Reedley City Council
April 9, 2024

2-18

3.5 Paving - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.6492 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5643 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0339 0.0193 0.2537 8.5000e0040.1232 4.4000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.1000e0040.0331 85.9607 85.9607 2.1300e0032.3400e00386.7099 Total 0.0339 0.0193 0.2537 8.5000e0040.1232 4.4000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.1000e0040.0331 85.9607 85.9607 2.1300e0032.3400e00386.7099 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 543.1602 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 543.3311 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0678 0.0386 0.5075 1.7000e0030.2464 8.9000e0040.2473 0.0654 8.2000e0040.0662 171.9214 171.9214 4.2500e0034.6700e003173.4197 Total 0.0678 0.0386 0.5075 1.7000e0030.2464 8.9000e0040.2473 0.0654 8.2000e0040.0662 171.9214 171.9214 4.2500e0034.6700e003173.4197 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 543.1602 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 543.3311 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0678 0.0386 0.5075 1.7000e0030.2464 8.9000e0040.2473 0.0654 8.2000e0040.0662 171.9214 171.9214 4.2500e0034.6700e003173.4197 Total 0.0678 0.0386 0.5075 1.7000e0030.2464 8.9000e0040.2473 0.0654 8.2000e0040.0662 171.9214 171.9214 4.2500e0034.6700e003173.4197 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.5118 2.7554 15.3688 0.0348 3.8327 0.0292 3.8619 1.0231 0.0274 1.0505 3,545.299 2 3,545.299
2 0.2046 0.2082 3,612.471
5 Unmitigated 1.5118 2.7554 15.3688 0.0348 3.8327 0.0292 3.8619 1.0231 0.0274 1.0505 3,545.299 2 3,545.299
2 0.2046 0.2082 3,612.471
5 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Industrial Park 690.99 690.99 690.99 1,811,660 1,811,660 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 690.99 690.99 690.99 1,811,660 1,811,660
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Industrial Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Industrial Park 0.526576 0.053500 0.175633 0.147803 0.024189 0.006487 0.014618 0.022827 0.000697 0.000286 0.023187 0.001433 0.002764 Parking Lot 0.526576 0.053500 0.175633 0.147803 0.024189 0.006487 0.014618 0.022827 0.000697 0.000286 0.023187 0.001433 0.002764

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 12444.3 0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Industrial Park 12.4443 0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1342 1.2200 1.0248 7.3200e0030.0927 0.0927 0.0927 0.0927 1,464.030 7 1,464.030
7 0.0281 0.0268 1,472.730
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 8.8726 9.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463 Unmitigated 8.8726 9.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.3393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.5234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 9.9100e0039.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463 Total 8.8726 9.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.3393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.5234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 9.9100e0039.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463 Total 8.8726 9.7000e0040.1076 1.0000e0053.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.2312 0.2312 6.0000e0040.2463 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 2/15/2024 10:27 AM East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Le�er - 2

2-18
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Le�er - 2

2-18
2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
x Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
x Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. x Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
x Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
x Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

Le�er - 2

2-18
3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted Le�er - 2

2-18
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nationwide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific Le�er - 2

2-18
5 principles into the policy-making process.
x Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests.
x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Le�er - 2

2-18
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Le�er - 2

2-18
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Le�er - 2

2-18
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

Le�er - 2

2-18

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Le�er - 2

2-18
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Le�er - 2

2-18
To: City of Reedley Planning Commission
From: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Subject: East Huntsman Avenue Project MND
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Information
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks communities based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen is updated and maintained by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on behalf ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency.

CalEnviroScreen Data on East Huntsman Avenue Project MND Location/Area The above listed project sits in census tract 6019006300. Overall, when compared to other census tracts, the project site census tract is in the 64th percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 81st percentile. In terms of Ozone, this census tract is in the 91st percentile, Particulate Matter 2.5 94th percentile, Diesel Particulate Matter 13th percentile, Toxic Releases 46th percentile and Traffic 4th percentile.

Le�er - 3

3-1
3-2
Conclusion
Consider the above referenced information when making this important decision. Realize that you and the citizens of this area face some of the WORST POLLUTION in the entire state of California.

It is the responsibility of the City’s elected and appointed officials to make environmentally responsible development decisions. Based on the CalEnviroScreen data, this is more than sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts that the citizenry of Reedley and its surrounding area will continue to encounter with further development of another warehouse/distribution center. We are not against development, as we believe it is necessary for further economic growth in our current society. Development needs to be conducted with the highest of expectations to ensure the local population does not suffer further air quality burdens.

We stand by our comments and believe the MND is flawed and full Environmental Impact report should be drafted and circulated for public review.

Respectfully Submitted,
Le�er - 3

3-3
Pete Sheehan
Pete Sheehan
GSEJA
Source - https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 Glossary of Terms
Ozone - Amount of daily maximum 8-hour Ozone concentration Particulate Matter 2.5 - Annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations Diesel Particulate Matter - Diesel PM emissions from on-road and non-road sources Toxic Releases - Toxicity-weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from
facility emissions and off-site incineration.

Traffic -Traffic density, in vehicle-kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary.

Le�er - 3

This page intentionally left blank
3/29/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Text Changes Memo\Huntsman_ISMND-Text_Changes_Memo.docx)

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 29, 2024
TO: Rodney L. Horton, Community Development Director, City of Reedley FROM: Kyle Simpson, Principal
SUBJECT: Summary of Text Changes to the East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following includes a summary of all text changes made to the East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project (proposed project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in response to three comment letters received on the IS/MND. These text changes are a compilation of the text changes shown in the Response to Comments (RTC) Memorandum for the IS/MND dated March 6, 2024, and the RTC Memorandum dated March 29, 2024.

Double-underlined text represents language that has been added to the IS/MND, and text with strikethrough represents language that has been deleted from the IS/MND.

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact discussion 3.8.1.b, on page 3-49 of the IS/MND, is amended as follows:

The proposed project would not interfere with the Fresno COG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reductions. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not conflict with the 2022 RTP targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. The proposed project would include an industrial parka pistachio processing facility. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2022 RTP. In addition, the proposed project would not include residential uses that would increase population. Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with Fresno COG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2022 RTP.

Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning
Impact discussion 3.11.1.b, on page 3-61 of the IS/MND, is amended as follows:

The project site is currently zoned in Fresno County’s Exclusive Agriculture (AE-20) District and is designated Agriculture in the Fresno County General Plan. However, the project site is 3/29/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Text Changes Memo\Huntsman_ISMND-Text_Changes_Memo.docx) 2 planned for light industrial development under the Reedley General Plan, and the proposed project would be consistent with the planned land use designation for the project site. The project would require annexation of the project site into the City of Reedley, after which the site would be pre-zoned to the Light Industrial (ML) District, and the General Plan land use designation would be changed to Light Industrial. An annexation application would be required to be submitted to the Fresno LAFCo. The Project Applicant would also be required to pay required processing fees for the annexation process. After approval of annexation of the project site into the city of Reedley, the proposed project would be developed with a light industrial use, consistent with the City’s land use plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and the impact would be less than significant.

