Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, May 20, 2024 (part 12 of 13)

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5029 554 7200 2000 0.70 0.28 70.1 - 23.9 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5055 7008 0.72 62.8 26.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.0 31.4 29.4 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.0 Density, veh/mi/ln 29.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.4
Messages
Comments
2742
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 75
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 17:36:57 2026 NT_NP_AM_WB.xuf 2743
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5376 7098 0.76 63.9 28.0 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5376 1529 7200 4000 0.75 0.38 63.5 56.5 28.2 29.3 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3762 4688 0.80 61.4 30.6 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4157 395 4800 1900 0.87 0.21 57.6 57.6 36.1 33.1 D 2744
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4391 213 4800 2000 0.91 0.11 56.0 56.0 39.2 34.7 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4404 4688 0.94 55.6 39.6 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.4 32.0 30.0 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.0
Messages
Comments
2745
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 14:48:26 2026 NT_NP_PM_EB.xuf 2746
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4284 4716 1.02 36.8 58.3 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4238 444 4800 2000 1.00 0.22 34.8 59.8 60.9 41.9 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3697 4672 0.93 25.6 72.3 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 773 4800 2000 1.06 0.39 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 2747
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
2748
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 17:43:40 2026 NT_NP_PM_WB.xuf 2749
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2053 7098 0.29 66.6 10.3 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2053 1173 7200 4000 0.29 0.29 62.0 57.6 11.0 14.8 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 849 4688 0.18 64.2 6.6 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1088 239 4800 1900 0.23 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.3 9.3 A 2750
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1190 88 4800 2000 0.25 0.04 66.1 66.1 9.0 9.8 A Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1197 4688 0.26 64.4 9.3 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.4 9.2 8.6 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 8.6
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.2
Messages
Comments
2751
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 14:51:41 2026 NT_WP_AM_EB.xuf 2752
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4463 4716 0.95 55.6 40.1 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4463 857 4800 2000 0.93 0.43 58.5 58.5 38.1 38.9 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3553 4672 0.76 62.1 28.6 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4515 962 4800 2000 0.94 0.48 54.0 54.0 41.8 37.0 E 2753
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5113 554 7200 2000 0.71 0.28 69.7 - 24.5 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5139 7008 0.73 62.6 27.4 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.7 31.8 29.9 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.7 Density, veh/mi/ln 29.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.8
Messages
Comments
2754
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
50 55
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 25
30 35
40 45
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 17:45:36 2026 NT_WP_AM_WB.xuf 2755
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5471 7098 0.77 63.5 28.7 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5471 1619 7200 4000 0.76 0.40 63.1 56.2 28.9 30.1 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3762 4688 0.80 61.4 30.6 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4157 395 4800 1900 0.87 0.21 57.6 57.6 36.1 33.1 D 2756
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4391 213 4800 2000 0.91 0.11 56.0 56.0 39.2 34.7 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4404 4688 0.94 55.6 39.6 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.2 32.3 30.3 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.2 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.3
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.3
Messages
Comments
2757
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 14:54:37 2026 NT_WP_PM_EB.xuf 2758
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Near Term (2026) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4238 4716 1.02 35.5 59.7 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4189 444 4800 2000 1.00 0.22 33.6 59.8 62.4 41.9 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3643 4672 0.93 24.6 74.0 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 827 4800 2000 1.08 0.41 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 2759
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
2760
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 17:47:26 2026 NT_WP_PM_WB.xuf 2761
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2122 7098 0.30 66.6 10.6 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2122 1205 7200 4000 0.29 0.30 62.0 57.5 11.4 15.2 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 886 4688 0.19 64.2 6.9 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1137 251 4800 1900 0.24 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.7 9.6 A 2762
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1250 99 4800 2000 0.26 0.05 66.1 66.1 9.5 10.3 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1257 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.4 9.6 9.0 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 9.0
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.6
Messages
Comments
2763
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 15:23:40 2046 Cum_NP_AM_EB.xuf 2764
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4255 925 4800 2000 0.89 0.46 58.3 58.3 36.5 37.1 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3274 4672 0.70 63.1 25.9 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4206 932 4800 2000 0.88 0.47 57.2 57.2 36.8 34.6 D 2765
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5223 974 7200 2000 0.73 0.49 69.1 - 25.2 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5268 7008 0.75 62.2 28.2 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.8 30.3 28.4 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.8 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.4
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.3
Messages
Comments
2766
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 18:03:41 2046 Cum_NP_AM_WB.xuf 2767
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5573 7098 0.79 63.0 29.5 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5573 1851 7200 4000 0.77 0.46 62.2 55.5 29.9 31.6 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3619 4688 0.77 62.2 29.1 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4046 427 4800 1900 0.84 0.22 58.5 58.5 34.6 32.2 D 2768
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4298 229 4800 2000 0.90 0.11 57.0 57.0 37.7 34.0 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4312 4688 0.92 56.6 38.1 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.5 31.9 29.9 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 29.9
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 31.9
Messages
Comments
2769
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 15:25:44 2046 Cum_NP_PM_EB.xuf 2770
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) NP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4296 4716 1.02 37.1 57.9 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4251 516 4800 2000 1.00 0.26 35.1 59.6 60.5 42.0 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3629 4672 0.91 24.6 73.8 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 841 4800 2000 1.07 0.42 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.7 F 2771
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
2772
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 18:06:10 2046 Cum_NP_PM_WB.xuf 2773
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 2150 7098 0.30 66.6 10.8 A
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.962 2150 1233 7200 4000 0.30 0.31 61.8 57.4 11.6 15.4 B Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 886 4688 0.19 64.2 6.9 A
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.991 1137 251 4800 1900 0.24 0.13 65.5 65.5 8.7 9.6 A 2774
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 1.000 1250 99 4800 2000 0.26 0.05 66.1 66.1 9.5 10.3 B Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 1257 4688 0.27 64.4 9.8 A
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 64.3 9.6 9.1 1.20 A
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 64.3 Density, veh/mi/ln 9.1
Average Travel Time, min 1.20 Density, pc/mi/ln 9.6
Messages
Comments
2775
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
60 65
70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
5 10
15 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 15:29:06 2046 Cum_WP_AM_EB.xuf 2776
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed A.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4255 4716 0.90 57.9 36.8 E
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4255 925 4800 2000 0.89 0.46 58.3 58.3 36.5 37.1 E Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3274 4672 0.70 63.1 25.9 C
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.981 4286 1012 4800 2000 0.89 0.51 56.5 56.5 37.9 35.2 E 2777
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.982 5306 974 7200 2000 0.74 0.49 68.6 - 25.8 - C Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5352 7008 0.76 62.0 28.8 D
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 61.5 30.7 28.8 1.40 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 61.5 Density, veh/mi/ln 28.8
Average Travel Time, min 1.40 Density, pc/mi/ln 30.7
Messages
Comments
2778
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 18:11:15 2046 Cum_WP_AM_WB.xuf 2779
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 2/19/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.29
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Bullard Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
885 3
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 3
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1725 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1070 2
5 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 2
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Fowler Avenue Off-Ramp115 2 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 5668 7098 0.80 62.6 30.2 D
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.990 5668 1942 7200 4000 0.79 0.49 61.9 55.3 30.5 32.4 D Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3619 4688 0.77 62.2 29.1 D
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.989 4046 427 4800 1900 0.84 0.22 58.5 58.5 34.6 32.2 D 2780
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Segment 5: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4298 229 4800 2000 0.90 0.11 57.0 57.0 37.7 34.0 D Segment 6: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4312 4688 0.92 56.6 38.1 E
Facility Time Period Results
T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/ln Density, veh/mi/ln Travel Time, min LOS 1 60.4 32.2 30.2 1.30 D
Facility Overall Results
Space Mean Speed, mi/h 60.4 Density, veh/mi/ln 30.2
Average Travel Time, min 1.30 Density, pc/mi/ln 32.2
Messages
Comments
2781
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
55 60
65 1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
25 30
35 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 02/20/2023 15:33:22 2046 Cum_WP_PM_EB.xuf 2782
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

HCS7 Freeway Facilities Report
Project Information
Analyst LSA Date 3/10/2023
Agency Analysis Year Cumulative (2046) WP
Jurisdiction Caltrans Time Period Analyzed P.M. Peak Hour Project Description Tract Map 6343 Unit United States Customary Facility Global Input
Jam Density, pc/mi/ln 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/ln 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 6
Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15
Facility Length, mi 1.40
Facility Segment Data
No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes
1 Basic Basic Between Fowler Avenue On-Ramp and
Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
355 2
2 Diverge Diverge Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp 1500 2
3 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Off-Ramp
and Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp
1755 2
4 Merge Merge Herndon Avenue Loop On-Ramp 1500 2
5 Merge Basic Herndon Avenue Slip On-Ramp 1500 3
6 Basic Basic Between Herndon Avenue Slip OnRamp and Bullard Avenue Off-Ramp760 3 Facility Segment Data
Segment 1: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 4250 4716 1.02 35.8 59.3 F
Segment 2: Diverge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.995 4201 516 4800 2000 1.00 0.26 33.9 59.6 62.0 42.0 F Segment 3: Basic
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
1 0.94 0.938 3575 4672 0.91 23.6 75.6 F
Segment 4: Merge
Time
Period
PHF fHV Flow Rate
(pc/h)
Capacity
(pc/h)
d/c
Ratio
Speed
(mi/h)
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LOS
F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp
1 0.94 0.94 0.938 0.985 4470 895 4800 2000 1.08 0.45 54.6 54.6 40.9 36.6 F 2783
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 2 Oversaturated conditions currently exist in boundary time period 1. Results may not be reliable.

Consider expanding analysis in time and/or space to resolve this warning.

WARNING 3 Queue extends past the beginning of the facility on time period 1. Consider expanding the length of the facility to account for these vehicles performance and affect on upstream segments.

Comments
2784
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1 2 3 4 5 6
TP1
Segment
Volume Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speed > 60
50 < Speed ≤ 60
40 < Speed ≤ 50
30 < Speed ≤ 40
20 < Speed ≤ 30
Speed ≤ 20
TP1
Segment
Speed Distribution
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1 2 3 4 5 6
Density ≤ 11
11 < Density ≤ 18
18 < Density ≤ 26
26 < Density ≤ 35
35 < Density ≤ 45
Density > 45
TP1
Segment
Density Distribution
Copyright © 2023 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Freeways Version 7.8 Generated: 03/10/2023 18:13:04 2046 Cum_WP_PM_WB.xuf 2785
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
2786
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

April 2024

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TRACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
Attachment 13
2787
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
2788
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

April 2024

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TRACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. CIT2201
2789
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
2790
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments Document..........................................................1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process.........................................................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization....................................................................................................1-1

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Organization of Comment Letters and Responses............................................................2-1

2.2 List of Agencies Commenting on the Recirculated Draft EIR ............................................2-1

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES........................................................................... 3-1

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS .............................................................................. 4-1

APPENDIX
H: PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
TABLES
Table 2.A: List of Comments Received ................................................................................................2-1 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix......................................................................................3-3 2791
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) ii This page intentionally left blank
2792
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABM
AIA
Activity Based Model
Air Impact Assessment
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATC Authority to Construct
BACT
CALGreen
Best Available Control Technology
California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans
CARB
California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
CBB Crotch’s bumblebee
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGYM Clean Green Yard Machines
City City of Clovis
CNDDB
CO
California Natural Diversity Database
Carbon Monoxide
CTS California tiger salamander
Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
EV electric vehicle
FID Fresno Irrigation District
Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
2793
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) iv Fresno COG Fresno Council of Governments
FT/ST Federal and State threatened
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
ISR Indirect Source Review
ITP Incidental Take Permit
MDBM Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NOA Notice of Availability
NOD Notice of Determination
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX
PG&E
nitrogen oxides
Pacific Gas and Electric
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PTO
PV
ROG
Permit to Operate
Photovoltaic
Reactive Organic Gases
ROW right-of-way
RTMF
SB
Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee
Senate Bill
SBA Small Business Assistance
SCE State candidate endangered
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
2794
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) v

SJVAPCD
SOX
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Sulfur Oxides
SR State Route
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
VMT vehicle miles travelled
VOC volatile organic compound
2795
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\0-Cover-TOC.docx (04/04/24) vi This page intentionally left blank
2796
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\1.0-Introduction.docx (04/04/24) 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed Tract Map 6343 (herein referred to as the proposed project) for the City of Clovis (City). The Draft EIR identifies the likely environmental consequences associated with development of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) provides responses to comments on the Draft EIR and makes revisions to the Draft EIR, as necessary, resulting from those comments or to clarify material in the Draft EIR. This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the EIR for the proposed project.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

On December 19, 2022, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the proposed project and indicated the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, interested parties, and organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed project. A scoping session was held on January 13, 2023, to solicit feedback regarding the scope and content of the EIR. Comments received by the City on the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR was made available for public review on January 12, 2024, and was distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, provided to all individuals and organizations who made a written request for notice, and filed with the Fresno County Clerk.

The public comment period ended on March 4, 2024. The City accepted and responded to all comments received during the 53-day public comment period between January 12, 2024, and March 4, 2024. Copies of all written comments received during the comment period are included in Chapter 3.0, Comments and Responses, of this document.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This Final EIR consists of the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this Final EIR, and summarizes the environmental review process for the project. 2797
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\1.0-Introduction.docx (04/04/24) -2 • Chapter 2.0: List of Commenters. This chapter contains a list of agencies and individuals who submitted written comments during the public review period and comments made at the public hearing on the Draft EIR.
• Chapter 3.0: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR. A written response for each CEQA-related comment received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.
• Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions. Corrections to the Draft EIR that are necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are contained in this chapter. Double underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout has been deleted from the Draft EIR. 2798
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\2.0-List of Commenters.docx (04/04/24) 2-1

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS
This chapter presents a list of comment letters received during the public review period and describes the organization of the letters and comments provided in Chapter 3.0, Comments and Responses, of this document.

2.1 ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
Chapter 3.0 includes a reproduction of each comment letter received on the Draft EIR. The written comments are grouped by the affiliation of the commenter, as follows: State agencies (A), and local agencies (B).

The comment letters are numbered consecutively following the A and B designations, and follow the format below:

State Agencies A#-#
Local Agencies B#-#
The letters are numbered, and comments within each letter are numbered consecutively after the hyphen. For example, Letter A1 represents the first State agency letter, and Comment A1-1 represents the first enumerated comment within that letter.

2.2 LIST OF AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2.A provides a list of the State agencies and local agencies that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized by date received and in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments.

Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below.

Table 2.A: List of Comments Received
State Agencies
A1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Julie Vance February 23, 2024 A2 California Department of Transportation, David Padilla March 4, 2024 Local Agencies
B1 Fresno Irrigation District, Laurence Kimura January 22, 2024 B2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Tom Jordan February 29, 2024 2799
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\2.0-List of Commenters.docx (04/04/24) -2 This page intentionally left blank
2800
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-1

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this chapter. All letters received during the public review period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. The letters are immediately followed by responses keyed to the specific comments. The letters are grouped by the affiliation of the commenting entity as follows: State agencies (A), and local agencies (B).

Please note that to the extent text within individual letters has not been numbered, it indicates that the text does not raise substantive environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR; therefore, no comment is enumerated, nor is a response required per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132. In addition, when general support or opposition is given for the proposed project, that comment is noted but no further analysis is provided in the response, as the commenter is not questioning the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR. However, comments related to the merits of the proposed project will be considered by decision-makers taking action on the proposed project.

Where comments on the Draft EIR concern issues requiring technical expertise, the responses to comments, like the analysis in the Draft EIR, rely on the knowledge and professional analysis of qualified experts.

Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are called for, the page is set forth followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with double-underlined text, and deleted text is shown in strikethrough. Text revisions to the Draft EIR are summarized in Chapter 4.0 of this Final EIR.

3.1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MATRIX
Table 3.A includes all CEQA-related comments received on the Draft EIR and a response to each comment. The text of each comment has been included in the matrix and includes any grammatical errors included in the original comment letter. Each comment letter is included in its entirety in Appendix K, Public Comment Letters on the Draft EIR.
2801
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -2 This page intentionally left blank
2802
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-3 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
State Agencies
A1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (February 23, 2024) A1-1 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR 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.

This is an introductory comment. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

A1-2 CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue 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.

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 may be required.

The following comment states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a State Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species, and, as such, provides biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts for projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

The comment also states that as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the CDFW may exercise regulatory authority over the proposed project under the Fish and Game Code, including enforcement of CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.), and provision of authorization for “take”, as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.).

