Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, October 17, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects , which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

PAGE 43

discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 44

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or th rough the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

X
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off-site; X
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

PAGE 45

291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 46

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable lega l standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 47

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update C ity policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 48

XIII. NOISE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysi s must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet st ate law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects, which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circ ulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 49

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not hav e been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects , which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in th e certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the Ci ty’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 295
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 50

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysi s must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet st ate law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects, which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circ ulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 51

XVI. RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require t he construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysi s must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet st ate law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects, which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circ ulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 52

XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Existing Setting
Responses a-b): The City adequately analyzed this CEQA topic in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards at that time. However, the state has adopted new regulations related to traffic analysis (SB 743), and the City has responded to these new state requirements by developing new TIA Guidelines and updating the City polic ies in the Circulation Element. The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, and could have direct or indirect effects that need to be analyzed in more detail to determine the level of significance . As such, this CEQA topic will be analyzed in the supplemental analysis pursuant to applicable legal standards. The proposed project would have Potentially Significant Impact relative to this topic. A final significance determination will be made in the supplemental analysis after the detailed review is completed.

Responses c-d): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that the focus of a supplemental analysis on new information can be narrowly on new effects, which had not been considered before, and that if there are no effects on a topic beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR, no further environmental review of that topic would be required.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affe ct circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on design and emergency access issues related to circulation and transportation.

Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic.

298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 53

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resources to a
California Native American tribe.

X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guid elines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to u pdate City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environ mental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic.

299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 54

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in ex cess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would re sult in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic.

300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 55

XX. WILDFIRE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
d) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update C ity policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The City’s policy changes will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CE QA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental review in t he supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic. 301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INITIAL STUDY 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE

PAGE 56

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the pro ject have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a and c): This CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR for the General Plan and Development Code Update ( State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069 ) pursuant to applicable legal standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 stat es that a supplemental analysis must be prepared for a project if there is new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified. The City’s desire to update City policy in the Circulation Element to meet state law related to SB 743 qualifies as new information of substantial importance not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The City’s policy cha nges will narrowly affect circulation and transportation topics, but will not have a direct or indirect effect on this this CEQA topic. Instead, the City’s policy changes would result in no anticipated environmental changes to this CEQA topic when compared to the environmental effects discussed under the certified EIR. As such, this CEQA topic has been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and does not warrant further environmental r eview in the supplemental analysis. The proposed project would have No Impact relative to this topic.

Response b): It has been determined that there will be No Impact related to each CEQA topic except for Transportation, which requires additional environm ental review. Transportation will be analyzed in the supplemental analysis pursuant to applicable legal standards , which will include an analysis for the potential for cumulatively considerable effects . A final significance determination will be made in t he supplemental analysis after the detailed review is completed . All other CEQA topics do no warrant a cumulative analysis because the proposed project will not result in changes related to the topic.

302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY

PAGE 57

REFERENCES
City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan, City of Clovis (Adopted August 25, 2014).

City of Clovis. 2014. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Volume I: Draft PEIR and Appendix A, General Plan and Development Code Update, State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069. (Certified August 25, 2014).

City of Clovis. 2020. Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

303
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

APPENDIX B

Supplemental Draft EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

NOP CO MM E NTS

304
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
1 Joyce Roach
From: Rick Fultz
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 3:22 PM
To: Joyce Roach
Subject: RE: Notice of Preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report - 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element
Hi Joyce,
Forgot to send you a response. No fire comments on this project.

Thanks

Rick Fultz
Fire & Life Safety Analyst
Clovis Fire Department
Office (559)324-2214
Cell (559) 696-0889
[email protected]

From: Joyce Roach <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Amanda Castro <[email protected]>; Amjad M. Qader <[email protected]>; Amy Hance <[email protected]>; Andrew Haussler <[email protected]>; Andrew Nabors <[email protected]>; Andrew Nabors <[email protected]>; Anthony Summers <[email protected]>; Arthur Negrete <[email protected]>; Augustine Ramirez <[email protected]>; Bernard Jimenez <[email protected]>; Bill Fox <[email protected]>; Manuel Barrios <[email protected]>; Brian Weldon <[email protected]>; Chad Fitzgerald <[email protected]>; Cherie Clark <[email protected]>; Christopher Hutchison <[email protected]>; Chris Motta <[email protected]>; Christian A. Esquivias Ramirez <[email protected]>; Claudia Cazares <[email protected]>; Curt Fleming <[email protected]>; Dave Fey <[email protected]>; Dave Padilla <[email protected]>; Dave Randall <[email protected]>; Dave Scott <[email protected]>; David Merchen <[email protected]>; Debbie Campbell <[email protected]>; Deep Sidhu <[email protected]>; Denver Stairs <[email protected]>; Douglas Stawarski <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; FID <Engr- [email protected]>; FMFCD <[email protected]>; Garrett Rogers <[email protected]>; Gene Abella <[email protected]>; George Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Gerald Conley <[email protected]>; Glenn Allen <[email protected]>; Glenn Eastes <[email protected]>; Holly Greathouse <[email protected]>; Iri Guerra <[email protected]>; Ivette Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Jason C. <[email protected]>; Jesse Newton <[email protected]>; Jesus Santillan <[email protected]>; Joe Alexander <[email protected]>; John Cross <[email protected]>; John Holt <[email protected]>; Jonas Chanh <[email protected]>; Jose Sandoval <[email protected]>; Joyce Roach <[email protected]>; Katy Benham <[email protected]>; Kelsey George <[email protected]>; Kevin Tsuda <[email protected]>; Laura Tieman <[email protected]>; Lily Cha <[email protected]>; Luis Murrieta <[email protected]>; Michael Maxwell <[email protected]>; Michael Navarro <[email protected]>; Michelle Maldonado <[email protected]>; Mike Harrison <[email protected]>; Mikel Meneses <[email protected]>; Nadia Lopez <[email protected]>; Nicholas Torstensen <[email protected]>; Paul Armendariz <[email protected]>; Renee Mathis <[email protected]>; Rick Fultz <[email protected]>; Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>; Robert J. Howard <[email protected]>; Robert 305
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
2 Villalobos <[email protected]>; Ryan Burnett <[email protected]>; Ryan Kilby <[email protected]>; Ryan Nelson <[email protected]>; Sarai Yanovsky <[email protected]>; Scott Redelfs <[email protected]>; Sean Smith <[email protected]>; Shawn Miller <[email protected]>; SJVAPCD <[email protected]>; Vincent Mendes <[email protected]>; Wildlife CEQA <[email protected]> Cc: Ricky Caperton <[email protected]>; Joyce Roach <[email protected]> Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report - 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element

Greetings,

The City of Clovis (City) is the lead agency responsible for preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR) related to a technical update to the Circulation Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan. The purpose of the technical update is to incorporate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) related goals and policies in the City’s efforts to comply with Senate Bill 743 (SB743). Pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared the attached Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) for the proposed project. The purpose of this NOP and IS is to provide agencies, interested parties, and organizations with sufficient information describing the proposed project and its potent
ial environmental effects to enable meaningful input related to the scope and content of information to be included in the Focused EIR. Please note that there will NOT be any land use changes as part of the technical update. The technical update is for the Circulation Element only and does NOT propose any changes to other elements of the 2014 Clovis General Plan.

A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to inform interested parties about the proposed Specific Plan and provide the opportunity for comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting time and location is as follows:

City of Clovis Council Chamber
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2022
Time: 5:30 pm to 6:30pm

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly at 559-324-2347 or by email. Thank you.