Ordinance 2024-004

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-004

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY APPROVING REZONE APPLICATION NO. 2022-03 AND AUTHORIZING THE

AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REEDLEY WHEREAS, Rezone Application No. 2022-03 pertains to the pre-zoning of one parcel totaling approximately 42.52 acres in preparation for annexation; and WHEREAS, the subject territory proposed to be pre-zoned is bordered by Traver Creek and the Central Valley Transportation Center to the west, the Reedley Sports Park and agricultural fields to the north, residential homes to the east, and agricultural fields/commercial properties to the south; and WHEREAS, the approximately 42.52-acre parcel will be pre-zone to the ML (Light Industrial) zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Reedley General Plan Update 2030 designates the subject territory with a Light Industrial Planned Land Use designation; and
WHEREAS, the pre-zoning for the proposed project identified in Rezone Application No. 2022- 03 is consistent with the GPU Planned Land Use and Zoning District Consistency Matrix; and WHEREAS, Rezone Application No. 2022-03 is consistent with the Reedley Municipal Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 3 (Zoning District and Map) and Chapter 22 (Amendments); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Reedley, at a regular meeting on April 9, 2024, held a public hearing, received a written staff report, invited public comment, and independently deliberated.

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

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct; and Section 2. The City Council of the City of Reedley FINDS that a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for the project through Environmental Assessment No. EA 2022-13, and preparation of such has been conducted in the manner required by State CEQA regulations; and Section 3. The City Council FINDS that Rezone Application No. 2022-03 is consistent with the Reedley General Plan Update 2030; and
Section 4. The City Council FINDS that Rezone Application No. 2022-03 is consistent with the Reedley Municipal Code, Title 10, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 3 (Zoning District and Map) and Chapter 22 (Amendments); and
Section 5. The City Council hereby APPROVES Rezone Application No. 2022-03 and incorporates into the zoning law and map of the City of Reedley, as reflected on Map A; and Section 6. The City Council hereby APPROVES the amendment to the City’s Official Zoning Map to include the above changes and ADOPTS said updated map as the City’s Official Zoning Map; and
Section 7. This Ordinance does not have to be codified in the Reedley Municipal Code Ordinance 2024-004

because it is solely authorizing the update of the City’s Official Zoning Map; and Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a summary of this Ordinance to be published by one insertion in a newspaper of general circulation in the community within fifteen (15) days after its adoption; and
Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption, as certified by the City Clerk.

ATTEST:

I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-004 was introduced and given first reading by title only at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Reedley held on April 9, 2024, and was thereafter duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on April 23, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Anita Betancourt, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Ruthie Greenwood, City Clerk
Attachment:

Map A: Map of affected parcel related to Rezone Application No. 2022-03

E DINUBAAVE

E FLORAL AVE

E HUNTSMAN AVE
S
E
N
G
L
E
H
A
R
T
AV
E
S
B
U
T
T
O
N
WIL
L
O
W
AV
E

E CURTIS AVE

E OLSON AVE
Legend
Reedley Sphere of Influence
Reedley City Limits
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
Proposed Pre-Zoning: ML Light Industrial
0 360 720 1,440 Feet
O
City of Reedley
Re-Zone Application No. 2022-03
East Huntsman Avenue Reorganization
Map A
Location Map
Annexation
Area

E MANNING AVE
S
R
E
E
D
AV
E
I ST

E DINUBA AVE

E HUNTSMAN AVE
APN: 370-240-11 (approx. 42.52 acres)
Existing County of Fresno Zoning: Exclusive Agriculture (AE-20) 1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO AND THE CITY OF REEDLEY
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter "RESTATED MOU") is made and executed by and between the COUNTY OF FRESNO, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"), and the City of REEDLEY, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "CITY").

W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, COUNTY and CITY entered into a comprehensive agreement covering development, annexations, sales taxes, property taxes, and other matters, commonly referred to as the 2006 Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (“2006 MOU”); and WHEREAS, the 2006 MOU served in part as COUNTY’s and CITY’s master property tax transfer agreement under subdivision (d) of section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and WHEREAS, the 2006 MOU also included provisions relating to redevelopment and included as a party the former Reedley Redevelopment Agency, which CITY dissolved on February 1, 2012, following the State adopted comprehensive legislation, Assembly Bill X1 26 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. Chp. 5), dissolving California redevelopment agencies and prohibiting further redevelopment activities under the California Community Redevelopment Law (former Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2017, COUNTY and CITY executed a First Amendment to the 2006 MOU to address a specific sphere of influence change located at the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection of South and Frankwood Avenues, and on the north side of Manning Avenue between Buttonwillow and Englehart Avenues, and modifications to the annexation standards to allow for greater flexibility in the annexation process for the City to address its Regional Housing Needs Allocation; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 MOU is set to expire October 3, 2021; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to make additional changes to their comprehensive agreement set forth in the 2006 MOU, and to extend the term of their comprehensive agreement for an additional 15 years; and
21-0779
Agreement No. 21-361
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 WHEREAS, due to the age of the 2006 MOU and the desire to make additional changes, COUNTY and CITY have determined that it is in their best interests to entire into this RESTATED MOU, which will supersede and replace the 2006 MOU; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY wish to continue to work together to develop a fair and equitable approach to tax sharing and the encouragement of sound economic growth; and WHEREAS, in order to encourage economic development and environmentally sound land use planning, it is important that any tax sharing among COUNTY and CITY be determined in advance and that such arrangements not be fiscally detrimental to either COUNTY or CITY; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY recognize the importance of COUNTY and CITY services and are prepared to cooperate in an effort to address COUNTY’s and CITY’s fiscal problems; and WHEREAS, through annexation CITY provides the opportunity for economic growth and development to support public services for CITY and COUNTY; and WHEREAS, close cooperation between COUNTY and CITY is necessary to maintain the quality of life throughout Fresno County and deliver needed services in the most cost-efficient manner to all CITY and COUNTY residents; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY recognizes the need for orderly growth within and adjacent to CITY and for supporting appropriate annexations and promoting the concentration of development within CITY; and WHEREAS, CITY recognizes that development within CITY limits may also have the effect of concentrating revenue-generating activities within CITY rather than in unincorporated areas and that, as a result of Proposition 13 and its implementing legislation, annexation by CITY of unincorporated territory can result in a loss of revenue sources for COUNTY unless there is significant new development activity as a result of annexation; and
WHEREAS, annexation which results in the development of urban uses in response to a clearly demonstrated community demand is appropriate and well planned and can be a valuable tool in the physical and economic development of CITY and COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that COUNTY General Plan Goal LU-G provides that COUNTY will direct urban growth and development within the cities spheres of influence to existing incorporated 3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 cities and will ensure that all development in city fringe areas is well planned and adequately served by necessary public facilities and infrastructure and furthers countywide economic development goals; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that when urban growth and development is directed to cities there is a lost opportunity of development by COUNTY in the unincorporated area and that sharing of local sales and use taxes generated by such development would serve as a tool for the COUNTY to participate in receiving a share of that new revenue; and WHEREAS, it is the interest of the parties to require all new urban development to pay a roughly proportionate share of the cost of urban services and infrastructure created by the development, whether it occurs in the CITY or in the adjacent unincorporated area of the CITY's sphere of influence.

WHEREAS, the parties recognize the importance to the economy of the region and the continued improvement of agricultural operations in the County of protecting and preserving the University of California Kearney Research Center and the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Center and that the parties continue to work together towards the protection of these Agricultural Research Centers.

NOW, THEREFORE, COUNTY and CITY hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

DEFINITIONS
Unless the particular provision or context otherwise requires, the definitions contained in this article and in the Revenue and Taxation Code shall govern the construction, meaning, and application of words used in this RESTATED MOU.

