! ~
~~"'40111~ .... ....,A
DATE: February 24, 2024

REEDLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE ADMINISTRATION
1060 D STREET, REEDLEY CA 93654
Jerry Isaak, Chief

MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Melikian, Assistant City Manager
RE: Community Facilities District Projected Expenditures FY 2024 / 2025 The CFO as adopted per Resolution 2005-109 and governed by Section 53311.5 of the Government Code of the State of California (The Act) specifically states that the first priority for the funds is for fire and emergency medical services, then police and public safety, and finally park maintenance. More specifically: (i) fire protection and suppression services; (ii) emergency medical services including ambulatory services; (iii) community information with regard to public safety; (iv) earthquake and other emergency relief programs; (v) other public safety services, including police protection services, authorized to be funded under Section 53313(a) or (b) of The Act; (vi) park operation and maintenance expenses; and, (vii) repair and replacement of park facilities.

Based on current estimates, the impact on the Fire Department to provide services for the district is estimated to be $233,505. This is based on applying Fire Department personnel costs and associated operating expenses for administration, equipment, training, planning and maintenance to respond within the district. Any balance is reserved to provide an allowable buffer and funding of future Fire Department services and maintenance.

Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Isaak, Fire Chief
February 14, 2024
To: Jasper Andrade, Analyst
Wildan Financial Services
Dear Mr. Andrade
~ity of Reedley
Public Works Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley.CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
FAX 637-2139
Re: Community Facilities District- Parks Maintenance Services The City of Reedley anticipates that approximately 857 single family units, 118 multiple family units, 115 Affordable Housing Units, and 339,027 square feet of non-residential properties will be served under the CFD in the 2024-2025 budget year.

In review of services provided, it is determined that the Parks Maintenance Department will provide services in excess of $118,049 for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. This amount was calculated by applying the cost of personnel (part time and full-time parks maintenance workers), equipment, fuel, and vehicle maintenance costs.

Respecp'l-0~.itted,
.. · ~7
luss Robertson
Public Works Director
DATE: February 28, 2024
TO: Community Facilities District 2005-01 File
Administrative Services Department
845 G. St, Reedley CA 93654
FROM: Paul A Melikian, Assistant City Manager~
SUBJECT: FY 2024-25 CFO Administration Costs
The total projected costs for administration of the Community Facilities District for the 2024-25 fiscal year is $26,436, as follows:

Annexations: $10,367
The following item is associated with each processing of a CFO annexation. It is estimated that the City will process one to two per year. The processes incur costs of approximately $7,500 to a consultant to conduct all aspects of the annexation process. $500 is allocated to legal review of recorded annexations and approximately $2,367 for internal staff time and Fresno County recorder fees for applicable documents.

Annual CFD Administrative Services - $16,069
The annual cost of administering the CFO, including annual CPI adjustments, tax roll auditing, financial transactions, financial administration, financial audits, preparation of Annual Special Tax Report, Fresno County recorder fees and tax roll reporting is $16,069. ~ U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
,, .. "'\
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Change Output Options:

Fcom EJ To EJ G
• ;,dod, gcaphs • ;,dod, aoooal a,ecages
More Formattin~ Options.+
Data extracted on: January 11, 2024 (11 :24:24 AM)
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id: CUURS49BSA0,CUUSS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download: .xlsx
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALFl 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 HALF2
330.711
O ~P.ecial Notices 12/ 05/2023
2023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.411 3.67% increase from 2022 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 Telephone:1-202-691-5200_ Telecommunications Relay Service:7-1-1_ www.bls.gilll Contact Us DATE:

TITLE:

SUBMITTED:

APPROVED:

March 12, 2024

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
D Consent
1:8;] Regular Item
D Workshop
D Closed Session
D Public Hearing
ITEM NO: ---
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024-021 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE

REEDLEY MOVES ACTIVE TRANSPORATION AND PARKWAY MASTER

PLAN FOR THE CITY OF REEDLEY
Marilu S. Morales, P. E. , l I I
City Engineer \}A,
City
Nicole
Manager
Zieba , f ~

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-021, approving and adopting the Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan for the City of Reedley.

BACKGROUND
The City was awarded a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in partnership with CivicWell in July of 2021 to prepare an Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan (Plan) for the City of Reedley. The City entered into a professional services agreement with CivicWell in February of 2022 to assist with the preparation of the plan. A request for proposals (RFP) was released in April of 2022 for consulting and planning services to create the Plan. Interviews were held with various consultants and Toole Design was selected as the consultant to prepare the Plan.

Toole began reviewing existing data and coordinated with the City and CivicWell to prepare a website and online survey regarding active transportation in Reedley to gain as much public input as possible. A project advisory group was assembled to gather input from local members of the community and to help outreach to the public. Various public engagement pop-ups were held at City events including Christmas in the Park in December of 2022, Reedley Street Eats in March of 2023, Reedley Bike Rodeo in October 2023, and the Reedley Fiesta in October of 2023. A week long community design charrette was held in March of 2023 that included a community design workshop, stakeholder meetings with the Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce Junior Board and bike and walk audits with members of the community to discuss existing conditions.

All of the input that was gathered from the various events was reviewed and compiled to prepare the final draft plan. The City in conjunction with CivicWell and Toole held a project

Page 1 of 2 ends

recommendations workshop in October of 2023 to present the recommendations for pedestrian, bike and trail projects. Comments and input were gathered from the participants and were incorporated into the final plan. City Staff reviewed the final plan and approves the recommendations and elements within the Plan. The attached Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan includes the proposed recommendations for pedestrians, bicyclists and expansion of the existing parkway. In addition, appendices are included summarizing the community engagement, community survey report, review of existing plans and policies, pedestrian needs assessment, bikeway prioritization methodology and bicycle level of traffic stress methodology.

Staff is asking that City Council adopt Resolution 2024-021, approving and adopting the Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan. Once the Plan is adopted Staff will incorporate the plan in future grant applications as well as in future conditions of approval for developments within the City of Reedley.

PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS
Resolution No. 2021-076 authorized the City Manager to execute grant agreements with Caltrans for the City of Reedley Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan.

Resolution No. 2022-014 authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with CivicWell for the City of Reedley Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
The preparation of the plan was funded by the Caltrans grant and staff support/time was used as the local match for the grant. The adopted plan will help the City in future grant application requests for implementation of the plan recommendations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2024-021

2. Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan

Page 2 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-021

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REEDLEY MOVES ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION AND PARKWAY MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley was awarded a Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning Grant by the California Department of Transportation for an Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley worked in conjunction with CivicWell and Toole Design to manage and prepare the Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley gathered community input from various pop-ups, workshops, walk audits and bike audits and an online survey to prepare the Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Reedley wishes to increase active transportation within the City of Reedley;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Reedley, using their independent judgment, hereby approves Resolution No. 2024-021 based on the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

2. The Reedley Moves Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan is hereby accepted and approved.

3. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.

This forgoing resolution is hereby approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Reedley held on the 12th day of March 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Anita Betancourt, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
1 ansportation
ay Master Plan

REEDLEY MOVES
Active Transportation
and Parkway Master Plan
2 Contents
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................5 Plan Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Expanding the Parkway ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Creating a Walkable and Bikeable City........................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................................................................11 Plan Overview and Purpose...............................................................................................................................................11 Understanding Reedley’s Population and its Transportation Needs ...............................................................12 Benefits of Walking and Biking.........................................................................................................................................13 Designing Low-Stress Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks......................................................................................14 Plan Development.................................................................................................................................................................16 Chapter 2: Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 21 Community Overview...........................................................................................................................................................21 Public Transit Service..........................................................................................................................................................24 Existing Pedestrian Network ............................................................................................................................................24 Bikeway Network .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Reedley Parkway and Trails Network...........................................................................................................................32 Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs............................................................................................34 Pedestrian Needs Assessment.......................................................................................................................................34 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis.........................................................................................................................36 Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements........39 Bicycle Facility Selection...................................................................................................................................................39 Intersection Treatments for Bikeways...........................................................................................................................41 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements............................................................................................................................42 Chapter 6: Recommendations.................................................................................................................44 Recommendation #1............................................................................................................................................................45 Recommendation #2...........................................................................................................................................................55 Recommendation #3...........................................................................................................................................................69 3 List of Figures
Figure EX-1: Proposed Bikeway and Trail Network......................................................................................................7 Figure 1: Typical Bicycle User Types...............................................................................................................................15 Figure 2: Bicycle Facility Types.........................................................................................................................................15 Figure 3: Barriers to Walking ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4: Barriers to Biking ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 5: Reedley’s Pedestrian Network .....................................................................................................................25 Figure 6: Reedley’s Bikeway Network............................................................................................................................31 Figure 7: Pedestrian Activity Areas ................................................................................................................................35 Figure 8: Types of bicyclists and stress tolerance ..................................................................................................36 Figure 9: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results.........................................................................................................38 Figure 10: FHWA Guidance on Bikeway Facility Selection....................................................................................39 Figure 12: Reedley Parkway Conceptual Layout.....................................................................................................49 Figure 13: Recommended Bikeways and Trails.........................................................................................................56 Figure 14: Existing and Proposed Conditions on Dinuba Avenue, East of Orange Avenue.....................58 Figure 15: Existing and Proposed Conditions along Manning Avenue, East of Sunset Avenue.............60 Figure 16: Potential Elements of a Bike Boulevard ...................................................................................................62 Figure 17: Recommended Bike Network Highlighting Bike Boulevards...........................................................63 Figure 18: Olson Avenue and Hope Avenue Reimagined as a Bike Boulevard............................................65 Figure 20: Pedestrian Priority Areas and Recommended Improvements......................................................70 Figure 21: Recommendations for New and Enhanced Crossings..................................................................... 73 Figure 22: North Avenue and G Street Recommended Intersection Treatment........................................... 77 List of Tables
Table 1: Selected Population Characteristics of Reedley Compared to Fresno County Overall.........23 Table 2: Share of Households without Access to a Vehicle, 2018......................................................................23 Table 3: Existing Transit Service in Reedley ...............................................................................................................24 Table 4: Pedestrian Facility Mileage in Reedley.......................................................................................................24 Table 5: Bikeway Facility Type Classifications ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Bikeway Facility Mileage in Reedley............................................................................................................30 Table 7: LTS Scores and Conditions for Select Streets with Bike Lanes..........................................................38 Table 8: Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Types..................................................................................................42 Table 9: Proposed Reedley Parkway Expansion..................................................................................................... 47 Table 10: Reedley Parkway Enhancements...............................................................................................................48 Table 11: Recommendations to Enhance Existing Bike Lanes ............................................................................ 57 Table 12: Recommended Bike Lanes and Sidepaths.............................................................................................59 Table 13: Proposed Bike Boulevard System................................................................................................................64 Table 14: Recommended Enhancements Based on Crossing Type ................................................................ 72 Table 15: Recommended Treatments for New and Enhanced Crossings...................................................... 74 Table 16: Citywide Active Transportation Recommendations............................................................................ 78 4 Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Thank you to all of the community members who participated in the various aspects of the plan development process, especially the Reedley Junior Chamber of Commerce. Special thanks to the Project Advisory Group for dedicating their time and input throughout the project.

Project Advisory Group
• Joseph Arruda
Kings County Unified School
District
• Carlos Cervantes
Fresno County Department of
Public Health
• Susan Chapman
Adventist Health
• Chineyra Black Hardaman
Sierra Kings Health Care
District
• Melanie Highfill
Reedley College
• Eddie Jimenez
Reedley Parks and Recreation
Foundation
• Debra Lapp
Kings River Conservancy
• Tony Molina
Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
• Marilu Morales, PE
City of Reedley Engineering
Department
• Steve Penner
Reedley Parks and Recreation
Foundation
• Ron Nishinaka
Reedley Parks and Recreation
Foundation
• Pete Perez
Reedley Parks and Recreation
Foundation
• Erik Valencia
Greater Reedley Chamber of
Commerce
• Susie Rico Vazquez
Fresno County Department of
Public Health
• Patrick Turner
Kings River Conservancy
• Ryan Wood
Immanuel Schools
Consultant Team
• CivicWell
• Toole Design Group
• Urban Diversity Design
Executive Summary 5
Executive Summary
Plan Purpose
The Reedley Moves Active Transportation and
Parkway Master Plan is a guide for the City to
create comfortable conditions for walking, rolling,
and biking for people of all ages and abilities, and
to obtain grant funding for necessary infrastructure
investments and programs. The three key plan
recommendations and their corresponding
strategies – the result of a year-long effort
that included participation of numerous local
stakeholders and community members – are listed
below. Implementing these recommendations will
provide a well-connected, low-stress network of
bikeways and trails, improve public health, and make
it easier and safer to walk to destinations across the city.

1. Expand and Enhance
the Reedley Parkway
• Expand the Parkway
• Enhance the Parkway through
additional amenities and
programming
• Install comprehensive signage
and wayfinding along the
Parkway

2. Expand the On-Street
Bikeway Network
• Enhance existing facilities
• Fill in network gaps and create
new connections
• Create a bike boulevard system
along low-stress, residential
streets

3. Improve Pedestrian
Connections
• Create complete sidewalks
and comfortable conditions for
walking and rolling
• Provide additional pedestrian
crossings
• Address skewed intersections

BUILDING ON LOCAL INTEREST

IN WALKING AND BIKING
Despite high rates of vehicle ownership and
commuting by private vehicle, interest in active
transportation in Reedley is strong, and many
residents enjoy recreational walking, rolling, and
biking. In a community survey, 71% of respondents
said that they walk or roll at least a few times per
month, and 59% said they bike at least occasionally.

Respondents indicated that if walking, rolling, and
biking conditions were improved, they would be
interested in doing so more often.
6 Executive Summary
Expanding the Parkway
Reedley’s Highest Priority
Creating additional opportunities for
people to walk, bike, and roll begins with
expanding the Reedley Parkway – the
highest-priority infrastructure investment
for the City. A formerly underutilized rail
corridor, the Parkway is now a three-mile
paved trail and recreational destination that
attracts residents from across the city. As
evidenced by the feedback received during
community engagement and the ongoing
volunteer efforts to maintain and enhance
it, the Reedley Parkway is viewed as a
local treasure.

Future Segments
The Reedley Moves Plan identifies
four key segments for Parkway
expansion, described below. A
full build-out of the Parkway will
create a loop around the entire city,
providing both recreational benefits
and the opportunity for everyday
trips to be completed on low-stress
trails that are fully separated from
vehicle traffic. Next steps include
feasibility studies and engineering
design, identification of funding,
and right-of-way acquisition,
where necessary.
• King’s River South: A paved shared-use path along the King’s River to the south of Manning Avenue could utilize City-owned right-of-way to connect to the existing Parkway via the wide sidewalk on the south side of Manning Avenue. The segment would provide regional connections to Reedley High School and Reedley Beach, and could be complemented by various on-street bikeway connections, including a bike boulevard along Eymann Avenue.
• Floral Avenue: A shared-use path along Floral and Buttonwillow avenues could connect the proposed King’s River alignment to the existing Parkway.
• Reedley Sports Park Connector: This short segment would extend the eastern Parkway terminus along the creek through the Reedley Sports Park to Dinuba Avenue.
• North Loop: Based on the alignment identified in Developing a MultiUse Trail System in Reedley, California: A Pre-Feasibility Study (2020), the north loop follows a series of city and county streets from Dinuba Avenue to Reedley College, including a proposed sidepath (i.e., a shareduse path at sidewalk level) fronting the campus along Reed Avenue between South and Manning Avenues.

Executive Summary 7
Further Enhancements
The Parkway can be further enhanced with amenities such as an expanded public art program, space for outdoor games, places to gather for events, and signage that promotes local history. Such amenities can transform the Parkway into a regional recreational attraction that increases quality of life for Reedley residents and attracts visitors from outside the community. With a vibrant downtown and as the home of Reedley College, Reedley already serves as a regional destination; expanding and enhancing the Parkway will give visitors another reason to visit and support the locally owned shops and restaurants downtown, thereby boosting the local economy.

Figure EX-1: Proposed Bikeway and Trail Network
Reedley Parkway
R ecom m ended B ik ew a ys
Enhance Existing Class I I Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (Class I I /I I B)
Bike Boulevard (Class I I I B)
Shared Use Path/Sidepath (Class I )
Separated Bike Lanes (Class I V)
E x is ting B ik ew a ys
Shared Use Path (Class I )
Separated Bikeway (Class I V)
R ecom m ended B ik ew a y s a nd T r a ils
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
8 Executive Summary
Creating a Walkable
and Bikeable City
Building Upon Reedley’s Core
As an old railroad city, Reedley was designed for citizens to get around on foot and by train, and already has many of the building blocks needed to expand active transportation options for its residents and visitors. In creating a walkable and bikeable city, Reedley can take inspiration from its downtown street grid, which is lined with locally-owned stores and restaurant, street trees, and wide sidewalks. Pedestrians are separated from motorists by on-street parking, most crossings have marked crosswalks, and vehicles travel at slower speeds.

Addressing Barriers to
Walking and Biking
Outside of Reedley’s walkable downtown
and the Reedley Parkway, implementing a
safe and comfortable active transportation
network for all ages and abilities remains
a challenge. Roads are often wide and
designed for vehicles to travel quickly. Safe
crossing opportunities can be far apart,
and many streets lack lighting to help
pedestrians and bicyclists remain visible
as they travel at night and during winter.

While the City has implemented numerous
bike lanes and bike routes, existing facilities
generally are not separated from fastmoving vehicles, and in some cases end as bicyclists near intersections. Skewed
intersections, or intersections that are not 90
degrees, create visibility issues for motorists,
bicyclists, and pedestrians; Reedley has a
number of these intersections where its
downtown (originally oriented around the
railroad tracks) meets the surrounding city.

Improving conditions for people walking and
biking will require that newer, more autooriented roads are retrofitted in ways that provide complete networks of sidewalks and
bikeways and prioritize user safety.

Executive Summary 9
Recommendations
On-street bikeway recommendations emphasize user comfort through new bikeways and enhancements to existing bike lanes that provide as much physical separation as possible between motorists and people biking.

Critical corridors where continuous high-quality bikeways are desired include Manning Avenue, Buttonwillow Avenue, and 13th Street, as well as a sidepath along the Reedley College frontage along Reed Avenue.

Wherever feasible, this plan proposes new facilities and enhancements to existing bikeways that can be accomplished within the existing curb lines by narrowing general purpose travel lanes and reallocating space for bike lanes and striped buffers. The figures below depict existing and proposed conditions along Dinuba Avenue to the east of Orange Avenue.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
10 Executive Summary
In addition to bike lanes and sidepaths, Reedley can take advantage of its street grid to create a network of parallel, low-stress bike boulevards along residential streets that prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians and utilize trafficcalming strategies to increase safety for all road users.

Key pedestrian strategies include addressing skewed intersections that create difficult conditions for pedestrians, providing additional crossings to improve access to places such as Reedley High School, and better connecting outlying neighborhoods with Reedley’s core. Particular emphasis in the Reedley Moves Plan is placed on improving conditions in pedestrian priority areas.

Finally, the plan outlines a number of
program and policy recommendations to
support safe walking, rolling, and biking
in Reedley, decrease vehicle dependency,
and encourage residents to choose active
transportation options to get around the city.

Key recommendations include additional bike
parking, both at public facilities and as part
of private development; lighting, particularly
in pedestrian priority areas and along unlit
portions of the Parkway; education and
encouragement programs; and tracking
implementation progress over time.

The figure to the right depicts
how an intersection along North
Avenue could be reconfigured to
provide more visible crosswalks and
shorter crossing distances, and to
modify a slip lane that encourages
high speeds.

Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Chapter 1: Introduction
Plan Overview
and Purpose
Providing a Roadmap for Improvements
Continued investments in active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, are essential to support the health and well-being of Reedley’s growing community and to provide a greater range of transportation options.

To effectively expand these options, the City must develop a well-connected bikeway and trail network, safe street crossings, and ample sidewalks. The Reedley Moves Plan is an update to Reedley’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2019) and lays the groundwork for expansion of the Reedley Parkway − a key amenity that has inspired many residents to get active outdoors since its inception.

The benefits and overarching goals of this plan are to assess and understand the community’s transportation needs, and to provide short and long-term project recommendations to address those needs. The projects identified in the plan are intended to be both technically feasible and implementable with existing City resources or through competitive funding sources, including state and federal grants.

Improving Access to Funding
The City of Reedley is part of the greater Fresno metropolitan area and is a member of the Fresno Council of Governments (COG), which provides technical support and coordination on regional planning issues and serves a critical role in distributing federal funds to local agencies such as Reedley.

Reedley has received many state and federal grants through competitive processes managed by Fresno COG; the adoption of the Reedley Moves Plan will help Reedley further compete for a range of state and federal funding opportunities, including the Caltrans Active Transportation Program. See Appendix F for additional information on funding.

DEFINING ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
The term “active
transportation” is inclusive
of walking as well as all
forms of micromobility,
i.e., lightweight, personal
vehicles that generally do
not exceed 25 miles per hour
(mph). Micromobility includes
rolling (using a wheelchair,
powerchair, or mobility
scooter), biking (including
electric bikes or e-bikes),
skateboarding, rollerblading,
using a scooter or e-scooter,
and other modes.
12 Chapter 1: Introduction
Understanding Reedley’s
Population and its
Transportation Needs
Understanding the community makeup is important to ensure that this plan equitably serves residents’ needs. Residents of the City of Reedley earn modest household incomes compared to Fresno County, yet vehicle ownership is high, with 94% of households having access to at least one vehicle. Due to the cost burden that vehicle ownership can place on lowincome households alone, as well as the limited public transit available in Reedley, enhancing and expanding active transportation options can help reduce vehicle dependency and relieve some transportation-related costs that many Reedley households experience.

Despite low levels of commuting via active transportation – about 1.3% of Reedley residents commute by walking and 0.4% of residents commute by bicycle – the community survey conducted as part of the Reedley Moves Plan indicates that interest in active transportation in Reedley is strong, and that many residents enjoy recreational walking, rolling, and biking. At present, most active transportation trips are for recreation; however, respondents indicated that if walking, rolling, and biking conditions were improved, they would be interested in choosing these modes more often.

The combination of high
transportation costs and interest in
active transportation suggests that
Reedley can realize the benefits
of investing in walking and biking
infrastructure that many other
cities have experienced. See the
Existing Conditions section of this
plan for more information on current
infrastructure and opportunities to
walk, bike, and roll across the city.

Reedley High School is one of many local destinations where access by walking and biking can be improved.

Chapter 1: Introduction 13
Benefits
of Walking
and Biking
In addition to reducing
transportation costs, the benefits
of active transportation and
supporting improvements to
walking and biking infrastructure
are far-reaching. By embracing
walking and biking as viable
alternatives to motorized vehicles,
the Reedley community can enjoy
enhanced health and well-being,
reduced healthcare costs, a thriving
local economy, improved air quality,
and increased mobility choices.