Ricky Caperton, AICP | Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis | Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612
p. 559.324.2347 | m. 559.593.5176
[email protected]

306
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
April 18, 2022
Mr. Ricky Caperton, AICP
Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
[email protected]

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE – DATED APRIL 4, 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2012061069)
Dear Mr. Caperton:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:

1. The EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate 307
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Mr. Ricky Caperton
April 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR.

3. If any sites within the project area or sites located within the vicinity of the project have been used or are suspected of having been used for mining activities, proper investigation for mine waste should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends that any project sites with current and/or former mining operations onsite or in the project site area should be evaluated for mine waste according to DTSC’s 1998 Abandoned Mine Land Mines Preliminary Assessment Handbook.

4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

6. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in 308
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Mr. Ricky Caperton
April 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
309
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
310
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
311
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

County of Fresno

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Promotion, preservation and protection of the community’s health 1221 Fulton Street /P. O. Box 11867, Fresno, CA 93775
(559) 600-3271 FAX (559) 455-4646
The County of Fresno is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer www.co.fresno.ca.us www.fcdph.org
May 4, 2022
LU0021730
Ricky Caperton, Deputy City Planner 2600
City of Clovis- Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Dear Mr. Caperton:

Subject: Notice of Preparation
Project: 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update (SCH #2012061069) Location: City of Clovis (Citywide)
The Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division has completed a review of the Request for Comment for the proposed General Plan Update and offers the following comments for future consideration:

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Should any underground petroleum storage tank(s) be discovered during future construction activities, the applicant/property owner shall apply for and secure an Underground Storage Tank Removal Permit from the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Contact the Fresno County Hazmat Compliance Program at (559) 600-3271 for more information.

Hydrology and Water Quality
 As a measure to protect groundwater, all water wells (not intended for use) and abandoned septic systems within the property shall be properly destroyed by an appropriately licensed contractor.

Contact the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Water Surveillance Program at (559) 600-3357 for more information.

Noise
 Future projects have the potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels through various activities and events. Consideration should be given to the noise elements of the City Municipal Code including mitigation measures from noise generating sources.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (559) 600-3271. 312
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Mr. Ricky Caperton
May 4, 2022
NOP 2014 Clovis General Plan

Page 2 of 2 ends

2 Reviewed By:

Kevin Tsuda, R.E.H.S.

Environmental Health Specialist
Environmental Health Division
KT
Deep Sidhu- Environmental Health Division
313
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
314
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
315
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
316
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
317
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
318
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Capturing Stormwater since 1956
k:\letters\general plan amendment letters\clovis\clovis gpa update nop 2014 circulation element.docx 5469 E. Olive Avenue • Fresno, CA 93727 • (559) 456-3292 • FAX (559) 456-3194 www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
File 170.11
400.11
410.10

May 4, 2022

Ricky Caperton, AICP, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612

Dear Ricky,

Notice of Preparation – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District) has adopted storm drainage Master Plan systems for the areas located within the 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element (Plan Area). These Master Plan systems are based on the previously adopted General and Specific Plan land uses commented by the District August 12, 2014.

The District offers the following comments specific to the review of the Plan Area:

1. Page 8 (Policy 1.7 – Narrow Streets) and Page 9 (Policy 3.1 – Traffic calming): The District recommends that the City include a provision for determining street conveyance capacity and an elevation of structures policy for narrow streets and streets with traffic calming curbs where tributary drainage areas are significant and may pose a threat to buildings/structures. In addition, narrow street policy should include and address provisions for utility placement.

Streets are an essential drainage element for the flow of surface waters to a storm drain inlet. The geometry (including width) is critical for surface flow during heavy or intense storm events. A wider street has a greater conveyance capacity and less conflict between the driving area and the inundated area. For instance, the standard 2-year design storm is to intercept water at the height or depth of the top of curb ( 6- inches deep). On a 40-foot wide street, the street crown and the top of curb are nearly equal, but the center of the street in generally visible. As a street is narrowed by four-feet, the full street would be inundated, including the crown. At this narrow width, the visibility of the pavement is gone, there is a loss of perception of water depth and a safe path of travel disappears.

319
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

City of Clovis Planning Division
Notice of Preparation –
2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update
May 4, 2022

Page 2 ends

k:\letters\general plan amendment letters\clovis\clovis gpa update nop 2014 circulation element.docx Narrow streets and reduced right -of-ways will allow higher development densities and traffic calming effects, however if the area subject to these modified standards has a storm drainage infrastructure that has already been constructed, the new street standards and increased development densities will have impacts on the parameters used to calculate runoff coefficients that determine the size o f the storm drainage system. The existing storm drainage system cannot accommodate reduced right-of- ways if the City desires to maintain the current level of drainage service provided to the community.

The only means of mitigating the reduced conveyance capacity of narrower streets would be to lower the tributary area, extend the storm drainage system or accept a lower level of drainage service. The first two options are essentially impracticable and very expensive in existing developed areas. When large areas are tributary to a specific location, the narrower street geometry should not be approved. In all cases of reduced street widths, the street geometry should be analyzed to determine the flow carrying capacity in relation to the tributary area.

The District's drainage system is designed for a 2 -year storm event. When storms exceed the capacity of the storm drainage pipeline collection system, water must be temporarily stored on the surface until the storm subsides and the collection system can remove the storm water. Narrower streets have less storage volume available in the public right-of-way, necessitating more private property flooding and a need for elevating structures to a greater height above the street in order to provide the same level of protection from flooding, especially if reduced building setbacks are considered.

An additional impact of narrower streets is the ability to provide adequate room within the street right-of -way for the various utilities and their future repair. The District recommends that all agencies and utility companies review where their utility's relative position would be within the narrower street and determine potential conflicts and consequences of the reduced clearances prior to the adoption of a narrow street policy.

320
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

City of Clovis Planning Division
Notice of Preparation –
2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update
May 4, 2022

Page 3 ends

k:\letters\general plan amendment letters\clovis\clovis gpa update nop 2014 circulation element.docx

2. Figure 5 Circulation Diagram: The plan indicates north -south streets from Tollhouse Road extending to properties to the north over the existing levee and through the flowage area of Big Dry Creek Reservoir. It should be noted and considered that in order to construct roads at these locations, they would have to be elevated to cross the levee as well as crossing the inflow floodplain without having a hydraulic effect on flood flows.

This could mean construction of bridges of substantial length and/or modification of road alignments.

3. Figure 6 Bicycle and Trails System: While we understand City Parks designations on this figure may not be able to change at this time, we wish to point out that existing Basins “BX”, “4D”, and Big Dry Creek Reservoir should be removed as a city park designations.

Basins “BX” and “4D” are not designated as dual use for parks. The potential secondary use for Big Dry Creek Reservoir has been discussed at a local level but would require federal approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In addition, the District would recommend identifying basin facilities that are dual use facilities for parks. Please see attached Figure 6 for reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 456-3292.

Sincerely,

Denise Wade
Master Plan and Special Projects Manager

DW/lrl

Attachment

321
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Shepherd Ave
Barstow Ave
Copper Ave
Fowler Ave
Peach Ave
Ashlan Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Nees Ave
Locan Ave
Armstrong Ave
Shaw Ave
Clovis Ave
Dakota Ave
Bullard Ave
Alluvial Ave
Sierra Ave
Tollhouse Rd
Perrin Ave
Mc Call Ave
Gettysburg Ave
Harlan Ranch Blvd
Villa Ave
Herndon Ave
Temperance Ave
Teague Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Fifth St
De Wolf AveLeonard Ave
Highland Ave
Behymer Ave
Willow Ave
International Ave
Temperance Ave
Thompson Ave
168
168
Friant-Kern Canal
Friant-KernCanal
Clovis Landfill (13 Miles North of City)
Sour
ce: City of Clovis. Map date: March 23, 2022.

