Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, May 20, 2024 (part 4 of 13)

CLOVIS, CA

WILSON HOMES

C 658
5068 BI-PASS
2668 2468
2468
30 SC 80 16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR COVERED ENTRY ENTRY BDRM. 4 TEMP. GL. 3016 SL FX TEMP. GL. 1050 BATH 3 GARAGE 201
8'-0" 7'-1" 40'-0" 19'-0
1 2 13'-10 " 1
2 " 3'-6" 5'-2
1 4
" 5'-2
1 4
" 6" 4'-8
1 2
" 1'-10
1 2
"
2'-0" 2'-0" 30 50 SH 30 50 SH3'-6" 6"
8" 004 421 8'-0" 002 005 003 428 8'-0" 428 508 2'-6" 2'-6"10'-9" 5'-3 1 2
" 9'-9"
17'-5" 70'-0" LOWER FLOOR PLAN TOTAL COVERED ENTRY FLOOR AREA TABLE GARAGE PLAN 3020B UPPER FLOOR PLAN CALIFORNIA ROOM 1801 SQ. FT. 3,020 SQ. FT. 1219 SQ. FT. 479 SQ. FT. 120 SQ. FT. 71 SQ. FT. LOWER FLOOR PLAN TOTAL COVERED ENTRY FLOOR AREA TABLE GARAGE PLAN 3028C UPPER FLOOR PLAN CALIFORNIA ROOM 1801 SQ. FT. 3,028 SQ. FT. 1227 SQ. FT. 479 SQ. FT. 120 SQ. FT. 56 SQ. FT. 5068 BI-PASS
2668 2468
2468
30 SC 80 16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR COVERED ENTRY ENTRY BDRM. 4 TEMP. GL. 3016 SL FX TEMP. GL. 1050 BATH 3 GARAGE 201 60 50 SL 70'-0"
70'-0" 8'-0" 7'-2" 40'-0" 18'-11
1 2 13'-10 " 1
2 " 7'-10
1 2
" 3'-5" 2'-7" 5'-2" 2'-0"
6" 6'-0"
7" 9'-10
1 2
" 6" 16'-0" 2'-5
1 2
"
1'-6" 17'-5" 551 004 421 8'-0" 8'-0" 002 005 003 425 425 FX 26 50
1'-8" 1'-11"
55'-0"
10'-9" 5'-3
1 2
" 9'-9" 7" 551 551 514
26 24 2468
20 TEMP. GL. 30 W.I.C. BDRM 2 40 40 SL
40'-2" 1'-8"
40'-2" 40'-0"
31'-3" 3'-4
1 2
" 3'-2" 19'-1" 2'-8" 16'-5" 1'-11
1 2
"
FX 20 40 FX 20 40 18'-11
1 2
"
6'-7" FX TEMP. GL. 20 20 FX 60 50 SL 20 20 6'-2
1 2
" 2'-2
1 2
" 4'-0"
7'-8
1 2
" 1'-10"
26 24 2468
20 TEMP. GL. 30 W.I.C. BDRM 2
40'-2" 40'-0"
31'-3" 19'-1" 15'-4" 5'-7"
1'-0"
1'-0" 1'-8" 14'-11" 3'-6" 2'-1
1 2
" 6'-7" 30 50 SH 30 50 SH
FX 20 40 FX 20 40 20 40 FX 20 40 FX 2'-6" 2'-1
1 2
" 1'-0"
1'-8" 7'-8
1 2
" 1'-10" NOTE: SHADED WALLS INDICATE AREAS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE BASE FLOOR PLAN NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS BY OTHERS FOR ALL DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALK LOCATIONS. REFER TO BASE PLAN SHEET A1.1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DIMENSIONS. ADDENDA FLOOR PLAN NOTES FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES Name NOTE 002 CONCRETE DRIVE (BY OTHERS) 003 CONCRETE WALK (BY OTHERS) 004 CONCRETE PORCH SLAB (BY OTHERS) SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT MINIMUM IN DIRECTION INDICATED 005 CONCRETE GARAGE SLAB - SLOPE 1 8" PER FOOT MINIMUM IN DIRECTION INDICATED 201 UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PANELS - VERIFY LOCATION 421 STUCCO CEILING: HEIGHT PER PLAN 425 WOOD SOFFIT: HEIGHT PER PLAN 446 +42" GUARD (SEE DETAIL 11/D4) 471 ELASTOMERIC WATERPROOF DECKING SYSTEM - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS. SLOPE FRAMING 1/4" PER FOOT MINIMUM FOR DRAINAGE. SHEET FLOW DRAINAGE IN DIRECTION INDICATED 514 WATERPROOFED STONE VENEER SHELF - SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT 551 MANUFACTURED ADHERED STUCCO STONE VENEER - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. BY 'EL DORADO STONE' ICC-ES ER-3568 Name NOTE 002 CONCRETE DRIVE (BY OTHERS) 003 CONCRETE WALK (BY OTHERS) 004 CONCRETE PORCH SLAB (BY OTHERS) SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT MINIMUM IN DIRECTION INDICATED 005 CONCRETE GARAGE SLAB - SLOPE 1 8" PER FOOT MINIMUM IN DIRECTION INDICATED 201 UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PANELS - VERIFY LOCATION 421 STUCCO CEILING: HEIGHT PER PLAN 428 ARCHED STUCCO SOFFIT: HEIGHT PER PLAN 508 WATERPROOFED STUCCO SHELF - SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT A1.2 MH 13052A612 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGER : DESIGNER : DRAWN BY : REVIEWED BY : 1ST BLDG. DEPT. SUBMITTAL : ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION : JOB NUMBER : CAD FILE NAME : DATE: SHEET: MMBH ---2013052.14 05-21-18
PLAN 3020

CLOVIS, CA

WILSON HOMES

C 659
T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. 8'-2" 8'-2"
7'-0"
7'-2" 1D3 19D3 525 1x3 25D3 26D4 @ SOFFIT 3D3 21D3 525 205 1x4 17D3 4D2 27D1 22D3 203 701 701 650B 25D2 26D3 602 1x4 4" T.G. 762 674 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 17D3 674 -2" -2" -2" -2" -2" -2" 8'-0" 4'-5"
8'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. 321 3D2
3'-0" SILL PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 701 701 701 8'-0" T.G. T.G. DASHED LINE INDICATES CEILING BEYOND 7'-0" 8'-0" 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12

VALLEY RIDGE VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE

VALLEY HIP HIP VALLEY
RIDGE ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.C 639 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.A 1,431 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.B 382

3.5:12 3.5:12

3.5:12

3.5:12 PROVIDE ROUTE FOR FUTURE SOLAR WATER HEATER PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION 125 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 125 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 812 813 27D1 812 813 1'-0" 1'-0"
2'-0" 8'-2" 17D322D3 25D1 26D1 839 25D1 802 810 826 839 T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F. 9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. T.G. T.G. T.G. 3D2 25D3 23D4 29D4 30D4 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS -2" -2" 7'-0" 8'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F. 9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. 201 511 205 1D3 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 8'-0" 308 8'-0"
7'-0" ROOF PLAN KEY NOTES Name NOTE 802 CLASS 'A' ROOFING - CONCRETE - 'S' TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 810 LINE OF WALL BELOW 812 STUCCO CEILING 813 STUCCO SOFFIT 826 ROOF VENT - O'HAGIN "XL SERIES" CLOAKED VENT (ICC # NER-9650A) 837 PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION. 839 MIN. 22"x30" OPENING IN CALIFORNIA ROOF FRAMING CONDITIONS FOR ATTIC ACCESS AND CROSS VENTILATION - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AIRFLOW TO ALL ATTIC AREAS ELEVATION KEY NOTES ANY OPERABLE WINDOW WITH A SILL THAT IS LOCATED LESS THAN 24" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AND MORE THAN 72" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OR OTHER SURFACE BELOW AT THE EXTERIOR, MUST BE PROTECTED BY A GUARD OR, HAVE A FIXED GLASS. THE GUARD MAY NOT HAVE OPENINGS THAT A SPHERE 4" IN DIAMETER CAN PASS THROUGH. 2016 CBC 1405.13.2 Name NOTE 201 UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PANELS - VERIFY LOCATION 203 ADDRESS PANEL. 6" MIN. HIGH BUILDING ADDRESS CHARACTERS PLACED IN SUCH A POSITION TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 205 ACCENT EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT 308 TANKLESS WATER HEATER TERMINATION CAP - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS (CO-AXIAL VENT INTAKE & EXHAUST DIRECTLY FROM OUTSIDE) 321 AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSER LOCATION 511 RECESS BOX FOR TANKLESS WATER HEATER - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS 515 -2" STUCCO RECESS. SIZE PER ELEVATION. SLOPE SILL 1/4" PER FT. MINIMUM 516 DECORATIVE FOAM ACCENT - SEE DETAIL 521 STUCCO - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S LISTING BY: OMEGA DIAMOND WALL ONE COAT SYSTEM ICC-ES ESR-1194 525 STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM - FOAM SHAPE PER ELEVATION 602 WOOD TRIM(S) - SIZE PER ELEVATION 650B FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - 5/16" THICK 'HARDIPLANK' (OR EQUIVALENT. FINISH: SELECT CEDARMILL. EXPOSURE: 6" (INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS) 674 DECORATIVE METAL WINDOW SHADE 701 G.I. FLASHING 762 ROOFING - CONCRETE - 'S' TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 A1.4 MH 13052A64 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGER : DESIGNER : DRAWN BY : REVIEWED BY : 1ST BLDG. DEPT. SUBMITTAL : ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION : JOB NUMBER : CAD FILE NAME : DATE: SHEET: MMBH---2013052.14 05-21-18 PLAN 3020

CLOVIS, CA

WILSON HOMES

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA SFD
2013052.14 - FIRST BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL- 05-21-18 DO NOT SCALE PLANS 2018 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA WHA EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF WHA IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD WHA HARMLESS. C ELEVATION REFERENCE: A ELEVATION STYLE: ROOF MATERIAL STANDARD ROOF DETAIL U.N.O. FASCIA - BARGE - OVERHANG DIM. - U.N.O. CONCRETE 'S' TILE 1'-0" U.N.O. U.N.O. EAVE RAKE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2X6 NONE TIGHT 1D1 SPARK ARRESTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 1. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ROOF NOTES. 2. 4. ROOF PLAN NOTES 1. IN CLIMATE ZONES 14 AND 16, A CLASS I OR II VAPOR RETARDER IS INSTALLED ON THE WARM-IN-WINTER SIDE OF THE CEILING. PROVIDE ATTIC & SOFFIT VENTILATION PER CRC SECTION R806. PER CRC SECTION R806.2, THE MINIMUM NET FREE 2. AT LEAST 40 PERCENT AND NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS CONTEMPORARY SPANISH 3. ATTIC ACCESS PER CRC SECTION R807. LOCATED IN THE UPPER PORTION OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN NOTE: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR READY BUILDINGS PER CEnC SECTION 110.10. 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE VENTILATING AREA SHALL BE 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPTION: THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATION AREA SHALL BE 1/300 OF THE VENTED SPACE PROVIDED ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. WHERE THE LOCATION OF WALL OR ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS CONFLICTS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF UPPER VENTILATORS, INSTALLATION MORE THAN 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE SHALL BE PERMITTED. LOW PROFILE BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 660 T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C.
7'-0"
24'-9" +_
(MAX. ALLOWED 35'-0")
(VERIFY) 3D3 21D3 1D3 19D3 525 1x3 6D2 602 2x6 602 2x3 602 2x3 25D3 761 701 650B 14D4 205 203 551 T.G. 8'-0" 28D4 @ SOFFIT 27D3 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 525 1x6 525 1x3 525 1x3 1'-6" 701 521
7'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. 321 3D2 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 701 701 701 8'-0" T.G. T.G. DASHED LINE INDICATES 3'-0" CEILING BEYOND SILL 7'-0" 8'-0"

3.5:12 3.5:12

3.5:12
4:12
4:12 4:12

3.5:12
VALLEY VALLEY HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP VALLEY RIDGE 4:12 4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RIDGE ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.C 639ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.A 1,400 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.B 430 PROVIDE ROUTE FOR FUTURE SOLAR WATER HEATER PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION 41.6 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 83.4 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 41.6 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 83.4 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 3:12 810 826 801 839 812 813 813 812 813 28D1 24D1 24D1 3:12 T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F. 9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. T.G. T.G. T.G. 3D2 25D3 23D4 29D4 30D4 7'-0" 8'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. 201 511 205 1D3 25D4 @ SOFFIT 8'-0" 308 28D5 2'-6"
8'-0"
7'-0" ROOF PLAN KEY NOTES Name NOTE 801 CLASS 'A' ROOFING - CONCRETE - 'FLAT' TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 810 LINE OF WALL BELOW 812 STUCCO CEILING 813 STUCCO SOFFIT 826 ROOF VENT - O'HAGIN "XL SERIES" CLOAKED VENT (ICC # NER-9650A) 837 PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION. 839 MIN. 22"x30" OPENING IN CALIFORNIA ROOF FRAMING CONDITIONS FOR ATTIC ACCESS AND CROSS VENTILATION - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AIRFLOW TO ALL ATTIC AREAS ELEVATION KEY NOTES Name NOTE 201 UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PANELS - VERIFY LOCATION 203 ADDRESS PANEL. 6" MIN. HIGH BUILDING ADDRESS CHARACTERS PLACED IN SUCH A POSITION TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 205 ACCENT EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT 308 TANKLESS WATER HEATER TERMINATION CAP - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS (CO-AXIAL VENT INTAKE & EXHAUST DIRECTLY FROM OUTSIDE) 511 RECESS BOX FOR TANKLESS WATER HEATER - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS 521 STUCCO - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S LISTING BY: OMEGA DIAMOND WALL ONE COAT SYSTEM ICC-ES ESR-1194 525 STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM - FOAM SHAPE PER ELEVATION 551 MANUFACTURED ADHERED STUCCO STONE VENEER - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. BY 'EL DORADO STONE' ICC-ES ER-3568 602 WOOD TRIM(S) - SIZE PER ELEVATION 650B FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - 5/16" THICK 'HARDIPLANK' (OR EQUIVALENT. FINISH: SELECT CEDARMILL. EXPOSURE: 6" (INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS) 701 G.I. FLASHING 761 ROOFING - CONCRETE - FLAT TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 ANY OPERABLE WINDOW WITH A SILL THAT IS LOCATED LESS THAN 24" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AND MORE THAN 72" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OR OTHER SURFACE BELOW AT THE EXTERIOR, MUST BE PROTECTED BY A GUARD OR, HAVE A FIXED GLASS. THE GUARD MAY NOT HAVE OPENINGS THAT A SPHERE 4" IN DIAMETER CAN PASS THROUGH. 2016 CBC 1405.13.2 A1.5 MH 13052A65 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGER : DESIGNER : DRAWN BY : REVIEWED BY : 1ST BLDG. DEPT. SUBMITTAL : ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION : JOB NUMBER : CAD FILE NAME : DATE: SHEET: MMBH---2013052.14 05-21-18 PLAN 3020

CLOVIS, CA

WILSON HOMES

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA SFD
2013052.14 - FIRST BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL- 05-21-18 DO NOT SCALE PLANS 2018 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA WHA EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF WHA IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD WHA HARMLESS. C ELEVATION REFERENCE: B ELEVATION STYLE: ROOF MATERIAL STANDARD ROOF DETAIL U.N.O. FASCIA - BARGE - OVERHANG DIM. - U.N.O. 1'-6" U.N.O. U.N.O. EAVE RAKE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2X6 2X6 1'-0" 3D1 ROOF PLAN NOTES MODERN SPARK ARRESTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 1. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ROOF NOTES. 2. 4. 1. IN CLIMATE ZONES 14 AND 16, A CLASS I OR II VAPOR RETARDER IS INSTALLED ON THE WARM-IN-WINTER SIDE OF THE CEILING. PROVIDE ATTIC & SOFFIT VENTILATION PER CRC SECTION R806. PER CRC SECTION R806.2, THE MINIMUM NET FREE 2. AT LEAST 40 PERCENT AND NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS 3. ATTIC ACCESS PER CRC SECTION R807. LOCATED IN THE UPPER PORTION OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN NOTE: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR READY BUILDINGS PER CEnC SECTION 110.10. 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE VENTILATING AREA SHALL BE 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPTION: THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATION AREA SHALL BE 1/300 OF THE VENTED SPACE PROVIDED ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. WHERE THE LOCATION OF WALL OR ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS CONFLICTS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF UPPER VENTILATORS, INSTALLATION MORE THAN 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE SHALL BE PERMITTED. CONCRETE 'FLAT' TILE BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 661 T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C.
7'-2" -2" 7'-0" 3D3 21D3 1D3 19D3 525 1x3 25D3 3D2 525 1x6 5D3 592 PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 701 701 6D213D4 602 2x3 761 650B 205 203 8'-0" 9D4 515 26D4 @ SOFFIT T.G. 508 2'-8" 3D4 3D2
8'-0" 525 1x3
2'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F. 9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. 321 3D2
3'-0" SILL PROVIDE INSULFOAM EPS R-TECH AT ALL GABLE ENDS 701 701 701 8'-0" T.G. T.G. DASHED LINE INDICATES CEILING BEYOND 7'-0" 8'-0"

3.5:12 3.5:12

3.5:12
4:12
4:12 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12

3.5:12
VALLEY VALLEY HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP VALLEY VALLEY RIDGE 4:12 4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.C 639 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.A 1,420 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.B 110 ROOF AREA: ' ' SQ. FT.D 283 PROVIDE ROUTE FOR FUTURE SOLAR WATER HEATER PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION 41.6 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 83.4 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 41.6 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 83.4 SQ. FT. OF SOLAR PANELS 4:12
4:12 839 812 813 839 28D1 24D1 24D1 812 813 813 810 826 801 T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F. 9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. T.G. T.G. T.G. 3D2 25D3 23D4 29D4 30D4 13D4 7'-0" 8'-0" T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.O.P. T.O.P. F.F.
9'-1" 8'-1"
9'-1" 8'-1" F.F. T.O.P. F.F./T.O.C. T.G. 201 511 205 1D3 8'-0" 308 8'-0"
7'-0" ROOF PLAN KEY NOTES Name NOTE 801 CLASS 'A' ROOFING - CONCRETE - 'FLAT' TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 810 LINE OF WALL BELOW 812 STUCCO CEILING 813 STUCCO SOFFIT 826 ROOF VENT - O'HAGIN "XL SERIES" CLOAKED VENT (ICC # NER-9650A) 837 PROVIDE 1" CONDUIT FROM THE ELECTRIC PANEL TO LOCATION IN ATTIC FOR FUTURE SOLAR INSTALLATION. 839 MIN. 22"x30" OPENING IN CALIFORNIA ROOF FRAMING CONDITIONS FOR ATTIC ACCESS AND CROSS VENTILATION - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AIRFLOW TO ALL ATTIC AREAS ELEVATION KEY NOTES Name NOTE 201 UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PANELS - VERIFY LOCATION 203 ADDRESS PANEL. 6" MIN. HIGH BUILDING ADDRESS CHARACTERS PLACED IN SUCH A POSITION TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 205 ACCENT EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT 308 TANKLESS WATER HEATER TERMINATION CAP - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS (CO-AXIAL VENT INTAKE & EXHAUST DIRECTLY FROM OUTSIDE) 321 AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSER LOCATION 508 WATERPROOFED STUCCO SHELF - SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT 511 RECESS BOX FOR TANKLESS WATER HEATER - INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS 515 STUCCO NICHE. SIZE PER ELEVATION - SLOPE SILL 14" PER FT. MINIMUM 521 STUCCO - INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S LISTING BY: OMEGA DIAMOND WALL ONE COAT SYSTEM ICC-ES ESR-1194 525 STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM - FOAM SHAPE PER ELEVATION 592 OVERHEAD SHUTTER - SIZE AND STYLE PER ELEVATION 602 WOOD TRIM(S) - SIZE PER ELEVATION 650B FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - 5/16" THICK 'HARDIPLANK' (OR EQUIVALENT. FINISH: SELECT CEDARMILL. EXPOSURE: 6" (INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS) 701 G.I. FLASHING 761 ROOFING - CONCRETE - FLAT TILE - BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 ANY OPERABLE WINDOW WITH A SILL THAT IS LOCATED LESS THAN 24" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AND MORE THAN 72" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OR OTHER SURFACE BELOW AT THE EXTERIOR, MUST BE PROTECTED BY A GUARD OR, HAVE A FIXED GLASS. THE GUARD MAY NOT HAVE OPENINGS THAT A SPHERE 4" IN DIAMETER CAN PASS THROUGH. 2016 CBC 1405.13.2 A1.6 MH 13052A66 DATE REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION PROJECT MANAGER : DESIGNER : DRAWN BY : REVIEWED BY : 1ST BLDG. DEPT. SUBMITTAL : ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION : JOB NUMBER : CAD FILE NAME : DATE: SHEET: MMBH---2013052.14 05-21-18 PLAN 3020

CLOVIS, CA

WILSON HOMES

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA SFD
2013052.14 - FIRST BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL- 05-21-18 DO NOT SCALE PLANS 2018 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA WHA EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF WHA IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD WHA HARMLESS. C ELEVATION REFERENCE: C ELEVATION STYLE: ROOF MATERIAL STANDARD ROOF DETAIL U.N.O. FASCIA - BARGE - OVERHANG DIM. - U.N.O. CONCRETE 'FLAT' TILE 1'-0" U.N.O. U.N.O. EAVE RAKE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2X6 2X6 3D1 ROOF PLAN NOTES PROGRESSIVE NAPA SPARK ARRESTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 1. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ROOF NOTES. 2. 4. 1. IN CLIMATE ZONES 14 AND 16, A CLASS I OR II VAPOR RETARDER IS INSTALLED ON THE WARM-IN-WINTER SIDE OF THE CEILING. PROVIDE ATTIC & SOFFIT VENTILATION PER CRC SECTION R806. PER CRC SECTION R806.2, THE MINIMUM NET FREE 2. AT LEAST 40 PERCENT AND NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED VENTILATING AREA IS PROVIDED BY VENTILATORS 3. ATTIC ACCESS PER CRC SECTION R807. LOCATED IN THE UPPER PORTION OF THE ATTIC OR RAFTER SPACE. UPPER VENTILATORS SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN NOTE: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR READY BUILDINGS PER CEnC SECTION 110.10. 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE, MEASURED VERTICALLY, WITH THE BALANCE OF THE VENTILATING AREA SHALL BE 1/150 OF THE AREA OF THE VENTED SPACE. EXCEPTION: THE MINIMUM NET FREE VENTILATION AREA SHALL BE 1/300 OF THE VENTED SPACE PROVIDED ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: REQUIRED VENTILATION PROVIDED BY EAVE OR CORNICE VENTS. WHERE THE LOCATION OF WALL OR ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS CONFLICTS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF UPPER VENTILATORS, INSTALLATION MORE THAN 3 FEET (914 MM) BELOW THE RIDGE OR HIGHEST POINT OF THE SPACE SHALL BE PERMITTED. 1'-0" BY EAGLE ROOFING ICC# ESR 1900 662 December 2022

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
T R A C T M A P 6 3 4 3

I N I T I A L S T U D Y

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
Attachment 11
663
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
664
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

December 2022

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
T R A C T M A P 6 3 4 3

I N I T I A L S T U D Y

CLOVIS CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

Lily Cha, Senior Planner
Planning and Development Services
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. CIT2201
665
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
666
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................ 2-1

2.1 Determination...................................................................................................................2-1

3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................3-5

3.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................3-9

3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................3-13

3.5 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................3-20

3.6 Energy..............................................................................................................................3-24

3.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................3-26

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................3-30

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................3-32

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................3-36

3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................3-42

3.12 Mineral Resources...........................................................................................................3-44

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................3-45

3.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................3-51

3.15 Public Services.................................................................................................................3-53

3.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................3-56

3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................3-57

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................3-61

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................................................3-63

3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................3-67

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 5-1

APPENDICES
A: AB 52 CONSULTATION REQUEST AND RESPONSE LETTERS
B: WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTIGATION
C: WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
667
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Regional and Local Context .............................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 1-2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses.................................. 1-9 Figure 1-3: General Site Plan............................................................................................................. 1-11 Figure 1-4: South: Phase 1 ................................................................................................................ 1-13 Figure 1-5: Central: Phase 2.............................................................................................................. 1-15 Figure 1-6: North: Phase 3 ................................................................................................................ 1-17 TABLES
Table 3.A: SJVAPCD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr)................... 3-10 Table 3.B: City of Clovis Maximum Exterior Noise Standards........................................................... 3-47 Table 3.C: City of Clovis Maximum Interior Noise Standards ........................................................... 3-47 Table 3.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................. 3-48 668
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB 52 Assembly Bill 52
Active Transportation Plan 2021 Clovis Active Transportation Plan Update AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AFY/ac acre-feet per year per acre
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor Parcel Numbers
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFD Clovis Fire Department
CH4 methane
City City of Clovis
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPD Clovis Police Department
CRA Cultural Resource Assessment
CUSD Clovis Unified School District
db decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
669
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) iv
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Fresno LAFCo Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
gpm gallons per minute
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HP helipad
HQTA High-Quality Transit Area
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
Ldn day-night average level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
LOS level of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operation and Maintenance
O3 ozone
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
670
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) v ppb parts per billion
PRC Public Resources Code
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SB 2 Senate Bill 2
SB 743 Senate Bill 743
SB 1383 Senate Bill 1383
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SHTAC Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR-168 State Route 168
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
671
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
vi \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) This page intentionally left blank
672
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 1-1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:

Tract Map 6343

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Lily Cha, Senior Planner
(559) 324-2335
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

Southwest of the intersection of East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue.

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 556-040-07S, 556-040-08S, 556-030-14S

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Wilson Premier Homes, Inc.
7550 North Palm Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, CA 93711

6. General Plan Designation:

Medium Density Residential

7. Zoning:

Exclusive Agricultural District (AE-20) (Fresno County)

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project would consist of the annexation of 246 acres by the City of Clovis (City), and the development of 590 residential lots in a 71.54-acre project site. Average lot size would be 3,329 square feet. 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. Any future development occurring within the annexation area would require a separate project-specific analysis.

The project site is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection between East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue, as shown on Figure 1-1. The project site is located within the City of Clovis’ existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) and within the Northwest Urban Center area identified in the 2014 City of Clovis General Plan, now referred to as Heritage Grove. As such, this area is already planned and designated for urban growth and environmentally evaluated at 673
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
1 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -2 the programmatic level in the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 1 The
project site is currently being used for agriculture and contains one existing dwelling unit and associated structures. Parcel APN 556-030-14S of the project site is currently under a Williamson Act contract; however, a petition for a contract cancellation is currently in progress. 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 (Basin BY), and Tract Map 6200 to the east. Figure 1-2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses.

The proposed project would be developed over a period of approximately 33 months and over three Phases. There would also be 66 outlot spaces included in the proposed residential development. Although the site plan does not provide details on what would be constructed in these spaces, potential uses for the outlots would include private road, private parking, private pedestrian, private landscaping, public utility, and public park uses. The proposed project would include the removal of one existing 2,679-square-foot dwelling unit and garage, an existing propane tank, a 2,000-square-foot pole barn, two sheds of 1,785-square-foot and 2,250-squarefoot dimensions, and an existing driveway on the project site. Figure 1-3 shows the site plan for the proposed project.

Phase 1 of the proposed project would include the development of 136 single-family residential units with an average size of 1,514 square feet per unit. Phase 1 would be located on the southern portion of the project site and would be accessed through one ingress and egress driveway located on Perrin Avenue. Phase 1 would include the construction of 44 parking spaces, an 8,745-square-foot community pool and recreation area, a 13,930-square-foot community park, a 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 Avenue and Hammel Avenue within the project site would be constructed during Phase 1. Figure 1-4 shows a site plan of Phase 1 of the proposed project.

Phase 2 of the proposed project would include the development of 214 single-family residential units with an average size of 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 driveway located along the future southern extension of North Baron Avenue, and one driveway along Hammel Avenue. Phase 2 would include the construction of a 26-foot-wide drainage channel along Perrin Avenue, a 0.35 acre of landscaped areas, and storm drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Perrin Avenue and Hammel Avenue. Figure 1-5 shows a site plan of Phase 2 of the proposed project.