1.1 "Base property tax revenues" means property tax revenues allocated by tax rate equivalents to all taxing jurisdictions as to the geographic area comprising a given tax rate area annexed in the fiscal year immediately preceding the tax year in which property tax revenues are apportioned pursuant to this RESTATED MOU, including the amount of State reimbursement of the homeowners' and business inventory exemptions.

1.2 Except as provided in Section 6.1, "property tax increment" means revenue from the annual tax increment, as "annual tax increment" is defined in Section 98 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, attributable to the tax rate area for the respective tax year. 4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 1.3 "Substantial development" or "substantially developed" means real property which, prior to annexation, has an improvement value to land value ratio equal to or greater than 1.25:1, as of the lien date in the fiscal year in which the annexation becomes effective under the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act, and on and after January 1, 2000, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.

1.4 "Property tax revenue" means base property tax revenue, plus the property tax increment for a given tax rate area.

1.5 "Tax apportionment ratio" means the tax apportionment ratio of the parties for a given fiscal year and shall be ascertained by dividing the amount determined for each party pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 96(a) or 97(a), whichever is applicable, by that party's gross assessed value, and by then dividing the sum of the resulting tax rate equivalents of both parties into each party's tax rate equivalent to produce the tax apportionment ratio.

1.6 "Tax rate equivalent" means the factor derived for an agency by dividing the property tax levy for the prior fiscal year computed pursuant to Section 97 of the Revenue and Taxation Code by the gross assessed value of the agency for the prior fiscal year.

1.7 "Effective Date" shall mean the last date that all the parties hereto execute this Amended and RESTATED MOU between COUNTY and CITY.

1.8 "Urban development" or "urban type development" shall mean development not allowed in areas designated Agriculture, Rural Residential or River Influence in COUNTY's General Plan or its applicable community plans as of the Effective Date of this RESTATED MOU.

ARTICLE II

ANNEXATIONS BY CITY

2.1 Any annexations undertaken by CITY following the date of the execution of this RESTATED MOU shall be consistent with both the terms of this MOU and the standards (hereinafter "The Standards" or "Standards") as set forth in Exhibit "1", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if set fourth fully at this point. This RESTATED MOU shall not apply to annexations proposed by CITY which are not in compliance with its terms or which fail to meet The Standards. If a proposed annexation is not in compliance with the terms of this RESTATED MOU, including but not limited to, The 5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Standards, then the property tax exchange provisions of Article III of this RESTATED MOU shall not apply in regards to that proposed non-complying annexation. An exchange of property tax revenues between COUNTY and CITY for any such non-complying annexation shall be handled individually pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code or by the negotiation of a standalone property tax exchange agreement between COUNTY and CITY.

2.2 In order to encourage the orderly processing of proposed annexations, CITY shall, at least thirty (30) days prior to filing any annexation proposal with the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (hereinafter "LAFCO"), notify COUNTY of its intention to file such proposal and the date upon which CITY expects such proposal to be filed. Upon COUNTY's request, CITY agrees to meet with COUNTY to review whether its proposed annexation complies with The Standards. Within fifteen (15) days after the date COUNTY receives notice by the CITY of its annexation proposal, COUNTY shall notify CITY in writing if it has determined that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with The Standards.

Upon receipt of such notification, CITY may either modify the proposal to COUNTY's specifications or adopt a resolution finding that the proposed annexation is, in CITY's determination, consistent with The Standards. If County fails to give such notice within the fifteen-day period, the annexation shall be conclusively deemed consistent with all provisions of this article and The Standards.

2.3 If CITY adopts a resolution making the findings described in Section 2.2, then COUNTY may challenge such findings by appropriate court action filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of the adoption of CITYs resolution. The court shall independently review the evidence and determine whether the proposed annexation is consistent with the Standards.

As an alternative to a judicial challenge by the COUNTY, the parties may within the aforesaid thirty (30) day period mutually agree in writing to arbitrate their dispute through proceedings conducted in accordance with the rules established by the American Arbitration Association. The parties upon agreeing to arbitrate will proceed with arbitration in a timely manner. The arbitrator hearing the matter shall independently review the evidence and determine whether the proposed annexation is consistent with The Standards.
///
///
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Costs incurred by the prevailing party, either in court proceedings or the arbitration proceedings, shall be paid by the non-prevailing party. The parties agree that CITY shall not proceed to LAFCO with the proposed annexation until the dispute is finally resolved either by court or arbitration proceedings. If CITY attempts to proceed with such proposed annexation prior to the expiration of the period in which COUNTY may file its court action or agree to arbitrate, or prior to the final conclusion of such court or arbitration proceeding, then the property tax exchange provisions of Article III of this RESTATED MOU shall not apply to that proposed annexation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY may proceed to LAFCO under this RESTATED MOU if court or arbitration proceedings are not completed within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof provided, however, that LAFCO in its resolution of approval, at the request of the CITY, conditions the completion of the annexation upon the Executive Officer's prior receipt of a certified copy of the document evidencing the finality of the aforesaid court or arbitration proceedings determining that the proposed annexation is consistent with Exhibit "1" attached hereto, or alternatively, receipt of a written stipulation of the CITY and COUNTY agreeing that a master property tax agreement still exists permitting the completion of such proposed annexation. If LAFCO declines to include the aforesaid condition, or CITY fails to timely request such condition, no property tax exchange agreement as required by section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall exist between CITY and COUNTY as to that proposed annexation. If CITY nevertheless attempts to proceed with the annexation, such action on the part of the CITY shall also be deemed good cause for the COUNTY at its option to terminate this RESTATED MOU.

2.4 For the purpose of promoting economic development and job creation, an Alternate Standard for Annexation for industrial or regional commercial uses is hereby created. In the place of The Standards set forth in Exhibit 1, the Alternate Standard for Annexation shall apply to and govern the review of annexation proposals for industrial or regional commercial uses. Annexation proposals for industrial/regional commercial uses shall include a conceptual development plan, as described herein.

The conceptual development plan shall consist of the economic objectives to be achieved, the service and financing strategy and its schedule, and shall include a map of the proposed prezoning. The conceptual development plan's schedule shall include milestones for major project components, to measure the progress of the project. Due to the complexity of such projects the development schedule 7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 for planning and implementation may reasonably require a period of from five to ten years. The annexation proposal shall be submitted to and reviewed by the COUNTY pursuant to Section 2.2.

Annexation proposals that comply with the criteria of this Section 2.4 shall, be deemed to comply with Section 2.1. The annexation application to be submitted to LAFCO shall be considered complete upon adoption of the prezoning by the CITY. COUNTY and CITY agree to meet annually to review the progress toward the achievement of the economic development objectives and to identify ways to promote mutual economic development objectives. The proposed annexation made under this Alternate Standard for Annexation described in this Section 2.4 should not create islands and annexation boundaries must ultimately minimize creation of peninsulas, corridors, or other distortion of boundaries.

2.5 Section 2.4 shall be deemed suspended if CITY rezones an area that was annexed using the Alternate Standard for Annexation to a zone other than Industrial/Regional Commercial without COUNTYs consent.