Investing in active transportation
provides the following benefits:
1 “Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users.” Marshall and Ferenchak. Journal of Transport & Health, June 2019 2 “Walking and Cycling to Health: A Comparative Analysis of City, State, and International Data.” American Journal of Public Health, October 2010 3 “Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study.” BMJ 2017 4 Bicycling to Work and Primordial Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk, Journal of the American Heart Association, October 2016 5 Blue, Elly. Bikenomics: Bike Lanes on Main Street. Microcosm Publishing, 2013. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-01/bikenomics-bike-lanes-on-main-street/ Enhances safety and quality of life for everyone. A comprehensive approach to street design that encourages active transportation – including bike lanes, crosswalks, and traffic-calming measures – not only improves safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, but also contributes to safer roads and a higher quality of life for all road users.1 In neighborhoods where people walk and bike more often, roads are calmer and quieter, and socialization and interaction amongst neighbors is more common. More people walking and biking may deter criminal activity by putting more “eyes on the street.” Improves physical, mental, and cognitive health outcomes.

Walking and biking play a pivotal role in promoting public health and well-being. Engaging in regular physical activity through active transportation supports weight management and helps reduce the risk of obesity-related diseases.2 Regular bicycle commuting has also been associated with cognitive and mental health benefits as well as with a longer life expectancy and a 45% lower likelihood of developing cancer.3 Active transportation improves cardiovascular health, maintains cholesterol levels, and mitigates high blood pressure risks, even when adopted in middle age.4
Supports economic development and individual cost savings.

Encouraging walking and biking supports economic development in multiple ways. First, it promotes outdoor recreation and tourism, attracting visitors who appreciate pedestrian- and bike-friendly environments. This influx of tourists can stimulate local businesses and in turn create job opportunities. One case study found a 179% increase in revenues at restaurants on Magnolia Street in Fort Worth, Texas after roads were restriped with bike lanes.5 Biking can also help individuals save money, even without eliminating vehicle usage. Per the AAA, it costs on average more than $10,000 per year to own a personal vehicle; by contrast, owning a bike costs only $300 per year.

Reduces emissions and improves air quality. One of the significant benefits of walking and biking is the reduction of emissions. By choosing active transportation over motor vehicles, individuals contribute to improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This positive environmental impact helps combat climate change and create a healthier and more sustainable environment for future generations.
14 Chapter 1: Introduction
Designing LowStress Bicycle and
Pedestrian Networks
6 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Designing for All Ages and Abilities. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designingfor-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf.

General Approaches to Improvements
Creating additional opportunities for people to walk, bike, and roll requires comfortable facilities that connect to each other and to key destinations. The Reedley Moves Plan recommends ways to expand the Parkway network, create more high-quality on-street bikeways, and increase the safety and use of the existing pedestrian network. General approaches to infrastructure improvements include:
• Building on Existing Networks: Research consistently shows that people are more likely to choose to walk or bike when there is a wellconnected network of paved shared-use paths, separated (or protected) bikeways, and low-stress neighborhood streets that lead users to their desired destinations. While most of Reedley has sidewalks on both sides of the streets, and bike lanes are present on most key corridors, filling crucial gaps, providing enhanced street crossings, and creating new connections between neighborhoods and destinations throughout Reedley are priorities for this plan.
• Creating Additional Recreational and Transportation Opportunities:

Access to high-quality places to walk and bike encourages more people to engage in recreational activities and adopt new means of transportation. Expanding the Reedley Parkway can establish it as a major recreational amenity, regional attraction, and useful component of the transportation system. Infrastructure improvements should connect to anticipated growth areas across the city and provide new recreational and improved bikeways where none currently exist.
• Providing Safer and Low-Stress Connections: Designing and implementing bikeways and pedestrian facilities that provide lowstress connections and crossing opportunities is essential for safety and comfort. Traffic speeds, lack of crossing opportunities, and skewed intersections all create barriers for walking and biking. National studies have shown that more individuals choose to walk or bike when they have safe places to do so. In cities where the lane mileage of bikeway networks increased by 50% between 2007 and 2014, ridership more than doubled while the risk of death and serious injury to bicyclists was halved.6
Chapter 1: Introduction 15
Bicyclist User Types and Desired Facilities
National surveys – and the results
of the Reedley community survey
– indicate that a majority of the
population is interested in riding a
bicycle, even if they don’t currently.

To create a bicycle-friendly
environment in Reedley, bikeways
and network design should be
geared towards the “interested but
concerned” sector of the population
(see Figure 1). By focusing on this
group, the City of Reedley can
develop a well-connected bikeway
network that provides a comfortable
riding experience for a significant
segment of the population and
promotes healthier and more
sustainable transportation choices
for the community. Infrastructure
investments that are centered on
“interested but concerned” bicyclists
are rooted in comfort and equity,
aiming to promote the growth and
accessibility of bicycling as a mode
of transportation.

Figure 1: Typical Bicycle User Types
Data Source: Dill and McNeil, 2016
A focus on low-stress, high-comfort facilities begins with an understanding that busy roads can be stressful for many bicyclists, while facilities that provide separation from traffic increase comfort and encourage more people to ride.

Figure 2 depicts various facility types, with level of separation increasing from right to left. In both national and local surveys, bike lanes immediately adjacent to traffic and bikeable shoulders are considered the least comfortable facilities by respondents. In general, bikeway designs on roads with speeds greater than 25 mph should include separation between active transportation users and vehicle traffic, whether that be in the form of a painted buffer, vertical separation, or an off-road facility. Other factors such as lighting, shade trees, and perceptions of environmental safety also influence how enjoyable bicycling is and how willing road users are to choose biking for their trips.

Figure 2: Bicycle Facility Types
Note: Level of separation between bicyclists and motorists increases from right to left. 16 Chapter 1: Introduction
Plan Development
The plan was developed from fall 2022 through fall 2023 and utilized a combination of technical analysis and community engagement. Major engagement efforts included:
• Regular meetings of a Project Advisory Group that represented a variety of community organizations and major stakeholders • A community survey
• Pop-up engagement events throughout the planning process • A week-long community design charrette featuring an open house, workshop, focus groups, walk and bike audits, and pop-up events geared towards seeking input on the draft plan
• A community workshop for feedback on draft plan recommendations and priorities
See Appendix A for additional details on the community engagement process and Appendix B for a summary of the community survey results.

Project Advisory Group
The Project Advisory Group helped guide the planning and community engagement process. Members included residents and representatives of Kings Canyon Unified School District, Immanuel Schools, Reedley College, Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce, Fresno County Bicycle Coalition, Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation, Adventist Health, Sierra Kings Health Care District, City staff from the Engineering, Public Works and Community Development departments, Reedley Planning Commission, and Fresno County Department of Public Health. Members provided local knowledge of the Reedley community and served as champions for the project—helping to spread the word about events and to carry the recommendations forward.

Chapter 1: Introduction 17
Community Survey
A bilingual (English/Spanish) online
survey to collect information about
preferences and concerns related
to walking, rolling, and biking in
Reedley was open to the public in
winter 2022-2023, and received
166 responses. Respondents
indicated a high level of interest
in walking, biking, and rolling in
Reedley, particularly if barriers such
as safety/security concerns can be
addressed and if greater separation
between people walking and biking
and motorists can be provided. Key
findings include:
• Sixty-three percent of respondents expressed that they like the Parkway and felt it could be even better if it were longer and/or connected to more destinations in the City.
• Over 71% of respondents walk at least a few times per month. A smaller share of respondents bike regularly (59%), though more expressed interest in biking if conditions were different. • Top concerns and barriers to walking, biking, rolling, and using the Reedley Parkway included missing sidewalks or bikeways, and/or poor maintenance of these facilities, as well as a lack of lighting and concerns over personal safety.

Figure 3: Barriers to Walking
Figure 4: Barriers to Biking
18 Chapter 1: Introduction
Pop-up Engagement Events
To maximize the number of people engaged in the planning process, the project team attended and staffed a table at four major events in Reedley, including Christmas in the Park, Reedley Street Eats, the Reedley Lions Bike Rodeo, and the Reedley Fiesta to share information about the project and collect input through interactive activities.

Community Design Charette
The project team held a multi-day charrette in March 2023 to engage the community in identifying issues and locations the plan should address and develop initial infrastructure recommendations in response to the input. In consultation with the Project Advisory Group, the project team held
multiple activities to engage residents and stakeholders in the community, including a kickoff workshop, two walk audits, a bike audit, focus groups, and a concluding open house to showcase the draft recommendations developed from the
feedback collected throughout the week. The team received nearly 200 written comments across all events.

Community Workshop
In October 2023, the Community
Workshop showcased elements of
the draft plan, highlighting project
recommendations for the Parkway,
bike network, and pedestrian
network. The workshop provided
an opportunity for the public to
provide their feedback on the list of
recommended projects and to help
prioritize those projects.

Chapter 2: Goals and Objectives 19
Chapter 2:

Goals and Objectives
The four goals of the Reedley Moves Plan, developed with input from the PAG, establish clear direction for investments in walking, bicycling, and rolling, and support the needs of users of all ages and abilities. Below each goal are objectives, or tangible outcomes, that support each goal.

1. Provide Additional Transportation Options: Increase and enhance transportation options to make it safer and more desirable for residents and visitors to walk, bike, and roll. • Fill in gaps in the sidewalk and bikeway networks to create continuous facilities.
• Remove barriers to walking, biking, and rolling by adding new crossings compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and enhancing safety at existing crossings, particularly in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity.
• Expand the Parkway to increase recreational and transportation options for residents and visitors.
• Enhance safety and security along trails and streets through pedestrian-scale lighting that encourages physical activity year-round. • Equitably distribute bikeways across the city to ensure safe and comfortable infrastructure for all residents, especially those who rely on transportation by bike.

2. Encourage Healthy Behavior: Enhance public health
through high-quality infrastructure that creates opportunities for people to walk and bike and as well as complementary policies and programs to encourage healthy behavior.
• Incorporate national best practices in street design to increase user comfort and reduce risks of crashes involving vulnerable road users. • Improve the quality of existing facilities to promote user comfort and appeal to a wider range of potential bicyclists and trail users. • Collaborate with the Fresno County Department of Public Health and Kings Canyon Unified School District to offer programs for children and adults about safe walking, rolling, and biking. 20 Chapter 2: Goals and Objectives

3. Enhance Quality of Life: Increase quality of life through investments that improve access to community destinations and expand opportunities for outdoor recreation.
• Enhance and promote the Reedley Parkway as a community and regional asset.
• Increase opportunities for people to walk and bike to community destinations across Reedley, including parks, grocery stores, and healthcare.
• Coordinate with City partners, such as Kings Canyon Unified School District, Reedley College, Sierra Kings Health Care District, and the Greater Chamber of Commerce, on programs that promote and encourage active transportation.

4. Pursue Strategic Investments: Pursue strategic, high-impact investments that are cost-effective and feasible and that can be maintained over time.
• Combine local, state, and federal resources to pursue major improvement projects, such as extensions to the Reedley Parkway. • Identify and prioritize short-term and high-impact projects that can be implemented as part of regular repaving and road maintenance efforts without requiring major road reconstruction.
• Incorporate plan recommendations into City design standards and long-range planning efforts.
• Ensure that all existing and proposed bikeway, pedestrian, and trail facilities can be properly maintained.
• Partner with Fresno County Public Works and Planning, Tulare County, and the Fresno COG to pursue regional connections and improve bikeways and trails that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 21
Chapter 3:

Existing Conditions
This chapter provides an overview of Reedley’s population and multimodal transportation network, including transit, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and trails. See Appendix C for a review of previous plans and policies that informed this planning process.

Community Overview
Regional Context
The City of Reedley is centrally located in California’s San Joaquin Valley, in Fresno County, between California’s Coastal Mountain Range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Reedley is approximately 25 miles southeast of the City of Fresno and is part of the greater Fresno metropolitan area and a member of the Fresno Council of Governments (COG). The surrounding San Joaquin Valley is known for its rich soil and is recognized as one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. As such, agriculture has historically had a great influence on the economy and land use in Reedley, though local industries have diversified in recent years.

Regional access to the city is via State Route (SR) 99, located approximately 10 miles west of the city center, and SR 180 located approximately nine miles north of the city center. These facilities are heavily used for local, regional, and national travel. Manning Avenue, a divided four-lane major arterial facility, serves as the primary connection to SR 99. The Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA), together with the Dinuba Area Regional Transit, operates limited public transit routes in Reedley as part of regional service. Though rail activity has decreased over time, the San Joaquin Valley Railroad lines run through the heart of downtown Reedley.

Reedley is home to many regional and local destinations, including Reedley College, a junior college which contributes to the employment and educational opportunities in the city, the highly walkable downtown central business district, and numerous schools and parks. As of the 2020 U.S. Census, Reedley’s population was 25,227.
22 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
A mural on the Reedley Parkway illustrates Reedley’s agricultural history Population Characteristics
The population of Reedley is notable for its high share of Hispanic or Latino/a residents, and for modest household income levels compared to Fresno County and the country overall. About 79% of Reedley’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino/a, with the second most-populous racial/ ethnic group being White, non-Hispanic/Latino/a, at 15.4%. Sixty-four percent of households speak a language other than English at home. By comparison, Fresno County is 53.6% Hispanic or Latino/a overall, with 27.0% identifying as White, non-Hispanic/Latino/a. Across Fresno County, 43.6% of households speak a language other than English at home.

Median household income in Reedley is $55,498, with an estimated 18.4% of the population living in poverty. By comparison, median household income across Fresno County is $61,276, with an estimated 19.4% of the population living in poverty. For the U.S. overall, median household income is higher and the percent living in poverty is lower. See Table 1 for a summary of population characteristics in Reedley compared to Fresno County and the U.S.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 23
Table 1: Selected Population Characteristics of Reedley Compared to Fresno County Overall Population Characteristics Reedley Fresno County United States Percent Hispanic or Latino/a* 79.1% 53.6% 18.9%
Percent White, non-Hispanic/Latino/a* 15.4% 27.0% 59.3% Percent of Households that Speak a Language Other than English at Home^

64.0% 43.6% 21.7%
Median Household Income^ $55,498 $61,276 $69,021
Percent of Population Living in Poverty^ 18.4% 19.4% 11.6% *U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
^U.S. Census Bureau 2017-2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Despite modest incomes, vehicle ownership in Reedley is high, with 94% of households having access to at least one vehicle (see Table 2). Vehicle ownership in Reedley is in fact higher than in Fresno County and the country overall. This suggests a high level of dependency on private vehicles in Reedley – and room for improvement in terms of providing options to use active modes of transportation. Reducing vehicle dependency in Reedley may also be beneficial as vehicle ownership can place cost burdens on families.

Table 2: Share of Households without Access to a Vehicle, 2018 Number of Vehicles Available Reedley Fresno County United States No vehicle available 6.0% 7.4% 8.3%
1 vehicle available 28.8% 31.2% 32.5%
2 vehicles available 36.0% 36.5% 37.1%
3 vehicles available 16.0% 16.3% 14.8%
4 or more vehicles available 13.1% 8.6% 7.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-year Estimates Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program, with the goal of improving public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity.

DACs have historically been designated based on their scores from the CalEnviroScreen tool, developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to identify census tracts most susceptible to pollution due to pollution burden, socioeconomic factors, age, or health. All census tracts in Reedley meet the criteria for DACs. Improving public health and reducing pollution by strengthening the active transportation network and providing opportunities for physical activity helps address DAC needs, and additional state funds may be available for projects identified in the Reedley Moves Plan. 24 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Public Transit Service
Public transit in Reedley is limited to two regional services (each with one bus serving Reedley) that operate on weekdays and only connect riders to specific destinations in nearby cities. These two services are integrated to help users make connections between the systems. There is one park-andride facility, located near Reedley College. See Table 3 for a summary of existing transit services.

Table 3: Existing Transit Service in Reedley
Operating Agency Route Destinations Frequency Days Times Fresno County Rural
Transit Agency
KingsburgReedleyReedley College, Parlier City Hall, Fowler Bus Shelter, Fowler Children’s Hospital,
Selma Plaza Shopping Center, Coffee Pot
Bus Shelter (Kingsburg)
Three trips per
day
MondayFriday7am-5pm
Dinuba Area Regional
Transit
Dinuba
Connection
Reedley: Reedley College, Adventist
Medical Center, Palm Village Retirement
Community
Dinuba: Transit Center, Tulare Works,
Walmart
Hourly MondayFriday7am-9pm
(except
summer, 7am3pm only)
Existing Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network includes sidewalks and shared-use paths. Reedley’s downtown is small-scale and pedestrian-oriented, allowing the average person to reach any destination within 15 minutes on foot. Parallel to the downtown is the Reedley Parkway, a shared-use path that follows an abandoned rail corridor and is open to all modes of micromobility as well as cyclists and pedestrians. Nearly 63 miles (71%) of streets in Reedley feature sidewalks on both sides, while about 12 miles (13.5%) feature sidewalks only on one side, and almost 14 miles (15.5%) have no sidewalks.

Figure 5 highlights streets where sidewalks exist only on one side or are absent, as well as streets with sidewalks on both sides and shared-use (i.e., off-street) paths serving all active transportation users. There are two ongoing projects to install sidewalks and ADA-compliant curb ramps where they are currently missing along Dinuba Avenue and along all streets around Jefferson Elementary.

Table 4: Pedestrian Facility Mileage in Reedley
Facility Type Total Miles of Road
No Sidewalks Present 13.73
Sidewalk on One Side of Street Only 11.96
Sidewalks on Both Sides of Street 62.88
Total 88.57
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 25
Figure 5 also notes the location of pedestrian crashes from 2015 to 2019.

There were 20 total crashes, two in which pedestrians sustained severe or fatal injuries. Most crashes occurred on arterial streets with speed limits of 30 mph or greater, with West Manning Avenue being the most common; one of the four fatal or severe crashes occurred on a local street in downtown Reedley. While nearly all crashes occurred at intersections, one crash occurred along a sidewalk-less 55 mph segment of South Reed Avenue.

Figure 5: Reedley’s Pedestrian Network
Shared Use Path
Existing Sidewalks
Sidewalks on both sides of street
Sidewalk on one side only
No sidewalks
Pedestrian Crash Locations (Since 2015)
Fatal or Severe I njuries Sustained
Crash Locations
P edes tria n N etw ork
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
26 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Pedestrian crossing at North Avenue
Olson Ave bridge over King’s River
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 27
Bikeway Network
Facility Types
While bicyclists may use all roads in Reedley, the term “bicycle network” refers specifically to a set of designated shared-use paths, bike lanes, bike routes, and separated bikeways. Table 5 provides information and graphics illustrating each facility type, based on the Caltrans classification system for bikeways.

Table 5: Bikeway Facility Type Classifications
Source for bikeway width recommendations: California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, 7th Ed., 2020
28 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Class I
A bike path – also called shared-use paths, multi-use
trails, or when adjacent to a street in place of a sidewalk, a sidepath – is located in a separated right-of-way
and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians. An example of a Class I facility is the Reedley Parkway which provides a shared bike and
pedestrian trail separated from the street.

Class II
A bike lane is a dedicated space within the paved area
of road for use by bicyclists. It is usually located along the right edge of a paved road area or between the parking
lane and the first vehicle lane. A bike lane is identified by a painted (usually white) lane line, and sometimes other pavement markings, such as a bicycle or bicyclist icon.

Bike lanes may be painted green for greater visibility.

Bicycles and similar-speed micromobility devices,
such as e-scooters, have exclusive use of the bike lane, though vehicles and pedestrians may cross it for site
access and at intersections. There are many bike lanes
in Reedley, such as along East Avenue and portions of
Manning Avenue.

A variation of a bike lane is a buffered bike lane, which has an additional painted buffer space to increase
separation between bicyclists and motorists. There are
currently no buffered bike lanes in Reedley.

Class III
A bike route is a recommended route for bicycle travel
along an existing right-of-way which is typically signed but not striped for bike travel. Bike routes may include roadside signs and “sharrows” painted on the pavement,
alerting motorists that the road is shared with bicyclists.

A handful of streets in Reedley are designated bike
routes, such as 11th Street between I Street and F Street.

A variation of the bike route is a bike boulevard, also known as a neighborhood greenway, among other terms.

This facility type includes additional traffic calming
measures, such as traffic circles, speed humps, and/
or raised crosswalks, and is typically recommended for
streets with lower speeds and lower vehicle volumes.

There are currently no bike boulevards in Reedley.

Class IV
A separated bikeway – also called a protected bike lane – is a lane within the paved area of road for exclusive use by bicycles that is separated from vehicles by a physical barrier with a vertical element (e.g., flexible posts,
bollards, planters, parked vehicles, curbs). Separated
bikeways may be one- or two-way facilities (the latter
which may also be referred to as a “cycle track”) and are usually located along the right edge of a paved road area, adjacent to the curb. A separated bikeway is identified by a painted (usually white) lane line, and sometimes other pavement markings, such as a bicycle or bicyclist icon, in addition to the vertical separation element. Separated bikeways may be painted green for greater visibility.

Bicycles and similar-speed micromobility devices, such
as e-scooters, have exclusive use of the bike lane but
vehicles and pedestrians may cross it. Reedley has one
separated bikeway on Huntsman Avenue.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 29
Separated bikeway along Huntsman Avenue
Existing Bikeways
Reedley’s bike network is comprised primarily of Class II bike lanes, followed by Class I bike paths, then Class III bike routes. There is one recently built Class IV separated bikeway along Huntsman Avenue. See Figure 6 for a summary of miles of facilities by type. Figure 6 shows where the various bicycle facilities exist in Reedley, by facility type.

Bike lanes and bike routes are present throughout the central portion of the city – bounded roughly by Dinuba Avenue to the south, North Avenue to the north, Reed Avenue to the west, and East Avenue to the east – with some corridors featuring a combination of both facility types. Bike lanes are present along most of East Avenue, which provides a critical north-south connection across the city. Bikeways are less likely to be present in the eastern portion of the city, with east-west bike lanes present along most of Dinuba Avenue and north-south bike lanes present along portions of South Buttonwillow Avenue. There are few local streets that are fully connected between East Avenue and South Buttonwillow Avenue, creating a need for additional active transportation connections across the city.
30 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Table 6: Bikeway Facility Mileage in Reedley
Bikeway Type Total Mileage*
Shared-use Path (Class I) 3.50
Bike Lane (Class II) 5.95**
Bike Route (Class III) 1.72
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 0.25
*Facilities on two sides of the street are counted once; **5.95 miles of bike lanes represent bike lanes on one side of street only.

Crashes Involving Bicyclists
Figure 6 also shows the location of crashes in which bicyclists were injured (represented as black dots) from 2015 to 2019. There was a total of 31 crashes involving bicyclists over that five-year span, including four crashes in which bicyclists sustained severe or fatal injuries. Most crashes occurred on arterial streets with speed limits of 30 mph or greater, with West Manning Avenue being the most common street (just as in the pedestrian network.) The intersections of Manning Avenue/Frankwood Avenue and Manning Avenue/I Street each had two crashes; one of which was fatal or severe. Another of the four fatal/severe crashes occurred on a local street in downtown Reedley.

This data is reinforced by the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) completed for the City in 2018, which considered collision types, not just those involving bicyclists and pedestrians, and identifies the intersections of Manning Avenue/I Street and Manning Avenue/Reed Avenue as the top two locations for further analysis based on collision counts. The intersection of Manning Avenue/Frankwood Avenue is also identified as an area requiring further analysis.

