Clovis City Council
November 18, 2024

Technical Memorandum:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment of the
Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Master Plan
City of Clovis, California
May 15, 2024
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a proposed update to the Development Plan and Master Site Plan for the Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center (PCC) (Proposed Project) in the City of Clovis (City) (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The City has requested this analysis in support of environmental documentation for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum estimates the air quality and GHG emissions of the Proposed Project and compares these emissions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and City thresholds, following the SJCAPCD methodology within the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).

Project Description
Project Site Location and Setting
The Golden Triangle PCC consists of approximately 37 acres located southwest of the Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue intersection (PCC Boundary) (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The PCC Boundary is bordered by Magill Avenue-State Route (SR) 168 to the north, the Clovis Old Town Trail to the south, and Clovis Avenue to the east (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). The study area addressed in this memorandum is limited to the proposed development boundary (roughly 20 acres) within the larger PCC Boundary (Study Area or project site). The location of the project site relative to the PCC Boundary can be seen in Figure 3 in Appendix A. Regional and local access to the project site is provided by Highway 168. In addition, local access is provided by Clovis Avenue and Herndon Avenue.

The project site is currently zoned Planned Commercial Center according to the City of Clovis 2014 General Plan. Approximately half of the PCC Boundary (15.6 acres) is already developed with commercial buildings, paved parking lots and driveways, graveled lots for storage of RVs and other vehicles, and three residences. The remaining area, including the project site, is undeveloped and has no major vegetation.

The West Branch Clovis Ditch bisects the project site, and a stormwater detention basin is located in the southwestern area of the project site.
242
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Proposed Land Uses
The Proposed Project would allow for the development of retail, restaurant, commercial, and office uses and ancillary infrastructure throughout the project site (see Table 1). Proposed development includes the Mad Duck Brewery Campus including approximately 20,802 square feet (sf) of brewery, tasting room, banquet, wine lounge, and office space; and multiple car dealerships and associated repair/maintenance shops consisting of 139,019 sf. Additionally, the Proposed Project provides for the future development of two fast food restaurants with drive-thrus, each approximately 3,880 sf with ten employees; two office buildings consisting of approximately 15,000 sf; and three retail buildings consisting of approximately 10,526 sf. Surface parking lots would be developed throughout the project site. Electric vehicle charging stations would be installed in compliance with the 2022 CalGreen Code, which for the Proposed Project generally requires that 20% of the parking spaces be installed with EV ready infrastructure, and that 25% of those spaces be equipped with EV charging stations. Solar energy generation facilities, including photovoltaic panels mounted on rooftops and covered parking areas, and battery storage systems, would be utilized to supply at least a portion of the Proposed Project’s energy demands in compliance with the 2022 CalGreen Code. The Proposed Project site plan is provided as Figure 4 in Appendix A.

Given the relatively level topography of the project site, grading activities associated with the Proposed Project would be minor and are not anticipated to include the import of fill or export of cut. Drainage facilities would be designed and constructed to collect and route stormwater runoff from roads, sidewalks, roofs, and landscape areas to different water quality and/or flow control facilities prior to discharge into municipal stormwater collection facilities. The West Branch Clovis Ditch would be realigned and undergrounded within the project site. The Proposed Project will include connections to existing utilities located within the project site or adjacent public right-of-ways and developed areas.

All components of the Proposed Project shall adhere to development standards of the Clovis Municipal Code and the Golden Triangle PCC or update the PCC development standards through the rezone amendment. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2026 and last for approximately 14 months.

Design Elements and Best Management Practices
For this analysis, the following design elements, and best management practices (BMPs) are assumed to be incorporated into the Proposed Project to reduce the potential for adverse air quality impacts and to comply with SJVAPCD rules and regulations. These requirements are described within the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) dated March 19, 2015. As stated therein “The [SJVAPCD] recommends that any air quality assessment reflect emission reductions achieved through compliance with [SJVAPCD] rules and regulations.” 243
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Table 1: Proposed Facilities within the Study Area/Project Site Component Approximate Square
Footage (sf)
Car Dealerships / Repair Shops
Building “A” 33,199 sf
Building “B” 48,776 sf
Building “C” 35,613 sf
Building “J” 21,431 sf
139,019 sf
Mad Duck Campus
Future Building “D” 2,800 sf
Building “E” Brewery, Offices, and Tasting Room Building 10,575 sf Building “F” CRU Wine Lounge Building 2,500 sf
Building “G” Barn/Banquet Building 3,575 sf
Building “G1” (Future Addition) 1,352 sf
20,802 sf
Restaurant with Drive-Thru (Future)
Building “K” 3,880 sf
Building “L” 3,880 sf
7,760 SF
Professional Office (Future)
Building “Q” 2,816 sf
Building “R” 12,184 sf
15,000 sf
Retail (Future)
Building “P1” 2,566 sf
Building “P2” 4,600 sf
Building “S” 3,360 sf
10,526 SF
193,107 sf
SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition)
The purpose of Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. Relevant Rules contained within Regulation VIII include SJVAPCD Rule 8021 “Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities”. In accordance with Rule 8021, the Proposed Project will:
244
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

▪ Apply sufficient water to building exterior surfaces, unpaved surface areas where equipment will operate, and razed building materials to limit VDE to 20% opacity throughout the duration of razing and demolition activities.
▪ Apply sufficient dust suppressants to unpaved surface areas within 100 feet where materials from razing or demolition activities will fall in order to limit VDE to 20% opacity. ▪ Apply sufficient dust suppressants to unpaved surface areas where wrecking or hauling equipment will be operated in order to limit VDE to 20% opacity. ▪ Handling, storage, and transport of bulk materials on-site or off-site resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings shall comply with the requirements specified in Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials) ▪ Apply water within 1 hour of demolition to unpaved surfaces within 100 feet of the demolished structure.
▪ Prevention and removal of carryout or trackout on paved public access roads from demolition operations shall be performed in accordance with Rule 8041 (Carryout and Trackout). ▪ Control the fugitive dust emissions to meet the requirements in Table 8021-1 of Rule 8021 ▪ An owner/operator shall limit the speed of vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads within construction sites to a maximum of 15 miles per hour. ▪ An owner/operator shall post speed limit signs that meet State and Federal Department of Transportation standards at each construction site’s uncontrolled unpaved access/haul road entrance. At a minimum, speed limit signs shall also be posted at least every 500 feet and shall be readable in both directions of travel along uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads. ▪ Cease outdoor construction, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities that disturb the soil whenever VDE exceeds 20% opacity. Indoor activities such as electrical, plumbing, dry wall installation, painting, and any other activity that does not cause any disturbances to the soil are not subject to this requirement.
▪ Continue operation of water trucks/devices when outdoor construction excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities cease, unless unsafe to do so. ▪ An owner/operator shall submit a Dust Control Plan to the APCO prior to the start of any construction activity on any site that will include 10 acres or more of disturbed surface area for residential developments, or 5 acres or more of disturbed surface area for non-residential development, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days. Construction activities shall not commence until the APCO has approved or conditionally approved the Dust Control Plan. An owner/operator shall provide written notification to the APCO within 10 days prior to the commencement of earthmoving activities via fax or mail. The requirement to submit a dust control plan shall apply to all such activities conducted for residential and non-residential (e.g., commercial, industrial, or institutional) purposes or conducted by any governmental entity. ▪ An owner/operator may submit one Dust Control Plan covering multiple projects at different sites where construction will commence within the next 12 months provided the plan includes each project size and location, types of activities to be performed. The Dust Control Plan shall specify the expected start and completion date of each project. ▪ The Dust Control Plan shall describe all fugitive dust control measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity.
▪ A Dust Control Plan shall contain all the information described in Section 6.3.6 of this rule. The APCO shall approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the Dust Control Plan within 30 days of plan submittal. A Dust Control Plan is deemed automatically approved if, after 30 days following receipt by the District, the District does not provide any comments to the owner/operator regarding the Dust Control Plan.
245
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

▪ An owner/operator shall retain a copy of an approved Dust Control Plan at the project site. The approved Dust Control Plan shall remain valid until the termination of all dust generating activities. Failure to comply with the provisions of an approved Dust Control Plan is deemed to be a violation of this rule. Regardless of whether an approved Dust Control Plan is in place or not, or even when the owner/operator responsible for the plan is complying with an approved Dust Control Plan, the owner/operator is still subject to comply with all requirements of the applicable rules under Regulation VIII at all times.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
District Rule 9510 (ISR) is intended to reduce a project’s impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigation by payments of applicable off-site mitigation fees. The SJVAPCD has identified a list of Emission Reduction Clean Air Measures that are intended to assist land use agencies and developers in reducing air quality impacts associated with development projects. These measures can be incorporated into the project’s design to reduce air quality impacts, and it is recommended they be included in the ISR Application. In accordance with District Rule 9510, the Proposed Project has incorporated the following measures:
▪ Utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest Tier diesel or electric equipment (e.g., scrapers, graders, trenchers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, etc.). ▪ Install and utilize solar panels as a renewable energy source. ▪ Utilize electrical outlets on the exterior of project buildings as necessary for sufficient powering of electric landscaping equipment.
▪ Provide design elements that enhance walkability and connectivity such as sidewalk coverage, pedestrian crossings, and presence of street trees.
▪ Provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site with existing and planned external streets and pedestrian facilities to encourage people to walk instead of drive. The parking lot includes clearly marked pedestrian pathways between transit facilities and building entrances, including the existing bus stop on Clovis Avenue in the northeastern portion of the project site.

Pedestrian access will be retained between bus service and major transportation points and to destination points within the project.
▪ Implement a Vehicle Idling Policy that requires all vehicles under company control to adhere to a 5-minute idling policy and/or to minimize the idling time (e.g., 5-minute maximum) for construction-related vehicles.

Note, some Clean Air Measures contained in Rule 9510 are not applicable to the Proposed Project (e.g., those pertaining to residential heating devices) and are not included in the list above or the ISR Application prepared for the Proposed Project.

On-Site Energy Generation
As noted above, the Proposed Project includes solar energy generation facilities and battery storage systems that would be utilized to supply at least a portion of the project’s energy demands. However, emission reductions associated with the project’s solar energy generation facilities cannot be quantified at this time since the quantity of photovoltaic panels and battery storage capacity are yet to be determined. It should be noted that project’s implementation of solar energy generation facilities and battery storage systems is consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) mitigation measure Alternative Energy (AE)-1 and AE-2 in addition to 2022 CalGreen Code. 246
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Environmental Setting
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
The City of Clovis is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which includes Fresno, Kern (western portion), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties. Fresno County is unclassified or in attainment for all state and federal ambient air quality standards except for the state and federal ozone standards, state PM10
1 standards, and state and federal PM2.5
2 standards.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and 35 miles in width and is bordered by the Coast Range Mountains on the west, the Sierra Nevada mountains on the east, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Marine air, which often enters the Basin from the San Joaquin River Delta, causes the wind patterns found inside the SJVAB. The Tehachapi Mountains block airflow in from the south, the Coastal Range blocks wind entry into the Valley from the west, and the tall Sierra Nevada Mountain Range acts as a formidable barrier to the east. Weak airflow caused by these topographical factors is vertically constrained by high atmospheric pressure above the Valley. The SJVAB is hence extremely vulnerable to pollutant buildup over time. The majority of the mountains in the area are higher than summer inversion layers.

The closest air quality monitoring station is in the City of Clovis along N. Villa Avenue, approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the project site. The most recent available data from this station shows 34 days above the federal 8-hour ozone standard in 2021 and 23 days above the standard in 2022. In addition, data from this station shows 9 days above the state 1-hour ozone standard in 2021 and 3 days above the standard in 2022. Available data from this station show no measured exceedances of the national PM10 standard in 2021 and 2022, and 111 measured exceedances of the state PM10 standard in 2021 and 73 measured exceedances in 2022. Available data from this station also shows 22 measured exceedances of the national PM2.5 standard in 2021 and 4 measured exceedances in 2022 (CARB, 2024).

Sensitive Receptors
As described in the GAMAQI, sensitive receptors are of the population most susceptible to poor air quality, including children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality.

Schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities are where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend extended amounts of time, and these sensitive land uses may also be referred to as sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential neighborhoods including single- and multi-family residential units directly southwest (50 feet) from the Study Area. There are additional residential neighborhoods approximately 250 feet east of the northeastern boundary of the Study Area, but an existing commercial district lies between those neighborhoods and the project site. The nearest schools are approximately 1,700 feet north and 1,800 feet south, and the nearest medical facility is located approximately 2.2 miles east of the project site.
1 PM10 is particulate Matter 10 microns or less in diameter. 2 PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. 247
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to define levels of air quality that protect the public health and welfare from the known adverse effects of air pollutants and set deadlines for attainment. If a criteria air pollutant (CAP) does not meet the NAAQS criteria for the specific CAP, then the region or area is designated by the EPA as nonattainment. Once an area reaches attainment for particular criteria pollutant, then the area is redesignated attainment or maintenance. The CAA places most of the responsibility on states to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. States, municipal statistical areas, and counties that contain areas of nonattainment are required to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which outlines policies and procedures designed to bring the state into compliance with the NAAQS. The CAA amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their state implementation plans (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 EPA has the responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance to the mandates of the CAA and determine whether implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated period may result in sanctions to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988, required the establishment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CAAQSs were created for the following pollutants: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the six national CAPs. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA requires that air quality plans be prepared for areas of the state that have not met state air quality standards for O3, CO, NO2, and SO2. Among other requirements of the CCAA, the plans must include a wide range of implementable control measures, which often include transportation control measures and performance standards. In order to implement the transportation-related provisions of the CCAA, local air pollution control districts have been granted explicit authority to adopt and implement transportation control measures.

California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementation of the CCAA. CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. Collectively, all regional air pollution control plans or air quality management plans to achieve the NAAQS throughout the state constitute the SIP. As California’s air quality management agency, CARB regulates mobile emission sources and oversees the activities of county air pollution control districts and regional air quality management districts. CARB regulates local air quality indirectly by using state standards and vehicle emission standards, conducting research 248
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

activities, and carrying out planning and coordinating activities. CARB also provides land use guidance, as it relates to air quality, including criteria for siting schools and other sensitive land uses.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) Signed by the California Governor on September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 codifies a key requirement of EO S-3-05, specifically the requirement to reduce GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 tasks CARB with monitoring state sources of GHGs and designing emission reduction measures to comply with emission reduction requirements. However, AB 32 also continues the efforts of the CAT to meet the requirements of EO S-3-05 and states that the CAT should coordinate overall state climate policy.

To accelerate the implementation of emission reduction strategies, AB 32 requires that CARB identify a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented relatively quickly. In October 2007, CARB published a list of early action measures that it estimated could be implemented and would serve to meet about 25% of the required 2020 emissions reductions (CARB, 2007). To assist CARB in identifying early action measures, the CAT published a report in April 2007 that updated their 2006 report and identified strategies for reducing GHG emissions (CAT, 2007). In its October 2007 report, CARB cited the CAT strategies and other existing strategies that can be utilized to achieve the remainder of the emissions reductions (CARB, 2007a). AB 32 requires that CARB prepare a comprehensive “scoping plan” that identifies all strategies necessary to fully achieve the required 2020 emissions reductions. Consequently, in December 2008, CARB released its scoping plan to the public; the plan was approved by CARB on December 12, 2008. An update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan occurred on May 22, 2014, which included new strategies and recommendations to ensure reduction goals of near-term 2020 are met with consideration of current climate science.