ARTICLE III

EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE
MADE UNDER SECTION 99 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE

3.1 The property tax revenues collected in relation to annexations covered by the terms of this RESTATED MOU shall be apportioned between CITY and COUNTY as set forth in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below. The parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Sections 54902, 54902.1 and 54903 of Government Code and Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the distribution of such property tax revenues will not be effective until the revenues are collected in the tax year following the calendar year in which the statement of boundary changes and the map or plat is filed with the County Assessor and the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

3.2 In regards to the annexation of real properties which are not considered substantially developed at the time of annexation, COUNTY will retain all of its base property tax revenue upon annexation. The amount of the property tax increment for special districts whose services are assumed by CITY shall be combined with the property tax increment of the COUNTY, the sum of which shall be allocated between CITY and COUNTY pursuant to the following tax apportionment ratio:
///
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 COUNTY: 63%
CITY: 37%
Effective July 1, 2022 these property tax-sharing ratios shall be as shown in Exhibit "2".

3.3 In regards to the annexation of real properties which are considered substantially developed at the time of annexation, property tax revenue (base plus increment) will be reallocated as follows: a detaching or dissolving district's property tax revenue (base plus increment) shall be combined with COUNTY's and the sum of which shall be allocated between CITY and COUNTY pursuant to the ratio set forth in Section 3.2.

ARTICLE IV

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AND ADJACENT
TO CITY’S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

AND COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES

4.1 COUNTY shall not approve any discretionary development permits for new urban development within CITY's sphere of influence unless the development shall have first been referred to CITY for consideration of possible annexation. If CITY does not, within sixty (60) days of receipt of notice from COUNTY, adopt a resolution of application to initiate annexation proceedings before LAFCO, COUNTY may approve development permits for that new urban development. COUNTY's approval shall take into consideration CITY's general plan and be consistent with COUNTY's general plan policies, provided, that the development is orderly and does not result in the premature conversion of agricultural lands.

4.2 Within the CITY’s sphere of influence, COUNTY shall require compliance with development standards that are comparable to CITY’s and charge fees reflecting the increased administrative and implementing cost where such CITY standards are more stringent than COUNTY’s.

These requirements shall apply to discretionary development applications approved by COUNTY. For purposes of this Agreement, “discretionary development applications” shall mean General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, Tentative Tract Maps, Tentative Parcel Maps, Conditional Use Permits, Director Review and Approvals, and Variances.
///
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 4.3 CITY development fees shall be charged for any discretionary development applications to be approved by the COUNTY within CITY's sphere of influence. To establish or amend CITY development fees, CITY shall conduct a public hearing and notify property owners in accordance with State Law. At the conclusion of that hearing, CITY shall adopt a resolution describing the type, amount, and purpose of CITY fees to be requested for COUNTY adoption.

4.4 CITY shall transmit the adopted resolution to the COUNTY for its adoption of the fees.

CITY shall include a draft ordinance for COUNTY's adoption with appropriate supporting documentation or findings by the CITY demonstrating that the fees comply with the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66000, and following, of the Government Code) and other applicable State Law requirements. CITY fees may also include CITY's and COUNTY's increased administrative costs and inspection charges, provided those costs similarly comply with the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable State Law requirements.

4.5 COUNTY shall collect the applicable CITY development fees for infrastructure and facilities at the time of final map approval or issuance of building permits as established by the fee schedule. Or, COUNTY shall require the applicant to present a voucher issued by CITY evidencing the payment of the fees directly to CITY, or written confirmation by CITY that fees are inapplicable. If COUNTY imposes and collects fees on behalf of CITY, COUNTY shall transfer the fees to CITY at the earliest time legally permitted.

4.6 CITY shall give COUNTY at least thirty (30) days notice before implementing any new fees or an amendment to existing fees. Notwithstanding this Section 4.6, or any other provision of this MOU, CITY shall be solely responsible for determining the amount of the fees and setting them in accordance with law. This Section 4.6 shall not be construed as a representation by COUNTY as to the propriety of the fees or the procedures used in setting them.

4.7 CITY shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the COUNTY from all claims, demands, litigation of any kind whatsoever arising from disputes relating to the fees, the enactment of or the collection of CITY development fees.

4.8 If COUNTY adopts capital facilities fees, CITY shall require that an applicant for any land use entitlement or permit within CITY shall pay all COUNTY, public facilities fees applicable to the entitlement or permit on behalf of the COUNTY. At the COUNTY's request, CITY shall either timely 10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 impose and collect all such fees or shall require the applicant to present a voucher issued by COUNTY evidencing the payment of fees directly to COUNTY. If adopted by COUNTY, the fees are to mitigate the impact of development on required COUNTY facilities and services including, but not limited to, the criminal justice system, health, social services, parks, transportation and library. If CITY imposes and collects fees on behalf of COUNTY, CITY shall transfer the fees to COUNTY at the earliest time legally permissible to do so. COUNTY may impose new fees and amend existing fees from time to time in its sole discretion. COUNTY shall give CITY at least thirty (30) days’ notice before implementing any new fees or an amendment to existing fees. Notwithstanding this Section 4.8, or any other provision of this RESTATED MOU, COUNTY shall be solely responsible for determining the amount of the fees and setting them in accordance with law. This Section 4.8 shall not be construed as a representation by CITY as to the propriety of the fees or the procedures used in setting them. If COUNTY imposes capital facilities fees and CITY collects capital facilities fees on behalf of COUNTY, this RESTATED MOU serves as a joint powers agreement under Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code for the purpose of CITY’s collection of capital facilities fees on behalf of COUNTY.

4.9 COUNTY shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the CITY from all claims, demands, litigations of any kind whatsoever arising from disputes relating to the enactment or collection of COUNTY capital facilities fees.

4.10 COUNTY shall support urban unification and consolidation of urban services. To this end, COUNTY shall oppose the creation of new governmental entities within CITY's sphere of influence, except for such entities that may be necessary to address service requirements that cannot be addressed by annexation to CITY. CITY and COUNTY will support transition agreements with current service providers which recognize the primary role of cities as providers of urban services and where current service providers have participated in service master planning.

4.11 Within CITY's sphere of influence and for the two-mile area beyond that sphere of influence, COUNTY and CITY agree that, in the early stages of preparation of zone changes, circulation proposals and general plan amendments for new urban development, they shall consult and formally notify at the staff level in such fashion as to provide meaningful participation in the policy formulation process, and shall likewise consult on other policy changes which may have an impact on growth or the 11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 provision of urban services. CITY shall also be given the opportunity to respond to COUNTY before the final document is prepared for presentation to COUNTY's Planning Commission. COUNTY agrees that it will solicit comments from CITY in the preparation of any Initial Study required by the California Environmental Quality Act undertaken within the area. If CITY determines such urban development may have a significant effect on the environment, the COUNTY shall require an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared if a fair argument can be made in support of the CITY's finding.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, because of state-mandated directives, including without limitation, the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation, COUNTY may consider approval of urban development in areas that are not currently planned for urban development, in order to meet its obligations under a state-mandate directive.

4.12 Any change in the CITY's sphere of influence proposed by either COUNTY or CITY which would modify the area depicted in Exhibit "3" requires the mutual consultation of both parties prior to submission to LAFCO.

ARTICLE V

IMPLEMENTATION OF SALES TAX

REVENUE COLLECTION

5.1 Pursuant to the Bradley Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, Part 1.5, Division 2, of the Revenue and Taxation Code (commencing with Section 7200), CITY shall, concurrent with the execution of this RESTATED MOU, amend its local sales and use tax ordinance, as needed, to comply with the terms of this RESTATED MOU. The amendment of CITY’s sales and use tax ordinance (hereinafter referred to as “Ordinance Amendment”) described in this Section 5.1 shall be timely forwarded to the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration so that it will become operative as of the first July 1 following the CITY reaching the threshold forth in subsections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 The Ordinance Amendment shall enable COUNTY, pursuant to its sales and use tax ordinance, to collect a portion of the sales and use tax revenues generated within the incorporated areas of CITY in accordance with the applicable rate set forth on Exhibit 4", attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully at this point. The format of this amendment by CITY to its local sales and use tax ordinance shall likewise provide as a credit against the payment of taxes due under such ordinance, an amount 12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 equal to any sales and use tax due to COUNTY.