Intersection Gaps and Parking Conflicts
In accordance with a City of Reedley General Plan policy, many bike lanes end before approaching intersections, based on the assumption that bicyclists will transition to sidewalks through the conflict zone. To reduce crash risk, minimize conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians, and ensure a connected network for bicyclists, these intersections should be redesigned so that bike lanes safely continue through the intersections. Among these locations, the Frankwood Avenue/Manning Avenue intersection has been the site of two bicycle crashes in recent years, reflecting the need to reconsider the current policy.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 31
Figure 6: Reedley’s Bikeway Network
E x is ting B ik ew a ys
Shared Use Path (Class I )
Bike Lanes
Bike Route
Separated Bikeway (Class I V)
B icyclis t Cra s h Loca tions ( S ince 2 0 1 5 )
Fatal or Severe I njuries Sustained
Crash Location
E x is ting B ik ew a y s a nd T r a ils
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
Gaps Approaching
Intersections
Frankwood Avenue (both sides of
street) at Manning Ave
Frankwood Avenue (southbound lane)
at North Avenue
Reed Avenue (northbound lane) at
Manning Avenue
Block Length Gaps
Approaching Major
Intersections
East Avenue at Dinuba Avenue: The
bike lane currently ends at G Street
intersection; this bike lane should
extend to Dinuba Avenue
Manning Avenue at Reed Avenue:

The bike lane currently ends at Reedley
High School; extending to Reed Avenue
would complete the network
Some bike lanes, including along East Avenue near the intersection with G Street, are used for vehicle parking. While this issue may be resolved with the current East Avenue rehabilitation project, to avoid this happening in this area and elsewhere, the City may consider developing a policy to ban vehicles from parking in bike lanes and additional signage and pavement markings to better identify the space as intended for use by bicyclists.
32 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Reedley Parkway
and Trails Network
Reedley Parkway
The Reedley Parkway (the
Parkway) is a 3.2-mile-long trail and
landscaped corridor constructed
within the right-of-way of an
abandoned railroad line that was
donated to the City in the mid1990s. In 1997, a grassroots coalition of residents advocated for
the conversion of the land into a
recreation trail that would connect
to various community points of
interest. Strong community support
led to the formation of the Reedley
Parkway Committee to oversee
the design, funding, construction,
and maintenance of a rails-to-trails
project. The Parkway was originally
envisioned to go beyond the
railway corridor to loop around the
entire city.

Reedley Parkway near downtown
The Parkway is considered part of the pedestrian and bicycle network and is included in both maps (Figure 5 and Figure 6). It is the primary shared-use path bisecting the city, connecting Reedley College with the downtown. Where the main trail corridor intersects with Buttonwillow Avenue, a Parkway spur extends north along the street to connect to Dinuba Avenue. An additional Parkway segment extends from Huntsmen Avenue to the Reedley Sports Park and is connected to the main trail via a separated bikeway.

The Parkway features a meandering, paved path ranging from 8-12’ in width with ample shade trees, bike racks, benches, and exercise equipment. While the trail features lighting throughout the downtown area, the trail lacks lighting to the southeast of Dinuba Avenue.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 33
Other Trails
Paved Trails: One other paved trail in the city that is not part of the Reedley Parkway system is located along the edges of General Grant Middle School and connects Camacho Park, Mueller Park, and adjacent streets.

Unpaved Trails: One notable unpaved trail within the city is the Kings River Trail, which follows the east bank of the Kings River adjacent to the Reedley College campus. The trail can be accessed via the northern end of the Reedley Parkway. While unpaved trails are not a focus of this plan, they do serve pedestrians in Reedley.

Access point to King’s River Trail near Reedley College 34 Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs
Chapter 4: Active
Transportation Needs
To determine what Reedley’s pedestrian and bicycle networks need to be safer, equitable, and more comfortable for all users to access everyday destinations, a Pedestrian Needs Assessment and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis were performed. See Appendix D for full methodology and results.

Pedestrian Needs
Assessment
The Reedley Moves Plan defines pedestrian activity areas across the city – locations that are likely to generate high numbers of trips taken via walking or biking. These activity areas, which include key destinations and destination clusters, such as schools, parks, or shopping areas (plus a 1/3-mile buffer), are shown in orange in Figure 7. High-activity areas, or places where activity areas overlap, are shown in red. Because activity areas are likely to generate more trips taken via active transportation, they are key areas to focus on for improvements to pedestrian safety and comfort.

The project team reviewed various
factors affecting pedestrian safety
and comfort within these activity
areas, including:
• Presence of sidewalks
• Speed limits
• Crossing frequency and
features
The findings of this assessment
ultimately informed the
recommendations contained in the
Reedley Moves Plan (see Chapter 6).

Pedestrian crossing at North Avenue near Reedley High School Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs 35
Figure 7: Pedestrian Activity Areas
Pedestrian Activity Area
High Pedestrian Activity Area
P edes tria n Activity Area s
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
36 Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs
Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress Analysis
Reedley has a growing network of on-street bike lanes and designated bike routes, but there are significant gaps in the network as well as many locations where the speed and volume of traffic make bicycling uncomfortable for many residents and visitors. Understanding these needs is therefore critical for creating a comfortable and well-connected bicycle network that appeals to a wide range of users.

Bicyclist User Types
and Stress Tolerance
The stress that individuals feel when
bicycling is influenced by vehicle
traffic, with some people more
comfortable riding with fastermoving or higher-volume vehicle traffic, while others may only feel
comfortable biking on off-street
paths. As shown in Figure 8, people
generally identify with four main
groups based on differing levels of
bicycling comfort:
• Not Interested or Able
• Interested but Concerned
• Somewhat Confident
• Highly Confident
Figure 8: Types of Bicyclists and Stress Tolerance
Data Source: Dill and McNeil, 2016
Dill and McNeil (2016) surveyed 3,000 adults across all 50 U.S. states and found that members of the “Interested but Concerned” group (51% of users surveyed) make up the majority of those who can or want to bicycle. This group generally prefers biking on separated facilities, such as shared-use paths like the Reedley Parkway, separated or buffered bike lanes, or on roads with low traffic speeds and volumes. Measuring the level of stress along the existing transportation network can help determine the quality of the bike network from the perspective of most residents.

Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs 37
Level of Traffic Stress Components
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a tool for quantifying the comfort level experienced by most people bicycling along a street on a scale from 1 (least stress) to 4 (highest stress). The following inputs and street characteristics determine LTS scores for a street segment:
• Bicycle facility presence, type, and width
• Posted speed limit
• Number of travel lanes per direction
• Average daily traffic (ADT) volume
• Presence and width of on-street parking lanes
• Presence of a centerline
Level of Traffic Stress Results
LTS analysis was applied to the entire street network across the city of Reedley, including locations with and without dedicated bikeways (see Figure 9). Differences in LTS scores can be observed based on speed limit, presence of on-street parking, or traffic volume. The results can be used to identify gaps in the bike network and existing bikeways where stress levels are higher than desired.

LTS is lowest (LTS=1) in Reedley on off-street shared-use paths and local/ residential streets, as these streets have low traffic volumes and speed limits of 25 mph. Local/residential roads that cut across the city and provide access to key destinations represent an opportunity for low-stress bicycling and can serve as alternatives to major roads.

Striped bike lanes are typically found on streets in Reedley with higher posted speeds and traffic volumes. As such, LTS is moderate (LTS=2 or 3) on most street segments with formal bicycle facilities. Some major streets with bike lanes, such as Manning Avenue, receive an LTS score of 4 due to the high speeds and traffic volumes; Manning Avenue also features on-street parking, which increases stress for people bicycling. Most collector and arterial streets in Reedley where posted speed limits are 30 mph and higher, and bike lanes are not present, receive an LTS score of 4.

Table 7 provides a few examples of how various elements (bike lane width, travel lanes, etc.) determine LTS scores for selected locations and street conditions. The LTS scores, along with crash data, network gaps, parking conflicts, and other observations described in Chapter 3: Existing Conditions informed the recommendations made in this plan.
38 Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs
Table 7: LTS Scores and Conditions for Select Streets with Bike Lanes Location LTS Bike Lane
Width
Travel
Lanes
Posted
Speed (mph)
Daily Traffic
Volume
On-street Parking
Utilization
12th / 13th St 2 5’ 2 25 2,000 High
Frankwood Ave 3 5’ 2 35 5,000-7,500 Low
Manning Ave 4 5’ 4 35-55 10-15,000 Low
Figure 9: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Results
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
1 2
3 4
Existing Bikeways

B icycle Level of T ra ffic S tres s
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 39 Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility
Selection and Pedestrian
Crossing Enhancements
Bicycle Facility Selection
A key component of this plan is a proposed citywide network of bikeways designed for people of all ages and abilities, not just for those who are already regularly riding. This involves careful selection of bikeways that match the conditions of a given street, plus additional enhancements such as intersection treatments designed for bicyclists. This section of the Reedley Moves Plan documents how proposed facilities in this plan were selected and ways to enhance bicyclist comfort within existing curb lines. Intersection treatments for bikeways and pedestrian crossing enhancements are discussed in the following sections.

See Chapter 6 for detailed recommendations, including proposed bikeway facilities by location.

Selecting Facilities
for User Comfort
While many factors contribute to
whether people choose to ride a
bicycle for a given trip, one of the
biggest considerations is safety and
comfort. The community survey
conducted for this plan found
that only 25% said they were not
interested in biking more, meaning
that 75% may bike more if there
were fewer barriers to biking.

This “Interested but Concerned”
bicyclist demographic (see Chapter
1, Introduction) prefers streets
with low traffic and low speeds,
shared-use paths/trails, or other
facilities that provide protection
or physical separation from fastmoving vehicles. By increasing the miles of low-stress and separated
facilities, Reedley can increase both
the overall number of people who
choose to bike, and the total number
of trips taken by biking. Figure 10: FHWA Guidance on Bikeway Facility Selection 40 Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Best practices from the Federal Highway Administration’s Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) were used to recommend facilities that are comfortable for most users, cost-effective, and relatively quick to implement.

This guide accounts for how traffic volume (annual average daily traffic or AADT), speed limit, and other factors influence bicyclist safety and comfort.

Each facility type recommendation reflects a balance of user comfort, cost, and time to implement. While off-street shared-use paths or separated bikeways may be the most comfortable facility type for many people, these facilities require additional resources, time, and political will to implement and may not always be necessary given the conditions of a street. On the contrary, simply adding a bike lane to a street is not always useful; if a street has high traffic volumes or vehicles traveling faster than 25 or 30 mph, many people will not feel comfortable with just a stripe separating them from traffic.

Enhancing Bicycle User
Comfort within the Roadway
New bikeways are generally installed through
reconfiguration or reconstruction/new construction.

Reconfiguration includes street improvements that can
generally be accomplished by reallocating space within
the existing curb lines, such as installation of bike lanes and other pavement markings. A common approach to
reconfiguring streets is to re-stripe streets during planned maintenance. Where pavement is in good condition, striping can be removed and reapplied. Reconfigured roadways
often include striped buffers, or new or widened bike
lanes, and narrower vehicle travel lanes. Reconstruction or new construction includes moving or installing curb lines, widening streets, installing paved shoulders and additional crossings, and implementing facilities outside of the existing curb-to-curb space. A sidepath is an example of a facility that might be installed outside of the existing curb-to-curb space; sidepaths replace sidewalks when a wider facility is desired to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

This plan identifies potential new bikeways or
enhancements to existing bikeways that can be
accomplished using reconfiguration. Many of these
reconfiguration projects can be accomplished through
regular resurfacing and restriping efforts, plus additional signage or spot improvements, as needed. See Appendix
F: Implementation Resources for more information on
cost estimates and funding mechanisms to implement the
various projects identified in this plan.

There are multiple ways to improve the
comfort of people walking, biking, or rolling
through street reconfiguration. These relatively
fast, low-cost changes can have major impacts
on pedestrian and bicyclist comfort.
• Narrowing travel lanes: Many streets in
Reedley are excessively wide. Narrowing
travel lanes through restriping provides
space for bike lanes without removing any
traffic lanes and encourages motorists to
slow down.
• Create low-stress bikeways along
neighborhoods streets: Many residential
streets in Reedley feature low speeds and
traffic levels and are candidates for bike
boulevards. Various low-cost treatments
can be applied to these streets to manage
vehicle speeds and increase bicyclist
comfort, including removing center
striping and applying sharrows (bicyclist
pavement markings) on both directions of
the street to alert all users that the street
is to be shared by motorists and bicyclists.

Striping parking lanes can also help
narrow the road and encourage motorists
to slow down.

Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 41 Intersection Treatments
for Bikeways
Intersection treatments are sometimes overlooked when installing bike facilities but are essential for continuity and comfort. One of the most important aspects of creating a comfortable and connected bike network is ensuring that bike facilities continue to and through intersections and do not drop off, leaving bicyclists in conflict with vehicles.

Refer to the NACTO’s Don’t Give Up at the Intersection for detailed guidance on intersection design treatments that reduce vehicle-bike and vehiclepedestrian conflicts, including discussion on protected bike intersections, dedicated bike intersections, and minor street crossings, as well as signalization strategies to reduce conflicts and increase comfort and safety.

Conflict area markings are intersection pavement markings designed to improve visibility, alert all road users to expected behaviors, and to reduce conflicts with turning vehicles. These markings are used anywhere where vehicles may cross into a bike lane, such as at an intersection, driveway, or if motorists must cross a bike lane to enter a right-turn lane. Conflict area markings often involve a mix of white and green paint to increase visibility to motorists. At intersections, they run alongside crosswalks. Source: NACTO Applicable at signalized intersections, bike boxes provide a dedicated space between the crosswalk and vehicle stop line where bicyclists can wait during the red light. Typically painted green, bike boxes position bicyclists in front of motor vehicles at the intersection, which improves visibility and motorist awareness, and allows bicyclists to “claim the lane” if desired. Bike boxes aid bicyclists in making turning maneuvers at the intersection and provide additional queuing space for multiple bicyclists. Bike boxes improve bicyclist safety and comfort by increasing the share of motorists who yield to bicyclists and reducing conflicts between bicyclists traveling straight and drivers turning right.
42 Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Intersection crossings that are highly visible, ADA-compliant, and designed to reduce crossing distances are essential to a safe and comfortable pedestrian network. Table 8 provides an overview of pedestrian crossing treatments recommended for Reedley, with key features shown in blue.

Table 8: Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Types
High-visibility
crosswalk
Improves motorists’ awareness of a crossing
location through a striping design that includes
continental crosswalk markings (i.e., parallel to
the direction of travel for motorists). Crosswalks
should be yellow if within 600’ of school
grounds.

Directional curb
ramps
Provides one dedicated curb ramp at each end
of every crossing. All curb ramps should have
detectable warning surfaces to alert pedestrians
with vision disabilities that they are entering a
vehicular space. Blended transitions are also
acceptable instead of directional curb ramps.

Pedestrian-scale
lighting
Provides an appropriate level of lighting at
an established crossing at night or low-light
conditions. At crossing locations, pedestrianscale lighting should be placed in front of the crosswalk to illuminate a pedestrian to motorists.

Daylighting
Improves visibility at intersections and midblock crossing locations by removing visual obstructions near the crossing. Daylighting may
include removal of parking spaces, signage, and
removal of parking space pavement markings.

Pedestrian refuge
island
Provides a protected space for pedestrians to
stand and wait in the middle of a two-way street
so pedestrians only need to cross one direction
of travel at a time.

Chapter 5: Bicycle Facility Selection and Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 43 Curb extensions
Extend the sidewalk into the street to reduce
the crossing distance, limiting the exposure of
crossing pedestrians and enhancing the sight
distance between pedestrians and motorists.

Raised crossing
Reduces vehicle speeds and increases visibility
of pedestrians by ramping up the street to
sidewalk height at a crosswalk. Raised crossings
are often placed at mid-block crossing locations
and are particularly useful around schools where
children are expected to cross frequently.

Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Rectangular-shaped yellow lights indicators
that flash when a pedestrian activates it via
pushbutton or pedestrian detection. Results
in increased yielding rates of motorists
at crosswalks and increased visibility of
pedestrians. RRFBs are typically used with a
crossing warning sign and are placed on both
ends of the crossing and in the crossing island,
if present.

Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Includes one yellow and two red lenses on a
signal pole to stop traffic when pedestrians are
present. PHBs are activated by a pedestrian
push button or pedestrian detection.

Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Increases pedestrian visibility to turning vehicles
by providing a green light for pedestrians three
to seven seconds before motorists are given a
green light indication.
44 Chapter 6: Recommendations
Chapter 6:

Recommendations
This chapter presents three overarching, infrastructure-based recommendations for enhancing active transportation in Reedley. Each recommendation is supported by a series of strategies. The plan’s recommendations are designed to help achieve the goals and objectives described in Chapter 2 and include both active transportation infrastructure projects as well as policies and programs the City could pursue to further enhance safety and promote a culture of walking, rolling, and biking.

2. Expand the On-Street
Bikeway Network
• Enhance existing facilities
• Fill in network gaps and create
new connections
• Create a bike boulevard system
along low-stress streets

3. Improve Pedestrian
Connections
• Create complete sidewalks
and comfortable conditions for
walking and rolling
• Provide additional pedestrian
crossings
• Address skewed intersections
Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway 45 Recommendation #1
Expand and Enhance
the Reedley Parkway
The Reedley Parkway is a tree-lined paved rail trail that is beloved by the Reedley community. It serves as a recreational oasis and key transportation artery for those walking, rolling, and biking, connecting to Reedley College, downtown Reedley, and Reedley Sports Park. While it may be one of the safest and most comfortable places in Reedley to engage in active transportation, it has the potential to be a place to gather rather than just a corridor to move through. Expanding and enhancing the Parkway will increase access for users across Reedley and provide an even more robust way to reach numerous destinations across the community.

Strategy 1-A: Expand the Parkway
Expanding the Reedley Parkway would have significant benefits for daily transportation and recreational purposes. The 2020 Reedley Parkway Prefeasibility Study presented two potential alignments: a north loop and a south loop. This plan recommends slightly modified versions of those two alignments (see Figure 11). Reedley Parkway near downtown Figure 11: Proposed Bikeway and Trail Network
Reedley Parkway
R ecom m ended B ik ew a ys
Enhance Existing Class I I Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (Class I I /I I B)
Bike Boulevard (Class I I I B)
Shared Use Path/Sidepath (Class I )
Separated Bike Lanes (Class I V)
E x is ting B ik ew a ys
Shared Use Path (Class I )
Separated Bikeway (Class I V)
R ecom m ended B ik ew a y s a nd T r a ils
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
46 Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway King’s River Trail and South Loop
Improvements along the King’s River south of Manning Avenue and the south loop can be divided into sections. Table 9 summarizes the extents and lengths of each potential section.
• King’s River South: The plan proposes a paved shared-use path along the King’s River to the south of Manning Avenue as a near-term high priority. This segment would connect to the existing Parkway via the wide sidewalk on the south side of Manning Avenue and provide regional connections to Reedley High School and Reedley College. The first part of the Reedley Parkway extension could be further split into phases to the north and south of Reedley Beach. Various on-street bikeway connections to this Parkway extension are proposed in this plan, including a bike boulevard along Eymann Avenue.
• Floral Avenue: The shared-use path could be extended along Floral Avenue and Buttonwillow Avenue to connect to the existing Parkway.

Coordination will be needed with Fresno County as Floral Avenue forms the city/county boundary.
• Reedley Sports Park Connector: A final segment would extend the eastern Parkway terminus along the creek through the Reedley Sports Park to Dinuba Avenue.

Further engineering analysis will likely be needed to identify the alignment and environmental concerns along the King’s River corridor and to ensure sufficient right-of-way is available for proposed segments along Floral Avenue and Buttonwillow Avenue.

North Loop Extension
In addition to the south loop, the Prefeasibility Study presented a concept for a loop around the north side of the City of Reedley. Constructing the north loop as a recreational amenity is a long-term objective for the City, though such a path may require significant right-of-way acquisition. Further study is needed to determine the final alignment and costs associated with the north loop.

The alignment proposed in this plan links the north loop to the proposed sidepath along Reed Avenue, fronting Reedley College. Since much of this loop is technically located outside of the city boundaries, coordination with Fresno County and the Fresno COG will be required.

Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway 47 Table 9: Proposed Reedley Parkway Expansion
Parkway Section Terminus A (N/W) Terminus B (S/E) Length (miles) King’s River South Manning Ave Floral Ave 2.7
Floral Ave Floral Ave Huntsmen Ave 2.4
Reedley Sports Park Connector Reedley Sports Park terminus Dinuba Ave 0.5 North Loop Reed Ave Dinuba Ave 4.3
Reed Ave/ Manning Ave South Ave Reedley Parkway at Manning Ave 1.3 Bicyclists on the Reedley Parkway
48 Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway Strategy 1-B: Enhance the Parkway through
Additional Amenities and Programming
Enhancing the Parkway will entice more users to get outside and be active, supporting the Reedley Moves Plan goal of bolstering public health. Parkway enhancements can also support economic development and position the Reedley Parkway as a regional recreational attraction. Table 10 summarizes potential enhancements and identifies relative costs. These enhancements – including lighting, amenities, public art and interactive elements, and programming − are intended to further the community’s enjoyment of the Parkway, and the City should consider implementing as many as possible, noting the relative cost estimates and considerations for implementation.

Figure 12 illustrates how various enhancements could be integrated into the Parkway.

Table 10: Reedley Parkway Enhancements
Enhancement Cost and Implementation Considerations Estimated Cost Lighting
Enhanced lighting Materials and installation cost, plus maintenance $$$ Amenities
Playground equipment Materials and installation cost $$$ Picnic tables Materials and installation cost $$
Public Art and Interactive Elements
Activities for all ages
(e.g., outdoor games) Materials cost, maintenance, equipment replacement, etc. $ Public art Could be a program that commissions local students and artists $ Programming
Food truck court The City could issue permits to vendors, which would fund staff to clean up after events; maintenance and site cleanup needed $
Events Cost varies depending on event; for instance, a movie screening might involve the cost of royalties, projection equipment, and staff to clean up after event $$ Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway 49 Figure 12: Reedley Parkway Conceptual Layout
Lighting
Enhanced lighting is not only the community’s top priority for the Parkway (as voted by community members during the week-long Community Design Charrette), but it has additional implications for personal security and user comfort. Lighting should be installed along the Parkway segment south of Dinuba Avenue that currently lacks illumination and along all future segments.

Amenities
Potential amenities that would benefit Parkway users are explored below. • Installing additional picnic tables along the Parkway would encourage users to spend more time there and would be especially useful if food truck programming is pursued.
• Playground equipment would appeal to the Parkway’s youngest users and serve as a location for families in the community to meet up. • Installing more public restrooms (including at new locations) would be useful as the Parkway expands.
• Consider including shade structures along the Pathway. These are best co-located with benches or bike parking to protect stationary users (and bikes) from sun as well as rain.
• Install one or more bicycle repair stations (with air pumps) at key locations along the Parkway. Recommended locations include Reedley Sports Park and the trailhead by the parking lot between 10th Street and 11th Street.

Pedestrian-scale lighting on the
Parkway
50 Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway Programming
Hosting food trucks or events along the Parkway supports local businesses.