A second update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update addresses the 2030 target established by Senate Bill 32, as discussed below, and establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet a 40 percent reduction in GHG by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The key programs that the 2017 Scoping Plan Update builds on include the Capand-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, increasing the use of renewable energy in the state, and reduction of methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes.

On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan as well as the requirements set forth by AB 1279, which directs the State to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan creates a sector-by-sector roadmap for California that deploys “a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes, Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor” (CARB, 2022).
249
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

The 2022 Scoping Plan recognizes three methods for evaluating a project’s alignment with the State’s climate goals in CEQA GHG analyses. These methods can be used at the discretion of lead agencies for the purpose of determining if a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions. These methods are:
▪ Determine if the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing;
▪ Determine if the project would result in net-zero GHG emissions; and ▪ Assessment of a project’s GHG impact by employing a threshold of significance recommended by the applicable air district or other lead agencies.

Senate Bill (SB) 1020: Clean Electricity
SB 1020 codifies into law a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply: 1) 90% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95% by December 31, 2040, and 100% by December 31, 2045; and 2) 100% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2035. To achieve these objectives, SB 1020 requires that CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC) use unspecified programs authorized under existing statutes and employ measures to ensure that implementation of the policy does not cause increases in GHG emissions elsewhere, a concept also known as leakage.

Building Energy Standards
The 2022 Title 24 Standards improve upon the 2019 standards for new construction, additions, and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. The CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 Energy Code in August 2021 and the California Building Standards Commission approved incorporating the updated code into the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) in December 2021. The 2022 Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code encourages energy-efficient approaches to move towards building decarbonization. Emphasis is placed on heat pumps for space and water heating, as well as electric vehicle (EV) charging and photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems. Finally, ventilation standards are strengthened to improve to improve indoor air quality.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts The SJVAPCD’s February 2015 Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) was developed to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality and climate impacts from proposed land use projects and plans in the SJVAB. The GAMAQI contains instructions and examples for how a lead agency can evaluate, measure, and mitigate air quality and climate impacts generated from land use construction and operational activities. They focus on generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, odors, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases from local plans and projects. The GAMAQI provides thresholds of significance which gives lead agencies a method to assess a project’s potential impacts. 250
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Screening Criteria
In the interest of streamlining California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, the SJVAPCD’s Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL) guidance identifies project types and sizes and corresponding vehicle trips that would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. The Screening Criteria for criteria air pollutants and their precursors are not thresholds of significance, rather they are conservative guidelines that a lead agency can use to qualitatively assess whether a project could result in potentially significant impacts. If all screening criteria are met, then the lead agency does not need to perform a detailed assessment and can presume that potential impacts due to criteria air pollutants are less than significant.

If a project is consistent with all of the following screening criteria related to construction activities, then detailed air quality modeling is not required:
▪ The project size is at or below the applicable screening level size and Average Daily One-way Trips for all fleet types (except HHDT) or Average Daily One-Way for HHDT Trips only asshown in Tables 1 through 6 of the SPAL guidance.

Significance Thresholds
If a project does not meet the screening criteria discussed above, the SJVAPCD provides project-level air quality thresholds of significance that include numerical thresholds for construction and operation emissions of local carbon monoxide (CO), ROG, NOx, Sox, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction and operation thresholds of significance use annual emissions in tons per year (tpy). In addition to local CO, ROG, NOx, Sox, PM10, and PM2.5, there are odor and local risks and hazards thresholds of significance. Should a project exceed the thresholds of significance, the GAMAQI provides recommendations for reducing potential air quality and climate impacts from land use development projects. In terms of GHG thresholds, the GAMAQI summarizes the recommendations contained in the SJVAPCD’s 2009 “Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA”, described in more detail below.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI provides guidance in addressing project-related toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), lead, and benzene, and the associated risks to the local community. Commons sources of TACs include freeways, ports, railyards, industrial facilities, gas stations and backup diesel generators.

The SJVAPCD has identified the following significance thresholds for local risks and hazards:
▪ Carcinogens: Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million. ▪ Non-Carcinogens: Acute- Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual. ▪ Non-Carcinogens: Chronic- Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual.
251
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

These are the cumulative thresholds which apply to siting new sources and receptors. CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool provides emissions data for toxic air contaminants from large facilities in California. The mapping tool identifies St. Agnes Medical Center as the nearest large facility that generates toxic air contaminants, which is located approximately 3.5 miles west of the project site. Considering 2020 emissions, the St. Agnes Medical Center generates 10.3 lbs/year of DPM and 28 lbs/year of formaldehyde.

Climate Change Action Plan
In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP directed SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project specific GHG emissions on global climate change.

Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA
On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA; which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine project significance:
▪ Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS. ▪ Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
▪ Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ▪ Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
▪ Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.
252
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

City of Clovis
The City addresses air quality goals and policies in the Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan, which works to improve air quality through strategies such as effective land use and transportation planning, regional cooperation, and emissions reduction. The following General Plan policies from the Air Quality Element are applicable to the Proposed Project:
▪ Policy 1.2: Sensitive Land Uses. Prohibit, without sufficient mitigation, the future siting of sensitive land uses within the distances of emissions sources as defined by the California Air Resources Board.
▪ Policy 1.3: Construction Activities. Encourage the use of best management practices during construction activities to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants as outlined by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
▪ Policy 1.8: Trees. Maintain or plant trees where appropriate to provide shade, absorb carbon, improve oxygenation, slow stormwater runoff, and reduce the heat island effect. ▪ Policy 2.6: Innovative Mitigation. Encourage innovative mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties.

Air Quality Impact Assessment
Methods
Screening Criteria
First, the Proposed Project was assessed against the SJVAPCD’s screening criteria to determine whether or not detailed air quality modeling was required. The characteristics of the Proposed Project do not meet SJVAPCD’s SPAL and therefore further assessment of construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions is required.

Detailed Air Quality Modeling
Emissions from construction and operation of the Project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2022.1.1.19 (CalEEMod). Emissions were estimated assuming that construction would begin in begin in October 2026 and last for 14 months.

Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Construction activities including site preparation, earth moving, building, and other general construction activities can generate air pollution. While construction activities are temporary in nature, short-term impacts can contribute to exceedances of air quality standards. The emissions generated from construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavyduty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips.

CalEEMod emissions results are summarized below and included in Appendix B. Construction emissions are summarized in Table 2.
253
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Table 2: Estimated Construction Emissions
tons/year
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Sox
Maximum Emissions per Year 0.49 1.47 1.99 0.18 0.11 <0.005 SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed Level? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
As shown in Table 2, Project construction emissions of criteria pollutants are all below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. In addition to the thresholds identified in the tables, SJVAPCD addresses construction-related fugitive dust emissions by recommending the incorporation of BMPs to reduce dust emissions, which are identified under the Design Elements and BMPs section above. Therefore, construction emissions are less than significant because they are less than the thresholds of significance.

Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Operational emissions primarily occur from project-related vehicle trips, which may also cause localized air quality impacts (i.e., higher carbon monoxide concentrations or “hot-spots”) near intersections or roadway segments in the project vicinity, as well as area sources from landscape equipment, heating and cooling units, and cooktops. The Proposed Project does not include components that would lead to other potential sources of emissions such as wastewater treatment or industrial processing.

Operational air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod based on information provided by Project representatives and the estimated traffic trip generation for the Proposed Project. Estimated operational emissions for the Project are included in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Estimated Operational Emissions
tons/year
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Sox
Mobile 5.49 4.09 28.1 5.26 1.37 0.06
Area 0.93 0.01 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Energy/Other 0.02 0.42 0.35 0.03 0.03 < 0.005
Total Emissions per Year 6.44 4.51 29.2 5.29 1.40 0.06
SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed Level? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
As shown in Table 3, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds during Project operations. Criteria pollutant emissions generated during Project operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, operational emissions are less than significant because they are less than the thresholds of significance. 254
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Most of the estimated health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), according to the CARB California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (2005), can be attributable to a small number of compounds. The most significant of which is PM from diesel-fueled engines, known as diesel particulate matter (DPM).

Diesel exhaust has hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are harmful, and has been classified as a human carcinogen. DPM particles are so small that they penetrate deep into the lungs. According to studies, DPM concentrations are significantly greater near busy intersections and roads. Heavy-duty vehicles and off-road construction equipment are the main sources of diesel-related emissions. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses within proximity to facilities known to generate TACs, as depicted in Table 4.

Table 4: CARB Recommendations On Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, Or Medical Facilities* Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and HighTraffic Roads1- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution Centers
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
- Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
- Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
- Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.

Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers - Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
- Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
- Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. 1: The recommendation to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway was identified in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook published in 2005. CARB recently published a technical advisory to the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook indicating that new research has demonstrated promising strategies to reduce pollution exposure along transportation corridors. *Notes:
• These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. 255
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

• Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation.
• The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. • These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to
substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses.
• This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions. • A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in the ARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

Source: ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective The Proposed Project land uses, including car dealerships, brewery campus, restaurants, and office buildings, would not generate significant quantities of toxic air contaminants; the Proposed Project does not include any of the TAC source categories presented in Table 4. As a result, the Proposed Project would not expose adjacent sensitive receptors to toxic air emissions or generate TAC’s that would have a significant impact on the environment. Construction emissions of DPM would be reduced with compliance with SJVAPCD’s Best Practices for Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions identified under the Design Elements and BMPs section above as well as adherence to SJVAPCD Rule 4702, which limits emissions from internal combustion engines. These measures include requiring operators of spark-ignited internal combustion engine rated at >50 bhp to not operate it in such a manner that results in exceeding specified emissions limits. Due to compliance with SJVAPCD’s Best Practices for Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions and the limited extent and duration of diesel equipment use on the project site, potential health risk impacts would be negligible, and a detailed health risk assessment is not warranted.

CEQA Significance Criteria Review
To conclude this analysis, the Project is reviewed under the CEQA checklist form provided as Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

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. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As described above, with the incorporation of the identified design elements and BMPs, the Proposed Project would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants or TACS emissions.

The SJVAPCD significance thresholds ensure compliance with adopted air quality plans, which include the 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley and the 2022 Ozone Plan for the San Joaquin Valley.

Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. 256
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

b) 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? The SJVAB is nonattainment for the state and federal ozone standards, state PM10 standards, and state and federal PM2.5 standards. As shown in Table 3, Project emissions of criteria pollutants are all below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. In addition to the thresholds identified in the table, SJVAPCD addresses construction-related fugitive dust emissions by recommending the incorporation of BMPs to reduce dust emissions. These BMPs are identified under the Design Elements and BMPs section above. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? With the incorporation of the identified design elements and BMPs, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As shown in Table 3, Project emissions of criteria pollutants are all below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Operation of the Project would generate a relatively small number of truck trips on local roadways and would have a negligible impact on roadway TAC emissions.

Construction emissions of DPM would be reduced with compliance with SJVAPCD’s Best Practices for Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions identified under the Design Elements and BMPs section above as well as adherence to SJVAPCD Rule 4702 which limits emissions from internal combustion engines.

These measures include requiring operators of spark-ignited internal combustion engine rated at >50 bhp to not operate it in such a manner that results in exceeding specified emissions limits. Compliance with SJVAPCD’s Best Practices for Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions and incorporation of design elements and BMPs will ensure that the Project will not generate substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The likelihood that a project might produce odors should be assessed per CEQA guidelines. Any project that has the potential to regularly subject people to offensive odors should be considered to have a significant impact. Nuisance odors may be assessed qualitatively, taking into consideration project design elements and proximity to off-site receptors that would potentially be exposed to objectionable odors. It should be noted that individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects.

As noted previously, the Proposed Project would allow for the development of retail, restaurant, commercial, and office uses and ancillary infrastructure throughout the project site, including a brewery which is part of the Mad Duck Campus.

The potential significance of odor emissions depends on an odor source's strength and proximity to sensitive receptors. Various facilities that have been reported to cause odors in the SJVAB have been identified by the SJVAPCD, as shown in Table 5. The characteristics of the Project do not fit any of the facilities identified in Table 5. However, as noted in the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, Table 5 is not an all-inclusive list of facilities with the potential to generate odors. Odors from vehicle exhaust, waste disposal, and brewery operations would be small in quantity and duration during operation of the Proposed Project.

The SJVAPCD’s Guidance to Conduct Detailed Analysis for Assessing Odor Impacts to Sensitive Receptors indicates that odor impacts would be considered significant if there were more that one (1) confirmed complaint per year average over a three (3) year period or if there were three (3) unconfirmed complaints 257
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

per year averaged over a three (3) year period. This odor analysis was based upon a review of odor complaints from a similar facility as recommended by SJVAPCD guidance since the Proposed Project does not currently exist.

There are two (2) existing Mad Duck Craft Brewing Company locations in the City of Fresno (3085 E.

Campus Point / 7050 N Marks Ave), with the closest sensitive receptor less than 250 feet from one of the facilities. The Mad Duck Campus portion of the Proposed Project is located approximately 250 feet northeast of single-family residences. The SJVAPCD indicated that no odor complaints have been received for activities associated with the operation of the two existing facilities based upon a public records request to the SJVAPCD regarding odor complaints. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project and the proximity to sensitive receptors, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the operation of the Proposed Project. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Table 5: Screening Levels For Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Compositing Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations
(e.g., auto body shops)
1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: SJVAPCD 2024
Climate/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment
Methods
Screening Criteria
First, the Proposed Project was assessed against the SJVAPCD’s screening criteria to determine whether or not detailed GHG modeling was required. The characteristics of the Proposed Project do not meet SJVAPCD’s SPAL and therefore further assessment of construction and operational GHG emissions is required.

Detailed Air Quality Modeling
Emissions from construction and operation of the Project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2022.1.1.19 (CalEEMod). Emissions were estimated assuming that construction would begin in begin in October 2026 and last 14 month. CalEEMod default assumptions were used except 258
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

where project-specific information was available. Trip generation rate inputs in the CalEEMod were derived from the Golden Triangle Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB, 2024a).

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported as metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific global warming potential (GWP). While methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in higher quantities and it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from commercial developments and human activity in general.

Thresholds of Significance
The SJVAPCD has not adopted numerical thresholds for GHG emissions and instead recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
i. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions;
ii. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards; and iii. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual.

Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelinesstates that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency should then consider:
1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting,
2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and
3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The City of Clovis and SJVAPCD have not adopted numerical thresholds for GHG emissions. In the absence of an adopted numeric GHG emissions threshold, the project’s GHG emissions impact determination will be based on the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, and the SJVAPCD’s recommendation that if a project is consistent with an approved GHG emission reduction plan, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emission impacts. 259
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

The City of Clovis has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. Thus, the project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans.