5.2 Except as otherwise provided herein, CITY further agrees that the Ordinance Amendment shall likewise provide for the periodic reallocation of additional sales tax revenues generated within the incorporated areas of CITY in accordance with the schedule set forth on Exhibit "4". Each subsequent incremental adjustment shall go into effect at the commencement of the fiscal year indicated. These periodic adjustments shall enable COUNTY, pursuant to its sales and use tax ordinance, to collect that portion of the sales and use tax revenues generated within the incorporated areas of CITY equal to the applicable percentage as specified in Exhibit "4". These periodic adjustments shall automatically go into effect provided that:

5.2.1 CITY receives sales tax revenues per capita in an amount greater than fifty percent (50%) of the sales tax revenue per capita collected by all Fresno County cities when taken as a group during the most recent fiscal year for which State Department of Tax and Fee Administration information is available, then it hereby agrees to reallocated sales tax revenues with COUNTY beginning in fiscal year 2021-22 in accordance with the provisions of this article; and

5.2.2 CITY's annual sales tax revenue information is available for the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration allows City to reallocate sales tax revenue at the percentage designated in Exhibit "4" and still have a net increase in its remaining sales tax revenue when compared with the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year described above. The periodic phase in of sales tax reallocation described herein shall be delayed from year-to-year if CITY falls below the sales tax reallocation threshold as identified in Section 5.2. In those years in which CITY does not meet the sales tax reallocation threshold, CITY's sharing proportion shall continue at the same rate as in the last year in which CITY met or exceeded the threshold. When, in a subsequent year, CITY again meets or exceeds the threshold, the sharing proportion of CITY shall be at the next higher sharing proportion shown on Exhibit "4", and the annual phase-in shall continue therefrom.

5.3 The Ordinance Amendment is intended to reduce CITY's sales tax rate from its thenexisting level to a level which thereby enables COUNTY, pursuant to its sales tax ordinance, to continue 13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 collecting those amounts set forth in the previous provisions of this article as well as the applicable percentages set forth on Exhibit "4". In addition, each periodic adjustment is intended by the parties to enable COUNTY to collect an amount equivalent to the applicable percentage specified in Exhibit "4".

5.4 Whenever CITY proposes an annexation of unincorporated territory which generates “substantial sales tax revenue” (as defined in this section 5.4 below) for COUNTY, CITY, agrees to further amend its local sales and use tax ordinance as set forth in this section. Notwithstanding the language of subsections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, this additional amendment shall become operative no later than the commencement of the next calendar quarter following the date upon which such annexation is certified as complete by the Executive Officer of LAFCO. This additional amendment shall decrease CITY 's sales tax rate to yield an amount of substantial sales tax revenue being collected by COUNTY in the area to be annexed, thus enabling COUNTY to increase its sales tax rate by a corresponding percentage which shall continue to accrue to COUNTY throughout the term of this RESTATED MOU. Any such additional amendment made by CITY pursuant to this section shall be cumulative and likewise preserve intact any periodic adjustments previously implemented pursuant to this RESTATED MOU. Further, CITY agrees that it shall not split or separate areas into smaller annexations for the purpose of, or having the effect of, creating an annexation or annexations which, individually, do not generate substantial sales tax revenue, but which would generate such revenue if combined. For purposes of this article, the term "substantial sales tax revenue" shall be defined as sales tax revenue derived from taxable sales ·in the area annexed equal to at least:

5.4.1 If only information for less than one fiscal year exists, then $100,000 in taxable sales in the most recent quarter for which such information from the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration is available in writing or electronic or magnetic media, and projected to a full four quarters, at least
$400,000 in taxable sales.

5.4.2 If information for one or more years exists, then $400,000 in taxable sales in the most recent year for which such information from the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration is available in writing or electronic or magnetic media. ///
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 5.5 If CITY fails to amend its sales tax ordinance as provided in section 5.1, or if the Ordinance Amendment fails to provide for the ·periodic reallocation of additional sales tax revenues as provided in section 5.2, the subsections therein, and Exhibit "4", or if CITY fails to further amend its sales tax ordinance upon the annexation of unincorporated territory which generates substantial sales tax revenue for COUNTY as provided in section 5.4, or if CITY splits or separates areas into smaller areas as prohibited by section 5.4, then this RESTATED MOU shall immediately terminate and, in particular, no master property tax exchange agreement under subdivision (d) of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall exist between CITY and COUNTY.

5.6 CITY and COUNTY further agree that the annual report of the State Department of Tax and Fee Administration and the Department of Finance Annual Population Estimates shall be used as the data source for the purpose of calculating the per capita sales tax revenue pursuant to this RESTATED MOU.

5.7 Application of the formula to be used in the allocation of revenues pursuant to section 5.2 is illustrated in Exhibit "5", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth fully at this point.

ARTICLE VI

COUNTY AND CITY ASSURANCES ON USE OF REVENUE

6.1 COUNTY recognizes that certain revenue reallocated to it by this RESTATED MOU would otherwise have been appropriated by CITY to meet demands for services. In light therefore, COUNTY agrees to use such new revenue in order to maintain levels of COUNTY services that are supportive of CITY services, unless the Federal or state governments materially reduce the level of funding for such services. Examples of such COUNTY services include, but are not limited to, the criminal justice system, public health, and other similar services.

6.2 CITY agrees to continue enforcement of laws which result in the collection of fines and forfeitures.

ARTICLE VII

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AT LEGISLATIVE REFORM

7.1 CITY and COUNTY agree to work jointly for state legislation and appropriations that would 15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 improve the fiscal condition of both CITY and COUNTY.

ARTICLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

8.1 Term of MOU
This RESTATED MOU shall commence as of the date of execution by COUNTY and CITY and shall remain in effect for a period of fifteen (15) years, unless terminated prior to that time by mutual agreement of the parties or as otherwise provided by the RESTATED MOU.

In addition, should all or any portion of this RESTATED MOU be declared invalid or inoperative by a court of competent jurisdiction, or should any party to this RESTATED MOU fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, or should any party to this RESTATED MOU take-any action to frustrate the intentions of the parties as expressed in this RESTATED MOU, then in such event, this entire RESTATED MOU, as well as any ancillary documents entered into by the parties in order to fulfill the intent of this RESTATED MOU, shall immediately be of no force and effect and, in particular, no property tax exchange agreement, as required by Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall exist between the CITY and COUNTY as to unincorporated property.

8.2 Geographic Application of RESTATED MOU
This RESTATED MOU shall apply only to the area identified as the City of Reedley’s Sphere of Influence and the Future Growth Area as depicted in Exhibit 3. This RESTATED MOU shall not apply to any sphere of influence beyond the area depicted in Exhibit 3 unless and until the parties mutually agree to amend this RESTATED MOU.