O
0 1½
Miles
Class I - Multipurpose Trail
Class II - Bike Lane
Class III - Bike Route
Class II or III - Bikeway
City of Fresno - Existing & Proposed Trail
System
Clovis City Limits
Clovis Sphere of Influence
Planning Area Boundary
City Parks

CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 6
Bicycle and Trails System
LEGEND
Clovis Landfill 13-Miles
North of City Boundary
Backbone Bicycle System
Basin "BY"
Basin "BC"
Basin "DL"
Basin "BX" not
dual use
Basin
"5B/5C"
Basin "4C"
Basin "4D" not
dual use
Basin "BW"
Basin "4E"
Basin "5F"
Basin "DO"
Basin "DP"
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir not dual
use
FMFCD Dual Use
Basin Facilities
322
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-1041 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

May 4, 2022
FRE
IS – Initial Study
NOP – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Update
https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/26354

SENT VIA EMAIL

Ricky Caperton
Planning Division
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612

Dear Mr. Caperton:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update. The City of Clovis is preparing a focused update to its existing General Plan that concentrates on policy changes to the Circulation Element and does not change any other Element of the General Plan. This update does not affect land uses or development patterns and does not result in any physical development. The primary objectives are to update Circulation Element policies to meet the mandates of State law related to compliance with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and establish the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines policy.

Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

1. Page 9 of the Initial Study document includes the following policies:
a. Policy 2.7 – VMT Mitigation Fee Program. Evaluate the feasibility of a VMT mitigation fee program and explore opportunities for establishing an in-lieu mitigation fee to offset VMT impacts from development.

2. Caltrans concurs with policies that encourage agencies in considering the creation a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce impacts on the State Highway System.

3. Page 11 and 12 of the Initial Study document includes the following policies:
a. Policy 8.2 – Transit Routes. As development occurs in the City’s growth areas, continue to evaluate transit routes to determine the most efficient methods of 323
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Ricky Caperton, NOP – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Update May 4, 2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” transporting people between residential neighborhoods and goods and services.
b. Policy 8.3 – Bicycle Lanes. Partner with any local bicycle advocacy groups to improve the design, location, and functionality of bicycle lanes to encourage safe and efficient travel lanes.
c. Policy 8.4 – Connectivity between residential and commercial. Continue to explore opportunities for increased non-vehicular connectivity between new and existing residential development and commercial uses.

4. Caltrans concurs with policies that support multimodal transportation systems (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as public transportation) to provide connectivity of modes between the residential uses and commercial/retail uses to reduce VMT impacts from projects.

5. Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Christopher Xiong at (559) 908- 7064 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

DAVID PADILLA, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North

324
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 17, 2022

Ricky Caperton, AICP/Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis, Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93611
[email protected]

Subject: 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update Project (Project) Notice of Preparation (NOP)
SCH No.: 2012061069

Dear Mr. Caperton:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a NOP from the City of Clovis for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW would appreciate if you will still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: ACDC4766-0295-427D-9010-3648BB765371 325
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Ricky Caperton, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis
June 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Proponent: City of Clovis

Objective: The City of Clovis is preparing a focused update to its existing General Plan.

The proposed Project concentrates on policy changes to the Circulation Element only, and does not change any other Element of the General Plan. The proposed Project also includes adoption of the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which are supportive of the Circulation Element. The focused General Plan Update does not affect land uses or development patterns, and does not result in any physical development. The key components of the focused General Plan Update include revisions to the goals and policies in the Circulation Element.

Location: The City of Clovis (City) is in the central portion of Fresno County, approximately

6.5-miles northeast of the City of Fresno downtown area. The City is surrounded by portions of unincorporated Fresno County to the north, east, and south and by the City of Fresno to the west and southwest.

At the local level, the Plan Area is generally bounded by Copper Avenue on the north, Willow Avenue on the west, Academy Avenue on the east, and Shields Avenue on the south. State Route 168 (SR-168) bisects the City from the southwest to the northeast.

Timeframe: None given.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The NOP indicates that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will consider potential environmental effects of the proposed Project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effect, and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary DocuSign Envelope ID: ACDC4766-0295-427D-9010-3648BB765371 326
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Ricky Caperton, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis
June 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

to make a determination on the level of significance. The EIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed project.

When an EIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation. Special-status plant and animal species have been documented in the Project area per the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), these include, but are not limited to, the State and Federally threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), the State endangered and Federally threatened San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii), the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), the State threatened tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), the State and Federally endangered Hartweg’s golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia) and California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), the State endangered and Federally threatened San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), the State endangered and Federally threatened succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja campestris var. succulenta), the Federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), American badger (Taxidea taxus) and western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii). While this list may not include all special-status species present in or near the Project area, it does provide a robust source of information as to which species could potentially be impacted by vegetation and/or ground disturbance. CDFW recommends the EIR prepared for the Project analyze potential impacts to these species and provide measurable mitigation measures that, as needed, will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).

CDFW also recommends consulting with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts to Federally listed species including, but not limited to, California tiger salamander, Hartweg’s golden sunburst, succulent owl’s clover, California jewelflower, and vernal pool invertebrates. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting.

Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.

In addition to potential species impacts, it is likely that some Project activities that will be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq.

If a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is needed, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance or the renewal of a LSAA. Therefore, for efficiency in environmental compliance, we recommend that any potential lake or stream disturbance that may result from Project activities be described, and mitigation for the disturbance be developed as part of the EIR. This will reduce the need for the Department to require extensive additional environmental review for a LSAA in the future. If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification DocuSign Envelope ID: ACDC4766-0295-427D-9010-3648BB765371 327
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Ricky Caperton, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis
June 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays. Waterways present within the City of Clovis General Plan Update boundary include, but may not be limited to, Dog Creek, the Friant/Kern Canal, Dry Creek, and Enterprise Canal.

CDFW is available to meet with you ahead of DEIR preparation to discuss potential impacts and possible mitigation measures for some or all of the resources that may be analyzed in the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Valerie Cook
Acting Regional Manager

cc: Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
1685 “E” Street
Fresno, California 93706-2020

United States Army Corps of Engineers
San Joaquin Valley Office
1325 “J” Street, Suite #1350
Sacramento, California 95814-2928

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife:

LSA Program; [email protected]

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Patricia Cole; [email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: ACDC4766-0295-427D-9010-3648BB765371 328
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

Ricky Caperton, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis
June 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

LITERATURE CITED

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.