CEQA Guidelines Significance Criteria Review
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction activities that emit GHG emissions include those from on- and off-road vehicles, stationary equipment such as air compressors and generators, as well as other sources including transportation, electricity use, natural gas use, and solid waste disposal. Because construction emissions are temporary and short-term, they contribute a relatively small portion of a project’s overall lifetime GHG emissions and, in the absence of a construction-specific significant threshold and consistent with recommendations of air districts throughout the state, these construction emissions are amortized over the anticipated life of the Proposed Project and added to operational emissions. The estimated total GHG emissions during the construction phase of the Project are 379.00 MT CO2e as shown in Table 6. Construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime (estimated) yield approximately 12.63 MT CO2e per year. Total operational emissions combined with amortized construction emissions shows that the Project will generate 6,789.17 MT CO2e per year as shown in Table 6. Operational sources of GHG emissions are primarily associated with mobile sources from vehicle trips, as well as indirect GHG emissions sources such as electricity use and solid waste disposal. The Proposed Project’s GHG emissions are provided in Table 6 for informational purposes only.

Table 6: Estimated GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT CO2e per Year)
Construction Emissions
379.00
(12.63)1
Area 2.84
Energy 739.00
Mobile (On-Road Vehicles) 5,780.00
Waste 204.00
Water 47.30
Refrigeration 3.40
Total 6,789.17
Source: Appendix B
1 – Amortized over a 30-year project lifetime
As discussed, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). Neither the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, nor SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with CARB’s adopted 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans as discussed below. 260
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
The 2022 Scoping Plan lays forth a plan for achieving carbon neutrality goals and reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 as required by AB 1279. By implementing clean technologies and fuels, the plan’s actions and results will result in significant decreases in the combustion of fossil fuels, further decreases in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on working and natural lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on augmenting the State’s clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, of which the transition away from fossil fuels and towards electrification plays an important role in nearly all sectors. Specific methods include transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The State needs to add four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply to reach this goal. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero-emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

The 2022 Scoping Plan measures applicable to the Proposed Project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures. As described above, the Project includes numerous design elements and BMPs to minimize the emissions of GHGs, including solar energy generation facilities and battery storage systems. While the Project is not a residential or Mixed-Use Residential project, it should be noted that the Project meets two of the six ‘Key Project Attribute(s)’ identified in Table 3 (Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs) of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Specifically, the Project meets the following VMT Reduction attributes:
▪ Is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing urban uses. ▪ Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands.

Below is a list of applicable strategies in the Scoping Plan and the Project’s consistency with those strategies.

Energy Efficiency Measures
Energy efficiency measures of the 2022 Scoping Plan are intended to maximize and increase energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts that include new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, accelerate the reduction and replacement of fossil fuel production and consumption in California, and invest in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. These measures cannot be implemented by an individual project or lead agency since they are statewide measures, but the Proposed Project is consistent with and would not conflict or obstruct these goals. These measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of proposed and existing buildings; the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations, established by the California Energy Commission and the City’s current building code, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. The Proposed Project would include solar energy generation and battery 261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

systems that would reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water Conservation Measures
The treatment and transport of water emits GHGs, and therefore the 2022 Scoping Plan includes water conservation and efficiency measures that are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the Proposed Project would install low maintenance landscape features. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures and would be consistent with this goal of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Transportation and Motor Vehicle Efficiency
The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. State goals include achieving 100 percent Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) sales of light-duty vehicles by 2035 and medium-heavy-duty vehicles by 2040; accelerating the reduction and replacement of fossil fuel production and consumption in California; and achieving a per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045. These measures cannot be implemented by a particular project or lead agency since they are statewide measures. When they are implemented, standards would be applicable to light-duty and medium-heavy-duty vehicles that would access the proposed commercial/retail development.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the State’s Strategies for Achieving Success for VMT Reduction in that it is an infill development site that is surrounded by existing urban uses and is serviced by two routes of the Clovis Transit System with a third route currently contemplated for future access (Clovis Transit, 2024). Additionally, the Proposed Project would include the installation of EV charging stations and EV ready parking stalls consistent with the 2022 CalGreen Code requirements, resulting in the addition of roughly 32 EV charging stations within the project site. A VMT Analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc (JLB, 2024b). As stated therein, according to Section 2.1.1.5 of the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, “Office or the employment portions of other nonresidential uses with total daily employee based VMT per employee that is 13 percent less than the existing average baseline level in Fresno County…are shown in green in the maps provided…” (City of Clovis, 2022). The Project Site is located within a “green” area identified by the City as having low VMT in terms of VMT per employee (City of Clovis, 2022). As the proposed car dealership and office land use categories are employment driven land uses that are located in a low employee VMT zone, they are considered screened out from a detailed VMT analysis in accordance with the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The VMT analysis for the remaining land uses, including the retail land uses, brewery campus and restaurants, shows that the regional VMT, after taking into account internal trips, pass-by trips, and the installation of EV charging infrastructure, will be reduced by the Proposed Project, and would not exceed the VMT thresholds defined in City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (JLB, 2024b).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct state or local plans pertaining to a reduction in GHG emissions from transportation and motor vehicle efficiency. 262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Summary
Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, and AB 1279 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
b) Question B: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As described above, the Proposed Project includes numerous design elements and BMPs to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases, including solar energy generation facilities and battery storage systems.

The analysis under Question A details how the Proposed Project would be consistent with the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan, which is designed to achieve the overall GHG emission reduction goals identified in Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, and AB 1279. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. The Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.
263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

References
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

December 2022.

CARB, 2024. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html?_ga=2.971321.927287257.1690311023- 447132396.1685975620. Accessed January 2024.

CARB Pollution Mapping Tool (v2.6). Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/carbapps/pollutionmap/?_ga=2.42533989.1547511003.1707344435-849022739.1630980451. Accessed January 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA & Climate Change, January 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) California’s Progress Toward Clean Air, 2015
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010
California Environmental Protection Agency/California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005
City of Clovis, 2014. City of Clovis General Plan: Air Quality Element. August 2014.

Clovis Transit, 2024. Clovis Transit: Stageline System Map. Available online at: https://clovistransit.com/.

Accessed February 19, 2024.

JLB, 2024a. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Golden Triangle. Prepared by JLB Engineering, Inc., May 1, 2024.

JLB, 2024b. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, Golden Triangle. Prepared by JLB Engineering, Inc., May 6, 2024.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510, March 2018 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL), November 13, 2020
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Guidance to Conduct Detailed Analysis for Assessing Odor Impacts to Sensitive Receptors, August 1, 2016 FirstCarbon Solutions DRAFT Shadelands SecureSpace/Calicraft Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, California, February 14, 2023 264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDICES
265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX A
Figures
266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 1

REGIONAL LOCATION
0 5 10 Miles
Legend
PCC Boundary
Fresno County
City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS 267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 2

SITE AND VICINITY
0 750 1,500 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Fresno
County
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land 268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 3

AERIAL OVERVIEW
0 250 500 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community, Maxar
s
269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX B
CalEEMod Output Files
271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 1 / 52
Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 2 / 52

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
273
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 3 / 52

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
274
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 4 / 52

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
275
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 5 / 52

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 6 / 52

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 7 / 52

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center
Construction Start Date 10/1/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency City of Clovis
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 21.4
Location 36.83426442288318, -119.70216172030855
County Fresno
City Clovis
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2437
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.23

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 8 / 52
General Office
Building

15.0 1000sqft 0.34 15,000 375 0.00 — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.88 1000sqft 1.07 3,880 100 0.00 — —
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

3.88 1000sqft 1.08 3,880 100 0.00 — —
Automobile Care
Center
139 1000sqft 14.6 139,020 1,000 0.00 — Automobile Care
Center used as proxy
for Dealership/Repair
Shop
Research &
Development

3.00 1000sqft 0.50 3,000 75.0 0.00 — Research &
Development used
as proxy for Wine
Tasting and Brewing
Tap room.

Research &
Development

10.8 1000sqft 1.50 10,760 275 0.00 — Research &
Development used
as proxy for Wine
Tasting and Brewing
Tap room.

Strip Mall 13.3 1000sqft 0.31 13,330 350 0.00 — —
Quality Restaurant 4.93 1000sqft 0.64 4,930 125 0.00 — Quality Restaurant used as proxy for
Banquet.

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 9 / 52
Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.51 1.29 10.1 15.2 0.03 0.34 0.45 0.79 0.32 0.11 0.43 — 3,166 3,166 0.12 0.09 2.02 3,199 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.81 45.1 29.2 29.3 0.06 1.24 7.76 9.00 1.14 3.96 5.11 — 6,704 6,704 0.27 0.10 0.05 6,728 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.96 3.28 6.64 9.68 0.02 0.23 0.59 0.78 0.21 0.25 0.42 — 2,007 2,007 0.08 0.06 0.54 2,026 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.18 0.60 1.21 1.77 < 0.005 0.04 0.11 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.08 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.09 335 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. Yes — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. Yes — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 10 / 52

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.51 1.29 10.1 15.2 0.03 0.34 0.45 0.79 0.32 0.11 0.43 — 3,166 3,166 0.12 0.09 2.02 3,199 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.81 3.21 29.2 29.3 0.06 1.24 7.76 9.00 1.14 3.96 5.11 — 6,704 6,704 0.27 0.10 0.03 6,728 2027 3.57 45.1 25.6 27.8 0.06 1.04 3.70 4.74 0.96 1.45 2.41 — 6,701 6,701 0.27 0.09 0.05 6,726 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.61 0.51 4.52 4.52 0.01 0.19 0.59 0.78 0.17 0.25 0.42 — 994 994 0.04 0.01 0.05 999 2027 0.96 3.28 6.64 9.68 0.02 0.23 0.29 0.52 0.21 0.07 0.28 — 2,007 2,007 0.08 0.06 0.54 2,026 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.11 0.09 0.83 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.08 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 165 2027 0.18 0.60 1.21 1.77 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 332 332 0.01 0.01 0.09 335

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 54.5 55.8 39.0 318 0.74 0.73 61.7 62.4 0.69 15.6 16.3 405 79,048 79,453 44.4 3.93 230 81,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 11 / 52
Unmit. 47.6 48.8 43.9 278 0.68 0.72 61.7 62.4 0.68 15.6 16.3 405 72,909 73,314 44.9 4.20 26.0 75,715 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 31.2 33.8 23.5 152 0.34 0.45 28.5 29.0 0.43 7.23 7.66 405 37,978 38,383 43.2 2.20 62.9 40,182 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.70 6.18 4.30 27.8 0.06 0.08 5.20 5.29 0.08 1.32 1.40 67.0 6,288 6,355 7.15 0.36 10.4 6,653 Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 10.0 10.0 100 27.0 — — 15.0 — — 15.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 52.8 49.9 36.6 307 0.73 0.54 61.7 62.2 0.51 15.6 16.1 — 74,515 74,515 3.24 3.76 210 75,926 Area 1.50 5.78 0.07 8.43 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.8 Energy 0.25 0.13 2.30 1.93 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 4,438 4,438 0.52 0.04 — 4,462 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 52.4 60.3 113 5.38 0.13 — 286 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 352 0.00 352 35.2 0.00 — 1,233 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5
Total 54.5 55.8 39.0 318 0.74 0.73 61.7 62.4 0.69 15.6 16.3 405 79,048 79,453 44.4 3.93 230 81,963 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 12 / 52
Mobile 47.4 44.3 41.6 277 0.67 0.54 61.7 62.2 0.51 15.6 16.1 — 68,411 68,411 3.82 4.03 5.43 69,713 Area — 4.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.25 0.13 2.30 1.93 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 4,438 4,438 0.52 0.04 — 4,462 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 52.4 60.3 113 5.38 0.13 — 286 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 352 0.00 352 35.2 0.00 — 1,233 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5
Total 47.6 48.8 43.9 278 0.68 0.72 61.7 62.4 0.68 15.6 16.3 405 72,909 73,314 44.9 4.20 26.0 75,715 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 30.2 28.6 21.2 146 0.33 0.27 28.5 28.8 0.25 7.23 7.48 — 33,463 33,463 2.07 2.03 42.4 34,163 Area 0.74 5.08 0.03 4.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 Energy 0.25 0.13 2.30 1.93 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 4,438 4,438 0.52 0.04 — 4,462 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 52.4 60.3 113 5.38 0.13 — 286 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 352 0.00 352 35.2 0.00 — 1,233 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5
Total 31.2 33.8 23.5 152 0.34 0.45 28.5 29.0 0.43 7.23 7.66 405 37,978 38,383 43.2 2.20 62.9 40,182 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.52 5.23 3.87 26.7 0.06 0.05 5.20 5.25 0.05 1.32 1.37 — 5,540 5,540 0.34 0.34 7.02 5,656 Area 0.14 0.93 0.01 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.84 Energy 0.05 0.02 0.42 0.35 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 735 735 0.09 0.01 — 739 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.68 9.98 18.7 0.89 0.02 — 47.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 3.40
Total 5.70 6.18 4.30 27.8 0.06 0.08 5.20 5.29 0.08 1.32 1.40 67.0 6,288 6,355 7.15 0.36 10.4 6,653

3. Construction Emissions Details
283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 13 / 52

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.35 0.35 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 1.13 1.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 14 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 80.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.55 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 435 435 0.01 0.07 0.03 456 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.8 23.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 25.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.95 3.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.14

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 15 / 52
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 286
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 16 / 52
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.62 3.04 27.2 27.6 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.34 0.29 2.56 2.59 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 620 620 0.03 0.01 — 622287 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 17 / 52
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.34 0.34 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 288 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 18 / 52
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.51 2.95 25.6 27.3 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25.8 25.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.28 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.29 289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 19 / 52
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
290
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 20 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.74 0.62 5.63 7.76 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,438 1,438 0.06 0.01 — 1,443 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.42 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 238 238 0.01 < 0.005 — 239 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.24 0.12 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 368 368 0.01 0.01 1.18 374 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.63 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 401 401 0.01 0.06 0.84 420 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 21 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.15 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.02 0.03 332 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.67 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 402 402 0.01 0.06 0.02 420 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 0.01 0.01 0.31 206 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.39 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 241 241 0.01 0.04 0.22 252 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.6 33.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 34.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.9 39.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 41.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 22 / 52
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.39 4.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 23 / 52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 44.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 24 / 52
Architect
Coatings
— 0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 65.3 65.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 66.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 3.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.77 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 295 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 25 / 52
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.57 0.54 0.39 3.30 0.01 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.17 — 800 800 0.03 0.04 2.25 815 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

16.6 15.8 11.5 97.0 0.23 0.17 19.5 19.6 0.16 4.93 5.09 — 23,515 23,515 1.02 1.19 66.1 23,960 Automob
ile
Care
Center

25.3 23.9 17.5 147 0.35 0.26 29.6 29.8 0.24 7.50 7.74 — 35,718 35,718 1.55 1.80 100 36,395 Researc
h
&
Development

6.72 6.35 4.66 39.1 0.09 0.07 7.85 7.92 0.06 1.99 2.05 — 9,484 9,484 0.41 0.48 26.7 9,664 Strip Mall 2.53 2.39 1.75 14.7 0.03 0.03 2.95 2.98 0.02 0.75 0.77 — 3,570 3,570 0.16 0.18 10.0 3,637 Quality
Restaurant