8.3 Termination Due to Changes in Law
The purpose of this RESTATED MOU is to alleviate in part the revenue shortfall experienced by COUNTY which may result from CITY's annexation of revenue-producing or potentially revenueproducing properties located within the unincorporated area of COUNTY. The purpose of this RESTATED MOU is also to enable CITY to proceed with territorial expansion and economic growth consistent with the terms of existing law as mutually understood by the parties as well as to maximize each party's ability to deliver essential governmental services. In entering into this RESTATED MOU, the parties mutually assume the continuation of the existing statutory scheme for the distribution of available tax revenues to 16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 local government and that assumption is a basic tenet of this RESTATED MOU. Accordingly, it is mutually understood and agreed that this RESTATED MOU may, by mutual agreement be terminated should changes occur in statutory law, court decisions or state administrative interpretations which negate the basic tenets of this RESTATED MOU.

8.4 Modification
This RESTATED MOU and all of the covenants and conditions set forth herein may be modified or amended only by a writing duly authorized and executed by COUNTY and CITY.

8.5 Enforcement
COUNTY and CITY each acknowledge that this instrument cannot bind or limit themselves or each other or their future governing bodies in the exercise of their discretionary legislative power.

However, each binds itself that it will insofar as is legally possible fully carry out the intent and purposes hereof, if necessary by administrative action independent of ordinances, and that this RESTATED MOU may be enforced by injunction to the extent allowed by law.

8.6 Entire Agreement and Supersession
With respect to the subject matter hereof, this RESTATED MOU supersedes any and all previous negotiations, proposals, commitments, writings, and understandings of any nature whatsoever between COUNTY and CITY except as otherwise provided herein.

8.7 Notice
All notices, requests, certifications or other correspondence required to be provided by the parties to this RESTATED MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered by first class mail or an equal or better form of delivery to the respective parties at the following addresses:

COUNTY CITY
County Administrative Officer City Manager
County of Fresno City of Reedley
Hall of Records, Room 300 City Hall
2281 Tulare Street 1717 9th Street
Fresno, CA 93721 Reedley, CA 93630

8.8 Renegotiation
If COUNTY enters into an agreement or memorandum of understanding, which includes a master property tax exchange agreement under subdivision (d) of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, 17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 with another city that has terms and conditions more favorable in the aggregate to that city than those terms and conditions contained herein, COUNTY agrees that it will negotiate such terms and conditions upon written request from CITY, with the intent of offering that more favorable agreement. Negotiations shall conclude thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of notice by COUNTY and, if agreement is tentatively reached during that period, the legislative bodies of the parties shall approve any such amendment within thirty (30) days following the date of the tentative agreement. COUNTY and CITY are not required to reach agreement.

8.9 Notice of Breach
Prior to this RESTATED MOU being terminated as expressly provided in Sections 5.5, 6.2.2 and

9.1, COUNTY shall provide notice to CITY of such breach, and CITY shall comply with the terms and conditions of this RESTATED MOU within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice. If CITY fails to timely comply this RESTATED MOU shall terminate as provided herein. During the thirty (30) day notice period and until CITY certifies in writing that they are in compliance and COUNTY agrees in writing, no property tax exchange agreement, as required by Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall exist between COUNTY and CITY with respect to any pending annexations.

In like manner the CITY and AGENCY shall give COUNTY thirty (30) days written notice and opportunity to cure any alleged breach of the RESTATED MOU on the part of the COUNTY.

8.10 No Waiver of Government Claims Act
For all claims arising from or related to this RESTATED MOU, nothing in this RESTATED MOU establishes, waives, or modifies any claims presentation requirements or procedures provided by law, including the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code, beginning with section 810).

8.11 Governing Law and Venue
This RESTATED MOU shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this RESTATED MOU shall only be in California. Any action brought to interpret or enforce this RESTATED MOU, or any of the terms or conditions hereof, shall be brought and maintained in the Fresno County Superior Court. ///
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 8.12 Authorization to Execute
COUNTY and CITY each represent and warrant that the individuals signing this RESTATED MOU are duly authorized to do so by their respective legislative bodies and that their signatures on this RESTATED MOU legally bind COUNTY and CITY to the terms of this RESTATED MOU.

8.13 Counterparts
This RESTATED MOU may be signed in counterparts, each of which is an original, and all of which together constitute this RESTATED MOU.
(Signature page follows.)
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this RESTATED MOU in the County 2 of Fresno, State of California, on the last date set forth below. 3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
County of Fresno, a Political
(igt~~~ oAe T ate of California
By / j 't-1,, --,---------- Steve Brandau, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno
Attest:

Bernice E. Seidel
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Fresno, State of California
By: --i.&~ l\ow--· ~ ~ ===1--=~ -
Deputy -=--=-u
19 City of Reedley, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of California (CITY)
By: ~ - Q:_~
Mary Fast, Mayor, City of Reedley
Date A<jUsl/0 J;oz/
Attest:

Ruthie Greenwood
City Clerk
By ~ ~
Ruthie Greenwood, c5tyeeik
City of Reedley
Nicol~ Zieba
By: _f_ l-_________ _
Nicole R. Zieb , City Manager
City of Reedley
Approved as to Legal Form
City Attorney, City of Reedley
Bvd&rt-~
Scott G. Cross, City Attorney
City of Reedley
EXHIBIT 1

STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION
• The proposal must be consistent with the adopted sphere of Influence of the city and not conflict with the goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. • The proposal must be consistent with city general and specific plans, including adopted goals and policies.
• Pursuant to CEQA, the proposal must mitigate any significant adverse effect on continuing agricultural operations on adjacent properties, to the extent reasonable and consistent with the applicable general and specific plan.
• A proposal for annexation is acceptable if one of the following conditions exist:

1. There is existing substantial development provided the City confines its area requested to that area needed to include the substantial development and create logical boundaries.

2. Development exists that requires urban services which can be provided by the City.

3. If no development requiring urban services exists, at least 25% of the area proposed for annexation has:
a) Approved tentative subdivision map (single-family residential) b) Approved site plan (for other uses including multi-family)

4. The annexation is to fulfill the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation which otherwise cannot be accommodated on lands currently within the city’s incorporated boundary.

5. The annexation includes the full width of road right-of-way along the annexation boundary and does not result in the creation of bypassed segments of existing road rights-of-way.
• The proposal would not create islands. Boundaries must ultimately minimize creation of peninsulas and corridors, or other distortion of boundaries.

For any of the following circumstances listed below, a proposal for annexation is presumed to comply with all standards for annexation:
• The request for annexation is by a city for annexation of its own publicly-owned property for public use.
• The request for annexation is by a city in order to facilitate construction of public improvements or public facilities which otherwise could not be constructed. • The request for annexation is to remove an unincorporated island, substantially surrounded area, or otherwise address existing peninsulas and/or irregular boundaries. • The annexation is intended to mitigate or otherwise comply with standards/conditions required by another agency with respect to another development annexation.