DocuSign Envelope ID: ACDC4766-0295-427D-9010-3648BB765371 329
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

SUPPLEMENTAL

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN

CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
(State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069)

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

Prepared for:

City of Clovis | Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
559.324.2346

Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 812-7927
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m Attachment 5
330
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

331
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

SUPPLEMENTAL

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

2014 CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN

CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
(State Clearinghouse No. 2012061069)

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Contact: Dave Merchen, City Planner
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
559.324.2346

Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 812-7927

332
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

333
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update TOC-1

FINAL EIR
Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................... 1.0-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process ............................................................................... 1.0-6

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR .................................................................................. 1.0-8

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses .............................................................................. 2.0-1

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2.0-1

2.2 List of Commenters ................................................................................................. 2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses ...................................................................................... 2.0-2

3.0 Revisions .............................................................................................................................. 3.0-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR ....................................................................................... 3.0-1

4.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...................................................... 4.0-1 Tables Page Number
Table 2.0-1: List of Commenters on Draft EIR ........................................................................... 2.0-1 Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..................................................... 4.0-2 334
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOC-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

This page left intentionally blank.
335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update ES-1

INTRODUCTION
In response to Senate Bill 743 ( SB 743 ), the City of Clovis (City) initiated efforts to establish a framework for analyzing transportation impacts that was both consistent with the State’s mandates, and City policy. This effort led to the development of the Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (adopted July 20, 2020, Resolution 20-93), which provides guidance to City staff, applicants, and consultants on the requirements to evaluate transportation impacts for projects in the city f or the purpose of determining impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

As the City developed the Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines in response to the requirements of SB 743, it became evident that the City’s 2014 General Plan Circulation Element needed to be updated to be in alignment with the S tate’s mandates, and the Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. City staff then embarked on an update to the Circulation Element, which focuses on policy language additions that are aimed at reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by way of a variety of planning mechanisms.

The City ultimately prepared a focused update to its existing 2014 General Plan. The focused update concentrates on policy changes to the Circulati on Element only, and does not change any other Element of the 2014 General Plan . The proposed Project is the focused update to the Circulation Element and adoption of the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which are supportive of the Circulation Element.

The City of Clovis, as lead agency, determined t hat the focused update to the General Plan is a "project" within the meaning of CEQA. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the e nvironment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the who le of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

This Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft EIR) has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Guidelines for the California En vironmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Clovis.

An E IR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts as sociated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth -inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identi fy mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts.

CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize significant environmental impacts of proposed development.
336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Clovis is preparing a focused update to its existing General Plan. The proposed Project concentrates on policy changes to the Circ ulation Element only, and does not change any other Element of the General Plan. The prop osed Project also includes adoption of the T ransportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which are supportive of the Circulation Element.

The focused General Plan Update does not affect land uses or development patterns, and does not result in any physical d evelopment. The key components of the focused General Plan Update include revisions to the goals and policies in the Circulation Element. A more detailed project description, including the policy modifications, is provided in the Draft EIR.

ALTERNATIVES T O THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an E IR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project or to t he location of the Project site which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed Project. Three alternatives to the proposed Project were developed based on input from City staff and the t echnical anal ysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed Project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following three alternatives in addition to the proposed Project.
• No Project Alternative: This alternative assumes that there would be no focused update to its existing General Plan. There would be no policy changes to the Circulation Element, and the City would not adopt Transportation Impact Analysis Guideline s supportive of the Circulation Element. Under this alternative, the Cit y would not be making any policy changes in response to SB 743, but would stil l be required to analyze projects for VMT. In the absence of defined TIA Guidelines, the City would utilize the O ffice of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidance for analyzing VMT.
• Policy Change Only Alternative : This alternative assumes that there would be a focused update to its existing General Plan. This would include policy changes to the Circulation Element intended to meet the mandates of State law related to conformance with SB 743.

Under this alternative, the City would not adopt Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines supportive of the Circulation Element, but would still be required to analyze projects for VMT. In the absence of defined TIA Guidelines, the City would utilize the OPR Guidance for analyzing VMT.
• TIA Guidelines Only Alternative: This alternative assumes that there would be no focused update to its existing General Plan. There would be no policy changes to the Circulation Element, but the City would adopt Tran sportation Impact Analysis Guidelines defining the methodology for analyzing VM T impacts in Clovis. Under this alternative, the City would not be making any policy changes in response to SB 743, but would still be required to analyze projects for VMT.
337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES

ES-3 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

Alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. Table ES-1 provides a comparison of the alternatives using a qualitative matrix that compares each alternative relative to the other Project alternatives. As summarized in Table ES-1 below, the Proposed Project is superior to the other Alte rnatives. The proposed Project is considered the environmentally superior alternative because it provides the greatest potential to be consistent with State law (SB 743), and to establish a consistent approach to VMT analysis, and VMT reduction when compar ed to the other alternatives. The proposed Project establishe s the City’s policy direction related to these topics, while the other alternatives only partially address VMT reduction, or do not address the topic.

TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC PROPOSED PROJECT No Project
Alternative
Policy Change Only
Alternative
TIA Guidelines Only
Alternative

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (TC)
TC Impact 3.1-1 No Impact Slightly greater
impact
Slightly greater
impact
Slightly greater
impact
TC Impact 3.1-2 Significant and
Unavoidable Greater Impact Slightly Greater
Impact
Slightly Greater
Impact
TC Impact 3.1-3 Less than
Significant Equal Impact Equal Impact Equal Impact
Comparison to Proposed
Project Superior Inferior (4th) Inferior (2nd) Inferior (3rd)

COMMENTS RECEIVED
During the NOP pro cess, several comments were received related to the analysi s that were included in the Draft EI R. These comments are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The City received two (2) comment letters during the Draft EIR public process, both from a public agency. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2 .0-1 of this Final EIR. The comments received during the Draft EIR review processes are addressed within this Final EIR. 338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
339
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 1.0-1

This Final Environmental Impact Report (F inal EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City of Clovis (City) is the lead agency for the environmental rev iew of the proposed Project and has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project. This F inal EIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from approval of the proposed Project and associated impacts from subseque nt development and operation of the proposed Project, as well as responds to comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Final EIR for the proposed Project has been p repared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that a Final EIR consist of the following:
• the Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
• comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, eit her verbati m or in summary;
• a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and
• any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into this Final EIR. An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, grow th-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agenc ies to c onsider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development, and an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

TIERING
The Clovis City Council a dopted the Clovis General Plan , and certified an EIR on August 25, 2014.

The General Plan EI R was prepared a s a program-level EIR. According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarat ions, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]).

These later docum ents n eed only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).
340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Later activities in the program must be examine d in t he light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the s cope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.

Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed fo r envi ronmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. (4) Where the later activities in volve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.

This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Section 15162 states that a SEIR must be prepared for a project if there is a new significant environmental effect or new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified [CEQA Guidelines Sec 15162(c)]. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines provide that a SEIR may be prepared if the project has only minor revisions [CEQA Guidelines Sec 15162(c)].

The legal requirements to address vehicle miles traveled under SB 743 are new, and has resulted in the City of Clovis needing to update their Circulation Element and to establ ish Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The additional analysis required by the EIR is considered “new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified” under [CEQA Guid elines Sec 15162(c)], thus requiring a Supplemental EIR. The additi on of new policies and/or refinement of existing policies within the Circulation Element since the General Plan EIR was certified is new information that must be addressed in the Supplemental EIR.

The supplemental-level analysis focuses on the environmental effects from transportation only. An Initial Study was prepared and it was determined that all other environmental topics would have no change, or a less -than-significant impact as a result of the proposed Project. This Supplemental 341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 1.0-3

EIR will be used to evaluate subsequent projects and activities under the General Plan as they relate to the environmental topic of transportation . This Supplemental EIR is intended to provide the supplemental information and environmental analysis necessary to assist public agency decision-makers in considering approval of new projects as they relate to the requirements of SB 743.

It is anticipated that the original certified EIR, combined with the Supplemental EIR will be used for future site-specific evaluations. Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 1515 2 provides that, where a first -tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second - and third -tier documents. Furthermore, second - and third-tier documents may limit the exami nation of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, signifi cant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior env ironmental impact report; or
b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with t he approval of the later project.