This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all applicable CDFW regulatory requirements, and would implement CDFW recommendations, as applicable, to address any potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources. 2803
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -4 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
A1-3 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).

This comment states that per sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

A1-4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Clovis
Objective: The Proposed Tract Map 6343 (Project) would consist of the annexation of 246 acres from Fresno County to the City of Clovis, and the development of 590 residential lots within the 71.54-acre Project site constructed in 3 phases. The proposed lots would be developed into singlefamily residences over time. Sixty-six outlot spaces would be developed into private roads, private parking, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, public utilities, and public park uses.

No development is proposed within the remaining 174.46-acre annexation area surrounding the project site. Associated entitlements include Annexation to the City of Clovis and a Planned Development Permit, General Plan Amendment, Prezone, and Tract Map approval to allow for 590 single-family residences. To facilitate the future development of the subject property, the proposed Project will also require dedications and/or acquisitions for public street rights-of-way and utility easements, as well as the construction of public facilities and infrastructure.

In addition, development of the Project site would include infrastructure improvements for water services along the East Behymer Avenue frontage and Baron Avenue frontage, as well as stormwater management infrastructure improvements along the Perrin Avenue frontage. The proposed Project would also construct a two-lane, approximately 49-foot-wide and 2,650-foot-long extension of Baron Avenue south of East Behymer Avenue.

Location: The Tract Map 6343 Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line at the southwest corner of the East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue intersection. The Project site is bounded by East This comment includes a summary of the Project Description for the proposed project, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.

No further response is required.
2804
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-5 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Behymer Avenue to the north, by the Enterprise Canal to the west and south, and by rural residential, a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) ponding basin, and Tract Map 6200 to the east. The Project site is in the northwest quadrant of Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM).

A1-5 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Clovis in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

Specifically, CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the Federal and State threatened (FT/ST) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and the State candidate endangered (SCE) Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii).

In order to adequately assess any potential impacts to biological resources, focused biological surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any specialstatus species or resources may be present within the Project area. Properly conducted biological surveys are also necessary to identify Project-related impacts to biological resources and assist with determining the need for species and resource specific minimization and compensatory mitigation measures. Additionally, adequate biological surveys are necessary to assist with determining the need for the Project to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) This comment indicates that the Draft EIR does not appropriately evaluate potential impacts to special-status species, particularly the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), and nesting birds; as such, the CDFW has provided comments and recommendations to address the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources. These recommendations include the implementation of preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist to identify project-related impacts to California tiger salamander and Crotch’s bumblebee, and if applicable, implementation of species-and-resourcespecific minimization and compensatory mitigation measures. Additionally, the CDFW recommends preconstruction surveys for nesting birds to determine the need for the proposed project to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

This comment is noted. As shown in Responses A1-6 and A1-7 below, both California tiger salamander and Crotch’s bumblebee have been sufficiently addressed in the Biological Resource Assessment1 prepared for the Draft EIR, and no additional mitigation measures are required to address impacts to these species. Further, as shown in Response A1-8, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 has been refined to incorporate CDFW recommendations to address impacts to nesting birds covered under sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as amended in Chapter 4.0 of this Final EIR, would reduce take potential to special-status species to a less-than-significant level. No further response is required.

A1-6 COMMENT 1: California Tiger Salamander California tiger salamander (CTS) protocol-level surveys are appropriate when there is reasonable evidence, based on a detailed field review, that suitable habitat is 1 Argonaut Ecological Consulting. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment – Tentative Tract 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area. September 26. 2805
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -6 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
The DEIR does not include an appropriate evaluation for the California tiger salamander (CTS). CDFW’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter for the Project, which was sent on January 17, 2023, recommended protocollevel surveys for CTS. As it appears the biological surveys conducted in support of the DEIR did not incorporate CDFW’s survey recommendations, CDFW reiterates the recommendation to conduct the surveys outlined in CDFW’s NOP comment letter, and, if necessary, including the avoidance, mitigation, and minimization measures recommended in the letter. present within a Study Area and when a review of potential breeding habitat (seasonal wetlands) within a 1.3-mile radius of the Study Area shows the presence of potential breeding habitat within the search radius. The site assessment guidelines2 include a site assessment protocol that includes three elements. The assessment results determine whether protocol-level field surveys are warranted. The elements deal with 1) whether the Study Area is within the range of CTS, 2) the regional setting of the Study Area within known CTS habitat (other known occurrences within 3.1- mile radius of the site), and 3) known occurrences of breeding habitat within a 1.24- mile radius of the Study Area.

The biological fieldwork conducted for the Draft EIR, and included in the Biological Resource Assessment3 included an evaluation of the project Study Area with respect to the three elements outlined above. The evaluation determined that the Study Area is within the CTS range, however, the Biological Resource Assessment also determined there are 12 known occurrences within the Clovis region and none of these occur within 1.3-mile radius (slightly larger radius than the above-referenced

1.24-mile radius was used). More importantly, the Biological Resource Assessment also reviewed aerial photography to confirm that no unrecorded potential breeding habitats are visible on aerials within the 1.3-mile radius. Neither the Study Area nor the adjacent habitat supports suitable breeding or suitable upland aestivation habitat within a 1.3-mile radius of the breeding habitat.

Based on the evaluation described in the Draft EIR, there is no basis to require protocol-level field surveys for CTS within the Study Area for the proposed project because of the lack of suitable habitat and proximity to suitable breeding habitat.

CDFW provides a recommendation that is not based on either a habitat assessment or a field survey conducted by CDFW. The City respectfully disagrees with their assumption because CDFW’s recommendation does not apply to areas with demonstrated non-suitable habitats. No further response is required.

A1-7 COMMENT 2: Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB) The Draft EIR did consider the Crotch’s bumblebee (CBB) and concluded that the likelihood of the species being present, based on the project site’s habitat condition 2 Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Survey for Determining Presence or Negative Findings of the California Tiger Salamander, October 2003. 3 Argonaut Ecological Consulting. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment – Tentative Tract 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area. September 26. 2806
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-7 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
The DEIR also does not include any evaluation for Crotch’s bumblebee (CBB) which was included in CDFW’s January 17, 2023, NOP comment letter. Survey recommendations (updated protocol) for CBB have changed from the recommendations in the NOP letter. CDFW continues to recommend that CBB surveys be conducted according to the most recent protocol and the information found from those used to make appropriate conclusions in the DEIR (CDFW 2023).

In addition to conducting protocol surveys for CBB, CDFW recommends the DEIR include the following measures:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: CBB Surveys Prior to Construction CDFW continues to recommend conducting a baseline protocol survey to adequately inform the DEIR and support conclusions drawn therein relative to CBB. In addition to performing the baseline surveys recommended by CDFW during the NOP comment period, CDFW recommends that additional surveys, following the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species, be repeated the blooming period immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: CBB Avoidance Buffer
If surveys cannot be completed, CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid unauthorized take and potentially significant impacts. If grounddisturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: CBB Take Authorization (sparsely vegetated and routinely disturbed), is extremely low. This is based on known records and the species habitat preferences. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) only includes one record for CBB, which is mapped as a 5-mile radius in the “general vicinity of Fresno”. The record is based on an observation in 1899 and was updated in 2015 within the CNDDB. Please note that an update is not necessarily based on new records or observations. The CNDDB also does not include any unprocessed data for CBB in the region. The Bumble Bee Watch Observation database includes several regional CBB records. Two record clusters occur on the east side of Millerton Lake, and another cluster of records occurs along the Kings River, just downstream of Pine Flat Reservoir and surrounding Pine Flat Reservoir.

Within the Valley floor, the nearest records are just north of Los Banos in Merced County. Not much is known about CBB habitat preferences; however, CBB are associated with habitats with particular floral associations. The floral associations include genera such as Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, phacelia, and salvia.

These floral associations do not necessarily indicate preferences by CBB but instead represent the prevalence of these flowers in landscapes where this species occurs4.

No species within these genera were observed onsite, except for Medicago sp (alfalfa). CBB is thought to be absent from most of the Central Valley, especially in the center of its historic range.5 There is no evidence that the species is potentially present, and conducting baseline surveys does not appear to be supported by the condition of the habitat present, which is sparsely vegetated, disturbed, former agricultural land. Although the presence of this species is theoretically possible, given the historic agricultural land use within the project Study Area, such presence is highly unlikely and not sufficient to arise to the level of a potentially significant impact, or otherwise warrant protocol level survey or other mitigation measures. 4 A petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List The Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini)., et. al as Endangered under the California endangered Species Act. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defender of Wildlife, Center for Food Safety, October 2018. 5 Ibid.
2807
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -8 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
If CBB is identified during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to any ground disturbing activities may be warranted.

Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b).

A1-8 COMMENT 3: Nesting Birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance states that a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 15 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 10 days prior to each phase of clearing activities.

The following comment includes a recommendation from the CDFW to update Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to state that pre-construction surveys for active nests be conducted no more than 10 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. Therefore, in response to this comment, and as shown in Chapter 4.0 of this Final EIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been updated as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1. Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance. Any initial ground disturbance or tree pruning, or removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 1–September 30), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should phased construction require tree removal or initial ground disturbance to ruderal areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 1510 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist shall identify an appropriate buffer where no clearing, grading, or construction activities with potential to have direct or indirect impacts on the nesting bird(s) are allowed to take place until after the nest is no longer active (e.g., the young birds have fledged), or as otherwise determined by the qualified biologist.

A1-9 II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions

Resources Code, § 21003, subd. ™). Accordingly, please report any specialstatus species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed This comment requests that any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys be uploaded to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to comply with requirements of CEQA and the Public Resources Code, § 21003, subdivisio™(e); additionally, this comment provides parameters for the type of information to be reported; as well as instructions for finding and submitting the required field survey forms to the CNDDB. If applicable, the Project Applicant will coordinate with the qualified biologist performing preconstruction surveys of the project site to ensure that special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys are uploaded to the CNDDB. As such, this 2808
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-9 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals. request will be fulfilled as applicable. This comment is noted, but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

A1-10 FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

This comment indicates that, because the proposed project has been determined to result in potential impacts to biological resources, the proposed project would be subject to payment of filing fees to the CDFW upon filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) by the Lead Agency in order to cover the cost of environmental review by CDFW. The Project Applicant will pay all applicable filing fees to the CDFW upon the Lead Agency’s filing of the NOD for the EIR. This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

A1-11 CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Clovis Planning Division in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

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). If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not question the adequacy of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

A1-12 Attachment #1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Recommended Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
This comment provides a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table for the CDFW-recommended measures outlined in Comments A1-6 to A1-8 above. As discussed above, based on the biological evaluation described in the Draft EIR, implementation of recommended measures for CTS and CBB would not be required. As such, these measures will not be incorporated into the EIR or MMRP.

However, as shown in Response A1-8, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been updated to follow CDFW recommendations, and this updated mitigation measure will be included in the final MMRP. This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues.

No further response is required.
2809
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -10 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
A2 California Department of Transportation (March 4, 2024) A2-1 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Trac™p (TM) 6343 which proposes to develop 71.54 acres into a 590 single-family residential development. The project is located south if Behymer Avenue between Minnewawa Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue, approximately 2.7 miles north of the State Route (SR) 168 and Herndon Avenue interchange.

This project was previously reviewed as part of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and the Scope of Work for a TIA with our office submitting comment letters dated April 14, 2023, and June 22, 2022, respectively.

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

This is an introductory comment. This comment summarizes the proposed project, and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

A2-2 1. The study lists the Near-Term (2026) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volume for the eastbound State Route 168 off-ramp right turns to be 903 and the Cumulative (2046) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volume for the eastbound State Route 168 off-ramp right turns to be 935 (at Intersection 14 northbound right-turns). Given the amount of growth in the area and the amount of the additional land annexed by the City of Clovis (174.46 acres of remaining annexation area surrounding the project site), this traffic volume increase appears underestimated. The forecasted volumes should be confirmed.

This comment is noted. The Near-Term (2026) traffic volumes were developed using existing traffic counts and by adding traffic from approved and pending projects that are anticipated to be completed by the project opening year (2026). The Cumulative (2046) traffic volumes were developed using the (Fresno COG) Activity Based Model (ABM) future scenario. The Fresno COG ABM Future scenario includes all cumulative projects that are anticipated to be built by year 2046. The model future scenario also includes roadway network improvements that are anticipated to be completed by Year 2046. The detailed volume development worksheets are included in the Appendix D of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), which is included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

A2-3 2. The TIA mitigation provided for Intersections 13, 14, 15 was stated as “using signal timing coordination and optimization” and that would “eliminate the queuing issues.” However, signal timing sheets were not provided to substantiate the results. Also, the reduction of control delay for Insertion 15 (Herndon Avenue / Clovis Avenue) from Cumulative Year (2046) with Project - PM Pk Hour to Cumulative Year (2046) with Project This comment is noted. Signal timing sheets will be provided to Caltrans by the City prior to certification of the EIR.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-11 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Mitigation - PM Pk Hour (90 4 seconds to 49.0 seconds) seems optimistic.

Signal timing sheets should be provided to corroborate these findings. 2811
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -12 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
A2-4 General Comments:

1. Caltrans highly recommends that the City consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.

2. It is recommended that the project contribute to all applicable Impact Fee programs, such as the City’s Development Fee and the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) program to ensure that the developments contribute to its fair share toward future improvement needs.

3. Caltrans recommends the project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing units.

4. Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development.

An assessment of multimodal facilities should be conducted to develop an integrated multimodal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion resulting from the project and related development in the area of the City. The assessment should include the following:
a. Pedestrian walkways should not only be limited to the project’s internal connectivity but be connected to existing walkways and transit facilities outside the project area.
b. The project should consider coordinating connections to local and regional bicycle pathways to encourage the use of bicycles for commuter and recreational purposes.
c. If transit is not available within 1/4-mile of the project area, transit should be extended to provide services to high-activity centers of the project.

5. As part of the statewide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Caltrans recommends the project proponents consider the installation of Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) and DC Fast Charging EV charging stations into the housing units.

6. 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 that people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network
This comment includes general comments to the City regarding the proposed project.

1. The City acknowledges Caltrans’ recommendation that the City consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.

2. The proposed project will contribute to all applicable Impact Fee programs to ensure that the developments contribute to its fair share toward future improvement needs.

3. The City acknowledges Caltrans’ recommendation that the proposed project included affordable housing units.

4. The City acknowledges Caltrans’ recommendation that alternative transportation policies be applied to the proposed project. The Draft EIR, beginning on page 4.5- 10, includes an analysis of potential conflicts to programs, plans, ordinances or policies related to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For each form of alternative transportation, a less-than-significant impact was identified.

5. The City acknowledges Caltrans’ recommendation that Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations be included in the proposed project. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires provision of EV charging capabilities as part of the final project designs.

6. The City acknowledges Caltrans’ support for Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts in support of the state’s 2050 Climate goals. As discussed on page 4.5-11, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan with respect to development of bicycle facilities.

These comments do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and do not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. As such, no further response is required. 2812
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-13 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Local Agencies
B1 Fresno Irrigation District (January 22, 2024)
B1-1 The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tract Map 6343 Project proposing the annexation of 246- acres by the City of Clovis, and the development of 590 single-family residential lots with sixtysix outlot spaces that would potentially be developed into private roads, private parking, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, public utilities, and public park uses, APNs: 556-030- 14S, 556-040-07S, and 556-040-0BS. FID has the following comments:

B1-2 FID previously reviewed and commented on the subject area on March 8, 2022, as Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Heritage Grove Specific Plan and on April 7, 2023, as Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tract Map 6343 Project. Those comments and conditions still apply, and a copy of FID’s comments dated April 7, 2023, are attached hereto for your reference. FID has additional comments pertaining to the subject project are as follows:

This comment is noted. The proposed project’s consistency with comments submitted by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR on the April 7, 2023 comment letter is discussed in more detail below on Response B1-5. This comment does not raise any significant environmental issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-3 1. It is FID’s understanding that a trail is master-planned along the Enterprise canal bank. This project will be subject to the Master Clovis Trials and Rightof-Way Use Agreement executed by and between FID and the City of Clovis effective March 1, 2022.

The proposed project would be subject to requirements and limitations of the Master Clovis Trails and Right-Of-Way Use Agreement between the City and FID, and would not violate the terms of the Agreement. As such, this comment is noted, but does not raise any significant environmental issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-4 Thank you for submitting this for our review. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for the proposed project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Chris Lundeen at (559) 233-7161 extension 7410 or [email protected].