Phase 3 of the proposed project would include the development of 240 single-family residential units with an average size of 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 1 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/ planning-and-development/planning/master-plans/general-plan/environmental-impact-report/ (accessed December 8, 2022).
674
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 1-3 egress driveways located along the future southern extension of North Baron Avenue, and through one gated driveway located along the future northern extension of Hammel Avenue.

Phase 3 would include the construction of 91 parking spaces, a 9,985-square-foot pool and recreation area, a 0.65 acre of landscaped areas, and drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along North Baron Avenue. Figure 1-6 shows a site plan of Phase 3 of the proposed project.

Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Clovis. The project would require the construction of a 24-inch water main along Behymer Avenue from Clovis Avenue to Baron Avenue. Additionally, the project would construct a 24-inch main along Baron Avenue, from Behymer Avenue to Perrin Avenue. The proposed improvements would be consistent with the City’s Water Master Plan and the City’s specifications on materials, depth, and resurfacing.

Wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Clovis. The proposed project would connect to an existing wastewater main within the right-of-way of North Baron Avenue.

The FMFCD would provide flood control and urban storm water services to the project site.

In addition, a 1,300-foot-long, 26-foot-wide drainage channel would be constructed along the north side of the Perrin Avenue extension to direct stormwater flows west from the project site towards drainage infrastructure along the Enterprise Canal.

Storm drainage pipelines would be constructed along North Baron Avenue and along interior roadways in the project site to drain stormwater from the project site towards Basin BY. These storm drainage facilities would be constructed pursuant to requirements of the FMFCD Master Plan.

Solid waste collection for the project site would be provided by the City of Clovis, and recycling and green waste collection would be provided by Republic Services.

Electricity and natural gas services for the proposed project would be supplied by PG&E through connections to existing service lines. Telecommunication services to the project site would be provided by Comcast and AT&T.

Access to the project site would be provided by East Behymer Avenue and by a southern extension of North Baron Avenue, to be constructed during Phase 1 of the proposed project along the eastern boundary of the project site. The proposed project would construct approximately 2,650 feet of North Baron Avenue south of East Behymer to connect with the existing stretch of North Baron Avenue located southeast of the project site. This portion of North Baron Avenue would be approximately 49 feet wide and have two lanes. A 20-foot-wide 675
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
1 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -4 parkway containing a 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and landscaped areas would be included along the western side of North Baron Avenue along the project site. A 16-foot-wide parkway containing a 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and landscaped area that is reduced from the Heritage Grove Neighborhood Boulevard Street section would be included along the eastern side of North Baron Avenue, along the FMFCD Basin BY frontage. The eastern side of North Baron Avenue that is north of Basin BY will ultimately be built out with a 20-foot-wide 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 pedestrian walk will continue north of Basin BY to East Behymer Avenue with Tract 6343, but will temporarily be constructed to share a combination pedestrian and widened bike lane as approved by the City Engineer with the project design plans.

To access the project site, three gated ingress and egress driveways would be constructed along the southern extension of North Baron Avenue. One gated ingress and egress driveway would also be constructed along Hammel Avenue. A temporary secondary access connecting Hammel Avenue to North Baron Avenue would be constructed along the northern end of Hammel Avenue during Phase 3. One gated ingress and egress driveway and one gated emergency access driveway would be constructed along Perrin Avenue.

Vehicle circulation within the project site would be provided by a network of two-way, 37.2- foot-wide private streets. Internal roadways within the project site would include Hammel Avenue, which is located along the project site’s western boundary, and Perrin Avenue, which crosses the project site west to east.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The 71.54-acre project site is located in the City of Clovis' SOI, within the Northwest Urban Center area identified in the City’s General Plan that is now referred to as Heritage Grove. The surrounding 246-acre annexation area encompasses the project site. The project site and annexation area include existing residential and agricultural uses. The project site and annexation area are surrounded by agricultural and single-family residential uses to the south, rural residential and agricultural uses to the east, agricultural and commercial uses to the west, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the north.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
• County of Fresno/City of Clovis – Williamson Act Contract Cancellation • Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission – Annexation • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (with requisite Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and Permanent Control Measures) 676
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 1-5

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), on November 4, 2022, the City sent letters regarding the proposed project to Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of Chuckchansi Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band tribes based on the list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Table Mountain Rancheria sent a response to the City on November 15, 2022, requesting the Cultural Resources Assessment2 prepared for the project, and did not request any further consultation. No further responses or requests for consultation were received by the City within the 30-day consultation period beginning November 4, 2022, and ending December 3, 2022. As such, AB 52 requirements for the proposed project have been fulfilled. AB 52 consultation request and response letters are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
2 Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Tentative Tract Map 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area, County of Fresno, California. September 21. 677
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and

PERRIN RD

E BEHYMER AVE N MINNEWAWA AVE

UNINCORPORATED

FRESNO COUNTY

CITY OF
CLOVIS

E SHEPHERD AVE

N MINNEW

N MINNEWAWA AVE

N SUNNYSIDE AVE
SOURCE: Esri Streetmap (2021)
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\images\CIT2201\GIS\MXD\Regional_Local_Context.mxd (12/6/2022) Tract Map 6343
Regional and Local Context
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Project
Location
Ã145
Ã180
Ã168
Ã41
Ã99
Project Vicinity
LEGEND
Project Location
Parcel Boundary
Annexation Boundary
Clovis City Limit 0 750 1500
FEET
FIGURE 1-1
679
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

Nees Ave Nees Ave
W Teague Ave Teague Ave
Perrin Rd
E Shepherd Ave
E Behymer Ave N Minnewawa Ave
N Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside
A ve N Sunnyside Ave
N Dewi
Ʃ Ave N Dewi
Bloom Ave Enterprise Canal
Enterprise
Canal
Bloom Ave
N Preuss A ve N Preuss Ave
N Osmun A ve N Osmun Ave
Enterprise C anal
Enterprise Canal
E Shepherd Ave
E Behymer Ave
N Minnewawa Ave
Nees Ave Nees Ave
W Teague Ave Teague Ave
Perrin Rd
N Sunnyside Ave N Sunnyside
A ve N Sunnyside Ave

AGRICULTURE

RESIDENTIAL

AGRICULTURE
0 1000 2000
Project Site TM-6343 Boundary
AnnexaƟon Boundary
FEET
SOURCES: Google Earth 4/21/2021; LSA, 2022
I:\CIT2201\G\Aerial Photo of Site&Surrounding LU.ai (12/6/2022) FIGURE 1-2
Tract Map 6343
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 681
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\General Site Plan.ai (9/22/2022) FIGURE 1-3
Tract Map 6343
General Site Plan
683
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

Lorem
0 60 120
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\South-Phase 1.ai (9/22/2022) FIGURE 1-4
Tract Map 6343
South: Phase 1
685
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
1 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -14 This page intentionally left blank
686
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
0 100 200
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\Central-Phase 2.ai (9/22/2022) FIGURE 1-5
Tract Map 6343
Central: Phase 2
687
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
1 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -16 This page intentionally left blank
688
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
0 80 160
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\North-Phase 3.ai (9/22/2022) FIGURE 1-6
Tract Map 6343
North: Phase 3
689
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 2-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 3.0.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire

2.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
691
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
2 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -2 This page intentionally left blank
692
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-1

3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

3.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c. In non-urbanized areas, 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.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

3.1.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant landscape feature. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Clovis’ General Plan identifies Clovis Avenue, Shaw Avenue, and Herndon Avenue as gateways to the community and important visual links to Old Town Clovis from the greater Fresno area. Other arterial roadways that travel east-to-west through the Clovis, such as Shepherd Avenue, Bullard Avenue, and Ashlan Avenue, span the community’s suburban/rural interface and therefore can also be construed as scenic corridors. These roadways provide a scenic and character transition through the nearly built-out core of Central Clovis into its pastoral agrarian areas to the north, east, and south.

The project site is currently undeveloped and used for agriculture. The project site is located in the vicinity of West Shepherd Avenue, one of the scenic corridors identified in the General Plan. The project site is also located within the City’s Northwest Urban Center, now referred to as Heritage Grove, which offers some of the most direct and unobstructed views of the Sierra Nevada and foothills in the City.3The Heritage Grove area is specifically planned for urban growth. The proposed project would develop the 71.54-acre project site into a 590-lot single-family residential development. Although implementation of the proposed project would change the existing 3 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Aesthetics. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-01-Aesthetics.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
693
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -2 agricultural land uses in the project site to a single-family residential use, the proposed residential use of the project site would be similar to existing residential uses south of the site, and therefore, the addition of single-family residences at the site would not substantially change views from public vista points. Additionally, the proposed single-family residences to be constructed at the project site would be consistent in size and scale to existing residential units in the vicinity of the project site and would not introduce oversized elements that could obstruct distant views of the Sierra Nevada and foothills.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial effect on scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) mapping of State Scenic Highways4, there are no state-designated scenic highways in or near the City of Clovis.

However, State Route 168 (SR-168), an Eligible State Scenic Highway located approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site, bisects the City in a southwest to northeast direction.5 No Officially Designated or Eligible State Scenic Highways are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway or impact scenic resources located within the highway segments or its viewshed.

Therefore, no impact on scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur as a result of the proposed project. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a 590-lot single-family residential development. The project site is currently undeveloped and used for agriculture, and it is surrounded by agricultural and single-family residential uses to the south, rural residential and agricultural uses to the east, agricultural and commercial uses to the west, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the north. The proposed project would change the agricultural use of the site to a residential use. Furthermore, the proposed project would introduce Single-Family Planned Residential Development (R-1-PRD) uses into a site zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County.

The proposed project is located within Heritage Grove, a growth area identified for development in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project would require approval from Fresno County Local 4 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/ programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed May 12, 2022).
5 Ibid.
694
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-3 Agency Formation Commission (Fresno LAFCo) for annexation to the City of Clovis. After annexation to the City, site zoning would be compatible with the proposed residential use of the proposed project. Additionally, the single-family residences to be constructed on the project site would be consistent in size and scale to existing residential units to the south of the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality in the City and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site and its surroundings, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of 590 new single-family residential units within the project site, as well as landscaped, recreational, and utility areas. The construction of new buildings and infrastructure would introduce new sources of light into the project site and vicinity. Compliance with California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) standards would reduce potential light and glare impacts. Furthermore, the City’s Development Code Update outlines performance standards related to exterior lighting to reduce impacts from new light sources under Article 3 (Development and Operational Standards), Section

9.22.050 (Exterior Light and Glare). Section 9.22.050 states the following:

A. Exterior Lighting

1. Exterior Lighting shall be:
a. Architecturally integrated with the character of on-site and adjacent structure(s);
b. Directed downward and shielded so that all direct light and glare is confined within the boundaries of the subject parcel;
c. Installed so that lights not blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. The blink and flash provision does not apply to allowed seasonal decorations in residential areas, 9.34.060(P). The unusually high intensity or brightness provision shall apply in all instances; and d. Appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the uses they are serving.

2. Exterior lighting shall not:
a. Exceed 150 watts (or equivalent) or directly illuminate or be visible from adjacent properties.
b. Result in:
695
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -4 1) Indirect illumination of adjacent properties in excess of 0.5 footcandles; 2) A point of overlap between light patterns greater than seven feet for pedestrian lighting systems; or
3) An intensity of lighting within the physical limits of an area required to be lighted that is greater than seven foot-candles.

B. Security Lighting. Security lighting shall be provided at all entrances/exits to structures. The minimum illumination shall be two footcandles at ground level in front of the entrance/exit.

C. Shielded Lighting. Light sources shall be shielded to direct light rays onto the subject parcel only. The light source, whether bulb or tube, shall not be directly visible from an adjacent property or public street rights-of-way. This Section does not apply to public street lighting, sign illumination, or traffic safety lighting.

Implementation of State and local policies and standards would reduce impacts associated with light and glare through the adoption and enforcement of development design standards. Additionally, the new sources of light and glare introduced by the proposed project would be comparable to the existing light and glare emitted by residential uses located south of the project site. Therefore, the adverse impacts related to light and glare resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. 696
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-5

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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 nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. 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?

3.2.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is classified as “Unique Farmland” and “Farmland of Local Importance” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)6. The proposed project would develop the 71.54-acre project site into a 590-lot single-family residential development. Therefore, development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance to a non-agricultural use. 6 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed April 14, 2022). 697
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -6 The City of Clovis General Plan identifies that build out of the General Plan would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Mitigation Measure 2-1 of the General Plan EIR addresses conversion of important farmland associated with build out of the General Plan, and requires project applicants for properties that include 20 acres or more of designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland to prepare or fund an agricultural resource evaluation, such as a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, prior to project approval. The Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) Farmland Impact Assessment7 prepared for the City of Clovis prepared a LESA Model for the Heritage Grove growth area, which includes the project site, and concluded that conversion of farmland in the Heritage Grove growth area would result in significant unavoidable impacts to important farmland, consistent with the determination of the General Plan EIR.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 2-1 requires that if farmland conversion is deemed significant, the City would require mitigation at a 1:1 ratio of converted to preserved acreage, or payment of its valuation equivalent if a fee mitigation program is established, or mitigation through a regional agricultural preservation program, if applicable. However, the General Plan EIR does state that even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1, conversion of farmland through build out of the General Plan would represent a significant unavoidable impact. As such, farmland conversion covered under the General Plan cannot be mitigated.

Figure 5.2-5 in the Agriculture and Forestry section of the General Plan EIR identifies the location of Important Farmland in the City’s Planning Area to be converted by buildout of the General Plan.8 Sections of the proposed project currently used for agricultural activities are included among the Important Farmland to be converted by buildout of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project is located within Heritage Grove, a growth area identified for development in the General Plan. Development of the proposed project would be consistent with planned growth under the General Plan, and therefore, would not result in unplanned impacts to Important Farmland.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. In addition, the project site contains APN 556-030-14S, which is currently under a Williamson Act contract. Following approval of the proposed project and certification of the EIR, the City and Project Applicant will apply to have the project site and annexation area annexed into the City of Clovis and cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, respectively.
7 LSA Associates, Inc. 2022. Farmland Impact Assessment, Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project, City of Clovis, California. February 2022.
8 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Figure 5.2-5: Important Farmland Converted at General Plan Buildout. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-02-Agriculture-and-ForestryResources.pdf (accessed July 7, 2022). 698
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-7 As noted in the SB 2 Farmland Impact Assessment prepared for the City for the Heritage Grove Growth Area, APN 556-030-014S (the project site) is currently under a Williamson Act contract. A petition for cancellation and statutory findings to support cancellation of the Williamson Act contract would need to be submitted by the Project Applicant as set forth under Government Code Section 51282(a). Additionally, payment of a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the unrestricted market value of the parcel is required as set forth under Government Code Section 51283(b). The cancellation process for APN 556-030-014S will be completed prior to development of the proposed project.

After annexation of APN 556-030-14S to the City of Clovis and cancellation of the Williamson Act contract, the parcel could develop uses that comply with the zoning designation of the parcel per the City’s Zoning Code without the proposed development being inconsistent with a Williamson Act contract.

Furthermore, the City’s General Plan identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of agricultural land uses in the Heritage Grove area to non-agricultural use. As a result, the potential impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract have been previously addressed in the General Plan EIR, and this project would not result in a new impact. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site is zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. The project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland. No forest lands or timberland are located on the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on forest land or timberland. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? No Impact. Please refer to the discussion for c) above. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. e. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to discussions a) and c) of this section. The project site is not used for timberland production or zoned for forest land or timberland. The project site is classified as “Unique Farmland” and “Farmland of Local Importance” by the California Department 699
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -8 of Conservation FMMP. The proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. However, conversion of farmland resulting from the proposed project has already been identified in the General Plan EIR, and it would be consistent with planned growth in the City of Clovis under the General Plan. As a result, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of forestland or timberland, or the unplanned conversion of farmland beyond what has been identified by the General Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
700
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-9

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

3.3.1 Impact Analysis
The proposed project is in the City of Clovis’ existing Sphere of Influence and northwest planned growth area. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulation within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region.

Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as PM, CO, SO2, and Pb are considered local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) is under State non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non-attainment for both the federal ozone 8-hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard.

A threshold of significance is defined by the SJVAPCD in its Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect. Non-compliance with a threshold of significance means the effect will normally be determined to be significant. Compliance with a threshold of significance means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. The SJVAPCD has established 701
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -10 thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions generated during construction and operation of projects as shown in Table 3.A below.9
Table 3.A: SJVAPCD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr)
CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction Thresholds 100 10 10 27 15 15
Operation Thresholds 100 10 10 27 15 15
Source: Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015a.) CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = oxides of sulfur
tons/yr = tons per year
The emissions thresholds in the SJVAPCD GAMAQI were established based on the attainment status of the air basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety, these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the Air Basin into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 75 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.10
To assure the Air Basin’s continued attainment of the EPA PM10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 standard to address the EPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), established in 2012. In addition, the SJVAPCD is in the process of developing an attainment strategy to address multiple PM2.5 9 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015b. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-PollutantThresholds-of-Significance.pdf (accessed on April 14, 2022). 10 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

Website: www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm (accessed April 14, 2022). 702
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-11 standards (1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 standards) and a plan to demonstrate maintenance of the 1987 PM10 standard as required under the federal Clean Air Act.

For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality.

Construction and operation of the proposed project may result in an increase in air pollutant emissions. As a result, the proposed project could have a potential adverse effect on the SJVAPCD’s implementation of clean air plans. Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the SJVAPCD’s clean air plans. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Potentially Significant Impact. CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, if annual emissions of construction- or operational-related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.

Short-term emissions would occur in association with construction activities, including grading, and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term operational emissions are associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions result from the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips and result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. As noted above, specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth by the SJVAPCD.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in the emission of air pollutants in the Air Basin, which is currently in non-attainment for federal and State air quality standards.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could potentially contribute to air quality impacts, which could cause a cumulative impact in the Air Basin. Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of cumulative air pollutant emissions associated with the project. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks. The closest potentially sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary and residential uses that are currently under construction south of the project site.

Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually dieselfueled vehicles and equipment). Therefore, the EIR will provide further analysis of air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project.
703
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -12 d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, the various dieselpowered vehicles and equipment in use on site and off site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during project construction or operation, and this impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
704
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-13

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. 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?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Argonaut Ecological Consulting conducted a Biological Resource Assessment11 (BRA) to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources. The following methodology was utilized to assess the biological study area of the proposed project:
• Data and Literature Review: Documents and sources of information used to prepare this evaluation include the following:
○ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Fresno Area (Soils Mapper)
○ Aerial photography (Google Earth®, Bing®, and historic aerials) ○ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB/RareFind – Recent version with updates)
11 Argonaut Ecological Consulting. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment – Tentative Tract 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area. September 26.
705
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -14 ○ CDFW Open Data Portal, ArcGIS GeoService
○ United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory Map ○ USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). ○ United States Geological Survey (USGS), Historical Topographic Map, Clovis and Friant Quadrangles, 1919, University of Texas, Austin, Perry-Castañeda Map Collection Prior to review of the project site, the CNDDB/RareFind and the USFWS IPaC were consulted to determine the species potentially present within the biological study area based on location. • Aerial Photography and Wetland Mapping: Historical aerial photographs dating from the 1980s of the biological study area were reviewed to identify site features and determine land use changes over time. Wetland mapping and aerial photographs were also reviewed to determine if the biological study area recently supported wetlands. • Field Survey: A field survey was conducted on the project site on August 6 and 7, 2022. The project site was walked, and habitat features mapped. Review of the annexation area of the proposed project included a combination of observation from public roads, and limited foot surveys of accessible areas. Soils, vegetation, and drainage patterns within the biological study area were inspected to determine the habitat present and suitability for species of concern.

3.4.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences in the approximately

71.54-acre site located in the Heritage Grove area.

The project site is currently dominated by ruderal species and by nonnative grassland previously used for cattle grazing. No special‐status plant species are expected to occur within the project site or to be adversely affected by the proposed project. While no special‐status animal species (or signs of such species) were observed on site during the August 2022 survey, eight existing trees surrounding the existing residential unit within the project site could provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of birds, including Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Additionally, there is potential for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) to nest in old pipelines around the existing residential unit or along the Enterprise Canal. No suitable habitat for any other specialstatus species occurs in the project site. Potentially significant direct and indirect impacts, including mortality, harassment, or other forms of incidental take, could occur during proposed removal of existing trees and the exiting residential unit in the project site and due to site disturbance associated with construction activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, outlined below, 706
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-15 would reduce the impact of the proposed project on special-status species to less than significant.

As such, the proposed project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

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 15 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.

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 707
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -16 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 pre-construction surveys, occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 for owls and other raptors).

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 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 708
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-17 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.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities have been identified within the project site. The project site is disturbed from past agricultural activities, and mainly contains ruderal vegetation and nonnative grassland. As such, the proposed project would not have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. c. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences in an approximately

71.54-acre site in the Heritage Grove area.

The main aquatic feature in the vicinity of the project site is Enterprise No. 109 Canal (Enterprise Canal), an irrigation canal managed by the Fresno Irrigation District. Enterprise No. 109 Canal does not meet the current definition of a jurisdictional water of the United States and does not meet the wetland criteria wetland criteria outlined in the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, which excludes agricultural ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated water of the state or excavated in a water of the state. 709
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -18 Nevertheless, the Enterprise No. 109 Canal may fall within the jurisdiction of CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the California Water Code (e.g., the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act). Furthermore, given the recent substantial changes in operable definitions that have occurred and may continue to occur, and considering the regulatory revisions and potential court actions, it is not possible to definitively predict the regulations that will be in place at the time of a particular jurisdictional determination or permit action by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Under currently effective Clean Water Act regulations and guidance, the USACE reserves the right to regulate certain resources on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 is recommended. Implementation of this measure would reduce potential impacts to protected wetlands to less than significant.

As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

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.
d. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is disturbed from past agricultural activities, and mainly contains ruderal vegetation and nonnative grassland. Based on field observations and the location of the project site, there are no indications that the project site functions as a wildlife movement corridor, or an important stopover point for migratory species. The wildlife species that occur in the vicinity of the project site are adapted to the urban‐wildland interface. The noise, 710
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-19 vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. The proposed project would not place any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or interfere with habitat connectivity.

Existing trees on site could provide limited nesting habitat to native and migratory bird species, including Swainson’s hawk. Furthermore, there is limited potential for Burrowing owls nesting in the vicinity of the existing residential unit onsite, as well as the vicinity of Enterprise No. 109 Canal.

Breeding‐season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of take by the CDFW. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would ensure that take of nesting migratory bird species, as well as of special-status species such as Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl, is avoided.

As such, the proposed 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. The impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Clovis Development Code includes tree protection standards for any trees that may need to be removed during construction. Compliance with the tree protection standards of the Clovis Municipal Code would require the replacement of trees and/or payment of in-lieu fees. The project would be required to comply with the tree protection ordinance; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was approved in 2007 and covers portions of nine counties, including Fresno County. This HCP covers PG&E activities that occur as a result of ongoing O&M that would have an adverse impact on any of the 65 covered species and provides incidental take coverage from the USFWS and CDFW. The project site is not located within the covered area of any approved or draft HCP, Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or State HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the PG&E HCP, and the proposed project would have no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. 711
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Peak & Associates, Inc. prepared a Cultural Resource Assessment (CRA)12 for the proposed project to assess potential impacts to cultural resources. The following discussion summarizes the methodology and results of the study:
• Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center: A record search of the study area for the proposed project and a 0.25-mile search radius was conducted on through the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on September 6, 2022 (SSJVIC Records Search File No. 22-334).

The record search results indicated that no portion of the project site has ever been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Two resources were identified within the study area: a waste disposal site (P-10-006461) found during excavation for a utility pole in the northeast corner of the annexation area in 2015, and the Enterprise Canal, recorded as P-FRE-3564-H. Within the

0.25-mile radius search, six historic period resources have been recorded. • Field Survey: On September 14, 2022, and September 15, 2022, Peak & Associates, Inc. staff conduced a field survey of the project site. The project site was walked on its entirety and surveyed.
• Results: No features or artifacts of historical or prehistoric nature were observed in the project site during the field survey. The existing residential unit onsite is less than 50 years old and would not be considered a historical resource.

3.5.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria: (1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) listed in a local register of 12 Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Tentative Tract Map 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area, County of Fresno, California. September 21. 712
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-21 historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built-environment resources and archaeological sites.

The proposed project would result in the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. According to the CRA for the project, no historical resources were identified within the project site during the record search or field survey. However, development of previously undeveloped land in the City could result in the discovery of previously unknown historical resources.

To reduce potential impacts on potentially undiscovered historical resources in the project site, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 shall be implemented. This mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered resources to a less than significant level by consulting with a qualified historical resources specialist and implementing applicable mitigation measures to protect resources found during project construction. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

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 CEQA Guidelines.

If the resources are determined to be unique archeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5(c)(1) of the 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. 713
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -22 A report of findings shall also be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center .
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1), “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource...” Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to California PRC Section 21083.2. Archaeological cultural resources identified during project construction shall be treated by the City in consultation with a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 as identified above in Section 3.5.a. With implementation of these measures, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations pertaining treatment and disposition human remains, reducing potential impacts on unknown human remains to a less than significant level. This topic will not be included in the EIR.

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.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-23 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. The Project Applicant shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.
715
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be constructed using energy-efficient modern building materials and construction practices, and the proposed project also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Sections 1601 through 1608). The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project would be consistent with typical usage rates for residential uses in the Clovis; however, energy consumption is largely a function of personal choice and the physical structure and layout of buildings. It can be assumed that implementation of the proposed project would result in additional energy demand in Clovis.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s energy efficiency policies, including Policies 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 from the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan as follows:

Policy 3.5: Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage new development and substantial rehabilitation projects to exceed energy and water conservation and reduction standards set in the California Building Code.

Policy 3.6: Renewable Energy. Promote the use of renewable and sustainable energy sources to serve public and private sector development.

Policy 3.7: Construction and design. Encourage new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. 716
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-25 b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in a) above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) and with General Plan policies for energy efficiency and conservation. The proposed project would also be required to implement the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (CCR Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which include provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with State and local policies plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. 717
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. 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?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. 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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.7.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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.

Less Than Significant Impact. Fault ruptures are generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., within the past 11,000 years). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces are located in the vicinity of the project site. The closest active faults to the project site are the Nunez Fault, located approximately 60 miles southwest of the project site and the Ortigalita Fault, located approximately 66 miles southwest of the 718
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-27 project site. Due to the distance of these known faults, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Therefore, potential impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. While Clovis is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake hazard zone, some ground shaking may occur within the City Planning Area depending on the amount of energy released from a nearby fault, or the magnitude of the earthquake. The proposed project would be required to conform to California Building Code (CCR Title 24) seismic safety standards, which take multiple factors into account, such as occupancy type, soil type, and ground motion with a specified probability at the project site. Compliance with the California Building Code would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements.

Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. Liquefaction and lateral spreading potential in Fresno County and Clovis is considered very low due to the nature of the underlying soils and history of low ground-shaking potential in the region. Furthermore, compliance with the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides typically occur in areas that experience ground shaking, are typically wet and/or have steep slopes. The proposed project is located in Clovis, which is an area that consists of mostly flat topography within the Central Valley and has low groundshaking potential. Additionally, the project site is not located next to any hills, rivers, creeks or unlined canals that could increase the risk of landslides. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of landslides would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthmoving during project construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater 719
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -28 runoff and transported off the project site. However, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through compliance with water quality control measures, which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion during construction. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study.

This impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. c. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in discussion a) in this section, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. The project site contains Exeter sandy loam, Tujunga loamy sand, Atwater sandy loam, and Ramona sandy loam, soils which have a medium to low shrink-swell potential.13 Compliance with California Building Code requirements would ensure the implementation of design features that would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less than significant impact. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
e. Would the project 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?
No Impact. The City’s Public Utilities Department currently manages the City’s sewer system and wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater from the City’s collection system is treated at the Clovis Water Reuse Facility and the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF).

Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed project would be required to pay development fees and fund the construction or expansion of wastewater infrastructure, as applicable, to ensure that the public sewer system would serve the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no 13 Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov. usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed April 14, 2022). 720
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-29 impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources are afforded protection under CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature. PRC Section 5097.5 also specifies that the unauthorized removal or damage of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. The California Penal Code Section 622.5 also sets penalties for removal or damage of paleontological resources.

The project site has been partially developed and used for agricultural production. In addition, there have been no known discovery of occurrences of paleontological resources in the immediately surrounding areas. Although the project site has been previously disturbed, it is possible that paleontological resources could be inadvertently or accidentally discovered within the project site during construction activities. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would serve to protect the accidental discovery of paleontological resources. As such, a less than significant impact with mitigation would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

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.
721
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Impact Analysis
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”).

The GWP of each gas is measured relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the project site and 722
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-31 motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce GHGs. The combustion of fossilbased fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources. Mobile-source emissions of GHG would include vehicle-related emissions associated with the private vehicles owned by residents and employees of the project site. Stationary emissions of GHG would include electricity and natural gas consumption from residences at the project site.

The EIR will provide further analysis of the proposed project’s GHG emissions. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project has the potential to emit GHGs. As such, the EIR will include further evaluation of project-related emissions and associated emission reduction strategies to determine whether the proposed project conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 723
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. 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?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials or emitting significant amounts of hazardous substances would occur within the project site. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable standards and regulations, including Policies 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 from the Environmental Safety Element of the General Plan:
724
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-33 Policy 1.4: Facilities that use hazardous materials. Prohibit facilities using, storing, or otherwise involved with hazardous or toxic materials to be located in the 100- year flood zone unless all standards of elevation, flood proofing, and storage have been implemented.

Policy 2.1: Safe storage and maintenance. The use and storage of hazardous materials shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws to prevent and mitigate hazardous materials releases.

Policy 2.3: Truck routes for hazardous materials. Maintain designated truck routes for the transportation of hazardous materials through the City. Discourage routes that pass through residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy 2.4: Hazardous materials response team. Maintain a Type 1 hazardous materials response team serving the City of Clovis.

As a result, the proposed project would not create significant hazards to the public or environment through the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less than significant impact would occur. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion a) above. The proposed project would not use substantial amounts hazardous materials which release would result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would also comply, as applicable, with General Plan Policies 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 from the Environmental Safety Element, which require compliance with local, State and federal standards and procedures for the handling, use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest existing schools to the project site are Woods Elementary School, located approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site, and Buchanan High School, located approximately 1.08 miles southeast of the project site. As previously stated, the proposed project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all hazardous materials within the project site would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project would not result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances in the vicinity of a school, a less than significant impact would occur. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 725
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -34 d. Would the project 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 it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the DTSC EnviroStor database,14 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. Additionally, the project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.15 Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
e. Would the project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest airports to the project site include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 11.7 miles southwest of the project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 9.6 miles southwest of the project site. The nearest medical center helipads (HP) to the project site include the Clovis Community Hospital HP located approximately

3.34 miles southeast of the project site, the Saint Agnes Medical Center HP, located approximately

4.2 miles southwest of the project site, and the Valley Children’s Hospital HP located approximately

5.33 miles west of the project site.16 Due to the distance between the project site and local airports and helipads, operations at these locations are not expected to pose a safety hazard for people residing in the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to airportrelated hazards, and the potential impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The Clovis Fire Department maintains the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The proposed project would include the construction of 590 new single-family residential units within the project site, as well as landscaped, recreational, and utility areas. The proposed project would also result in the construction of extensions of North Baron 14 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. EnviroStor. Website: https://www.envirostor. dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=clovis (accessed April 14, 2022). 15 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ section-65962-5a/ (accessed April 14, 2022).
16 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Website: https://heliplates. dot.ca.gov/# (accessed April 14, 2022).
726
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-35 Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation within, the project site.

The proposed improvements to North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue are not expected to block the circulation of emergency response services in the vicinity of the project site or introduce elements that would conflict with the operations of the City’s EOP. After construction, the proposed extensions to North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue would improve access of emergency response vehicles to the project area and evacuation from the project area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency evacuation plans in Clovis, and this impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).17 However, the project site is in the vicinity of a moderate fire hazard zone. As such, implementation of the proposed project could expose people and/or structures to fire hazard by development near a moderate fire hazard severity zone. In compliance with the General Plan EIR, projects built or developed within a fire hazard severity zone would be required to comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. Any project developed or redeveloped surrounded by or next to forest, brush, grass, or other flammable vegetation would also be mandated to comply with requirements regarding hazardous vegetation, defensible space, and fuel management in California PRC Sections 4291 et seq. and in Sections 4906 and 4907 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Implementation of these regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with wildland fires to a less-than-significant level. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
17 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
727
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

3.10.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine RWQCBs regulate the water quality of surface water and groundwater throughout California. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During project construction, there would be an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies.

In compliance with the General Plan, any development project disturbing one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and other ground‐disturbing 728
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-37 activities such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP.

A SWPPP includes features designed to eliminate contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with sources of pollution that occur on construction sites, the main source being soil erosion resulting from unstabilized soils coming in contact with water and wind. These features are known as BMPs.

Common BMPs to limit pollution in stormwater runoff from construction sites include maintaining or creating drainages to convey and direct surface runoff away from bare areas and installing physical barriers such as berms, silt fencing, waddles, straw bales, and gabions. Consistency with the Construction General Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction impacts on water quality to less than significant levels.

To address long-term impacts to groundwater quality, the proposed project would comply with the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program (SWQMP)18, which requires the implementation of BMPs to manage urban stormwater runoff in the Fresno Metropolitan Area.

These BMPs require the implementation of site drainage designs and post-construction measures that prevent stormwater pollution, as well as compliance with City of Clovis standards to improve stormwater quality. Compliance with this program would reduce potential impacts to groundwater quality from the proposed project. The Project Applicant would be required to pay Local Drainage Fees to fund drainage improvements pursuant to the FMFCD Master Plan and the SWQMP.

Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water supply, and water and wastewater circulation services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Clovis through the Department of Public Utilities.

The City of Clovis relies upon groundwater, surface water, and recycled water for its water supply.

The City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin, an unadjudicated basin with a status of critically overdrafted. The proposed project would construct a 590-lot residential development in a previously undeveloped site. The proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces in the currently undeveloped project site. However, the project would not require groundwater pumping for project operations. As previously discussed, the City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin through a well system containing 36 active wells and one standby well with a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute (gpm) with another 4,750 gpm of additional capacity planned in the next few years. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water 18 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2020. Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program: FY 2019-20 Annual Report. October 1. Website:
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-20-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf (accessed December 6, 2022).
729
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -38 Management Plan19, the City conducted 5,316 acre-feet (AF) of intentional recharge activities at various basins, creeks, and landscape areas throughout the City’s service area. Stormwater throughout the City is collected in FMFCD basins, where collected stormwater is allowed to percolate into the soil as groundwater recharge. The FMFCD allows the City to utilize 17 stormwater basins throughout the City’s service area for recharge purposes. The FMFCD urban stormwater drainage system would provide groundwater infiltration for runoff from developed land uses in detention basins in the City’s drainage system service area. As Clovis continues to grow, the City intends to expand its surface water supply use, recycled water use, and to continue intentional groundwater recharge efforts to relieve pressure on the groundwater aquifer. The proposed project would aid groundwater recharge in the Kings Subbasin through compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and construction of surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure, per design requirements of the City and FMFCD, along North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue as well as along internal roadways in the project site to direct stormwater towards FMFCD Basin BY, which is located adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. In addition, a 1,300-footlong, 26-foot-wide drainage channel would be constructed along the north side of the Perrin Avenue extension to direct stormwater flows west from the project site towards drainage infrastructure along the Enterprise Canal. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge in the Kings Subbasin, and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition to the groundwater supplies, the City also has access to surface water through several different contracts, all of which are delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project (Class II supplies, which are less reliable than other surface water supplies). Lands located within the Kings River service area are generally entitled to an average annual allotment of approximately 2.24 acre-feet per year per acre (AFY/ac). According to a Water Infrastructure Investigation prepared for the proposed project, and included as Appendix B of this Initial Study, approximately 38.6 acres of the project site are located within the FID service area and 32.9 acres are located outside of the FID service area. The Water Infrastructure Investigation has determined that the proposed Medium Density Residential use of the project has a water demand of 3.3 AFY/ac, making annual water demand in the project site approximately 236 AFY. Because the water demand of the project is higher than the allocation of the FID, and the FID would only supply water for approximately 54 percent of the project site (approximately 86.5 AFY), the proposed project would require additional water supply from the City of Clovis. The proposed project would be required to pay applicable development fees to the City to fund acquisition of additional water supplies. After payment of applicable fees, the City would be able to provide sufficient water supply for the project.

As identified in the Water Supply Assessment, included as Appendix C of this Initial Study, the City will have sufficient water supplies to provide water to this project. As such, the proposed project would not substantially decrease water supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As a result, this project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to impeding the 19 City of Clovis. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update. July 12. Website: https://cityofclovis. com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP-Adopted-July-2021_reduced.pdf (accessed December 6, 2022).
730
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-39 sustainable groundwater management of the Kings Subbasin. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; Less Than Significant Impact. Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project would expose native soils that could be subject to the effects of wind and water erosion unless adequate measures are taken to limit the transport of soils in surface water from construction sites to downstream locations. As discussed under discussion a) in this section, the Project Applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP that would identify specific measures to address erosion and siltation resulting from grading and construction.

Stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control for the City of Fresno, City of Clovis, and the unincorporated areas within the City of Clovis SOI are provided by the FMFCD. Stormwater from the project site would be drained through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure located along North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue, as well as along internal roadways in the project site, and redirected towards Basin BY, which is located adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. Compliance with the FMFCD’s SWQMP would require the implementation of BMPs that would manage the release of pollutants and sediments from the project site into stormwater, thus managing potential impacts resulting from erosion and saltation on the project site. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts related to erosion and saltation to less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site;
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a 590-lot residential development in the project site. The project site is mainly undeveloped, and therefore, implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site that could increase surface runoff. Stormwater from the project site would be drained through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure located along North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue as well as along internal roadways in the project site, and redirected towards Basin BY, located adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. The Project Applicant would be required to pay drainage fees to the FMFCD to fund drainage facilities and address impacts related to increased amount of surface runoff resulting from development of the project site. The construction of stormwater facilities would handle surface runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage infrastructure in the vicinity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
731
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -40 iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to discussions a) and c) i and ii in this section. The proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces, which can contribute to surface runoff. However, implementation of a SWPPP and compliance with the City’s SWQMP would ensure that the proposed project would not generate additional sources of polluted runoff. Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to pay drainage fees to the FMFCD to address impacts related to increased amount of surface runoff resulting from the proposed project. The construction of proposed stormwater facilities would handle surface runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems in the vicinity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sections of the project site are located within a 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).20 The City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 8.12, Floodplain Management lists standards and design requirements for new construction and development within special flood zones. Policy 1.1 from the General Plan Environmental Safety Element also prohibits development within the 100-year flood zone unless adequate mitigation against flood hazards is provided. The proposed project would implement flood hazard mitigation required by the City’s Municipal Code.

Implementation of these requirements would ensure the proposed project does not impede or redirect flood flows, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in tsunami or seiche zones. Parts of the proposed project are located within a 100-year flood zone but as discussed under discussion c) iv, the proposed project would implement standards and requirements of the City of Clovis Municipal Code to mitigate risks related to flood hazards. Refer to discussion a) in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, regarding the use, transport and storage of hazardous materials for project construction and operation. As a result, the proposed project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation, and a less than significant impact would occur. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
20 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed April 14, 2022).
732
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-41 e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with the City of Clovis UWMP, 21 which promotes programs and policies to manage water supplies, including groundwater, in Clovis.

The proposed project would also comply with the SWQMP and a site-specific SWPPP that would ensure water quality control at the project site, as applicable. The proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plan, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
21 City of Clovis. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update. July 12. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP-Adopted-July-2021_reduced.pdf (accessed December 6, 2022).
733
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

3.11.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas.

The proposed project would include the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would include landscaped spaces, private recreation, private streets, private pedestrian, public park and public utility uses. The project site is surrounded by agricultural and single-family residential uses to the south, rural residential and agricultural uses to the east, agricultural and commercial uses to the west, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the north.

The proposed project would not construct features that would physically divide an established community or remove means of access that would impair mobility in a community. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed land use for the project site, according to the City of Clovis General Plan, is Medium Density Residential.22 The project site is currently zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. The proposed zoning for the project site is within the Single-Family Planned Residential Development (R-1-PRD) District. The proposed project would require annexation to the City of Clovis and an annexation application would be required to be submitted to the Fresno LAFCo. The Project Applicant would also be required to pay required processing fees for the annexation process. After approval of annexation of the project site into the City of Clovis, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s land use plans. 22 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2:

Land Use Diagram. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Figure-LU-2.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
734
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-43 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 735
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Mineral Resources section of the Clovis General Plan EIR indicates that entire City of Clovis Planning Area is mapped as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), meaning that the significance of potential mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. The nearest area designated MRZ-2, where significant mineral resources are known or very likely to be found, is the San Joaquin River Resource Area, located approximately 4.5 miles west of the project site. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR does not identify any known mineral resources sectors or mineral resource extraction operations within or in the vicinity of the project site.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to the discussion for a). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery sites.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
23 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Mineral Resources. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-11-Mineral-Resources.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
736
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-45

3.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

3.13.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud.

Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. 737
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -46 CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours).

Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Clovis.

The City of Clovis addresses noise in the Environmental Safety Element of the General Plan and in the Municipal Code. The Environmental Safety Element provides goals and policies that work to protect residential and other noise-sensitive uses from exposure to harmful or annoying noise levels; to identify maximum acceptable noise levels compatible with various land use designations; and to develop a policy framework necessary to achieve and maintain a healthful noise environment. Applicable Environmental Safety Element policies include the following24:

Policy 3.1 Land use compatibility: Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility as shown in the Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and the city’s noise ordinance.

Policy 3.4 Acoustical study: Require an acoustical study for proposed projects that have the potential to exceed acceptable noise thresholds or are exposed to existing or future noise levels in excess of the thresholds in the city’s noise ordinance.

Policy 3.5 Site and building design: Minimize noise impacts by requiring appropriate site, circulation, equipment, and building design, and sound walls, landscaping, and other buffers.

Policy 3.14 Control sound at the source: Prioritize using noise mitigation measures to control sound at the source before buffers, soundwalls, and other perimeter measures.

In addition, the City of Clovis addresses construction noise in Section 9.22.080, Noise, of the Municipal Code. Section 9.22.080 (D) sets exterior noise standards as shown in Table 3.B and interior noise standards as shown in Table 3.C.

Section 5.27.604 states that construction noise is permitted by the City of Clovis provided that construction activities take place between 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. However, between June 1 and September 15, construction may begin at 6:00 a.m. on weekdays. 24 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Environmental Safety Element.

Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Clovis-General-Plan-2014.pdf (accessed April 21, 2022).
738
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-47 Table 3.B: City of Clovis Maximum Exterior Noise Standards Noise
Zone Type of Land Use Allowable Exterior Noise Level (15-Minute Leq), dBA Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) I Single-, two- or multiple-family residential 55 50
II Commercial 65 60
III Residential portions of mixed-use properties 60 50
IV Industrial or manufacturing 70 70
Source: City of Clovis Municipal Code
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Table 3.C: City of Clovis Maximum Interior Noise Standards Noise
Zone Type of Land Use Allowable Interior Noise Level (15-Minute Leq), dBA Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) I Residential 45 40
II Administrative/professional office 50 -
III Residential portions of mixed-use properties 45 40
Source: City of Clovis Municipal Code
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these sensitive land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The nearest noise-sensitive land uses located within the vicinity of the project site includes residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary.

Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase (e.g., demolition, land clearing, grading, excavation, erection) of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 3.D lists typical construction equipment noise levels (maximum instantaneous noise level [Lmax]) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal High Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the vicinity of the project site but would no longer occur once construction of the proposed project is completed.
739
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -48 Table 3.D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50 Feet1
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 3.D, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during grading and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 3.D lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
740
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-49 Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

As discussed in Section 1.0, Project Description, the proposed project would be constructed in three Phases, over a period of 33 months, and each phase would include the construction and addition of buildings, working areas and equipment to increase the production capacity of the project site. The closest sensitive receptor to the proposed project includes residential uses located directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary.

As discussed above, construction noise is permitted by the City of Clovis provided that construction activities take place between 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. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to limit construction activities to daytime hours and would reduce potential construction period noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure NOI-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 take place between 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.

Construction may begin on weekdays at 6:00 a.m. between June 1
st and September 15th
.

Operational Noise Impacts. The proposed project would include the construction of 590 new singlefamily residential units in the project site. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the vicinity of the project site. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), 741
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -50 average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site. The EIR will determine the significance of operational noise impacts of the proposed project. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. No permanent noise sources would be located within the project site that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.

As discussed in discussion a) above, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require project construction activities to maintain the greatest possible distance to existing sensitive receptors to reduce potential impacts. Implementation of a buffer between sensitive receptors and construction activities would protect sensitive receptors from excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Furthermore, the City of Clovis addresses temporary vibrations in Section 9.22.100, Noise, (D) of the Clovis Municipal Code, stating that vibrations from temporary construction/demolition and vehicles that leave the subject parcel (e.g., trucks) are exempt from the provisions of this section.

Therefore, the proposed project would not permanently expose persons within or around the project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest medical center HPs to the project site include the Clovis Community Hospital HP located approximately 3.3 miles southeast of the project site, the Saint Agnes Medical Center HP, located approximately 4.2 miles southwest of the project site, and the Valley Children’s Hospital HP located approximately 5.3 miles west of the project site.25 The nearest airports to the project site include the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, located approximately

6.5 miles southwest of the project site, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately

11.7 miles southwest of the project site, and the Sierra Sky Airport, located approximately 9.6 miles southwest of the project site. Each of the airports has an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) which guides local jurisdictions in determining appropriate compatible land uses with detailed findings and policies. The City of Clovis General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP for Fresno County. The project site is not within 2.0 miles of any public or private airstrip or helipad. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to the excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. The impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 25 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Website: https://heliplates. dot.ca.gov (accessed April 14, 2022).
742
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-51

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist in the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The proposed project would also include landscaped spaces, park areas, private streets, pedestrian, and utility infrastructure. The proposed project would also construct extensions to North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation around the project site. The project site is located within the Heritage Grove area, a growth area marked for development in the City’s General Plan.

The proposed project would introduce a residential use that would result in direct population growth. The project site is currently designated Medium Density Residential and zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. The proposed project would require annexation to the City of Clovis and an annexation application would be required to be submitted to the Fresno LAFCo.

Based on the City’s current Housing Element,26 the average number of persons residing in each household in Clovis is estimated to be 2.85 persons. As a result, following construction and occupation of the proposed project, it is estimated that approximately 1,682 residents would live within the proposed 590 residential units within the project site. The Clovis General Plan estimated that at full buildout of the General Plan, approximately 105,700 residents would be living in the areas located within the City’s Non-SOI Planning Area (which includes the project site). As a result, the proposed project would not result in unplanned population growth because the City’s General Plan identified and planned for the project site to be designated medium density residential. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with planned growth under the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 26 City of Clovis. 2016. Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2015–2023 Housing Element. April. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Clovis-Housing-Element-1.pdf (accessed September 21, 2022).
743
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -52 b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the removal of one existing 2,679-square-foot dwelling unit and garage, an existing propane tank, a 2,000-square-foot pole barn, two sheds, and an existing driveway on the project site. The removal of these structures would not displace a substantial number of people or residences from the site. Furthermore, the proposed project would introduce 590 new single-family residences into the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing, requiring the construction of replacement housing. The impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
744
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-53

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

3.15.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Clovis Fire Department (CFD) would provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. The CFD currently has five operational fire stations in the City, with the closest station, Fire Station 3, located approximately 2.22 miles southwest of the project site. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for fire protection service in Clovis. The proposed project would introduce 590 single-family residences into the project site. After approval of annexation of the project site into the City of Clovis, the proposed project would be consistent with planned growth under the City’s General Plan.

The proposed project could result in an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to submit plans to the CFD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the proposed project would conform to applicable building codes. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a Fire Facility Development Impact Fee, pursuant to Section 4.10.04 of the Clovis Municipal Code, to account for the potential impacts to fire service facilities.
745
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -54 The CFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services. The incremental increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses times to the site or within Clovis. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection.

This topic will not be included in the EIR.
ii. Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Clovis Police Department (CPD) provides police protection services to the project site. The CPD headquarters are located approximately 3.3 miles southeast of the project site. Currently, CPD has 105 sworn officers, a ratio of 0.88 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase calls for police protection service in the City. However, the proposed project has been planned to be developed as medium density residential under the under the City’s General Plan.

The proposed project could increase the demand of police protection services. The Project Applicant would be required to pay a Police Department Fee, pursuant to Section 4.11.04 of the Clovis Municipal Code, to account for the potential impacts to police protection services.

The CPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services and impacts to police protection would represent a less than significant impact. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
iii. Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) would provide school services to the proposed project. The proposed project involves a residential use that might generate an increase in student demand in the CUSD. The CUSD currently serves approximately 43,000 students from students living in the city of Fresno, Fresno County, and the city of Clovis. Planned growth under the General Plan and the proposed project would increase demand for school services.

The proposed project would increase the demand for school services in the vicinity. After annexation of the project site to the City of Clovis, the Project Applicant would be required to pay appropriate school developer fees at time of building permits to address potential impacts to CUSD services, as set forth in Education Code Section 17620, pursuant to Government Code 65995. Payment of school developer fees will address potential impacts related to constructing school facilities. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional school facilities or services and impacts 746
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-55 related to increased demand for school services would represent a less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
iv. Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The proposed project would also include the construction of a 13,930-square-foot community park, two community pools, and a recreation area. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase the demand for park facilities in the City. However, the proposed project has been planned to be developed as medium-density residential under the under the City’s General Plan.

The proposed project could increase the demand for nearby parks and recreational facilities.

However, the proposed project would include the construction of a private park and recreation area that would offset the demand for public parks in the vicinity of the project site.

Furthermore, the Project Applicant would be required to pay any required development fees, pursuant to Section 3.4.03 of the Clovis Municipal Code, at the time building permits are obtained.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional park facilities, and impacts to parks would represent a less than significant impact. This topic will not be included in the EIR. v. Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Planned growth under the General Plan would increase the demand for public facilities in the Clovis. After approval of annexation of the project site into the City of Clovis, the proposed project would be consistent with planned growth under the City’s General Plan.

Development of the proposed project could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. However, the increased demand on public facilities resulting from the proposed project is not expected to require the construction of new, or expansion of existing public facilities in the City. The Project Applicant would be required to pay applicable impact fees (e.g., Library Facilities Development Fee, Chapter 7.8 of the Clovis Municipal Code) to fund public facilities in the City. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 747
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

3.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The proposed project would also include the construction of a 13,930-square-foot community park, two community pools, and a recreation area.

The development of the proposed project would result in population growth which could increase the demand for recreational facilities in the vicinity of the project site. However, the proposed project would include the construction of a private park and recreation area that would offset the use of public parks in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, after annexation of the project site to the City of Clovis, the Project Applicant would be required to pay applicable park impact fees, pursuant to Section 3.4.03 of the Clovis Municipal Code, at the time building permits are obtained to offset project impact on existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The proposed project would also include the construction of a 13,930-square-foot community park. The potential environment effects resulting from construction of the community park within the project site is included in the analysis included in this Initial Study. Potential adverse physical effects would result in less than significant impacts. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
748
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-57

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The Circulation Element of the City of Clovis General Plan outlines the necessary transportation system standards and infrastructure needed to serve planned land use and development in the City of Clovis. The primary goal for the Circulation Element is to maintain and improve the road network of the City to safely and efficiently move people and goods, to reduce vehicle miles traveled through coordinated land use planning, to facilitate non-automotive travel (i.e., transit, bikes, and walking), and maintain the City’s extensive recreational trail system.

The 2016 Clovis Active Transportation Plan (Active Transportation Plan)27 supports walking, bicycling, transit, and use of other emerging modes of personal transport as alternatives to driving within Clovis, to neighboring cities, and regional destinations. The Active Transportation Plan defines the City’s vision for an active transportation network and proposes a framework for implementing projects, programs, and policies to turn the vision into a reality. The Active Transportation Plan also identifies strategies to improve safety and accessibility for active forms of travel such as walking and bicycling.

Vehicular access to the project site would include East Behymer Avenue, and future extensions of North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue. The nearest transit facilities to the project site are located along West Teague Avenue and North Peach Avenue, approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site. The nearest walking and biking trail to the site includes the Dry Creek Trail (located approximately 0.65 mile southwest of the project site), and the Fresno-Clovis Rail Trail (located approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site). The nearest bike lanes to the site are located along East Shepherd Avenue and North Clovis Avenue, both of which are located approximately 0.4 mile south of the project site, respectively. 27 City of Clovis. 2016. Active Transportation Plan. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/Active-Transportation-Plan-Final.pdf (accessed April 26, 2022) 749
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -58 Currently, information about project compliance with existing circulation plans is insufficient to make a determination about significance of potential impacts to circulation systems in the vicinity of the project site. This topic will be included in the EIR. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of level of service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the proposed project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the proposed project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743 by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states:
[A] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT), including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the proposed project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

On July 14, 2020, the City of Clovis adopted the Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated July 14, 2020, pursuant to SB 743 to be effective on July 1, 2020.28 Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the City of Clovis has adopted thresholds of significance to determine when a project will have a significant transportation impact based on VMT. The City has developed screening criteria to streamline the analysis for projects that meet certain criteria. A project will require a detailed VMT analysis unless it meets at least one of the City’s five screening criteria:
• Projects that generate less than 500 vehicle trips per day (i.e., Single-Family Residential developments with less than 53 dwelling units).
• Local-serving retail projects with areas of 100,000 square feet and below. 28 City of Clovis. 2020. Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/ wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PDS-SB-743-ATT-2-Interim-Transportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022).
750
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-59 • Projects located in a High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) as defined on Attachment A of the City’s Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.29
• Residential projects in HQTAs with a high proportion of affordable housing. • Projects located in low VMT areas, as defined on Attachment B of the City’s Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.30
The proposed project does not qualify for a streamlined project VMT analysis under the screening criteria identified by the City. The EIR will provide a detailed analysis of project VMT to determine the significance of potential impacts and, if necessary, identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would potentially include landscaped spaces, private recreation, private streets, private pedestrian, public park and public utility uses. The proposed project would also result in the construction of extensions of North Baron Avenue, Hammel Avenue, and Perrin Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation on, the project site. The proposed project would be required to construct all transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the City of Clovis to ensure that design features do not result in hazards to pedestrians, bicyclists, or drivers. In addition, the project site is located in an area surrounded by residential uses and rural residential uses, which are compatible with the proposed residential use.

As a result, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and this topic will not be included in the EIR.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would include landscaped spaces, private recreation, private streets, private pedestrian, public park and public utility uses.

Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site via East Behymer Avenue, as well as through future extensions of North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue. Emergency access to the project site, and project vicinity would not be rendered inadequate as a result of the proposed project. The extensions of Perrin Avenue, Hammel Avenue, and North Baron Avenue 29 City of Clovis. 2020. Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Attachment A: High Quality Transit Areas Map. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PDS-SB-743-ATT-2-InterimTransportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022). 30 City of Clovis. 2020. Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Attachment B: VMT Screening Maps. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PDS-SB-743-ATT-2-InterimTransportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022). 751
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -60 resulting from the proposed project would increase access to emergency services in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and this topic will not be included in the EIR.
752
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-61

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

3.18.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The State requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects and consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Resources through the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the lead agency shall begin consultation with the California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographical area of the proposed project. Such significant cultural resources are either sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe which 753
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -62 is either on or eligible for inclusion in the California Historic Register or local historic register, or, the lead agency, at its discretion, and support by substantial evidence, choose to treat the resources as a Tribal Cultural Resources (PRC Section 21074(a)(1-2)).