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners submit applications for site -specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the p roject details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the certified EIR, including the Supplemental EI R (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been “adequately addressed” in the EIR). Thus, i f a new analysis is required for t hese site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the General Plan or (ii) were formulated based on informat ion in the certified EIR and Supplemental EIR.

CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTIONS
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 allow a streamlined environmental review p rocess for projects that are consistent with the densities established by 342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. Under section 15183 and the statute on which it is based, Public Resources Code section 21083.3, CEQA generally applies only to the impacts that are “pecul iar to the parcel or to the project” and have not been previously disclosed, except where “substantial new information” shows that previously identified impacts would be more significant than previously assumed. Notably, impacts are considered not to be “p eculiar to the parcel or to the project” if they can be substantially mitigated pursuant to previously adopted, uniforml y applied development policies or standards. Moreover, lead agencies need not revisit impacts previously addressed as significant effect s in the prior EIR. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.
15183. PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are pec uliar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency sha ll limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, co mmunity plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivi sion (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. (d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, 343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 1.0-5

(B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the l ead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a findin g at a public hearing as t o whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied devel opment policies or standar ds have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new informat ion shows that the policie s or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire City or county but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan o r any community plan but c an be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to mak e a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision -making body of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing f or the purpose of consider ing whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-6 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculi ar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan or zoning.

Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan. (j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significa nt offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

1.2 ENVIRON MENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or wil l involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The City of Clovis circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on April 4, 2022 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Cleari nghouse, a nd the public . A scoping meeting was held on April 27, 2022 at the City of Clovis City Hall. No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR ana lysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. However, during the 30 -day public review period for the NOP, which ended on May 4, 345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 1.0-7

2022, eight (8) written comment letter s were received on the NOP. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on June 29, 2022, inviting comment from the g eneral public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2012061069) and t he County Clerk, and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from June 29, 2022 through August 15, 2022.

The Draft EIR contains the Project Description, Environmental Setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significan t, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth - inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less -than-significant im pact, and provide s detailed an alysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP w ere considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS /F INAL EIR
The City received two (2) comment letters regard ing the Draft EIR from public agencies. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2 .0-1, and are found in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIR.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to th e written comments received on the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA. This Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions. This document, as well as the Draft EIR as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR.

CERTIFICATION O F THE EIR/P RO JECT CONS IDE RATION
The City of Clovis will review and consider the Fi nal EIR. If the City finds that the Fin al EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA and City of Clovis environmental review procedures and c odes. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project which intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and con sideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the proposed Project. A decision to approve the proposed Project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written f indings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, would also be adopt ed i n accordance with Public 346
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-8 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 150 97 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the proposed P roject to reduce or avoi d significant effects on the environment. T his M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been designed to ensure that these measures ar e carried out during Project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared c onsistent wit h Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 br iefly descr ibes the purpose of the environme ntal evaluation, identifies the lead, agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation a nd certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

CHAPTER 2. 0 – COMMENT S ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written and electronic comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.

CHAPTER 3.0 – REVISIONS
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibi lity, timing, and verification of monitoring.
347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-1 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

2.1 INTRODUCTION
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project, were raised during the comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that: New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final EIR include information that has been added to the EIR since the close of the public review period in the form of responses to comments and revisions.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2.0-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the City during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR . The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed. Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.).

TABLE 2.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR

RESPONSE

LETTER INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
A David Padilla Caltrans 8-15-22
B Denise Wade Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 8-16-22

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the Draft EIR that regard an environmental issue. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed respons e, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the written response must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the proposed Project and ways to avoid or mitigate the sign ificant effects of the proposed Project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. 348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies all revisions to the Draft EIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 2.0-3

A-1
A-2
350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-4 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

A-3
A-4
A-5
351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 2.0-5

Response to Letter A: Caltrans
Response A-1: The commenter provides an introductory statement and acknowledges receipt of the DEIR for their review.

This comment does not warrant a response.

Response A-2: The commenter states: “Caltrans encourages local agencies in considering the creation of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce impacts on the State Highway System (SHS).”
This comment is noted. The City is proposing the following policy for inclu ding in the Circulation Element Update:

Policy 2.7 VMT Mitigation Fee Program. Evaluate the feasibility of a VMT mitigation fee program and explore opportunities for establishing an in -lieu mitigation fee to offset VMT impacts from development.

Response A-3: The commenter states: “Caltrans encourages local agencies to consider implementing policies that support multimodal transportation systems (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and public transportation services) to provide connectivity of modes w ithin communities which also help reduce VMT.”
This comment is noted. The City has added several modifications to existing policies, and new policies, that are intended to support a multimodal transportation system, including bike/ped.

Response A-4: The co mmenter states: “As mentioned in the City’s Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Section 3.2.1., Caltrans encourages the City and project proponents to coordinate with Caltrans in regard to projects that have potential to impact the SHS.” This comment is noted. The City includes several policies in the Circulation Element Update that are intended to ensure that projects are coordinated with Caltrans and other neighboring agencies to ensure that projects do not have adverse impacts on the roadway system.

Response A-5: The commenter states: “Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit f rom a multimodal transportation network”
This comment is noted. The City has updated the Circulation Element, and prepared the TIA Guidelines, to guide reduction in VMT and GHG emissions through a multimodal transportation system.
352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-6 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

B-1
353
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 2.0-7

B-2
354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-8 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

B-2 Cont’d
355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 2.0-9

B-2 Cont’d
356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-10 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 2.0-11

Response to Letter B: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Response B-1: The commenter states: “The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District previously provided comments for the Notice of Preparation - 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update on May 4, 2022. The comments are still applicable, and a copy of the letter is enclosed for your reference.”
This comment is noted. The NOP comment letter from Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District was received during the NOP process, and was included as an Appendix to the Draft EIR.

Response B-2: The commenter attached an NOP comment letter that they previously provided to the City, and which the City included as an appendix to the DEIR. The NOP comment letter provides various design level recommendations for roadways within the City’s roadway network. Recommendations covered storm drainage and flooding as it related to bicycle/pedestrian, dual use parks, levee crossings, etc.

These comments are noted. These are engineering and design level considerations, whereas, the proposed Project is a policy document at a programmatic level. There are no proposed designs for roadways, bike/ped facilities, parks, or storm drainage facilities.

Individual projects that are developed throughout the City under the General Plan will be evaluated at a project -by-project level through planning and engineering staff. The City recognizes the need for appropriate planning and engineering of the facilities mentioned in the commenters letter, however, the time is not ripe for engineering specific facilities at this programmatic stage.

358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

ERRATA 3.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 3.0-1

This section includes minor edits and changes to the Draft EIR. The need for m odifications results from responses to comments received during the public review period for a Draft EIR, as well as City staff-initiated edits that may be needed to clarify the details of a project.

Any revisions to the Draft EIR that would result in a new significant environmental impact, or significant new information, would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 . However, revisions provided in an Errata do not constitute significant new information , or cause new significant environmental impacts, nor do they alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Instead, Errata revisions are intended to clarify, amplify, or correct information provided in the Draft EI R. Errata changes are provided in tracked change format with underline for new text and strike out for deleted text.

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
At this time comments provided on the Draft EIR did not warrant revisions to the text of the document. Nevertheless, this section is reserved for revisions to the Draft EIR, including those that may occur leading up to the City Council consideration of the proposed Project.