Likewise, providing more amenities along the Parkway may draw visitors to Reedley and support businesses within walking or biking distance of the Parkway. While an event such as hosting a movie might incur some cost to the City, other types of programming can be low-cost or pay for themselves, potentially creating new jobs along the way. For instance, hosting a food truck court would involve the City issuing permits to vendors, which would generate revenue to pay staff to set up and clean up after events.

Public Art and Interactive Elements
Public art and interactive elements expand the concept of what the Parkway can be, taking it beyond a place to take a walk or ride a bike. Some murals and farm equipment sculptures already exist along the Parkway and tell the story of Reedley’s agricultural history; expanding this through a formal public art program could get younger community members involved with the Parkway while creating an outdoor attraction. Similarly, outdoor activities and games would benefit Parkway users of all ages and provide additional opportunities to be active aside from walking and biking. Installing such activities would likely only require the cost of materials. Another interactive, low-cost activity with long-term benefits might be a community tree planting program to supplement the shade along the Parkway, enhance biodiversity, and provide opportunities for residents to invest in their community, get outdoors, and be social. Reedley has already mapped trees along the Parkway, and creating a tree planting program could build upon that effort. As a further step, Reedley could develop a mini arboretum along the Parkway, with plaques identifying different tree species.

Outdoor games
Gateway
Gateways
Gateways located at major trail
intersections help give the Parkway
a distinct identity. Gateways
can take many forms, such as an
archway or a unique lighting display
to signify to people that they are
entering the Parkway. Gateways
designs could complement the
design of other Parkway amenities
and include wayfinding elements.

Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway 51 Stormwater Management
As extreme rainfall events become more frequent and severe, the City should consider stormwater management within existing and future sections of the Parkway. Techniques include bioswales – channels made of rocks, vegetation, and/or soil designed to collect rainwater runoff while filtering out pollutants – which could be incorporated into landscaping features parallel to the paved portion of the Parkway.

Strategy 1-C: Apply Comprehensive Signage
and Wayfinding along the Reedley Parkway
General Principles for Wayfinding and Signage
Wayfinding and signage greatly impact how people use and experience trails.

Wayfinding can help trail users orient themselves to the overall network and find their location within the city, while maps and signage can improve safety by clearly designating allowed users (e.g., people on scooters and bikes as well as pedestrians), informing users where they are along the trail, and guiding them to entrance and exit points. Wayfinding and interpretive signage can also provide a sense of place and give the trail a unique identity by highlighting historical and cultural aspects of Reedley. The following core principles can improve wayfinding and the user experience on the Reedley Parkway, and will become especially important as the Parkway expands:
• Keep It Simple: Provide information in a logical format and order that can be understood by the widest possible population. Signs should reveal information sequentially, providing only as much as needed.

Signage plans should avoid elements that create clutter and detract from decision-making, such as extraneous text, distracting branding themes, or over-signing.
• Be Consistent and Predictable: Use common fonts, styles, materials, and placement throughout wayfinding systems to help people quickly understand information. Signs should help people know what to expect by exercising consistency in sign frequency and placement. • Help People Maintain Motion: Text and imagery on signs should be large and simple enough that people bicycling can read without stopping. To allow people bicycling to make decisions in time, signs should be placed an adequate distance in advance of decision and turning points.
52 Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway Signage Types
Interpretive Signage
Interpretive signage, dispersed throughout the trail or at kiosks, can provide information about local history, plants, animals, or ecosystems. The material and design of kiosks and other trail signage should be consistent with trail branding. As “America’s Fruit Basket,” Reedley might consider implementing fruit-themed interpretive signage that elaborates on its agricultural history and reflects the diverse cultural identities that comprise Reedley’s community.

Best practices to consider in the implementation of interpretive (or any textheavy) signage include:
• Kiosks at trailheads should include a roof to protect the sign from UV damage and provide shelter from sun and rain for trail users while reading information.
• Sign material should consider susceptibility to UV damage, other weathering, and vandalism.
• Specialized hardware for securing signs can reduce incidents of theft. • Signposts, kiosks, and roofing material should be rot resistant. • Kiosks and interpretive signs should be placed in accessible locations (i.e., on or adjacent to pavement) so all trail users can get close enough to read the sign. Signs should be set back from the trafficked part of the trail to minimize conflicts between those traveling and those interacting with the signs.
• Signs in Reedley should provide bilingual text (English and Spanish) so that most community members can benefit from the signs.

Interpretive sign adjacent to a trail
Destination and Distance Signs
Signage that includes destinations, services, and associated distances can help trail users make decisions and orient themselves. Destinations should be prioritized and should be progressively signed so trail users are not overwhelmed at any one decision point or cluster of signs. Distances should be provided in miles, written in decimal format, and rounded to tenths so that they are relevant to all trail users regardless of the speed at which they are walking, bicycling, or rolling.

Considerations when selecting destinations as part of wayfinding signage include:
• Of significant interest to many people, including those using the trail for transportation.
• Distinctive in their contribution to local identity, heritage, culture, or recreation.
• Useful for general orientation (e.g., landmarks).
• Publicly owned or not-for-profit.
• Accessible directly from the trail network or via a high-comfort route.

Destination sign
Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway 53 Mile Markers
Mile markers are currently located along the Reedley Parkway to provide users with a way to gauge distance traveled and more precisely identify their location. These markers can be helpful for path users who are exercising, meeting up with others, or, in the case of an emergency, reporting incident locations. Considerations for mile markers along the Parkway include:
• “Mile 0” should usually start at a trailhead.
• Mile markers should be placed at every ¼ or ½ mile.
• The trail name should be included on the marker. Location identifier numbers may be included but should be intuitive and easy to communicate to a dispatcher in case of an emergency.
• Mileage can be marked on trailside posts, painted on the ground, or embedded into the pavement via metal discs. Maintenance requirements for posts or embedded markers should be considered when selecting a style.

Trail Markers
Trail markers, or confirmation signs, assure people that they are on their chosen route. When used near road crossings, they also indicate that bicyclists and pedestrians may be present. Trail markers can be used alone when other signage that can reaffirm a route is not visible, or they can be used on top of a decision sign assembly. Some considerations include:
• Trail logos can be incorporated into signs to enhance trail branding. • Confirmation signage is important to include where people may question a route choice, such as before and after an intersection. • Carefully consider placement of all trail signs that may be visible from roads to avoid confusion for motorists. Most confirmation signs are placed on the far sides of intersections. Trail marker
54 Recommendation #1 Expand and Enhance the Reedley Parkway Strategy 1-D: Apply Design Techniques to
Accommodate a Range of User Types
To support the range of modes used on the Parkway, from wheelchairs and mobility devices to e-bikes, there are ways to design future Parkway segments and modify existing segments so that various users can comfortably coexist. The width of the Pathway should be wide enough for different user types to travel side-by-side and provide extra-wide places for people to safely pass. Policies that address newer modes of mobility, such as e-bikes, can also help guide the use of space. Taking these design and policy approaches will ensure that the Parkway can be used for recreational activities as well as everyday transportation purposes.

Desired Trail Width
Where space permits, the Reedley Parkway should feature a width of at least 12’ to allow enough space for users to comfortably pass each other in either direction. Existing segments that are narrower than 12’ – such as the segment by Reedley Sports Park; see photo, right –should be widened, where feasible.

Where right-of-way is constrained, the Parkway and other shared-use paths should feature passing areas for people who are traveling in the same direction, but at different speeds. Passing areas are increasingly important as e-bikes become more common and the speed difference between people walking and biking increases.

Consideration for E-bikes
The City should consider developing a policy regarding the classes of and allowable speeds for e-bikes on the Parkway. Promoting the use of e-bikes is recommended as e-bikes can make it easier for more people to cycle and increase the number of destinations accessible. Mechanisms for managing e-bikes on the Parkway and other shared-use paths across Reedley include:
• Post rules at key junctions that indicate which classes of e-bikes are permitted.
• Assign a maximum operating speed to shared-use paths (paved trails) citywide.
• Design for maximum visibility, ample space, and lower speeds. As future segments of the Parkway are designed, ensure that there are no poor sightlines and that there is adequate passing space, especially if e-bikes are allowed. The existing meandering design of the Parkway in the downtown area naturally slows down users, and this design approach should be taken in future Parkway segments.
• Ensure a safe and robust bikeway network to entice faster active transportation users to opt for the on-street options over the Parkway.

Narrow Parkway segment near
Reedley Sports Park
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 55 Recommendation #2
Expand the On-Street
Bicycle Network
General Considerations
A core recommendation of this plan is a proposed citywide network of low-stress, on-street bikeways that complements the Reedley Parkway and enhances transportation options. This network is designed for people of all ages and abilities. This proposed network is built around three strategies:

1. Enhance existing facilities

2. Fill gaps in the network

3. Create a system of bike boulevards along low-stress neighborhood streets
Bike lanes along 13th Street
56 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Figure 13: Recommended Bikeways and Trails
R ecom m ended B ik ew a ys
Enhance Existing Class I I Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (Class I I /I I B)
Bike Boulevard (Class I I I B)
Shared Use Path/Sidepath (Class I )
Separated Bike Lanes (Class I V)
E x is ting B ik ew a ys
Shared Use Path (Class I )
Separated Bikeway (Class I V)
R ecom m ended B ik ew a y s a nd T r a ils
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 57 Strategy 2-A: Enhance Existing Facilities
Summary Recommendations
Reedley’s bike network currently includes bike lanes, bike routes, shared-use paths, and one separated bikeway. However, some existing facilities may not be comfortable for all users, given the street conditions. These facilities could be improved through various techniques, including:
• Increasing bike lane widths
• Decreasing excessively wide travel lane widths
• Decreasing excessively wide bike lane widths (specifically where bikeways are so wide that vehicles park in them)
• Adding striped buffers between bike lanes and travel lanes • Reducing vehicle speeds
• Vertical separation (appropriate in locations where there are few curb cuts)
Various enhancements to existing
bikeways in Reedley are proposed
with the goal of improving
safety and user comfort. All can
be accommodated within the
existing right-of-way, and many
can be addressed through regular
maintenance and restriping
projects. Table 11 lists the full set of
recommendations by location.

Table 11: Recommendations to Enhance Existing Bike Lanes Route / Location Terminus A
(S/W)
Terminus B
(N/E)
Posted Speed
(MPH)
Recommendation
8th St G St North Ave 25 Restripe to widen bike lanes
12th St K St I St 25 Restripe to widen bike lanes
13th St Dinuba Ave I St 25 Restripe to widen bike lanes Buttonwillow Ave Dinuba Ave Washington Ave 40 Restripe to widen bike lanes and add buffer Dinuba Ave Columbia Ave Eastern City limits 40 Buffered bike lanes Duff Ave Buttonwillow
Ave
Parkway
alignment
N/A Pave existing dirt and gravel path
East Ave G St North Ave 35 Buffered bike lanes; narrow bike lanes to 6’ and add buffer to prevent parking in bike lane
Frankwood Ave North Ave Manning Ave 25 Restripe to widen bike lanes Frankwood Ave Manning Ave Northern City
limits
35-40 Buffered bike lanes
Huntsman Ave Buttonwillow
Ave
Apple Ave 25 Widen facility or convert to sidepath to ensure appropriate width for two-way bike travel
J St 12th St 8th St 25 Restripe to widen bike lane
K St 12th St Dinuba Ave 25 Restripe to widen bike lanes Manning Ave Reed Ave Sunset Ave 35 Restripe to widen bike lanes and add buffer as space permits
Manning Ave City limits Reed Ave 55 Separated bike lanes – further study required; median may need to be narrowed to provide
adequate buffer space
Parlier Ave Frankwood Ave Thompson Ave 35 Restripe to widen bike lanes and add buffer as space permits
Reed Ave North Ave Manning Ave 30 Restripe to widen bike lanes and add buffer as space permits
58 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Example: Enhancing Bike Lanes Through Restriping
Figure 14 provides an example of how bike lanes on Dinuba Avenue (east of Orange Avenue) can be converted to buffered bike lanes through restriping, including creating a slightly wider westbound bike lane. This reconfiguration would require narrowing the wide travel lanes to appropriate widths (i.e., 11’, which is more than wide enough to accommodate larger trucks). Repairs or resurfacing to address cracked pavement in the eastbound bike lane would also be necessary.

Figure 14: Existing and Proposed Conditions on Dinuba Avenue, East of Orange Avenue

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 59 Strategy 2-B: Fill in Network Gaps
and Create New Connections
Summary Recommendations
Reedley’s existing bike network includes numerous gaps, i.e., places where bike lanes end and do not connect to another facility, or places where bike lanes stop short of a street crossing. There are also sections of Reedley with no bike facilities at all. The recommendations address existing gaps to produce a connected network and to extend bikeways into areas currently lacking formal facilities (see Table 12). See Table 13 and Figure 17 for the recommended network of bike boulevards.

Table 12: Recommended Bike Lanes and Sidepaths
Route/Location Terminus A (S/W) Terminus B (N/E) Recommendation Reconfiguration
8th St Reed Ave G St Bike Lanes
13th St I St F St Buffered Bike Lanes
Buttonwillow Ave Washington Ave Manning Ave Buffered Bike Lanes Dinuba Ave Hope Ave Frankwood Ave Bike Lanes
Dinuba Ave G St Columbia Ave Buffered Bike Lanes
East Ave North Ave Manning Ave Buffered Bike Lanes
East Ave Dinuba Ave G St Buffered Bike Lanes
Frankwood Ave Huntsmen Ave Dinuba Ave Bike Lanes
K St 12th St Reed Ave Bike Lanes
Manning Ave Sunset Ave Proposed Parkway
alignment
Buffered Bike Lanes
North Ave 8th St (south side);
Hollywood Ave (north
side)
Frankwood Ave Bike Lanes
Parlier Ave Reed Ave Frankwood Ave Buffered Bike Lanes
Parlier Ave Citizens Park Buttonwillow Ave Buffered Bike Lanes Reconstruction
11th St Columbia Ave Manning Ave Sidepath
Dinuba Ave Frankwood Ave G St Buffered Bike Lanes (may require road widening)
Kings River Access Trail Kings River Trail Kingswood Pkwy Shared-use Path Manning Ave I St Reed Ave Sidepath
North Ave Reed Ave Hollywood Ave Sidepath
Reed Ave Manning Ave South Ave Sidepath
Reed Ave Eymann Ave 8th St Sidepath
Springfield Ave East Ave Sunset Ave Sidepath
60 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Example: Installing a Bikeway Through Restriping
Many of the proposed projects listed in Strategy 1-B can be accommodated within each road’s existing right-of-way through regular road maintenance and restriping projects. Figure 15 provides an example of how a segment of Manning Avenue (east of Sunset Avenue) can be reimagined through striping to feature a buffered bike lane. The City of Reedley recently reconfigured this segment by narrowing the wide travel lanes and center turn lane to more appropriate widths, which then provided space for buffered bike lanes.

Figure 15: Previous and Current Conditions along Manning Avenue from Sunset Avenue to Columbia Avenue

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 61 Strategy 2-C: Create a Bike Boulevard
System Along Low-Stress Streets
Definition and Components of Bike Boulevards
A core component of the proposed Reedley on-street bicycle network is a system of bike boulevards, also referred to in some communities as neighborhood greenways. A bike boulevard is a variation of a bike route or shared street with additional route branding and traffic calming measures, such as traffic circles, speed humps, and/or raised crosswalks, as well as enhanced crossings of major streets. Bike boulevards are typically recommended for streets with lower speeds and lower vehicle volumes (i.e., 25 MPH or less and fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day). In addition to making roads safer for biking, the traffic calming features of bike boulevards also make roads safer for pedestrians and motorists.

Bike Boulevard
Elements
There are many different elements
that can be implemented as part of a
bike boulevard; these elements can
be tailored to what is appropriate
on a given street. These elements
include signs and pavement
markings to alert motorists that
bicyclists are sharing the road, plus
a variety of traffic calming and
safety enhancements. Signs may
be used not only to alert motorists
to bicyclists in the street, but also
to provide wayfinding to assist
bicyclists in navigating the network.

Figure 16 provides an overview of
the key elements.

Bicyclists along a bike boulevard in Berkeley, CA (Photo credit: R. Wheeler)

BIKE BOULEV ARD

IMPLEMENT ATION
The proposed bike
boulevard system could be
implemented through two
approaches:
• Phased approach:

Bike boulevard elements
could be installed
through resurfacing
and restriping as
opportunities arise.

Complementary traffic
calming and street
crossing treatments
could be installed as
funds become available.
• Dedicated projects:

The City of Reedley
could undertake a
concerted program to
convert neighborhood
streets into designated
bikeways, including the
design and installation
of all bike boulevard
elements and enhanced
crossings of major roads.
62 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Figure 16: Potential Elements of a Bike Boulevard

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Slow down vehicles at intersections

ENHANCED CROSSINGS AT MAJOR ROADS
Increase safety fo ~ pedestrians an~ bicycl ists

STRIPED PARKING LANES
Narrow the roadway to slow down vehicles

CURB EXTENSIONS
Reduce the street crossing distance for pedestrians

MEDIANS
SIGNS
Alert motorists to bicyclists in the roadway

PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Alert motorists to bicyclists in the roadway
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 63 Bike Boulevard Recommendations
This plan proposes a network of nearly four miles of bike boulevards that would provide access to key destinations, such as parks and schools, and conect to existing and proposed shared-use path facilities. Though there are no designated bike boulevards in Reedley, the city’s grid network lends itself to using low stress neighborhood streets that run parallel to major roads and provide similar access to key destinations. For example, Sunset Avenue provides an alternative to East Avenue, while Myrtle Avenue provides an alternative to Manning Avenue. Bike boulevards provide the additional benefit of being lower-cost and potentially quicker-to-implement than bikeway improvements along major roads. Figure 17 shows the existing and recommended bike network, highlighting the bike boulevards.

Figure 17: Recommended Bike Network Highlighting Bike Boulevards R ecom m ended B ik ew a ys
Enhance Existing Class I I Bike Lanes
Bike Lanes (Class I I /I I B)
Bike Boulevard (Class I I I B)
Shared Use Path/Sidepath (Class I )
Separated Bike Lanes (Class I V)
E x is ting B ik ew a ys
Shared Use Path (Class I )
Separated Bikeway (Class I V)
R ecom m ended B ik ew a y s a nd T r a ils
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
64 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Table 13 lists the street segments included in the proposed bike boulevard system and the implementation actions needed to make them low-stress facilities for all active transportation users. To make the bike boulevard system both useful and comfortable, pavement markings and wayfinding signage should complement the installation of traffic calming features and enhanced crossings as major intersections.

Table 13: Proposed Bike Boulevard System
Route Terminus A
(S/W)
Terminus

B (N/E)
Implementation Actions
10th St Reed Ave North Ave • Remove center striping
• Stripe on-street parking on block between I St and Reedley Parkway Columbia
Ave
North Ave 11th St • Install wayfinding at shared-use path terminus at North Ave/Columbia Ave to transition users to bike boulevard
• Widen sidewalk on Columbia Ave between 11th St and Manning Ave to accommodate shared-use path (connects north and south segments of Columbia Ave bike boulevard) Columbia
Ave
Manning Ave Parlier Ave • Install high-visibility pedestrian and bicycle crosswalks on east leg of Columbia Ave/ Manning Ave intersection
• Remove center striping
• Stripe on-street parking
Duff Ave East Ave Buttonwillow
Ave
• Remove center striping
• Stripe on-street parking
• Consider one or more raised crosswalks at Jefferson Elementary E St North Ave 15th Street • Stripe on-street parking on blocks with parallel parking • On blocks with angled parking, convert to back-in angled parking (to increase motorists’ visibility of bicyclists when leaving a parking spot) El Dorado
Ave
Grant MS Trail Buttonwillow
Ave
• Stripe on-street parking
Eymann
Ave
Kingswood
Parkway
Reed Ave • Crossing improvement needed at Eymann Ave/Reed Ave/9th St Hollywood
Ave /
Myrtle Ave
North Ave Columbia
Ave
• Intersection/crossing improvement needed at 11th St/Myrtle Ave • Install high-visibility crosswalk at Frankwood Ave/Myrtle Ave • Consider raised crosswalk at Lincoln Elementary field Hope Ave Herbert Ave Dinuba Ave • Remove center striping • Stripe on-street parking
• Add traffic circle at Hope Ave/Olson Ave
• Consider additional tools to narrow Hope Ave south of Curtis Ave • Crossing improvements needed at Hope Ave/Dinuba Ave
• Consider raised crosswalk at Immanuel High
Olson Ave Kings River
Road
East Ave • Remove center striping
• Stripe on-street parking
• Intersection/crossing improvement needed at Olson Ave/Frankwood Ave • Long term: Install new or enhanced bridge with dedicated bike/ped facilities Sunset
Ave
Dinuba Ave General
Grant MS
• Stripe on-street parking
• Crossing improvement needed at Sunset Ave/Springfield Ave Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 65 Example: Application
of a Bike Boulevard
Figure 18 shows how Olson Avenue
and Hope Avenue can transition into
a bike boulevard, with the following
elements:
• Signage and striping
• Traffic circle
• Striped parking
• Sharrows
Figure 18: Olson Avenue and Hope Avenue Reimagined as a Bike Boulevard Strategy 2-D: Provide Bike Parking
Facilities Across the City of Reedley
Short-term Bike Parking Benefits and Desired Locations
Providing end-of-trip facilities, such as bike parking and pumps/fix-it stands, encourages more biking. Bike parking in Reedley is limited, with existing racks currently located at some parks, schools, community facilities, and in a few locations along Reedley Parkway. Figure 19 shows where existing bike parking is located and where future racks are recommended. The Reedley Moves Plan recommends that short-term bike parking (outdoor bike racks intended for short-duration visits) be provided in key activity areas, including:
• Downtown Reedley
• Schools (would require coordination with Kings Canyon Unified School District, private schools, and Reedley College)
• Community centers and parks
• Commercial areas (may require coordination with private property owners)
66 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network Short-term Bike Parking Design
Bike racks should support bikes of all sizes and styles and ensure that a lock can be securely fastened. Recommended racks for short-term parking include inverted-U, post-and-ring, and bike corrals (a group of inverted-U bike racks in a converted parking spot). Bike corrals are growing in popularity throughout the U.S., typically replacing one on-street vehicle parking space with eight to twelve bicycle parking spaces, while preserving sidewalk space.

None of the existing racks in Reedley are the recommended types.

Short-term bike parking can be implemented through various mechanisms, including:
• A bicycle rack request program (businesses purchase the racks and request the City to install)
• A bicycle parking sponsorship program
• Requiring new and redevelopment to provide minimum bicycle parking • Developing a regional or municipal-level program
Example of a bike corral with inverted-U racks
Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network 67 Updated Development Standards
Reedley should also consider updating its zoning code to include a longterm bike parking and support facilities (such as fix-it stands or electric bike charging) requirement as part of new development or redevelopment.

The number of bike racks provided should be based on the square footage (commercial development) or number of units constructed (residential development). Section 5.106.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code outlines the bicycle parking minimum requirements for short-term and long-term bicycle parking. Jurisdictions within the State of California must comply with the bicycle parking ordinance unless the jurisdiction has a stricter bicycle parking ordinance (i.e., high bike parking minimum).