1.01 0.96 0.70 5.89 0.01 0.01 1.18 1.19 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,428 1,428 0.06 0.07 4.01 1,455 Total 52.8 49.9 36.6 307 0.73 0.54 61.7 62.2 0.51 15.6 16.1 — 74,515 74,515 3.24 3.76 210 75,926 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.51 0.48 0.45 2.97 0.01 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.17 — 734 734 0.04 0.04 0.06 748 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

14.9 14.0 13.1 87.3 0.21 0.17 19.5 19.6 0.16 4.93 5.09 — 21,588 21,588 1.21 1.27 1.71 21,999 296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 26 / 52
Automob
Care
Center

22.7 21.2 19.9 133 0.32 0.26 29.6 29.8 0.24 7.50 7.74 — 32,793 32,793 1.83 1.93 2.60 33,417 Researc
h
&
Development

6.03 5.63 5.30 35.2 0.09 0.07 7.85 7.92 0.06 1.99 2.05 — 8,707 8,707 0.49 0.51 0.69 8,873 Strip Mall 2.27 2.12 1.99 13.2 0.03 0.03 2.95 2.98 0.02 0.75 0.77 — 3,277 3,277 0.18 0.19 0.26 3,340 Quality
Restaurant

0.91 0.85 0.80 5.30 0.01 0.01 1.18 1.19 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,311 1,311 0.07 0.08 0.10 1,336 Total 47.4 44.3 41.6 277 0.67 0.54 61.7 62.2 0.51 15.6 16.1 — 68,411 68,411 3.82 4.03 5.43 69,713 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 93.8 93.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 95.6 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

2.03 1.93 1.30 8.93 0.02 0.02 1.56 1.58 0.01 0.40 0.41 — 1,688 1,688 0.12 0.11 2.11 1,726 Automob
ile
Care
Center

2.33 2.21 1.65 11.4 0.03 0.02 2.25 2.27 0.02 0.57 0.59 — 2,388 2,388 0.15 0.14 3.03 2,438 Researc
h
&
Development

0.57 0.54 0.47 3.25 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.73 0.01 0.18 0.19 — 759 759 0.04 0.04 0.98 774 Strip Mall 0.37 0.35 0.30 2.09 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 488 488 0.02 0.03 0.63 498 Quality
Restaurant

0.14 0.14 0.09 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 122 122 0.01 0.01 0.15 125 Total 5.52 5.23 3.87 26.7 0.06 0.05 5.20 5.25 0.05 1.32 1.37 — 5,540 5,540 0.34 0.34 7.02 5,656

4.2. Energy
297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 27 / 52

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 197 197 0.03 < 0.005 — 198
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — 194 194 0.03 < 0.005 — 196
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 922 922 0.15 0.02 — 931
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — — 180 180 0.03 < 0.005 — 182
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.7 78.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 79.4 Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — — 123 123 0.02 < 0.005 — 124
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,694 1,694 0.27 0.03 — 1,711 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 197 197 0.03 < 0.005 — 198
298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 28 / 52
Fast———————————— 194 194 0.03 < 0.005— 196
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
Automob
ile
Care
Center
———————————— 922 922 0.15 0.02— 931
Researc h&
Development —
——————————— 180 180 0.03 < 0.005— 182
Strip Mall———————————— 78.7 78.7 0.01 < 0.005— 79.4
Quality
Restaurant—
——————————— 123 123 0.02 < 0.005— 124
Total———————————— 1,694 1,694 0.27 0.03— 1,711
Annual——————————————————
General
Office
Building
———————————— 32.5 32.5 0.01 < 0.005— 32.9
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————— 32.1 32.1 0.01 < 0.005— 32.4
Automob
ile
Care
Center
———————————— 153 153 0.02 < 0.005— 154
Researc h&
Development —
——————————— 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005— 30.1
Strip Mall———————————— 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005— 13.2
299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 29 / 52
Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 280 280 0.05 0.01 — 283

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.02 0.01 0.16 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 192 192 0.02 < 0.005 — 193 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.03 0.01 0.26 0.22 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 311 311 0.03 < 0.005 — 312 Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.17 0.08 1.53 1.29 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,825 1,825 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,831 Researc
h
&
Development

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 176 176 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 41.8 41.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.9 Quality
Restaurant

0.02 0.01 0.17 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 198 Total 0.25 0.13 2.30 1.93 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,744 2,744 0.24 0.01 — 2,752 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 30 / 52
General
Office
Building

0.02 0.01 0.16 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 192 192 0.02 < 0.005 — 193 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.03 0.01 0.26 0.22 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 311 311 0.03 < 0.005 — 312 Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.17 0.08 1.53 1.29 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,825 1,825 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,831 Researc
h
&
Development

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 176 176 0.02 < 0.005 — 177 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 41.8 41.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.9 Quality
Restaurant

0.02 0.01 0.17 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 198 198 0.02 < 0.005 — 198 Total 0.25 0.13 2.30 1.93 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,744 2,744 0.24 0.01 — 2,752 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.9 Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 51.5 51.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.6 Automob
ile
Care
Center

0.03 0.02 0.28 0.23 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 302 302 0.03 < 0.005 — 303 Researc
h
&
Development
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.2 29.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.2 301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 31 / 52
Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.93 6.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.95 Quality
Restaurant
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 32.7 32.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.8 Total 0.05 0.02 0.42 0.35 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 454 454 0.04 < 0.005 — 456

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 4.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.50 1.38 0.07 8.43 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.8 Total 1.50 5.78 0.07 8.43 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 4.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 32 / 52
Total — 4.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.76 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.14 0.12 0.01 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.84 Total 0.14 0.93 0.01 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.84

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.11 5.88 11.0 0.52 0.01 — 27.8
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.51 5.19 9.70 0.46 0.01 — 24.6
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.1 28.8 53.9 2.57 0.06 — 137
303
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 33 / 52
Researc &
Development —
—————————— 13.0 14.9 27.9 1.33 0.03— 70.7
Strip Mall——————————— 1.89 2.18 4.07 0.19 < 0.005— 10.3 Quality
Restaurant—
—————————— 2.87 3.30 6.16 0.29 0.01— 15.6
Total——————————— 52.4 60.3 113 5.38 0.13— 286
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 5.11 5.88 11.0 0.52 0.01— 27.8
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 4.51 5.19 9.70 0.46 0.01— 24.6
Automob
ile
Care
Center
——————————— 25.1 28.8 53.9 2.57 0.06— 137
Researc h&
Development —
—————————— 13.0 14.9 27.9 1.33 0.03— 70.7
Strip Mall——————————— 1.89 2.18 4.07 0.19 < 0.005— 10.3 Quality
Restaurant—
—————————— 2.87 3.30 6.16 0.29 0.01— 15.6
Total——————————— 52.4 60.3 113 5.38 0.13— 286
Annual——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 0.85 0.97 1.82 0.09 < 0.005— 4.61
304
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 34 / 52
Fast — — — — — — — — — — — 0.75 0.86 1.61 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.07 Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.15 4.77 8.92 0.43 0.01 — 22.6
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 2.47 4.61 0.22 0.01 — 11.7
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31 0.36 0.67 0.03 < 0.005 — 1.71 Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.47 0.55 1.02 0.05 < 0.005 — 2.59 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.68 9.98 18.7 0.89 0.02 — 47.3

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.52 0.00 7.52 0.75 0.00 — 26.3
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.2 0.00 48.2 4.81 0.00 — 169
305
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 35 / 52
Automob
Care
Center
——————————— 286 0.00 286 28.6 0.00— 1,001
Researc h&
Development —
—————————— 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00— 1.97
Strip Mall——————————— 7.54 0.00 7.54 0.75 0.00— 26.4
Quality
Restaurant—
—————————— 2.42 0.00 2.42 0.24 0.00— 8.48
Total——————————— 352 0.00 352 35.2 0.00— 1,233
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 7.52 0.00 7.52 0.75 0.00— 26.3
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
——————————— 48.2 0.00 48.2 4.81 0.00— 169
Automob
ile
Care
Center
——————————— 286 0.00 286 28.6 0.00— 1,001
Researc h&
Development —
—————————— 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.00— 1.97
Strip Mall——————————— 7.54 0.00 7.54 0.75 0.00— 26.4
Quality
Restaurant—
—————————— 2.42 0.00 2.42 0.24 0.00— 8.48
Total——————————— 352 0.00 352 35.2 0.00— 1,233
Annual——————————————————306
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 36 / 52
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 0.00 1.24 0.12 0.00 — 4.35
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.98 0.00 7.98 0.80 0.00 — 27.9
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 47.4 0.00 47.4 4.74 0.00 — 166
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.33
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 1.25 0.00 1.25 0.12 0.00 — 4.37 Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.00 — 1.40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 58.3 0.00 58.3 5.83 0.00 — 204

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
307
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 37 / 52
Fast———————————————— 12.1 12.1
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
Automob
ile
Care
Center
———————————————— 0.22 0.22
Researc h&
Development —
——————————————— 0.35 0.35
Strip Mall———————————————— 0.08 0.08
Quality
Restaurant—
——————————————— 7.71 7.71
Total———————————————— 20.5 20.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building
———————————————— 0.04 0.04
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————————— 12.1 12.1
Automob
ile
Care
Center
———————————————— 0.22 0.22
Researc h&
Development —
——————————————— 0.35 0.35
308
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 38 / 52
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.71 7.71
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 2.01
Automob
ile
Care
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Quality
Restaurant
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.28 1.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.40 3.40

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 309
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 39 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
310
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 40 / 52

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —311
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 41 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
312
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 42 / 52
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description 313 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 43 / 52
Demolition Demolition 10/1/2026 10/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/30/2026 11/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 11/14/2026 1/2/2027 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 1/3/2027 11/4/2027 5.00 219 — Paving Paving 11/5/2027 12/2/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/3/2027 12/30/2027 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
314
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 44 / 52
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 6.35 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 63.3 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
315
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 45 / 52
Building Construction Vendor 31.8 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 12.7 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 290,700 96,900 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres) 316
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 46 / 52
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,000 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Automobile Care Center 0.00 0%
Research & Development 0.00 0%
Research & Development 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Quality Restaurant 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005 317
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 47 / 52

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Office
Building
163 33.2 10.5 44,668 936 191 60.4 257,148
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,814 2,391 1,834 693,149 3,728 13,762 10,556 2,239,819 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1,814 2,391 1,834 693,149 3,728 13,762 10,556 2,239,819 Automobile Care
Center
3,870 7,262 3,021 1,545,248 12,880 41,809 17,391 6,444,835 Research &
Development
138 610 615 99,862 794 3,514 3,542 574,893
Research &
Development
664 1,313 387 261,683 3,821 7,559 2,226 1,506,467
Strip Mall 726 560 272 232,652 4,178 3,226 1,568 1,339,342 Quality Restaurant 270 290 232 97,674 647 1,671 1,336 325,430

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 290,700 96,900 — 318
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 48 / 52

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 351,696 204 0.0330 0.0040 599,086 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
173,371 204 0.0330 0.0040 485,131
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
173,371 204 0.0330 0.0040 485,131
Automobile Care Center 1,649,352 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,695,972 Research & Development 70,339 204 0.0330 0.0040 119,817 Research & Development 252,283 204 0.0330 0.0040 429,745 Strip Mall 140,766 204 0.0330 0.0040 130,532
Quality Restaurant 220,288 204 0.0330 0.0040 616,416

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Office Building 2,666,006 5,148
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,177,711 1,373
319
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 49 / 52
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,177,711 1,373
Automobile Care Center 13,079,156 13,727
Research & Development 1,475,082 1,030
Research & Development 5,290,627 3,775
Strip Mall 987,387 4,805
Quality Restaurant 1,496,421 1,716

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Office Building 14.0 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 44.7 —
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 44.7 —
Automobile Care Center 531 —
Research & Development 0.23 —
Research & Development 0.82 —
Strip Mall 14.0 —
Quality Restaurant 4.50 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
320
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 50 / 52
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Automobile Care Center Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Research &
Development
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Research &
Development
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Research &
Development
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Research &
Development
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Quality Restaurant Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Quality Restaurant Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
321
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 51 / 52
Quality Restaurant Walk-in refrigerators R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 and freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 322
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center Custom Report, 5/16/2024 52 / 52

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Project Details The Project is in an urban area Land Use Acreage adjusted to be consistent with Project Site Operations: Vehicle Data Automobile Care Center used as proxy for Dealership/Repair Shop Research & Development used as proxy for Wine Tasting and Brewing Tap room.

Quality Restaurant used as proxy for Banquet.

Trip Rates Consistent with Traffic Study and ITE 11th Edition Operations: Refrigerants Automobile Care Center is a proxy for a Dealership Construction: Construction Phases Consistent w/ Project Representative Information 323
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX B
Biological Resources Assessment
324
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
5170 Golden Foothill Parkway
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
O: 916-235-8224 | w: www.acorn-env.com
1 Technical Memorandum:

Biological Resources Assessment for the Golden
Triangle Development Project, Clovis, CA
February 23, 2024
Introduction
This Biological Resources Assessment technical memorandum has been prepared to address the effects of a proposed update to the Development Plan and Master Site Plan for the Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center (PCC) (Proposed Project) in the City of Clovis (see Figure 1). The purpose of this analysis is to inventory biological resources within the project area, to identify potential biological resources constraints to development, to assess potential project-related impacts to biological resources, and to identify mitigation measures and other recommendations to reduce the significance of these impacts.

Study Area
The Golden Triangle PCC consists of approximately 37 acres located southwest of the Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue intersection (PCC Boundary). The PCC Boundary is located in an urban infill location, and is bordered by Magill Avenue-State Route (SR) 168 to the north, the Clovis Old Town Trail to the south, and Clovis Avenue to the east (see Figure 2). The study area addressed in this memorandum is limited to the proposed commercial development area (roughly 20 acres) within the larger PCC Boundary (Study Area or Project Area) that is proposed for commercial development. The location of the Study Area relative to the PCC Boundary can be seen in Figure 3.

The Study Area is currently zoned Planned Commercial Center according to the City of Clovis 2014 General Plan. Approximately half of the PCC Boundary (15.6 acres) is already developed with commercial buildings, paved parking lots and driveways, graveled lots for storage of RVs and other vehicles, and three residences. The remaining area, including the Study Area, is undeveloped and has no major vegetation.

The Study Area is relatively flat, with an on-site elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level.

The West Branch Clovis Ditch bisects the Study Area, and a stormwater detention basin occurs in the southwestern portion of the Study Area.

Project Overview
The Proposed Project includes development of retail, commercial, and office buildings, surface parking lots and ancillary infrastructure throughout the Study Area. Exterior lighting would be integrated into 325
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 1

REGIONAL LOCATION
0 5 10 Miles
Legend
PCC Boundary
Fresno County
City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS 326
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 2

SITE AND VICINITY
0 750 1,500 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Fresno
County
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land 327
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 3

AERIAL OVERVIEW
0 250 500 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community, Maxar
s
328
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
5 components of the architecture and would be strategically positioned to minimize off-site lighting and any direct sight lines to the public. New streetlights would be provided on the internal roadways and parking areas as appropriate to provide sufficient illumination of the streets for traffic and pedestrians to traverse them safely. New driveways may be constructed on adjacent roadways to provide access to the Project Area.