360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

3.0 ERRATA

3.0-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 4.0-1

This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which re quires public agencie s to “adopt a rep orting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed Project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequ ence as found in the Draft EIR.

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMM RP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.

The City will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed Project.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The compo nents of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility : Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-2 Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update

TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY TIMING VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.1 -2: General Plan
implementation may result in VMT
metrics that are greater than the
applicable thresholds (13 percent
below Baseline conditions)

Impact 4.2: Under Cumulative
conditions, General Plan
implementation may result in VMT
metrics that are greater than the
applicable thresholds (13 percent
below Baseline conditions)
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program:

The City shall implement a commute trip program applicable to all or selected employers in the City of Clovis. The criteria for inclu sion in the commute trip reduction program are to be determined by the City, and could be based on building size, square footage of retail uses above the amount that qualifies to be screened out as local -serving, number of potential employees and/or other criteria that are appropriate for participation in the program. The program would include the following components that may be applicable for existing land uses and new land use development projects:
• trip reduction targets
• measures to discourage single oc cupancy vehicles while encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, ridesharing, vanpooling, subsidized transit passes and other benefits, • include a guaranteed ride home for eligible employers, • establish applicable fees and funding mechanisms,
• define monitoring measures and frequency, and strategies for non - compliance.

Mitigation Measure TRANS -2: Support the Implementation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) for Focused Areas: The City shall identify focused areas to im plement TMAs via public -private partnerships to support the implementation, management and monitoring of transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Transportation Management Associa tions are non-profit, member -controlled organizations that provide tr ansportation services in a particular area, such as a commercial district, mall, medical center or industrial park. They gener ally consist of area businesses with local government support . TMAs provide an institutional framework for TDM programs and servic es. They are usually more cost effective than programs managed by individual businesses. TMAs allow small employers to provide Commute Trip Reduction services comparable to those offered by large City of Clovis
Public Works
Department

City of Clovis
Public Works
Department

Over the next
four years, or
prior to the next
comprehensive
General Plan
Update.

363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 4.0-3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY TIMING VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
companies. The main goal for TMAs in Clovis would be to maxi mize the reduction of VMT. Implementation of TMAs may consist of the following:
• Identify focused areas and Specific Plans that would have the density and mix of land uses c ompatible with multimodal travel and adoption of TDM, as well as the potential to en ter development and funding agreements with the City for TMA support.
• Provide seed funding and work with applicants to develop service agreements for the development of TMAs.

Mitigation Measure TRANS -3: Provide Bicycle Facilities: The City shall require land uses that generate more than 500 daily trips (which is the threshold that screens small projects from a detailed VMT analys is) to provide bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. This meas ure is designed to promote commuting by bicycle and support transit first/last mile access.

Bicycle facilities shall be required to be constructed in conjunction with each project and funded by the applicant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS -4: Improve Street Conn ectivity: The City shall require new area plans and new housing projects to provide a well -connected street network, particularly for non -motorized connections. Increased intersection density, alleyways, and mid -block pedestrian crossings may be a proxy for street connectivity and accessibility to con nect a variety of land uses.

Characteristics of street network connectivity include short block lengths, numerous three and fo ur-way intersections, and minimal dead -ends (cul -de- sacs). Street connectivity help s to facilitate shorter vehicle trips and great er numbers of walk and bike trips and thus a reduction in VMT.

City of Clovis
Planning Dept.
and Public
Works Dept.

City of Clovis
Public Works
Department

Prior to
approval of
individual
projects (i.e. site
plans, tentative
maps, etc.)

364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

MITIGATION MONITORING A ND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0

Supplemental Final EIR – 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Element Update 4.0-4

This page left intentionally blank.
365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services Department
DATE: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – Implementation of Clovis Transit Program to Carry Narcan on Transit Vehicles.

Staff: Amy Hance, General Services Manager
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Naloxone Distribution Project Documents

2. Fresno County Health Department Letter of Support

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to approve the implementation of the Clovis Transit Narcan Program to commence as soon as practicable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the opioid crisis and the flow of fentanyl into Fresno County, staff has developed a program in which Clovis Transit vehicles would carry Narcan (generic name: naloxone) to be available for emergency use. The program will be supported by the State of California Health and Human Services Agency’s Naloxone Distribution Project and the Fresno County Health Department. Once Clovis Transit drivers have received the appropriate training, every transit vehicle will carry a box of Narcan which can be used to reverse the effects of opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND
The opioid crisis has been well documented in the media , and reports of increasing flow of fentanyl into California and the Central Valley are common. Opioids like fentanyl and other similar drugs act on the nervous system by suppressing consciousness and respiratory drive.

According to the California Department of Public Health, fentanyl is one of the most common opioids associated with overdose. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency warns that fentanyl is not only easily obtained, but is also now being produced using bright colors, shapes, and sizes to drive addiction among young people. Additionally, these bright colors and shapes look like candy and sidewalk chalk which may result in small children ingesting the pills by accident.
366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

Narcan (naloxone) is a potentially lifesaving medication designed to help reverse the effects of an opioid overdose in minutes. Expanding the awareness and availability of Narcan is a key part of the public health response to the opioid epidemic. Narcan is currently a prescription drug but is not a controlled substance. It has few known adverse effects, no potential for abuse, and can be rapidly administered through nasal spray. Trained bystanders can effectively respond and reverse an opioid overdose.

Under this ne w program, Clovis Transit would become the newest community agency to increase access to Narcan in public spaces in Clovis and Fresno. Some transit agencies in the mid-west have implemented a similar program, but Clovis Transit is in the forefront of the program in California. Other California public transit agencies are expected to implement within the next year. Each Clovis Transit vehicle would carry a Narcan kit which will contain two doses of Narcan in the easy -to-use nasal spray form, instructions for its use, and other emergency supplies. Once a driver receives training, they would pick up a Narcan kit along with their vehicle keys and computer tablet and begin their shift. The Narcan kit would remain with the driver in the vehicle for emergency use either on the bus or anywhere the bus may be during the shift.

Clovis Transit will receive two-dose boxes of Narcan at no cost through the State of California Health and Human Services Agency’s Naloxone Distribution Project. Transit drivers will be trained to recognize a potential overdose and how to administer Narcan by emergency services training staff. All required documents and reports will be maintained by the General Services Manager.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the pouches that will hold the Narcan kits is $400 for 40 pouches. Funds already received through State Transit Assistance will be used for the expenditure.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
Readily available Narcan is the antidote for an opioid overdose which can sustain a person until emergency services personnel arrive to assist. Public transit buses and vehicles travel throughout Clovis and many areas of Fresno and are easily identified. Carrying Narcan kits on Clovis Transit vehicles will exponentially increase community access to the drug in cases of opioid overdose.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will implement the program and a public information campaign will be launched.

Prepared by: Amy Hance, General Services Manager

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

ATTACHMENT 1
368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

ATTACHMENT 2
372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider Update – Hotel Parking Ratios.

Staff: Dave Merchen, City Planner
Recommendation: Consider Update
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Examples of Hotel Parking Requirements in Other Cities

2. Section 9.32.040 (Parking Requirements) of Development Code

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend s that the City Council review the information included in this report and consider providing direction to staff regarding an update to the parking requirements for hotel projects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Councilmember Mouanoutoua, with Mayor Flores concurrenc e, requested this item be placed on the agenda. Staff has outlined the City of Clovis parking requirement and provided examples of other Central Valley city parking requirements for comparison (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND
The Clovis Development Code requires 1.2 parking spaces for each guest room, plus required parking spaces for accessory uses. For example, a hotel with 100 guest rooms would require 120 parking spaces. This standard accommodates guest and employee vehicles. If a hotel includes a restaurant that is open to the general public, the parking requirement for the restaurant is calculated separately. The City’s Development Code was updated in October 2014; however, the parking requirement for hotels did not change from the prior Development Code.