Long-term Bike Parking
The City of Reedley may consider long-term bicycle parking for multi-hour or overnight storage. Long-term parking may include bike lockers and sheltered/ secured enclosures with bike racks inside. Typically, long-term parking is provided by private developers in office buildings, multifamily residential buildings, and transit centers.

Figure 19: Bike Parking Inventory
Shared Use Path
Commercial Area
Bike Parking Locations
Existing
Recommended
B ik e P a rk ing I nventory
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
68 Recommendation #2 Expand the On-Street Bicycle Network

BIKEW AY PRIORITI ZATION
All recommended projects in this plan will take time and resources to implement. Recognizing that funding is finite, each on-street bikeway project was subject to an evaluation process and awarded points based on a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria:
• Connectivity: Whether the project connects residents to community-identified priority destinations • Safety: Whether the project addresses infrastructure in a location with previous fatal and severe injurycausing crashes • Facility Needs: Whether the project fill in a network gap, creates new connection, or improve an existing connection
• Equity: Household income levels for the population in the project area (an indication of where residents are more likely to be transportation cost burdened or rely on active transportation) • Community Support: Level of public/stakeholder support demonstrated through plan outreach efforts Projects were ranked relative to one another. Scores may be considered alongside costs, technical feasibility analysis, and methods of implementation when determining which projects to pursue. See Appendix E for the full methodology and ranked project list.

P rioritiza tion S core
Very High
High
Medium-High
Medium
B ik ew a y P rioritiza tion
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 69
Recommendation #3
Improve Pedestrian
Connections
Strategy 3-A: Create Complete
Sidewalks and Comfortable Conditions
for People Walking and Rolling
General Priorities and Focus Areas
The City of Reedley should aspire to create quality pedestrian conditions across the city, especially within pedestrian activity areas where higher levels of activity are likely. Filling in gaps in the sidewalk network is an ongoing priority, and the City regularly procures funding to construct sidewalks wherever they are missing. A recent example is the project to fill in gaps in the sidewalk network around Jefferson Elementary School. Complete sidewalks are also a priority for newly developing portions of the city and are required along the frontage for site improvements as part of the design of new roads.

Figure 20 depicts where Reedley’s pedestrian activity areas and high pedestrian activity areas are located, where sidewalks do or do not exist, and where sidewalk projects have been funded or should be prioritized for funding.

Comfortable Pedestrian Conditions
In addition to providing sidewalks along all streets, there are additional factors that make walking and rolling more comfortable, particularly in pedestrian activity areas. Comfortable pedestrian conditions include the following:
• Wide sidewalks (i.e., above the required minimum width), • Landscaped buffers between the street and the sidewalk, wherever feasible, to increase pedestrian safety and comfort and provide space for shade tree plantings
• Safe intersection crossings that are highly visible, ADA-compliant, and designed to reduce crossing distance
• Frequent crossing opportunities, particularly in pedestrian activity areas
• Pedestrian-scale lighting along sidewalks and shared-use paths

PEDESTRIAN

FACILITY

IMPLEMENT ATION
Pedestrian improvements –
including new or improved
sidewalks, landscaping,
additional lighting, and new
or enhanced crossings –
may be conducted as part
of dedicated projects, with
a particular emphasis on
pedestrian activity areas.

Other opportunities to
improve sidewalks include
development projects or site
improvements where private
developers are required to
update the building frontage.
70 Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections
Figure 20: Pedestrian Priority Areas and Recommended Improvements Shared Use Path
Pedestrian Activity Area
High Pedestrian Activity Area
Programmed and Recommended Sidewalks
Publicly Funded Programmed
Priority Sidewalk Recommended
P edes tria n N etw ork
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 71
Strategy 3-B: Provide Additional
Pedestrian Crossings
Desired Crossing Conditions
Frequent crossing spacing encourages pedestrian activity as it provides the option to cross streets at locations near their destinations. Reedley should strive for crossing spacing in its pedestrian activity areas that matches its downtown block lengths: 400-500 feet. In most cases, this involves marking unmarked crossings at intersections, but this also includes installing midblock crossings to break up particularly long blocks. Crossings should also be provided at community destinations such as schools and parks.

The following crossing treatments are recommended for all intersection types (see Table 14 for additional details):
• High-visibility crosswalks (yellow if within 600’ of a school) • Directional curb ramps
• Adequate lighting for nighttime illumination; pedestrian scale-lighting recommended for pedestrian activity areas
• Restricted on-street parking 20’ on crosswalk approach; complement on-street parking with curb extensions to reduce crossing distance and the speed of turning vehicles
Crossing Improvement Locations
Figure 21 depicts the locations recommended for new or enhanced crossings, and Table 15 documents existing conditions and basic recommended treatments for each. As a next step, the City should conduct a detailed assessment of all crossings, starting with those in pedestrian activity areas, to note any that are lacking directional curb ramps or are not ADA-compliant.

APPROPRIATE CROSSING TYPES
Enhancements for crossings at non-signalized locations should be based on the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, which identifies the appropriate design treatment based on the posted speed limit and daily traffic volume.

All crossings should comply with the newly published Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-ofWay (PROWAG). 72 Recommendation #3 Improve PedestrianConnections
Table 14: Recommended Enhancements Based on Crossing Type Crossing Type Recommended Crossing Treatments Complementary Treatments Uncontrolled
Intersections
(Including Trail
Crossings)
Signalized
Intersections
Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 73
Figure 21: Recommendations for New and Enhanced Crossings

I mprovement to Existing Crossings
New Crossings
Pedestrian Activity Area
High Pedestrian Activity Area
R ecom m ended Cros s ing E nha ncem ents
Manning Ave
North Ave
South Ave
Parlier Ave
Springfield Ave
Early Ave
Dinuba Ave
East Huntsman Ave
East Floral Ave Zumwalt Ave
Buttonwillow Ave
East Ave
Reed AveFrankwood Ave
Olson Ave
Reed Ave
Hope Ave
8th St
10th St
13th St
K St
J St
G St
E St
Eymann Ave
Columbia Ave
Myrtle Ave
74 Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections
Table 15: Recommended Treatments for New and Enhanced Crossings # Location Crossing Type Improvements Recommended
Existing Crossings at Skewed Intersections*
21 11th St at Sunset Ave Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Install missing legs of crosswalk
• Tee up intersection to 90°
22 East Ave at 11th St Stop-controlled • High-visibility crosswalks • Tee up intersection to 90°
25 North Ave at B St Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Install missing leg of crosswalk
• Tee up intersection to 90°
27 North Ave at F St Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Install missing legs of crosswalk
• Tee up intersection to 90°
28 North Ave at G St Stop-controlled • High-visibility crosswalks • Tee up intersection to 90°
50 Reed Ave at 9th St Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Install missing legs of crosswalk
• Tee up intersection to 90°
Existing Crossings (Not Skewed Intersections)
1 Reed Ave at Manning Ave Signalized • High-visibility crosswalks • Leading pedestrian interval
2 Reed Ave at North Ave Uncontrolled traffic circle
(trail crossing) • RRFB
12 Frankwood Ave at Manning Ave Signalized • High-visibility crosswalks • Leading pedestrian interval
15 Manning Ave at Del Altair Ave Uncontrolled • Install missing leg of crosswalk • RRFB
17 Manning Ave at Sunset Ave Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Install missing legs of crosswalk
• RRFB
18 Manning Ave at Columbia Ave Signalized • High-visibility crosswalks • Install missing legs of crosswalk
20 Manning Ave at Buttonwillow Ave Signalized • High-visibility crosswalks • Leading pedestrian interval
40 Olson Ave at Reedley Beach Uncontrolled • Install missing leg of crosswalk • RRFB
51 I St at 11th St Signalized • High-visibility crosswalks • Leading pedestrian interval
60 11th St at D St Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks • Install missing legs of crosswalk
61 11th St at C St Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks • Install missing legs of crosswalk
62 11th St at B St Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks • Install missing legs of crosswalk
72 10th St at F St Stop-controlled • High-visibility crosswalks • Install missing legs of crosswalk
73 Olson Ave at Frankwood Ave Stop-controlled • High-visibility crosswalks Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 75
# Location Crossing Type Improvements Recommended
74 G St at 16th St Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk • Upgrade to RRFB
75 East Ave at Myrtle Ave Uncontrolled • Upgrade to High-visibility crosswalk New Crossings Desired
110 Reed Ave at River Walk Shopping Plaza Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalk
• RRFB
• Convert road median to pedestrian refuge
island
120 Manning Ave mid-block crossing Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalk
• PHB
• Convert road median to pedestrian refuge
island
140 Reed Ave at Ponderosa Ave Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 160 Manning Ave, near Reedley High Field (west) Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 170 Manning Ave, near Reedley High Field (east) Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 190 Manning Ave at retail center^ Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk • PHB
200 Manning Ave at Reedley Shopping Center Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk • PHB
210 Springfield Ave at Sunset Ave Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 250 North Ave at Hollywood Dr Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 270 Parlier Ave at Citizens Park Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalk 300 Dinuba Ave at Zumwalt Ave Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalk
• RRFB
• Crossing depends on sidewalk installation
310 East Ave at August Ave Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks 320 Columbia Ave at Cypress Ave Stop-controlled • High-visibility crosswalks 350 Frankwood Ave at Myrtle Ave Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks 700 Dinuba Ave at K St Uncontrolled • High-visibility crosswalks • Tee up intersection to 90°
800 Dinuba Ave at I St Uncontrolled
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Tee up intersection to 90°
• Consider stop control or signal
*See Strategy 3-C for more details ^Would require street reconfiguration 76 Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections
Strategy 3-C: Address Skewed Intersections
Design Strategies
Skewed intersections, or intersections with angles <90 degrees, can create a major barrier to walking as they increase crossing distance, reduce sight distance, and encourage higher vehicle speeds for some turning movements.

These are present along Reed Avenue, North Avenue, East Avenue, and Dinuba Avenue. National best practices universally call for intersection angles to be 90 degrees to the greatest extent possible.

Many skewed intersections in Reedley can be reconfigured to create angles closer to 90 degrees by installing curb extensions. Adding medians and refuge islands can also reduce crossing distances and vehicle speeds.

Slip lanes, which allow motorists to turn onto a street without entering the intersection, should be removed, where feasible, and crosswalks should be installed at all corners to increase visibility. Example Intersection Improvements – North Avenue and G Street
An example of a skewed intersection is located outside Reedley High School at North Avenue and G Street. Currently this intersection features a right-turn slip lane in the eastbound direction along North Avenue that allows vehicles to make turns at high speeds, and forces pedestrians to navigate a long, multi-lane crossing with no crosswalk.

Figure 22 shows how this crossing might be redesigned to improve safety and visibility for all users. The proposed treatment uses curb extensions to “T up” the intersection so that crosswalks occur at 90-degree angles, and the right-turn slip lanes are removed. Curb extensions benefit the many pedestrians who may use this intersection to access Reedley High by reducing crossing distance. High-visibility crosswalks are recommended on all legs of the intersection, as well as directional curb ramps. Pedestrian-scale lighting is also recommended here. Additional engineering analysis is required prior to implementation.

Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 77
Figure 22: North Avenue and G Street Recommended Intersection Treatment

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS

CRUCE PEATONAL DE ALTA VISIBILIDAD

CURB EXTENSIONS
EXTENSIÓN DE LA BANQUETA

ROUNDABOUTS

GLORIETAS
Our goal is to make it safer and easier for you to walk and bike in Reedley. The pictures below show so Nuestro objetivo es crear infraestructura más segura y accesible para caminar y andar en bicicleta en Reedle unos ejemplos de posibles mejoras.

EXAMPLE! NORTH AVE AND G STREET
¡EJEMPLO! NORTH AVE Y G STREET

NORTH AVE NORTH AVE

G STREET
• SHORTER CROSSINGS
• CURB EXTENSIONS | E
• HIGH-VISIBILITY CRO
• LONG CROSSINGS | CRUCES PEATONALES LARGOS
• FAST TURNING MOVEMENTS | COCHES DOBLAN RAPIDO
• MISSING CROSSWALK | FALTA DE CRUCE PEATONAL
A B

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS

CRUCE PEATONAL DE ALTA VISIBILIDAD

CURB EXTENSIONS
EXTENSIÓN DE LA BANQUETA

ROUNDABOUTS

GLORIETAS
gp
Nuestro objetivo es crear infraestructura más segura y accesible para caminar y andar en bicicleta en Reedle unos ejemplos de posibles mejoras.

EXAMPLE! NORTH AVE AND G STREET
¡EJEMPLO! NORTH AVE Y G STREET

NORTH AVE NORTH AVE

ROUNDABOUTS

GLORIETAS

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON (RRFB) SEÑAL PEATONAL LUMINOSA
DE INTERMITENCIA RÁPIDA (RRFB)
s
ey. The pictures below show some examples of how we can do this. nar y andar en bicicleta en Reedley. Las siguientes fotos demuestran www.ReedleyMoves.com

NORTH AVE

G STREET
• SHORTER CROSSINGS | CRUCES MÁS CORTOS
• CURB EXTENSIONS | EXTENSIÓN DE LA BANQUETA
• HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS | CRUCE PEATONAL DE ALTA VISIBILIDAD B
A A
A
B B
North Avenue and G Street - Existing
North Avenue and G Street - Proposed
78 Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections
Implementation Recommendations
The following recommendations identify additional infrastructure and maintenance strategies, new active transportation-related policies or policies that need updating, and education/encouragement programs. These recommendations complement the specific infrastructure projects proposed above, and are critical for safe and comfortable walking, biking, and rolling in Reedley.

Table 16: Citywide Active Transportation Recommendations # Recommendation
Infrastructure and Maintenance Strategies
I1 Install lighting along all arterials and along all segments of the Parkway currently lacking lighting and along all future Parkway segments. Install pedestrian-scale lighting in pedestrian activity areas.

I2
Develop a maintenance plan for pedestrian and bicycle facilities to help ensure all facilities are in working order and free of hazards (e.g., leaves). The plan should define intervals for sweeping and desired pavement conditions. It should also account for the expansion of the Parkway as additional path segments will require additional budget for maintenance.

I3 Install stormwater management treatments along new sidewalks, in street medians, and along the Parkway wherever space permits.

I4 Conduct a biannual assessment to measure success of plan goals and objectives: track projects implemented, statistics (crash data, miles of infrastructure, etc.).

I5 Inventory Parkway widths to identify locations for widening and passing areas.

I6 Conduct a feasibility study for a potential north loop of the Reedley Parkway.

I7 Coordinate with Fresno County and Fresno COG on regional bike and trail connections that would link Reedley to surrounding communities and destinations.

I8 Coordinate with Reedley College on improvements along streets fronting campus.

I9 Formalize the street resurfacing program and require that the ATP is consulted during the development of striping plans to include active transportation improvements.

I10 Coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Board on implementation of Reedley Parkway enhancements, particularly event programming and commissioning murals.

Policies
P1 Update the zoning code to require bike parking and support facilities (such as fix-it stands or electric bike charging) as part of new development or redevelopment.

P2 Encourage new development (and redevelopment) along the Parkway to have Parkway-fronting entrances.

P3 Develop a policy regarding the use of e-bikes on shared-use paths, including appropriate speeds.

P4 Remove General Plan policy that encourages bike lanes to stop short of intersections.

P5 Develop a policy to ban vehicles from parking in bike lanes.

P6 Coordinate with railroad operators and private property owners on opportunities to provide additional access points to/from the Parkway south of 13th Street. Land acquisition may be required.

P7 Update the zoning code to require appropriate crossing spacing and landscape buffers as well as ADA-compliant sidewalks and curb ramps along the frontage of all new development and redevelopment.

P8 Develop complete streets design standards that include selecting appropriate bikeways for a given street, sidewalk standards, on-street parking guidance, and intersection daylighting, among other elements.

Education and Encouragement
Recommendation #3 Improve Pedestrian Connections 79
# Recommendation
E1
Work with the Fresno Council of Governments to promote e-bike/cargo bike rebate and voucher programs, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) program that offers up to $1,000 and $1,750 for e-bikes and cargo bikes, respectively, to those who qualify, plus up to an additional $250 for those living in DACs (which includes parts of Reedley).

E2
Work with schools to add pedestrian and bike skills as part of physical education courses in elementary schools. Utilize implementation-ready curricula already and assign lessons to a particular grade (e.g., all first graders will learn pedestrian safety and beginning bike safety skills, and all third graders will learn intermediate bike safety skills).

E3 Coordinate with Fresno COG and the Kings Canyon Unified School District on a regional SRTS needs assessment, with the goal of developing a districtwide SRTS program.

E4 Work with schools and local health centers to promote family oriented SRTS events, such as “Walk or Bike to School Day,” to increase parent involvement.
on
Plan

REEDLEY MOVES
Active Transportation
and Parkway Master Plan Transportation and
Master Plan
March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix A: Community
Engagement Summary
March 2024 1
Community Engagement Summary
The Reedley Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan engaged residents, businesses, and community leaders through a robust public
process. The project employed a variety of
engagement strategies during 2023 to
involve community members and
stakeholders in identifying barriers to
walking, bicycling, and other active modes
of travel, as well as improvements to the
Reedley Parkway.

In addition to individual community
members, representatives from the
following groups participated in this project:
• Reedley City Council
• Reedley Planning Commission
• City of Reedley Public Works,
Engineering, and Community Development departments
• Fresno Council of Governments
• Fresno County Department of Public Health
• Kings Canyon Unified School District
• Immanuel School
• Reedley College
• Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation
• Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce
• Fresno County Bicycle Coalition
• Kings River Conservancy
• Adventist Health - Reedley Hospital
• Sierra Kings Health Care District
• Local churches
• Caltrans, District 6
Engagement Activities
Many different engagement activities were held providing numerous opportunities for community members to participate in the plan process. Engagement activities included:
• Project Advisory Group meetings
• Project website
• Design Charrette
• Pop-ups
• Walking and Bicycling Audits
• Stakeholder meetings
• Project Recommendation Workshop
Outreach Methods
Various outreach methods were used to share information about the project and engagement events, including:

March 2024 2
• Citywide English and Spanish flyer distribution
• Project fact sheet
• Project Advisory Group flyer distribution
• City social media channels
• Project website: www.reedleymoves.com
• Media releases

Charrette flyers in English and Spanish, and a Project Fact Sheet Project Website
Reedleymoves.com was designed to provide and share project information including, access to project documents, announcements and events, and to solicit project comments and feedback. The website was updated throughout the project’s duration.

Project Advisory Group
The project team assembled a Project Advisory Group (PAG) to help guide the planning and community engagement process. Members included residents and representatives of Kings Canyon Unified School District, Immanuel Schools, Reedley College, Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce, Fresno County Bicycle Coalition, Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation, Adventist Health, Sierra Kings Health Care District, City staff from the Engineering, Public Works and Community Development departments, Reedley Planning Commission, Fresno County Public Health, and Caltrans. Members provided local Reedley knowledge and perspectives and served as champions for the project—helping to spread the word about events and to carry the recommendations forward.

Meetings to discuss engagement strategies, plan recommendations, and project updates were held inperson at the City Council Chambers on the following dates:

Meeting #1, November 30, 2022
During the first meeting, the team introduced themselves and the project, provided an overview of the PAG's role on the project, the scope of work, and the project timeline. This was an opportunity for the PAG to identify initial key active transportation and infrastructure issues and locations. The PAG also brainstormed engagement and outreach strategies that were appropriate for the community.

March 2024 3
Meeting #2, March 1, 2023
This meeting focused on reviewing the existing conditions analysis prepared by Toole Design. The team also discussed the planned activities for the charrette scheduled later that month.

Meeting #3, June 28, 2023
This meeting included discussion and share-out of the activities and outcomes from the charrette as well as final survey results. Toole Design also led the PAG in a discussion on plan development, including an overview of the initial design concepts and project recommendations that resulted from the charrette, an approach to project prioritization, and the timeline for plan development. The team also used this meeting to solicit the PAG’s input on final preparations and outreach for a draft plan workshop scheduled for October.

Meeting #4, October 13, 2023
This final meeting for the PAG focused on the draft plan recommendations. Toole Design reviewed recommended projects and tools that would be included in the final plan and discussed the PAG’s input on the proposed network maps.

Pre-Charrette Pop-ups
At the start of the project, team members and City staff conducted a pop-up at the Reedley Christmas in the
Park! Festival on December 2, 2022. This was an
opportunity to introduce community members to the
project. Maps were used to gather input on areas
where people like to walk or bike, where they would
like to see more trails or bikeways, and the challenges they may face when walking or biking in Reedley.

Team members and City staff also attended a pop-up
at the Reedley Street Eats event on March 24, 2023
and used this event to notify community members
about the upcoming charrette events.

On October 8, 2023, the team conducted a pop-up at the Reedley Bike Rodeo to spread the word about the upcoming Draft Plan Workshop. Following the workshop, the team held a pop-up at the Reedley Fiesta on October 13, 2023, and gathered input on project recommendations and priorities.

March 2024 4
Community Design Charrette
In March 2023, the project team
conducted a multi-day charrette to
actively engage the community in
identifying issues and locations to be
addressed in the plan. The team, in
consultation with the PAG, organized
various activities including a kickoff
workshop, two walk audits, a bike
audit, focus groups, and a concluding
open house. These activities aimed to
develop initial infrastructure
recommendations based on community
input. Throughout the week, the team
collected feedback and received nearly
200 written comments across all
events.

Community Design Workshop
On March 27, 2023, the project team conducted a design workshop (in both English and Spanish) at the Reedley Community Center. After delivering a brief presentation to introduce the community to the project, the organizers laid out large aerial maps on tables. Participants noted concerns and issues related to walking, bicycling, transit, other modes of transportation, and connections to the Parkway in Reedley. Facilitators encouraged participants to share ideas and suggestions for active transportation projects within the City.

March 2024 5
Stakeholder Meetings and Pop-ups
The team held focus meetings with different stakeholder groups during the charrette week, including:
• Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation
On March 27, 2023, the team met with representatives of the Reedley Parks and Recreation Foundation to discuss potential improvements to the Reedley Parkway, attract more users, and better connect the Parkway to the community. There was interest among members to expand the parkway to connect to Reedley College, Kings River, and the Reedley Sports Park. There was discussion about the possibility of creating a loop around the City. Since this group would be instrumental in supporting parkway improvements, implementation and funding possibilities were also discussed.
• Reedley College Safari Days Pop-up
Team members attended the Safari Days pop-up at Reedley College, providing an opportunity to interact with students and get their ideas for possible walking and bicycling improvements in Reedley.
• Meeting with Chamber of Commerce Junior Board
On March 29, 2023, the project team presented to the Junior Board of the Reedley Chamber of Commerce. The Junior Board, consisting of high school and college students aged 15 to 20, actively shares an interest in promoting community and business prosperity through advocacy and network development. Following the presentation, students formed groups and identified locations on maps to address walking and bicycling conditions.

March 2024 6

• Reedley Health Expo
On Saturday, April 1, 2023, members of the project team and City staff attended the Reedley College Health and Fitness Expo to gather additional input for the project.

Walking and Bicycling Audits
Two walking audits and one biking audit were conducted during the charrette, providing community members an opportunity to tour Reedley with the project team and discuss existing conditions and available tools to address identified issues along the routes. • Walk Audit #1: Inner Reedley, March 28, 2023
This audit focused on conditions along the Parkway, the roundabout crossings at Reed Avenue and West North Avenue, and Downtown Reedley.