Given the relatively level topography of the Project Area, grading activities associated with the Proposed Project would be minor and are not anticipated to include the import of fill or export of cut. Drainage facilities would be designed and constructed to collect and route stormwater runoff from roads, sidewalks, roofs, and landscape areas to different water quality and/or flow control facilities prior to discharge into the on-site stormwater detention basin. The Proposed Project will include connections to existing utilities located within the Project Area or adjacent public right-of-way and developed areas.

Methods
Database Queries
Prior to conducting the field survey, the following information sources were reviewed:
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation Species List (USFWS, 2023a; Attachment A);
 A spatial query of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database CNDDB using a nine quadrangle (quad) boundary, with “Clovis” as the central quad (CDFW, 2023a; Figure 4);
 A query of the California Native Plant Society’s(CNPS) database Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California using a nine quad boundary, with “Clovis” as the central quad (CNPS, 2023; Attachment A); and
 USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) digital maps (USFWS, 2023b; Attachment A).

Biological Field Survey
Acorn senior biologist Dr. G.O. Graening conducted a biological survey of the PCC Boundary on October 3, 2023. Weather conditions were warm and overcast. Survey efforts covered the totality of the PCC Boundary and emphasized the search for special-status species and sensitive habitats or habitats suitable for supporting special-status species. Wildlife signs—tracks, feathers and shedding, burrows, scat, etc.— were interpreted to detect species not actually seen. All visible fauna and flora observed were recorded in a field notebook and identified to the lowest taxon possible.

Resources Mapping
Locations of species’ occurrences and habitat boundaries within the PCC Boundary were recorded on color aerial photographs, and then digitized to produce habitat maps. Geographic analyses were performed using geographical information system software (ArcGIS 10, ESRI, Inc.). Vegetation communities were classified by Vegetation Series using the CNPS Vegetation Classification system (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995, as updated in 2009) and considering CDFW’s Natural Communities nomenclature system. Wetlands and other aquatic habitats were classified using USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Classification System for Wetland and Deepwater Habitats, or “Cowardin class” (USFWS 2013). Informal wetland delineation methods consisted of an abbreviated, visual assessment of the three requisite wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrologic regime) defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 329
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Antioch
efferian robberfly
California
glossy snake
Hurd's
metapogon
robberfly
Northern
California
legless lizard
California
satintail
molestan
blister beetle
American
bumble bee
California tiger
salamander - central
California DPS
coast
horned
lizard
Swainson's
hawk
Madera
leptosiphon
California
jewelflower
Crotch
bumble bee
California tiger
salamander - central
California DPS
least
Bell's
vireo
least
Bell's
vireo
tricolored
blackbird
tricolored
blackbird
Sanford's
arrowhead
western
pond turtle
California tiger
salamander - central
California DPS
FIGURE 4

CNDDB MAPPED SPECIES DATA
0 0.5 1 Miles
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
CNDDB Taxon Group
Amphibians
Birds
Dicots
Insects
Monocots
Reptiles
City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, 330
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
7 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wildlife habitats were classified according to the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFW, 2023b). Species’ habitat requirements and life histories were identified using the following sources: Baldwin et al. (2012); CNPS (2023), Calflora (2023); CDFW (2023a, b); and University of California at Berkeley (2023a, b).

Results
Environmental Setting
The Study Area is located in an urban infill location within the City of Clovis. The Study Area is relatively flat, with an on-site elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level. A representative collection of site photographs is included as Attachment B.

Habitat Types
The Study Area does not contain Essential Fish Habitat and does not fall within designated or proposed Critical Habitat (NOAA, 2023; USFWS, 2023c). The nearest Critical Habitat in relation to the Study Area is designated for fleshy owl’s-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulenta), approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the Study Area. The following habitat types were identified within the Study Area:
 Ruderal
 Developed
 Manmade drainage ditch (West Branch Clovis Ditch)
 Stormwater detention basin
 Marsh
A detailed discussion of each habitat type is provided below, and a figure showing the location of vegetation community types is included as Figure 5. An inventory of plant species identified during the survey is included as Attachment C. The USFWS NWI data reviewed prior to the survey is provided in Attachment A and shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows surface water resources present on the Study Area based on the results of the survey.

Ruderal
Ruderal habitat includes those areas that are subject to ongoing or regular disturbance and are modified from their natural state. Ruderal areas comprise 13.6 acres of the Study Area and are kept in a ruderal state through ongoing disturbance such as disking. Vegetation within ruderal areas is dominated by nonnative European herbs and grasses, primarily vinegar weed (Trichostema sp.), mustard (Brassica), and annual grasses (Bromus and Avena spp.). The Study Area perimeter, as well as parking lots, are landscaped with ornamentals such as rosemary (Rosemarinus), coast redwood (Sequioa sempervirens), purple leaf plum (Prunus cerasifera), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), ash (Fraxinus angustifolia), and elm (Ulmus pumila). The smaller, southern Project Area is entirely ruderal habitat, and approximately half of the northern Project Area is also ruderal. A portion of the ruderal habitat occurs within a stormwater detention basin, which was dry at the time of the survey, and is discussed further below.

Developed
A total of 6.1 acres of the Study Area is developed with commercial buildings, paved parking lots and driveways, graveled lots for storage of RVs and other vehicles, and three residences. Developed areas are located within the larger, northern portion of the Project Area. 331
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 5

VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES
0 200 400 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
Developed
Ruderal
Maxar, Microsoft, Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community
332
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Sier ra Fwy
N Minnewawa Ave
N Lind A ve
N Villa Ave
Clovis Cemetery
Glorietta
368 ft
Dry Creek
Herndon Ave
N Clovis Ave
Sier ra Fwy
Elm Ave
1st St
Polson Ave
Magill Ave
N Marion Ave
2nd St
Birch A
Sier ra Ave
Acacia Ave
N De
witt Ave
Palo Alto Ave
Menlo Ave
Oxford Ave
Cole Ave
Dewitt Ave
N Rogers Ave
Herndon Ave
N Clovis Ave
Sierra Fwy
Sier ra Fwy
3rd St
Oxford Ave
Oxford Ave
4th St
4th St
Harvard Ave
Dewitt Ave
Woodworth Ave
7th St
Rodeo Dr
5th St
3rd St
Clovis
PUBFx
PUBFx
PUSCx
PUSCx
R4SBC
R4SBC
R5UBFx
FIGURE 6

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
0 500 1,000 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
NWI (National Wetland Inventory)
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City Of Fresno, Fresno County Dept. PWP, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land s
333
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
334
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
11 Surface Water Resources – West Branch Clovis Ditch
The NWI reported a single surface water resource within the Study Area. This feature is listed as “Riverine” habitat and bisects the larger Project Area in an east to west direction. This feature was identified in the field as a portion of the West Branch Clovis Ditch, which is a manmade drainage ditch. This feature is an earthen trapezoidal ditch that is approximately 12 feet wide at the top and 4 feet deep. The Ordinary High Water Mark is about 6 feet wide and 1 foot deep. The channel bottom is lined with hydrophytic vegetation, including tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), common rush (Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha). The West Branch Clovis Ditch was dry at the time of the survey. The totality of the West Branch Clovis Ditch on site crosses the northern Project Area.

Surface Water Resources – Stormwater Detention Basin and Marsh In addition to the West Branch Clovis Ditch, a stormwater detention basin occurs within the Study Area, within the southwestern area of the larger Project Area. The majority of this basin has upland vegetation (primarily European annual grasses) and does not fit the regulatory definition of a wetland. A small wetland, identified as a freshwater marsh, is located in the southwest corner of the basin and contains hydrophytic vegetation such as tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and common rush (Juncus effusus).

Wildlife Corridors, Nursery Sites, and Other Habitat Features The Study Area did not contain wildlife corridors, nursery sites or other unique habitat features. Wildlife access to the Study Area is limited due to surrounding residential and commercial development, fences, and major roadways.

Special-status Species
For the purposes of this assessment, “special status” is defined to be species that are of management concern to state or federal natural resource agencies, and include those species that are:
• Listed as endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act;
• Listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed for listing, under the California Endangered Species Act of 1970;
• Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§1901); • Designated as fully protected, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§3511, §4700, or §5050);
• Designated as a species of special concern by CDFW;
• Plants considered to be rare, threatened or endangered by CNPS; this consists of species on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Ranking System; or
• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act.

Special-status species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area, based on the database queries and field survey, are presented in Table 1. Table 1 identifies the species, status, a description of suitable habitat, and potential to occur within the Study Area. Where a species was determined to have no potential to occur, the determination was made based upon a lack of suitable habitat characteristics, such as lack of suitable soils or vegetative cover, or lack of suitable means to access the Study Area. 335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
12 Table 1: Special-status Species with Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Study Area Scientific
Name
Common Name Status* General Habitat** Microhabitat** Potential to Occur in Study Area

ANIMALS
Agelaius
tricolor
tricolored blackbird CT Highly colonial species, most numerous in central valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to
California
Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
& foraging area with insect prey within a few km of
the colony

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Ambystoma
californiense
pop. 1
California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
FT, CT Vernal pools, playas, ponds Bodies of water must hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks to support the salamander larvae
development. The salamanders also need access
to upland habitat that contains small animal
burrows or underground hideaways, including
those constructed by California ground squirrel

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Anniella
pulchra
Northern California
legless lizard
SSC Rocks and moist soil Requires vegetative cover for foraging with moist leaf litter and soil (CDFW, 2000)

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands & forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting
Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures.

Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Arizona
elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
SSC Grassy fields Require small mammal burrows or grasslandadjacent rock outcrops for refuge, or, less commonly, suitably soft soil that they can burrow
in themselves (CDFW, n.d.)

Absent: Study Area is
outside of species
range (CDFW, 2023c)
Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts & scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the California ground
squirrel
Low potential to
occur, both
burrowing and
foraging
336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
13 Branchinecta
conservatio
conservancy fairy
shrimp
FT Conservancy fairy shrimp are restricted to
vernal pools found in California’s Central
Valley from Tehama County in the north to
Merced County in the south. However, there
is one outlying population in Ventura
County’s Interior Coast Ranges
Conservancy fairy shrimp have been found at
elevations ranging from 16 to 5,577 feet (5 to
1,700 meters) above sea level. The species has
been found at sites that are low in alkalinity that
range from 16 to 47 parts per million

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Branchinecta
lynchi
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
FT Endemic to the grasslands of the central
valley, central coast mtns, and south coast
mtns, in astatic rain-filled pools
Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression
pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basaltflow depression pools

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Buteo
swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk CT Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
& agricultural or ranch lands
Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting
rodent populations
Low potential to
occur, foraging
habitat only
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT, CE Riparian forest nester, along the broad,
lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems
Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed
with cottonwoods, w/ lower story of blackberry,
nettles, or wild grape

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Danaus
plexippus
monarch butterfly FC Milkweed and flowering plants are needed for monarch habitat. Adult monarchs feed on
the nectar of many flowers during breeding
and migration, but they can only lay eggs on
milkweed plants
For overwintering monarchs, habitat with a
specific microclimate is needed for protection
from the elements, as well as moderate
temperatures to avoid freezing

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
FT Occurs only in the central valley of California,
in association with blue elderberry
(Sambucus mexicana)
Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8 inches in
diameter; some preference shown for “stressed”
elderberries

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Fresno kangaroo rat FE, CE Alkali sink-open grassland habitats in western Fresno County
Bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to seasonal
inundation, with more friable soil mounds around
shrubs & grasses

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Emys
marmorata
western pond turtle SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams & irrigation ditches,
usually with aquatic vegetation
Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km
from water for egg-laying

Absent: No habitat
onsite
337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
14 Euderma
maculatum
spotted bat SSC Occupies a wide variety of habitats from arid deserts and grasslands through mixed
conifer forests
Feeds over water and along washes. Feeds almost
entirely on moths. Needs rock crevices in cliffs or
caves for roosting

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Eumops
perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat SSC Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer & deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral etc.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings,
trees & tunnels

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Gymnogyps
californianus
California condor FE, CE Condors roost on large trees or snags, or on rocky outcrops and cliffs. Nests are located in
caves and ledges of steep rocky terrain or in
cavities and broken tops of old growth
conifers created by fire or wind
Foraging habitat includes open grasslands, oak
savanna foothills, and beaches adjacent to coastal
mountains

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
hardhead SSC Low to mid-elevation streams in the
Sacramento San Joaquin drainage. Also
present in the Russian river
Clear, deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder
bottoms & slow water velocity. Not found where
exotic centrarchids predominate

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned lizard SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes
Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches
of loose soil for burial, & abundant supply of ants
& other insects

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Spea
hammondii
western spadefoot SSC Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands
Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egglayingAbsent: No habitat onsite
Taxidea taxus American badger SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils
Needs sufficient food, friable soils & open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents.

Digs burrows

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell’s vireo FE, CE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft.

Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow, baccharis,
mesquite

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin kit fox FE, CT Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation
Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing,
and suitable prey base

Absent: No habitat
onsite
338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
15 PLANTS
Calycadenia
hooveri
Hoover’s calycadenia CNPS
1B.3
Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland
On exposed, rocky, barren soil. 65-260m. Absent: No habitat onsite
Carex comosa bristly sedge CNPS
2B.1
Marshes and swamps Lake margins, wet places. -5-1,005m. Absent: No habitat onsite (marsh on site
small, degraded, and
isolated)
Castilleja
campestris
var. succulenta
succulent owl’scloverFT, CE Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland Moist places, often in acidic soils. 25-750m. Absent: No habitat onsite
Caulanthus
californicus
California jewelflower FE, CE Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon-juniper woodland
Historical from various valley habitats in both the
Central Valley and Carrizo Plain. 65-900m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Downingia
pusilla
dwarf downingia CNPS
2B.2
Valley and foothill grassland (mesic sites),
vernal pools
Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of
associates. In several types of vernal pools. 1-
485m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Eryngium
spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled buttonceleryCNPS
1B.2
Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland Some sites on clay soil of granitic origin; vernal pools, within grassland. 100-420m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Imperata
brevifolia
California satintail CNPS
2B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub,
mojavean scrub, meadows and seeps (alkali)
Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 0-500m. Absent: No habitat onsite
Lagophylla
dichotoma
forked hare-leaf CNPS
1B.1
Sierra Nevada foothills, Sacramento Valley,
and San Joaquin Valley (UC Berkely, 2023c)
Grasslands, openings within woodlands. 50-400m
(UC Berkley, 2023c)

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Leptosiphon
serrulatus
Madera leptosiphon CNPS
1B.2
Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest
Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite in
woodland. 80-1575m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Navarretia
myersii ssp.