This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not question the adequacy of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-5 Attachment #1: Fresno Irrigation District (FID) comment letter on Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tract Map 6343 Project, dated April 7, 2023.

This comment includes the comment letter submitted by FID on April 7, 2023 in response to the NOP for the Draft EIR. This comment letter includes a series of requirements and recommendations for the proposed project, which would occur in the near vicinity of the Enterprise Canal, an FID facility.

The comment discusses FID’s requirements to review and approve any applicable project plans for improvements in the vicinity of the Enterprise Canal and other canal or pipeline facilities belonging to FID, the City and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), as well as any improvements along East Shepherd Avenue, North 2813
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -14 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
Sunnyside Avenue, and North Baron Avenue; FID requirements for the proposed project to grant FID an exclusive easement for land underlying and adjacent to the Canal, as applicable, pursuant to FID policy and Water Code Section 22425; FID requirements to establish the Enterprise Canal right-of-way (ROW) to ensure there is a minimum of 20-feet along all points of the Canal, as applicable, measuring from the top hinge of the Canal to the top of the Canal bank; and FID requirements for the Project Applicant to implement applicable improvements to preserve the Enterprise Canal’s urban integrity, including channel stabilization improvements, improvements related to drive banks/maintenance roads for the Enterprise Canal, and encroachments along banks of the Canal.

The Project Applicant shall engage FID for review of project improvement plans, including grading and drainage plans, to ensure that project construction would not result in impacts to FID, City, and FMFCD facilities; additionally, the Project Applicant would be subject to payment of applicable fees for review of project plans by the FID.

The proposed project would establish and/or preserve required FID easements, ensuring that a minimum distance of 20 feet between the project boundary and the Enterprise Canal is kept. Additionally, if construction of improvements within the Enterprise Canal ROW are required to preserve the Enterprise Canal’s urban integrity, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the FID to ensure that design of proposed improvements and review of all improvement plans is compliant with FID policies and requirements.

The comment also outlines FID requirements for trail projects planned under the City’s Parks Master Plan that would occur along the Enterprise Canal. The proposed project does not include construction of any trails planned under the City’s Parks Master Plan. As such, requirements for construction of any trails in the vicinity of the Enterprise Canal are not applicable to the proposed project. However, as applicable, any project improvements occurring in the vicinity of the Enterprise Canal would be subject to FID requirements, restrictions and policies.

The comment also mentions that FID would require access to the Enterprise Canal from the future extension of Clovis Avenue. However, the proposed project would 2814
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-15 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
not include the construction of the Clovis Avenue extension; as such, stipulations regarding FID access through Clovis Avenue are not applicable to the proposed project.

The comment also indicates that the FMFCD’s Hewitt Creek No. 496 traverses the project site, and could be potentially impacted by the proposed project. Hewitt Creek No. 496 is an underground canal that carries stormwater towards FMFCD’s drainage basin BY, located directly east of the project site. The Project Applicant would coordinate with the FMFCD and comply with applicable FMFCD requirements for project construction to ensure that implementation of the proposed project does not conflict with FMFCD operations and facilities.

The comment also discusses FID’s concerns regarding the proposed project’s potential impacts to groundwater supply, as well as the proposed project’s ability to aid the City in meeting requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). As discussed in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would aid groundwater recharge in the City through construction of surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure, per design requirements of the City and FMFCD, internally in the project site, as well as along North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue, to collect and direct stormwater generated in the project site towards FMFCD recharge facilities. Furthermore, per the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed project, also included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the City will have sufficient water supplies to provide water to this project. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with requirements of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, which includes programs and policies to manage water supplies, including groundwater, in the City in compliance with goals and requirements of SGMA. As such, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater management.

This comment is noted, but does not raise any significant environmental issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-6 Attachment #2: Notice of Preparation This comment includes the NOP for the proposed project, circulated on December 19, 2022. The comment is noted, but it does not raise any significant environmental 2815
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -16 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tract Map 6343 Project, dated December 19, 2022.
issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-7 Attachment #3: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343, dated January 12, 2024.

This comment includes the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR, circulated on January 12, 2024. The comment is noted, but it does not raise any significant environmental issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B1-8 Attachment #4: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343, dated January 19, 2024 (updated comment period).

This comment includes an updated NOA for the Draft EIR circulated on January 19, 2024. The comment is noted, but it does not raise any significant environmental issues related to the proposed project or the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

B2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (February 29, 2024) B2-1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Clovis (City) for Tract Map 6343 project. Per the DEIR, the project consists of the annexation of 246 acres for the development of 590 single-family residential lots on

71.54-acres and no development on the remaining 174.46-acres (Project). The Project is located on the southwest corner of East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue, in Clovis, CA.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

B2-2 1) Project Related Emissions
Based on the DEIR, Project specific annual criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are not expected to exceed any of the significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI):
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf.
1a) Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to further reduce impacts from construction related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available offroad construction equipment.

This comment acknowledges that the proposed project’s construction and operational annual criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) significance thresholds, but encourages the use of the cleanest available offroad construction equipment for the proposed project to further reduce emissions. The air quality analysis in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR assumed the use of Tier 2 construction equipment as Tier 2 equipment is required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation. As such, the proposed project would be required to meet this CARB regulation by using a minimum standard of Tier 2 equipment or better. As demonstrated in Table 4.2.H of the Draft EIR, construction emissions for the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD annual threshold for construction emissions. Additionally, compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII fugitive dust control measures (as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure AIR2) would further reduce the amount of PM10 emissions during the construction period. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts 2816
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-17 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
related to project emissions, and the additional mitigation measures proposed in this comment would not be required. No further response is necessary.

B2-3 2) Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community Since the Project consists of residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-machines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipmentvoucher-program/.

This comment states that gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions and recommends the SJVAPCD’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program. As demonstrated in Table 4.2.I of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions; therefore, emission reduction strategies, such as requiring electric lawn and garden equipment, would not be required. Further, all residential units would include exterior outlets, as required by Title 24, which would facilitate the use of electric yard equipment if desired by the future home owners.

B2-4 3) On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

This comment recommends that the City should consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the proposed project. As discussed on page 4.3-25 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), regarding energy conservation and green building standards. The proposed project would also incorporate sustainable design features, including, but not limited, to installation of energy-efficient light fixtures, high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, and rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar panels, consistent with the requirements of Title 24. In addition, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the private utility that would supply the proposed project’s electricity and natural gas services. In 2022, approximately 40 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, and various forms of bioenergy. PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade its distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. Since the proposed project would install rooftop PV systems and solar panels, the proposed project would be consistent with the suggestions included in this comment.

B2-5 4) District Rules and Regulations This comment provides information on SJVAPCD rules and regulations and states that current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. 2817
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -18 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-andplanning/current-district-rules-and-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230- 5888.

To identify other SJVAPCD rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office. This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

B2-6 4a) District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

This comment states that the proposed project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and would require SJVAPCD permits. This comment also states that prior to construction, the Project Applicant should submit to the SJVAPCD an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO). This comment is noted. The proposed project is a residential project and does not propose installation of any new or modified stationary sources. Therefore, SJVAPCD Rules 2010 and 2201 would not be applicable to the proposed project.
2818
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-19 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B2-7 4b) District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR) The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 50 dwelling units of residential.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510 so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the Project’s design. One AIA application should be submitted for the entire Project.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-ruleoverview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-ruleoverview/forms-and-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

This comment states that the project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and that an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As stated on page 4.2-19 of the Draft EIR, compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process.

However, the proposed project is required to comply with Rule 9510 and submit an AIA to the SJVACPD. The information provided in this comment is noted. 2819
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -20 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
B2-8 4c) District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolitionrenovation/ This comment states that in the event an existing building would be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4002. The proposed project would include demolition of existing onsite structures; therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 4002.

B2-9 4d) District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
This comment states that the proposed project may be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) since it may utilize architectural coatings. This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all required SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

B2-10 4e) District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written This comment states that the proposed project may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities, as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. In addition, as indicated in Section

4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to be consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure AIR-2.
2820
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) 3-21 Table 3.A: Comments and Responses Matrix
Letter/
Comment
Number
Comment Response
notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcpform.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
B2-11 4f) District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/residential-wood-smoke-reductionprogram/ This comment describes SJVAPCD Rule 4901, which limits installation of new wood burning fireplaces and heaters. The proposed project would not include any new wood burning fireplaces or heaters. As such, the proposed project would comply with SJVAPC Rule 4901.

B2-12 4g) Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

This comment states that the proposed project may be subject to the following SJVAPCD rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). This comment is noted. The proposed project would comply with all required SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

B2-13 5) District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is necessary. 2821
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
MARCH 2024
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\3.0-Comments and Responses.docx (04/04/24) -22 This page intentionally left blank
2822
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\4.0-DEIR Text Revisions.docx (04/04/24) 4-1

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS
This chapter presents specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR that are being made to clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of materials in the Draft EIR in response to comments received during the public review period and clarifications that are City-initiated. In no case do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a greater severity than those set forth in the Draft EIR. Further, the clarifications and corrections provided in the following revisions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with double‐underlined text, and deleted text is shown in strikethrough text.

SECTION 4.1, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure AG-2, on page 4.1-12, is amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure AG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shallwould need to petition the County of Fresno Board of Supervisors for cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030-014S. The Project Applicant would have to make the required statutory findings a set forth under Government Code Section 51282(a) to cancel the Williamson Act contract. If the County determines the required findings are met, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the unrestricted market value of the parcels to the County of Fresno as set forth under Government Code Section 51283(b). After approval of the cancellation petition by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Williamson Act contract would then be cancelled on APN 556-030-014S, and the Project Applicant would be able to develop uses that comply with the zoning designation of the parcel per the City of Clovis Zoning Code without the proposed development being inconsistent with a Williamson Act contract.

APPENDIX A, NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, on page 3-15 of the Initial Study is amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance. Any initial ground disturbance or tree pruning, or removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 1–September 30), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Should phased construction require tree removal or initial ground disturbance to ruderal areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 1510 days prior to each phase of 2823
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
4 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Final EIR\4.0-DEIR Text Revisions.docx (04/04/24) -2 clearing activities. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist shall identify an appropriate buffer where no clearing, grading, or construction activities with potential to have direct or indirect impacts on the nesting bird(s) are allowed to take place until after the nest is no longer active (e.g., the young birds have fledged), or as otherwise determined by the qualified biologist.
2824
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

APPENDIX H

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
2825
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
This page intentionally left blank
2826
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

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
February 23, 2024
Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA-Senior Planner
City of Clovis, Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
(559) 324-2335
[email protected]
Subject: Tract Map (TM) 6343 Project (Project)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2022120483
Dear Lily Cha-Haydostian:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR 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.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue 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

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.

Page 1 of 8 ends

A1-1
A1-2
2827
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

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.

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 may 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 Proposed Tract Map 6343 (Project) would consist of the annexation of 246 acres from Fresno County to the City of Clovis, and the development of 590 residential lots within the 71.54-acre Project site constructed in 3 phases. The proposed lots would be developed into single-family residences over time. Sixty-six outlot spaces would be developed into private roads, private parking, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, public utilities, and public park uses.

Page 2 of 8 ends

A1-3
A1-4
A1-2
2828
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

Perrin Avenue frontage. The proposed Project would also construct a two-lane, approximately 49-foot-wide and 2,650-foot-long extension of Baron Avenue south of East Behymer Avenue.

Location: The Tract Map 6343 Project site is located directly north of the City of Clovis limit line at the southwest corner of the East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue intersection. The Project site is bounded by East Behymer Avenue to the north, by the Enterprise Canal to the west and south, and by rural residential, a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) ponding basin, and Tract Map 6200 to the east. The Project site is in the northwest quadrant of Section 20, Township 12 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM).

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Clovis in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

There are special status species that may be present at the Project site that were not appropriately evaluated in the DEIR for this Project. CDFW recommends that these resources be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow grounddisturbing activities or land use changes. Specifically, CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the Federal and State threatened (FT/ST) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and the State candidate endangered (SCE) Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii).

Page 3 of 8 ends

A1-6
A1-5
A1-4
2829
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

not incorporate CDFW’s survey recommendations, CDFW reiterates the recommendation to conduct the surveys outlined in CDFW’s NOP comment letter, and, if necessary, including the avoidance, mitigation, and minimization measures recommended in the letter.

COMMENT 2: Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
The DEIR also does not include any evaluation for Crotch’s bumblebee (CBB) which was included in CDFW’s January 17, 2023, NOP comment letter. Survey recommendations (updated protocol) for CBB have changed from the recommendations in the NOP letter. CDFW continues to recommend that CBB surveys be conducted according to the most recent protocol and the information found from those used to make appropriate conclusions in the DEIR (CDFW 2023).

In addition to conducting protocol surveys for CBB, CDFW recommends the DEIR include the following measures:

In addition to performing the baseline surveys recommended by CDFW during the NOP comment period, CDFW recommends that additional surveys, following the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species, be repeated the blooming period immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: CBB Avoidance Buffer
If surveys cannot be completed, CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid unauthorized take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: CBB Take Authorization If CBB is identified during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to any ground disturbing activities may be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081(b).

Page 4 of 8 ends

A1-7
A1-6
2830
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

COMMENT 3: Nesting Birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance states that a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 15 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 10 days prior to each phase of clearing activities.

II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Clovis Planning Division in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

Page 5 of 8 ends

A1-8
A1-9
A1-10
A1-11
2831
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

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). If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

Page 6 of 8 ends

A1-11
2832
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
February 23, 2024

Page 7 ends

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

Page 7 of 8 ends

2833
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
1 Rev. 2013.1.1
Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: Tract Map 6343 Project
SCH No.: 2022120483

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

MEASURE

STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
CBB
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: CBB
surveys prior to construction
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: CBB
take authorization
During Construction
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: CBB
avoidance buffer

Page 8 of 8 ends

A1-12
ATTACHMENT #1
2834
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
“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) 908-7064 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
March 4, 2024
FRE-168-R7.361
DEIR – Draft EIR
Draft Environment Impact Report Tract Map 6343
SCH# 2022120483
https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/29548

SENT VIA EMAIL
Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA | Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Dear Mx. Lily Cha-Haydostian:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Tract Map (TM) 6343 which proposes to develop 71.54 acres into a 590 single-family residential development. The project is located south if Behymer Avenue between Minnewawa Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue, approximately 2.7 miles north of the State Route (SR) 168 and Herndon Avenue interchange.

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

Specific Comments:

1. The study lists the Near-Term (2026) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volume for the eastbound State Route 168 off-ramp right turns to be 903 and the Cumulative (2046) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volume for the eastbound State Route 168 off-ramp right turns to be 935 (at Intersection 14 northbound right-turns). Given the amount of growth in the area and the amount of the additional land annexed by the City of Clovis (174.46 acres of remaining annexation area surrounding the project site), this traffic volume increase appears underestimated. The forecasted volumes should be confirmed.

Page 1 of 3 ends

A2-1
A2-2
2835
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Mx. Lily Cha-Haydostian, Draft Environment Impact Report Tract Map 6343 March 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

2. The TIA mitigation provided for Intersections 13, 14, 15 was stated as “using signal timing coordination and optimization” and that would “eliminate the queuing issues.” However, signal timing sheets were not provided to substantiate the results.

Also, the reduction of control delay for Insertion 15 (Herndon Avenue / Clovis Avenue) from Cumulative Year (2046) with Project - PM Pk Hour to Cumulative Year (2046) with Project Mitigation - PM Pk Hour (90 4 seconds to 49.0 seconds) seems optimistic. Signal timing sheets should be provided to corroborate these findings.

General Comments

1. Caltrans highly recommends that the City consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.

3. Caltrans recommends the project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing units.

4. Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multimodal facilities should be conducted to develop an integrated multimodal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion resulting from the project and related development in the area of the City. The assessment should include the following:
a. Pedestrian walkways should not only be limited to the project’s internal connectivity but be connected to existing walkways and transit facilities outside the project area.
b. The project should consider coordinating connections to local and regional bicycle pathways to encourage the use of bicycles for commuter and recreational purposes.
c. If transit is not available within 1/4-mile of the project area, transit should be extended to provide services to high-activity centers of the project.