March 2024 7

• Walk Audit #2: Outer Reedley, March 29. 2023
Starting at Reedley City Parks and Recreation Center, this route focused on the conditions along East Avenue, 11th Street, Manning Avenue, and the neighborhoods south of Manning Avenue.

• Bike Audit, March 30, 2023
The project team and Fresno County Bicycle Coalition (FCBC) co-led a bike ride from the Reedley Water Tower to the northern part of the city, along Manning Avenue and Buttonwillow Avenue, down to the Reedley Sports Park and back up along the Reedley Parkway. This route was designed to allow participants to experience a variety of roadway conditions with differing levels of traffic. Leaders of the audit stopped at various locations to allow participants to discuss their experiences riding in different locations. FCBC was instrumental in planning the route and providing participants with bikes and helmets.

March 2024 8
Open House
An Open House was held on March 30th at the Reedley Community Center where the project team presented initial project recommendations based on community input gathered from the various charrette events held throughout the week. Participants offered their initial reactions to the potential projects.

What We Heard
During the charrette, participants identified several opportunities for improvements and issues that should be addressed. Common themes and priorities that arose included:

Issues
▪ More sidewalks needed
▪ Street conditions
▪ Speeding
▪ Lack of bike lanes on certain streets
▪ Lack of lighting in some areas
▪ Homelessness
▪ Improved safety
▪ Challenging intersections: 11th, Reed, Dinuba, Olson, Manning Ave ▪ Downtown intersections (lack of curb extensions)
▪ Lack of bike storage options
Opportunities
▪ More trails to connect Citizen Park
▪ More bike lanes
▪ Bike trail along the river
▪ More businesses: clothing, shoes, commercial development, restaurants ▪ Movie theater
▪ Bowling alley
▪ More community events
▪ More public transportation options, such as a trolley (like in Dinuba) ▪ Bike trail around the city/expand the Parkway
▪ More murals
Project Recommendations Workshop
The team returned to Reedley in October 2023 to present the draft recommendations for pedestrian, bike, and trail projects. This opportunity offered the public a chance to provide feedback and prioritize the list of recommended projects.

On the evening of October 12, the team led a presentation during an evening workshop at Reedley City Hall. The workshop provided an overview of the past outreach efforts followed by a detailed discussion on the recommended projects and methods for prioritization. Boards were also available for participants to identify project prioritization and provide feedback and comments.

March 2024 9

Draft Plan Workshop

Reedley Fiesta Pop-up
What We Heard
During the workshop and Fiesta Pop-up, community members were asked to prioritize Plan strategies and bikeway and trail projects.

The top 4 priorities among the Key Recommendations and Strategies included:
• Expand the Reedley Parkway
• Create a System of Bike Boulevards along Low-stress Neighborhood Streets • Fill Gaps in the Bike Network
• Enhance the Parkway through Additional Amenities and Programming Additional comments received the project events included:
• Create a Ciclovía program in Reedley in which a city street is closed to traffic on a monthly or annual basis to encourage walking and biking
• Locate bike repair stations around Reedley (e.g. College or High School) • Address challenging Intersections, specifically:
o North Ave and Reed Ave
o Manning Ave and N Frankwood Ave
o N East Ave and E 11th St
o Dinuba Ave and East Ave
• Enhance crosswalk on 8th and I street
• Connect churches in town with bike lanes or routes
• Connect Reedley College to Reedley Beach
March 2024 10
• Connect Reedley College to the Parkway
• Install wayfinding
• Create a 1-2 mile loop around Reedley College as an alternate trail route • Redirect pedestrian/bicyclist traffic to the back of the schools • Work with schools to provide better bicycle/pedestrian access • At Parlier Ave and Frankwood Ave, create a safer crossing as it is a very wide intersection • Update pedestrian push buttons on traffic signals for residents w/ visual impairments • Install a pedestrian bridge and enhanced crosswalk with lights on Manning Ave (between Frankwood Ave and Sunset Ave)
• Connect the new housing development and Silas Bartsch School with bike access such as separated bike lanes
• Expand trail on northern side of town
• Install more bus stops, closer to downtown
• Improve connection of Olson Ave to Downtown and Parkway • Enhance crosswalk at Reed Ave and Olson Ave
Documentation of Input from Community Events
Public input from the Reedley Christmas in the Park!:

March 2024 11
Public Input from Safari Days Popup:

March 2024 12
Summary of comments from Junior Board:

Comments and dot voting from the Design Charrette:

March 2024 13
March 2024 14
Comments from the Health Expo Pop-up:

March 2024 15
March 2024 16
Comments from the Design Workshop Mapping Exercise:

March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix B: Community
Survey Report
March 2024 1
Background
An online survey to collect information about preferences and concerns related to walking, rolling, and biking in Reedley was opened on December 2, 2022 and closed on February 20, 2023. The survey was posted on the project website (www.reedleymoves.com) and was advertised through the City website and Facebook page, NextDoor, the local newspaper, and through the project’s Advisory Group members.

Many respondents also heard about the survey through their councilmember. The survey received 166 responses and was available in Spanish and English. Two of the 166 responses were from the Spanish version of the survey.

Key Takeaways
Over 90% of survey respondents live in Reedley and many are both highly invested in their community and interested in making their community safer and increasing transportation options. Participants in the community survey indicated a high level of interest in walking, biking, and rolling in Reedley, particularly if barriers such as safety/security concerns can be addressed and if greater separation between people walking and biking and motorists can be provided. The Reedley Parkway is viewed positively – at least 63% expressed that they like the City’s multi-use trail – and is highly utilized. Many respondents felt the trail could be even better if it were longer and/or connected to more destinations in the City.

Over 71% of the respondents walk at least a few times per month. While a smaller share of respondents bike regularly (59%), even more expressed interest in biking if conditions were different. Top concerns and barriers to walking, biking, rolling, and using the Reedley Parkway included missing sidewalks or bikeways, maintenance of these facilities, and a lack of lighting and concerns over personal safety.

Survey Responses and Discussion
Getting Around Reedley
Respondents were first asked how they typically get around Reedley and prompted to select all transportation modes that apply. About 92% of respondents typically drive alone (see Table 1), a number that is consistent with commuting data from the American Community Survey. However, nearly 54% of respondents walk or roll (using a wheelchair or mobility scooter) and 30% bike or e-bike for some trips.

Other (write-in) responses included running and skateboarding.

Table 1: How Respondents Typically Get Around Reedley
How do you typically get around Reedley? Select all that apply.

Mode of Transportation Share
Drive alone 92.2%
Walk 53.6%
Bike (including e-bikes) 30.1%
Carpool (as driver or passenger) 24.7%
Bus or paratransit 4.2%
Roll (using a wheelchair or mobility scooter) 2.4%
Other 1.8%
E-scooter (electric scooter) 0.6%
Rideshare (Uber, Lyft, etc.) 0.6%
March 2024 2
Walking and Rolling in Reedley
Frequency: Respondents were specifically asked how frequently they walk or roll to get around Reedley.

While 71.5% of respondents walk or roll at least a few times per month, 28.5% of respondents said they never walk or roll in Reedley (see Figure 1). Of those who do walk or roll, the most common frequency was “A few times per month” at 27.3%.

Figure 1: Frequency of Walking and Rolling in Reedley
How often do you walk or roll (using a wheelchair or mobility scooter) to get around Reedley? Top Reasons for Walking and Rolling: Among those who indicated they do walk around Reedley (n=136), when asked to select their two top reasons for walking or rolling, most respondents (85.3%) indicated they do so for exercise or enjoyment. The only other response that was selected frequently was that destinations are nearby (about 40% of respondents). See Table 2 for a full list of reasons people walk or roll in Reedley. Other reasons identified as write-in responses included walking the dog.

Table 2: Reasons for Walking or Rolling
Reason Share
Exercise or enjoyment 85.3%
Destinations are nearby 39.7%
To minimize environmental impact 9.6%
Cost/affordability 8.8%
Other 4.4%
I have no other options for getting around 1.5%
Destinations: Respondents were asked to indicate which destinations they walk or roll to and were prompted to select all that apply. Nearly half of respondents indicated that they walk or roll for recreation.

Trips to homes of friends and family, restaurants or bars, and shopping were also popular destinations, each selected by over a third of respondents (see Figure 2). The most popular of the 23 write-in responses were the following: eight wrote in that they run for recreation or exercise (which means that “recreation” truly reflects more than half of respondents), three indicated that they don’t walk or roll, and two indicated that there is nothing to walk to.

11.5%

14.5%

18.2%

27.3%

28.5%
Nearly every day
3 or more times per week
1 or 2 times per week
A few times per month
Never
March 2024 3
Figure 2: Top Destinations for Walking and Rolling
Which destinations do you walk or roll to? Select all that apply.

Barriers to Walking and Rolling: Among respondents who indicated they walk around Reedley (n=152; only 11 respondents out of 163 indicated they are not interested in walking) the biggest barriers that keep them from walking or rolling more were “lack of lighting” and “sidewalks are poorly maintained or missing,” each representing nearly a third of respondents (see Figure 3). Personal safety was the third most frequently selected response, and half of the write-in responses additionally reflected crime and security issues.

Figure 3: Barriers to Walking and Rolling
If you would like to walk or roll more (for trips to school, work, errands, etc.) but don't, what are the biggest barriers or constraints that keep you from doing so? Select up to three.

10.4%

11.0%

12.3%

18.4%

26.4%

33.7%

36.2%

37.4%

49.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Healthcare
Work
School
Other
Public facilities
Restaurants or bars
Shopping
Homes of friends/family
Recreation

6.6%

7.9%

9.2%

12.5%

13.2%

17.8%

19.7%

23.0%

23.7%

25.0%

32.2%

34.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Accessibility concerns
Traveling with children/dependents
Takes too much time
Things I need to carry are too heavy
Lack of shade
Cars travel too fast
Crossings feel unsafe
Distances are too far
Personal safety concerns
Sidewalks are poorly maintained/missing
Lack of lighting
March 2024 4
Biking in Reedley
Frequency: About 59% of respondents indicated that they bike at least on occasion, while 41% never bike (see Figure 4). Most participants who bike do so less than once per month (21.9%), with “a few times per month” being the next most frequent response (17.9%).

Figure 4: Frequency of Biking in Reedley
How often do you ride a bike (traditional or e-bike) to get around Reedley? Top Reasons for Biking: Among respondents who indicated they bike around Reedley (n=90), when asked about why they bike, the top reason was “Exercise or enjoyment,” which was selected by a majority of survey respondents (88%). No other responses were commonly identified with the next most frequently selected response being “Destinations are nearby” at 31% (see Table 3). Participants could select up to two responses.

Table 3: Reasons for Biking in Reedley
What are the top reasons that you bike to get around Reedley? Select up to two.

Reason Share
Exercise or enjoyment 87.8%
Destinations are nearby 31.1%
To minimize environmental impact 12.2%
Cost/affordability 12.2%
I have no other option for getting around 2.2%
Other 1.1%
Destinations: Respondents were also asked about the specific destinations they bike to and could select all that apply. Top responses were “Recreation” at 52%, followed by “Homes of friends/family” at 29.5% and public facilities such as the library or community center (19.5%). See Figure 5 for more details. 3%
7%
9%
18%
22%
41%
Nearly every day
3 or more times per week
1 or 2 times per week
A few times per month
Less than 1 time per month
Never
March 2024 5
Figure 5: Top Destinations for Biking
Which destinations do you bike to? Select all that apply.

Barriers to Biking: Respondents were asked to select the top three barriers that keep them from biking more than they currently do. The most common response among those who bike at least some of the time (n=121) was “Bikeways are poorly maintained or lacking” at 42%, followed by “Personal safety concerns” at 37%, and “Bikeways are too narrow/not enough separation from vehicles” at 34% (see Figure 6). Other barriers identified through write-in responses included lack of bike parking, sweating in summer, and the lack of a regional network (for those who want to bike in Reedley but live outside the City). Of note, 30 respondents selected “N/A – I am not interested in biking more,” yet that number is much smaller than the 62 respondents who indicated on an earlier question that they never bike in Reedley, which implies that some of the respondents that do not currently bike in Reedley might be interested in doing so if conditions were different.

Figure 6: Barriers to Biking More
If you would like to bike more (for trips to school, work, errands, etc.) but don't, what are the biggest barriers or constraints that keep you from doing so? Select up to three responses.

4.7%

8.7%

9.4%

12.8%

16.1%

19.5%

29.5%

51.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Healthcare
Work
School
Shopping
Restaurants or bars
Public facilities
Homes of friends/family
Recreation

4.1%

6.6%

9.1%

9.9%

11.6%

19.8%

24.0%

26.4%

33.9%

37.2%

42.1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Takes too much time
Distances are too far
Other
Traveling with children/dependents
Things I need to carry are too heavy
Lack of shade
Vehicles travel too fast
Lack of lighting
Crossings feel unsafe
Narrow bikeways/not enough separation from…
Personal safety concerns
Bikeways are poorly maintained or lacking
March 2024 6
Comfort by Bikeway Facility Type: In addition to questions related to current behavior, respondents were asked to assess how comfortable they would feel on various types of biking facilities on a scale from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable”. Photos and descriptions of each facility type were provided. In lieu of a comfort rating, respondents could select “N/A - I don’t bike”. A range of 111-124 respondents ranked each facility type, while the rest indicated that they do not bike. Excluding those who indicated that they don’t bike, Table 4 shows the distribution of responses to each facility type; the darker the shade of blue, the more popular the response.

The facility types offering the greatest separation of bicyclists from vehicles can be ranked from most to least comfortable:
• Multi-use paved trails, which include the Reedley Parkway, were ranked the most comfortable facility type, with about 80% of respondents who bike indicating they feel somewhat or very comfortable.
• Bike lane protected by bollards were ranked second most comfortable, with 69% of respondents who bike ranking this facility type as somewhat or very comfortable. The one example of this facility type in Reedley is along East Huntsmen Avenue, connecting two different portions of the Parkway.
• Bikeways on local streets, often referred to as neighborhood greenways or bike boulevards, were considered somewhat or very comfortable by more than 55% of respondents. • Buffered bike lanes were identified as somewhat or very comfortable by about 53% of respondents, while standard bike lanes adjacent to vehicular traffic were identified as somewhat or very comfortable by only 32% of respondents.
• Bikeable road shoulders, which offer the least protection from vehicles, were ranked least comfortable. There are no examples of this in Reedley.

Table 4: Bikeway Facility Comfort Levels
How comfortable do you feel biking on the following facilities? Very
Uncomfortable
Somewhat
Uncomfortable Neutral Somewhat Comfortable
Very
Comfortable
Bike lane adjacent
to vehicular traffic 19.4% 29.8% 18.5% 25.8% 6.5%
Bike lane buffered
by striping 13.0% 19.5% 14.6% 26.8% 26.0%
Bikeable road
shoulders 32.0% 30.3% 18.9% 15.6% 3.3%
Bike lane protected
by bollards 8.5% 12.0% 10.3% 23.1% 46.2%
Multi-use, paved
trail 10.8% 2.7% 2.7% 11.7% 68.4%
Neighborhood
greenway¹ 14.9% 14.9% 15.7% 35.5% 19.0%
1: A neighborhood greenway is a street with low speed/low traffic volume with painted markings and traffic calming treatments, such as traffic circles
March 2024 7
Reedley Parkway
Respondents were asked how often they use the Reedley Parkway. Overall, about 55% of respondents use the Parkway a few times a month or more and nearly 30% indicated that they use the Parkway on at least a weekly basis (see Figure 7). Only 1 in 5 respondents never use the Parkway.

Respondents were also asked more generally how they feel about the Reedley Parkway. Overall, 63% of participants either like or strongly like the Parkway, while only 11% indicated some level of dislike for the Parkway (see Figure 8).

Figure 7: Frequency of Using the Reedley Parkway
How often do you use the Reedley Parkway?
Figure 8: Reedley Parkway Sentiments
How do you feel about the Reedley Parkway?

17.1%

11.6%

26.0%

19.2%
3 or more times per week
1 or 2 times per week
A few times per month
Less than 1 time per month
Never

4.1%

6.8%

23.3%

27.4%

34.9%

3.4%
Strongly dislike
Dislike
Neutral
Like
Strongly like
I don't know
March 2024 8
Respondents were next asked about how the Reedley Parkway could be improved and could select up to two suggestions. The top responses were “Connect it to more destinations” at about 46%, followed by “Extend the trail to make it longer” at 38% (see Figure 9). “Other” represented one quarter of the responses; people wrote in a variety of suggestions with many noting personal safety concerns and the need for better lighting.

Figure 9: Improving the Parkway
How could the Reedley Parkway be improved? Select up to two.

Demographics
Connection to Reedley: To better understand who responded to the survey, respondents answered a series of demographic questions, including their connection to Reedley. Respondents could select all that apply. Most respondents (over 90%) live in Reedley, while about 38% work in Reedley (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Connection to Reedley
What is your connection to Reedley? Select all that apply.

25.3%

2.7%

10.3%

16.4%

18.5%

19.9%

38.4%

45.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
More wayfinding / signage
Additional access points/trailheads
Host events along the trail
More trail amenities (e.g. benches)
Safer intersection crossings
Extend the trail
Connect to more destinations

90.4%

59.6%

37.7% 33.6%
I live there I shop or use services
located there
I work there I/my dependents attend
school there
March 2024 9
Age: Survey respondents were somewhat disproportionately older than the average Reedley resident.

Over 35% of survey respondents fell into the 35-49 years old category and 23.4% fell into the 50-64 years old category (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Age Distribution of Respondents
Which age group are you in?
Vehicle Access To better understand vehicle access and car-dependency in Reedley, respondents were asked how many vehicles they have access to. Over 84% of respondents said that there is one car per adult in the household, while another 12% have access to a vehicle in their household (see Figure 12).

Only about 3% of respondents indicated there is no vehicle in their household.

Figure 12: Vehicle Access
Do you have access to a vehicle on a daily basis?

18.6%

23.4% 35.2%

17.2%

5.5%
18-34
35-49
50-64
65 and older
I prefer not to
answer

84.2%

12.3%

3.4%
Yes, one car per adult in the
household
Yes, one car shared among
everyone in the household
No car available and/or I
depend on carpooling
March 2024 10
Race/Ethnicity: A final demographic question was asked about race and ethnicity to understand whether those who responded to the survey are representative of the Reedley population. About 43% of respondents who chose to answer the question identified as Hispanic or Latino/a and 44% identified as White (see Table 5). This indicates an overrepresentation of White respondents and an underrepresentation of Hispanic or Latino/a respondents. Per the 2020 Census, 79.1% of Reedley residents identified as Hispanic or Latino/a and 15.4% identified as non-Hispanic or Latino/a White.

Table 5: Race/Ethnicity of Survey Respondents
Pick all that describe you [from the options below]:

Race/Ethnicity Share
White 44.1%
Hispanic or Latino/a 43.4%
Asian 3.7%
Native American or Alaska Native 2.2%
African American or Black 1.5%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.7%
Prefer to self-identify 4.4%
Miscellaneous
When asked if there is anything else they would like to share, responses echoed concerns expressed throughout the survey, including improving lighting and personal safety/concerns on the Reedley Parkway related to unhoused individuals and stray dogs.

Respondents also suggested specific places in Reedley in need of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, including:
• Missing sidewalks on Olson Avenue near Reedley Beach
• Missing sidewalks on South Reed Avenue
• Lack of traffic control/crosswalk by Reedley Sports Park March 2024 11
Responses to open-ended survey question
Is there anything else related to this survey that you would like to share? Response
ID # Response
37 For the most part I think the city is doing well regarding the parkway. But people need to be able to feel safe on the trails. That is a problem now. 44 n/a
50 If access to bike paths/trails (not bike lanes) was prioritized so as to connect all schools, it would simultaneously safely connect the entire community and encourage an active and healthy lifestyle for both our youth and adults.
51 I walk all over town nearly every day. I often walk in the street and cross between crossings because I feel safer watching for traffic myself. I have almost gotten hit a couple times when I was in the crosswalk, had the right of way, and drivers didn't look or didn't see me. I feel safe walking the trail and drivers are kind to let pedestrians cross. 53 Thank you very much for finally reaching out to us. I am a 30 year resident of Reedley with a growing family and love to be outdoors as much as possible. Anything we can do to improve or change about our city wide access to being outdoors, I'm all ears. I have much more to learn and opine on this Reedley Active Transportation and Parkway Master Plan Survey and I am looking forward to seeing what positives come from this survey.
55 More sidewalks/bike lane should be added around town. On Parlier ave between citizens park and pecan ave.
58 the rail train needs more lighting. there are too many people loitering. Police need to supervise or bike thru during the day. It is not safe for evening strolls when weather is nice...spring thru fall
61 NO
62 Clean up the streets of all the drug addicts on bikes and maybe i would start caring about the bike paths.
63 I believe that a good location to extend the trail east/ west with a separated bike lane would be at the proposed new Reedley library, that site would be right in the center, and it would allow all access to the rail trail that currently goes north/south 64 No
65 There was an error with this survey. I selected that I don't bike, but then was required to fill in the next question which was specific to biking. poor survey design. It's also clear that whoever designed the survey isn't familiar with Reedley since they called the trail the "parkway". No one who lives here calls it that. Use local experts to do local work. Do not outsource things like this to out of town consultants. 66 Cars don't always stop for pedestrians when crossing streets along parkway. Would like to see trees watered more along parkway. Clean and repair exercise equipment and signage. Dust from Nash De Camp business is terrible.
69 yes, we need to pay our law enforcement officers better and increase law enforcement presence. As a citizen, I am aware that Reedley PD has extremely young experienced officers due to the pay compared to other cities. As a citizen within Reedley, I am extremely concerned with public safety. the parkway master plan can wait as the safety of the community is much more important.
70 Make it go along traver creek to dinuba golf course! And under manning bridge to go to smith ferry park
79 For the most part Reedley is safe. And when I'm out for a run or on a bike ride the "homeless" people seem harmless enough. However, there are some that are in dire need of mental healthcare. Not sure if we can do anything about that. But it would be nice to help.