Additional information may also be available from the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

AB 52, which became law January 1, 2015, requires that, as part of the CEQA review process, public agencies provide early notice of a project to California Native American Tribes to allow for consultation between the tribe and the public agency. The purpose of AB 52 is to provide the opportunity for public agencies and tribes to consult and consider potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), as defined by PRC Section 2107(a). Under AB 52, public agencies shall reach out to California Native American Tribes who have requested to be notified of projects in areas within or which may have been affiliated with their tribal geographic range. Pursuant to AB 52, Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Picayune Rancheria of Chuckchansi Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band were invited to consult. Table Mountain Rancheria sent a response on November 15, 2022, requesting the CRA prepared for the project and did not request any further consultation. No further responses or requests for consultation were received by the City within the 30-day consultation period beginning November 4, 2022, and ending December 3, 2022. As such, AB 52 requirements for the proposed project have been fulfilled. AB 52 consultation request and response letters are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.

No tribal cultural resources or historical resources were identified on the project site. 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 Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 included above in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, would apply to the proposed project and would reduce potential impacts to unknown cultural and historical resources to less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 754
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-63

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. 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?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the City’s Public Utilities Department to provide water services to the project site. The project would require the construction of a 24-inch water main along Behymer Avenue from Clovis Avenue to Baron Avenue. Additionally, the project would construct a 24-inch main along Baron Avenue, from Behymer Avenue to Perrin Avenue. The proposed improvements would be consistent with the City’s Water Master Plan and would be consistent with the City’s specifications on materials, depth, and resurfacing.

Electric power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E. The proposed project may require construction of additional electric and gas infrastructure to serve the project site.

Stormwater from the project site would be drained through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure located along North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue, and Hammel Avenue as well as along internal roadways in the project site and redirected towards FMFCD Basin BY, located adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. A drainage channel would be constructed along the north side of the Perrin Avenue extension to direct stormwater flows from the project site towards Basin BY. Stormwater flows from upstream Basin BY would be directed to the west via the existing aqueduct located under the Enterprise Canal. The proposed project would comply with all FMFCD urban storm water system designs for construction of proposed infrastructure. 755
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -64 As discussed in this Initial Study, the impacts related to construction of the proposed project and associated utilities would not result in significant impacts or would be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of various mitigation measures. In the case of air quality and GHG emissions, additional information would be required to identify potential impacts related to construction and operation of required utilities. However, the impacts related to construction of utilities required for the proposed project would result in temporary construction impacts. As a result, impacts related to relocation or construction of new water, sewer and stormwater facilities would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Clovis Public Utilities Department would supply water to the project site. Based on the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update, the water supplies under normal conditions for the City from 2025 (50,739 AFY) to 2040 (74,650 AFY) would be sufficient to cover the City’s yearly water demand for this period (i.e., demand of 39,737 AF by 2025 and 52,598 AF by 2040).31
During a single dry year, projected water supplies for the City from 2025 (37,838 AF/year) to 2040 (53,109 AF)/year) would be sufficient to cover the City’s yearly water demand for this period (i.e., 34,272 AF by 2025 and 47,133 AF by 2040).

After a 5-year dry period, water supplies for the City from 2025 (49,743 AFY) to 2040 (73,716 AFY) would be sufficient to cover the City’s yearly water demand for this period (i.e., 37,825 AF by 2025 and 50,043 AF by 2040).

After completing the requirements and paying fees for annexation of the project site into the City of Clovis and paying applicable development fees, the proposed project would be consistent with growth under the City’s General Plan and would be accounted for in the City’s UWMP water demand projections and allocation. Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to meet future demand during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Clovis Public Utilities Department provide wastewater services to the project site. Wastewater from the City of Clovis is treated on the Clovis Wastewater Treatment Plant and on the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The proposed project would not result in a demand that would exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment facility. Furthermore, in 2017 the City adopted an update to the Wastewater Collection System 31 City of Clovis. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update. July 12. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP-Adopted-July-2021_reduced.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022).
756
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-65 Master Plan32 which determined that the existing and planned wastewater collection system facilities can accommodate the proposed land uses and anticipated growth under the approved General Plan, including the project site and annexation area. For that reason, the impact would be less than significant. As such, the proposed project would be impacts associated with treatment of wastewater would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. d. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste in the City of Clovis is collected by the Public Utilities Department. Solid waste generated within the City is delivered to three landfills: City of Clovis Landfill, American Avenue Disposal Site, and Avenal Regional Landfill.

The American Avenue Disposal Site (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10‐AA‐0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.33 The Clovis Landfill (i.e., City Of Clovis Landfill 10-AA-0004) has a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047.34 The Avenal Regional Landfill (i.e., Avenal Regional Landfill 16-AA-0004) has a remaining capacity of 28,900,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 6000 cubic yards, and an estimated closure date of March 31, 2056.35 Operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 7,216 pounds of solid waste per day or about 1,317 tons of solid waste per year.36 Given the available capacity at the landfills, the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the facility to exceed its daily permitted capacity. As such, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s waste disposal needs, and impacts 32 City of Clovis. 2017. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/2017-Draft-Wastewater-Master-Plan.pdf (accessed September 21, 2022). 33 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary.

American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/ Site/Summary/352 (accessed April 19, 2022).
34 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility/Site Summary. City of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/4529?siteID=347 (accessed April 19, 2022).
35 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility/Site Summary.

Avenal Regional Landfill (16-AA-0004). Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/ Details/3755?siteID=898 (accessed April 19, 2022).
36 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates (accessed December 12, 2022). CalRecycle estimates that residential uses generate approximately 12.23 pounds of solid waste per day per household. Multiplied by 590 residential units, the total solid waste generated by the proposed project would be 7.215.7. To calculate solid waste generated per year, 7,215.7 was multiplied by 365 days to reach 2,633,730.5 pounds, or 1,316.87 tons per year. 757
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -66 associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply, as applicable, with CALGreen, Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383), and Policies 2.1 through 2.6 of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the City’s General Plan, which provides waste management goals and recommendations for reduction and control of solid waste in the City as follows:

Policy 2.1: Minimize landfill disposal of solid waste. Promote solid waste source reduction, reuse, and recycling; composting; and the environmentally-safe transformation of wastes.

Policy 2.2: Waste diversion rate. Meet the state’s current and future waste diversion goals through the city’s recycling and diversion programs.

Policy 2.3: Expanded recycling. Increase recycling by commercial, industrial, and multifamily generators.

Policy 2.4: Green and household hazardous materials waste. Encourage citywide participation in green waste reduction and household hazardous waste disposal programs.

Policy 2.5: Clovis landfill. Maintain at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

Policy 2.6: Solid waste facility encroachment. Protect existing or planned solid waste facilities from encroachment by incompatible land uses that may be allowed through discretionary land use permits or changes in land use or zoning designations.

The proposed project would dispose of waste in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local recycling, reduction, and waste requirements and policies. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
758
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 3-67

3.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. 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?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a 590-lot residential development for single-family residences. The development would include landscaped spaces, private recreation, private streets, private pedestrian, public park and public utility uses. The project site is surrounded by agricultural and single-family residential uses to the south, rural residential and agricultural uses to the east, agricultural and commercial uses to the west, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the north.

The proposed project would construct extensions of North Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue and Hammel Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation around the project site. Although construction of the roadway extensions would affect circulation of vehicles along Perrin Avenue, Hammel Avenue and North Baron Avenue, these impacts would be temporary and would not substantially or permanently impair emergency evacuation in Clovis.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair any nearby roadways that may serve as emergency evacuation routes or interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within the City of Clovis or an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 759
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
3 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -68 b. Would the project, 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area mapped by CAL FIRE as LRA Unzoned, indicating that the area is urbanized and not susceptible to wildland conflagrations, and is not located within a VHFHSZ.
37 The proposed project would comply with City and County fire safety regulations for project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and potentially expose project occupants to wildfires. The impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. c. Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the extension of roads and installation of water and stormwater drainage infrastructure to serve the project site. The proposed project would construct extensions of North Baron Avenue, Hammel Avenue and Perrin Avenue to facilitate access to, and circulation around the project site. As discussed above, the proposed project is not located within a VHFHSZ. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with City and County fire safety regulations for project construction and operation, which would mitigate potential risks associated with construction of roads and installation of water and wastewater infrastructure. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur. This topic will not be included in the EIR.
d. Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ.

The project site is also a relatively flat area and is not adjacent to any hills. In general, the potential for land sliding or slope failure in the City is very low, and the project site would not be susceptible to landslides. Parts of the project site are located within special flood hazard zones; however, the proposed project would implement standards and design requirements from the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 8.12, Floodplain Management. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire risks, and the impact would be less than significant. This topic will not be included in the EIR. 37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).
760
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 4-1

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, CA 93611
Amy Fischer, Principal in Charge
Kyle Simpson, Project Manager
Nathaly Granda Bustamante, Assistant Environmental Planner 157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production
285 South Street, Suite P
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Kerrie Collison, Senior Cultural Resources Manager
Argonaut Ecological Consulting
2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100
Gold River, CA 95670
Kathy Kinsland, CISEC, QSP, TOR-QISP, Biological Resources Regulatory Specialist/Senior Scientist
Peak & Associates
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Melinda A. Peak, Senior Historian/Archeologist
761
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
4 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -2 This page intentionally left blank
762
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 5-1

5.0 REFERENCES
Argonaut Ecological Consulting. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment – Tentative Tract 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area. September 26.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. April.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 8. _____. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fresno County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6673/fhszl06_1_map10.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility/Site Summary. American Avenue Disposal Site (10-AA-0009). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/352, (accessed April 19, 2022).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2007. EnviroStor. Website:
https://www.envirostor. dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=clovis (accessed April 14, 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans HeliPlates. Website:
https://heliplates.dot.ca.gov (accessed April 14, 2022). _____. n.d. State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed May 12, 2022).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. Government Code Section 65962.5(a) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/ corteselist/section-65962-5a (accessed April 14, 2022).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Year?? Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/ general/rates (accessed April 19, 2022).
_____. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. City of Clovis Landfill (10-AA-0004). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4529?siteID=347 (accessed April 19, 2022).
_____. n.d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. Avenal Regional Landfill (16-AA-0004). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3755?siteID=898 (accessed April 19, 2022).
763
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
5 \\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) -2 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/planning/master-plans/generalplan/environmental-impact-report/ (accessed December 8, 2022).

City of Clovis. 2016. Active Transportation Plan. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/Active-Transportation-Plan-Final.pdf (accessed April 26, 2022) City of Clovis. 2016. Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional 2015–2023 Housing Element. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Clovis-Housing-Element-1.pdf (accessed September 21, 2022). April.

City of Clovis. 2017. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2017-Draft-Wastewater-Master-Plan.pdf (accessed September 21, 2022).

City of Clovis. 2020. Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PDS-SB-743-ATT-2-InterimTransportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022).

City of Clovis. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update. July 12. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP-Adopted-July2021_reduced.pdf (accessed December 6, 2022).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor (accessed April 14, 2022).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2020. Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program: FY 2019-20 Annual Report. October 1. Website:
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-20-Annual-ReportFINAL.pdf (accessed December 6, 2022).

LSA Associates, Inc. 2022. Farmland Impact Assessment, Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project, City of Clovis, California. February 2022.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed April 14, 2022).

Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Tentative Tract Map 6343 and City of Clovis Annexation Area, County of Fresno, California. September 21.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.
764
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22) 5-3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015b. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714- GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf (accessed April 14, 2022).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan2016.htm (accessed April 14, 2022).

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31. 765
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

PU B L I C RE V I E W DR A F T IN I T I A L S T U D Y
DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 2
T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\02_Screencheck_Draft\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/13/22)

APPENDIX A
AB 52 CONSULTATION REQUEST AND RESPONSE LETTERS
767
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T R A C T MAP 6 3 4 3

CL O V I S , C A L I F O R N I A

Date:

Project Title:

Local Government/Lead Agency:

Project Manager: Phone:

Address: City: St: Zip:

Email: Fax:

Project Location: See attached map
Local Action Type:

General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment
X Project Subject to AB52 Pre-Planning Outreach
Project Description:

We request that you respond within 30 days per the requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) [Public Resources Code Section 5097.94] and also thank you in advance for your participation in the review process for this project. If you need additional materials or have any questions, please feel free to contact the Project Manager listed above.

RO305; a request for the annexation of 246 acres of property located southwest of Behymer and Sunnyside Avenues.

GPA2021-003; a request to redesignate 71.54 acres of property from the the City of Clovis Medium Density to Medium High Density
R2021-006; a request to prezone 71.54 acres of property to the City of Clovis R-1-PRD Zone District TM6343; a request to subdivide 71.54 acres of property to 590 lots PDP2021-001; a request for the approval of a planned development permit 1033 Fifth Street Clovis CA 93612
Wilson Premier Homes, Inc. (Applicant)
7550 N. Palm Avenue, Suite #102
Fresno, CA 93711
Project Proponent:

City of Clovis
Department of Planning and Development Services
CITY HALL . 1033 FIFTH STREET . CLOVIS, CA 93612
Native American Tribal Consultation Request
[email protected] (559) 324-2844
TM6343 et al
Lily Cha-Haydostian, Senior Planner (559) 324-2335
11/4/2022
City of Clovis Planning Division
769
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
770
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
771
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
772
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT I NITIAL S TUDY
DECEMBER 2022
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\03_Public_Review\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/16/22)

APPENDIX B

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTIGATION
773
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT I NITIAL S TUDY
DECEMBER 2022
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\03_Public_Review\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/16/22) This page intentionally left blank
774
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
455 W Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611-0242
Tel: (559) 449-2700
Fax: (559) 449-2715
www.provostandpritchard.com
G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx Engineering  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico • Sacramento • Sonora Memorandum
To: Gene Abella, PE, City of Clovis
From: Nick Jacobson, PE
Subject: Water Infrastructure Investigation for Tentative Tract Map 6343 Date: December 19, 2022
Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group (“P&P”) has prepared this memorandum summarizing the findings of our investigation into the water system infrastructure required to serve a proposed single-family residential development generally located along the east side of Clovis Avenue between Perrin and Behymer Avenues.

Project Information
It is our understanding that Tentative Tract Map (Tract) 6343 (Project) will have a land use designation of medium high density residential (7.1 to 15.0 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), which differs from the original designation of medium density (4.1 to 7.0 du/ac), originally considered for this area in the City of Clovis Water Master Plan (WMP) Update – Phase III (Provost & Pritchard, 2018). The Project covers an area of approximately 71.54 gross acres (64.36 net acres), encompassing two parcels entirely, and a portion of a third parcel (APNs 556-040-08, 07, and 556-030-14) within the Northwest Village planning area.

There is no existing infrastructure adjacent to the project footprint. It is understood that before the Project is built several master planned water mains will be constructed near or adjacent to the Project as part of the buildout of Tract 6200 including:
• a 12-inch main in Marion Avenue from Perrin Avenue to Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue • a 12-inch main in Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue from Marion Avenue to Sunnyside Avenue • a 16-inch main in Baron Avenue from Clovis Avenue to Perrin Avenue Additionally, an added transmission water main is anticipated with Tract 6205, east of Sunnyside Avenue but it is not anticipated to be constructed prior to Tract 6343:
• a 12-inch main in Heirloom (Pryor) Avenue from Sunnyside Avenue and continuing south through the Tract, to Shepherd Avenue.

There are master planned water mains that will be constructed as part of the Tract 6343 improvements, including:
• a 24-inch main in Behymer Avenue from the west limits of Tract 6343 to Baron Avenue • a 24-inch main in Baron Avenue from Behymer Avenue to Perrin Avenue 775
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 2 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx Mains internal to and along the frontage of Tract 6343 will be constructed as part of the Project.

It is anticipated that the 12-inch main in Clovis Avenue from Baron Way to Behymer Avenue along with the portion of the 24-inch mains in Behymer Avenue between Baron Way and Clovis Avenue not along the frontage of Tract 6343 may also be constructed with this Project. Collectively these mains would connect to infrastructure associated with Tract 6200 to the southeast of the Project.

Collectively, these existing and planned facilities convey or will convey water from the surface water treatment plant which is located approximately 5.5 miles to the southeast of the Project.

This portion of Clovis’ potable water system is within the pressure zone called “Zone 2.” Figure 1 shows the existing and proposed infrastructure in the area.

The Project straddles the Kings River service area boundary for Fresno Irrigation District (FID) therefore approximately half of the Project is within the Kings River service area and the remaining half is outside the Kings River service area for FID. The portion of the project within the service area has access to water from the Kings River as its source of supply, while the portion outside of the service area does not. The existing project site consists of a residential dwelling, fallow land, and various row crop plantings. The proposed use will consist of a new 590-unit single family residential development on 71.54 gross acres Assumptions
The following assumptions apply to this investigation:
• The City requires a minimum of two points of connection to the existing water system. • Developer is responsible for sizing all water mains and other water related infrastructure internal to the Project.
• The Clovis Fire Department (CFD) requires a minimum fire flow of 1,800 gallons per minute (gpm) and a minimum residual pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi), per CFD Standard #2.3.
• Existing infrastructure sizes based on GIS data from the City (see Figure 1). • Recycled water will not be applied to public landscaping surrounding the Project. • Infrastructure conditioned on Tract 6200 will be constructed prior to development of Tract 6343.
• Tract 6200 is modeled as medium density residential.
• Tract 6343 is modeled as medium high density residential (MHDR). • Existing and proposed Water system demands will be based on unit demand from the Water Master Plan Update Phase III - Facilities Plan (Provost & Pritchard, 2018). • The analysis will reflect the demands associated with existing developments in the area based on actual land use; undeveloped areas are modeled utilizing land use designations specified in the General Plan. Proposed demands will be modeled using the above referenced land use designations rather than that shown in the General Plan. • Figure 1 shows the existing and master planned water mains and facilities in the vicinity of the Project, including those conditioned with Tract 6200 shown as existing. • For Alternative 1 the analysis assumed the transmission grid main infrastructure shown as existing and future (See Figures 2, and 3) as well as the proposed tank, booster pump 776
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 3 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx station, and tank fill valve, have been constructed and are operational or are under construction and are assumed to be operational for the purposes of this modeling effort. • For Alternative 2 the analysis assumed the transmission grid main infrastructure shown as existing and future (See Figures 4 and 5) have been constructed and are operational or are under construction and are assumed to be operational for the purposes of this modeling effort.
• For Alternative 3 the analysis assumed the transmission grid main infrastructure shown as existing and future (See Figures 6 and 7), have been constructed and are operational or are under construction and are assumed to be operational for the purposes of this modeling effort.
• For Alternative 4, (See Figures 8 and 9), the analysis assumed the transmission grid main infrastructure shown as existing have been constructed and are operational or are under construction and are assumed to be operational for the purposes of this modeling effort.

No future infrastructure is assumed.
• The system is operating with all valves open.
• System velocities should not exceed 10 feet per second (fps).

This investigation will include analysis of whether the existing (or soon to be existing) water system, as described above and shown on the attached figures, will be sufficient to provide up to maximum day demand and also meet Maximum Day Demand (MDD) plus Fire Flow (MDD+FF) demands per the WMP requirements both with and without the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) in operation. The analyses without the SWTP are modeled with a reduced demand consistent with that historically experienced in the autumn months when the SWTP is not operational due to canal maintenance activities.

Water Demand
Potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land-use-based unit water demand factors from the WMP. Table LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the City General Plan (GP) states that MHDR has an allowable density ranging from 7.1 – 15.0 du/ac. The proposed use equates to a dwelling unit density of approximately 8.25 du/ac, consistent with MHDR land use.

A separate water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared by P&P in September 2022. The WSA estimated water demands for the Project. For consistency, the demand estimates stated in the WSA were used for this analysis. For specifics surrounding Project water demands refer to the WSA.

Infrastructure
The Project is comprised of three (3) parcels of mostly row crop agricultural land a residential dwelling generally located along the east side of Clovis Avenue between Perrin and Behymer Avenues. Because of the limited existing backbone infrastructure in the area, this development will depend on the construction of infrastructure planned to be built with Tract 6200. The other transmission mains near the Project are understood to be existing, as shown on Figure 1. Design 777
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 4 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx of the required water mains internal to the Project will be the responsibility of the Project developer.

Water Supply
Urbanization within Clovis occurs both inside and outside the Kings River service area for Fresno Irrigation District (FID), therefore not all lands have access to this water source. Lands generally located south and west of the Enterprise Canal are within the Kings River service area and as such are entitled to an average annual allotment of approximately 2.24 acre-feet per acre (AF/ac).

The MHDR land use has a unit demand greater than the 2.24 AF/ac supply available. The City adopted an ordinance requiring new development with demands exceeding the allotment to pay fees, so the City can acquire additional water supply to serve the development. The Project will need to pay for supplies for demands over and above the FID available supply for the Project area within FID1 and for all demands for the Project area outside FID, as shown below. For additional details on water supply for the Project, refer to the WSA (Provost & Pritchard, September 2022) prepared for the Project.

Table 1. Reconciliation of Surface Water Supply and Demand Land Use Category Area
(ac)
Land Use
Demand
Factor
(AFY/ac)
Annual
Average
Demand
(AFY)
FID
Entitlement
(AFY)
Additional
Supply
Required (AFY)
Proposed
Medium-High Density Residential – within FID 38.6 3.3 127.4 86.5 (40.9) Medium-High Density Residential – outside FID 32.9 3.3 108.6 0.0 (108.6) Proposed Total 71.5 3.3 236.0 86.5 (149.5)
Evaluation
The City has requested an investigation, utilizing the current City hydraulic model, to determine whether the proposed infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project (Figure 1) will provide adequate service during MDD and MDD+FF for several infrastructure scenarios including:
• Alternative 1: with 3.5 million gallons of storage capacity at the T-9 site2. • Alternative 2: with no storage capacity at the T-9 site and construction of water mains south of Shepherd Avenue and along Sunnyside and Nees Avenues, connecting to the existing water system in Nees Avenue (WMP designated mains P-3, P-4, and P-7). • Alternative 3: with no storage capacity at the T-9 site and construction of water mains south of Shepherd Avenue and along Sunnyside and Teague Avenues, connecting to the existing water system at Fowler Avenue (WMP designated mains P-3, and P-6). 1 Approximately 54 percent of the Project Area lies within the FID King River service area boundary. 2 The T-9 water storage tank and booster pump site is at the northwest corner of Perrin and Sunnyside Avenues.
778
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 5 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx • Alternative 4: no storage capacity at the T-9 site, and only utilizing existing infrastructure and previously constructed infrastructure associated with Tract 6200.

As shown on Figure 1, infrastructure associated with Tract 6343, was modeled with 8-inch mains internal to the Project. Also, the results of this evaluation rely on the infrastructure that has been conditioned on Tract 6200 being constructed and operational.

Maximum Day Demand Analyses
Alternative 1
With an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP operational indicates no pressure deficiencies internal to the Project. Minimum pressures during the MDD scenario are all above 40 psi.

Minimum pressures in Harlan Ranch dropped in places to approximately 31 psi during the peak demand hour of the MDD scenario without the SWTP operational. As stated above, while typically during MDD the distribution system pressures should be over 40 psi, the results of the analysis are not below minimum required pressure of the system of 20 psi (Title 22 requirement). The deficiencies identified in the model only last for a short duration during the morning hour from 6:00 AM until about 7:00 AM. Average pressures throughout the time duration in this scenario were all over 40 psi for the analysis.

Alternative 2
With an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP operational indicates no pressure deficiencies internal to the Project. Minimum pressures during the MDD scenario are all above 40 psi.

Without an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP not operational indicates no pressure deficiencies in Tracts 6343. The model results did show a portion of the system with minimum pressures below 40 psi in the Harlan Ranch portion of the system. The area that shows minimum pressures below 40 psi has a larger footprint than the area identified in Alternative 1. For Alternative 2, the general area showing minimum pressures below 40 psi is in Harlan Ranch east of Locan Avenue. Minimum pressures in this area dropped in places to approximately 27 psi during the peak demand hours of the MDD scenario without the SWTP operational. As stated above, while typically during MDD the distribution system pressures should be over 40 psi, the results of the analysis are not below minimum required 20 psi pressure (Title 22) of the system. 779
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 6 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx The deficiencies identified in the model only last for a short duration during the morning hours from 5:45 AM until about 8:00 AM. Average pressures throughout the time duration in this scenario were all over 40 psi for the analysis.

Alternative 3
With an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP operational indicates no pressure deficiencies internal to the Project. System wide, minimum pressures during the MDD scenario are all above 40 psi.

Without an Operational SWTP
The hydraulic model analysis results with the SWTP not operational indicates no pressure deficiencies in Tracts 6343. The model results did show a portion of the system with minimum pressures below 40 psi in the Harlan Ranch portion of the system. The area that shows minimum pressures below 40 psi has a larger footprint than the area identified in Alternative 1. For Alternative 3, the general area showing minimum pressures below 40 psi is in Harlan Ranch east of Locan Avenue, similar to the footprint identified in Alternative 2. Minimum pressures in this area dropped in places to approximately 27 psi during the peak demand hours of the MDD scenario without the SWTP operational. As stated above, while typically during MDD the distribution system pressures should be over 40 psi, the results of the analysis are not below minimum required pressure of the system. The deficiencies identified in the model only last for a short duration during the morning hours from 5:45 AM until about 8:00 AM. Average pressures throughout the time duration in this scenario were all over 40 psi for the analysis.

Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow
Alternative 1
With an Operational SWTP
The minimum pressure required during fire flow conditions (1,800 gpm) is 35 psi with a maximum velocity of 10 fps. The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to approximately 58 psi (see Figure 2).

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,365 gpm.

Without an Operational SWTP
The minimum pressure required during fire flow conditions (1,800 gpm) is 35 psi with a maximum velocity of 10 fps. The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to approximately 64 psi (see Figure 3).

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,365 gpm. The available pressures are slightly higher under this scenario than when the SWTP is online under alternative 1 because this analysis assumes that the SWTP is not operational during a lower demand period described on Page 2. Should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.
780
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 7 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx Alternative 2
With an Operational SWTP
The minimum pressure required during fire flow conditions (1,800 gpm) is 35 psi with a maximum velocity of 10 fps. The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to approximately 54 psi (see Figure 4).

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,366 gpm.

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,360 gpm. The available pressures are slightly higher under this scenario than when the SWTP is online under alternative 2 because this analysis assumes that the SWTP is not operational during a lower demand period described on Page 2. Should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.

Alternative 3
With an Operational SWTP
The minimum pressure required during fire flow conditions (1,800 gpm) is 35 psi with a maximum velocity of 10 fps. The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to approximately 56 psi (see Figure 6).

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,366 gpm.

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,356 gpm. The available pressures are slightly higher under this scenario than when the SWTP is online under alternative 3 because this analysis assumes that the SWTP is not operational during a lower demand period described on Page 2. Should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.

Alternative 4
With an Operational SWTP
The minimum pressure required during fire flow conditions (1,800 gpm) is 35 psi with a maximum velocity of 10 fps. The MDD+FF hydraulic model analysis results show available pressures 781
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 8 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx internal to the Project range from approximately 35 psi to approximately 52 psi (see Figure 8).

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 3,970 gpm.

Available fire flow at the hydrants internal to the Project ranged from 1,920 gpm to as much as 4,350 gpm. The available pressures are slightly higher under this scenario than when the SWTP is online under alternative 4 because this analysis assumes that the SWTP is not operational during a lower demand period as described on Page 2. Should the SWTP go offline during a typically high demand period like summer, the analysis would yield different results with potential for pressure drops below 20 psi.

Conclusion
The modeling analysis indicates that the proposed infrastructure within the Project, as shown on the attached figures, along with the proposed connections points should be able to receive adequate flow and pressure during an MDD scenario and during an MDD+FF scenario with the SWTP operational. With the SWTP not in operation, the analysis shows that the system should be able to deliver MDD and MDD+FF scenarios as well. The City should note that the ability to deliver water to satisfy fire flow requirements without the aid of the SWTP is applicable to lower demand periods such as those experience during the autumn timeframe.