Page 2 of 3 ends

A2-3
A2-4
2836
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Mx. Lily Cha-Haydostian, Draft Environment Impact Report Tract Map 6343 March 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

6. 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 that 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
A2

Page 3 of 3 ends

A2-4
2837
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 1 of 22 ends

B1-1
B1-2
B1-3
B1-4
2838
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 2 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2839
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 3 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2840
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 4 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2841
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 5 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2842
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 6 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2843
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 7 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2844
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 8 of 22 ends

B1-5
ATTACHMENT #1
2845
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 9 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2846
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 10 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2847
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 11 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2848
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 12 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2849
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 13 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2850
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 14 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2851
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 15 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2852
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 16 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2853
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 17 of 22 ends

B1-6
ATTACHMENT #2
2854
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 18 of 22 ends

B1-7
ATTACHMENT #3
2855
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 19 of 22 ends

B1-7
ATTACHMENT #3
2856
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 20 of 22 ends

B1-8
ATTACHMENT #4
2857
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 21 of 22 ends

B1-8
ATTACHMENT #4
2858
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Page 22 of 22 ends

B1-8
ATTACHMENT #4
2859
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

February 29, 2024
Lily Cha-Haydostian
City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA, 93612
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343 District CEQA Reference No: 20240048
Dear Ms. Cha-Haydostian:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Clovis (City) for Tract Map 6343 project. Per the DEIR, the project consists of the annexation of 246 acres for the development of 590 single-family residential lots on 71.54-acres and no development on the remaining 174.46-acres (Project). The Project is located on the southwest corner of East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue, in Clovis, CA.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Project Related Emissions
Based on the DEIR, Project specific annual criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are not expected to exceed any of the significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI): https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf.

Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to further reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available offroad construction equipment.

Page 1 of 6 ends

B2-1
B2-2
2860
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 6 District Reference No: 20240048
February 29, 2024

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yardmachines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emissionlandscaping-equipment-voucher-program/.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

Page 2 of 6 ends

B2-3
B2-4
B2-5
2861
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 6 District Reference No: 20240048
February 29, 2024

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 50 dwelling units of residential.

Page 3 of 6 ends

B2-6
B2-7
2862
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 6 District Reference No: 20240048
February 29, 2024

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/formsand-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolitionrenovation/ District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Page 4 of 6 ends

B2-7
B2-8
B2-10
B2-9
2863
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 6 District Reference No: 20240048
February 29, 2024

cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/residential-wood-smoke-reductionprogram/ Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Page 5 of 6 ends

B2-11
B2-12
B2-10
2864
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 6 District Reference No: 20240048
February 29, 2024

District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
B2

Page 6 of 6 ends

B2-13
2865
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
APRIL 2024
This page intentionally left blank
2866
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

April 2024

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
TRACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
2867
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
2868
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

April 2024

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
TRACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. CIT2201
2869
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
2870
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
i

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 3 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 3 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Characteristics................................................................................................................... 3 PROCEDURAL FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS.......................................................................................... 7 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ............................................................................. 9 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................... 9 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................ 10 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................... 12 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 12 Cultural and Tribal Resources...................................................................................................... 16 Energy.......................................................................................................................................... 19 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................ 20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 21 Hazards and Hazardous materials............................................................................................... 23 Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................................... 24 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 24 Mineral Resources....................................................................................................................... 25 Noise............................................................................................................................................ 25 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 28 Public Services............................................................................................................................. 29 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 29 Transportation............................................................................................................................. 30 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................................... 34 Wildfire........................................................................................................................................ 35 Mitigation Monitoring................................................................................................................. 35 Significant Irreversible Environment Effects............................................................................... 36 Growth Inducement.................................................................................................................... 37 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................ 39 Alternatives Considered in the EIR.............................................................................................. 39 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 43 2871
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) ii This page intentionally left blank
2872
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 1

INTRODUCTION
The following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are based in part on the information contained in the Tract Map 6343 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2022120483) that was prepared by the City of Clovis (City) acting as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Hereafter, unless specifically identified, the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notices of Availability and Completion (NOA/NOC), Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), Appendices, Technical Studies, Final Environmental Impact Report containing Responses to Comments and textual revisions to the Draft EIR (in the Final Environmental Impact Report), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR.” These Findings are based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, including the EIR. The EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the City of Clovis, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California, and electronically at:
https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/planning/ceqa/ The purpose of these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, associated with approval of proposed Tract Map 6343 (herein referred to as the proposed project). 2873
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2874
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is in an unincorporated area of Fresno County. The project site is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Clovis, and within the Northwest Urban Center area identified in the City’s General Plan, now referred to as Heritage Grove. The project site is bounded by East Behymer Avenue to the north, by the Enterprise Canal to the west and south, and by rural residential, Fresno Municipal Flood Control District (FMFCD) ponding basin, and Tract Map 6200 to the east.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following is a list of objectives for the proposed project:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis.
• Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand.
• Implement the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land.
• Provide infrastructure that meets City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections.
• Develop a project that meets City Standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project would consist of the annexation of 246 acres by the City of Clovis, and the development of approximately 590 residential lots, averaging approximately 3,329 square feet within the 71.54-acre project site. The proposed lots would be developed into single-family residences over time. Sixty-six outlot spaces that would potentially be developed into private roads, private parking, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, public utilities, and public park uses would also be included within the project site.

No development is proposed within the remaining 174.46-acre annexation area surrounding the project site. The proposed project would include annexation of the 246-acre area from Fresno County jurisdiction to the City of Clovis. Any future development occurring within the annexation area would require a separate project-specific analysis. The proposed project would be developed in three phases, as described below.

Phase 1 would include the development of approximately 136 single-family residential units with an average size of approximately 1,514 square feet per unit. Phase 1 would be located on the southern 2875
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
4 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) portion of the project site and would be accessed through one ingress and egress street on Perrin Avenue. Phase 1 would include the construction of approximately 44 parking spaces, an approximately 8,745 square-foot community pool and recreation area, an approximately 13,930- square-foot community park, approximately 0.51 acre of landscaped areas, and drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Perrin Avenue. The southern extension of North Baron Avenue from East Behymer Avenue and the extension of Perrin and Hammel Avenue within the project site would be constructed during Phase 1.

Phase 2 would include the development of approximately 214 single-family residential units with an average size of approximately 2,168 square feet per unit. Phase 2 would be located on the central portion of the project site and would be accessed through one gated ingress and egress street along the future southern extension of Baron Avenue, and one gated ingress and egress street along Hammel Avenue. Phase 2 would include the construction of an approximately 26-foot-wide drainage channel along Perrin Avenue, approximately 0.35 acre of landscaped areas, as well as storm drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Perrin Avenue and Hammel Avenue.

Phase 3 of the proposed project would include the development of approximately 240 single-family residential units with an average size of approximately 1,514 square feet per unit. Phase 3 would be located on the northern portion of the project site and would be accessed through two gated ingress and egress streets located along the future southern extension of Baron Avenue, and through one gated egress street access located along the future northern extension of Hammel Avenue. Phase 3 would include the construction of approximately 91 parking spaces, an approximately 9,985-square-foot pool and recreation area, approximately 0.65 acre of landscaped areas, and drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Baron Avenue.

In addition, development of the project site would include infrastructure improvements for water services along the East Behymer Avenue frontage and Baron Avenue frontage, as well as stormwater management infrastructure improvements along the Perrin Avenue frontage. The proposed project would also construct a two-lane, approximately 49-foot-wide and 2,650-foot-long extension of Baron Avenue south of East Behymer Avenue.

A number of other permits and approvals are also contemplated as part of the project, as further described in Section 3.0 of the EIR, which is incorporated by reference. 2876
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 5

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
On December 19, 2022, the City circulated an NOP notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the proposed project and indicated the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, interested parties, and organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed project. A scoping session was held in person on January 13, 2022, to solicit feedback regarding the scope and content of the EIR. Comments received by the City on the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR was made available for public review on January 12, 2024, and was distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies. The NOA for the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, provided to all individuals and organizations who made a written request for notice, and filed with the Fresno County Clerk.

The CEQA-mandated public comment period ended on March 4, 2024. The City accepted and responded to all comments received during the 53-day public comment period for the Draft EIR, between January 12, 2024, and March 4, 2024.

Following public review of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR was prepared. The Final EIR was made available in March 2024 and consists of the following items:
• The Dra� EIR released on January 12, 2024.
• Responses to Comments; and
• Text revisions to the Dra� EIR.

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), public agencies that commented on the Public Review Draft EIR were provided at least 10 days to review the proposed responses contained in the Final EIR prior to the date for consideration of the Final EIR for certification. 2877
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
6 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2878
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 7

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21167.6(e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project includes the following documents, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
• City staff reports and all atachments;
• The Dra� EIR and all appendices to the Dra� EIR;
• The Final EIR and all appendices to the Final EIR;
• All no�ces required by CEQA and presenta�on materials related to the project; • All comments submited by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP and the Dra� EIR;
• All studies conducted for the project and contained or referenced in the Dra� EIR and the Final EIR;
• All documents cited or referenced in the Dra� EIR and the Final EIR; • All public reports and documents related to the project prepared for the City and other agencies; • All other documents related to the project;
• The MMRP for the project; and
• Any addi�onal items not included above if otherwise required by law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at the City’s offices at 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California.

The Draft EIR and Final EIR are incorporated into these Findings in their entirety, unless and only to the extent that these Findings expressly do not incorporate by reference the Draft EIR and Final EIR.

Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse physical environmental impacts. 2879
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
8 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2880
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 9

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The Draft EIR identified a number of less than significant impacts associated with the project that do not require mitigation. The Draft EIR also identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the project.

Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects cannot be, and thus may be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” however, the City has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the project.

The findings of the City with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to replicate or restate the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Please refer to the Draft EIR and Final EIR for more detail.

The following provides a summary description of each potentially significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by the City, and states the findings of the City regarding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft EIR and Final EIR and associated record (described herein), both of which are incorporated by reference. The City hereby ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these Findings, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of other agencies, the City finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091[a][2]).

AESTHETICS
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or to Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. • The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. • The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). Due to the location of the project in an urbanized area, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. 2881
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
10 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) • The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Impact AG-1: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. • Impact AG-3: The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
• The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section.51104(g)). • The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• Impact AG-2: The project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: The proposed project site is in APN 556-030-014S, which is currently under a Williamson Act contract. As APN 556-030-014S is identified for development pursuant to the General Plan, a Williamson Act cancellation process for the parcel would take place prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-2 would ensure compliance with the required procedure for cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030-014S. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-2, by the time project development begins at the project site, there would be no parcels within the project site 2882
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 11 under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, with Mitigation Measure AG-2, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agriculture or a Williamson Act contract, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall petition the County of Fresno Board of Supervisors for
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030- 014S. The Project Applicant would have to make the required statutory findings a set forth under Government Code Section 51282(a) to cancel the Williamson Act contract. If the County determines the required findings are met, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the unrestricted market value of the parcels to the County of Fresno as set forth under Government Code Section 51283(b). After approval of the cancellation petition by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, the Williamson Act
contract would then be cancelled on APN 556-030-014S, and the Project Applicant would be able to develop uses that comply with the zoning designation of the parcel per the City of Clovis Zoning Code without the proposed development being inconsistent with a Williamson Act contract.
• Impact AG-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to agricultural resources.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: The project would implement Mitigation Measure AG-2 to reduce impacts related to conflicts with a Williamson Act contract to less than significant levels, as described above.

Additionally, although the proposed project would result in the conversion of agricultural uses to nonagricultural uses through development of the project site, the City of Clovis General Plan EIR previously identified that conversion of farmland resulting from development of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. As such, the project would not result in new significant impacts that would contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources. Further, the project site does not include any forestlands or timberland, so implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to forestry resources. Thus, the project would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, and cumulative impacts to these resources would be less than significant.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.
2883
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
12 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24)

AIR QUALITY
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. • Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in significant odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people.
• Impact AIR-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less than Significant • None.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
• The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 2884
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 13 • The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• The project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: The project site contains suitable nesting habitat for a variety of birds.

Nearly all native birds are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. Construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (typically February 1 through September 30) have potential to result in the mortality/disturbance of nesting birds.

Conducting pre-construction surveys and establishing buffers would prevent or compensate for impacts on special-status bird species. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require conducting pre-construction surveys, and establishing buffers if nesting birds are found during the surveys, would effectively mitigate any impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.

In addition, eight existing trees in the project site have the potential to be used as nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk, a state-protected species. Construction activities that occur near the trees onsite, or that directly affect potential nesting habitat could result in “take” of Swainson’s hawk.

Conducting pre-construction surveys, establishing buffers, and having a qualified biologist monitoring any existing nests, as applicable, would prevent or compensate for impacts on Swainson’s hawk. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which would require conducting pre-construction surveys, establishing buffers and monitoring, as applicable, would effectively mitigate any impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less than significant levels.

Further, old pipelines present near the existing residence on the project site and along the Enterprise Canal have the potential to be used as nesting habitat by the burrowing owl, a stateprotected species. Construction activities that occur near, or that directly affect, potential nesting habitat could result in “take” of burrowing owl. Conducting pre-construction surveys, establishing buffers, and passive relocation of burrowing owls under the direction of a qualified biologist, as applicable, would prevent or compensate for impacts on burrowing owl. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which would require conducting pre2885 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
14 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) construction surveys, establishing buffers and passive relocation, as applicable, would effectively mitigate any impacts to burrowing owls to less than significant levels.

No other special-status species were determined to have a moderate or high probability of occurrence on the project site. As such, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to special-status species to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance. Any initial ground disturbance or tree pruning, or removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 1– September 30), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should phased construction require tree removal or initial ground disturbance to ruderal areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 10 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist shall identify an appropriate buffer where no clearing, grading, or construction activities with potential to have direct or indirect impacts on the nesting bird(s) are allowed to take place until after the nest is no longer active (e.g., the young birds have fledged), or as otherwise determined by the qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐2 Conduct Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk Nests and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures. The qualified biologist will conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) along the existing trees within the project site. No sooner than 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activity, the qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of nests identified during the earlier surveys to determine if any are occupied. The initial nesting season surveys and subsequent preconstruction nest surveys will follow the protocols set out in the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee [SHTAC] 2000) or guidance current at the time of project implementation. Available database records will be used to support the survey.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 15 1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to
Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California, and the status of the nest will be monitored until the young fledge or for the length of construction activities, whichever occurs first. Adjustments to the buffer(s) may be made in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

If an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest site is to be removed, an incidental take permit under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) will be obtained, and impacts will be minimized through permitting with the CDFW and fully mitigated.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Conduct Pre-construction Clearance Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A pre-construction clearance survey will be conducted in the vicinity of the existing residence on site, as well as within the disturbed annual grassland and embankments of the
Enterprise No. 109 Canal by a qualified biologist for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) no more than 30 calendar days prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities. All surveys will follow the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation methodology, or guidance current at the time of project implementation, and results shall be delivered to CDFW and the City of Clovis. If the survey results find an active burrow, the Project Applicant must coordinate with the CDFW to obtain applicable agency approval/permit prior to any ground disturbance activities on the site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Passive Relocation Measures for Burrowing Owl. If burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are detected during the preconstruction surveys, occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 for owls and other raptors). The non-disturbance buffer will include a minimum 330-foot (100-meter) buffer zone around any
occupied burrow unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either (1) burrowing owls have not begun egg laying and incubation, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The sizes of individual buffers may be modified through coordination with the CDFW based on site-specific conditions and existing disturbance levels.

During the non-nesting season or if the qualified biologist determines either (1) or (2) above, the Project Applicant will coordinate with the CDFW to construct artificial burrows and passively relocate the owl(s). Passive relocation is defined as 2887
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
16 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond approximately 160 feet (50 meters) from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls (California Burrowing Owl
Consortium 1993).

If passive relocation is required, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Exclusion and Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Land Management Plan in accordance with the
CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and for review by CDFW prior to passive relocation activities. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within an approximately 160-foot (50-meter) buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. One-way doors shall be left in place for 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow before excavation. One alternate natural or artificial burrow shall be provided for each burrow that will be excavated in the project impact zone. The project site shall be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate impact zone. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe or burlap bags shall be inserted into the tunnels.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: No historical resources were identified within the project site. In the event that unknown resources are discovered during project construction, existing federal, State, 2888
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 17 and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined to not be of significance by a qualified professional.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require consultation with a historical resources specialist to assess whether the discovered resource qualifies as a historical resource and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, if applicable. Therefore, potential impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Consultation with Qualified Historical Specialist for Resources Found During Project Construction. If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study.