EXHIBIT 2
Effective July 1, 2021, the property tax sharing ratios shall be as follows:

County City Effective Date

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2022

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2023

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2024

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2025

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2026

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2027

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2028

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2029

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2030

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2031

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2032

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2033

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2034

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2035

63.0% 37.0% July 1, 2036
FLORAL
I
ALTA
REED
SOUTH
G

PARLIER

MANNING
F

LAC JAC
DINUBA
E
FLORAL
K

ENGLEHART
L
D

BUTTONWILLOW
EAST
C

PEDERSON
J
DUFF

FRANKWOOD

ELEVENTH
RIO

HUNTSMAN
TENTH

ZUMWALT

RIO VISTA

KINGS RIVER
EARLY
M
H
KLEIN
NORTH
MYRTLE
SUNSET
B
CHURCH
PECAN

THIRTEENTH
TOBU
KINGS
EYMANN
LINDEN
LILAC

LINCOLN

HOPE HERBERT

WALLACE

CYPRESS

THOMPSON
EIGHTH

GUM COLUMBIA
RUPERT

EL DORADO
DAVIS
ANN

SPRINGFIELD
LOCKE

WASHINGTON
CURTIS
BEECH
SIERRA
NURMI

BEECHWOOD
SUNNY
ACACIA
CYRIER
OLSON

UPPER BRIDGE
FISHER

KINGSWOOD
OAK
LINGO
PEACH
PALM
CAROB

DEL ALTAIR
NINTH

STANLEY
ORANGE

CAROLYN
CEDAR

SHIMIZU

FIFTEENTH
PINE

JEFFERSON

RIVERVIEW
KADY
ENNS
HANEY
ABBOTT

FOURTEENTH
MYRA

CARPENTER
MUIR
BIRCH

SYCAMORE

PONDEROSA
APPLE
HOLLY
ELM
STEVEN

JUSTINE
WALKER

ELIZABETH

WILLOW GLENN

CONCORD

SIXTEENTH

BLOSSOM

EVENING GLOW

HOLLYWOOD
DAYSHA
ASPEN
FLORAL

RIO VISTA
KADY

MANNING
ASPEN

KINGS RIVER
DINUBA
SOUTH

PEDERSON
KLEIN
HOPE
CURTIS

HUNTSMAN
DUFF
CYRIER
KADY

COLUMBIA
KLEIN
EAST
DINUBA
SOUTH
STEVEN

HOLLYWOOD
SUNSET
PALM
CAROB

HUNTSMAN
MYRTLE
NORTH
CAROB

RIVERVIEW DINUBA
EAST
EARLY
HANEY

FRANKWOOD
FLORAL
KLEIN
CURTIS

PARLIER

HUNTSMAN
OLSON
NORTH

LINCOLN
J

RIVERVIEW
ELM

KINGS RIVER
Prepared by: GSAMANO
G:\4360Devs&Pln\GIS\Maps\Specific
µ 0 0.1750.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles
CITY OF REEDLEY Department of Public Works and Planning Development Services Division
Reedley City Limits
City of Reedley Sphere of Influence
Future Growth Area 413.31 Acres
REED

CENTRAL COLUMBIA

FRANKWOOD

AMERICAN

GOODFELLOW

AMERICAN

TULARE COUNTY

REEDLEY AIRPORT

EXHIBIT
3 EXHIBIT 4
Effective July 1, 2021, the Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Proportion shall be as follows:

YEAR CITY
1 5%
2 5%
3 5%
4 5%
5 5%
6 5%
7 5%
8 5%
9 5%
10 5%
11 5%
12 5%
13 5%
14 5%
15 5%
City
Sales Tax
Revenue
2017 - 2018
Population
January 1, 2018
Per Capita
Tax Revenue
2017 - 2018
Sales Tax
Revenue
2018 - 2019
Population
January 1, 2019
Per Capita
Tax Revenue
2018 - 2019
Meets 50%
Criteria
2017 - 2018
Meets 50%
Criteria
2018 - 2019
Growth
over 1/2%
Sales Tax
Revenue
Growth

A B C D E F G F I J
Clovis $ 20,088,192 113,501 $ 176.99 $ 21,398,962 116,609 $ 183.51 A A Yes 6.53% Coalinga $ 795,842 16,516 $ 48.19 $ 946,569 16,944 $ 55.86 B B Yes 18.94% Firebaugh $ 887,447 7,893 $ 112.43 $ 825,341 7,980 $ 103.43 A A No -7.00% Fowler $ 1,290,773 6,161 $ 209.51 $ 1,415,099 6,220 $ 227.51 A A Yes 9.63% Fresno $ 86,000,524 536,593 $ 160.27 $ 91,798,987 542,012 $ 169.37 A A Yes 6.74% Huron $ 174,745 7,281 $ 24.00 $ 182,158 7,302 $ 24.95 B B Yes 4.24% Kerman $ 1,913,749 15,335 $ 124.80 $ 1,981,109 15,767 $ 125.65 A A Yes 3.52% Kingsburg $ 975,836 12,397 $ 78.72 $ 1,141,664 12,551 $ 90.96 A A Yes 16.99% Mendota $ 611,472 12,201 $ 50.12 $ 674,507 12,278 $ 54.94 B B Yes 10.31% Orange Cove $ 176,743 9,443 $ 18.72 $ 225,323 9,460 $ 23.82 B B Yes 27.49% Parlier $ 424,544 15,460 $ 27.46 $ 444,697 15,658 $ 28.40 B B Yes 4.75% Reedley $ 1,687,854 25,797 $ 65.43 $ 1,755,297 25,873 $ 67.84 B B Yes 4.00% Sanger $ 2,320,636 26,418 $ 87.84 $ 2,325,388 27,005 $ 86.11 A A No 0.20% San Joaquin $ 185,302 4,124 $ 44.93 $ 252,989 4,144 $ 61.05 B B Yes 36.53% Selma $ 5,515,388 24,327 $ 226.72 $ 6,482,913 24,402 $ 265.67 A A Yes 17.54% Sales Tax Revenue
Total All Cities $ 123,049,047 833,447 $ 131,851,003 844,205 Per Capita All Cities $ 147.64 $ 156.18
50% Minimum $ 73.82 $ 78.09
170,813 170,990
Table 1: Sales Tax Revenue Allocation Application FY 2018-19 Data Unincorporated Population
Total County Population
Sales Tax Revenues: Columns A & D, Source: State Board of Equalization Annual Report Statistical Apendix; Fiscal Year Data Available in January of Next Calender Year Population Data: Columns B & E, Source: Source State Department of Finance January 1, Population Estimates; Available in May of that Calender Year Per Capita Sales Tax All Cities (FY 2017-18) Sum Collumns A & B. Then divide the column A summed total by the column B summed total. The Result is listed in Column C as "Per Capita Cities" Per Capita Sales Tax All Cities (FY 2018-19) Sum Collumns D & E. Then divide the column D summed total by the column E summed total. The Result is listed in Column F as "Per Capita Cities" 50% Minimum Criteria: The Pervious Calculations divided by 2. Then a comparison of this number with the numbers in collumns C & F is made. Results are reflected in columns G & H . "A" means above, "B" Below the Criteria.

Sales Tax Revenue Growth: Column J; Compute percentage growth of Sales Tax Revenue: Change in Sales Tax Revenue in Column D compared to Column A.

Growth Criteria: If the Sales Tax Revenues of the city grew by at least 1/2%, the results are reflected in column I with a "YES" EXHIBIT 5

City of Reed ley
Community Development Department
1733 Ninth Street
Reedley, CA 93654
(559) 637-4200
https://reedley.ca.gov

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Proof of Service by Mail
(required as per Reedley Municipal Code
SUBJECT; Notice of Public Hearing (City Council): for Environmental Assessment No. 2022-13.

Sphere of Influence Expansion Application No. 2022-01. Annexation Application No. 2022-01. Rezone Application No. 2022-03 (Ordinance No. 2024-004), Site Plan Review Application No. 2022-19. and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6428

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO
CiTY OF REEDLEY
)
)
)
I am an employee of the City of Reedley.