Based on information collected during this investigation and the City’s adherence to recommendations from prior water supply planning efforts, the existing and planned water distribution system and recommended connections should be adequate to convey water supply to the Project to support anticipated demands from the Project. The Project may proceed with the existing infrastructure and the planned infrastructure along the Project frontage as shown in Alternative 4. Additional master planned infrastructure, discussed in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are not required to deliver adequate flow and provide sufficient pressure to the Project, but are recommended, in part, to provide system redundancy to the Project area.

Serving this Project should not negatively impact the City’s ability to provide a supply and delivery of water to reasonably foreseeable users within the City assuming adherence to recommendations from prior water resources planning efforts. However, to understand the cumulative impacts to supplies and other major water infrastructure, the City should be tracking changes in demand as part of the development process in order to determine when projects with greater demand are offset by projects with demands lower than originally planned. 782
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

To: Gene Abella December 19, 2022
Water Infrastructure Investigation Tentative Map 6343 Page 9 of 9 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\220 Hydraulic Analysis Memo\20221219 6343 TM FINAL.docx Respectfully,
Nicholas Jacobson
Enclosures:

Figure 1 – Potable Water Infrastructure
Figure 2 – Alternative 1 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP Figure 3 – Alternative 1 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP Figure 4 – Alternative 2 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP Figure 5 – Alternative 2 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP Figure 6 – Alternative 3 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP Figure 7 – Alternative 3 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP Figure 8 – Alternative 4 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP Figure 9 – Alternative 4 – Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP 12/19/2022
2022
783
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Teague Ave
Nees Ave
Alluvial Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Baron
Ave
Enterprise
Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 1: Existing Infrastructure o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 784
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Baron Ave
Enterprise Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 2: Alternative 1 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 785
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
Enterprise Canal
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Baron Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 3: Alternative 1 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 786
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Teague Ave
Nees Ave
Alluvial Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Baron
Ave
Enterprise
Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 4: Alternative 2 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 787
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Teague Ave
Nees Ave
Alluvial Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Baron
Ave
Enterprise
Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 5: Alternative 2 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 788
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Teague Ave
Nees Ave
Alluvial Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Enterprise
Canal
Baron
Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 6: Alternative 3 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow with Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 789
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TU
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
!(P
Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Teague Ave
Nees Ave
Alluvial Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Fowler Ave
Baron
Ave
Enterprise
Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
!(P Pump Station
Valve
TU Tank
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
Future Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 7: Alternative 3 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow without Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 790
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Baron Ave
Enterprise Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 8: Alternative 4 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow With Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 791
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Clovis Ave
Perrin Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Baron Ave
Enterprise Canal
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Pressure Zone
Junctions
Available Flow at Hydrant
≥ 1800 gpm
Existing Water Mains
8"
12"
16"
24"
Figure 9: Alternative 4 Maximum Day Demand
Plus Fire Flow Without Operational SWTP o
Prepared By
Water Supply Assessment
12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx 792
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT I NITIAL S TUDY
DECEMBER 2022
T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\03_Public_Review\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/16/22)

APPENDIX C

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
793
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

C LOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

P UBLIC REVIEW DRAFT I NITIAL S TUDY
DECEMBER 2022
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\IS\03_Public_Review\TM6343-Initial_Study.docx (12/16/22) This page intentionally left blank
794
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment
Tract 6343
Northwest Sphere of Influence Expansion Area
December 2022
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
795
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\200 Technical\221 WSA\Clovis WSA Track 6343_Final_C.docx Report Prepared for:

Client Name
City of Clovis
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Contact:

Sean Smith
(559) 324-2363
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Brittney Darnell
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
12/19/2022
796
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iii Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment.............................................................1-1

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan ..........................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization...........................................................................................................1-1 2 Project Description............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting ....................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution ................................................................................................2-1 3 Water Demands ................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Demands......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development...........................................................3-2 4 Overview of Water Supplies..............................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Surface Water ..........................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Kings River ...................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division.............................................4-1

4.1.3 Garfield Water District.................................................................................................4-2

4.1.4 International Water District ........................................................................................4-2

4.2 Supply from Storage.................................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................................4-3

4.4 Recycled Water........................................................................................................................4-5

4.5 Exchanges.................................................................................................................................4-5

4.6 Water Supply Summary ...........................................................................................................4-6 5 Normal Year Water Operations.........................................................................................................5-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies............................................................................6-1

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources......................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water ...........................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water............................................................................................6-1

6.1.3 Supply from Storage ....................................................................................................6-2

6.1.4 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................6-2

6.1.5 Recycled Water............................................................................................................6-2

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon.............................................6-3 797
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 iv

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon............6-3

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors.............................................................................................6-4 7 Operational Reliability.......................................................................................................................7-1 8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs...................................................................................8-1 9 References.........................................................................................................................................9-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Location Map ..........................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2. Water Infrastructure at Buildout............................................................................................2-3 Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan in Project Area.................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4-1. Irrigation and Water Districts .................................................................................................4-4 List of Tables
Table 3-1. Planned Demand Estimates.....................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Proposed Demand Estimates...................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-3. Proposed Water Demands in 5-Year Increments.....................................................................3-2 Table 3-4. Planned Water Demands by Use Type.....................................................................................3-2 Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13)................................................4-6 Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands ...............................................................5-1 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4)............6-4 Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs.......................................8-1 798
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

City of Clovis
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 v
Abbreviations
AF ..................................................................................................................................................... acre-feet AFY .....................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year City ............................................................................................................................................. City of Clovis County......................................................................................................................................Fresno County CVP............................................................................................................................... Central Valley Project CWC............................................................................................................................. California Water Code FID ............................................................................................................................Fresno Irrigation District GP............................................................................................................................................... General Plan GWD............................................................................................................................Garfield Water District IWD .................................................................................................................... International Water District KRWA ..............................................................................................................Kings River Water Association MDR ...................................................................................................................Medium Density Residential MGD............................................................................................................................million gallons per day MHDR........................................................................................................ Medium High Density Residential NKGSP .....................................................................................North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan RWRF.....................................................................................................Regional Water Reclamation Facility SOI....................................................................................................................................sphere of influence SRF...........................................................................................................................Single-Family Residential SWTP.......................................................................................City of Clovis Surface Water Treatment Plant USBR......................................................................................................................US Bureau of Reclamation UWMP....................................................................................City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan WDF............................................................................................................................Water Demand Factors WMP .................................................................... City of Clovis, Draft Water Master Plan Update, Phase III WRF.......................................................................... City of Clovis Sewage Treatment/Water Reuse Facility WSA.......................................................................................................................Water Supply Assessment WSCP……………………………………………………………………………………………………Water Shortage Contingency Plan 799
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-1 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment
California Water Code (CWC) §10912(a) requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) meeting the requirements of CWC §10910 et seq for projects within cities and counties that meet one of several water demand triggers, or the equivalent. These triggers include construction of 500 or more residential units, construction of a shopping center or business establishment having 500,000 square feet of floor space, construction of a commercial office building having more than 250,000 square feet, a proposed hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms, or another project having a water demand equivalent to or greater than the 500-unit development.

This WSA evaluates the adequacy of available water supplies for the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 6343 (Tract 6343), located in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California. The Project would entail the development of 590 single-family residential lots, which is greater than the “500 residential units” trigger; therefore, a WSA is required. The City of Clovis operates the water system to which the Project proposes to connect. This water system meets the standards for a “Public Water System” as set forth in CWC §10912(c); the City is therefore responsible for preparation of the required WSA in accordance with CWC §10910(b).

This WSA discusses the estimated water demands and water supply for the proposed Project. The Project is located in Fresno County (County), adjacent to the City of Clovis (City) limits; the area will be annexed as part of the Project’s progress and the entire Project will be supplied water from the City.

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan
If the Project falls within the boundaries of a current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the water purveyor, CWC §10910(c)(1) requires that the WSA determine whether projected water demand associated with the Project is included as part of that duly adopted UWMP.

The 2020 Clovis UWMP covers the SOI for the City. This Project lies within the area north of Shepherd, west of Sunnyside Avenue, within the City’s SOI (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2021). Thus, in accordance with the CWC, the preparers have relied on information from the UWMP wherever possible in preparing the various elements of this Assessment.

1.3 Document Organization
This WSA is organized as follows:
• Section 2 describes the Project and its location.
• Section 3 describes the Project’s potable and non-potable water demands in addition to those of other existing and planned uses, and how these vary from the numbers used in the UWMP. • Section 4 provides an overview of the City’s primary water supplies. 800
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section One: Introduction
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 1-2 • Section 5 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during normal years. • Section 6 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years. • Section 7 discusses operational reliability on a daily basis. • Section 8 concludes whether supplies would be adequate during normal, dry-year, and multipledry years during a 20-year projection. • Section 9 lists references cited in this WSA.
801
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Two: Project Description
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 2-1 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
The City limits currently encompasses 25.9 square miles. The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) covers 34.9 square miles, while the City’s General Plan (GP) encompasses approximately 74.3 square miles. The City’s General Plan (Placeworks, 2014) identified three Urban Centers to focus growth, including Loma Vista, the Northwest area, and the Northeast area; this Project lies within the Northwest area. Figure 2- 1 identifies the location of the Project in relation to the surrounding Clovis/Fresno region.

The Project would entail development of 590 single-family residential lots on approximately 71.5 gross acres in the Northwest Village. The Project is a proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) development with associated neighborhood green space. The Project site includes 71.5 gross acres bounded by Perrin Avenue and the Enterprise Canal to the south, Behymer Avenue to the north, the Enterprise Canal to the west, and Baron Avenue to the east. The Project site encompasses two parcels, entirely (APNs 556-040-07 and 556-040-08) as well as a portion of parcel 556-030-14. Located just outside the city limits, the area north of the Project is planned to develop to primarily medium density residential, the area east of the Project is developing to very low and medium density residential, the area directly west of the Project is bounded by the Enterprise Canal but directly west of the canal is planned for park facilities, and the area to the south is mainly medium density residential with small areas of park facilities and general commercial.

The Project area is currently designated, in the City’s General Plan, as Medium Density Residential and current land uses are rural residential, open fields, and agricultural fields with miscellaneous field crops.

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution
The Project will receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. Built in 2004, the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plan (SWTP) has a current treatment capacity of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD); expansion to 45 MGD is planned.

In addition to the supply from the SWTP, the City has more than 30 groundwater wells located throughout the City, with the nearest wells being approximately one and a half miles southeast of the Project. While the City’s system is divided into two pressure zones, there are interconnections between the two to balance supply and demands throughout the year in various water demand scenarios.

The Project area is entirely within the water system’s Pressure Zone 2. Water will be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. The water distribution system is shown in full in the Water Master Plan Update, Phase III (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018), and in detail for this area on Figure 2-2. Through other projects in the area being undertaken by others, the master-planned infrastructure is being constructed to the south and east of the Project and is assumed it will be complete prior to the water demands associated with this Project being realized. Additionally, the master-planned distribution mains in Shepherd Avenue, between Clovis and Fowler Avenues, and further south and east towards the SWTP exist.
802
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
?k
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
THIRD
SIERRA
FOWLER
LOCAN
NEES
TEAGUE
PERRIN
DEWOLF

SHEPHERD

DE WOLF
DAKOTA
ASHLAN
CLOVIS
SHAW

HERNDON

BULLARD
COPPER

LEONARD

BARSTOW

SHIELDS
MCCALL

HIGHLAND

SUNNYSIDE

ALLUVIAL

GETTYSBURG

ARMSTRONG

TEMPERANCE
0 0.5 1
Miles
Major Streets
Project Area
Clovis S.O.I.

City of Clovis
City of Fresno
12/12/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2-1: Project Location
Water Supply Assessment 803
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Clovis Ave
Perrin Rd
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Heirloom Ave Marion Ave
Baron Ave
Clovis Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
Existing Water Mains
Size (in inches)
12 16
24"
Future Water Mains
Size (in inches)
12 16
24 12/7/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2-2: Potable Water Infrastructure
Water Supply Assessment 804
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-1 3 Water Demands
This section summarizes projected water demands of the Project, assuming full buildout of the Project by 2030. Water demands associated with development of the Project area were included in the UWMP and were based on Land Use-based Water Demand Factors (WDFs) applied to land uses shown in the City’s adopted General Plan. Proposed Project water demands have been estimated based on the proposed land uses and the WDFs shown in the adopted WMP. This section compares water demand estimates developed as part of this study with the City’s earlier plans.

3.1 Project Demands
Based on the adopted WDFs stated in the WMP and the existing GP land use (shown in Figure 3-1) designations, the planned water demands, shown in acre-feet per year (AFY), for the Project area are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Planned Demand Estimates
Planned Land Use
Designation
Unit Factor
(AFY/acre)
Acreage Demand
(AFY)
Medium Density Residential 2.2 71.5 157.3
Totals: 71.5 157.3
The proposed water demand estimates for this Project are summarized in Table 3-2, based on the proposed land uses and WDF.

Table 3-2. Proposed Demand Estimates
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Unit Factor
(AFY/acre) Acreage Demand (AFY)
Medium High Density Residential 3.3 71.5 236.0
Total: 71.5 236.0
While the proposed land use is residential, the intensity of the residential development is greater than the GP land uses; therefore, the proposed water demand estimates are greater than the planned estimates. The increase in total water demand for the Project area is 78.7 AFY. This increase is attributable to the proposed MHDR designation having a higher WDF than that of the originally planned, MDR designation. Despite the increase in demands for the Project area, the proposed increase amounts to 0.46% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table 7-2 of the 2020 UWMP1.
1 The excess supply in a normal year in 2030 is shown in the UWMP as 16,113 AFY; the total demand planned for the area is 157.3 AFY while the proposed demand is 236.0 AFY, yielding an increased demand of 78.7 AFY or 0.49% of the excess supply (78.7/16113 = 0.49%).
805
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Three: Water Demands
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 3-2 Project water demands were calculated in 5-year increments, as shown in Table 3-3, assuming 25 percent of the development by 2025 and the balance by 20302.

Table 3-3. Proposed Water Demands in 5-Year Increments
2025 2030 Total
Estimated Demand (AFY) 59.0 177.0 236.0

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development
The UWMP report the planned demands for similar types of uses proposed with this Project within the City, referred to collectively as Single-Family Residential uses (SFR). These demands are summarized in UWMP Table 4-5, which is reproduced, in part, below.

Table 3-4. Planned Water Demands by Use Type
Use Type
UWMP Projected
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
Proposed Project Demands in 2030
Project Demands (AFY)
% of UWMP SFR
Demands
Single-Family Residential 18,558 236.0 1.3%
Totals 18,558 236.0 1.3%
Comparing the total proposed Project water demands in Table 3-2 with the total water demand area analyzed in the UWMP and shown in Table 3-4, the Project makes up a very small portion of the overall water anticipated to be delivered by the City to similar types of uses; however, it is worth note the additional demand beyond the original planned land use (78.7 AFY) accounts for 0.4% of the SRF projected demands shown in the 2020 UWMP for year 2030. 2 The anticipated demands timing is an estimate and development of the Project will be determined by the Project Applicant. This WSA does not govern the development timeline.
806
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Clovis
Riordan Ave
Perrin Rd
Sunnyside Ave
Behymer Ave
Shepherd Ave
Minnewawa Ave
0 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
Clovis City Limits
Clovis Sphere of Influence
City of Clovis General Plan
RR - Rural Residential
VL - Very Low Residential
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
MH - Medium High Density Residential
MU-V - Mixed Use Village
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
GC - General Commercial
P - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
PK - Park
W - Water
12/12/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 3-1: Land Use Plan in Project Area
Water Supply Assessment 807
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-1 4 Overview of Water Supplies
CWC §10910(c)(2) allows reliance on the City’s UWMP to determine overall water supply reliability if the Project’s planned water demand was included in the UWMP. Although, the proposed Project demand is more than what was included in the calculations for the UWMP, the Project area itself was included at the originally planned land use intensity.
§10910(d) requires that a WSA identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project, including any such existing entitlements, rights, or contracts held by the public water system or city or county preparing the WSA. These descriptions appear in detail in Chapter 6 of the UWMP and are summarized below.

4.1 Surface Water
The City’s surface water supply is provided through agreements with Fresno Irrigation District (FID), which allows the City to receive a share of FID’s Kings River and Friant Central Valley Project (CVP) entitlements. Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD) are located within the City’s General Plan boundaries. As the districts’ service areas are urbanized over time, surface supplies available to the two districts will be added to the City’s surface water supply. As those supplies are added to the City’s water supply portfolio, they will be available throughout the City’s service area as part of the general water supply. Currently, all surface water available to the City comes from the FID contract. The boundaries of each of the districts are shown on Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 Kings River
FID obtains much of its surface water from the Kings River. FID is a member of the Kings River Water Association, which holds water rights licenses for all the Kings River and storage rights licenses on Kings River reservoirs. FID is entitled to water based upon a prorated monthly schedule determined by the natural flow of the Kings River as it would occur without reservoir storage above the historic Piedra gauging station. FID is entitled to water from the Kings River at all flows, but the percentage is higher at relatively low Kings River flows. If the snowmelt is slow, the District receives a greater entitlement. FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 AF. Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015.

The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water; the total amounts available to the City are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.

4.1.2 Central Valley Project Water Allocation: Friant Division The water obtained from the CVP comes from the diversion and storage of water from the San Joaquin River behind Friant Dam. The total available water on the San Joaquin River has been estimated at 2,200,000 acre-feet (AF). Of that, 800,000 AF have been designated as Class I supply (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). Class I supply is considered to be dependable in most years with shortages only in 808
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-2 very dry years. Class II water is in excess of Class I and is therefore much less dependable. FID has a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for 75,000 AF of Class II water from this source (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The agreement between the City and FID requires the District to make available to the City the proportional share of all surface water available to the District although it does not allow the City to directly receive FID’s CVP supplies. Therefore, FID is required to make a like amount of Kings River (or any other surface) water available to the City for its proportional share of Class II CVP supplies. FID’s Class II contract has received an average 13,577 AFY with the actual number ranging from zero to the full 75,000 AF depending upon the nature of each water year over that period.

Table 4-1 lists the projected surface water volume through 2040.

4.1.3 Garfield Water District
GWD is located north of the City with a portion of the district in the City’s SOI. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2025, with the total 1,750 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.1.4 International Water District
IWD is located east of the City’s SOI within the general plan’s boundary. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s supply. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2030, with the total 1,200 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.2 Supply from Storage
Since 2004, the City has been storing water in the aquifer to create a stable source of supply over the years. The City has been working with FID to recharge surface water, using the City’s contracted shares of capacity in FID’s Waldron Banking Facility and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility, to build up credit in those facilities which allows for annual water withdrawals, on an as-needed or as-requested basis. The surface water banked includes portions of FID’s Kings and CVP supplies and may in the future also include other surface water supplies that FID is able to secure on the spot market. Recharged water is purchased under separate agreements with FID and is not included in the surface water totals in the previous section, so this is truly a separate and additional water supply. This process is fully explained in the UWMP.

Two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facilities (Waldron) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (Boswell), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City and FID have entered into a similar agreement regarding the Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility whereby the City will have access up to 4,500 AFY of surface water. The 809
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-3 recharged water will be “banked” for future recovery during dry periods or to accommodate planned growth.

The City has created a recharge plan accounting for historic variations in surface water supplies that will allow it to withdraw an annual 13,500 AF, the maximum withdrawal allowed under the City’s agreements with FID. This is considered a firm supply. The 13,500 AF maximum annual withdrawal is built into the water supply projections in the UWMP for each year over the planning horizon.

4.3 Groundwater
The City is located within the Kings Groundwater sub-basin, a part of the Tulare Lake Hydrogeologic Basin as described in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources, 2003). The groundwater basin is in overdraft and has been for many years. However, it has not been adjudicated.

Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses a sustainable groundwater yield for the service area and concludes the sustainable yield to be 9,400 AFY, as discussed in greater detail in the WMP. While the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) has been written and adopted, it does not yet include a firmer approximation of sustainable yield, although development of one is anticipated. The sustainable yield from the UWMP and WMP has been used for this assessment. 810
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
0 2 4
Miles
Project Area
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
Clovis General Plan Boundary
Garfield Water District
International Water District
Fresno Irrigation District
12/12/2022 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Projects\101722006 - Tract 6343\400 GIS\Map\TM_6343_WSA\TM_6343_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of
Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin,

USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
Figure 4-2: Irrigation and Water Districts
Water Supply Assessment 811
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-5

4.4 Recycled Water
Most of the City’s wastewater flow is treated at the Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF), located southwest of the City of Fresno on Jensen Avenue. In 2009, the City of Clovis completed a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). In 2020, the WRF produced approximately 2,496 AFY. Of that total, 28 percent was recycled for mostly landscape and agricultural irrigation, with the remainder being discharged to FID’s Fancher Creek for agricultural irrigation.

Ultimately the WRF will be expanded to be able to treat 8.4 MGD, or 9,400 AF per year, and will make a substantial contribution to the City’s overall water resources. According to the 2020 UWMP, recycled water is used for irrigation of public and private landscape within the service area. Areas receiving or planned to receive recycled water include the Freeway 168 corridor between Shepherd and Sierra Avenues, the existing Clovis Community Medical Center campus, and multiple City parks and landscape areas.

Landscape irrigation will continue to be the main use of recycled water in the future. All public landscape areas within three-quarters of a mile of the distribution system are considered potential recycled water use areas. Clovis Unified School District is evaluating the use of recycled water for its landscape areas. Caltrans has expanded their use of recycled water along State Route 168 from Armstrong Avenue west to Sierra Avenue. Concurrent with the Project’s development, the City will expand its use of recycled water and broaden its range of beneficial uses to potentially include irrigating the public landscape space to be developed with the Project.

To affect that increase in use, the City now requires all new development of public landscape near recycled water transmission lines to use recycled water. Additional actions include extending the recycled water distribution system to discharge at groundwater recharge facilities and reducing the cost of recycled water. The UWMP indicates planned use of recycled water supply will be 9,400 AFY by 2040 (UWMP Table 6-13). With a planned3recycled water transmission main in Shepherd Avenue, it is possible this Project may use recycled water for landscape irrigation, but the City will make final determination of that at a later date.

4.5 Exchanges
Water exchanges, transfers, and water banking allow purveyors to manage demand and supply variability by ensuring water will be available for the near future. The majority of the City’s wastewater is treated at the RWRF. Under an agreement with FID, the City of Fresno receives 0.92 AF of Kings River surface water in exchange for each two AF of reclaimed water produced by the RWRF (46 percent exchange). Clovis is in discussions with the City of Fresno and FID on documenting its pro-rata share of RWRF effluent and the most efficient recover and beneficial use of that effluent. This will require a new effluent exchange agreement with FID, and potentially the City Fresno, to appropriately allocate Clovis’ pro-rata share of the treated water. This water is limited by agreement to being used for groundwater recharge activities.
3 As noted in the City’s 2018 Recycled Water Master Plan 812
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 4-6

4.6 Water Supply Summary
The five sources discussed above make up the City’s water resources. These are tabulated overall for 2025 and for each subsequent 5-year period through 2040 in Table 4-1.

The City’s overall water resources are projected to increase from 50,739 AF per year in 2025 to 74,650 AF per year in 2040. Nearly all this increase will come from increasing surface water resources from 18,039 AF per year in 2020 to 39,400 AF per year in 2040. The mix of water supplies the City plans to use to meet these demands is changing over time and, while the surface water supplies will be the primary source, a mixture of groundwater and supply from storage will be used to meet demands.

Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13) Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater [1] 11,429 10,753 10,076 9,400
Surface Water [2] 22,160 27,584 32,508 39,400
Supply from Storage
(Waldron and Boswell facilities) 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 Recycled Water 3,100 5,500 6,300 9,400
Transfers (GWD and IWD) 550 1,600 2,650 2,950
Total 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Notes:
[1] Reasonably available volume shows a steady reduction in reliance on groundwater supply, as planned, to the sustainable yield volume in 2040; discussed in greater detail in the UWMP. [2] Surface water quantities shown in greater detail in the UWMP. 813
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Five: Normal Year Water Operations
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 5-1 5 Normal Year Water Operations
This section evaluates the ability of the City to meet the overall water demands during normal water years. A normal year is a year, or averaged range of years, that most closely represents the average water supply available to the City. In this case, the normal year reflects the overall water supply summary discussed in Section 4.

This Chapter relies on information taken from Sections 6 and 7 of the UWMP. Table 5-1 compares the City’s water demands and compares them with the normal year water supplies (see Table 4-1) for the 5- year increments the Project is anticipated to be constructed, and through 2040, as shown in the UWMP.

As shown, total supplies would exceed total demands. Adequate supplies are available to serve the City and its water customers in normal rainfall years such as those discussed in this section. The excess water supply is more than adequate to meet the estimated Project water demands.

Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands Condition
Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Excess/Shortage 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052
814
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water
Supplies
This section evaluates the availability of City water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry water years, based on Project buildout in 2030. Numerous factors will work to change the relative quantities of water the City receives from its several water sources. Since each of these has a different reliability in dry years, the overall water supply reliability will change over time. The following sections discuss how this will occur.

During a single-dry year, surface water allotments are anticipated to be reduced by as much as 66 percent for Kings River surface water supplies, and CVP Class II supplies are eliminated completely in dry years. In the future, as the City becomes more reliant on surface water supplies, the impact of surface water reductions in dry years will be more significant.

A multiple-dry year period represents the lowest average supply available to the Project for a consecutive five-year period. This analysis is referred to as a “multi-dry” condition in the UWMP. The WSA analysis is based on the five consecutive driest years of record for the Project’s surface water supplies, which were water years 2011/12 through 2015/16.

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources

6.1.1 Kings River Surface Water
Both the single-dry and multiple-dry analyses are most affected by the variations in Kings River entitlement in dry years. FID’s entitlement does not vary directly in proportion to overall annual runoff; rather it favors FID versus all the other Kings River diverters. When river flows are low due to slow runoff, low annual precipitation or both, FID’s proportional share of the daily river flow increases.

The effect of this is that FID’s entitlement, as a percentage of its average entitlement, is higher than the overall water year percentage flow, for virtually any below-average water year. As noted in the UWMP, the anticipated share of Kings River water is shown as 32,100 AFY (UWMP Table 6-4) in 2040 for an average water year. As discussed in the UWMP, the City has recently executed a contract with FID for development of a new firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter. This new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply based on water year type.

6.1.2 Friant CVP Surface Water
Over the period of 1986 through 2016, the average Class II allocation has been 38 percent of contracted amount. However, Class II supplies are particularly subject to the water year type. However, these supplies are relatively small and would not have significant impact on the total supply. 815
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-2 While Class I entitlements do not currently affect the City’s FID supplies, they will affect the future-year GWD and IWD entitlements. Class I allocations in the five multiple-dry years were 0 percent of the contracted amount for all five years.

6.1.3 Supply from Storage
The contract for the Waldron facility allows annual withdrawals of up to approximately 9,000 AFY, while the Boswell Facility allows up to 4,500 AFY. According to the UWMP, the combined withdrawal limit from the two facilities is 13,500 AFY. In any year where surface water deliveries are substantially limited, the City would want to use these resources to the limit.

A related matter is how contributions are made to supply storage. Whereas in normal years the City is making deposits to both facilities, in a drier year those contributions would be reduced or halted since the surface supplies necessary for the deposits would not be available. Since the deposits come from surface water resources not counted in the City’s water balance, being acquired under separate FID agreements, the curtailment of deposits does not reduce the City’s water demand.

6.1.4 Groundwater
As of the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, the City of Clovis obtains groundwater from more than 30 wells, located throughout the service area. The total well production is estimated at 37,290 gallons per minute (gpm).

According to the UWMP, the City aims to reduce its direct groundwater consumption whenever possible. Most the City’s water demands will be met by a combination of surface water and supplies from storage, in water years when those two resources are sufficient to meet demands. In drier years, when surface water supplies are limited, the City will pump groundwater, potentially beyond the 9,400 AFY accounted for in a normal year, to make up the shortfall but not to an unsustainable level as discussed in the NKGSP. The City will also recharge surface waters when available to allow for additional groundwater pumping when needed.