The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City of Clovis on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

If the resources are determined to be unique archeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of green space, parks, or open space in
undeveloped areas of the project site, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the protection measures. Any
historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City of Clovis-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. A report of findings shall also be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.
• The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)). 2889
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
18 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) Rationale for the Finding: No archaeological resources were identified in the project site. However, there is a potential for unknown archaeological resources to be discovered during construction of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work in the area would halt and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted and consulted regarding how to appropriately address the situation. This would minimize or eliminate any potential for an adverse change to the significance of any discovered archaeological resources. Therefore, adherence to the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, described above, would reduce potential impacts from a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 to less than significant with mitigation.
• The project would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: Disturbance of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries would result in a significant impact. If human remains are identified during project construction, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98 shall apply, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires adherence to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL2, potential impacts related to disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the
consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the Project Applicant shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the Project Applicant has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. 2890
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 19 The Project Applicant shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.
• The project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC 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.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: While there is no evidence to suggest the presence of tribal cultural resources, if any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resource professional. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work in the area would halt and a qualified archaeologist would be contacted. Further, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations if human remains of tribal origin are found during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, adherence to the requirements of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts related to the substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource to less than significant.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

ENERGY
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
• The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.
2891
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
20 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24)

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Directly or Indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
○ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
○ Strong seismic ground shaking.
○ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. ○ Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: No paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to exist within or near the project site, and the proposed project is not expected to alter or destroy a paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. However, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, in the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts related to the project’s potential 2892
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 21 to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature to less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 If any potentially significant paleontological resources are discovered during grading activities, all construction activities shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a certified professional paleontologist shall provide recommendations and mitigation measures to protect the resource.

If a potentially significant resource is encountered, then the qualified professional paleontologist, the City of Clovis, and the Project Applicant shall arrange for either (1) total avoidance of the resource or (2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the City of Clovis as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• Impact GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: As neither the City nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds, the significance of GHG emissions from the project was analyzed based on the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions in Appendix D, Local Actions1
, of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan such 1 CARB. 2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions. November. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf (accessed February 2023). 2893
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
22 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) as a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP), the first approach the State recommends for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing.

The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that a residen�al or mixed-use project provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambi�ous voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the �me of project approval. Implementa�on of Mi�ga�on Measure GHG-1 would be required to ensure the proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging. With implementa�on of Mi�ga�on Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with this key project atribute.

Further, the project is generally consistent with all the other key atributes and recommenda�ons from the 2022 Scoping Plan, including development in an infill site, as the project site is located in area that has been marked for development of mixed uses, is presently served by exis�ng u�li�es and essen�al public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer), and will implement design features that would reduce project VMT. Addi�onally, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the conversion of farmland; would be consistent with the transit density criteria recommended in the Scoping Plan; would meet parking reduc�on requirements of the Scoping Plan; would advance State housing goals by increasing housing opportuni�es in the San Joaquin Valley; and would be all-electric and would not include natural gas, as recommended in the Scoping Plan.

With implementa�on of Mi�ga�on Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residen�al and mixed-use project atributes related to EV charging requirements, and the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1 In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, each residential unit shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities as part of the final project designs. • Impact GHG-2: The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Rationale for the Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

The project was analyzed for consistency with State GHG reduction goals, namely goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. As described above under Impact GHG-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project would be consistent with all key attributes and goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, 2894
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 23 the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and the impact would be less than significant. • Impact GHG-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Rationale for the Finding: As presented above, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with State GHG reduction goals in the 2022 Scoping Plan to assess significance of project GHG emissions. Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan key residential and mixed-use project attributes related to building electrification with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the EV charging requirements.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on climate change.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. • The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
2895
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
24 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) • The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. • The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• The project would not 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.
• The project would not release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone.
• The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (SGMA).

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not physically divide an established community. 2896
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 25 • The project would not cause 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.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environmental or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not 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.
• The project would not 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.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

NOISE
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
• Impact NOI-3: 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 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
2897
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
26 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would generate 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 in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include single-family residential uses located approximately 55 feet east of the project site along Behymer Avenue, approximately 230 feet west of the project site, and approximately 530 southeast of the project site along Baron Avenue. An evaluation of construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors determined that the closest sensitive receptor may be subject to short-term maximum construction noise reaching 86 dBA Lmax during project construction. Consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section 5.27.604, construction noises are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. From June 1st through September 15th, permitted construction activity may commence after 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. While construction noise impacts are exempt from specific noise levels limits under the City’s Municipal Code, project construction noise would result in a potentially significant impact at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 would be required to ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 requires the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity during construction.

Noise-generating uses associated with development of the proposed project would typically include vehicle traffic and operational noise, such as HVAC and pool pump equipment. Although noise level associated with off-site traffic from the project is not expected to exceed the significance threshold for perceptible noise-level increases of 3 dBA or more, and noise levels from stationary sources like HVAC equipment noise or pool pumps are not expected to exceed the City’s maximum exterior noise level standards for residential uses of 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours, as measured at the nearest receiving sensitive land use, noise associated with onsite project traffic would require implementation of noise insulation features in project design to fulfill the City’s normally acceptable interior noise level criterion. Implementation of an HVAC system would allow windows to remain closed in order to reduce interior noise levels by 25 dBA, resulting in interior noise levels of 42 dBA CNEL, which would meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2 below would include modifications to ensure that buildings would comply with the City’s noise and land use compatibility standards and reduce interior noise impacts. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1 and NOI2898 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 27

1.2, construction and operational noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the proposed project:
• Equip all construc�on equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly opera�ng and maintained mufflers consistent
with manufacturers’ standards.
• Place all sta�onary construc�on equipment so that
emited noise is directed away from sensi�ve receptors
nearest the ac�ve project site.
• Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construc�on-related
noise sources and noise-sensi�ve receptors nearest the
ac�ve project site during all construc�on ac�vi�es.
• Ensure that all general construc�on related ac�vi�es are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m., Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. From June 1st
through September 15th, permited construc�on
ac�vity may commence a�er 6:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday, consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construc�on noise. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., star�ng too early, bad muffler) and
would determine and implement reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the proposed project:
• In order for windows and doors to remain closed,
mechanical ven�la�on such as air condi�oning shall be
provided for all units.
• All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 26 or
higher such that the noise reduc�on provided will
sa�sfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
2899
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
28 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) • Impact NOI-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to noise.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (14 CCR § 15091(a)(1)).

As discussed above, the project would require implementation of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation features in project design to fulfill the City’s normally acceptable interior noise level criterion. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2, interior noise levels would be reduced to 45 dBA or less and would be acceptable under the City’s land use compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable significant noise impact.

Additionally, while construction noise impacts are exempt from specific noise levels limits under the City’s Municipal Code, project construction noise would result in a potentially significant impact at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1, which would require that construction equipment is properly equipped with mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, staged at the greatest distance possible from sensitive receptors, and would require the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise, the proposed project would not result in adverse noise impacts from construction activities. Although the proposed project may be under construction at the same time as one or more cumulative development projects, each project would be required to implement similar measures as those identified in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 to ensure that construction noise levels are reduced to the extent feasible and to ensure that construction activities comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. In addition, construction-related noise impacts would be temporary and would no longer occur once construction of each project is completed. Therefore, construction activities would not be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the total noise environment in the project site vicinity, and this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not 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).
• The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
2900
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 29 Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• 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?
○ Police protection?
○ Schools?
○ Parks?
○ Other public facilities?
Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

RECREATION
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• 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. • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.
2901
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
30 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Impact TRA-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Impact TRA-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • Impact TRA-1: The project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Finding: No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities in compliance with City design requirements and with multi-modal transportation goals of the City’s Active Transportation Plan or the General Plan. Additionally, the project would result in no conflict with current and planned transit facilities and routes in the City. As such, potential impacts to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR) conducted an LOS study to identify existing, near‐term, and cumulative plus project and without project traffic volumes at study roadway segments and study intersections to identify if any LOS deficiencies would occur under the different scenarios analyzed. The TIA identified that LOS deficiencies would occur at four study intersections under an existing plus project scenario, nine intersections would experience LOS deficiencies under the near-term (2026) plus project scenario, and fourteen intersections would experience LOS deficiencies under the cumulative (2046) plus project scenario. Tables 9‐B through 9-D of the TIA illustrate the post‐improvement intersection levels of service for the different scenarios. As shown in these tables, implementation of recommended improvements would improve operations at all study intersections to operate at satisfactory LOS levels. As shown in Table 9-H of the TIA, the project would pay into the Clovis Development Impact Fee (Clovis DIF) Program and the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) as applicable to fund recommended improvements. Therefore, the intersections are forecast 2902
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 31 to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the implementation of the recommended improvements and impacts to the study intersections’ LOS would be less than significant.

The TIA also identified that three roadway segments are forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under the near-term (2026) plus project scenario, and eight roadway segments are forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS under the cumulative (2046) plus project scenario. All local City of Clovis study roadways segments would be able to implement improvements via payment to the Clovis DIF Program to improve operations and operate at satisfactory LOS levels.

However, the diverge segment at the SR‐168 westbound Herndon Avenue Off‐Ramp, under Caltrans jurisdiction, is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory condition (LOS F) during PM peak hours under existing, near‐term (2026) and cumulative (2046) conditions. As such, improvements would be required at this off‐ramp location to improve traffic operations on the freeway mainline. The project would be subject to payment of to the RTMF Program for its fair share contribution to regional improvements. The RTMF is intended to ensure that future development contribute its fair share towards the costs of infrastructure to mitigate the cumulative indirect regional transportation impacts of new growth in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.

However, since the project has no direct control of implementing improvements at a Caltrans facility, and implementation of recommended improvements would be subject to Caltrans implementation schedule, which is unknown at this time, the LOS deficiency at this location would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Impact TRA-2: The proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b).

Finding: No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

The TIA for the proposed project includes a detailed VMT analysis that follows VMT analysis methodology of the City’s TIA Guidelines. As recommended in the TIA Guidelines, the VMT analysis for the project was conducted using the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM). The model database was updated with the project land use to calculate project VMT. The project would have a significant VMT impact if the baseline project VMT per capita is greater than 87 percent of the baseline Fresno County VMT per capita. Based on the TIA Guidelines, baseline Fresno County VMT per capita is 16.1 and the corresponding threshold is 14.1 (which is 87 percent of 16.1). Therefore, the project would have a significant VMT impact if the project VMT per capita is greater than 14.1.

Based on the Fresno COG ABM model output, the project’s VMT was calculated to be 17.8 VMT per capita, 26.4 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold. Therefore, based on the TIA Guidelines, the project would have a significant VMT impact.

When a lead agency identifies a significant CEQA impact, the agency must identify feasible mitigation measures in order to avoid or substantially reduce that impact. VMT impacts can be mitigated through more behavioral changes. Enforcement of mitigation measures will be subject to the mitigation monitoring requirements under CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the agency. These measures can also be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project 2903
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
32 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) designs. Project design features that encourage mode shift from automobiles to transit or nonmotorized modes can therefore help reduce project VMT as well.

As per information provided by the Project Applicant, the project intends to implement project design features that would help reduce project VMT, and VMT reduction that can be achieved by the project’s design features was estimated using the most recent CAPCOA’s “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity – Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers” (Handbook) dated December 20211
. These design features include pedestrian infrastructure both internal to the project site and along the project frontage, internal circulation improvements for increased street connectivity, bicycle infrastructure and improvements, and EV parking and charging infrastructure. Implementation of the above project design features may possibly reduce the project’s VMT by approximately up to 4.24 percent. However, due to the nature of the project (i.e., single family residential development) and its location, which necessitates travelling off-site to access a variety of services, the project design features identified could potentially help offset some of the VMT impacts of the project but will not reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project will have a significant and unavoidable impact. • Impact TRA-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect to transportation.

Finding: No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations, including the City’s General Plan policies and ATP guidelines as it relates to transit, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities, as described above. The proposed project would not conflict with existing and planned transit facilities in the City, and would construct bicycles, and pedestrian facilities that would increase the connectivity of the City and further implement the City’s General Plan policies and meet ATP multimodal transportation goals. The proposed project would also not include the construction of hazardous or incompatible design features in the project site. The proposed project’s plans would be subject to review and approval by the CFD and the City’s Engineering Division to ensure the project includes adequate emergency access.

The TIA identifies roadways that would conflict with LOS standards of the Cities of Clovis and Fresno, and Caltrans with implementation of the proposed project. In most cases, in combination with cumulative conditions, the roadways and segments would be improved to meet the standards of Clovis, Fresno, and Caltrans. However, one diverge segment in Caltrans’ jurisdiction is unlikely to be improved to meet Caltrans’ standards prior to implementation of the proposed project due to the project having no direct control of implementing improvements at a Caltrans facility and Caltrans’ timing schedule for implementation of recommended improvements being unknown at this time. As 1 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA). 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity – Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers. December. 2904
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 33 discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would result in conflicts with policies related to LOS standards that would not be able to be improved due to existing constraints. As a result, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact would occur.

Further, the proposed project’s VMT was calculated to be 17.8 VMT per capita, 26.4 percent higher than the City’s VMT per capita threshold of 14.1.

As described in detail in the TIA and the Draft EIR, VMT impacts may be mitigated through behavioral changes in travel/commute patterns. Enforcement of VMT mitigation measures will be subject to the mitigation monitoring requirements under CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the agency. These measures can also be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project design features. As such, project design features should not be differentiated in general from ‘mitigation measures’, since the ultimate intent of project design features is also to help offset the VMT impacts.

Additionally, project VMT can only be reduced by changes in residents’ behavioral pattern. Project VMT, or in general average VMT for project residents is a function of regional and project location, neighborhood and surrounding land uses, local access to amenities, availability of different modes of transportation, among others. As such, projects that are in close proximity to complementary land uses and transportation mode choices tend to exhibit low VMT trends. Given the location of the project, the project has limited options of surrounding land uses and transportation modes. As such, the project has limited options for VMT reduction through appropriate mitigation measures.

Typically, within the state of California, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity – Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers” dated December 2021 is recognized as a compliant source of VMT reduction measures. These measures, with the exception of the ones project would be implementing as project design features, were evaluated on comparison with the project and was estimated infeasible to implement, because of several type of constraints. As such, only after conducting an extensive review of all VMT reduction options listed in the CAPCOA manual, the EIR concluded that the project VMT impact could not be mitigated. These measures include mitigations related to land use, trip reduction programs, parking or road pricing/management, neighborhood design and transit. Measures related to trip reduction programs could only be implemented by employers and is not applicable to residential projects. Measures related to parking or road pricing/management is only applicable to multifamily residential projects.

Additionally, Clovis Transit Stageline Routes 10 and 80 operate within the Study Area. Route 10 operates from Monday through Saturday, while Route 80 operates only on school days, based on the Clovis Unified School District schedule. Route 10 provide access to Fresno State University and Route 80 provides access to the Buchanan Education Complex. Also, Fresno Area Express (FAX) Route 3 operates within the Study Area along Willow Avenue 7 days a week. The route connects communities in Fresno to the different campuses of Clovis Community College. In addition to fixed route services, Round Up is the Clovis paratransit service for disabled City residents. Round Up transit vehicles are all accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. These are all preexisting transit services available to the Project that will help to reduce 2905
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
34 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) VMT. However, further public transit options may not be feasible because they would not result in usage or ridership sufficient to reduce project VMT to any degree. The theory that an increase in transit service would result in an increase in ridership is not reflected in the research published by the Transit Cooperative Research Board’s “Analysis of Recent Public Transit Ridership Trends” (Transportation Research Board, 2020) . The research from this analysis shows that the relationship between transit ridership and three other major factors influence ridership: 1) population, 2) transitdependent population (i.e. zero-vehicle household, and 3) transit service levels (i.e. transit vehicle revenue miles). In dense urban areas like San Francisco where it is very densely populated and residents often do not have vehicles, transit becomes an optimal transportation option and ridership is high. Alternatively, in suburban areas such as north Clovis with lower population density and when residents often have one or more vehicle in the household, increases in ridership would not be proportional to increases in transit service. As such, while public transit facilities in the vicinity of the Project already exists, further public transportation options would merely augment existing options in a manner that is largely duplicative of those services. As a result, significantly increasing transit services available in suburban or rural areas of Clovis is not anticipated to proportionately increase the ridership of the transit. As such, given the location and settings of the project and in the absence of complementary land uses, transit ridership in this area would be limited, and will not proportionately increase by simply increasing transit service. As such, it would be unsupported and speculative to claim that VMT per capita would be significantly reduced more than is already reflected in the Draft EIR by oversaturating transit services in an area that would not fully absorb the saturated transit available. The VMT analysis appropriately assumes a correct level of transit usage.