Myersii
pincushion navarretia CNPS
1B.1
Vernal pools Clay soils within nonnative grassland. 20-330 m. Absent: No habitat onsite
339
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
16 Orcuttia
inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass
FT, CE Vernal pools 15-660 m. Absent: No habitat
onsite
Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt grass FE, CE Vernal pools 45-200 m. Absent: No habitat onsite
Pseudobahia
bahiifolia
Hartweg’s golden
sunburst
FE, CE Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland
Clay soils, often acidic. Predominantly on the
northern slopes of knolls, but also along shady
creeks or near vernal pools

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
San Joaquin adobe
sunburst

FT, CE,
CNPS
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland
Grassy valley floors and rolling foothills in heavy
clay soil. 90-800m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford’s arrowhead CNPS
1B.2
Marshes and swamps In standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0-610m.

Absent: the drainage
ditch is not perennial,
and there are no
known occurrences
of this species in over
45 miles in over 30
years
Tuctoria
greenei
Greene’s tuctoria FE Vernal pools Dry bottoms of vernal pools in open grasslands. 30-1070m.

Absent: No habitat
onsite
*Definitions of Status Codes: FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as threatened; CE = California State listed as endangered; CT = California State listed as threatened; SSC = California species of special concern; CNPS List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California by CNPS; CNPS List 1B = CNPS designated rare or endangered plants in California and elsewhere; and CNPS List 2 = CNPS designated rare or endangered plants in California, but more common elsewhere. **Copied verbatim from CNDDB or USFWS ECOS/FWS Focus, unless otherwise noted. 340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
17 The following animals were detected during the field survey:
western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis); ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi); cat (Felis catus); dragonfly (Odonata); rock dove (Columba livia); and Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla).

No special-status species were detected during the field survey. No active bird nests were detected; however, the trees and structures in the Study Area provide nesting habitat.

Impact Assessment and Recommendations
Impact Significance Criteria
The significance of impacts to biological resources depends upon the proximity and quality of vegetation communities and wildlife habitats, the presence or absence of special-status species, and the effectiveness of measures implemented to protect these resources from Project-related impacts. For the purposes of this report, sensitive habitats include those that are considered by natural resource agencies to be of limited distribution, require permits for impacts, or are identified as limited in distribution or of local importance in local plans. In general, the following are considered when evaluating whether a significant impact to biological resources would occur:
 Direct or indirect impacts to sensitive habitats, including waters of the U.S. or State;  Interference with migratory wildlife corridors or the use of native wildlife nursery sites;  Direct or indirect impacts to special-status species;  Conflict with applicable policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or  Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved governmental habitat conservation plan.

Habitat Impacts
Vegetative Communities
Implementation of the Proposed Project will result in impacts to ruderal and developed habitat. These habitat types are highly modified from natural conditions and subject to ongoing disturbance. These habitats offer little value to plants and wildlife species and are not considered sensitive. Impacts to ruderal and developed habitats would not be considered significant and would not require mitigation.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
None.

Surface Water Resources
Surface water resources are generally considered sensitive habitats and additionally have the potential to be considered waters of the U.S. and/or State and subject to permitting under the federal Clean Water Act, State Porter-Cologne Act and California Fish and Game Code. Surface water resources within the Study Area that have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project include a freshwater marsh within a stormwater detention basin, and the West Branch Clovis Ditch. Both of these features are manmade, isolated, and do not offer suitable habitat to support special-status species. Aside from the freshwater marsh, the balance of the detention basin within the Study Area did not display hydrophytic 341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
18 vegetation, standing water, or other indicators of a surface water resource. Therefore, the balance of the stormwater detention basin is considered ruderal habitat.

The freshwater marsh is an isolated feature within a man-made basin. Under the current definition of a water of the U.S., isolated wetlands that are man-made and dug from uplands are not considered waters of the U.S. The current definition of waters of the State includes “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Per the State Policy for Water Quality Control:

State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, only certain artificial wetlands are considered waters of the State. The marsh was evaluated to determine if it met any of the conditions that would categorize it as a water of the State (Attachment D). The evaluation determined that the marsh failed to meet the conditions to be considered a water of the State.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was consulted and concurred with the evaluation that the marsh did not meet the definition of a water of the State and that permitting would not be required (Scroggins, pers. comm., 2023; Attachment D).

The West Branch Clovis Ditch is an isolated segment of a larger ditch that historically drained into Dry Creek. However, as shown on NWI and in City mapping, the historic Clovis Ditch is now broken into two segments, with the West Branch Clovis Ditch isolated from other surface water resources (USFWS, 2023b; City of Clovis, 2014). The West Branch Clovis Ditch is a man-made irrigation ditch that was constructed from uplands and drains into uplands. The majority of this feature is piped underground, with only a small portion daylighted and limited to the section crossing the Study Area. This feature was dry at the time of the survey and is not connected to other surface water resources. Under the current regulatory definition of waters of the U.S., isolated man-made drainage ditches that were dug from uplands and drain into uplands are not considered waters of the U.S. Therefore, the West Branch Clovis Ditch would not be considered a water of the U.S.

However, this feature still has the potential to be considered a water of the State. Certain waters of the State impacts are exempt from permitting requirements, including impacts to certain agricultural ditches.

Section IV.D(2c) of the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State provides the conditions under which an agricultural ditch is exempt from permitting (RWQCB, 2021). An evaluation of the West Branch Clovis Ditch found that it was likely exempt from permitting requirements (Attachment D). The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was consulted and concurred with the evaluation that the West Branch Clovis Ditch is a water of the State and that it met permit exemption conditions; therefore, permitting would not be required (Scroggins, pers. comm., 2023; Attachment D).

Additionally, impacts to the West Branch Clovis Ditch may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires notification be provided to CDFW for activities impacting a river, stream, or lake. While the West Branch Clovis Ditch is not likely considered a river, stream, or lake, CDFW was contacted to provide information on the Proposed Project and the West Branch Clovis Ditch. CDFW requested proof that the West Branch Clovis Ditch was an isolated, man-made feature dug from uplands. Supporting documents were provided to CDFW. No further information was requested by CDFW (Kitch, pers. comm., 2023).

During review of the freshwater marsh and West Branch Clovis Ditch, it was determined that these features are isolated, man-made, non-jurisdictional, and do not provide habitat for special-status species.

Therefore, impacts to these features would not be significant and mitigation would not be required. 342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
19 Potential indirect impacts to water resources could occur during construction by degradation from stormwater transport of sediment from disturbed soils or by accidental release of hazardous materials or petroleum products from sources such as heavy equipment servicing or refueling. This is a potentially significant impact. However, the Proposed Project would require enrollment under the State Water Quality Control Board’s Construction General Permit prior to the initiation of construction (for projects that disturb at least 1 acre of ground). In conjunction with enrollment under this Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be created and implemented during construction to avoid or minimize the potential for erosion, sedimentation, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Implementation of these measures mandated by law would reduce potential indirect construction-related impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
None.

Wildlife Corridors, Nursery Sites, and Other Habitat Features As discussed above, no wildlife corridors, nursery sites, or other unique habitat characteristics were observed within the Study Area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to these resources, and no mitigation would be warranted.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
None.

Special-status Species and Nesting Birds
During the field survey, no listed species or special-status species were observed within the Study Area.

No special-status animal species have a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Area. As discussed within Table 1, the Study Area has marginal habitat for two special-status species that have a low potential to occur within the Study Area, including:
 Burrowing owl: Burrowing owl may forage within the ruderal habitat and may utilize ground squirrel burrows on site. Although none were observed during the site survey, burrowing owl could migrate into the Project Area between the time that the field survey was completed and the start of construction. Should active burrowing owl burrows occur within the Study Area at the commencement of construction, disturbance to the burrows would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation presented below includes performing a preconstruction survey prior to impacts in order to confirm absence before groundbreaking and avoidance/exclusion of individuals should special-status animals be identified with compensation for loss of burrows.

With mitigation, impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant.  Swainson’s hawk: Swainson’s hawk may forage over the Study Area. The amount and quality of foraging habitat is minimal and low quality due to the ruderal and fragmented natural of the site in an urban setting. Per CDFW’s Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California, mitigation for foraging habitat is deemed necessary only for foraging habitat within 10 miles of an active Swainson’s hawk nest (CDFW, 1994). A query of CNDDB was run for occurrences of Swainson’s hawk within 10 miles of the Study Area, and there are no known occurrences of active (used within the past 5 years) Swainson’s hawk nests.

Therefore, impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would be less than significant and would not require mitigation.
343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
20 The Survey Area also contains suitable nesting habitat for various bird species because of the presence of trees and nearby structures. California Fish and Game Code protects nesting birds and their nests, and migratory birds are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. If construction activities commence, or recommence during a delay in activity, during the bird nesting season (February through August), nesting birds could be directly impacted by tree removal and indirectly impacted by noise, vibration, and other construction-related disturbance. Impacts to nesting birds during construction is considered a potentially significant impact. Recommended mitigation below requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to identify whether active nests exist in the vicinity of proposed construction activities.

If active nests are present, measures to avoid “take” of active nests will be implemented prior to the initiation of construction activities. With the implementation of mitigation, adverse impacts to specialstatus bird species and nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Recommended Mitigation Measures
Worker Training: Prior to construction, personnel shall complete worker environmental awareness training. The training shall present information on burrowing owls and notification procedures, and shall direct workers to halt work and allow individual burrowing owls to move off-site of their own accord.

Construction personnel shall provide signatures confirming completion of the training, and copies of the training shall be maintained and made available to applicable agencies upon request.

Burrowing owl: A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted in accordance with the “Take Avoidance Surveys” described in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012). If burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls is not observed, results shall be documented and no further action is necessary.

Should burrowing owl burrows be observed, CDFW shall be consulted to determine necessary avoidance or exclusion methods. Mitigation shall follow CDFW recommended measures in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012) and shall follow the below steps:
 If the burrows can be avoided, a qualified biologist shall demarcate a no-disturbance buffer around the burrows using high visibility fencing or pin flagging. The size of the buffer shall be established with CDFW and shall remain in place until construction is completed. Buffer sizes for burrowing owl, as detailed in CDFW’s Staff Report, range from 50 meters to 500 meters depending on the level of disturbance and timing of disturbance.
 Should full avoidance be infeasible, CDFW shall be consulted to identify appropriate exclusion methods to be implemented prior to removal of the burrows. Consistent with the CDFW Staff Report, exclusion would not occur until a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is approved by CDFW.  In order to mitigate for loss of burrows that are excluded, the Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall identify one of the following mitigation options, or a combination thereof, as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report “Mitigating Impacts” section:
o Creation of artificial burrows commensurate to the number of burrows excluded; o Permanent conservation of like habitat, such as a conservation easement; o Purchase of conservation bank credits; and/or
o An alternative mitigation strategy, as developed with and approved by CDFW.

Nesting Birds: If construction activities would occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a pre-construction survey for the presence of nesting bird species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist on and within 500 feet of proposed construction areas, as accessible. The survey shall 344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
21 occur within five days of the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are identified in these areas, one of the following should occur:
 A qualified biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer zone using high-visibility fencing or flagging. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the needs of the species. The buffer shall remain in place until either (1) construction activities are completed, (2) the conclusion of the nesting season, or (3) the qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest, or the nest has failed. If construction activities are halted for a period of more than 14 days, an additional preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted.

OR
 Commencement of construction activities shall be postponed until after the nesting season, or until after a qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and are independent of the nest site or the nest has failed.

Policies, Ordinances, Habitat Conservation Plans, and Natural Community Conservation Plans
The Study Area is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other biological plan area. The City of Clovis, however, requires a tree removal permit for removal of trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). As part of the permit process, an arborist report must be prepared to identify tree removal requiring permits. The tree removal permits also require mitigation, including avoidance of trees, replacement of trees, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination thereof. As a tree removal permit would be a condition of approval and would require mitigation, no additional mitigation would be necessary beyond the required permit acquisition.

Recommended Mitigation Measure
None.

Preparers and Qualifications
G.O. Graening, Ph.D., M.S.E.

Dr. Graening holds a Doctorate in Biological Sciences and a Master of Science in Biological Engineering and is a certified arborist (International Society of Arboriculture). Dr. Graening has 26 years of experience in environmental assessment and research, including the performance of numerous wetland delineations and aquatic restoration projects, USFWS permitted work for multiple bat species, and plant surveys. Dr.

Graening also served as an adjunct professor of biology at California State University Sacramento for 10 years and was an active researcher in the area of conservation biology and groundwater ecology.

Kelli Raymond, B.S.

Ms. Raymond holds a B.S. in Animal Biology with a focus on Wildlife Ecology. She has approximately 10 years of experience collecting field data and preparing environmental reports. Ms. Raymond has worked in several states across the U.S. performing biological resources surveys. She also has experience live handling numerous wildlife species, including fish, migratory birds, and big game. Ms. Raymond is experienced in the preparation of Biological Assessments and Section 7 consultation with both the USFWS and NMFS under the federal Endangered Species Act.
345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
22 References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual:

Vascular Plants of California, second edition, thoroughly revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1,600 pp.

City of Clovis, 2014. City of Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update Draft PEIR, Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. Available online at: https://cityofclovis.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-09-Hydrology-and-Water-Quality.pdf. Accessed October 2023.

Calflora. 2021. Calflora, the on-line gateway to information about native and introduced wild plants in California. Internet database available at http://calflora.org/. Accessed October 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), n.d. Life History Account for California glossy snake, part of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2763. Accessed October 2023.

CDFW, 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Velley of California. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83992&inline. Accessed October 2023.

CDFW, 2000. Life History Account for California Legless Lizard, part of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2733. Accessed October 2023.

CDFW, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available online at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline. Accessed October 2023.

CDFW, 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database. Queried via subscription. Limited public access available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. Accessed September 2023.

CDFW, 2023b. Wildlife Habitats - California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats. Accessed October 2023.

CDFW, 2023c. BIOS Data “Glossy Snake Range” layer R056 [ds1763]. Available online at:
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/. Accessed October 2023.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Available online at: https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/Advanced. Accessed September 2023.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 92 pp.

Kitch, James. Personal Communication (e-mail) from James Kitch, Environmental Scientist, Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. December, 2023.
346
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
23 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2023. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Available online at: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/. Accessed September 2023.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2021. State Policy for Water Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf. Accessed October 2023.

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. Digitized and updated by CNPS, available online at: https://www.cnps.org/vegetation/manual-of-california-vegetation. Accessed October 2023.

Scroggins, Matt. Personal communication (e-mail) from Matt Scroggins, Senior Water Resource Control Engineer for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 5. December 29, 2023.

University of California at Berkeley. 2023a. Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics. Jepson Flora Project, University Herbarium and Jepson Herbarium, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html. Accessed October 2023.

University of California at Berkeley. 2023b. CalPhotos. Biodiversity Sciences Technology Group, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/. Accessed October 2023.

University of California at Berkeley. 2023c. Jepson eFlora: Taxon Page: Lagophylla dichotoma. Available online at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=3716. Accessed October 2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/media/classification-wetlands-and-deepwaterhabitats-united-states. Accessed October 2023.

USFWS, 2023a. Information for Planning and Consultation. Available online at:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index. Accessed September 2023.

USFWS, 2023b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed September 2023.