On March 11. 2024. served the attached notice pursuant to Reedley Municipal Code on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail.

I declare, under penalty or perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

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

Executed on March 11.2024, at
Attachments: 1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. List of Addresses

3. Vicinity Map I
Xyzi 3
Signature
Para español por favor comuníquese con Yuziry Sanchez al (559) 637-4200 x 289

CITY OF REEDLEY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Environmental Assessment No. 2022-13, Sphere of Influence Expansion Application No. 2022-01, Annexation Application No. 2022-01, Ordinance No. 2024-004 (Rezone Application No. 2022-03), Site Plan Review Application No. 2022-19, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6428 On March 7, 2024, the Reedley Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. 2022-13, Sphere of Influence Expansion Application No. 2022-01, Annexation Application No. 2022-01, Rezone Application No. 2022-03 (Ordinance No. 2024-004), Site Plan Review Application No. 2022-19, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6428, all described below.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code; and, pursuant to the procedures of Title 10 of the Reedley Municipal Code, the Reedley City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the following:

1. Environmental Assessment No. 2022-13, pertains to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated January 29, 2024, Sphere of Influence Expansion Application No. 2022-01, Annexation Application No. 2022-01, Rezone Application No. 2022-03 (Ordinance No. 2024-004), Site Plan Review Application No. 2022-19, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 6428.

2. Sphere of Influence (SOI) Application No. 2022-01, pertains to the addition of approximately 42.52 gross acres into the City of Reedley’s SOI. The subject property consists of one parcel (APN 370-240- 11) and is located east of Traver Channel, which runs north-south between Buttonwillow Avenue and South Englehart Avenue, north of East Huntsman Avenue, west of agricultural land, west of South Englehart Avenue, and south of the Reedley Sports Park. The subject property is adjacent to the existing City of Reedley City SOI limit along the site boundary with Traver Channel.

3. Annexation Application No. 2022-01, pertains to the annexation of approximately 42.52 acres into the City of Reedley and detachment from the Fresno County Fire Protection District and the Kings River Conservation District. The annexation area consists of one parcel (APN 370-240-11). The annexation area is located east of Traver Channel, which runs north-south between Buttonwillow Avenue and South Englehart Avenue, north of East Huntsman Avenue, west of agricultural land, west of South Englehart Avenue, and south of the Reedley Sports Park. The proposed annexation is adjacent to the existing City of Reedley City Limits along the boundary with Traver Channel. The proposed annexation will be annexed into the City of Reedley’s adopted Sphere of Influence, and the subject property has a Light Industrial Land Use Designation pursuant to the City of Reedley 2030 General Plan. The proposed project does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act to promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.

4. Ordinance No. 2024-004 (Re-zone Application No. 2022-03), pertains to the re-zoning of approximately 42.52 acres in preparation for annexation consistent with the Reedley 2030 General Plan.

The subject property is currently zoned AE 20 (Exclusive Agricultural) under the Fresno County zoning designation and is proposed to be pre-zoned to the ML (Light Industrial) zone district under the City of Reedley zoning designation.

5. Site Plan Review Application No. 2022-19, pertains to the development of approximately 42.52 acres of industrial designated land (APN 370-240-11), consisting of 26 separate parcels. The proposed project would develop 19 parcels with office/warehouse buildings totaling 197,000 square feet and surface parking lots that would provide shared access to 410 parking spaces to serve those buildings. Proposed uses identified in the site plan include office/warehouse uses. The remaining 7 parcels would be designated for industrial uses but left vacant under this application.

6. Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) No. 6428, pertains to the subdivision of land and proposed street dedications/improvements to accommodate for the above referenced uses. The proposed project would include 19 lots for office/warehouse uses ranging from .58 acre to 1.87 acre and 7 lots for industrial uses ranging from 1.62 acre to 2.63 acres as well as the dedication at least 3 new internal streets.

REEDLEY CITY COUNCIL
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024
Time: 7:00 p.m., or thereafter
Place: City Hall Council Chambers
845 “G” Street, Reedley, CA 93654
Additional information on the proposed application, including the environmental assessment, is available for public review and may be obtained from the Community Development Department, 1733 Ninth Street, Reedley, California 93654. Please contact Rodney Horton, Community Development Director, at (559) 637-4200, ext. 286, or by email at [email protected] for more information.

NOTE: Government Code Section 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) requires that this notice be sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property. The City of Reedley, Community Development Department has mailed this notice to the property owners within 350 feet of the project.

The City Council Meeting Agenda will be available for review on the City of Reedley’s website at http://www.reedley.com/ at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and present testimony, or speak in favor or against the project. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues, you, or someone else, raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Reedley City Council prior to the public hearing.

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.

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

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 370-240-11
1/31/24, 2:33 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 1/2
© 2015 ParcelQuest www.parcelquest.com (888) 217-8999
10 9 11
6 31
7 8
12 2
1 Map data ©2024 Imagery ©2024 Airbus, Maxar Technologies, USDA/FPAC/GEO 200 m 1/31/24, 2:33 PM Search | ParcelQuest
https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home 2/2
LIST 0
DETAIL
APN Lot Acres Lot SqFt Owner S Street Address Year Built Census Tract 1 370-240-11 42.520 1,852,171 TAC LLC 20349 E HUNTSMAN AVE 1995 63.01/1 LIST 0
DETAIL
APN Lot Acres Lot SqFt Owner S Street Address Year Built Census Tract 1 370-020-11 24.130 1,051,102 FORREST MICHAEL & TERRI HOWARD TRS 63.01/1 2 370-020-75 36.750 1,600,830 BOG FARMS III LP 67.00/3
3 370-240-11 42.520 1,852,171 TAC LLC 20349 E HUNTSMAN AVE 1995 63.01/1 6 370-240-34S 5.000 217,800 TOMAJAN RICHARD B & KAREN L TRS 20802 E HUNTSMAN AVE 1983 63.01/1 7 370-240-35S 4.820 209,959 VALENZUELA MARTIN H & JOSEPHINE M TRS 20736 E HUNTSMAN AVE 1958 63.01/1 8 370-240-37 4.818 209,880 UYEDA RACHEL ANN TRS 20784 E HUNTSMAN AVE 1985 63.01/1 9 370-240-38 26.530 1,155,646 HIRATA ARTHUR TRS 20894 E DINUBA AVE 1922 63.01/1 10 370-240-39 22.070 961,369 HIRATA ARTHUR TRS 63.01/1
11 370-240-60T 45.520 1,982,851 REEDLEY CITY OF 63.01/1 12 370-240-61T 1.220 53,143 CITY REEDLEY 63.01/1



MICHAEL & TERRI HOWARD

FORREST
P O BOX 271
REEDLEY CA 93654

BOG FARMS III LP
11368 N SANDHAVEN
FRESNO CA 93730

TAC LLC
221 CHANTECLER DR
FREMONT CA 94539

RICHARD B & KAREN L

TOMAJAN
P O BOX 672
REEDLEY CA 93654

MARTIN H & JOSEPHINE M

VALENZUELA
2482 IVORY
OXNARD CA 93036

RACHEL ANN UYEDA
20784 E HUNTSMAN
REEDLEY CA 93654

ARTHUR HIRATA
1880 N DEL ALTAIR
REEDLEY CA 93654

ARTHUR HIRATA
1880 N DEL ALTAIR
REEDLEY CA 93654

REEDLEY CITY OF

CITY REEDLEY