Planning to make that objective possible is very important, as Chapter 6 of the UWMP states that the sustainable groundwater supply in the City service area is 9,400 AF per year, for normal, dry, and multidry years. For the time being, there is no restriction against pumping groundwater above the sustainable aquifer yield; however, the NKGSP indicates the City must sustainably use groundwater.

This WSA uses 9,400 AF per year as the sustainable groundwater pumping amount, as stated in the UWMP. Due to the very large size of the aquifer underlying the City, available groundwater is not quickly affected by the type of water year. Anticipating a mix of wet and dry years similar to what has been historically seen, this WSA does not reduce available groundwater in dry or multiple-dry years; however, the City will be prioritizing use of other supplies over groundwater when possible.

6.1.5 Recycled Water
Recycled water production, being tied directly to indoor water use, does not vary significantly with the water year type, and is not adjusted from normal for this analysis. 816
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-3

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
In 2020, surface water made up 58 percent of the City’s direct water supply. In 2030, the surface water supply is planned to be 53 percent of the total while the supply from storage will have increased to 18 percent in a normal year. Groundwater will remain an important component of the water supply in the near future.

This means the City’s reliance on surface water supplies, either directly used or pumped from subsurface storage, will have increased to 71 percent of the total. While there is a margin of normal year supply available over planned demand over the entire planning horizon, some provision may have to be made for additional reliable storage to account for such a large portion of surface water being subject to water year variability. See the reliability analysis in Section 6.3 following.

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon
Supply for dry years would be drawn from a combination of Kings River surface water, supply from storage, groundwater, and recycled water. As shown in the UWMP, it is anticipated that surface water supplies from the FID Firm Water Agreement would still be available during drought years. Other firm water supply sources are groundwater, banked water, and recycled water, all of which are considered resilient against drought compared to surface water supplies. Groundwater banking activities would decrease to accommodate the decreased surface water supplies while still being able to use previously banked groundwater supplies from the Waldron and Boswell facilities. Project demand was assumed to be constant across all water years.

The supplies that would be available during single-dry and multiple-dry years in 2030 (at assumed Project buildout) are summarized in Table 6-1. As shown, adequate supplies would be available to supply the City and along with the estimated Project demand of 236 AFY, under all studied conditions.

Further, the excess demand associated with the Project (78.7 AFY), over the originally planned land use, accounts for 10.3 percent of the excess supply without conservation and 1.3 percent of excess supply with conservation in the most critical year analyzed – the Single Dry Year. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2021) in place that could be partially or fully implemented if needed or mandated. The ‘demand with conservation’ values are reduced to reflect implementation of various stages of the WSCP, as discussed in the UWMP. 817
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 6-4 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4) Scenario Single-Dry
Year [1]
Multiple-Dry Year [2]
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Baseline demand 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 Demand with Conservation as
shown in UWMP 37,359 39,422 36,962 33,969 30,474 40,757 Total Supply 43,587 54,607 52,576 48,310 43,586 57,992
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 762 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Note: Refer to the 2020 UWMP for details on how these values were calculated.

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors
This WSA defers to the UWMP for consideration of the overall effects of climate change upon supply reliability. Climate change has been considered in the preparation of the UWMP. 818
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Seven: Operational Reliability
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 7-1 7 Operational Reliability
The City’s surface water entitlement does not accrue all at once during a given water year. Rather, the Kings River entitlement accrues daily throughout the year based on actual river runoff and the Kings River Water Association (KRWA) entitlement schedule. The daily nature of the Kings River supply is especially important early in the water year, which begins October 1. The very low river flows in October and November mean that supply is low, and the City must rely on other water supplies during those months. The relatively large supplies available from storage help mitigate the seasonal nature of the surface water supply, and these are further backed up by groundwater supplies equivalent to almost half the City’s total annual demand.

The City has not had any issue with temporary water shortages to date. The City’s WMP and UWMP indicates a need to increase their surface water and groundwater supplies to meet future demands and provides detail on how much of each supply is needed compared to the existing supplies. The WMP also includes a Capital Improvements Program identifying capital projects that are necessary to acquire and facilitate the movement of current and future water supplies throughout the City’s system in a reliable manner. The City’s adherence to their planning documents and consistent development of these water supplies and infrastructure is critical for the City’s continued growth and development and will provide operational reliability into the future.
819
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-1 8 Conclusions
As summarized in Table 8-1, the City has adequate supplies to meet the needs of all the City’s water customers including the Project, in normal water years, over the 20-year planning horizon.

In the buildout year, if demand is as projected, the City will have sufficient water to meet dry year demands of all dry year event types. Conservation measures, detailed in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been developed that would mitigate possible shortfalls by reducing demand approximately 15 percent. Evidence from the 2013 to 2015 drought suggests that those results, and more, are achievable. Additionally, as the City has surplus water supplies in normal years, short-term additional groundwater extraction in the single-dry and multiple-dry years is also planned as part of their water portfolio.

As discussed in Section 7, the City has plans to continue to acquire water supplies and construct infrastructure to supply current and future water users. Therefore, we conclude the City of Clovis has adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the City including additional demands associated with this Project in normal, dry, and multi-dry years given the previously discussed potential demand reductions and supply augmentations.

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs
Since the 2020 UWMP was adopted, three WSAs have been prepared for the City, including this one. It is important to understand the cumulative impact of the additional demands associated with WSAs over and beyond the demands analyzed in the 2020 UWMP.

Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demands including WSAs 2020 UWMP Supply and Demand
Comparison Results
Normal
Year (2030)
SingleDry Year
Multiple-Dry Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 16,113 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 763 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with
Conservation -- 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Additional Demands Associated with WSAs prepared since 2020 UWMP Home Place Master Plan
(Approved March 2021) No Additional Demands Associated with Home Place Master Plan WSA Tract 6205 SOI Expansion
(Estimated Approval 2022) 256 256 256 256 256 256 256
Tract 6343
(Estimated Approval 2022) 79 79 79 79 79 79 79
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
including Additional Demands from
WSAs
15,779 429 11,449 9,418 5,152 428 14,834
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply with
Conservation including Additional
Demands from WSAs
-- 5,944 14,901 15,330 14,057 12,828 16,950
820
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Eight: Conclusions
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 8-2 The demands in Table 8-1 include those demands noted in the UWMP, the additional demands associated with the Project evaluated in this WSA (78.7 AFY), as discussed in Section 2.2, and the additional demands discussed in the previously prepared WSAs. Similarly, the noted Excess/Deficit reflects the difference between these summated demands and the total supply noted in the UWMP.

This approach accounts for the additional demands associated with the proposed land use type above the demands associated with the originally planned land use type. There is still an excess of supply in all conditions, even with the additional demands.

As noted above, additional groundwater supplies may not be necessary in the critical year or multiple year drought depending on operational decisions regarding conservation; however, the City’s UWMP notes additional groundwater supplies would be available on a short-term basis during a drought condition.
821
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Section Nine: References
Water Supply Assessment – Tract 6343
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • December 2022 9-1 9 References
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Clovis.

Placeworks. (2014). General Plan, City of Clovis. Clovis.

Department of Water Resources. (2003). Bulletin 118 - California's Groundwater. Sacramento.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2021). City of Clovis 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Clovis.
822
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

January 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TRACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
Attachment 12
823
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
824
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Notice of Availability
Tract Map 6343
Draft Environmental Impact Report
DATE: January 19, 2024
TO: Office of Planning and Research, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies and Other Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tract Map 6343 LEAD AGENCY: City of Clovis
Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA | Senior Planner
City of Clovis | Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
559.324.2335
[email protected]
COMMENT PERIOD: January 19, 2024 to March 4, 2024
Notice is hereby given that the City of Clovis (City), as the Lead Agency, has completed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Tract Map 6343, which is being distributed for public review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Public Resources Code.

The City has sent a copy of this Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse and to those who requested a copy by responding to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The City has also posted a copy of this Notice of Availability at Clovis City Hall and posted in The Business Jourrnal.

PROJECT LOCATION
The Tract Map 6343 Project (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).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Tract Map 6343 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. 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. 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.

A detailed project description is provided in the Draft EIR. 1 825
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Notice of Availability of an Environmental Impact Report Tract Map 6343

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Draft EIR has identified the following environmental issue areas as having significant and unavoidable environmental impacts from implementation of the project: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation and Cumulative Impacts. All other environmental issues were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated into the Project.

Public Review Period
A 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR will commence on January 19, 2024 and end on March 4, 2024. Any written comments on the Draft EIR must be received at the above address within the public review period. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for review at the Attn: Lily Cha-Haydostian, MPA, Senior Planner at the City of Clovis, Planning Division, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612.The Draft EIR also may be reviewed at the City of Clovis’ web site https://cityofclovis.com/planning-and-development/ceqa/. If we do not receive a response from your agency or organization, we will presume that your agency or organization has no response to make.
2 826
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

January 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

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 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. CIT2201
827
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

This page intentionally left blank
828
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\0-Cover-Title-TOC.docx (01/10/24) i

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY.................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................................................1-5

1.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATRIX......................................................................................... 1-7

2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS EIR........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR ............................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 EIR SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................... 2-4

2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION..................................................................................................... 2-5

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND SETTING ..........................................................................3-1

3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3-9

3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND USES OF THIS EIR ..........................................................3-23

4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1

4.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................................4.1-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................................................4.3-1

4.4 NOISE.............................................................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.5 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ..........................................5-4

5.4 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................5-4

5.5 ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ..........................................................5-9

5.6 ALTERNATIVE 3: INCREASED PHASE DENSITY ALTERNATIVE ..........................................5-14

5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE................................................................5-19

6.0 CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS.................................................. 6-1

6.1 GROWTH INDUCEMENT.................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ..............................................................................6-2

6.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS..............................................................................6-4 829
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\0-Cover-Title-TOC.docx (01/10/24) ii

7.0 REPORT PREPARATION ..................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 REPORT PREPARERS.......................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 8-1

APPENDICES
A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
B: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOP
C: LESA MODEL
D: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
E: HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
F: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
G: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
830
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\0-Cover-Title-TOC.docx (01/10/24) iii

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Regional and Local Context............................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ..................................3-7 Figure 3-3: General Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-4: Site Plan – South.............................................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-5: Site Plan – Central ........................................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-6: Site Plan – North ............................................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 4.2-1: California Population, Gross State Product (GSP), Diesel Cancer Risk, and Diesel Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Regulatory Context..............................................4.2-13 Figure 4.4-1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels...............................................................................4.4-4 TABLES
Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix................................................................................................. 1-8 Table 3.A: Required Permits and Approvals......................................................................................3-23 Table 4.1.A: USDA Land Capability Classifications ...........................................................................4.1-3 Table 4.1.B: Land Capability Subclass Units .....................................................................................4.1-3 Table 4.1.C: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Agricultural Resources........................4.1-7 Table 4.1.D: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Farmland Designations in the Heritage Grove Study Area...................................................................................................... 4.1-8 Table 4.1.E: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoring for TM 6343 Project ............................4.1-9 Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants................................................................4.2-3 Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................4.2-7 Table 4.2.C: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Status.......................................4.2-11 Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at Nearby Monitoring Stations..................................................4.2-12 Table 4.2.E: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources..............................................................4.2-20 Table 4.2.F: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Air Quality .........................................4.2-21 Table 4.2.G: SJVAPCD Construction and Operation Thresholds of Significance (Tons per Year)..4.2-22 Table 4.2.H: Project Construction Emissions (Tons Per Year) ........................................................4.2-27 Table 4.2.I: Project Operation Emissions (Tons Per Year)..............................................................4.2-28 Table 4.2.J: Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors..................4.2-31 Table 4.3.A: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases.........................................................4.3-2 Table 4.3.B: Potential Impacts of Global Warming and Expected Consequences for California .....4.3-6 Table 4.3.C: 2012 City of Clovis Community-Wide GHG Emissions Inventory by Sector.................4.3-8 Table 4.3.D: Senate Bill 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets ..................4.3-13 Table 4.3.E: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............4.3-18 Table 4.3.F: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................4.3-20 Table 4.3.G: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................4.3-21 Table 4.4.A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms....................................................................................4.4-3 Table 4.4.B: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration..............4.4-6 Table 4.4.C: Existing Traffic Noise Levels..........................................................................................4.4-8 831
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\0-Cover-Title-TOC.docx (01/10/24) iv Table 4.4.D: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis......................................... 4.4-10 Table 4.4.E: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.................................................................... 4.4-10 Table 4.4.F: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Noise................................................. 4.4-11 Table 4.4.G: Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix ................................................................. 4.4-12 Table 4.4.H: City of Clovis Maximum Exterior Noise Standards .................................................... 4.4-12 Table 4.4.I: City of Clovis Maximum Interior Noise Standards ...................................................... 4.4-13 Table 4.4.J: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels............................................................ 4.4-15 Table 4.4.K: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project.......................................... 4.4-17 Table 4.4.L: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment........................................ 4.4-23 Table 4.4.M: Summary of Construction Equipment and Activity Vibration .................................. 4.4-24 Table 4.5.A: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Transportation ................................... 4.5-8 Table 4.5.B: Recommended Improvements for Intersections....................................................... 4.5-14 Table 4.5.C: Recommended Improvements for Roadway Segments ............................................ 4.5-15 Table 5.A: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project to the Project Alternatives.............................................................................................................................. 5-20 832
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter provides an overview of the purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), proposed project and its environmental impacts based on the analysis included in this EIR, including a discussion of alternatives and cumulative project impacts. As required under CEQA, this chapter also includes potential areas of public controversy known to the City of Clovis, the lead agency for the proposed project.

1.1 PURPOSE
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Tract Map 6343. This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq; the California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Clovis (herein referred to as the City).

This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision‐makers and the public regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project. In addition to identifying potential environmental impacts, this EIR also identifies potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce potential significant environmental impacts.

Environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.

In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a lead agency, such as the City of Clovis, approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the lead agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the final CEQA documents and any other information in the public record for the project. This is identified in Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, “a statement of overriding considerations”. These potential impacts are discussed in more detail throughout Chapter 4.0 of this EIR.

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following provides a summary of the project location, project description, project objectives, potential significant and unavoidable impacts that could result from the proposed project, and a list of the agencies responsible for implementation of the proposed project and approvals required for the project.

1.2.1 Project Location
The City of Clovis is in the central portion of Fresno County, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the City of Fresno downtown area. 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 833
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -2 is bounded by East Behymer Avenue to the north, by the Enterprise Canal to the west and south, and by rural residential, FMFCD ponding basin, and Tract Map 6200 to the east.

1.2.2 Project Description
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. The project site would also include 66 outlot spaces that would potentially 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. 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.

1.2.2.1 Phase 1
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 portion of the project site and would be accessed through one ingress and egress street and one egress street located 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.

1.2.2.2 Phase 2
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 located 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-footwide 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.

1.2.2.3 Phase 3
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 along the future southern extension of Baron Avenue, and through one gated egress street access along the future northern extension of Hammel Avenue. Phase 3 would 834
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-3 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.

1.2.3 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.

1.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
• Transportation – potentially exceed thresholds of levels of service on roadways in conflict with approved General Plan and increase in VMT.

1.2.5 Lead Agency and Trustee Agencies
The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Clovis. The City is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for certifying the EIR, approving or carrying out the project, or disapproving the project.

The responsible agencies are State and local public agencies other than the lead agency that have authority to carry out or approve a project or that are required to approve a portion of a project for which the lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. There are no agencies other than the City of Clovis that have approval or permitting authority for the adoption of the proposed project.
835
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -4 In addition, implementation of the proposed project would involve many responsible agencies depending upon the specifics of the subsequent projects. Following are some of the agencies that could be required to act as responsible agencies for the project:
• County of Fresno/City of Clovis – Williamson Act Contract Cancellation • Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission – Annexation • State Water Resources Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (with requisite Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and Permanent Control Measures)

1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
A total of seven written comment letters were submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and are included in Appendix B of this EIR. Four verbal comments were received at the public scoping session held on January 13, 2023. Comments in response to the NOP generally identified the following areas of potential concern:
• Acceptance of proposed annexation with residents in the vicinity of project area • The project’s potential to result in traffic impacts on the existing bridge across Enterprise Canal on Behymer Avenue
• The project’s potential to result in traffic impacts on the Behymer/Fowler and Behymer/ Minnewawa intersections
• The impact of the proposed extension of Baron Avenue on existing traffic operational deficiencies in the project area
• The timing of the Transportation analysis prepared for the project and whether it accounted for school-related traffic
• The project’s potential long-term impacts to water supplies, the water table and existing wells in the vicinity of the project area
• The project’s potential impacts to biological resources, particularly the California tiger salamander
• The timing of the biological analysis prepared for the project, and its influence on the presence of special status species in the project area during field surveys • The “less than significant” determination for impacts on agricultural resources in the Initial Study
836
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-5 • The project’s LESA model prepared to assess impacts to agricultural land, and whether it is reviewed and approved by a monitoring agency.
• The project’s potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels. • Evaluation of project construction and operational emissions. • Evaluation of potential health risk impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) and mitigation of any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions. • Direct and indirect environmental impacts of VMT associated with the project, including impacts to air quality, pedestrian, cyclist, and public transit user safety, ambient noise levels, aesthetics, and road quality.
• Evaluation of cumulative impacts and existing environmental conditions of the area.

The analyses included in the EIR are based on current regulatory requirements, including the current State CEQA Guidelines. Comments related to impacts to special status species were considered and addressed in the Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Initial Study prepared for this EIR.

Comments pertaining to potential impacts to agricultural resources were addressed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, of this EIR. An evaluation of the project’s construction and operational emissions and health risk impacts were considered and addressed in Section 4.2, Air Quality.

Potential noise impacts were considered and addressed in Section 4.4, Noise. Potential VMT impacts were considered and addressed in Section 4.5, Transportation. Evaluation of cumulative impacts and existing environmental conditions were considered and addressed throughout the EIR and finally, comments related to alternatives to the project were considered and addressed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives.

1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter 4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, and Chapter 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of this EIR. In determining that an EIR was the appropriate environmental document, the City also determined that the following environmental resource topics would be analyzed in detail for the proposed project: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Transportation. Other environmental resource topics not included in Chapter 4.0 of the EIR are analyzed in the Initial Study. The environmental resource topics discussed in the Initial Study include Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire.

1.4.1 Significant Impacts
CEQA defines a significant impact on the environment as “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic 837
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -6 significance.” As discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, impacts in the following areas would be potentially significant without the implementation of mitigation measures but would be reduced to a less than significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this report are implemented: Section 4.1 Agricultural Resources; Section 4.2 Air Quality; Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Section 4.4 Noise. Additionally, as discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the project (Appendix A), the following areas would be potentially significant without the implementation of mitigation measures but would be reduced to a less than significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study are implemented:

Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils and Tribal Cultural Resources.

1.4.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following environmental resource topic areas:
• Transportation – potentially exceed thresholds of levels of service on roadways in conflict with approved General Plan and increase in VMT.

1.4.3 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. As described in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR, the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIR is based on information provided by the City on currently planned, approved, or proposed projects and regional projections for the project area.

1.4.4 Alternatives to the Project
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the project’s location, that could attain most of the project’s basic objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant adverse environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit a reasoned choice. State CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR should not consider alternatives “whose effect cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.”
The alternatives to the proposed project that are discussed and analyzed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of this EIR are:
• No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed, and existing land uses would remain. No modifications to existing site access or infrastructure would occur.
838
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-7 • Reduced Project Alternative: Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the proposed project would reduce the proposed density of 8.25 dwelling units per acre for (DU/acre) to 4.12 DU/acre, for a total of 295 residential units. Proposed site access and infrastructure improvements would remain the same as those identified for the proposed project. • Increased Phase Density Alternative: Under the Increased Phase Density Alternative 590 residential units would be constructed within the 71.54-acre project site, but the residential units would be constructed on approximately 24 acres on northern portion of the project site and 24 acres on the southern portion of the project site to reduce the overall construction 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 identified for the proposed project.

Each alternative is compared to the proposed project and discussed in terms of its various mitigating or adverse effects on the environment. Analysis of the alternatives focuses on those topics for which significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project.

1.5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MATRIX
Table 1.A, below, summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated in the Initial Study document (Appendix B) prepared for this EIR, and in this Draft EIR. Table 1.A is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding sections of this Draft EIR. Table 1.A is included in the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).
839
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -8 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation Environmental Impact Report

4.1: AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Impact AG-2: The project would conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Mitigation Measure AG-2: Prior to issuance of building
permits, the Project Applicant would 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 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

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 Less than Significant
Impact.
840
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-9 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation notice shall include the following:
 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.

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.

Potentially Significant
Impact
Refer to Mitigation Measure AG-2 and Regulatory Compliance Measure AG-3, above.

Less than Significant
Impact

4.2: AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan
Less than Significant. Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure AIR-2, below. Less than Significant.

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 standards.

Less than Significant 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 Less than Significant
Impact.
841
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -10 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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.
 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.

Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed project
would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in
significant odors that could adversely affect a
substantial number of people.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
impact.

Refer to Regulatory Compliance Measure AIR-2, above. Less than Significant Impact.
842
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-11 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation

4.3: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: The project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measure GHG-1 above. Less than Significant Impact.

Impact GHG-3: The proposed project, in combination
with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not contribute to a significant
cumulative impact with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measure GHG-1 above. Less than Significant Impact.

4.4: NOISE
Impact NOI-1: The 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 applicable standards of
other agencies.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

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,
Less than Significant
Impact.
843
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -12 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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.

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 ventilation such as air conditioning shall be provided for all units.
 All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 26 or higher such that the noise reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.

Impact NOI-2: The project would not generate
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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 two
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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2 above. Less than Significant Impact.

4.5: TRANSPORTATION
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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable.
844
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-13 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation Impact TRA-2: The proposed project would conflict or
be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b).

Potentially Significant
Impact.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable.

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).

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Impact TRA-4: The project would not result in
inadequate emergency access.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable.

Initial Study

AESTHETICS
The proposed project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

No Impact. No mitigation is required. No Impact.

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 publicly accessible vantage
point), and due to the location of the project in an
urbanized area, the project would conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
845
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -14 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: 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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

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 Less than Significant
Impact.
846
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-15 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation will be used to support the survey.

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 847
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -16 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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 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 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 sitespecific 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
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).

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-17 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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.

The project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would 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.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

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 Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
849
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -18 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.

The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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
No Impact. No mitigation is required. No Impact.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: The project would cause substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5
Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.
850
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-19 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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
pursuant to §15064.5
Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 above. Less than Significant Impact.

Impact CUL-2: The project would disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries
Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

The Project Applicant shall discuss and confer with the Less than Significant
Impact.
851
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -20 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation descendants all reasonable options regarding the
descendants’ preferences for treatment.

ENERGY
The project would result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
project construction or operation
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Strong seismic ground shaking. Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Less than Significant Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Landslides. Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Less than Significant Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
852
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-21 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water
No Impact. No mitigation is required. No Impact.

Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would 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
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
853
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -22 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation The project would 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 it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, the
proposed project would not expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project would violate water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site Less than Significant Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
or off site.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
854
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-23 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Impede or redirect flood flows. Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project would physically divide an established
community.

No Impact. No mitigation is required. No Impact.

The project would 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

MINERAL RESOURCES
The project would 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
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would 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
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project would 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)
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
855
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -24 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation

PUBLIC SERVICES
The project would result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of 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 the following public
services:

Fire protection Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Police protection Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Schools Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Parks Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

Other Public Facilities Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

RECREATION
The project would 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural 856
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) 1-25 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k).

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, above. Less than Significant Impact.

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

Potentially Significant
Impact.

Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, above. Less than Significant Impact.

UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project would 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would 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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

The project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.
857
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\1.0-Executive_Summary.docx (01/11/24) -26 Table 1.A: Executive Summary Matrix
Potential Environmental Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of SignificanceAfter Mitigation related to solid waste.

WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, the project would:

Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact.

No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact.

APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A=weighted decibels
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District STC = sound transmission class
USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers
858
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on them. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of Tract Map 6343 (herein referred to as the proposed project) for the City of Clovis. This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq; the California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Clovis (herein referred to as the City).

This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision‐makers and the public regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction the proposed project. This EIR identifies potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, and identifies potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce potential environmental impacts.

Environmental impacts cannot always be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant.

In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a lead agency, such as the City of Clovis, approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the lead agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the final CEQA documents and any other information in the public record for the project. This is identified in Section 15093 of the State of CEQA Guidelines, “a statement of overriding considerations.” These potential impacts are discussed in more detail throughout Chapter 4.0 of this EIR.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City of Clovis, serving as Lead Agency responsible for administering the environmental review for the proposed project, determined that preparation of an EIR was required for the proposed project.

CEQA requires that, before a decision can be made to approve a project that could result in adverse physical effects, an EIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental impacts of a project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate significant adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR must be reviewed and considered by the City of Clovis Planning Commission, City Council, and other approving bodies prior to a decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the project.
859
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) -2 As part of the consideration of the proposed project, an agency must prepare findings that identifies that all environmental effects of the project are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

CEQA requires that agencies shall neither approve nor implement a project unless the project’s significant environmental effects have been reduced to a less-than-significant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the potentially significant impacts, except when certain findings are made. If an agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing, demonstrate that its action is based on the EIR or other information in the record, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

2.3 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
As noted above and described in the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, where feasible. In undertaking this duty, a public agency has an obligation to balance a project’s significant effects on the environment with its benefits, including economic, social, technological, legal, and other non-environmental characteristics.

This EIR is intended as an informational document to: evaluate the proposed project and the potential for significant impacts on the environment; examine methods of reducing adverse environmental impacts; identify any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and identify reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would eliminate any significant adverse environmental effects or reduce the impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The Lead Agency is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making its decisions on the proposed project. This analysis, in and of itself, does not determine whether a project will be approved, but aids the planning and decisionmaking process by disclosing the potential for significant and adverse impacts.

In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR provides objective information addressing the environmental consequences of the project and identifies possible means of reducing or avoiding significant impacts, either through mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives. The City of Clovis must certify the Final EIR prior to project approval and implementation. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, this is a project-level EIR. This type of EIR examines a specific project and considers potential construction and operational impacts of implementing the project.

The CEQA Guidelines help define the role and standards of this EIR, as follows:
• Information Document. An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect(s) of a project, identify possible ways to minimize significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a)). 860
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) 2-3 • Degree of Specificity. The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a development project will necessarily be more detailed in its discussion of specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146(a)).
• Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information, which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15151).

Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project…” Therefore, in identifying the significant impacts of the project, this EIR focuses on the substantial physical effects and mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or otherwise alleviate those effects.

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT
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. See Chapter 3.0, Project Description of this EIR for a more complete description of the proposed project.

2.5 EIR SCOPE
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR and Initial Study was circulated for 30 days on December 19, 2022, to help identify the types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project, as well as potential areas of controversy. The NOP was mailed to public agencies, organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the project and its potential impacts. Additionally, a public scoping meeting to inform interested parties and the public about the proposed project was held on January 13, 2023. A total of seven written comment letters regarding the NOP were received, in addition to the four verbal comments provided at the scoping session. 861
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) -4 The NOP and Initial Study are included in Appendix A, and copies of the public comment letters received in response to the NOP are included in Appendix B.

The Initial Study prepared for this EIR evaluated the environmental issue topics required by CEQA.

The individual environmental topics evaluated in the Initial Study include the following:
• Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation and Traffic
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Wildfire
The Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental issue topics that will be analyzed in more detail in this Draft EIR. The topics include:
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Noise
• Transportation

2.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This EIR is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0 – Executive Summary: Provides a summary of the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, describes mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts, and describes the alternatives to the proposed project. • Chapter 2.0 - Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the proposed project, describes the EIR scope, and summarizes the organization of the EIR. • Chapter 3.0 - Project Description: Provides a description of the project site, the project objectives, the proposed project, and intended uses of this EIR. • Chapter 4.0 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Describes the following for each environmental technical topic: existing conditions (setting), potential environmental impacts and their level of significance, and mitigation measures recommended to mitigate identified impacts.