USFWS, 2023c. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Available online at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbf b77. Accessed September 2023.
347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachments:

Attachment A – Desktop Review
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Attachment C – List of Observed Plants
Attachment D – Waters of the State Evaluation and SWRCB Consultation

348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachment A
Desktop Review

349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

September 28, 2023
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2023-0134904
Project Name: Golden Triangle
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   2
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   3
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   4

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0134904
Project Name: Golden Triangle
Project Type: Commercial Development
Project Description: Commercial center
Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.83276755,-119.70151542893993,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
353
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   5

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: U.S.A. only, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened
1 354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   6

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
09/28/2023   7

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Kelli Raymond
Address: 5170 Golden Foothill Parkway
City: El Dorado Hills
State: CA
Zip: 95762
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9162358224
356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Clovis Golden Triangle
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
October 2, 2023
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:7,523
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachment B
Site Photographs
359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

View of ruderal habitat and fencing on site. Ou�low of West Branch Clovis Ditch.

Por�on of West Branch Clovis Ditch within Study Area. View of graveled storage area within Study Area. 360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachment C
List of Observed Plants
361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Plants Observed at Golden Triangle, Clovis
on October 3, 2023
Common Name Scientific Name
Deerweed Acmispon glaber
Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima
Ragweed Ambrosia sp.

Pimpernel Anagallis arvense
Wild oat Avena barbata
Black mustard Brassica nigra
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus
Soft chess Bromus hordeaceus
Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus
Catalpa Catalpa sp.

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis
Dove weed Croton setiger
Tall flatsedge Cyperus eragrostis
Jimsonweed Datura sp.

Jungle rice Echinochloa sp.

Tall willowherb Epilobium brachycarpum
Horseweed Erigeron canadensis
Narrow-leaved ash Fraxinus angustifolia
Barley Hordeum murinum
English walnut Juglans regia
Rush Juncus effusus
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola
Crepe myrtle Lagerstroemia sp.

Sprangletop Leptochloa fusca
Mulberry Morus sp.

Date palm Phoenix dactylifera
Purple leaf plum Prunus cerasifera
Common plantain Plantago major
Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana
Rosemary Rosmarinus sp.

Russian thistle Salsola sp.

Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris
Vinegar weed Trichostema sp.

Cattail Typha sp.

Elm Ulmus pumila
362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachment D
Waters of the State
Evaluation and Consultation

363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Technical Memorandum
To: Matthew Scroggins, Senior Water Resource Control Engineer Regional Water Quality Control Board
From: Ryan Sawyer, AICP, Project Director
Acorn Environmental
Date: November 9, 2023
Subject: Clovis Golden Triangle Development Waste Discharge Requirements Permitting Introduction
This technical memorandum has been prepared to support the conclusion that aquatic permits are not required for the Development Plan and Master Site Plan for the Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center (PCC) (Proposed Project) in the City of Clovis. The Golden Triangle PCC consists of approximately 37 acres located southwest of the Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue intersection. The Study Area shown in Figure 1 identifies the boundary of project areas and ground disturbance and Figure 2 shows the location of isolated water resources. The purpose of this memorandum is to describe surface water resources present within the Study Area, to provide a historical account of these features, and to provide the rationale on why we understand these features to not be subject to permitting under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Surface Water Resources
Methodology
In order to identify surface water resources, the following were completed:
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed (Attachment 1)
- Historic and current aerials were reviewed
- The Fresno Irrigation District was consulted
- Acorn senior biologist Dr. G.O. Graening conducted a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the Study Area on October 3, 2023
As a result of the above, it was determined that two water resources occur within the Study Area:
a portion of the West Branch Clovis Ditch, and a freshwater marsh located at the base of a stormwater detention basin. These features are discussed in detail below, and images are provided in Figure 3.
364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

FIGURE 1

AERIAL OVERVIEW
0 250 500 Feet
Legend
PCC Boundary
Study Area
Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community, Maxar
s
365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Marsh observed at the base of stormwater deten�on pond within the Study Area
West Branch Clovis Ditch crossing the Study Area
366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Legend
c::::I PCC Boundary
I= I Study Area
Water Resources
l=I Detention Basin
- Marsh
D West Branch Clovis Ditch
Airbus,USGS,NGA,NASA,CGIAR,NCEAS,NLS,OS,NMA,Geodatastyrelsen,GSA,GSI and the GIS User Community, Maxar
0 250 500 Feet
FIGURE 3

WATER RESOURCES
367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

West Branch Clovis Ditch
The NWI reported a single surface water resource within the Study Area. This feature is listed as “Riverine” habitat and bisects the Study Area in an east to west direction. This feature was identified in the field as a portion of the West Branch Clovis Ditch, which is a manmade agricultural irrigation ditch. This feature is an earthen trapezoidal ditch that is approximately 12 feet wide at the top and 4 feet deep. The channel bottom is lined with hydrophytic vegetation, including tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), common rush (Juncus effusus), and cattail (Typha).

The West Branch Clovis Ditch was dry at the time of the survey.

The Clovis Ditch historically was a 4.5 mile man-made agricultural irrigation ditch that began at a head gate on the Enterprise Canal where it crossed Herndon Avenue to the east, terminating at a channelized section of Dry Creek. Originally constructed as an earthen open-cut ditch, the conveyance is now piped underground for more than 95% of its length; the only portion left that is daylighted is the portion that crosses the project site. The West Branch Clovis Ditch is a portion of the larger Clovis Ditch that has since become fragmented from the balance of the irrigation network and is now isolated. The West Branch Clovis Ditch was dug from uplands and drains into uplands. While precise impacts have not yet been defined, it is expected that the ditch will be rerouted away from development areas within the Study Area in coordination with the Fresno Irrigation District.

Marsh
A man-made stormwater detention basin occurs within the Study Area. The majority of this basin has upland vegetation (primarily European annual grasses) and does not fit the regulatory definition of a wetland. A small poorly-drained area (0.06 acres in size), identified as a freshwater marsh, is located in the southwest corner of the basin and contains hydrophytic vegetation such as tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and common rush (Juncus effusus).

The stormwater detention basin is a man-made feature operated by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District and dug wholly from uplands. The stormwater detention basin was established to serve the Study Area exclusively and does not have a hydrological connection to other surface water resources. Currently, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District is in the process of installing a stormwater collection system, and it is expected that an abandonment agreement will be in place for this stormwater detention basin prior to construction.

Waters of the State Determination
West Branch Clovis Ditch
Under the current regulatory definition of waters of the U.S., isolated man-made drainage ditches that were dug from uplands and drain into uplands are not considered waters of the U.S.

Therefore, the West Branch Clovis Ditch would not be considered a water of the U.S. However, this feature still has the potential to be considered a water of the State. Under the current definition of waters of the State, the term is defined to include any surface water or groundwater, 368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. Therefore, it appearsthat the portion of the West Branch Clovis Ditch within the Study Area is considered a water of the State.

Marsh
As discussed above, the marsh was generated artificially by the creation of a man-made stormwater detention basin. Under the current definition of a water of the U.S., isolated wetlands that are man-made and dug from uplands are not considered waters of the U.S.

However, this feature still has the potential to be considered a water of the State. Per the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, only certain artificial wetlands are considered waters of the State. The table below itemizes the conditions that would merit classification of an artificial wetland as a water of the State, along with a rationale as to whether or not the marsh meets the criteria.

Condition (State Policy for Water
Quality Control: State Wetland
Definition and Procedures for
Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material to Waters of the State,
Section II)
Meets
condition? Rationale
Approved by an agency as
compensatory mitigation for impacts
to other waters of the state, except
where the approving agency explicitly
identifies the mitigation as being of
limited duration
No The stormwater detention basin was
created for stormwater collection and
treatment; therefore, the marsh is not
part of a compensatory mitigation
program.

Specifically identified in a water
quality control plan as a wetland or
other water of the state
No The marsh is within a manmade
stormwater detention basin and is not
a component of a water quality control
plan.

Resulted from historic human
activity, is not subject to ongoing
operation and maintenance, and has
become a relatively permanent part
of the natural landscape
No Although the marsh resulted from
historic human activity, the entirety of
the stormwater detention basin is
presently operated and maintained by
the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District
Greater than or equal to one acre in
size, unless the artificial wetland was
constructed, and is currently used
and maintained, primarily for one or
more of the following purposes:

No The marsh is less than one acre in size.

Additionally, the marsh is within a
stormwater detention basin operated
and maintained by the Fresno
Metropolitan Flood Control District,
which satisfies purpose iii.
369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

i. Industrial or municipal
wastewater treatment or
disposal
ii. Settling of sediment
iii. Detention, retention,
infiltration, or treatment
of stormwater runoff and
other pollutants or runoff
subject to regulation
under a municipal,
construction, or industrial
stormwater permitting
program
iv. Treatment of surface
waters
v. Agricultural crop irrigation
or stock watering
vi. Fire suppression
vii. Industrial processing or
cooling
viii. Active surface mining –
even if the site is managed
for interim wetlands
functions and values
ix. Log storage
x. Treatment, storage, or
distribution of recycled
water
xi. Maximizing groundwater
recharge
xii. Fields flooded for rice
growing
Based on the discussion above, it appears that the marsh does not meet the definition of a water of the State.

WDR Permitting Need Analysis
West Branch Clovis Ditch
In general, features that do not meet the definition of a water of the U.S. but do meet the definition of a water of the State are subject to permitting requirements as dictated by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Impacts to waters of the State, under the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, would generally require acquisition of a Waste Discharge 370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Requirement permit. However, the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State provides exemptions for certain ditches. The table below outlines the conditions for exemption satisfied by the West Branch Clovis Ditch. The West Branch Clovis Ditch need only satisfy one exemption, however, the table below identifies all exemptions that the ditch satisfies for the sake of thoroughness.

Condition (State Policy for Water Quality
Control: State Wetland Definition and
Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material to Waters of the State, Section
IV.D(2c))
Rationale
Agricultural ditches with ephemeral flow that
are not a relocated water of the state or
excavated in a water of the state
The West Branch Clovis Ditch is owned by the
Fresno Irrigation District and was constructed
as an agricultural irrigation ditch. The ditch
has ephemeral flow and was dry at the time of
the survey. The ditch was dug from uplands by
the Fresno Irrigation District and did not
relocate a natural surface water.

Agricultural ditches with intermittent flow
that are not a relocated water of the state or
excavated in a water of the state, or that do
not drain wetlands other than any wetlands
described in sections (iv) or (v)
The West Branch Clovis Ditch is owned by the
Fresno Irrigation District and was constructed
as an agricultural irrigation ditch. The ditch
has intermittent flow and was dry at the time
of the survey. This feature is isolated and does
not drain into other surface waters. As noted
above, the ditch is wholly piped underground
except for where it crosses the Study Area.

Agricultural ditches that do not flow, either
directly or through another water, into
another water of the state
The West Branch Clovis Ditch is owned by the
Fresno Irrigation District and was constructed
as an agricultural irrigation ditch. As noted
above, this feature is isolated and does not
flow into other waters.

Based on the discussion above, the West Branch Clovis Ditch appears to be a water of the State that is exempt from Waste Discharge Requirement permitting.

Marsh
As discussed above, the marsh does not appear to meet the definition of a water of the State.

Therefore, the marsh would not require Waste Discharge Requirement permitting. 371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Conclusion
We respectfully submit this information for review and request that the Regional Water Quality Control Board provide a response on whether it concurs with the above findings and rationale. 372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

From: Scroggins, Matt@Waterboards
To: Jeff Milgrom
Cc: Ryan Sawyer; Kelli Raymond; Eric Tienken; Hal Lore; Bryan Pok; Roger Hurtado Subject: RE: Waste Discharge Requirement Permitting Need - Golden Triangle Clovis, CA Date: Friday, December 29, 2023 9:02:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi Jeff,
I’ve reviewed the Technical Memorandum prepared by Acorn Environmental. As identified in the Technical Memorandum, the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) defines what features are considered wetlands, what wetlands are waters of the state, and what activities/areas are excluded from the Procedures. The Technical Memorandum provides documentation supporting findings that 1) the marsh in the stormwater detention basin is not a water of the state per the Procedures, and 2) the discharge of fill to West Branch Clovis Ditch is excluded from the Procedure’s application requirements. My review found no basis to object to such findings.

Based on the finding that the marsh in the stormwater detention basin is not a water of the state per the Procedures, no dredge/fill permitting from our agency is required for impacts to the stormwater detention basin. While dredge/fill impacts to West Branch Clovis Ditch appear to be excluded from the Procedures’ application requirements per Section IV.D.2.c of the Procedures, the Procedures make clear that the Water Boards can decide to otherwise regulate a dredge/fill project to the extent authorized by the California Water Code. In other words, the Central Valley Water Board has the discretion to require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges of dredged or fill material to West Branch Clovis Ditch. However, due to the isolated nature of West Branch Clovis Ditch, the limited habitat value of the ditch, the project location, the nature of downstream waters, etc., Central Valley Water Board staff does not propose to require a Report of Waste Discharge or regulate the discharge of dredge/fill material to West Branch Clovis Ditch under WDRs.

Notwithstanding the above, the project proponent is expected to implement best management practices during the project to prevent impacts to water quality, including, but not limited to, erosion and sediment control measures, and site management measures for equipment and materials that could potentially be a threat to water quality if discharged. Other Water Board permits such as the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit may be necessary for the development of the project area. Also, the decision to not issue WDRs is applicable to the specific project area identified in the Technical Memorandum and is not intended to set a precedent for future activities.

Legacy Construction should notify the Central Valley Water Board of other proposed projects in order to determine if a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or WDRs are required and to address any water quality concerns.

Lastly, the Central Valley Water Board reserves the right to investigate and take enforcement as appropriate for any discharges that are causing, or are threatening to cause, nuisance/pollution conditions.
373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

EXTERNAL:

Let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter.