A hotel project requires approval of a conditional use permit, which allows flexibility for modification of development standards, including parking requirements with supporting justification. Prior hotel projects have typically met parking requirements on their own site , 373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.
provided shared parking with adjacent properties or received a justified modification to the requirement.

The City of Clovis has comparable hotel parking requirements to other Central Valley cities, although a base-standard of 1 parking stall per room may be the most common criteria. A brief comparison providing examples of other nearby cities is included in Attachment 1.

If the Council determines that an adjustment to the existing parking standard should be considered, it may direct staff to bring back a specific item initiating an ordinance amendment.

Alternatively, the Council may direct staff to include a modified hotel parking standard in the next set of code amendments which are brought forward for the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration. The next set of code amendments is targeted for the first quarter of 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff has received inquiries related to the hotel parking requiremen t for future hotel projects.

There may be interest in considering an update to the hotel parking ratios.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will implement the direction provided by the City Council regarding updates to the Development Code for hotel parking requirements.

Prepared by: Dave Merchen, City Planner

Reviewed by: City Manager JH
374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Attachment 1

EXAMPLES OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER CITIES

City of Bakersfield
Hotel, motel, roominghouse – 1 space per sleeping unit (additional parking required for meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, and office space)

City of Fresno
Bed and Breakfast – 1 per room for rent plus 1 space adjacent to registration office.

Hotels and Motels – 1 per each sleeping unit, plus 2 spaces adjacent to registration office; meeting/banquet rooms or restaurants under 1,500 sq. ft. are not required to provide additional parking when located within a hotel; additional parking shall be required for ancillary uses, such as Meeting Rooms, Banquet Centers, etc. that exceed 1,500 sq. ft.

City of Madera
Motels – 1 space for each sleeping room, plus 1 space for each two employees

Hotels – 1 space for each three beds

City of Modesto
Motel, Hotel- 1 space per guest room; additional spaces for restaurants, meeting facilities, and related uses

City of Stockton
Hotels and motels – 1 per guest room + 4 + ancillary

City of Visalia
Motels, hotels – 1 parking space for each guest room.

375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Attachment 2

9.32.040 Number of parking spaces required.

Each land use shall provide at least the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by this chapter, except where a greater number of spaces is required through land use entitlement approval or where an exception has been granted through approval of a discretionary permit.

A. Parking requirements by land use. Each land use shall be provided the number of parking spaces required by Table 3-12. Additional spaces may be required through discretionary entitlement approval. All sites shall provide adequate off-street parking for the subject use in compliance with this chapter.

B. Expansion of structure, change in use. When a structure is enlarged or increased in capacity or intensity, or when a change in use requires more off- street parking, additional parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with this section. Also see Section 9.32.030(E) (Nonconforming status).

C. Multi-tenant sites. A site with multiple tenants shall provide the aggregate number of parking spaces required for each separate use; except where the site was developed comprehensively as an integrated center, the parking ratio shall be that required for the center as determined through land use entitlement approval.

D. Parking required by entitlements and/or development agreements.

Parking requirements established by conditional use permits, development agreements, or similar entitlements supersede the provisions of this chapter.

E. Uses not listed. Land uses not specifically listed by subsection A of this section (Parking requirements by land use) shall provide parking as required by the Director. The Director shall use the requirements of Table 3-12 as a guide in determining the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided.

F. Rounding of quantities. When calculating the number of parking spaces required, fractional spaces 0.5 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

G. Company-owned vehicles. The number of parking spaces required by this section does not generally include spaces needed for the parking of company-owned vehicles. Parking spaces for company-owned vehicles shall be provided in addition to the requirements for a particular land use.

H. Bicycle storage requirements. All nonresidential land uses shall provide bicycle parking/storage facilities in compliance with Section 9.32.090 (Bicycle storage requirements).
376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

I. Vehicle charging stations. Vehicle charging stations shall be allowed in commercial and industrial land uses through the site plan review (SPR) process. Charging stations (stalls) shall not be counted against the required parking spaces for a commercial or industrial use. Advertising signage shall be limited to one square foot per parking space. The location of vehicle charging stations shall be approved by the City Planner.

TABLE 3-12

PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE
Land Use Type:

Manufacturing,
Processing and
Warehousing* Vehicle Spaces Required
Manufacturing
facilities
2 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for the first 25,000 sq. ft. and 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. thereafter. The gross floor area shall include incidental office space comprising less than 20% of the total gross floor area. The parking requirements for additional office space shall be calculated separately as provided by this table for “Offices.”
Recycling facilities Determined by conditional use permit.

Research and
development
facilities
1 space for each 350 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The gross floor area shall include incidental office space comprising less than 20% of the total gross floor area. The parking requirements for additional office space shall be calculated separately as provided by this table for “Offices.”
Warehouse
facilities
1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for the first 20,000 sq. ft. and 1 space for each 2,000 sq. ft. thereafter.

Note:
* All nonresidential land uses shall provide bicycle parking/storage facilities in compliance with Section 9.32.090 (Bicycle storage requirements).

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Recreation, Education, and Public
Assembly* Vehicle Spaces Required
Assembly and meeting facilities
Banquet halls 1 space for each 45 sq. ft. of seating area. 377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Recreation, Education, and Public
Assembly* Vehicle Spaces Required
Religious institutions, cinemas,
churches, performance theaters,
meeting halls, and membership
organizations
1 space for each 5 fixed seats or 1 space for
every 40 sq. ft. of gross assembly or viewing
area, plus ancillary uses (e.g., restaurant).

Theaters 1 space for each 4 fixed seats; where no fixed seats are provided, 1 space for every 35 sq. ft.
of gross viewing area.

Child day care
Centers 1 space for each 6 children, plus permanent
drop-off area as approved by the Director
employee.

Large family day care homes 1 space for each 6 children, plus permanent drop-off area as approved by the Director
employee.

Indoor recreation/fitness centers
Dance halls 1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross dance floor area.

Arcades 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Bowling alleys 1 space for each employee plus 5 spaces for each alley, plus required spaces for ancillary
uses.

Health/fitness facilities 1 space for each 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Pool and billiard rooms 2 spaces for each table, plus required space for ancillary uses.

Skating rinks 1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of gross floor area of skating area, plus required spaces for ancillary
uses.

Libraries, museums, art galleries 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Outdoor commercial recreation Determined by conditional use permit.

Park/recreational 1 space for each 5,000 sq. ft. of active gross recreation area.

Swimming pools 1 space for each 500 sq. ft. of pool area, plus 1 space for each employee.

Water slides 4 spaces for each slide lane.
378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Recreation, Education, and Public
Assembly* Vehicle Spaces Required
Schools (public/private)
Preschool 1 space for each faculty and employee member.

Elementary/junior high 1 space for each faculty and employee member.

High school 1 space for each faculty and employee member, plus 1 space for each 8 students regularly
enrolled.

Colleges, universities, trade and
business schools
1 space for each 2 faculty and employee
members, plus 1 space for each 2 full-time (or
equivalent) enrolled students.