The project, as described in the TIA and Draft EIR, includes all feasible land use related and neighborhood design related mitigation measures as project design features. These project design features could reduce project’s VMT by up to 4.24 percent, this potential reduction would not help the project meet the required threshold of 14.1 VMT per capita.

As a result, a significant and unavoidable VMT impact would occur.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. • The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. 2906
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 35 • The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• The project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

WILDFIRE
Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • 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.
• 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. • 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.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
• None.

Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant • None.

MITIGATION MONITORING
An MMRP was prepared for the project and approved by the City (PRC Section 21081.6, Subd. [a][1]; CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with the project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
2907
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
36 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24)

SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126) require a discussion of the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in a project should it be implemented. The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is the permanent loss of resources for future or alternative purposes. Irreversible and irretrievable resources are those that cannot be recovered or recycled or those that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms.

CEQA requires that EIRs assess whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible changes to the physical environment. The CEQA Guidelines discuss three categories of significant irreversible changes that should be considered. Each is addressed below.

As mandated by the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from project implementation. According to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, such a change would occur if one of the following scenarios is involved:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • Irreversible damage would result from environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The proposed consump�on of resources is not jus�fied (e.g., the project would result in the wasteful use of energy).

The environmental effects of the proposed project are thoroughly discussed in Section 4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, and summarized in the Executive Summary. Implementation of the project would require the long‐term commitment of natural resources, as discussed below.

Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations
The proposed project would involve the development of land in the project site currently used for agricultural production. Although the proposed development would commit future generations to using the project site for developed uses rather than agricultural purposes, such a commitment is consistent with planned residential uses for the project site, as identified in the City’s General Plan.

The General Plan has anticipated development in the project site that commits future generations, which was assessed under the General Plan EIR; the proposed project merely implements and carries out the vision of the General Plan (Draft EIR, page 6-2).

Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Demolition and construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would involve some risk for environmental accidents. However, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, accidental spills and soil contamination would be addressed by City, State, and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry standards for safety and construction. Although there is a possibility for contaminated soil to be encountered during grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbance associated with implementation of the proposed project, it is likely that such contamination may have resulted from agricultural operations within the project site. However, the risks of accidental contamination from handling construction 2908
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 37 materials or transport of these materials off site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the many federal, State, and local regulations regarding the handling and disposal of such construction materials. Additionally, the residential land use proposed by the proposed project would not include any uses or activities that are likely to contribute to or be the cause of a significant environmental accident, such as industrial-related spills or leaks. As a result, the proposed project would not pose a substantial risk of environmental accidents (Draft EIR, page 6-2 and 6-3).

Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Approval and implementation of actions related to development of the project would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energy and construction materials. As discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, of the Initial Study, the projected electricity demands of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses in the City of Clovis, and would not result in a significant adverse impact related to the provision of electricity.

Therefore, the projected demand of the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to the provision of electricity.

In addition, the proposed project would comply with Title 24 of the CCR, which requires conservation practices that would limit the amount of energy (California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards [Title 24, Part 6]) consumed through implementation of the proposed project, as well as with all applicable California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) building efficiency standards (Title 24, Part 11) and mandatory residential building requirements in the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) (as required by State law).

Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would also result in an increased demand for potable water and generation of wastewater. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the project is consistent with growth under the City’s General Plan and covered under the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update.

The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to meet future demand during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update.

Although the construction and operation of the proposed project would involve the use of nonrenewable resources, through the inclusion of energy-conserving features of the proposed project, and compliance with applicable standards and regulations, the proposed project would not represent an unjustified use of such non-renewable resources (Draft EIR, page 6-3).

GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, could foster economic or population growth in the surrounding environment.
2909
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
38 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) As described in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of the Initial Study prepared for this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s projections for population growth in the project site, as the project site is located within the Heritage Grove Area, a planned growth area identified in the General Plan. As such, additional housing units and population resulting from implementation of the proposed project have been anticipated by the City and do not exceed projections of the City. Development of the proposed project would involve construction activities that could generate some temporary employment opportunities. However, given the temporary nature of such opportunities, it is unlikely that construction workers would need to relocate to the City or nearby communities. Thus, the proposed project would not be considered growth-inducing from an employment perspective, and the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly. This impact would be considered less than significant.

As discussed in Section 3.15, Public Services, and Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Initial Study, the project site would be served by the City’s public service or utility providers, including police protection services, fire prevention services, water, wastewater, telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. The proposed project includes physical improvements to accommodate growth which would create an increased demand for public services and utilities within the project site. As the project site is currently not annexed to the City, the Project Applicant would be required to complete the annexation process with the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (Fresno LAFCO) and the City, and pay required processing fees for the annexation process. Once the project site is annexed into the City, to address impacts to public services and utilities, the Project Applicant would be required to pay applicable impact fees in effect at the time the development application for the proposed project is submitted. City staff would review the site plan for the project to ensure the adequate provision of public services and utilities. As the project site is located within the Heritage Grove Area, a planned growth area identified in the General Plan, and installation of infrastructure and provision of services would accommodate planned growth in the project site, the provision of services and construction of utilities’ infrastructure for the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in Clovis, either directly or indirectly, and this impact would be less than significant.

Development of the proposed project would involve construction activities that could generate some temporary employment opportunities. However, given the temporary nature of such opportunities, it is unlikely that construction workers would need to relocate to the City or other communities near the project site because of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not be considered growth-inducing from an employment perspective (Draft EIR, page 6-1 and page 6-2).
2910
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 39

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.

An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIR
The following alternatives to the project are evaluated in detail in the EIR, as described below:
• Alterna�ve 1: No Project Alterna�ve: Under the No Project Alterna�ve, the project site would not be developed, and exis�ng land uses would remain. No modifica�ons to exis�ng site access or infrastructure would occur, and the annexa�on of 246 acres to the City of Clovis would not occur.
• Alterna�ve 2: Reduced Project Alterna�ve: Under the Reduced Project Alterna�ve, the proposed project would reduce the proposed density of 8.25 dwelling units per acre for (DU/acre) for the proposed project to 4.12 DU/acre, for a total of 295 residen�al units. Proposed site access and infrastructure improvements would remain the same as those iden�fied for the proposed project. Annexa�on 246 acres, as proposed by the project would occur. • Alterna�ve 3: Increased Phase Density Alterna�ve: Under the Increased Phase Density Alterna�ve, 590 residen�al units would be constructed within the 71.54-acre project site, but the residen�al units would be constructed on approximately 24 acres on northern por�on of the project site and 24 acres on the southern por�on of the project site to reduce the overall construc�on period. The remaining approximately 23 acres of the project would be developed as public open space. Overall density of the project site would remain the same as the proposed project (8.25 DU/acre), but each 24-acre development area would have density of 12.3 DU/acre.

Proposed site access and infrastructure improvements would remain the same as those iden�fied for the proposed project. Annexa�on 246 acres, as proposed by the project would occur.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the less than significant and significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would also not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not: (a) provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate future housing demand in 2911
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
40 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) Clovis; (b) establish a mixture of housing types, sizes, and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; (c) implement the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; provide infrastructure that meets City Standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections; and (d) develop a project that meets City Standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would involve reducing the size of the proposed project by reducing the proposed residential density of 8.25 DU/acre in the site to a density of 4.12 DU/acre, and reducing the total proposed residential units from 590 to 295. The Reduced Project Alternative would partially address the City of Clovis’ future housing demand by providing a lower amount of visually attractive residential housing opportunities; partially meet local and regional housing demand by providing a single housing type, size and density; implement the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; and provide integrated and planned infrastructure and logical phasing of public improvements in compliance with City Standards.

However, because this alternative would provide half of the residential units and minimize mixture of housing types of the proposed project, this alternative would partially meet the objectives of the project.

Alternative 3: Increased Phase Density Alternative
The Increased Phase Density Alternative would involve focusing development of the proposed 590 single-family residences, but the development would occur in two, approximately 24-acre areas located in the southern and northern portions of the project site. The central portion of the project site, approximately 23 acres in size, would be developed as open space. The Increased Phase Density Alternative would accommodate future housing demands in Clovis by providing visually attractive single-family residences; partially provide for local and regional housing demand by establishing a single housing type, size, and density to accommodate higher residential density on the project site.

Additionally, this alternative implements the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; and provides integrated and planned infrastructure and logical phasing of public improvements in compliance with City Standards. Because this alternative would provide the same number of units, but would minimize mixture of housing types included in the proposed project, this alternative would partially meet the objectives of the project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it would not result in any development or new physical impacts. While this alternative would lessen or avoid the impacts of the proposed project, the beneficial impacts of the proposed project—including creating housing to meet local and regional housing demands—would not occur. Further, none of the Project Objectives would be met, including providing residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis; establishing a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand; implementing the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; providing infrastructure that meets City Standards and is integrated with existing and 2912
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 41 planned facilities and connections; and developing a project that meets City Standards by implementing a logical phasing plan for development of public infrastructure improvements.

As such, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. In addition, under CEQA, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).

The Increased Phase Density Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed project under most resource topics, except Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise. Under this alternative, construction Energy impacts would be fewer than the proposed project due to reduced construction duration due to increased density on the northern and southern portions of the project site, resulting in lower construction energy impacts. Additionally, operational impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions would be fewer under this alternative due to the higher density development proposed. In terms of Noise impacts, this alternative would result in shorter overall construction period, which would reduce the duration of noise-generating construction. Under this alternative, project objectives would be partially met, as this alternative would partially provide for local and regional housing demand by establishing a single housing type, size, and density to accommodate higher residential density on the project site; accommodate future housing demands in Clovis by providing visually attractive single-family residences; implement the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; and provide integrated and planned infrastructure and logical phasing of public improvements in compliance with City Standards. Further, this alternative would not be able to reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to Transportation to a less than significant level, because the significant and unavoidable LOS and VMT impacts that would result from the proposed project could still occur. As such, this alternative is rejected as infeasible.

The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the Reduced Project Alternative. Overall, this alternative would lessen significant and less-than-significant environmental impacts or result in impacts similar to those associated with the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would partially achieve Project Objectives, as it would partially address the City of Clovis’ future housing demand by providing a lower amount of visually attractive residential housing opportunities; partially meet local and regional housing demand by providing a single housing type, size and density; implement the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; and provide integrated and planned infrastructure and logical phasing of public improvements in compliance with City Standards. However, this alternative would also not be able to reduce the significant and unavoidable LOS and VMT impacts that were identified for the proposed project. As such, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. 2913
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
42 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2914
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) 43

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the project.

The City has carefully considered and balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects related to transportation. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the record.

This Statement of Overriding Considerations is based on the City’s review of the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other information in the administrative record. Based upon the City’s review and the substantial evidence in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, the City finds that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and furthermore, finds that such adverse, environmental effects are acceptable. The City also finds and determines that (1) the majority of the significant impacts of the project will be reduced to less-than-significant levels by implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in these findings; (2) the City’s approval of the project as proposed will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-than significant level the remaining significant environmental effects.

In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings for the project, the objectives of the project, and the considerations set forth below related to this project, the City chooses to approve the project because, in its view, the economic, social, technological, and other benefits resulting from the project substantially outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The benefits and reasons for the approval of the project despite the occurrence of significant unavoidable project impacts related to transportation (Impact TRA-1 – conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system; Impact TRA-2 – VMT impacts), which create or otherwise contribute to related cumulative impacts, consist of the items listed below.

The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the project can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the project itself; and in the record of proceedings as defined above. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval 2915
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
APRIL 2024
44 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Findings\TM_6343_Findings.docx (04/04/24) The City finds that the project will have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits, which constitute overriding considerations:
• The project would address the existing housing shortage in the City of Clovis and in Fresno County, by providing a variety of new housing types that can support the growing needs of the community.

The City of Clovis, like many other communities in Fresno County and California, is experiencing a housing shortage. The proposed project would provide approximately 590 new residential units, helping to address this demand. Ensuring that residents have access to suitable housing options is crucial for maintaining a healthy and balanced housing market. As such, the inclusion of different housing types, sizes, and densities in the project would also support the establishment of a vibrant and diverse community in the City, allowing individuals and families of varying needs and financial capacities to find housing that suits them. • The project would establish infrastructure improvements that would fulfill existing phased infrastructure plans in place to support fulfillment of the City’s General Plan.

The project would result in the construction of new infrastructure to integrate the project site with existing utility facilities and service systems in the City, consistent with the City's design standards. These improvements are crucial for enhancing the overall livability and functionality of the project site. Furthermore, the project aligns with the City's phased infrastructure plans outlined in the 2014 Master Service Plan, the 2017 Water Master Plan, the 2017 Wastewater Master Plan, and the 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan. By providing needed connections to the City's service network, these improvements would support the future development of the Heritage Grove area as a whole, minimizing potential disruptions during construction and ensuring the timely and sustainable fulfillment of the needs of planned mixed-use developments in Heritage Grove.
• The project would carry out the intent of the City’s General Plan of developing the Heritage Grove Area.

The project aligns with the City's General Plan, specifically the development objectives for the Heritage Grove area. This area is designated for growth and development in the General Plan, with a focus on creating a sustainable and livable community. The project's development for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives for Heritage Grove, contributing to the long-term development goals envisioned for the City. This ensures that the project not only provides immediate benefits by addressing housing and infrastructure needs but also contributes to the City's overall vision for sustainable growth and development.

Based on the detailed findings made above, the City hereby finds that economic and social considerations outweigh the remaining environmental effects of approval and implementation of the project.
2916
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24)

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study (IS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for Tract Map 6343 (herein referred to as the project), for which the City of Clovis (City) is the Lead Agency for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MMRP, which is provided in Table A, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS and EIR for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements.

This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the adoption of an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the CEQA process. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Timing for Mitigation Measure,” refers to the implementation and schedule of mitigation measures. The third column, entitled “Mitigation Responsibility,” refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled “Verification,” will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to the project specific mitigation, when the mitigation measure is completed.
2917
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2918
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

4.1: AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure AG-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall petition the County of Fresno Board of Supervisors for cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030-014S. The Project Applicant would have to make the required statutory findings a set forth under Government Code Section 51282(a) to cancel the Williamson Act contract. If the County of Fresno determines the required findings are met, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the unrestricted market value of the parcels to the County of Fresno as set forth under
Government Code Section 51283(b). After approval of the cancellation petition by the County of Fresno Board of
Supervisors, the Williamson Act contract would then be
cancelled on APN 556-030-014S, and the Project Applicant would be able to develop uses that comply with the zoning designation of the parcel per the City of Clovis Zoning Code without the proposed development being inconsistent with a Williamson Act contract.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Project Applicant City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
The following is not a mitigation measure; however compliance with the Regulatory Compliance measure outlined below would still be required for the project.

Regulatory Compliance Measure AG-3: Pursuant to California Civil Code 3482.5 and Fresno County Ordinance Code
§17.04.100, prior approval of building occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall provide residents of the project site Right-To-Farm notifications. The Right-To-Farm notification would advise future occupants of the project site that they are residing adjacent to agricultural land that has been active for 3 or more years and that they should expect continued activities associated with agricultural production. The Right-to-Farm notice shall include the following:

Prior to issuance of a
building occupancy
permit
Project Applicant City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2919
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
4 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24) Table A: EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
 It is the declared policy of Fresno County to preserve, protect, and encourage development of its agricultural land and industries for the production of food and other
agricultural products. Residents of property in or near agricultural districts or agriculturally zoned land or active agricultural land should be prepared to accept the
inconveniences and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Such inconveniences and discomfort could include but is not limited to the following: Dust generation, heavy equipment operation, noise from heavy equipment
operation, dust cropping activity using aircraft,
insecticide/pesticide application, no trespassing signage posted on active agricultural land, and the use of crop warmers during cold nights. Consistent with California Civil Code 3482.5 (right-to-farm law), this Right-To- Farm
notification provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not be or become a nuisance to adjacent land occupied by non-agricultural uses due to a changed condition in a locality after such
agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.

4.2: AIR QUALITY
The following is not a mitigation measure; however compliance with the Regulatory Compliance measure outlined below would still be required for the project.