March 2024 12
80 I used to walk everywhere and most days. Then I encountered stray dogs on the trail through town; and was approached by homeless people more often and did not feel safe. Even the trail behind the college, where I worked for over 30 years, and walked has become remote if I needed help. This town has really changed! 82 rail trail needs better lighting, the lights on the rail trail need to maintained more regular, to fix outages, the trail needs to be patrolled more by law enforcement to discourage drug use, homeless, etc. We could make all of these wonderful, costly improvements, which I would be very interested in, BUT, if people don't feel safe to use it, or have their kids use it, it will be a waste of time and money Having said that I really enjoy utilizing what we have now and would welcome any upgrades and expansion. It just needs to be more safe, I feel bad for younger kids, or families with young kids that might want to use this, or females (and males) that feel like they would use this but can't because of what they may encounter from a safety standpoint.
88 Need more interesting things to do in town.
89 City needs interesting activities to promote getting out like more and safer Trailways. 92 Anything we do to enhance outdoor activity will benefit Reedley Thanks! 96 Adding lighting incertain areas would be great also to have the light fixtures LED so it's bright enough to see ahead
97 Nerd morr big box stores
98 Safety is always a concern in reedley. It won't do any good to build a parkway if it becomes a hangout for junkies and gangs
100 Thank you for doing this. I'd like to enjoy it more if it was safer. 103 Thanks for survey
104 Safe and clean pathways for students to utilize for getting to school and for families to use for recreation/exercise would be great! The homeless along the current is becoming a big concern in our city.
106 The lack of a crossing signal on Dinuba Ave. at Sports Park is concerning. Cars are traveling at high speeds, and there is often traffic due to the park being used. Please make it safer for families to use by installing a crossing signal. It could potentially save a life. The idea to further extend the trail is excellent. The Parkway is my favorite feature of Reedley.
109 We really enjoy the trail and are pleased with the recent safety improvements (smoothing the trail). We would like to see improved lighting, and something to address the aggressive dogs south of Dinuba Ave.
114 A lot of stray dogs so hesitant to run/walk the trail. 118 The pedestrian pathway down the Olson bridge by Reedley beach is really not even a sidewalk. I walk with my kids from river bluff dr up to the cemetery. Cars zoom past us with little to no room. Citizens need a pathway maybe with a barricade for pedestrians only before anything is done on the parkway in town. This is a major concern especially in the summer time when Tons of people walk down that bridge 119 It wasn't clear what the Parkway referred to. I answered in terms of the Rail Trail, but not sure if that is what you had in mind/
123 Reedley leaders need to work within the reality that our city is not a hipster coastal-type attraction. The outdoor dining areas, put in place due to Covid, and now marketed as a way to turn the town into a walking community, are unfair to non-food business owners who have lost customers and to the handicapped, who can no longer find decent parking. Parking in the back is a poor option as some businesses either don't have entries or don't want customers arriving from the back. Reedley is not laid out to be a walking community, say like San Francisco, where everything a person needs or wants is in close proximity to each other and easily accessed by walking or public transportation. It's my hope that the parklets are not brought back next Spring. I am not alone in noticing that the parklets are rarely used, with the exception of Willie's, which is mainly due to a lack of indoor seating. Reedley is a mere shell of what it used to be, but March 2024 13
it can be revived by leaders who resist their own apathy by showing real passion for improvement and by encouraging community input and giving that input consideration. 124 Please add a stop sign on the intersection of 8th and F St. there have been too many car accidents and a lot of people so not yield because of the lack of a stop sign 125 Provide better lighting on trails, more benches, more shade, water fountains, remove vagrants (they harrass people), smoother pathways, volunteer patrols to ensure safety. ��
127 South Reed Ave between I street and the cemetery is traveled by many people in many different forms every day. There is not a safe side walk in many sections. In many sections side walk is lifted and unsafe. Biking is also very dangerous, there is no designated safe lane. And most scary of all big rigs that are not allowed to go down portions of this road go at very high rates of speed!
130 I love in district 1 behind T.L. Reed. I would love the bike trail to connect to the Citizens Park. We find it somewhat challenging getting to bike trail with my 10 and 4 year old.

Also we need more lighting on Cypress, between Thompson and Steven Avenues. It's so dark! It discourages walking/biking at night, which is so early now. Thank you. 135 Keep parkway for walkers only. They give me a heart attack when they give no warning and speed by.
147 I would like the city to maintain the sidewalks where they have planting strips and trees between the roads and sidewalks in my neighborhood. It would also be great if dogs on leashes were allowed in the cemetery again. I was responsible, leashed my dog, and cleaned up after them. If there was a service I stayed a respectful distance away. It was the perfect place to walk out of traffic. There is no park with paths or walking trails within easy distance on this side of town. Also, there are many loose dogs and people who walk their dogs off leash. I am very concerned about them approaching my dogs when I am walking. I often just leave my dogs at home so I know they are safe, and then I can also walk at the cemetery away from traffic. Another benefit of walking my dog at the cemetery was fewer loose dogs and you could see them coming from a farther distance thereby avoiding a possible problem. Maybe we could purchase a low cost, bright colored dog vest with a registration number that allowed a person to walk their dog in the cemetery. Then if they didn't follow the rules, their privilege could be revoked. I just want to close by saying that I would love a beautiful shady, safe place to walk my dogs out of traffic that was wide enough for me to walk beside my walking partner, (our sidewalks aren't wide enough and we walk in the street when it is safe to do so) and was located on my side of town (near the cemetery). Thank you for asking the public's opinion.
148 It would be wonderful to have better public transportation ties to Fresno or Visalia for people who work there but live here. Two busses per day is a token gesture and nothing more. Public transportation in this area is terrible and while it is admirable you are looking to improve walking and biking trails, these are leisure-time activities for most people and would do little to change the real-world transportation problems we are all facing in Fresno County generally, and Reedley specifically. 150 Please put higher crossing flashing lighted poles for Dinuba Ave at railroad pedestrian crossing near packing house. Vehicles drive too fast turning corner and I've seen too many pedestrians near being hit from busy double lanes and other vehicles blocking view of pedestrians even with flashing road signals.
152 Me gustaría que se concrete el plan de desarrollo que esta en proyecto. Estoy seguro que mejoraría mucho la movilidad en esta ciudad.
153 N/A
154 As I mentioned in a previous question, I REALLY wish the city would re-pave the sections of the parkway that have been replaced by gravel. 155 I'm pleasantly surprised there was a survey regarding transportation methods. I'm an advocate of car-free transportation, so diverse transportation options are very important to me.

March 2024 14
156 Make more parks for toddlers, kids,
157 No additional thoughts.
158 Not at this time
161 Please add more street lighting for sidewalks.
162 I would recommend extending bike lanes beyond just the major streets. Reedley has many citizens in pursuit of a healthier lifestyle that would enjoy a variety of outdoor leisurely activities, however, the options are limited due to infrastructure and a major problem with dog owners not taking care of or taking responsibility for their pets. There are large aggressive dogs that often roam the streets and little is done to make the owners be responsible for their dogs. For this reason, I drive everywhere instead of biking or walking. Hefty penalties and enforcement is needed to make the city safer for outdoor recreation.
171 No
178 I would like the City to consider adding more bike lanes throughout town. Licensed drivers yell when biking "to use a bike lane" and don't like to share the road when no bike lane is available. My kids ride bikes to visit friends and I would feel safer for them to be in a clearly marked bike lane rather than ride on a sidewalk or be yelled at for following the bike rules and sharing the road.
179 I feel we need more fixtures to secure our bicycles while shopping or dining in the downtown area. maybe even a simple bicycle repair station like Clovis has at the dry creek trail head.
182 I love using the Reedley parkway everyday. There needs to be more lighting along the trail. I am thankful that Reedley has a bike trail. I would love to see more or to see it extended. Maintenance is always a costly issue though.
184 The existing Rails-to-Trails path is great. Other road markings for bikes is also great. I'm not sure how much more could be done to increase walking or bike riding. I wouldn't spend too much more $ on paths.
185 N/A
186 Love Reedley ��. Improvements are always Great! 189 No
190 Biking infrastructure in Reedley is something I feel very passionate about. Reedley is a small city that is growing, and it hurts my heart to see single family housing with poorly designed roads taking up the lion's share of the new infrastructure. There should be a bikeway going all the way around the city, I've spoken to the City Manager about this years ago and he agreed. A new parkway that connects Reedley College, the River Bottom neighborhood, Reedley Beach/Cricket Hollow, the Palm Village community and surrounding neighborhood, the Oaks gas station and surrounding Buttonwillow neighborhood, the Save Mart shopping center, and looping up around on Parlier until it meets up with the college again. This would make biking even easier than driving a car, which is what Reedley needs as it grows. Good bicycle infrastructure would make Reedley an even more appealing place for young families to move to. Less traffic on Manning and I Street would make it safer to walk. Reedley is small, but it is already suffering the symptoms of sprawl. People who live on the River Bottom have no choice but to drive a car, which causes congestion, frustration, and later in life, health problems.

If the City of Reedley focused on bike infrastructure, Reedleyites would be happier, healthier, and more proud of their city. Growing up, not once did I meet someone my age who was proud of Reedley. That can change. And it should change. I know that the Reedley City Council is, by and large, a conservative institution that does not approve of change in the broad strokes. But it is incredibly sad to see young people move out of Reedley as soon as they're old enough. It's a great place to raise children, it can also be a great place to be a young adult, be a older adult with a busy schedule, and be an elderly adult. Property values will go up even with new home construction. If the Reedley Parkway (which i maintain should still be called the Rail Trail) was extended north to Sanger and Fresno and south to Dinuba, it would become a genuine commuting option.

March 2024 15
Riding a bike on a paved bikeway through the orchards would be excellent for one's health as well. To think of Reedley's future is to think of many possibilities. Make Reedley into a city of joy and health, and its people will improve. Also, for members of the city council, please watch the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel. It is an excellent overview of new urban planning, far more detail than I could ever provide in this comment section, and please read the book Strong Towns by Charles L. Marin Jr. 194 I would like to see the alleys maintained & resurfaced to prevent neighborhood blight thus helping with the safety concerns that prevent more walking & biking in the Reedley community. Initially concentrating on the alleys around neighborhoods surrounding Reedley High School.
195 More art along the trail sculptures, murals etc.
200 A 15 mile or so encircling Reedley, including 4-6 miles along the river, will be a huge asset for our community. Among the many advantages are: a) the recreational benefits for bikers, walkers, joggers; b) it makes our town a more attractive place to live; c) it appeals to our sense of beauty and place; d) it links our community together.....many can say, oh yeah, the Parkway is near where I work or live. 202 Appreciate the landscaping and how well it has been maintained 207 Better lighting
210 that would be so nice if we have better roads, and better street lights 214 We need to feel safe on the parkway. The graffitti and tagging needs to be cleaned up fast, and benches fixed quickly.
216 We have a great town
219 Crosswalks are needed for Reedley Sports Park area. 225 Main crosswalks to all schools be redone and more lit. Could we add two main crosswalks by Buttonwillow and Duff and one on Button Willow and Springfield by the bus stop for the kids.
226 I would use the trails more if I felt safe on them. 227 I LOVE the bike path! I wish I didn't have to ride my bike a mile on busy streets to get to it. I live on the south side of Reedley. Also it would be nice if there were more bikes lanes in general. I don't feel safe taking busy roads to get around town. Thank you for asking for our input!
234 Need safe bike parking like bikelink.org
235 No
237 This master plan is a great gateway to planning efficiently. More projects need to follow this effort in Reedley...
238 Our neighborhood in South Reedley is fairly new bit the sidewalks are either severely impacted by tree roots or covered by weeds dirt and trash. We pay an extra fee to maintain this but we cannot walk side by side due to these problems.it's really not safe for older people who have poor vision or balance.

March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix C: Review of
Existing Plans and Policies
March 2024 1
Review of Existing Plans and Policies
Recent planning efforts in Reedley established the provision of active transportation facilities as a major priority to support the well-being and quality of life of residents and visitors. These plans, as well as a multi-use trail prefeasibility study developed by a graduate student in cooperation with the City, provide a foundation that this current plan will build on. Critical takeaways from each plan and study, along with relevant goals, objectives, and policies, are detailed below.

City of Reedley Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2019) This plan consolidates the recommendations from the 2010 City of Reedley Bicycle Transportation Plan with the 2018 Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and provides guidance for the long-term development of a bicycle and pedestrian network across the city. The plan also sets goals, objectives, and policies related to active transportation in Reedley. The plan builds on the Reedley chapter of the Fresno County Regional ATP by providing further detail on locations and costs for proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects and identifying potential funding sources. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan does not describe how proposed facilities were selected. The 2019 proposed network, which reflects previous City and County planning efforts, will be considered in the development of an updated proposed network as part of this current Active Transportation Plan.

Table 1: Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies from the City of Reedley Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan
Relevant Goals and Objectives

1. Provide safe, accessible, and continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral component of a multi-modal transportation network.
• Continue development of a continuous bicycle and pedestrian network linking residential communities with schools, employment areas, shopping centers, and recreational activities. • Maintain signage, striping, shoulders, lane clearances, and pathways on the existing bicycle and pedestrian transportation network.
• Provide bicycle and pedestrian support facilities, including bike racks, at popular destination areas and installed on transit vehicles.

2. Recognition of bicycling and walking as viable alternative modes of transportation that necessitates inclusion in local, regional, and state transportation planning efforts.

3. Promote bicycle and pedestrian safety through the education and enforcement of traffic laws. • Develop and distribute the Reedley, Fresno County, and Tulare County Connectors Bikeway Map pamphlets that include information on bicycle and pedestrian safety and rules.

4. Advance the development of a continuous bicycle and pedestrian transportation network through the maximization of funding opportunities.

5. Implementation of the Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan March 2024 2
Relevant Policies

1.1 Encourage Caltrans to adopt policies and design standards that include the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel on all new construction, reconstruction, and capacity increasing streets and highway projects where practical and feasible.

1.2 Encourage Caltrans to create bicycle and pedestrian facilities (on state highways) consistent with state design specifications.

1.3 Encourage and support grant opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities as designated in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan.

2.1 Encourage public participation in the planning processes of bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities.

2.2 Through public awareness programs, identify and support bicycling as a viable mode of transportation that lessens traffic congestion, promotes physical fitness, and improves air quality.

3.1 Support strict enforcement of state and local traffic laws pertinent to bicycle and pedestrian safety and the interaction between bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles.

3.2 Encourage the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian rules and regulations as part of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ driver’s license examinations.

3.3 Promote the Bicycle and Pedestrian Month of May through the encouragement of bicycling and walking activities and notices.

4.1 Identify funding sources and notify member agencies of requirements for all federal, state, regional, and local bicycle and pedestrian transportation funding programs.

4.2 Prioritize projects that enhance the development of a continuous bicycle and pedestrian transportation system.

4.3 Support transportation grant applications and maintain qualified staff that will assist in seeking funding for bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. Qualified staff may also maintain bikeway specifications and standards for designers and developers to utilize.

Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan (2018) The Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for all forms of active transportation in Fresno County and a roadmap for achieving that vision. The first handful of chapters outline facility types, existing conditions across the county, and implementation details, while the remaining chapters focus on the individual places within the County.

Chapter 15 is specific to Reedley and summarizes all existing conditions, as well as planned facilities.

Table 2: Relevant Goals, Fresno County Regional Active Transportation Plan Relevant Goals from the Fresno County ATP
• Create a network of safe and attractive trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that connect Fresno County residents to key destinations, especially local schools and parks; • Create a network of regional bikeways that allows bicyclists to safely ride between cities and other regional destinations;
• Increase walking and bicycling trips in the region by creating user-friendly facilities; and • Increase safety by creating bicycle facilities and improving crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians.

March 2024 3
City of Reedley General Plan 2030 (2014)
The General Plan is the primary document specifying goals and policies for the City, with an overarching emphasis on land use. In addition to the Land Use element, the General Plan is required by the State of California to have six additional elements, including Housing, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety.

The Circulation, Land Use, and Open Space elements all provide goals, objectives, and policies related to active transportation in Reedley; many of which are also included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan. The plan emphasizes land use that encourages bicycling and walking as viable alternative transportation modes, complete with pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented design recommendations for future development.

Active transportation-related goals, listed in Table 3, can be generally grouped into two categories:
• Programs and policies that reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicle travel, including street design standards and requirements for active transportation infrastructure as part of new developments.
• Expanding bicycle and pedestrian facility and multi-use trails through direct investments on the city roadway network.

Table 3: Relevant Goals and Objectives, City of Reedley General Plan Programs and Policies to Encourage Active Modes
LU 2.6A – New development (residential, commercial, and public) shall be designed in a way that creates fully integrated neighborhoods with a variety of land uses arranged so that access by walking or bicycling is possible and encouraged.

LU 2.6H – Sidewalk standards shall be revised to encourage and facilitate pedestrian activity by increasing sidewalk width, allow meandering sidewalk patterns and incorporating the placement of street trees between the sidewalk and the street.

CIR 3.4A – Encourage the use of bicycles as a viable means of transportation.

CIR 3.4D – Encourage bicycling for reasons of ecology, health, economy, and enjoyment as well as for transportation use.

COSP 4.9A Reduce motor vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled while increasing average vehicle ridership.

Infrastructure Investments
CIR 3.4B – Develop a continuous and easily accessible bikeways system which facilitates the use of the bicycle as a viable alternative transportation mode.

CIR 3.4C – Develop programs, standards, ordinances, and procedures to achieve and maintain safe conditions for bicycle use.

COSP 4.10A – Develop innovative transportation systems that incorporate alternative transportation modes into existing system design.

COSP 4.18A – Facilitate greater community connectivity with recreation, parks, and programs in Reedley through the development of an integrated system of trails, bikeways, parks, and open space.

March 2024 4
The General Plan contains nearly three dozen policies that are related to active transportation. Similar to plan goals, the relevant policies can be categorized based on their application to site development and the desired urban form of the city, and the type of public infrastructure that should be planned and constructed across the city. See the Appendix for a complete list of relevant policies.

The policies reflect the position that pedestrian facilities and walkability are a key part of the character of Reedley and that connections should be provided between adjacent development sites and the surrounding street network. The policies recognize new development as a critical means of implementing multi-modal transportation infrastructure and that street design standards should be created to include pedestrian facilities on all roads, with buffers to separate sidewalks from motor vehicle traffic, where possible. Site design modifications that support site access by walking and biking, including opportunities for reduced parking, are encouraged.

Various policies explicitly call for federal, state, and local funds to be used to construct a comprehensive and well-connected system of bikeways and trails, with separated bike facilities where high vehicle speeds and volumes exist. The General Plan refers to Caltrans documents for guidance on bikeway and pedestrian facility design. One noteworthy policy, counter to best practices in bikeway facility design, is policy CIR 3.4.10, which calls for “stopping a bikeway before a major street intersection or dangerous railroad crossing and starting it again after the area has been passed.” In these instances, bicyclists are encouraged to walk their bicycles through these intersections, thus creating a disconnected bikeway network.

Developing a Multi-use Trail System in Reedley, California: A Prefeasibility Study (2020)
Conducted in partnership with the City, the prefeasibility further assesses opportunities for expanding the multi-use trail system and developing a Reedley Parkway Master Plan. Currently, the Reedley Parkway is a 3.2-mile, multi-use trail that bisects the City. The future vision for this trail is a 15-mile-long multi-use trail that connects the existing north and south ends into one continuous loop.

The study:
• Summarizes existing conditions for trail development in Reedley • Serves as a planning and decision-making framework for trail development • Provides assessment and analysis of the potential Parkway expansion; and • Offers recommendations and next steps for implementation In addition to supporting future population growth, expanding the active transportation, and other benefits, the study emphasizes the planned trail expansion’s economic potential as a catalyst for trail-oriented development in the city.

Design Considerations
Roadway Design Standards
The City of Reedley has a Standard Specifications document, which outlines roadway construction requirements, and Standard Plans that provide an overview of the desired widths and features of different roadway types. Table 4 summarizes the typical street components and standard widths by street March 2024 5
classification. Alternative cross sections are provided for arterials based on the presence of turn lanes; where bike lanes are present, they should be 6 feet wide.

Table 4: Roadway Requirements by Street Classification
Street
Classification
Travel Lanes:

Quantity;
Width
Turn Lanes:

Quantity:

Width
Bike
Lane
Width
Sidewalk
Width
Shoulder
Width
Other
Features
Major Arterial 4; 12’ 2; 12’ N/A 10’ 8’ N/A
Minor Arterial or
Collector,
version 1
4; 12’ 0 N/A 9’-6” 8’ N/A
Minor Arterial or
Collector,
version 2
2; 12’ 1 (two-way); 12’ 6’ 9’-6” 8’ N/A
Collector with
Median
2; 13’ 0 6’ 10’ 8’ 10’
median
Local
Residential
Street
2; 11’ 0 N/A 5’ 7’ N/A
Local Industrial
Street
2; 12’ 0 N/A 5’ 10’ N/A
Landscaping is required for collectors and arterials though not for local roads. Major arterials require a minimum 21’-wide landscaped area (including the sidewalk and masonry block walls at the outer edges of the right-of-way). Minor arterials and collectors require a minimum 17’-wide landscaped area (including the sidewalk and block wall). An example of this street type, South Buttonwillow Avenue, is pictured below.

Landscaping along South Buttonwillow Avenue (Source: Google) March 2024 6
Roadway Design Guidance Opportunities
The Standard Specifications and Standard Plans are limited, and more clarification would be useful in certain cases. Some opportunities to improve the existing guidance include:
• Further guidance for bikeway facility design, including a greater range of facility types, the application of techniques such as buffers or vertical barriers that increase user comfort levels, and the appropriate facility type based on context factors such as street classification, traffic volume, or speed limit. Current guidance only includes standard bike lanes. • Further guidance for pedestrian facilities, such as inclusion of landscape/physical (such as guardrail) buffers (aside from the limited cases requiring a masonry wall.) This would support General Plan goal LU 2.6H.
• Reference to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and PROWAG guidance. • Guidance for prioritizing design features in constrained right-of-way cases by roadway type and context.
• Guidance for designing bikeways through intersections. • Desired features and amenities for paved multi-use paths/trails.

March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix D: Pedestrian
Needs Assessment
March 2024 1
Pedestrian Needs Assessment
Defining Activity Areas
Pedestrian activity areas, which include parks, schools, and clusters of retail/service/community-oriented destinations, were identified across Reedley and form the basis of a detailed analysis of conditions for people walking and rolling.

Reedley’s Downtown District (slightly different from the “Downtown Core” used for this analysis, which extends south to include I Street) was designed with pedestrians in mind, and best practices from this area can be applied to all pedestrian activity areas across Reedley. Small block lengths of 400-500 feet allow pedestrians many opportunities to cross the roads. Sidewalks feature buffers with planter boxes and benches, most intersections have marked crosswalks, and the speed limit does not exceed 25 mph, even on collectors and arterials. These design conditions, along with national best practices for pedestrian safety and comfort (i.e., NACTO Urban Street Design Guide), informed the pedestrian analysis.

Pedestrian activity areas are comprised of a 1/3-mile buffer around major destinations; typically, people will walk 1/4 to 1/2 mile to access a destination, so 1/3 mile captures the average of that range. Since the Downtown Core is a district, while the other centers are point-based, its buffer was only 1/10 mile. Each activity area is listed below.
• Downtown Core – from 8th St to 13th St and I St to F St; key destinations include Pioneer Park, Reedley Parkway, City Hall, and Reedley Branch Library
• Reedley College and Retail Centers – centered around Manning Ave and Reed Ave; key destinations include Reedley College, Reedley High School, Reedley Middle College High School, Riverwalk Retail Center, and the Reedley regional park & ride facility • Northeast Reedley Retail Centers – centered around Manning Avenue from Columbia Avenue to Buttonwillow Avenue; key destinations include the Retail Plaza at Manning/11th, Reedley Shopping Center, Pocket Park (Myrtle Avenue)
• General Grant Middle School/Mueller Park; additional destinations include Reedley Community Center and Camacho Park
• Thomas Law Reed School/Citizens Park
• Immanuel High School/ Reedley Beach; additional destinations include Monument Hill Park and Cricket Hollow Park
• Reedley schools: Silas Bartsch School, Lincoln Elementary, Washington Elementary, and Jefferson Elementary
• Other locations: In addition to pedestrian activity areas, the perimeter roads of standalone parks were analyzed and include Reedley Sports Park and Columbia Park.