Potential adverse impacts are identified by levels of significance, as follows: less-than-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance 862
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) 2-5 of each impact is categorized before and after implementation of any recommended mitigation measures(s). Cumulative impacts are also addressed.
• Chapter 5.0 - Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of the alternatives to the proposed project in addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative.
• Chapter 6.0 – CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides an analysis of effects found not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, unavoidable significant environmental impacts, and significant irreversible changes.
• Chapter 7.0 - Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, and the persons and organizations contacted.
• Chapter 8.0 - References: Provides reference list of sources used for the preparation of this EIR. • Appendices: The appendices contain the NOP and Initial Study, comment letters on the NOP, technical calculations, and other documentation prepared in conjunction with this EIR.

2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The CEQA Guidelines encourage public participation in the planning and environmental review processes. The City will provide opportunities for the public to present comments and concerns regarding the CEQA and planning processes. These opportunities will occur during the Draft EIR public review and comment period and public hearings before the City of Clovis Planning Commission and City Council.

This Draft EIR, in compliance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested organizations, agencies and individuals for review and comment on the adequacy of the environmental analysis.

The Draft EIR 46-day public review and comment period for this project began on January 12, 2024 and will end on February 26, 2024.

Written public comments may be submitted to the Planning and Development Department during the specified public review and comment period, and oral comments may be presented at the Draft EIR public hearing before the City of Clovis Planning Commission and City Council. Written comments should be delivered in person or by courier service, or be sent by mail or email to:

Lily Cha-Haydostian, Senior Planner
Planning Division
City of Clovis
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 324-2335
[email protected]
863
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\2.0-Introduction.docx (01/10/24) -6 This page intentionally left blank.
864
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-1

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24)

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed residential subdivision Tract Map 6343 (project), and associated entitlements proposed by Wilson Premier Homes, Inc. (Project Applicant). The proposed project would consist of developing a 71.54-acre project site into an approximately 590-lot single-family residential development, and the annexation of 246 acres by the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis(City) is the lead agency for review of the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3.1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND SETTING
The following section describes the location and characteristics of the project site and annexation area and provides a brief overview of the existing land uses within, and near, the proposed project.

3.1.1 Location
The project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APNs) 556-040-07S, -08S, and 556-030-14S, within the Northwest Urban Center area identified in the 2014 City of Clovis 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, a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) ponding basin, and Tract Map 6200 to the east. The annexation area encompasses the project site, as well as APNs 556-040-06S, - 09S, -13ST, -15S, -16S, -17ST, -18S, -20S, -22ST, -23S, -24S and 556-050-35S. The annexation area is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection between East Behymer Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue. Figure 3-1 shows the proposed project’s regional and local context.

3.1.2 Project Site and Annexation Area Characteristics and Existing Conditions The project site is approximately 71.54 acres in size and is currently being used for agriculture and contains one rural residence. Parcel APN 556-030-14S is currently under a Williamson Act contract1 ,
while all other parcels within the project site are not under a Williamson Act contract. Agriculture cropsthat have been historically grown on the project site include pistachios, almonds, wheat, cotton, grapes, and oranges.
2 There is one existing dwelling unit in the project site, consisting of a singlefamily residence and three agriculture-related outbuilding structures.

The Enterprise Canal borders the project site’s western and southern boundaries. The Enterprise Canal is owned and operated by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and serves to deliver water for irrigation, recharge, conveyance of stormwater flows, and municipal use for Fresno and Clovis. Within the annexation area and adjacent to the project site, the Enterprise Canal is approximately 4,300 feet in length, 30 feet wide, lined, and elevated above adjacent ground. 1 A petition for the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for APN 556-030-14S is currently in progress, pursuant to conditions set forth in Government Code (GC) § 51280 et seq. 2 United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. National Agriculture Statistics Service. CropScape-Cropland Data Layer. Website: https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed May 26, 2022). 865
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -2 This page intentionally left blank
866
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and

PERRIN RD

E BEHYMER AVE N MINNEWAWA AVE

UNINCORPORATED

FRESNO COUNTY

CITY OF
CLOVIS

E SHEPHERD AVE

N MINNEW

N MINNEWAWA AVE

N SUNNYSIDE AVE
SOURCE: Esri Streetmap (2021)
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\images\CIT2201\GIS\MXD\Regional_Local_Context.mxd (12/6/2022) FIGURE 3-1
Tract Map 6343
Regional and Local Context
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Project
Location
Ã145
Ã180
Ã168
Ã41
Ã99
Project Vicinity
LEGEND
Project Location
Parcel Boundary
Annexation Boundary
Clovis City Limit 0 750 1500
FEET
867
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -4 This page intentionally left blank
868
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-5

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) The 246-acre annexation area of the proposed project includes existing rural residential and agricultural uses. Approximately 88 acres of the annexation area are currently used for agricultural production. The rural residential uses are located on the northern boundary of the annexation area and consist of five approximately 2.3-acre lots, and one 4.7-acre lot. The remaining 141.8 acres of the annexation area are not currently used in agricultural production or contain rural residential uses.

The proposed annexation boundary is located within the City of Clovis’ Sphere of Influence (SOI) as established in the City’s 2014 General Plan. Located in the Northwest Urban Center or Heritage Grove area for Clovis, the project area and surrounding properties to the north and west have been identified for future development. Heritage Grove is planned for more compact type development inclusive of residential and mixed-use land use designations. Lands within the project boundary have been designated for future residential development, exclusive of the water basin that will remain. The City has adopted design guidelines to direct future development and improvement of the Heritage Grove area.

Parcels 556-040-13ST, -17ST, and 22ST, east of the project site, are owned by the FMFCD and are the location of stormwater retention Basin BY. Basin BY retains stormwater in Drainage Area BY, an area bounded by East Copper Avenue to the north, North Sunnyside Avenue to the east, East Shepherd Avenue and the Enterprise Canal to the south, and North Minnewawa to the west.

3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site and annexation area are surrounded by agricultural and single-family residential uses to the south, rural residential and agricultural uses to the east, agricultural and commercial uses to the west, and agricultural and rural residential uses to the north. The closest schools to the project site include Woods Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.75 mile south of the project, Buchanan High School is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the project site, and Alta Sierra Intermediate School is located approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. Figure 3-2 shows the project site, annexation area, and surrounding land uses.

3.1.4 Zoning
The project site and annexation area are located within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE20) of Fresno County. According to the Fresno County Ordinance Code, this district is intended to protect the welfare of the agricultural community of the County from encroachment of non-related uses of the land that could be detrimental to the physical and economic well-being of the community.

The project proposes to pre-zone the project site to the City of Clovis’ R-1 Zone District (R-1-PRD).

3.1.5 General Plan Land Use
The designated land uses for the project site and annexation area, according to the City of Clovis General Plan, include Medium Density Residential, Very Low Density Residential, and Water. The land use of the project site would be amended to Medium High Density Residential. 3 3 City of Clovis, 2014. General Plan. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2: Land Use Diagram. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Figure-LU-2.pdf. (accessed April 19, 2022). 869
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -6 This page intentionally left blank
870
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

AGRICULTURE

RESIDENTIAL

AGRICULTURE
0 1000 2000
Project Site TM-6343 Boundary
AnnexaƟon Boundary
FEET
SOURCES: Google Earth 4/21/2021; LSA, 2022
I:\CIT2201\G\Aerial Photo of Site&Surrounding LU.ai (12/6/2022) FIGURE 3-2
Tract Map 6343
Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 871
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -8 This page intentionally left blank
872
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-9

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24)

3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following is a list of project objectives of 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.

3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
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 three phases, as described below. Additionally, sixty-six outlot spaces would be included within the project site. Although the project site plan does not provide details on what would be constructed in these spaces, potential uses would include private road, private parking, private pedestrian, private landscaping, public utility, and public park uses. The proposed project would include the removal of one existing 2,679 square-foot dwelling unit and garage, an existing propane tank, a 2,000 squarefoot pole barn, two sheds totaling 1,785 square feet and 2,250 square feet, and an existing driveway on the project site. Figure 3-3 shows the proposed project’s site plan.

No development is proposed within the remaining 174.46-acre annexation area surrounding the project site. The proposed project would include annexation of the 174.46-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.

3.3.1 Building Program

3.3.1.1 Phase 1
Phase 1 of the proposed project 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 portion of the project site and would be accessed through one ingress and egress street and one egress street on Perrin Avenue. Phase 1 would include the construction of 873
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -10 This page intentionally left blank
874
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\Fig 3-3_General Site Plan.ai (4/14/2022) FIGURE 3-3
Tract Map 6343
General Site Plan
875
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -12 This page intentionally left blank
876
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-13

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) 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 Avenue and Hammel Avenue within the project site would be constructed during Phase 1.

Figure 3-4 shows a site plan of Phase 1 of the proposed project.

3.3.1.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 of the proposed project 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 North Baron Avenue, and one gated ingress and egress street along Hammel Avenue. Phase 2 would include the construction of a 26-foot-wide drainage channel along Perrin Avenue, approximately 0.35 acre of landscaped areas, and storm drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Perrin Avenue and Hammel Avenue.

Figure 3-5 shows a site plan of Phase 2 of the proposed project.

3.3.1.3 Phase 3
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 North Baron Avenue, and through one gated egress street accesslocated along the future northern extension of Hammel Avenue. Phase 3 would include the construction of approximately 91 parking spaces, an approximately 9,985-squarefoot pool and recreation area, approximately 0.65 acre of landscaped areas, and drainage and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along North Baron Avenue Figure 3-6 shows a site plan of Phase 3 of the proposed project.

3.3.2 Landscaping
The proposed project would include the removal of eight existing trees in the project site, and the addition of approximately 1.51-acres of landscaped areas. The proposed project would include front yard landscaping for all the residential lots in the project site, as well as landscaping for the proposed recreation areas to be constructed on the project site. Landscaping would also be included along the project frontage with Behymer Avenue, Baron Avenue, Perrin Avenue and Hammel Avenue. All landscaping included in the proposed project would comply with landscaping and water efficiency standards and requirements of Chapter 6.5: Water System, Article 5: Water Efficient Landscape Requirements and Chapter 9.28: Landscaping Standards of the Clovis Municipal Code. 877
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -14 This page intentionally left blank
878
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Lorem
0 60 120
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\Fig 3-4_South-Phase 1.ai (4/22/2022) FIGURE 3-4
Tract Map 6343
South: Phase 1
879
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -16 This page intentionally left blank
880
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
0 100 200
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\Fig 3-5_Central-Phase 2.ai (4/22/2022) FIGURE 3-5
Tract Map 6343
Central: Phase 2
881
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -18 This page intentionally left blank
882
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
0 80 160
FEET
SOURCE: Harbor & Associates, January 2022:\CIT2201\G\Fig 3-6_North-Phase 3.ai (4/22/2022) FIGURE 3-6
Tract Map 6343
North: Phase 3
883
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -20 This page intentionally left blank
884
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-21

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24)

3.3.3 Open Space
As described above the proposed project would include the construction of an approximately 8,745 square-foot community pool and recreation area with concrete paving, restrooms, and a shade structure, and an approximately 13,930 square-foot community park with pedestrian pathways, outdoor benches, and shade trees within Phase 1. In addition, the proposed project would include the construction of an approximately 9,985 square-foot pool and recreation area with concrete paving, restrooms, and a shade structure within Phase 3.

3.3.4 Lighting
The proposed project would introduce new sources of light into the project site. All permanent street lights would be installed consistent with City standards.

3.3.5 Utilities and Infrastructure

3.3.5.1 Water
Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Clovis. The project would require the construction of a 24-inch water main along Behymer Avenue from the west limits of the Tract 6343 project site to Baron Avenue. Additionally, the project would construct a 24-inch main along Baron Avenue, from Behymer Avenue to Perrin Avenue. The proposed improvements would be consistent with the City’s Water Master Plan and the City’s specifications on materials, depth, and resurfacing.

3.3.5.2 Wastewater
Wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Clovis. The proposed project would connect to an existing wastewater main within the right-of-way of North Baron Avenue.

3.3.5.3 Stormwater Management
The FMFCD would provide flood control and urban storm water services to the project site.

Stormwater from the project site would be drained through surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure located along Baron, Perrin and Hammel Avenues as well as along internal roadways in the project site and redirected towards FMFCD ponding Basin BY, which is adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary.4
In addition, a 1,300-foot long, 26-foot-wide drainage channel would be constructed along the north side of the Perrin Avenue extension to direct stormwater flows west from the project site, towards drainage infrastructure along the Enterprise Canal.
4 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. 2019. Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Website:
https://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/exhibit-A-11x17-1.pdf (accessed April 19, 2022).
885
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -22 Storm drainage pipelines would be constructed along North Baron Avenue and along interior roadways in the project site to drain stormwater from the project site towards Basin BY. These storm drainage facilities would be constructed pursuant to requirements of the FMFCD Master Plan.

3.3.5.4 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection for the project site would be provided by the City of Clovis, and recycling and green waste collection would be provided by Republic Services.

3.3.5.5 Electricity and Telecommunication
Electricity for the proposed project would be supplied by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) through connections to existing service lines. The proposed project would rely on electricity for all power needs, and natural gas would not be provided to the project site. Telecommunication services to the project site would be provided by Comcast and AT&T.

3.3.6 Site Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be provided by East Behymer Avenue and by a southern extension of North Baron Avenue, to be constructed during Phase 1 of the proposed project along the eastern boundary of the project site. The proposed project would construct approximately 2,650 feet of North Baron Avenue south of East Behymer to connect with the existing stretch of North Baron Avenue located southeast of the project site. This portion of North Baron Avenue would be approximately 49 feet wide and have two lanes, a turn lane, and one bike lane and shoulder along the east side.

An approximately 20-foot-wide parkway containing an approximately 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and landscaped areas would be included along the western side of North Baron Avenue along the project site. An approximately 16-foot-wide parkway containing an approximately 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and landscaped area that is reduced from the Heritage Grove Neighborhood Boulevard Street section would be included along the eastern side of North Baron Avenue, along the FMFCD Basin BY frontage. The eastern side of North Baron Avenue that is north of Basin BY will ultimately be built out with an approximately 20-foot-wide 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 pedestrian walk and bike lane will continue north of Basin BY to East Behymer Avenue with Tract 6343, but the improvements will be temporary until the adjacent rural residential parcel on the east side of North Baron Avenue develops further, at which point they will be modified. The exact configuration will be approved by the City Engineer with the project design plans.

To access the project site, three gated ingress and egress streets would be constructed along the southern extension of North Baron Avenue. One gated ingress and egress driveway would also be constructed along Hammel Avenue. A temporary secondary access connecting Hammel Avenue to North Baron Avenue would be constructed along the northern end of Hammel Avenue during Phase 3.

One gated ingress and egress street and one gated egress access street would be constructed along Perrin Avenue.
886
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3-23

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) Vehicle circulation within the project site would be provided by a network of two-way, 37.2-foot-wide private streets. Internal roadways within the project site would include Hammel Avenue, which is located along the project site’s western boundary, and Perrin Avenue, which crosses the project site west to east.

3.3.7 Construction
Construction of the proposed project is expected to take place in three phases over a period of 33 months starting in December 2023. Construction is expected to take place consecutively, with each phase constructed separately. Site preparation would include demolition of existing structures, and removal of rocks, debris, and vegetation from the project site. Grading would require the import of approximately 41,000 cubic yards of soil to level the project site.

3.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND USES OF THIS EIR
A number of permits and approvals, including discretionary actions, are listed in Table 3.A and would be required prior to implementation of the proposed project. As lead agency for the proposed project, City of Clovis would be responsible for the majority of the approvals required for development. Other agencies may also have some authority related to the project and its approvals.

Table 3.A: Required Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit/Approval
County of Fresno/City of Clovis Williamson Act Contract Cancellation Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Annexation State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (with requisite Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, Conceptual Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, and Permanent Control Measures)
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

The proposed project would include annexation of approximately 246 acres, including the 71.54- project site. No development is proposed within the remaining approximately 174.46-acre annexation area surrounding the project site, and any future development occurring within the annexation area would require separate, project-specific analysis and approvals. 887
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
3 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\3.0-Project_Description.docx (01/10/24) -24 This page intentionally left blank
888
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.0-Evaluation_Environmental.docx (01/10/24) 4-1

4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This chapter contains an analysis of each potentially significant environmental issue that has been identified for Tract Map 6343 (“proposed project”). The following: (1) identifies how a determination of significance is made; (2) identifies the environmental issues addressed in this chapter; (3) describes the context for the evaluation of cumulative effects; (4) lists the format of the topical issue section; and (5) provides an evaluation of each potentially significant issue in Sections 4.1 through 4.5.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. The impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable City policies.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT EIR
Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the project as evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the impacts that are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate.

4.1 Agricultural Resources

4.2 Air Quality

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.4 Noise

4.5 Transportation

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This chapter has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which states:
“An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to provide an understanding of the physical effects of the proposed project and its alternatives.” The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project was published on December 19, 2022. Thus, each of the environmental topical sections in this chapter includes a discussion of physical conditions in the vicinity of the project site on or around this date. 889
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
4 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.0-Evaluation_Environmental.docx (01/10/24) -2

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS CONTEXT
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound to increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of “reasonably foreseeable probable future” projects, per CEQA Section 15355. Cumulative impacts can result from a combination of the proposed project together with other closely related projects that cause an adverse change in the environment. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.

The methodology used for assessing cumulative impacts typically varies depending on the specific topic being analyzed. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be discussed using either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or Statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. This EIR uses both approaches to evaluate cumulative impacts, and the particular approach used depends on the topical area under consideration. Refer to the cumulative discussion in the individual topic sections for further discussion and the identification of the cumulative study for each topic.

FORMAT OF ISSUE SECTIONS
The environmental topical section comprises two primary parts: (1) Environmental Setting, and (2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information provided in the two parts is provided below:
• Environmental Setting. The Environmental Setting section for the environmental topic generally provides a description of the applicable physical setting (e.g., existing land uses, existing traffic conditions) for the project site. An overview of regulatory considerations that are applicable to each specific environmental topic is also provided.
• Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section for the environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts from the proposed project and mitigation measures, as appropriate. Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., TRA for Transportation). The following symbols are used for individual topics:
890
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.0-Evaluation_Environmental.docx (01/10/24) 4-3 AG Agricultural Resources
AIR Air Quality
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
NOI Noise
TRA Transportation
Impacts are also categorized by type of impact, as follows: No Impact, Less-Than-Significant, LessThan-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, and Potentially Significant.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the project as it relates to each specific environmental topic evaluated in the EIR and the impacts that are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate.
891
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
4 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.0-Evaluation_Environmental.docx (01/10/24) -4 This page intentionally left blank
892
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-1

4.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this section is based on information from the Farmland Impact Assessment prepared for the Heritage Grove Senate Bill (SB) 2 Grant Technical Studies Project1 (Farmland Impact Assessment), LESA model prepared for the proposed project site2 (Appendix C) and the Agriculture and Forestry Resources section of the Clovis General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3 4.1.1 Environmental Setting

4.1.1.1 Project Area
The proposed project includes annexation of 246 acres by the City of Clovis, 71.54 acres of which is proposed to be developed as residential uses. The 71.54-acre project site is on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 556-040-07S, -08S, and 556-030-14S, within the Northwest Urban Center area, now referred to as Heritage Grove, which has been identified for development in the 2014 City of Clovis General Plan. The project site is currently used for agriculture and contains one rural residence. 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 and adjacent parcels would become urbanized as development of the Heritage Grove Specific Plan Area takes place.

Parcel APN 556-030-14S is currently under a Williamson Act contract4 , while all other parcels within
the project site are not under a Williamson Act contract. Agriculture crops that have been historically grown on the project site include pistachios, almonds, wheat, cotton, grapes, and oranges.5 There is one existing dwelling unit in the project site, consisting of a single-family residence and three agriculture-related outbuilding structures.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed below.

4.1.2.1 Federal Regulations
United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was originally established by Congress in 1935 as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In 1994, SCS’s name was 1 LSA. 2022. Farmland Impact Assessment, Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project, City of Clovis, California. February. 2 LSA. 2023a. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) for the Tract Map (TM) 6343 Project. August 22. 3 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update PEIR. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Website: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-02-Agricultureand-Forestry-Resources.pdf (accessed April 2023). 4 A petition for the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for APN 556-030-14S is currently in progress, pursuant to conditions set forth in Government Code (GC) § 51280 et seq. 5 United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. National Agriculture Statistics Service. CropScapeCropland Data Layer. Website: https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed April 2023). 893
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -2 changed to the Natural Resources Conservation Service to better reflect the broadened scope of the agency’s concerns.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Division is the lead agency for the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), a joint effort of Federal and State agencies, universities, and professional societies. The NRCS Soil Survey Division maps and describes soils by land area, such as a City or county, which are compiled into a document called a “Soil Survey.” The soil surveys contain information about each soil including the acreage and extent of each soil type in a given area, its classification, its physical and chemical properties, its land capability classification (LCC) and the Storie Index.

Land Capability Classification. The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops.

Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class I) (refer to Table 4.1.A).

Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. Capability subclasses are designated by adding a letter (i.e., e, w, s or c) to the class number (refer to Table 4.1.B). For example, the letter e indicates that the main limitation of the soil being erosion unless closegrowing plant cover is maintained; w indicates that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation; s indicates that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and c, used in only some part of the United States, indicates that the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry.6
Storie Index. The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the index rating. The factors are profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity).7 8

4.1.2.2 State Regulations
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. In 1982, the Department of Conservation (DOC) began coordinating with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service in the preparation and completion of Important Farmland mapping for California through the establishment of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP created a greater level of mapping compared to the USDA Soil Conservation Service by modifying the federal criteria for use in California and incorporating 6 Klingebiel, A.A. (Albert Arnold), and P.H. (Paul Hooper) Montgomery. 1961. Land-Capability Classification.

Agricultural Handbook No. 210. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Website:
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/CAT10310193 (accessed May 2023). 7 Storie, R. 1932. An index for rating the agricultural values of soils. Bulletin 556. Berkeley: California Agricultural Experiment Station. 8 Storie, R. 1978. Storie index soil rating. Oakland: University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Special Publication 3203.
894
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-3 Table 4.1.A: USDA Land Capability Classifications
United States Department of Agriculture
Land Capability Classifications
Class Definition
Class I (1) Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.

Class II (2) Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices.

Class III (3) Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both.

Class IV (4) Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or require very careful management, or both.

Class V (5) Soils have little or no hazard of erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover.

Class VI (6) Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and that limit their use mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover.

Class VII (7) Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife.

Class VIII
(8)
Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and limit their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or for esthetic purposes.

Source: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1961).

Table 4.1.B: Land Capability Subclass Units
United States Department of Agriculture
Land Capability Subclass Units
Unit Definition
e Subclass e is made up of soils for which the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant problem or hazard affecting their use. Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors that affect soils in this subclass.
w Subclass w is made up of soils for which excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation affecting their use.

Poor soil drainage, wetness, a high water table, and overflow are the factors that affect soils in this subclass s Subclass s is made up of soils that have soil limitations within the rooting zone, such as shallowness of the rooting zone, stones, low moisture-holding capacity, low fertility that is difficult to correct, and salinity or sodium content.
c Subclass c is made up of soils for which the climate (the temperature or lack of moisture) is the major hazard or limitation affecting their use.

Source: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1961). irrigation criteria for farmland significance. The primary purpose of the FMMP is to monitor the conversion of California’s agricultural lands. The DOC Division of Land Resource Protection works with landowners, local governments, and researchers to conserve California’s farmland and open space resources based on information provided in the FMMP.

The DOC FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on agricultural resources. Agricultural land is categorized according to soil quality and irrigation status. The maps are updated every 2 years through review of aerial photographs, a computer mapping system, 895
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -4 public review, and field reconnaissance. The latest countywide data available are for the period from 2014 to 2016. The FMMP categories are defined as follows:
• Prime Farmland. The best combination of physical and chemical features and able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Unique Farmland. Lesser-quality soils used for production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards. Land must have been cultivated at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county's local advisory committee and adopted by its board of supervisors. In Fresno County, this refers to all farmable lands in the county that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture, and grazing land. • Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.
• Urban and Built Up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. • Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has been the State’s most important agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965. Fundamentally, the Williamson Act is a State policy administered by local governments. Local governments are not mandated to administer the act, but those that do have some latitude to tailor the program to suit local goals and objectives. 896
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-5 Williamson Act contracts have a minimum term of 10 years, with renewal occurring automatically each year (local governments can establish initial contract terms for longer periods of time). The contracts run with the land and are binding on all successors in interest of the landowner. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible for Williamson Act contracts. An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county would enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board of supervisors or city council having jurisdiction. The rules of each agricultural preserve specify the uses allowed.

Generally, any commercial agricultural uses would be permitted within any agricultural preserve. In addition, local governments may identify compatible uses permitted with a use permit.

California Environmental Quality Act. The California State Legislature adopted CEQA in 1970 to identify, protect, and minimize impacts to the State’s environmental resources. CEQA is codified as Section 21000 of the State’s Public Resources Code. CEQA vests the primary responsibility of carrying out its objectives to local municipalities. In determining whether a proposed project may have a significant effect on agricultural resources, the City of Clovis uses the thresholds provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Resources Code 21095 - California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model. LESA is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of agricultural land based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812/1993), which charges the Resource Agency (in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095).

A LESA analysis is based on the following definition of agricultural land contained in CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21060.1:
21060.1 (a) “Agricultural land” means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmlands, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria as modified for California. 21060.1 (b) In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specific in subdivision (a), “agricultural land” means land that meets the requirement of “prime agricultural land” as defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code [the Williamson Act].

Public Resources Code 12220 (g) – Forest Land. “Forest land” is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.

Public Resources Code 4526 - Timberland. “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and 897
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -6 other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.

Public Resources Code 51104 (g) – Timberland Production Zone. “Timberland production zone” or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses.

California Civil Code 3482.5 – “Right-to-Farm” Law. No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.

4.1.2.3 Regional Regulations
Fresno County Ordinance Code §17.04.100 – Right-to-farm notice. If a subdivision is at any point within three hundred feet of an AE (Exclusive Agriculture), AL (Limited Agriculture), TPZ (Timberland Preserve) or RC (Resource Conservation) Zone District, the approval of the tentative and final subdivision map shall be conditional upon the recordation with the Fresno County recorder of a notice in substantially the following form:

FRESNO COUNTY RIGHT-TO-FARM NOTICE
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 should be prepared to accept the inconveniences and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Consistent with this policy, California Civil Code 3482.5 (rightto-fate law) provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not be or become a nuisance due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.

4.1.2.4 Local Regulations
City of Clovis General Plan. The City of Clovis General Plan is the official policy statement of the City Council to guide private and public development of the City, as well as the City’s own operations and decisions. The General Plan helps to ensure that land use decisions are in conformance with the long-range program designed to protect and further the public interest related to the City of Clovis’ growth and development. Table 4.1.C lists the City of Clovis General Plan policies related to agricultural resources.
898
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-7 Table 4.1.C: City of Clovis General Plan Policies Related to Agricultural Resources Policy/Action
Item Number Policy/Action Item
Open Space and Conservation Element
Policy 2.1 Stewardship. Promote responsible planning and management of land and resources among property owners.

Policy 2.4 Agricultural lands. Preserve the city’s agricultural legacy through the Agricultural land use designation, memorialize agricultural history and culture, and facilitate thoughtful conversion of lands to development.

Policy 2.5 Right to farm. Support, encourage, and protect agricultural operations within Clovis and recognize their right to farm.

Policy 2.8 Urban forest. Maintain and enhance a diverse and healthy urban forest on public and private lands.

Source: City of Clovis General Plan (August 2014).

4.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to agricultural resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate, for significant impacts to eliminate or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative impacts are also addressed. A brief discussion about why a detailed analysis of potential impacts to forestry resources is not included in this section is also included below.

4.1.3.1 Significance Criteria
Based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the proposed project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if it would:
a. 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; b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or c. 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 nonforest use.