Regulatory Compliance Measure AIR-2: Consistent with
SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed project and implemented at the construction site:
 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits, during
project construction
Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2920
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24) Table A: EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
 All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
 When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
 All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or
accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)  Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of out-door storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emission utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

4.3: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, each residential unit shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities as part of the final project designs.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Project Applicant City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2921
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
6 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

4.4: NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the proposed project:
 Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
 Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
 Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities.  Ensure that all general construction related activities are restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. From June 1st through
September 15th, permitted construction activity may
commence after 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday,
consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.
 Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits, during
project construction
Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials:_______
Date:________
2922
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

During project
construction
Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials:_______
Date:________
Initial Study

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO‐1. Nesting Bird Surveys and Active Nest Avoidance. Any initial ground disturbance or tree pruning, or removal should take place outside of the active nesting bird season (i.e., February 1–September 30), when feasible, to avoid impacts to nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should phased
construction require tree removal or initial ground disturbance to ruderal areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 10 days prior to each phase of clearing activities. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologist shall identify an appropriate buffer where no clearing, grading, or construction activities with potential to have direct or indirect impacts on the nesting bird(s) are allowed to take place until after the nest is no longer active (e.g., the young birds have fledged), or as otherwise determined by the qualified biologist.

Prior to project
construction, if
occurring between
February 1 to
September 30
Project Applicant
and Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2923
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
8 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24) Table A: EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Timing for Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation
Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Agency
Verification
(Initials and
Date)
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk Nests and Implement Avoidance and Minimization
Measures. The qualified biologist will conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) along the existing trees within the project site. No sooner than 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activity, the qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of nests identified during the earlier surveys to determine if any are occupied. The initial nesting season surveys and subsequent preconstruction nest surveys will follow the protocols set out in the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee [SHTAC] 2000) or guidance current at the time of project implementation. Available database records will be used to support the survey.

Any active Swainson’s hawk nests (defined as a nest used one or more times in the last 5 years) found within the existing trees on site during the nesting season will be monitored daily by the qualified biologist to assess whether the nest is occupied. If the nest is occupied, the qualified biologist will establish no-work buffers following California Department of Fish and Game’s 1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California, and the status of the nest will be monitored until the young fledge or for the length of construction activities, whichever occurs first. Adjustments to the buffer(s) may be made in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Prior to project
construction, if
occurring between
February 1 and August
31 Project Applicant
and Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2924
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Conduct Pre-construction
Clearance Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A pre-construction clearance survey will be conducted in the vicinity of the existing residence on site, as well as within the disturbed annual grassland and embankments of the Enterprise No. 109 Canal by a qualified biologist for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) no more than 30 calendar days prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities. All surveys will follow the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation methodology, or guidance current at the time of project implementation, and results shall be delivered to CDFW and the City of Clovis. If the survey results find an active burrow, the Project Applicant must coordinate with the CDFW to obtain applicable agency approval/permit prior to any ground disturbance activities on the site.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Project Applicant
and Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Passive Relocation Measures for Burrowing Owl. If burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are detected during the pre-construction surveys, occupied
burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 for owls and other raptors). The non-disturbance buffer will include a minimum 330-foot (100- meter) buffer zone around any occupied burrow unless a
qualified biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods that either (1) burrowing owls have not begun egg laying and incubation, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The sizes of individual buffers may be modified through coordination with the CDFW based on sitespecific conditions and existing disturbance levels. During the non-nesting season or if the qualified biologist determines Prior to project
construction, if
burrowing owl are
detected during the
pre-construction
surveys
Project Applicant
and Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2925
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
10 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

If passive relocation is required, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Exclusion and Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Land Management Plan in accordance with the
CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and for review by CDFW prior to passive relocation activities. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within an approximately 160-foot (50-meter) buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. One-way doors shall be left in place for 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow before excavation. One alternate natural or artificial burrow shall be provided for each burrow that will be
excavated in the project impact zone. The project site shall be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate impact zone. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe or burlap bags shall be inserted into the tunnels.
2926
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1: Agency Coordination for Enterprise No. 109 Canal. Prior to any modifications to Enterprise No. 109 Canal, it is recommended to consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to verify the feature’s
jurisdictional status and obtain applicable permit(s) and/or authorization(s). If direct modifications to the canal are proposed, a notification of streambed alteration shall be submitted to the CDFW in accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Unless categorically excluded under effective definitions or existing documentation confirms that no permit is needed, the Central Valley RWQCB and
Sacramento District of the USACE shall be consulted regarding potential permitting needs under the California Water Code and federal Clean Water Act, respectively, associated with the proposed Enterprise No. 109 Canal modifications.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Project Applicant City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services
Department/United States Army
Corps of Engineers
(USACE)/California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)/Regional
Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Initials: _______
Date:________

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Consultation with Qualified
Historical Specialist for Resources Found During Project Construction. If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study.

The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City of Clovis on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and Prior to and during
project construction, if
historic or
archeological
resources are
encountered
Construction
Contractor,
Qualified Historical
Resources Specialist
and Qualified
Archaeologist
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2927
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
12 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

During project
construction, if human
remains are
encountered
Project Applicant
and Construction
Contractor
City of Clovis Planning and
Development Services Department
Initials: _______
Date:________
2928
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
T RACT MAP 6343

The Project Applicant shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If any potentially significant paleontological resources are discovered during grading activities, all construction activities shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a certified professional paleontologist shall provide recommendations and mitigation measures to protect the
resource.

Prior to and during
project construction, if
paleontological
resources are
encountered
Construction
Contractor, Project
Applicant and
Qualified
Paleontologist
Department of Planning and
Development
Initials: _______
Date:________
2929
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
14 T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P ROGRAM
APRIL 2024
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\MMRP\TM_6343_MMRP.docx (04/04/24) This page intentionally left blank
2930
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/9/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\02_Second_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Second_Errata-rev.docx)

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

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

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 9, 2024
TO: Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA, AICP, Senior Planner
FROM: Kyle Simpson, Principal
SUBJECT: Second Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343 This memorandum has been prepared to provide a summary of proposed revisions to the site plan for the Tract Map 6343 Project (project) proposed by the Project Applicant following the City of Clovis (City) Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, April 18, 2024. This memorandum also provides support to the determination that the proposed revisions to the site plan do not require modifications or recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to Section 15088.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

SUMMARY
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 the Planning Commission considered recommending certification of the EIR prepared for the proposed project. During the public hearing portion of the Planning Commission meeting, public comments were provided that raised concerns regarding the location of the proposed Baron Avenue alignment, and its potential to conflict with existing residential properties abutting the proposed alignment. Additionally, public comments were received regarding increased project-related traffic on East Behymer Avenue and traffic operations at the proposed intersection of East Behymer Avenue and Baron Avenue.

The site plan included in the EIR shows the proposed Baron Avenue alignment located along the eastern boundary of the project site, abutting an existing residential property and a parcel owned by the Fresno Municipal Flood Control District (FMFCD). In response to comments received from Planning Commissioners and nearby property owners, the Project Applicant engaged in discussions with nearby property owners regarding modifying the proposed alignment of Baron Avenue within the project site.

As a result of the discussion with nearby property owners, the Project Applicant prepared a revised site plan (attached to this memorandum as Figure 1), that proposes to align Baron Avenue on the west side of the project site. The proposed revisions to the site plan are limited to the modification of the Baron Avenue alignment, and repositioning of residential units within the project site to accommodate the proposed realignment of Baron Avenue.

Attachment 14
2931
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/9/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\02_Second_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Second_Errata-rev.docx) 2 The revised site plan does not propose to increase the number of residential units included in the proposed project, would not increase the area of disturbance of the proposed project, and would not alter the estimated duration of project construction. As such, the proposed revisions to the site plan would not result in new significant impacts, nor would the proposed revisions to the site plan increase the significance of existing impacts identified in the EIR. As such, the technical studies prepared for the EIR and included as appendices to the Draft EIR, would not require updates nor modifications to reflect the revised site plan.

The proposed realignment of Baron Avenue would not affect traffic volumes forecasted for the proposed intersection of East Behymer Avenue and Baron Avenue. As discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project determined that the proposed project would generate or contribute to existing and projected level of service (LOS) deficiencies under all future scenarios that were analyzed with the proposed project.

However, these deficiencies would not occur all at once, as they would occur over time through 2046 as the proposed project and other cumulative projects in Clovis are developed. Furthermore, roadway improvements would be phased over time as deficiencies identified under existing, nearterm and cumulative scenarios occur. The Project Applicant would be required to pay into the Clovis Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, Clovis Operations program, and Fresno County Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) program, to contribute funds that would pay for required improvements, which would address project‐related operational deficiencies. As such, concerns raised by nearby property owners regarding project traffic volumes along East Behymer Avenue, as well as at the proposed intersection of East Behymer and Baron Avenue would be addressed through payment into applicable funding mechanisms for development of timely transportation improvements.

CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the EIR is not required where new information added to the EIR is limited to clarifications or amplifications, or new information makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. This Second Errata has been prepared to address minor revisions to the site plan, and to support the City’s determination that the proposed revisions to the site plan do not represent significant new information that would alter the conclusions of the EIR. In addition, the proposed revisions to the site plan would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the proposed project. As a result, recirculation of the Draft EIR for Tract Map 6343 is not required, and the determinations included in the EIR remain applicable to the proposed project.

Attachment: Figure 1: Revised Site Plan
2932
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

FIGURE 1
Revised Site Plan
Tract Map 6343

NOT TO SCALE
I:\CIT2201\G\Site_Plan.ai (5/8/2024)
2933
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/9/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\02_Second_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Second_Errata-rev.docx) 4 This page intentionally left blank
2934
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx)

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

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

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 18, 2024
TO: Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Clovis
FROM: Kyle Simpson, Principal
SUBJECT: Errata to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343 This memorandum has been prepared to address two public comment letters regarding the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for Tract Map 6343. These comment letters were received on April 12, 2024 and April 16, 2024, respectively, after the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR, and as a result, were not included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).

The Draft EIR was made available for public review from January 12, 2024 until March 4, 2024. A total of four comment letters were received during the public comment period and each comment letter was addressed in the Final EIR. In the Final EIR, written comment letters were grouped by the classification of the commenter, as follows: State agencies (A), and local agencies (B).

The comment letters were numbered consecutively following the A and B designations, and following the format below. The letters were numbered, and comments within each letter were numbered consecutively after the hyphen.

State Agencies A#-#
Local Agencies B#-#
Following the format of the Final EIR, the comment letters addressed herein have been grouped in a third category [i.e., organizations and interested parties (C)] and have been numbered according to the format included below.

Organizations and Interested Parties C#-#
In the following pages, the topic sections addressed in the comments and associated responses are enumerated to allow for cross-referencing of CEQA-related comments. To the extent text within the comment letters has not been numbered, it indicates that the text does not raise substantive environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR; therefore, no comment is enumerated, nor is a response required per California Environmental Attachment 15
2935
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 2 Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132. In addition, when general support or opposition is given for the proposed project, that comment is noted but no further analysis is provided in the response, as the commenter is not questioning the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR. However, it should be noted that comments related to the merits of the proposed project are considered by decision-makers taking action on the proposed project.

Section A of this memorandum identifies the comment letters being addressed. Section B includes a reproduction of each enumerated comment followed by responses to each comment. Each comment letter referenced in this memorandum is also attached with individual comments identified.

A. COMMENT LETTERS
This memorandum includes a reproduction of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR after the comment period, and individual comments within the comment letters are numbered consecutively.

The comment letters listed below were submitted to the City regarding the Draft EIR after the close of the public comment period.

COMMENT LETTER C1
Gilmore Magness Janisse
Marcus D. Magness
April 12, 2024
COMMENT LETTER C2
Rick and Stacy Andreasen
April 16, 2024
Responses to the comments included below were prepared with the assistance from Ambarish Mukherjee, Principal and Senior Transportation Planner at LSA. As a Principal and Senior Transportation Planner at LSA, Mr. Mukherjee specializes in travel demand modeling and public infrastructure projects and conducts traffic impact analyses for a wide variety of large and small projects including transit projects, residential development, mixed-use development, commercial and office projects, parking structures, roadway and circulation improvements, and General Plans and Specific Plans.

B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
COMMENT LETTER C1
Gilmore Magness Janisse
Marcus D. Magness
April 12, 2024
Comment C1-1: I am one of the property owners within the area of the proposed annexation that is the subject of the EIR, general plan amendment, pre-zoning, vesting tentative tract map, and 2936
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 3 planned development permit set forth as item no. 3 to the Planning Commission agenda for its April 18,2024 meeting. I received the notice the City of Clovis mailed to my home and this letter constitutes my written comments to each of the proposed action items found under agenda item 3.

Response C1-1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter but does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. No further response is necessary.

Comment C1-2:

Reduced Project Alternative/General Plan Amendment
Prior to the issuance of the EIR, I and my neighbors met with the City of Clovis planning personnel and with representatives of Wilson Homes. We were informed that the project would not require the installation of a signal light at the intersection of Behymer and Baron (i.e., at the corner of the property line for the first existing home and mere feet from that property owner's driveway.

According to both City personnel and the developer, the only traffic control at that intersection would be a stop sign for the people traveling northbound on Baron who would then turn onto Behymer. We pointed out that the proposal creates an unsafe situation for both the existing property owners and for the people travelling northbound on Baron. We were informed that this didn't matter - that the City had already decided that Baron would be located as shown on the plan - the safety and concerns of the existing residents be damned. We now learn with the EIR that not only did the City and the developer misrepresent the facts, but that the only way to handle the level of traffic being generated by the project is to install signal lights, not just at Baron, but at the future Clovis Avenue intersection, the Fowler Avenue intersection, and the Minnewawa intersection.

Of course, these mitigation measures won't be installed, per the EIR for anther 20 years and that until this happens, the EIR concludes that every morning and every evening, the people that live along Behymer are just going to have to live with unsatisfactory conditions. (See 8.3.1).

Response C1-2: This comment indicates the commenter’s opinion that the proposed project’s traffic would result in unsafe conditions for existing property owners living near the proposed project and other people traveling along Baron Avenue, the future North Clovis Avenue intersection, the North Fowler Avenue intersection, and the North Minnewawa Avenue intersection. This comment also expresses the commenter’s concern that traffic improvements along project study intersections will not be implemented in a timely manner to address potential LOS impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.5, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, and the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project (included as Appendix G of the Draft EIR), proposed project traffic was evaluated under existing, near-term (2026), and cumulative (2046) plus project scenarios, which were developed using historical traffic counts for study area intersections and roadway segments for the existing scenario, by adding traffic volumes from approved and pending projects located near the study area and project traffic to existing traffic volumes for the near term scenario, and by using forecast volumes obtained 2937
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 4 from the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) activity-based travel demand model (ABM) for the cumulative scenario.

The TIA determined that the project would generate or contribute to existing and projected LOS deficiencies under all plus project scenarios. However, these deficiencies would not occur all at once; they would occur over time through 2046 as the proposed project and other cumulative projects in the City are developed. The TIA also identifies that implementation of improvements listed in Table 9-A and Table 9-E of the TIA would ensure that all study intersections and roadway segments would operate at a satisfactory levels under all study scenarios. As shown in Table 9-A and Table 9-E of the TIA, specific improvements do not require implementation all at once; rather, improvements would need to be phased over time as deficiencies identified under existing, near term and cumulative scenarios, occur. Further, as identified in Table 9-H and Table 9-I of the TIA, the Project Applicant would be required to pay into the following funding mechanisms to contribute to the implementation of required improvements: Clovis Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, Clovis Operations program, and Fresno County Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) program. Where there is a funding mechanism (fee program) for the improvements, payment into the fee program would be considered sufficient project obligation to alleviate project‐related operational deficiencies. The City of Clovis and Fresno County, the jurisdictions overseeing the aforementioned funding mechanisms for required improvements, would handle the timing of construction of individual improvements along potentially impacted intersections and roadway segments, ensuring that the needed improvements are implemented in a timely manner to address potential traffic impacts.