Pedestrian Needs Assessment
The following conditions were assessed for each pedestrian activity area:
• Sidewalk gaps
o All gaps on arterials and collectors within pedestrian activity areas are considered a high priority.
o Missing sidewalks outside of pedestrian priority areas may also be recommended for connectivity reasons.
• Landscape buffers
March 2024 2
o Presence of sidewalk buffer (buffer between sidewalk and traffic) and type of buffer (i.e., landscape, guardrail, bollards, etc.) on roads where speed limit exceeds 25 mph. o Buffers from traffic reinforce walkability; they may calm traffic and make conditions more comfortable for pedestrians on roads with higher speed limits (>25 mph). • Maximum speed limits
o Speed limits within pedestrian activity areas should ideally not exceed 25 mph. o Where speed limits do exceed 25 mph, additional separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles should be provided.
• Location and spacing of crossings
o Crossings along arterials/collectors should be spaced every 400-500 feet within pedestrian activity areas (based on block spacing in Downtown Reedley) to support pedestrian use.
o Crossings should exist at all school entrances; since schools are individual destinations with designated entrances, crossings every 400-500 feet are not necessary. • Crossing type
o Crosswalks should be marked at all signalized and stop-controlled intersections along streets with traffic volumes above 3,000 vehicles per day, posted speeds of 25 MPH or higher, and where there are two or more lanes of travel. o At schools, parks, plazas, senior centers, transit stops, hospitals, campuses, and major public buildings, marked crosswalks may be beneficial regardless of traffic conditions. o Crosswalks should contain high visibility (continental or ladder style) markings. o Presence of other crossing enhancements:
 Curb extensions
 Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)
 HAWK signals
 Pedestrian refuge island
Pedestrian Needs Assessment Findings
Sidewalks
Missing sidewalks are shown in yellow in Figure 1. In some instances, both sides of the street are missing sidewalks. Generally, sidewalks should be installed on both sides of the street where recommended, but in some places on the edge of City, such as the Manning Avenue/Zumwalt Avenue intersection, it is assumed that sidewalks would be installed only on the City side of the street.

This analysis focused on arterials and collectors in pedestrian priority areas, and as such, installing sidewalks in these locations are considered priority, but sidewalks should also be present along the perimeters of schools, regardless of functional classification. As of winter 2023, Jefferson Elementary is missing a sidewalk along Washington Avenue, though this sidewalk will be installed soon as part of an upcoming Safe Routes to School project.

Sidewalk Buffers
Sidewalk buffers may increase pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as calm traffic. In Reedley, buffers are typically planter boxes or landscaping. Ideally, sidewalk buffers should be present along all roads that exceed 25 mph within pedestrian activity areas. Since most highspeed roads in Reedley lack buffers, additional factors such as traffic volume, travel speeds, March 2024 3
and overlapping pedestrian activity areas, can be used to prioritize were locations where installation of landscape buffers would be most beneficial. These locations are marked as dashed green lines in Figure 1
Speed Limits
Maximum speed limits were assessed for all pedestrian activity areas. The Downtown Core has the lowest maximum speed limit of 30 mph (with a speed limit of 25 mph on most streets), but major roads throughout other pedestrian activity areas have speed limits of 35 mph and above. However, even speeds of 30 mph come with great risks for pedestrians: A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (Tefft, 2011) found that the average risk of severe injury or fatality for pedestrians struck by a vehicle traveling 40 mph is nearly 50 percent.

Source: Vision Zero Network
Speed limits should not exceed 25 mph on roads adjacent to schools. Reedley does have 25- mph school zones, but the extents of these zones appear to be limited to school entrance zones. Twenty-five (25) mph school zones should extend along the perimeter of all schools in Reedley to encourage safe pedestrian access to schools. Many cities have reduced speed limits in school zones even further, such as in Sacramento, where 15 mph is now the speed limit in school zones.

While speed limit reductions are a cost-effective and efficient way to improve pedestrian safety and comfort and can be implemented without altering the right-of-way, signage and speed limit values alone do not fully address safety concerns. Additional design considerations, such as improved sidewalks and crossings and traffic calming measures, are needed to reduce crash rates and enhance pedestrian comfort levels.

Potential Crossing Locations
Designated crossings should be spaced a reasonable distance apart to encourage pedestrian activity. Using Reedley’s pedestrian-friendly Downtown District as a standard, designated crossings should ideally be spaced every 400-500 feet in pedestrian activity areas; however, greater spacing is acceptable in less densely developed areas. The level of residential and commercial activity varies in some of Reedley’s pedestrian activity areas and crossings are currently spaced far apart (¼ to ½-mile, such as along Dinuba Avenue in a portion of the Jefferson Elementary School activity area). Providing crossings every 400-500 feet may not March 2024 4
make sense until redevelopment occurs, so more modest crossing distances were recommended in these areas.

Preliminary recommendations for existing crossing enhancements and recommended new crossings are shown in Figure 1. All crossing recommendations are made in conjunction with sidewalk recommendations. See Chapter 6 for the ultimate set of recommendations.

Additional Intersection Improvements
Beyond high visibility crosswalks, there are a variety of treatments that can improve crossing safety and comfort, pictured and described in greater detail in Chapter 6. These treatments include:
• Pedestrian refuge island: Protected space in the roadway median for pedestrians to pause while crossing a street
• Curb extensions that extend sidewalk into the street to minimize pedestrian crossing distance • HAWK signals (also known as pedestrian hybrid beacons, or PHBs): Pedestrian-actuated three- light clusters (two red on top and one yellow below) located above the center of the roadway to stop traffic for safe crossing.
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs): Pedestrian-actuated flashing yellow lights to alert vehicles to stop for pedestrians crossing
• Leading pedestrian interval (LPI): Programming traffic lights to allow pedestrians to cross 3-7 seconds before vehicles have the green light
March 2024 5
Figure 1: Pedestrian Needs Assessment Results
March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix E: Bikeway
Prioritization Methodology
and Ranked Project List
March 2024 1
Bikeway Prioritization Methodology
Each bikeway project was assessed based on connectivity, safety, need, equity, and community support.

Each project was allotted points based on each criterion, then points were tallied to rank each project relative to one another. Projects may receive up to five points per criterion. Project scores may be considered alongside costs, technical feasibility analysis, and methods of implementation when determining which projects to pursue.

Methodology
Connectivity
Projects located in areas with high levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity may improve mobility and connect residents to key destinations without relying on a car. Pedestrian activity areas as defined in the Pedestrian Needs Assessment, reflect locations that likely generate high numbers of trips taken via active transportation. These activity areas, which include key destinations or destination clusters, such as schools, parks, or shopping areas (plus a 1/3-mile buffer), are shown in orange in Chapter 4: Active Transportation Needs.

Benefits /
Impact Description Points
High Project located within overlapping (high) activity areas 5 Medium Project located within activity area 3
Low Project not located within activity area 1
Safety
Projects that are located at/near the sites of previous crashes may address key safety issues in Reedley, including situations where active transportation users perceive locations as dangerous. This criterion considers both total crashes and crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians. Points are awarded based on the frequency of crashes, using total crashes per mile (using the most recent five-year crash data inventory), or the presence of bicyclist and/or pedestrian involved crashes.

Benefits /
Impact
Description Points
Very High Project located at/near site of at least 6 total bicycle or pedestrian crashes OR a total of more than 8 crashes per mile over a 5-year period. 5 High Project located at/near site of 4-5 total bicycle or pedestrian crashes OR a total of 6-8 or more crashes per mile over a 5-year period. 4 Medium-High Project located at/near site of 2-3 total bicycle or pedestrian crashes OR a total of 4-6 or more crashes per mile over a 5-year period. 3 Medium Project located at/near site of 1 total bicycle or pedestrian crashes OR a total of 2-4 crashes per mile over a 5-year period. 2
Low Project located at/near site with zero total bicycle or pedestrian crashes and a total of less than 2 crashes per mile over a 5-year period. 1 Facility Needs
Bicycle and trail needs are based on whether a project fills in a gap in the network, provides connections to new locations, and/or improves the quality of an existing bikeway or trail above existing conditions.

Benefits
/ Impact Description Points
March 2024 2
High
• Project fills in gap in network or provides new connection to underserved area • Project enhances conditions along an existing high stress bikeway • Project is a new trail
5 Medium • Expands network to an area with existing parallel bikeways • Project enhances conditions along existing medium stress bikeways 3 Equity
Projects located in places where residents are more likely to be transportation cost burdened and/or more likely to rely on walking and biking should be prioritized. Additionally, areas with low median household income (MHI) typically are home to populations that have historically been left behind by planning efforts.

Points are awarded based on the lowest median household income value among the block groups in the project area.

Benefits / Impact Description Points
Very High Lowest MHI for block group in the project area is $40,000 or less 5 High Lowest MHI for block group in the project area is $40,001-60,000 4 Medium-High Lowest MHI for block group in the project area is $60,001-75,000 3 Medium Lowest MHI for block group in the project area is $75,001-$90,000 2 Low Lowest MHI for block group in the project area is $90,001 or more 1 Community Support
Points are awarded based on the level of public or stakeholder support for projects, based on the input received from the Project Advisory Group, attendees at the October 2023 Community Workshop, and participants at the pop-up event during the October 2023 Reedley Fiesta.

Benefits / Impact Description Points
High High level of input provided; frequent public comments 5 Medium Moderate level of input provided 3
Low Little or no input provided on project/location 1
Ranked Project List
The list below details how many points each on-street bikeway facility received for each criterion in the prioritization process and each bikeway’s overall priority level.

Route Proposed Facility Safety Connectivity Equity Public Input Facility Needs Total Priority Level 10th St (Reed Ave to North Ave) Bike Boulevard 3 5 5 1 3 17 Medium-High 12th St (K St to I St) Enhanced Bike Lanes 4 5 3 1 3 16 Medium-High 13th St (I St to F St) Bike Lanes 2 5 5 1 5 18 High
13th St (F St to C St) Enhanced Bike Lanes 3 5 5 1 3 17 Medium-High 13th St (Dinuba Ave to I St) Enhanced Bike Lanes 4 5 3 1 3 16 Medium-High 8th St (Reed Ave to G St) Bike Lanes 4 3 5 1 3 16 Medium-High 8th St (G St to North Ave) Enhanced Bike Lanes 4 3 5 1 3 16 Medium-High Buttonwillow Ave (Dinuba Ave
to Washington Ave)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 2 1 3 1 3 10 Medium
Buttonwillow Ave (Washington
Ave to Manning Ave)
Bike Lanes 3 3 5 5 5 21 Very High
Columbia Ave (North Ave to 11th
Ave)
Bike Boulevard 5 5 5 1 5 21 Very High
Columbia Ave (Manning Ave to
Parlier Ave)
Bike Boulevard 4 3 5 1 5 18 High
Columbia Ave (11th St to
Manning Ave)
Sidepath 4 5 5 1 5 20 Very High
Dinuba Ave (Hope Ave to
Columbia Ave)
Bike Lanes 4 3 5 1 5 18 High
March 2024 1
Route Proposed Facility Safety Connectivity Equity Public Input Facility Needs Total Priority Level Dinuba Ave (Columbia Ave to
city limits)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 2 3 3 5 3 16 Medium-High
Duff Ave (East Ave to
Buttonwillow Ave)
Bike Boulevard 2 3 5 1 5 16 Medium-High
Duff Ave (Buttonwillow Ave to
Parkway alignment)
Shared Use Path 2 1 4 1 5 13 Medium
E St (North Ave to 15th St) Bike Boulevard 2 5 5 1 5 18 High East Ave (G St to North Ave) Enhanced Bike Lanes 3 5 5 1 5 19 High East Ave (North Ave to Manning
Ave)
Bike Lanes 3 5 5 1 3 17 Medium-High
East Ave (G St to Dinuba Ave) Bike Lanes 3 1 5 1 3 13 Medium Eymann Ave (Beechwood Ave
to Reed Ave)
Bike Boulevard 1 1 3 1 5 11 Medium
Frankwood Ave (North Ave to
northern city limits)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 4 3 5 5 5 22 Very High
Frankwood Ave (Huntsman Ave
to Dinuba Ave)
Bike Lanes 3 1 3 1 5 13 Medium
Hope Ave (Herbert Ave to
Dinuba Ave)
Bike Boulevard 1 3 3 1 3 11 Medium
J St (12th St to 8th St) Enhanced Bike Lanes 1 5 3 1 3 13 Medium K St (13th St to Reed Ave) Bike Lanes 2 3 3 1 3 12 Medium K St (13th St to Dinuba Ave) Enhanced Bike Lanes 2 3 3 1 3 12 Medium March 2024 2
Route Proposed Facility Safety Connectivity Equity Public Input Facility Needs Total Priority Level Manning Ave (Reed Ave to
western city limit)
Separated Bike Lanes 4 1 4 1 5 15 Medium
Manning Ave (Sunset Ave to
proposed Parkway alignment)
Bike Lanes 5 3 5 3 5 21 Very High
Manning Ave (Reed Ave to
Sunset Ave)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 5 3 4 3 5 20 Very High
Manning Ave (I St to Reed Ave) Sidepath 3 3 4 3 5 18 High Hollywood Ave/Myrtle Ave
(North Ave to Columbia Ave)
Bike Boulevard 3 5 5 1 3 17 Medium-High
North Ave (8th St to Hollywood
Ave)
Bike Lanes 1 3 5 1 5 15 Medium
North Ave (Reed Ave to
Hollywood Ave)
Sidepath 2 3 5 1 3 14 Medium
Olson Ave (Kings River Road to
East Ave)
Bike Boulevard 3 3 3 5 5 19 High
Parlier Ave (Reed Ave to
Frankwood Ave)
Bike Lanes 3 3 4 3 5 18 High
Parlier Ave (Frankwood Ave to
Buttonwillow Ave)
Bike Lanes 2 1 4 5 5 17 Medium-High
Parlier Ave (Frankwood Ave to
Thompson Ave)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 2 3 4 3 5 17 Medium-High
Reed Ave (North Ave to
Manning Ave)
Enhanced Bike Lanes 5 3 4 1 3 16 Medium-High
Reed Ave (Eymann Ave to 8th St) Sidepath 5 1 3 1 5 15 Medium March 2024 3
Route Proposed Facility Safety Connectivity Equity Public Input Facility Needs Total Priority Level Springfield Ave (East Ave to
Sunset Ave)
Sidepath 3 5 5 1 5 19 High
Sunset Ave (Dinuba Ave to
Grant Middle School)
Bike Boulevard 3 5 4 1 3 16 Medium-High
March 2024

TOOLE DESIGN GROUP LLC
Appendix F: Bicycle Level of
Traffic Stress Methodology
March 2024 1
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a tool for quantifying the comfort level experienced by most people bicycling along a roadway on a scale from 1 (least stress) to 4 (highest stress). The following inputs and street characteristics determine LTS scores for a road segment:
• Bicycle facility presence, type, and width
• Posted speed limit
• Number of travel lanes per direction
• Average daily traffic (ADT) volume
• Presence and width of on-street parking lanes
• Presence of a centerline
LTS analysis was applied to the entire network of streets and paved off-street paths in Reedley, including locations with and without dedicated bikeways. For the purposes of LTS analysis, only certain bikeways (i.e., bike lanes, shoulders, and trails) are considered to have dedicated bicycle facilities. Though bike routes help direct bicyclists to key destinations and raise awareness of their presence on the road to motorists, these routes are scored using the “mixed traffic” criteria as there is no physical separation between moving traffic and bicyclists and research indicates the presence of signs does not influence traffic stress. See Table 1 for criteria and LTS scores for segments with mixed traffic conditions, Table 2 for the criteria and LTS scores for segments with dedicated bicycle facilities and no on-street parking, and Table 3 for LTS scores for segments with dedicated bicycle facilities that are located adjacent to on-street parking.

Shared-use paths, such as the Reedley Parkway, and separated bike lanes, such as along Huntsman Ave, are considered low stress facility types and generate LTS 1, though high speeds and traffic volumes along the parallel road may affect user comfort levels along separated bike lanes.1 Road segments with on-street bike lanes generally receive scores of LTS 2 or 3, depending on the posted, traffic volume, whether on-street parking is permitted, and the parking utilization rate. Segments with higher traffic levels or parking generally create higher stress conditions for people bicycling.

It is important to note that LTS should be considered a basis for determining bicyclist comfort levels and that other factors influence the decision to ride a bicycle on a particular facility, including incidences of speeding and conflicts with turning movements associated with driveways and site access points.

Note on Data Sources: The LTS analysis used bikeway facility and posted speed limit data from the City of Reedley and traffic counts data from the Fresno Council of Governments. On-street parking and bikeway facility width data were collected from Google Earth and field observations. Manual edits and assumptions were applied to account for missing data and realistic use of facilities under existing conditions.
1 An assumption inherent in the LTS methodology is that protected bike lanes feature adequate physical separation between bicyclists and motorists and that the design ensures motorists do not encroach upon the bike lane.

March 2024 2
Table 1: LTS Criteria for Roads with Mixed Traffic
Number of traffic
lanes ADT
Posted speed limit
< 20
mph
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
50+
mph
2-way street
(no centerline)
0-750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751-1500 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1501-3000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3000+ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
1 thru lane per
direction (1-way, 1-lane
street or 2-way street
with centerline)
0-750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
751-1500 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
1501-3000 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3001-6000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
6001-10000 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
10000+ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per
direction
0-6000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
6001-12000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
12001+ LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ thru lanes per
direction Any ADT LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Table 2: LTS Criteria for Bike Lanes and Shoulders Not Adjacent to a Parking Lane Number of lanes
Bike lane width
(including buffers)
Posted Speed Limit
< 25
mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
50+
mph
1 thru lane per
direction, or with no
centerline
6+ ft LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per
direction
6+ ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3
4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
3+ lanes per
direction Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Table 3: LTS Criteria for bike lanes alongside parking lanes Number of traffic lanes
= Bike + parking
Lane Width
Posted speed limit
25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40+ mph
1 lane per direction 14 ft LTS 2 LTS 2/3* LTS 3 LTS 4
12-13 ft LTS 2/3* LTS 2/3* LTS 3 LTS 4
2 thru lanes per direction
(2-way)
2-3 lanes per direction
(1-way)
14 ft LTS 2/3* LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
12-13 ft LTS 2/3* LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
Other multilane LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4
* Rating depends on parking turnover. Low turnover (i.e. residential) = LTS 2, high turnover (i.e. commercial or mixed use) = LTS 3
City Council
March 12, 2024
Project Team and Funding
▪ City of Reedley
▪ CivicWell
▪ Toole Design Group
▪ Urban Diversity Design
Grant Funded Project —
Caltrans Sustainable Communities Planning Grant
Plan Products and Outcomes
 Recommended bicycle and trail networks
 Pedestrian improvement ideas
 Opportunities to expand and enhance Reedley Parkway
 Priority project list
 General strategies and recommendations
 Allows the City of Reedley to qualify for state and federal grants Plan Goals
▪ Increase and enhance transportation options to make it safer and more desirable for residents and visitors to walk, bike, and roll. ▪ Enhance safety and public health through high quality infrastructure designs and complementary policies and programs to encourage healthy behavior.
▪ Increase quality of life through investments that improve access to community destinations and expand opportunities for outdoor recreational. ▪ Pursue strategic, high-impact investments that are cost effective and feasible and that can be maintained over time.

Public Engagement: Survey Results
Survey Results
▪ 166 responses; 90% of respondents
live in Reedley
▪ >71% walk at least a few times per
month
▪ 59% bike; more expressed interest in
biking if conditions were different
▪ 63% like the Parkway and felt it could
be improved if it were longer and/or
connected to more destinations in the
City
Barriers to Walking
and Biking
Walking
▪ Lack of lighting / personal safety
▪ Sidewalk gaps / poor conditions
▪ Unsafe crossings
Biking
▪ Bikeway gaps
▪ Narrow bike lanes / lack of separation
from vehicles
▪ Safety / uncomfortable crossings
Public Engagement: Survey Results
Level of separation
49%
34%
22%
5%
32%
53%
69%
80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Standard bike lane Bike lane buffered
by striping
Bike lane protected
by bollards
Paved multi-use
trail
Comfort Level by Facility Type
Uncomfortable Neutral Comfortable
Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane
Separated Bike Lane Multi-use Trail
Public Engagement: Pop-Ups
• Reedley Eats Pop-up
• Safari Days
• Health Expo
Public Engagement: Stakeholders
• Parks and Recreation Foundation
• Reedley Junior Chamber
Public Engagement: Community Workshop
Public Engagement: Walk Audits
• Outer-Reedley Walk Audit
•Downtown Walk Audit
Public Engagement: Bicycle Audit
Bicycle Audit
Public Engagement: Draft Plan Workshop
Public Engagement: Reedley Fiesta Popup
General Approach to Bikeway and
Pedestrian Improvements
▪ Build upon the success of the Reedley Parkway
▪ Create well-connected networks
▪ Low-stress, high-comfort on-street bicycle and
pedestrian facilities
▪ Provide as much separation from vehicles as possible
▪ Low-cost, high-impact projects
Recommendations

1. Expand and enhance the
Reedley Parkway

2. Expand the bicycle network

3. Improve pedestrian
connections

1. Expand the Reedley Parkway
Expand the Reedley Parkway
through a series of phased
projects:

A. North loop
B. Manning Ave and Kings River
Trail
C. Follow river on the west side of
Reedley to Floral Ave
D. Connect to existing Parkway on
Buttonwillow
E. Extend from Reedley Sports Park
to Dinuba Ave
A
D
B
C E

1. Enhance the Reedley Parkway
▪ General enhancements
• Enhanced lighting
• Additional public restrooms
• Activities for all ages (lawn games, playground, etc.) • Signage/wayfinding
• Interpretive signs (related to Reedley history and culture) • Destinations and distance
▪ Design Improvements
• Widen existing trail where it is less than 12 feet
• Create passing areas for people walking and biking who are traveling at different speeds

2. Expand the Bicycle Network
Enhance existing bikeways by
increasing bicyclist comfort:
▪ Increasing bike lane widths
▪ Adding buffers to bike lanes
▪ Adding vertical separation
New bikeways
• Fill in network gaps
• Expand bikeways in areas without safe
places to ride
• Locations where bike lanes end before
the intersection

2. Expand the Bicycle Network
Create a Low Stress Bike
Boulevard System
▪ Utilize low-stress, low-volume
neighborhood streets that run
parallel to major roadways
(examples include Columbia Ave
and Hope Ave)
▪ Apply low cost traffic-calming
features to create comfortable for
all road users

3. Improve Pedestrian
Conditions
 Wide sidewalks, particularly in pedestrian
activity areas
 Landscaped buffers between the street and
the sidewalk
 Frequent crossing opportunities
 Safe intersection crossings
 Pedestrian-scale lighting
Pedestrian
Priority Areas
/ Áreas
prioritarias
para peatones
Pedestrian
activity
areas
Thank You!
Visit us online at:
reedleymoves.com

Reedley City CouncilMarch 12, 2024

Reedley City Council
March 12, 2024