4.1.3.2 Project Impacts
The following discussion describes the potential impacts related to agricultural resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
899
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -8 a. Would the project 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 The project site is approximately 71.54 acres in size, contains one rural residence that occupies approximately 1.6 acres, and is being used for agriculture. The agricultural crops that have been historically grown on the project site include pistachios, almonds, wheat, cotton, grapes, and oranges.
9 In 2022, a Farmland Impact Assessment was prepared for the Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project10 and potential impacts to Important Farmland in the Heritage Grove area of Clovis were assessed. The Heritage Grove Farmland Impact Assessment included the TM 6343 project site. Table 4.1.D contains the total acreage of Farmland as designated by the FMMP that would be directly impacted by the development of the Heritage Grove Study Area, as assessed by the Farmland Impact Assessment.

Table 4.1.D: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Farmland Designations in the Heritage Grove Study Area
FMMP Designations Acres in Heritage Grove Study Area
Prime Farmland 745.0
Farmland of Statewide Importance 84.6
Unique Farmland 252.7
Farmland of Local Importance 352.0
Total 1,434.2
Source: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018 Fresno County.

Website: https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/group.html?id=b1494c705cb34d01acf78f4927 a75b8f#overview (accessed October 26, 2021).

FMMP = Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
As shown in Table 4.1.D, The FMMP identifies approximately 1,434.2 acres of farmland within the Heritage Grove Study Area. Additionally, the Heritage Grove Farmland Impact Assessment confirmed through the preparation of a LESA Model that conversion of farmland in the Heritage Grove Area would be a significant impact.

According to the FMMP, 1.15 acres of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland, 3.41 acres is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, 35.40 acres is designated as Unique Farmland, and 31.56 acres is designated as Farmland of Local Importance.11 To narrow down potential projectlevel impacts to agricultural resources, comply with General Plan resource evaluation requirements for projects that would convert farmland, and determine the significance of conversion of Important Farmland (i.e., prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmlands) within the 9 United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. National Agriculture Statistics Service. CropScapeCropland Data Layer. Website: https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed April 2023). 10 LSA. 2022. Farmland Impact Assessment, Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project, City of Clovis, California. February. 11 LSA. 2023a. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) for the Tract Map (TM) 6343 Project. August 22.
900
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-9 project site boundaries to non-agricultural uses, a California LESA Model was prepared for the project site.

The LESA Model is composed of a Land Evaluation (LE) portion, which measures soil quality, and the Site Assessment (SA) portion, which evaluates other factors that contribute to the project site’s agricultural importance (e.g., parcel size and on‐farm investments). The final LESA score for the project site is provided below in Table 4.1.E.

Table 4.1.E: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoring for TM 6343 Project Factor Name Factor Rating
(0-100 Points) × Factor Weighting (Total = 1.00) = Weighted Factor Rating Land Evaluation

1. Land Capability Classification 40 × 0.25 = 10

2. Storie Index Rating 61.09 × 0.25 = 15.27
Land Evaluation (LE) Subscore 25.27
Site Assessment

1. Project Size 20 × 0.15 = 3

2. Water Resource Availability 20 × 0.15 = 3

3. Surrounding Agricultural Land 90 × 0.15 = 13.5

4. Protected Resource Lands 0 × 0.05 = 0
Site Assessment (SA) Subscore 19.5
Total LESA Score (LE + SA) 44.77
Source: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) for the Tract Map (TM) 6343 Project (LSA. 2023a).

A Final LESA Score of 0 to 39 points is not considered significant. A final score between 40 to 59 points is considered significant only if the LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. A final score between 60 to 79 points is considered significant unless either the LE or SA subscores is less than 20 points. A final score between 80 to 100 points is considered significant.

The proposed project achieved a Final LESA Score of 44.77 points, with an LE subscore of

25.27 points, and SA subscore of 19.5 points. Because the SA subscore was below 20 points, the LESA Model concluded that the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance associated with implementation of the proposed project would not be considered significant and would not represent a significant impact to agricultural resources under CEQA.

The City’s General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measure 2-3, described below, to address the conversion of agricultural land in the City:

Mitigation Measure 2-3 Pending adoption of a regional agricultural preservation program or local FFP, or if a regional agricultural preservation program or local FFP is not in place by June 25, 2017, the following requirements shall apply:
901
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -10 1) Project applicants for properties that include more than 20 acres designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland shall prepare or fund an agricultural resource evaluation prior to project approval. 2) The resource evaluation shall use generally accepted methodologies (such as the Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model) to identify the potentially significant impact of the loss of agricultural land.
3) If the loss of agricultural land is determined to be a potentially significant impact, the resource evaluation shall consider the economic viability of future agricultural use of the property. 4) If the agricultural resource is considered significant (based on LESA or other accepted methodology) and future agricultural use is considered economically viable, the conversion will be deemed significant, the City shall require mitigation by one of the following methods:
a) Mitigation at a 1:1 ratio of converted to preserved acreage through a regional conservation easement, or payment of its valuation equivalent if a fee mitigation program is established. If 1:1 mitigation is determined to be
economically infeasible, based upon all of the evidence, the ratio may be reduced to an economically feasible ratio or no further mitigation shall be required. This determination shall be made by the City’s Director of Planning and
Development Services based upon substantial evidence in the record; or
b) Other potential mitigation which achieves the same
mitigating effect as the measures identified above,
consistent with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. This
determination shall be made by the City’s Director of
Planning and Development Services based upon substantial evidence in the record.

Development of the project site would result in the conversion of Important Farmland delineated on the latest California Department of Conservation maps12 to non-agricultural uses. Pursuant to the General Plan Mitigation Measure 2-3, the project site has been evaluated through the preparation of a site specific LESA that identified that conversion of farmland associated with the project would 12 LSA. 2023a. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA Model) for the Tract Map (TM) 6343 Project. August 22.
902
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-11 not result in a significant impact. As such, General Plan Mitigation Measure 2-3 requirements have been fulfilled. Impacts associated with future development of the project site and the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use would be less than significant.

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.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is currently zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. This district is intended to protect the welfare of the agricultural community of the county from encroachment of non-related uses of the land that could be detrimental to the agricultural community’s physical and economic well-being. As previously discussed, the project site is located within the Heritage Grove Area. The City of Clovis has identified Heritage Grove for development, and as such plans on annexing land within Heritage Grove into the City of Clovis. Once annexation has been completed, the parcels within the Heritage Grove Area will be zoned in accordance with the Chapter 9.08, Zoning District, of the Municipal Code and designated land uses for the Heritage Grove parcels will be established as outlined in the City’s General Plan. The designated land use for the project site, according to the City of Clovis General Plan, includes Medium Density Residential. 13 Once the project site and the remaining Heritage Grove Area are annexed to the City, there will be no parcels zoned for agricultural use at the project site and vicinity. As such, future development occurring in the project site would not conflict with agricultural zoning. This impact would be less than significant.

Assessor’s Parcel Number 556-030-014S on the project site is currently under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would include the construction of a 590-unit residential development, which is not a compatible use for land under a Williamson Act contract.1415 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. As such, Mitigation Measure AG-2 would be implemented to 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 under a Williamson Act contract.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agriculture or a Williamson Act contract, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 13 City of Clovis. 2014. General Plan. Land Use Element. Figure LU-2: Land Use Diagram. Website:
https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Figure-LU-2.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 14 California Government Code of the State of California Sections 51201, 51231, 51238 or 51238.1. 15 County of Fresno. 2013. Board Briefing Report, Status Report Regarding Administration of the Williamson Act Program, Alan Weaver, Director Department of Public Works and Planning. February 21, 2013. 903
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -12 Impact AG-2: The project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measure AG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant would 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.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less than Significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-2.
c. Would the project 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 proposed project would result in the construction of 590 residential units in the project site.

Currently, there are some parcels directly west and south of the project site, across the Enterprise Canal, and north of the project site, across East Behymer Avenue, that have existing agricultural operations. As such, development of the proposed project could result in land use compatibility issues with adjacent uses. However, as discussed in the Farmland Impact Assessment16, the project site and these adjacent parcels are located within the Heritage Grove area, and are anticipated to be annexed into the City and converted to non-agricultural land as the City of Clovis builds out pursuant to the General Plan. Such conversion would not be driven by development within the project site.

Furthermore, the City would require a separate environmental review for other projects considering such actions. Therefore, incompatibility between agricultural designations and surrounding designations would not drive the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. 16 LSA. 2022. Farmland Impact Assessment Heritage Grove SB 2 Grant Technical Studies Project, City of Clovis, California. February.
904
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-13 However, given that development within the Heritage Grove area would be phased over time, it is possible that once the proposed project is constructed, some adjacent agricultural uses would continue to operate until other projects occupying these parcels are approved. Agricultural operations adjacent to residential uses could be subject to nuisance complaints from neighboring residents and, if escalation to nuisance lawsuits occur, this would create conflict that would hinder continuing agricultural operations at these locations. The City’s General Plan contains policies to aid in the preservation of agricultural land, including Policies 2.4 and 2.5 of the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element, pursuant to Fresno County Ordinance Code §17.04.100 and the California Civil Code 3482.5. Regulatory Compliance Measure AG-3 would be implemented to ensure notification of Right-To Farm to future residents of the project site, such that residents would be prepared to accept inconveniences and discomfort associated with normal farm activities in parcels adjacent to the project site. Issuance of Right-to-Farm notifications would prevent agricultural operations from being the subject of nuisance complaints and being forced to cease or curtail operations. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not influence the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and impacts associated with changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use would be less than significant.

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.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. No mitigation is required. The following regulatory compliance measure pertaining to issuance of Right-to-Farm notifications is applicable to the proposed 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:
• 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
905
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -14 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 nonagricultural uses due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in
operation for three years.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure AG-3 would further reduce project-related impacts to a less than significant level.

4.1.3.3 Forestry Resources.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines usually groups analysis for agricultural and forestry resources. However, the Initial Study (included in Appendix A) prepared for this EIR discussed potential impacts on forestry resources resulting from the proposed project. Significance criteria used to evaluate impacts on forestry resources was based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and determined that the proposed project would have a significant impact on forestry resources if it would:
a. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) b. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use c. 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 nonforest use? As described in the Initial Study, the project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland or is in the vicinity of forest lands or timberland.

Additionally, the project site is zoned within the Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District (AE-20) of Fresno County. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on forest land or timberland.

As such, this topic will not be further discussed in this section of the EIR. 906
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) 4.1-15

4.1.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment if – in combination with other projects – it would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to agriculture. The cumulative impact area is the County of Fresno, which contains lands identified as Important Farmland.

Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of approximately 590 residential units in the project site, which would convert an existing agricultural use to a nonagricultural use. As discussed above, the proposed project is within the Heritage Grove Area, formerly known as Northwest Urban Center, which has been designated for development in the City’s General Plan. Although the proposed project would result in the conversion of agricultural resources to non-agricultural uses, because the General Plan has identified that buildout of the General Plan would result in the conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses, the project would not result in additional impacts that were not previously identified in the General Plan.

Additionally, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 2-3 from the General Plan EIR, a site-specific LESA Model was prepared for the project. The site-specific LESA Model determined that conversion of agricultural land associated with the project would be a less than significant impact. As such, requirements of Mitigation Measure 2-3 were fulfilled and the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land that had not been identified in a previous environmental assessment document.

The City’s General Plan EIR identifies that buildout of the General Plan would result in cancellation and nonrenewal of contracts on Prime Agricultural Lands where the land use designation is changed to a nonagricultural or agriculture-incompatible use. Given that the public policy of protecting farmland is embodied in the Williamson Act, the nonrenewal or cancellation of additional lands bearing these contracts to nonagricultural or incompatible uses would be a significant impact. The project site contains APN 556-030-014S, which is currently under a Williamson Act contract.

Although the proposed project includes uses not compatible with land under a Williamson Act contract, as the project site is designated for development in the General Plan, cancellation of the contract would take place prior to building permits for the project. Mitigation Measure AG-2 would be implemented to ensure compliance with the required procedure for cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030-014S. Although the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract at APN 556-030-014S would contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, this impact has already been identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land that had not been identified in a previous environmental assessment document.

Finally, the project is within the Heritage Grove area, which is marked for development in the City’s General Plan. As such, development within the project site would not directly drive the conversion of adjacent agricultural operations to non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, to avoid conflicts between adjacent agricultural operations and residents of the project site throughout the phased buildout of the Heritage Grove area, the project would implement Regulatory Compliance Measure AG-3, which requires notification of Right-to-Farm to future residents of the site to prevent agricultural operations from being the subject of nuisance complaints and being forced to cease or curtail 907
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.1 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.1-Agricultural_Resources.docx (01/11/24) -16 operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not drive the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Cumulative development located within the City of Clovis and immediately adjacent jurisdictions, such as development that would occur within the City of Fresno and Fresno County, is anticipated to convert agricultural uses to non‐agricultural uses, as well as conflict with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts. The General Plan EIR has identified that planned development pursuant to the General Plan, which includes the proposed project, would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to conversion of farmland and cancellation of Williamson Act contracts. As a result, the project would not result in new contributions to significant cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.

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.

Level of Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AG-2 and Regulatory Compliance Measure AG3 above.

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact. The project would contribute to cumulative impacts related to conversion of farmland through development of agricultural land uses to non-agricultural uses and cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, which is a public policy meant to protect farmland from conversion. However, the City of Clovis General Plan EIR previously identified that conversion of farmland and cancellation of Williamson Act contracts 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.
908
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section has been prepared using the methodologies and assumptions contained in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). This section describes existing air quality and the regulatory framework for air quality. The section also describes the potential air quality effects of the proposed project, including the effects of construction and operational traffic on regional pollutant levels and health risks. The analysis in this section is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) and the findings of a construction health risk assessment (Appendix D and E, respectively).

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The following discussion provides an overview of existing air quality conditions in the region and in the City of Clovis. Ambient air quality standards and the regulatory framework are summarized and climate, air quality conditions, and typical air pollutant types and sources are also described.

4.2.1.1 Project Area
The project site is located on the City of Clovis, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of Tulare, Kings, Madera, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Fresno counties, as well as a portion of Kern County. The local agency with jurisdiction over air quality in the SJVAB is the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Regional and local air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season.

4.2.1.2 Air Pollutants and Health Effects
Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and Pb are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally.

The primary pollutants of concern in the City are O3, CO, and suspended particulate matter.

Significance thresholds established by an air quality district are used to manage total regional and local emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants.

These emission thresholds were established for individual development projects that would contribute to regional and local emissions and could adversely affect or delay the air basin’s projected attainment target goals for nonattainment criteria pollutants.

Because of the conservative nature of the significance thresholds, and the basin-wide context of individual development project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds 909
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -2 are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

Further, by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to by itself result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the air quality districts have considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.

Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.

Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise.

Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution-related considerations are summarized in Table 4.2.A and are described in more detail below.

Ozone. Ozone (O3) is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX. The main sources of ROG and NOx, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. Automobiles are typically the largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. CO transport is limited – it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated garage, can be fatal. 910
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-3 Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3)  Precursor sources:1 motor vehicles,
industrial emissions, and consumer
products.
 Respiratory symptoms.
 Worsening of lung disease leading to premature
death.
 Damage to lung tissue.
 Crop, forest, and ecosystem damage.
 Damage to a variety of materials, including
rubber, plastics, fabrics, paints, and metals.

Particulate Matter Less
than 2.5 Microns in
Diameter (PM2.5)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Fireplaces, woodstoves.
 Windblown dust from roadways,
agriculture, and construction.
 Premature death.
 Hospitalization for worsening of cardiovascular
disease.
 Hospitalization for respiratory disease.
 Asthma-related emergency room visits.
 Increased symptoms, increased inhaler usage.

Particulate Matter Less
than 10 Microns in
Diameter (PM10)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Fireplaces, woodstoves.
 Windblown dust from roadways,
agriculture, and construction.
 Premature death and hospitalization, primarily
for worsening of respiratory disease.
 Reduced visibility and material soiling.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)  Any source that burns fuels such as cars, trucks, construction and farming
equipment, and residential heaters
and stoves.
 Lung irritation.
 Enhanced allergic responses.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)  Any source that burns fuels such as cars, trucks, construction and farming
equipment, and residential heaters
and stoves.
 Chest pain in patients with heart disease.
 Headache.
 Light-headedness.
 Reduced mental alertness.

Sulfur Oxides (SOX)  Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
 Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
 Industrial processes.
 Worsening of asthma: increased symptoms,
increased medication usage, and emergency
room visits.

Lead (Pb)  Contaminated soil.  Impaired mental functioning in children.  Learning disabilities in children.
 Brain and kidney damage.

Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Industrial sources, such as chrome
platers.
 Neighborhood businesses, such as dry
cleaners and service stations.
 Building materials and products.
 Cancer.
 Reproductive and developmental effects.
 Neurological effects.

Source: California Air Resources Board (2018).
1 Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor sources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere.

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous solid and liquid airborne particles from human-made and natural sources. Particulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM10, for particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5, for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Motor vehicles are the primary generators of particulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad, tire wear, and entrained road dust. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing activities such as construction are other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According 911
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -4 to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in California have demonstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children.1 Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could reduce premature deaths, hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma-related emergency room visits, and episodes of respiratory illness in California.

Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the potential to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. SO2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight at the ground surface.

Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.

The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery factories. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The USEPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of USEPA regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.

Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs include:
benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.

TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the USEPA, CARB, and the SJVAPCD. In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The 1 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).

Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed September 2022). 912
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-5 CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel-fueled engines.2 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors.

Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.

Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources—primarily “off-road” sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways.

The CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel—a step already implemented—and cleaner-burning diesel engines.3 The technology for reducing diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions.

High Volume Roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentrations. Air quality research consistently demonstrates that pollutant levels are substantially higher near freeways and busy roadways, and human health studies have consistently demonstrated that children living within 100 to 200 meters (328 to 656 feet) of freeways or busy roadways have reduced lung function and higher rates of respiratory disease. At present, it is not possible to attribute the effects of roadway proximity on non-cancer health effects to one or more specific vehicle types or vehicle pollutants. Engine exhaust, from diesel, gasoline, and other combustion engines, is a complex mixture of particles and gases, with collective and individual toxicological characteristics.

Valley Fever. Valley fever is a fungal infection caused by coccidioides organisms. It can cause fever, chest pain and coughing, among other signs and symptoms. The coccidioides species of fungi that cause valley fever are commonly found in the soil in certain areas. These fungi can be stirred into the air by anything that disrupts the soil, such as farming, construction and wind. The fungi can then be breathed into the lungs and cause valley fever, also known as acute coccidioidomycosis. A mild case of valley fever usually goes away on its own. In more severe cases of valley fever, doctors prescribe antifungal medications that can treat the underlying infection. Valley Fever is not contagious and therefore does not spread from person to person. Most cases (approximately 60 2 CARB. 2000a. Fact Sheet – California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. October.

Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/factsheets/rrpfactsheet.pdf (accessed September 2022). 3 CARB. 2000b. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Prepared by the Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division.

Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf (accessed September 2022). 913
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -6 percent) have no symptoms or only very mild flu-like symptoms and do not see a doctor. When symptoms are present, the most common are fatigue, cough, fever, profuse sweating at night, loss of appetite, chest pain, generalized muscle and joint aches particularly of the ankles and knees.

There may also be a rash that resembles measles or hives but develops more often as tender red bumps on the shins or forearms.

4.2.1.3 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.

Both the USEPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for the following common pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. State and federal standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table 4.2.B.

4.2.1.4 Existing Climate and Air Quality
The following provides a discussion of the local and regional air quality and climate in the project area.

Regional and Local Air Quality. Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of the pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.

The project site is located within the SJVAB and is under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD. A region’s topographic features have a direct correlation with air pollution flow and therefore are used to determine the boundary of air basins. The SJVAB is comprised of approximately 25,000 square miles and covers of eight counties including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare, and the western portion of Kern. The SJVAB is defined by the Sierra Nevada mountains in the east (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges in the west (averaging 3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi mountains in the south (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation). The valley is basically flat with a slight downward gradient to the northwest. The valley opens to the sea at the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into San Francisco Bay. 914
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-7 Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standardsa Federal Standardsb
Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg
Ozone
(O3)h
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)i
24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)i
24-Hour - 35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) – Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3
) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)j
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.03 ppm
(57 μg/m3
) Gas Phase
Chemi-luminescence
53 ppb
(100 μg/m3
)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) -
Lead
(Pb)l,m
30-Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
– –
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic Absorption
Calendar
Quarter –

1.5 μg/m3
(for certain
areas)l Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Averagei
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)k
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence

0.14 ppm
(for certain
areas)
–
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 μg/m3)
k –
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
–

0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)k
–
VisibilityReducing
Particlesl
8-Hour See footnote n
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance
through Filter Tape.

No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloridej 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3
) Gas Chromatography
Source: California Air Resources Board (2016).

Footnotes are provided on the following page.
915
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -8 a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

Contact USEPA for further clarification and current national policies. c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
g Reference method as described by the USEPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the USEPA. h On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3 . The existing national
24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3 , as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. j To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. k On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm).

To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
l The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
m The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
n In 1989, the CARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
°C = degrees Celsius
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
916
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-9 An aerial view of the SJVAB would simulate a “bowl” opening only to the north. These topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin.

Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, the Coast Range hinders wind access into the SJVAB from the west, the Tehachapi Mountains prevent southerly passage of air flow, and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east. These topographic features result in weak air flow which becomes blocked vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJVAB. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500 to 3,000 feet).

Local climatological effects, including wind speed and direction, temperature, inversion layers, precipitation and fog, can exacerbate the air quality in the SJVAB. Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing vertically and by transporting it to other locations. For example, in the summer, wind usually originates at the north end of the SJVAB and flows in a south-southeasterly direction through the SJVAB, through Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In the winter, wind direction is reversed and flows in a north-northwesterly direction. In addition to the seasonal wind flow, a sea breeze flows into SJVAB during the day and a land breeze flowing out of the SJVAB at night. The diversified wind flow enhances the pollutant transport capability within SJVAB.

The annual average temperature varies throughout the SJVAB, ranging from the low 40s to high 90s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced valley influence, inland areas show more variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than coastal areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Station (043257). The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station from January 1948 to June 2016 ranged from 54.6°F in January to 98.3°F in July, with an annual average maximum of

76.5°F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station ranged from 35.3°F in December to 65.7°F in July, with an annual average minimum of 50.4F.4 These levels are still representative of the project area. January and December are typically the coldest months and July is typically the warmest month in this area of the SJVAB.

The majority of annual rainfall in the SJVAB occurs between November and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thundershowers in desert regions and slightly heavier showers near the lower portion of the Basin and along the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east. Average monthly rainfall during that period varied from 0.01 inches in July and August to 2.09 inches in January, with an annual total of 10.89 inches.5 Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are predictable due to the recognizable differences in seasons within the valley. 4 Western Regional Climate Center. n.d. Fresno Yosemite International Airport (043257), Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257 (accessed January 2023). 5 Ibid.
917
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -10 The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Because of cooling of the atmosphere, air temperature usually decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Inversions can exist at the surface, or at any height above the ground. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height.” This is the level within which pollutants can mix vertically. Air above and below the inversion base does not mix because of the differences in air density. Semi-permanent systems of high barometric pressure fronts frequently establish themselves over the SJVAB, preventing low pressure systems that might otherwise bring rain and winds that clean the air.

Inversion layers are significant in determining ozone formation, and CO and PM10 concentrations.

Ozone and its precursors will mix and react to produce higher ozone concentrations under an inversion. The inversion will also simultaneously trap and hold directly emitted pollutants such as carbon monoxide. PM10 is both directly emitted and created in the atmosphere as a chemical reaction. Concentration levels of pollutants are directly related to inversion layers due to the limitation of mixing space.

Surface or radiation inversions are formed when the ground surface becomes cooler than the air above it during the night. The earth’s surface goes through a radiative process on clear nights, where heat energy is transferred from the ground to a cooler night sky. As the earth’s surface cools during the evening hours, the air directly above it also cools, while air higher up remains relatively warm. The inversion is destroyed when heat from the sun warms the ground, which in turn heats the lower layers of air; this heating stimulates the ground level air to float up through the inversion layer.

The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. Periods of low inversions and low wind speeds are conditions favorable to high concentrations of CO and PM10. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and NOx because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog.

Attainment Status. The USEPA and the CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.”
National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8‐hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8‐hour ambient air monitoring value exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3‐year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The current attainment designations for the basin are shown in Table 4.2.C.
918
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-11 Table 4.2.C: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Status Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Not Applicable
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Standard
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Standard
Source: California Air Resources Board and USEPA (2023).

Air Quality Monitoring Results. Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and maintained by the local air pollution control district and state air quality regulating agencies.

Ambient air data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the USEPA to identify regions as attainment or nonattainment depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Attainment areas are required to maintain their status through moderate, yet effective air quality maintenance plans.

Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the USEPA. In addition, different classifications of attainment such as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme are used to classify each air basin in the state on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Different classifications have different mandated attainment dates and are used as guidelines to create air quality management strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS by the attainment date.

A region is determined to be unclassified when the data collected from the air quality monitoring stations do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, due to lack of information, or a conclusion cannot be made with the available data.

The SJVAPCD, together with CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SJVAB.

The air quality monitoring stations closest to the project area are 908 N. Villa Avenue in Clovis and 3727 N. First Street in Fresno, California.

Pollutant monitoring results for years 2019 to 2021 at the Clovis and Fresno monitoring stations, shown in Table 4.2.D indicate that air quality in the vicinity of the City has generally been moderate.

As indicated in the monitoring results, the federal PM10 standard was exceeded one time in 2020 only. The State PM10 standard was exceeded 11 times in 2019, 114 times in 2020, and 111 times in 2021. PM2.5 levels exceeded the federal standard 1 time in 2019, 40 times in 2020, and 22 times in 2021. The State 1-hour ozone standards were exceeded 6 times in 2019, 12 times in 2020, and 9 times in 2021. The State 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded 30 times in 2019, 41 times in 2020, and 37 times in 2021. The federal 8-hour standards were exceeded 27 times in 2019, 36 times in 2020, and 34 times in 2021. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards were also not exceeded in this area during the 3-year period.
919
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -12 Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at Nearby Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 10.0 2.9 1.3
Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.0 2.6 1.2
Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.142 0.123
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 6 12 9
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.080 0.108 0.100
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 30 41 37
Federal: > 0.07 ppm 27 36 34
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 155.7 296.0 208.8 Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 11 114 111
Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 1 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 32.6 50.8 43.2 Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 Yes Yes Yes
Federal: > 50 µg/m3 No No No
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 39.1 193.7 104.6
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 1 40 22
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 10.2 18.4 18.0 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 No Yes Yes
Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No Yes Yes
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.057 0.054 0.049
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.008 0.009 0.007 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0089 0.0162 0.0075 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0021 0.0022 0.0027 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.00042 0.00046 0.00043 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm No No No
Sources: CARB (2022) and USEPA (2022). 1 Data for SO2 was taken from 3727 N. First Street, Fresno monitoring station. All other data was taken from 908 N. Villa Avenue, Clovis Monitoring Station.

CARB = California Air Resources Board
ND = No data. There were insufficient (or no) data to determine the value. ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
920
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4
T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) 4.2-13 Toxic Air Contaminant Trends. In 1984, the CARB adopted regulations to reduce TAC emissions from mobile and stationary sources, as well as consumer products. A CARB study showed that ambient concentrations and emissions of the seven TACs responsible for the most cancer risk from airborne exposure declined by 76 percent between 1990 and 2012.6 Concentrations of diesel particulate matter, a key TAC, declined by 68 percent between 1990 and 2012, despite a 31 percent increase in State population and an 81 percent increase in diesel vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as shown on Figure 4.2-1, below. The study also found that the significant reductions in cancer risk to California residents from the implementation of air toxics controls are likely to continue.

Source: Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California (Propper, Ralph, et al. 2015).

Figure 4.2-1: California Population, Gross State Product (GSP), Diesel Cancer Risk, and Diesel Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Regulatory Context The USEPA and the CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The USEPA and CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., 6 Propper, Ralph, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Álvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. 2015. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. Website: pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est. 5b02766 (accessed January 2023).
921
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

T RACT MAP 6343

CLOVIS , C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J ANUARY 202 4

4.2 P:\CIT2201-TM 6343\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\4.2-Air_Quality.docx (01/10/24) -14 factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.

The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed below.

4.2.2.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act. At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The FCAA required the USEPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which imposes additional control measures.

Clovis City CouncilMay 20, 2024

Clovis City Council
May 20, 2024