Additionally, as described in the TIA and Section 4.5, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, a Sight Distance Analysis conducted at project intersections determined that the proposed project intersections achieve adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for drivers to safely maneuver in and out of the project site. Further, per the Safe Routes to School Analysis included in the TIA, the proposed project would result in construction of sidewalks along the project frontage, as well as contribute to the Clovis DIF and the RTMF programs as applicable for improvements at roadway segments and intersections within the project study area, which would include the addition of sidewalks and/or bike lanes along segments and installation of signals at intersections with marked crosswalks and other safety improvements, contributing safe walking and biking routes from the project to nearby schools. Moreover, the proposed project would not include any sharp curves or other roadway design elements that would create dangerous conditions, and all project design features would need to comply with standards set by the City’s General Plan and City Engineer, as well as undergo Clovis Fire Department (CFD) review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. As such, the proposed project would not result in unsafe conditions to people circulating through the study area roadway system, and required improvements for study area intersections and roadway segments would be implemented in a timely manner.
2938
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 5 Comment C1-3: Section 1.3 of the EIR acknowledged that the property owners included in the proposed annexation attended the scoping session and raised concerns that the traffic impacts of the project needed to be addressed and that the project needed to include the improvements to mitigate the environmental harm caused by this project. Specifically called out, among other things, were the results to impacts on the narrow bridge on Behymer that crosses the Enterprise Canal, as well as the traffic impacts to the Behymer/Fowler and Behymer/ Minnewawa intersections and the problems caused by constructing Baron Avenue.

The EIR found that Behymer Avenue at the intersections called out already operate at unsatisfactory levels of service with average daily trips of 3,720. The EIR also found that this project would generate an additional 5,564 daily trips. In other words, the projected traffic on Behymer Avenue between Sunnyside and Minnewawa is expected to be 9,284 average vehicle trips per day - meaning this project increases the traffic on Behymer by 150%. This and the mitigation measures proposed will not be implemented until 2046. And nowhere in the documents is any mention made to the work required to replace the existing bridge at Enterprise Canal - a bridge that is already being hit by vehicles multiple times each year.

Response C1-3: This comment expresses the commenter’s concern that improvements required along study area intersections and roadway segments would not be implemented in a timely manner to address project impacts. Further, the comment indicates the commenter’s opinion that that the technical documents and analysis prepared for the Draft EIR do not mentioned what improvements would occur along the existing bridge on East Behymer Avenue that crosses the Enterprise Canal.

Refer to Response C1-2 above. The TIA determined that the project would generate or contribute to existing and projected LOS deficiencies under all plus project scenarios.

However, these deficiencies would not occur all at once; they would occur over time through 2046 as the proposed project and other cumulative projects in the City are developed. As such, specific improvements do not require implementation all at once; rather, improvements would need to be phased over time as deficiencies identified under existing, near term and cumulative scenarios occur. The Project Applicant would be required to pay into the Clovis DIF program, Clovis Operations program, and RTMF program to contribute to funds that would pay for required improvements, which would alleviate project‐related operational deficiencies. The City of Clovis and Fresno County, the jurisdictions overseeing the aforementioned funding mechanisms for required improvements, would handle the timing of construction of individual improvements along potentially impacted intersections and roadway segments, ensuring that the needed improvements are implemented in a timely manner to address potential traffic impacts.

Table 9-I of the TIA (Appendix G of the Draft EIR) lists improvements for study area roadway segments that would address deficiencies within the study area roadway system. This table indicates that the segment of East Behymer Avenue between North Minnewawa Avenue and North Clovis Avenue, and the segment of East Behymer Avenue between North Clovis Avenue and Baron Avenue would be converted into 2‐Lane two-way-left-turn lane (TWLTL) 2939
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 6 Collector to address the higher traffic volumes forecasted along these roadway segments under cumulative project scenarios. The segment of East Behymer between North Clovis Avenue and Baron Avenue contains the bridge that is referenced in this comment. This bridge will be expanded and converted into a 2‐Lane TWLTL Collector along with the rest of the roadway segment to address projected traffic deficiencies.

Comment C1-4: In order for the developer to be allowed to construct 590 postage-stamp homes on the property it is acquiring, the planning commission must recommend and the City Council must approve a general plan amendment increasing the land use designation for that property from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential. But in so doing, the City of Clovis must throw away the planning philosophy that you gradually change densities. Indeed, when the Heritage Grove Specific Plan was being considered, we were told that the City's plan was to place low density residential zonings next to our AE-20 zoned properties to avoid conflicts. While it deviated from this with the placement of medium density residential immediately adjacent to AE-20 zoning (which land use given the existing improvements constructed on our properties is not going to change within the foreseeable future). But with the requested change in the land use element, the City is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - allowing very inconsistent uses to abut each other (separated only by Baron Avenue).

But like much of society today, the project applicant proposes to overcome the forgoing problem by changing definitions. They propose that the City of Clovis not just annex our property (over our objections mind you), but change its land use to "very low density residential". This is certainly going to negatively affect how we can use our property.

Response C1-4: As shown in Figure LU-2, Land Use Diagram, of the City of Clovis General Plan, the City of Clovis has identified that the proposed project and the proposed annexation area both belong within the City’s Planning Boundary, which encompasses land that would be built out with buildout of the General Plan. Additionally, the same Figure LU-2 identifies that the existing properties referenced in this comment, located east of Baron Avenue, have a planned land use designation of VL- Very Low Density Residential. The Project Applicant is fulfilling the intent of the City’s General Plan by including the proposed annexation area into the project, as this is consistent with what is envisioned for the General Plan Planning Area. However, the proposed project is not proposing a General Plan amendment for any other properties other than the project site. The City is responsible for the assigning General Plan Land Use Designations to all parcels within the City’s Planning Area, including the existing properties located east of Baron Avenue, and this process does not have any relation to the proposed project.

The proposed project is indeed proposing a General Plan Amendment for the project site to change existing land use designation of the site from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential. The Project Applicant has coordinated with the City of Clovis to meet applicable requirements for the General Plan Amendment application, has paid all applicable fees, and has provided all required technical studies to support this amendment, all included within the analysis presented throughout the Draft EIR. The 2940
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 7 commenter’s opinions about the proposed general plan amendment for the project site and the proposed annexation are noted but do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, raise environmental issues, and do not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. As such, no further response is required.

Comment C1-5: Further confusing the issues is the fact that the planning commission agenda states that the property within the annexation area be pre-zoned "Clovis O, P-F, R-A, R-1, and R-l-PRD" The zoning map included within the agenda package states that the area where the existing homes are located (including mine) be pre-zoned "VL". Which is it? Response C1-5: As previously discussed, the City’s General Plan has assigned land use designations to all parcels located within the City’s Planning boundaries. The land use patterns and areas identified are intended to provide the basis for more detailed land use districts, densities, requirements, and standards established in the City’s Development Code. As such, each General Plan Land Use Designation has a corresponding zoning district that is compatible with planned land use districts outlined in the City’s Development Code.

Table LU-2 of the General Plan provides a full list of General Plan Land Use Designations and corresponding descriptions of typical uses located within each listed designation.

Additionally, Table LU-3 of the General Plan shows the zoning districts that correspond to each General Plan Land Use Designation listed within the General Plan. This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. As such, no further response is required.

Comment C1-6: In the EIR, the City sort of studied a "reduced project alternative" which provided that instead of developing at an 8.25 DU/Ac density, the project would be constructed using a 4.12 DU/Ac density. This yields 295 additional homes. Section 5.5 of the EIR states that this alternative is "viable" and Section l.4.4,the EIR states that this alternative is feasible (required by CEQA). The EIR concluded that this alternative is better for the environment, resulting in better air quality, less noise, less impacts on public services, less impacts on public utilities and would reduce the volume of vehicle trips on the roads in the area. Interestingly, however, the proposed findings that the planning commission are asked to find include:
"The Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the Reduced Project Alternative. Overall, this alternative would lessen significant and less-than- significant environmental impacts or result in impacts similar to those associated with the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would partially achieve Project Objectives, as it would partially address the City of Clovis' future housing demand by providing a lower amount of visually attractive residential housing opportunities; partially meet local and regional housing demand by providing a single housing type, size and density; implement the City's General Plan Land Use Element goal to facilitate annexation of large areas of land; and provide integrated and planned infrastructure and logical phasing of public improvements in compliance with City Standards. However, this alternative would also not be able to reduce the significant and unavoidable LOS and VMT 2941
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 8 impacts that were identified for the proposed project. As such, this alternative is rejected as infeasible." (emphasis).

Amazingly, the "infeasibility" conclusion basically contends that if you can't reduce the environmental impact below the level of significance, there is no point trying to accomplish any reduction. That contention is antithetical to the purpose behind CEQA. It is also contrary to the EIR itself - which stated that the Reduced Project Alternative was both viable and feasible.

Response C1-6: As described in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations document for the proposed project, an alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417).

Per Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR described a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would “feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project.” However, the lead agency holds the final decision in respect to which alternative meets all of the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the proposed project. Although the Reduced Project Alternative was identified to be the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR and Findings document, this alternative did not achieve avoidance or substantial reduction of the only significant and unavoidable impact that would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, per Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet all project objectives. As such, after evaluating all relevant factors for the proposed project and alternatives, the City decided that the proposed project would provide the best balance for achieving the best possible environmental outcome while meeting all of the City’s goals and objectives for the proposed project. As such, this comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

Comment C1-7: To conclude on this subject, the EIR should not be certified as drafted, the abovefinding should not be made, and the requested general plan amendment to allow higher density development should be rejected. The EIR should be sent back for revision and the Reduced Project Alternative be adopted.

Response C1-7: This comment provides a conclusion to one section of the comment letter and expresses the commenter’s opposition to certification of the EIR, the Findings for the EIR, and the proposed General Plan Amendment. This comment also includes the commenter’s opinion that the EIR should be revised that that the Reduced Project Alternative should be adopted. No further response is required. 2942
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 9 Comment C1-8:

The Existing Homeowners Are Not in Favor of Annexation
The existing homeowners have been in communication and, thus far, it is the consensus that annexation is contrary to our interests and, therefore, we will protest it. Even assuming the City can at this late date clarify how it proposes to pre-zone our property, it makes more sense to deny the pre-zoning altogether.

Response C1-8: This comment expresses the commenter’s opposition of the proposed annexation, and pre-zoning for the project site. Please refer to Responses C1-4 and C1-5 above. This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

Comment C1-9:

The City/Developer Shift Project Costs to Existing Homeowners In Section 3.3.6 of the EIR, the City/developer state:
"The eastern side of North Baron Avenue that is north of Basin BY will ultimately be built out with an approximately 20-footwide parkway, matching the Heritage Grove Neighborhood Boulevard Street section. However, this section of the parkway will not be constructed with Tract 6343 in order to minimize the impact on the adjacent rural residential property." The foregoing language is deceptive. It is phrased to appear to do the existing property owners a favor by not constructing improvements that are otherwise required on the east side of the new Baron Avenue. But what is left unsaid is that this is a cost that would ultimately be borne by the existing properly owners in the very unlikely event that the existing homes are torn down and a subdivision similar to the one that the developer proposes is constructed in its place. What is also left unsaid is that this will leave a strip of land that is approximately 525' long and 20' wide completely unimproved and unmaintained. Finally, as a matter of public safety, it is likely that the existing homeowner whose property adjoins Baron will need to relocate his driveway from Behymer (immediately adjacent to the corner where 5,564 vehicle trips will pass daily) to Baron. Is that property owner going to be required to shoulder the cost of that relocation AND the roadway improvements alone? If the development is to be approved, whether as proposed or using the Reduced Project Alternative, it is the developer that must install all of the required improvements.

That cost cannot be shifted to the existing homeowners.

Response C1-9: As described in Section 7.4.03 of the City’s Municipal Code (Construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paving required: Permit applications), every person who constructs any buildings within a property in the City shall dedicate any necessary street area and provide for the construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paving on all public streets abutting the parcel of real property on which such construction is done. Such street 2943
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 10 paving shall extend from the gutter to the center line of each abutting street or for a distance of eighteen feet from the gutter where such abutting street is not a full street. The developer is usually responsible for the cost of these improvements, unless one of the exceptions listed in Section 7.4.07 of the Municipal Code applies.

The proposed project would comply with the Municipal Code by dedicating a portion of the project site for the construction of Baron Avenue, and providing pavement, curb and gutters as applicable on the segment of Baron Avenue abutting the project parcel, specifically the segment of Baron Avenue between Behymer Avenue and Perrin Avenue. Please note that the Municipal Code specifies that improvements would need to occur from the gutter of the property to the center line of the abutting street, or where the abutting street to the parcel is not a full street, improvements are only expected for a distance of eighteen feet from the gutter. However, the Project Applicant will fully fund the construction of Baron Avenue from curb to curb along the segment between Behymer Avenue and Perrin Avenue. Further, in order to avoid conflict with property lines of existing residential uses abutting the Baron Avenue right-of-way (ROW), the alignment of Baron Avenue located north of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) flood control basin BY shifts further west and onto the proposed project site to allow for construction of Baron Avenue from curb to curb.

Additionally, as described in Table 9-E of the TIA (Appendix G of the Draft EIR), the segment of Baron Avenue between Perrin Avenue and North Clovis Avenue will eventually be converted into a 2-Lane Divided Collector to meet projected cumulative traffic demands in the project area. This improvement has also been identified in Figure C-1 of the General Plan. The Project Applicant would be required to pay into the Clovis DIF Program, which will eventually result in the construction of any missing pavement, curbs, and gutters along the Baron Avenue ROW.

Additionally, per Section 7.4.06 of the Municipal Code (Dedication of rights-of-way for certain streets), the City of Clovis would be required to compensate property owners for the costs of removing or relocating improvements in their properties that would be affected by construction of a public street. As such, this comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

COMMENT LETTER C2
Rick and Stacy Andreasen
April 16, 2024
Comment C2-1: The proposed approval of TM 6343 includes annexation of six (6) rural, fully improved homesites. As one of the owners in this block of homes we are opposed to inclusion in the annexation and the change of zoning from AE20. These homesites are a group that have no relevance to the proposed high density residential proposed by Wilson Homes. 2944
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 11 Response C2-1: Please refer to Responses C1-4, C1-5, and C1-8 above. The Project Applicant is fulfilling the intent of the City’s General Plan by including the proposed annexation area into the project, as this annexation is consistent with what is envisioned in the General Plan for the City’s Planning Area. Additionally, the City has already established all General Plan Land Use Designations in the Planning Area, as well as corresponding zoning districts, and the proposed project does not have influence over this process. As such, this comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required.

Comment C2-2: Additionally, the lack of street improvements on the east side of the proposed Barton street will leave an unmanaged strip or no-mans-land. This “normal” exclusion from improvement follows that a small developer will at some time in the future, buy or some of these lots for a small R1 development. This rural island is improved with million dollar + homes that make such an endeavor economically infeasible. The only time that sufficient funding will be available during development for this funding is now. Our meeting with Wilson Homes indicated that curb and gutter, storm drainage, a narrow landscape strip (improved) and a block wall was the best solution to this frontage.

Response C2-2: Please refer to response C1-9 above. The proposed project would comply with the Municipal Code by dedicating a portion of the project site for the construction of Baron Avenue, and providing pavement, curb and gutters as applicable on the segment of Baron Avenue abutting the project parcel, specifically the segment of Baron Avenue between Behymer Avenue and Perrin Avenue. Although per stipulations of Chapter 7.4 of the Municipal Code the Project Applicant is not required to construct improvements on the east side of the proposed Baron Avenue segment, the project Applicant will fully fund the construction of Baron Avenue from curb to curb along the segment between Behymer Avenue and Perrin Avenue.

Additionally, as described in the TIA (Appendix G of this EIR), the segment of Baron Avenue between Perrin Avenue and Clovis Avenue will eventually be converted into a 2-Lane Divided Collector to meet projected cumulative traffic demands in the project area. This improvement is a planned circulation improvement that has been identified in Figure C-1 of the General Plan. The Project Applicant is required to pay into the Clovis DIF Program, which will eventually result in the construction of any missing pavement, curbs and gutters along the Baron Avenue right-of-way.

Comment C2-3: Finally, the city master planning for Heritage Grove recognized the existing and distinctive nature of these homesites by pushing the future alignment of Behymer improvements north to allow the existing north property lines, and resulting site improvements to remain.

Please register our opposition to these items with the Planning Commission and City Council.

Response C2-3: This comment mentions that the City’s master planning for the Heritage Grove area pushed the future alignment of Behymer further north to allow the existing 2945
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 12 north property lines, and improvements within residences adjacent to Behymer to remain.

This comment is noted but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. No further response is required. 2946
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 13

ATTACHMENT

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS
2947
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
5/1/24 (P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\Errata\01_Errata\TM6343_Final_EIR_Errata_rev.docx) 14 This page intentionally left blank
2948
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Comment Letter C1

Page 1 of 5 ends

Clovis City CouncilMay 20, 2024

Clovis City Council
May 20, 2024