Technical or trade schools 1 space for each 2 faculty and employee members, plus 1 space for each 2 full-time (or
equivalent) enrolled students. Calculation of
student enrollment shall be based on fire
occupancy loads.

Note:
* All nonresidential land uses shall provide bicycle parking/storage facilities in compliance with Section 9.32.090 (Bicycle storage requirements).

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Residential Uses Vehicle Spaces Required
Accessory residential dwelling units 1 space in addition to that required for a single- family unit.

Condominiums 2 covered spaces for each unit, plus 1 covered or uncovered guest space for each dwelling unit.

Domestic violence shelters Determined by conditional use permit or Director.

Group quarters (including
boardinghouses, rooming houses,
dormitories, and organizational
houses)
1 space for each sleeping room.

Mixed use developments Determined by conditional use permit or Mixed Use zoning.
379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Residential Uses Vehicle Spaces Required
Mobile home parks 1 covered space in conjunction with each mobile home, plus 1 space for each 10 mobile homes or
sites for guest parking. The latter to be provided
in the mobile park separate from the mobile home
spaces.

Multifamily dwellings, duplex units,
and other attached dwellings
Studio, 1 and 2 bedroom units – 2 spaces for
each dwelling unit, of which at least 1 shall be
covered.
3 or more bedroom units – 3 spaces for each
dwelling unit, of which at least 1 shall be covered.

Residential planned unit developments 2 covered (garage or carport**, ***) spaces, plus 1 covered or uncovered guest space for each
dwelling unit
Senior housing projects, semi-
independent/dependent units

0.5 space for each unit with half the spaces
enclosed, plus 1 guest parking space for each 10
units.

Senior housing projects, independent 1.25 spaces for each unit, plus 1 space for each employee or as established by conditional use
permit.

Senior assisted living facility 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each 3 employees.

Single-family dwellings 2 covered (garage or carport**, ***) spaces for each dwelling unit.

Notes:
** Each two (2) car garage or carport shall have and maintain a clear inside dimension of at least twenty feet (20') by twenty-two feet (22'). If a third car bay is provided, it shall have and maintain a clear inside dimension of at least ten feet (10') by twenty feet (20'). *** Tandem parking shall not be allowed to satisfy this garage requirement. The Director of Planning and Development Services may approve offset garages through the administrative use permit (AUP) approval process.
380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Retail Trade* Vehicle Spaces Required
The following retail trade uses shall provide the identified number of vehicle spaces for the type of use, except when the use is located within a shopping center. If located within a shopping center, the use (except for “big-box”) shall provide the number of spaces identified for shopping centers. (See shopping centers, below.) Automobile, mobile home, recreational
vehicle sales
5 stalls per acre shall be designated
customer/employee parking, with a minimum
of 5 customer/employee parking stalls
provided.

Machinery and parts sales 1 space for each 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Bookstores 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross sales
area, plus 1 space for each 600 sq. ft. of
storage area.

Building materials, hardware stores, and
plant nurseries
1 space for each 300 square feet of gross
floor area, plus 1 space for each 1,000
square feet of gross land area.

Building material/hardware stores with
plant nurseries housed in a “big-box”
environment (e.g., Home Depot, Lowe’s,
etc.)

4.7 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area.

Office supply stores See commercial/service uses parking standard.

Plant nurseries/garden centers in
conjunction with retail uses
1 space for each 1,500 sq. ft. of outdoor
display area, plus 1 space for each 300 sq. ft.
of gross floor area.

Restaurants, taverns, lounges, or similar
establishments for the consumption of
food and beverages on the premises

5.4 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross
building area, including indoor and outdoor
dining areas.

Drive-through (no seating) 1 per employee.

Fast food (freestanding) eating
establishments
1 per 75 sq. ft.

Restaurants, delicatessens, takeout only –
no customer seating
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor
area.

Retail stores, general merchandise See commercial/service uses parking standard.
381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Retail Trade* Vehicle Spaces Required
Shopping centers (commercial multi-
tenant) (neighborhood, community, and
regional)
See commercial/service uses parking
standard.

Note:
* All nonresidential land uses shall provide bicycle parking/storage facilities in compliance with Section 9.32.090 (Bicycle storage requirements).

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Services* Vehicle Spaces Required
The following service uses shall provide the identified number of vehicle spaces for the type of use, except when the use is located within a shopping center. If located within a shopping center, the use shall provide the number of spaces identified for shopping centers. (See “shopping centers” in previous table.)
Child day care centers 1 space for each 6 children, plus permanent drop-off area as approved by the Director.

Commercial/service uses, including
commercial multi-tenant users

0 to 20,000 sq. ft. 5.4 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
20,001 to 70,000 sq. ft. 5.0 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
70,001 sq. ft. and over 4.7 spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Depots: bus, freight Determined by conditional use permit.

Equipment rentals 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor use area.

Fuel sales (standalone) 2 spaces minimum, plus any additional as may be determined by conditional use permit.

Health and fitness facilities 1 space for each 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Hotels and motels 1.2 spaces for each guest room, plus
required spaces for accessory uses.
382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Services* Vehicle Spaces Required
Kennels, animal boarding, and
veterinary clinics
1 space for each 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area,
plus one space for each 800 sq. ft. of boarding
area.

Laundry and dry cleaning 1 space for each 350 sq. ft. of activity area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of storage area.

Laundry, self-serving 1 space for each 3 machines.

Medical services
Board and care homes, group home
care facilities, and in-patient drug
treatment facilities
1 space for each 5 beds.

Clinics, medical/dental offices 8 spaces for first doctor, plus 5 spaces for each additional doctor.

Convalescent hospitals 1 space for each 3 beds the facility is licensed to accommodate.

Hospitals To be determined by conditional use permit.

Medical/dental labs 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Mixed use Established with the Master Plan or Mixed Use zoning for the site.

Mortuaries and funeral homes 1 space for each 5 fixed seats or 1 space for each 40 square feet, whichever amount is
greater.

Offices, business professional 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Personal services – barber/beauty
shops (and other personal services)
1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Pet grooming 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Public facilities As established with the authorizing approval.

Service stations 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 3 spaces for each service bay.

Storage, personal storage facilities 2 spaces minimum, plus 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross office floor area.

Veterinary hospitals/clinics 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. If boarding is offered, kennel standards will be used.

Vehicle repair and maintenance
383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Services* Vehicle Spaces Required
Repair garages** 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or 3 spaces for each bay, whichever is greater,
plus 1 space for a company vehicle.

Self-service vehicle washing 2 spaces for each washing stall, for queuing and drying.

Full-service vehicle washing 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 10 spaces for each wash lane for drying
area.

Notes:
* All nonresidential land uses shall provide bicycle parking/storage facilities in compliance with Section 9.32.090 (Bicycle storage requirements).
** All employee parking shall take place on site. Employee parking in the public street shall be prohibited. If employee parking in the public street occurs, it shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit in compliance with Section 9.92.060 (Revocation and modifications).

TABLE 3-12
PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY LAND USE (Continued)
Land Use Type:

Transportation and Communication Vehicle Spaces Required Broadcast studios 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Recording studios 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Transportation facilities To be determined by Commission. (§ 2, Ord. 14-13, eff. October 8, 2014; § 1 (Att. 3), Ord. 18-19, eff. September 5, 2018; § 1(2) (Atts. 1, 2), Ord. 20-18, eff. February 3, 2021)

384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

Clovis City CouncilOctober 17, 2022

Clovis City Council
October 17, 2022