Regards,
-Matt ================================================= ==== Matthew S. Scroggins, P.E. Senior Water Resource Control Engineer NPDES Wastewater Permitting/Stormwater/Dredge & Fill Unit Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5) – Fresno 1685 “E” Street Fresno, CA 93706 Phone: 559-445-6042
From: Jeff Milgrom <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 5:16 PM
To: Scroggins, Matt@Waterboards <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Sawyer <[email protected]>; Kelli Raymond <[email protected]>; Eric Tienken <[email protected]>; Hal Lore <[email protected]>; Bryan Pok <[email protected]>; Roger Hurtado <[email protected]> Subject: Waste Discharge Requirement Permitting Need - Golden Triangle Clovis, CA Mr. Scroggins,
Please find attached a technical memorandum prepared by our consultant Acorn Environmental to support the conclusion that aquatic permits are not required for the Development Plan and Master Site Plan for the Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center (PCC) (Proposed Project) in the City of Clovis. We request your office's review and concurrence with these findings. Please let me know if you would like any additional information to support your review. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Thank you,
Jeff Milgrom
Sr. Development Manager
Mobile: 559.977.0748
Office: 559.291.1922
Fax: 559.314.6190
5390 E Pine Ave,
Fresno, CA 93727
CSLB License # 891883
374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Report
375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
385
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
386
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
387
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
388
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
389
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
390
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
391
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
392
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
393
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
394
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
395
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
396
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
397
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
398
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
399
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
400
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
401
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
402
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
403
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
404
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
405
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
406
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
407
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
408
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
409
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
410
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
411
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
412
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
413
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
414
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
415
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
416
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
417
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
418
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
419
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
420
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
421
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
422
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
423
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
424
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
425
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
426
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
427
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
428
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
429
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
430
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
431
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
432
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
433
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
434
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
435
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
436
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
437
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
438
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
439
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
440
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
441
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
442
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
443
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
444
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
445
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
447
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
448
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
449
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
450
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
451
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
452
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
453
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
454
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
455
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
456
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
457
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
458
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
459
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
460
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
461
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
462
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
463
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
464
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
465
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
466
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
467
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
468
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
469
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
470
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
471
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
472
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
473
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
474
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
475
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
476
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
477
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
478
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
479
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
480
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
481
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
482
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
483
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
484
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
485
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
486
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
487
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
488
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
489
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
490
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
491
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
492
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
493
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
494
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
495
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
496
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
497
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
498
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
499
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
500
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
501
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
502
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
503
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX D
Noise Memorandum
504
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
(559) 217-4763
May 15, 2024
Mr. Jeff Milgrom, Senior Development Manager
Legacy Realty & Development
5390 E. Pine Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
RE: Clovis Golden Triangle Noise Memorandum
Dear Mr. Jeff Milgrom:

JK Consulting Group prepared the following Noise memorandum for the proposed update to the Development Plan and Master Site Plan for the Golden Triangle Planned Commercial Center (PCC). This will allow for the development of three luxury car dealerships, a brewery/restaurant, and future commercial uses consistent with the proposed zoning for the property. The Golden Triangle Planned PCC (Project) is located on approximately 13.64 acres of land, southwest of the Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue intersection. The Project is bounded by Magill Avenue-State Route (SR) 168 to the north, the Clovis Old Town Trail to the south, and Clovis Avenue to the east. The Project location and site plan are depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing noise environment is characterized by ambient noise levels in the Project area. Table 1 summarizes ambient noise levels in the Project area considering existing noise level measurements. Shortterm monitoring was conducted at two (2) locations on Wednesday, January 17th, using a Reed Instruments Model R8080 Type 2 sound level meter. The calibration of the meter was checked before and after the measurements using a Reed Instruments Model R8090 sound level calibrator. The determination of noise impacts associated with Project is based upon ambient (baseline) noise levels in the study area and City of Clovis noise standards. Traffic noise from vehicles along Clovis Avenue, Herndon Avenue, and SR 168 are the major noise sources in the Project area. Other sources of noise include stationary sources from various land uses (i.e., commercial, residential, and industrial).

A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to operational and construction noise impacts from the proposed Project. The Project site is located to the east of Clovis Avenue between Magill Avenue-SR 168 and the Clovis Old Town Trail. There are single-family and multifamily residences southwest of the Project, adjacent to the Clovis Old Town Trail. In addition, there is a hotel (Fairfield Inn & Suites), California Health Sciences University, and medical office building(s) immediately to the south of the Project. There are also commercial and office uses to the north and east of the Project site. Noise abatement is generally evaluated in cases where frequent human use occurs and where a lowered noise level would be of benefit. Accordingly, this impact analysis focuses on locations with interior and exterior noise standards as defined by the City of Clovis General Plan, such as residential backyards and common use areas. Sensitive receptors in the Project study area are depicted in Figure 3.

Sensitive receptors are defined as areas sensitive to noise or areas where occupants are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of noise pollution.
505
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 506
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 507
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 1

EXISTING (AMBIENT) NOISE LEVELS

RECEIVER ID LOCATION

EXISTING
(BASELINE)

NOISE LEVEL
Leq dBA
1 Clovis Avenue,
south of Palo Alto Avenue
(50 ft. west of Roadway Centerline)

74.0 2 Western portion of Project site
(90 ft. east of Old Town Clovis Trail) 68.5
Source: JK C onsulting Group, LLC
508
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 509
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com

REGULATORY SETTING
City of Clovis General Plan
The Environmental Safety Element of the City of Clovis General Plan Policy Document provides noise guidelines for the City of Clovis and establishes the following goals and policies that would be applicable to the Project:
 Policy 3.1 Land Use Compatibility – Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility as shown in Table 2 and the city’s noise ordinance.  Policy 3.2 Land Use and Traffic Patterns – Discourage land use and traffic patterns that would expose sensitive land uses or noise-sensitive areas to unacceptable noise levels.  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 3.6 Noise Impacts – Minimize or eliminate persistent, periodic, or impulsive noise impacts of business operations.
 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.

The City of Clovis’ Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Energy Average (CNEL) is provided in Table 3.

City of Clovis Municipal Code
The City of Clovis Municipal Code or “Clovis Municipal Code” provides rules, regulations, or standards for the City of Clovis and establishes the following unlawful noise related nuisances that would be applicable to the Project:
 5.27.601 Loud Noise – The making or continuing, or causing to be made and continued, of any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivities residing on the property or in the area, shall be considered a nuisance.
 5.27.602 Noise and Other Activities During Specified Hours – No person shall make, or cause or suffer or permit to be made or caused, on any premises owned or occupied by him/her, between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any Friday or Saturday, or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any other day, any sporting, business, or social event, race, or other activity in such manner as to disturb the peace and quiet of any neighborhood.
510
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
 5.27.604 Construction Activities – Unless otherwise expressly provided by permit, construction activities are only permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. From June 1st through September 15th, permitted construction activity may commence after 6:00 a.m. Monday through Friday.

Extended construction work hours must at all times be in strict compliance with the permit.

PROJECT RELATED NOISE IMPACTS
Assessment Criteria
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of Project impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or applicable standards of other agencies. Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if 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?
 Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 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? Noise Impacts
Construction noise impacts (short-term) are related to development of the Project. The Project has the potential to result in short-term noise impacts to surrounding land uses due to construction activity.

Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels and includes activities such as site preparation, grading, and other construction-related activities. Long-Term impacts relate to the operation of the Project and include noise generated from site operations and increased traffic in the study area as a result of the Project. Noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project were evaluated to determine if the Project will result in significant impacts on the environment. 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?
 Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Development or construction of the Project would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity due to construction equipment use. On-site construction noise impacts were evaluated by determining the noise levels generated by different types of construction activity and calculating the constructionrelated noise level at nearby sensitive receptor locations. The distance between construction site noise sources and the surrounding sensitive receptors were measured using the Project site plan and Google 511
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
Earth. Typical construction activities related to building construction generate noise levels of 74 to 84 dBA at 50 feet as shown in Table 4.

The nearest sensitive receptor(s) to the Project site (75 to 200 feet from building construction activities – See Figure 4) would be subject to short-term noise levels reaching 66 to 76 dBA Lmax from Project related construction activities considering typical construction activities as shown in Table 4 and noise attenuation due to distance. While noise from construction activities would be intermittent, it was assumed that a sound level of 76 dBA Lmax occurs for a constant duration of 15 minutes each hour during the twelvehour construction window (7:00am to 7:00pm) as determined by the City of Clovis noise ordinance. A baseline (ambient) sound level of 68 dBA was assumed for the remaining 45-minutes. An ambient sound level of 55 dBA was assumed between 7pm and 10pm and 50 dBA was assumed between 10pm and 7am.

This results in a sound level of 67 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at adjacent sensitive receptors (nearest) considering Project construction operations. A sound level of 64 dBA CNEL is expected, absent Project construction operations, assuming an ambient sound level of 68 dBA for the morning, midday, and afternoon peak hours (3-hour window for each), 55 Leq(h) dBA for the remaining 6-daytime hours, and 50 Leq(h) dBA for the nighttime hours. The increase in noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors is 3 dBA with the addition of noise from Project construction operations. It should be noted that the City of Clovis does not have an established threshold for noise exposure due to a project’s construction operations. For the purposes of this analysis, construction operations associated with the Project would result in a significant impact if interior noise levels established by the City of Clovis (Table 3) were exceeded. It should be noted that interior noise levels are 20-25 dB’s less than exterior noise levels with windows and doors closed according to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 1st, 2018.

Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum of 76 dBA Lmax at 125 feet, causing short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect would be an approximately 3 dBA increase in the ambient noise environment when averaged over 24 hours considering existing (ambient) noise levels in the study area. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB’s are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted that human perceptibility begins at increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. In other words, the changes in noise levels over 24 hours considering Project construction noise would just be perceptible to the normal human ear. Figure 5 shows the maximum interior noise levels at sensitive receptors considering Project construction operations. Results show that noise generated from Project construction activities would not exceed the interior noise levels of the respective land use categories as outlined in Table 3. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with the Project would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. As a result, mitigation measures are not required. It should be noted that Project construction operations must comply with Section 5.27.604 of the City of Clovis Municipal Code which sets the hours of construction between 7:00am and 7:00pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9:00am and 5:00pm on Saturday and Sunday. From June 1st through September 15th, construction activity may start after 6am, Monday through Friday.
512
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 2

LAND USE AND NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX

LAND USES
Example Land Uses < 55 60 65 70 75 80>
Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, meeting hall B B C C D D D Mobile home A A B C C D D
Hospital, library, school, faith/religious uses A A B C C D D Hotel, motel, transient lodging A A B B C C D
Single family, multifamily, faith/religious uses A A B B C D D Parks A A A B C D D
Office building, research & development, professional office, city office building, and hotel A A A B B C D
Amusement park, miniature golf, go-cart track, health club, equestrian center A A A B B D D
Golf courses, nature centers, cemeteries, wildlife reserves, wildlife habitat A A A A B C C
Commercial retail, bank, restaurant, movie theater A A A A B B C Automobile service station, auto dealer, manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities A A A A B B B
Agriculture A A A A A A A
Notes:

Compatibility zones indicate the degree to which the land uses listed are compatible with the noise levels (CNEL) shown in the table. Z o ne A . Clearly Compatible. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

ENERGY AVERAGE (CNEL)
Z o ne B . Normally Compatible. New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Z o ne D . Clearly Incompatible. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

So urce: C ity o f C lo vis General P lan, A ugust 2014 Z o ne C . Normally Incompatible. New construction or development should normally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis or noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. 513
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 3

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS ENERGY AVERAGE (CNEL) Primary Land Uses Additional Uses Allowed Interior1
Exterior2
Single Family, Multifamily 453
/554657 Mobile Home -- 655 Hotel, motel, transient lodging 45 656 Commercial, retail, bank, restaurant 55 -- Office building, professional office, research &
development 50 --
Gymnasium (Multipurpose) 50 --
Health clubs 55 --
Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities 65 --
Hospital, school classroom 45 65
Church, library 45 --
Open Space Parks -- 65

5. Multi-family developments with balconies that do not meet the 65 CNEL are required to provide occupancy disclosure notices to all future tenants regarding potential noise impacts.

6. Exterior noise level shall be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL.

7. Except those areas affected by aircraft noise.

Source: City of Clovis General Plan, August 2014

3. Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to Appendix C hapter 12, Section 1208 of UBC .

4. Noise level requirement with open windows, if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirement.

Notes:

1. Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.

2. Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single family or multifamily residences private patio which is accessed by a means of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.

LAND USE CATEGORIES ENERGY AVERAGE (CNEL)
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Institutional
514
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 4

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE

EQUIPMENT

CATEGORY
Measured Sound Levels
(dBA Lmax @ 50 feet)
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Boring Jack Power Unit 83
Chain Saw 84
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Generator 81
Horizontal Boring Hydraulic Jack 82
Paver 77
Roller 80
Scraper 84
Tractor 84
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80
Welder/Torch 74
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Construction Noise Handbook , August 2006
515
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 516
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com

517
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
 Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
Traffic noise in the study area is primarily generated from traffic along Clovis Avenue, Herndon Avenue, and SR 168 given their connectivity to numerous areas throughout the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area.

The Environmental Safety Element of the City of Clovis General Plan Policy Document shows that the projected noise level along Clovis Avenue, Herndon Avenue, and SR 168 in the Future (2035) is approximately 60 to 70 dBA CNEL as depicted in Figure 6. This is the anticipated noise level in the future at approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerline. New trips generated by the Project would primarily use Clovis Avenue and Herndon Avenue.

The Project will generate approximately 8,881 Daily Trips, 628 AM Peak Hour Trips, and 840 PM Peak Hour Trips. Section 6.3.3 (Fundamentals of Traffic Noise) of the Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol by Caltrans indicates that it takes a doubling of traffic to increase noise levels by 3 dB’s.

The addition of Project trips will not double the amount of existing or future traffic in the Project area.

Traffic volumes at the Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue intersection shows that Clovis Avenue between Herndon Avenue and Sierra Avenue has an existing AM and PM peak hour segment volume of 1,140 and 2,185, respectively. The increase in traffic along Clovis Avenue as a result of the Project is approximately 475 trips in the AM Peak Hour and 581 trips in the PM Peak Hour. The increase in traffic noise levels along Clovis Avenue and the surrounding study area would be less than 3 dB with the addition of Project traffic.

As noted previously, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB’s are generally not perceptible by the human ear.

Noise levels at sensitive receptors, as depicted in Figure 7, were estimated using existing traffic volumes in the study area and the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 3.1. To calibrate the TNM, existing traffic counts, posted speed limits, and other data were added to the TNM. Appropriate adjustment factors were applied to modeled receptors based on existing measured noise levels as depicted in Table 1. Projected traffic volumes for Exiting Plus Project, Near-Term, and Cumulative Year scenarios, as identified in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the Project, and TNM 3.1 was used to estimate noise levels at sensitive receptors in the study area. Tables 5, 6, and 7 provide the predicted noise levels at sensitive receptors for Existing Plus Project, Near-Term No Project, Near-Term Plus Project, Cumulative Year (2046) No Project, and Cumulative Year (2046) Plus Project conditions. Results of the analysis show that the increase in noise levels, as a result of the Project, would be 1 dB or less.

According to Caltrans’ Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), the CNEL is estimated to be within plus or minus 2 dB’s of the peak hour Leq under normal traffic conditions. Cumulative Year (2046) Plus Project noise levels at sensitive receptors are within the City of Clovis’ Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix (Table 2) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Energy Average (Table 3) noise criteria as defined in the City of Clovis General Plan. It should be noted that interior noise levels are 20-25 dB’s less than exterior noise levels with windows and doors closed according to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 1st, 2018.

The existing estimated noise levels at sensitive receptors 13 and 14 are 70 and 68 Leq(h) dBA, respectively, which is a result of their proximity to SR 168. The estimated noise levels at sensitive receptors 13 and 14, 518
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
as shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7, are reflective of peak hour traffic conditions along SR 168. Exterior noise levels would be reduced during off-peak and nighttime conditions. Assuming 70 Leq(h) dBA for the morning, mid-day, and afternoon peak hours (3-hour window for each), 55 Leq(h) dBA for the remaining 6-daytime hours, and 50 Leq(h) dBA for the nighttime hours (9pm-6am), sensitive receptors 13 and 14 would experience exterior noise levels of 64 – 66 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels are within the City of Clovis noise criteria and the roadway noise levels contours shown in Figure 6. Therefore, operational related noise impacts associated with Project traffic would result in a less than significant impact on noisesensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. Mitigation measures are not required.  Project Related Stationary Point-Source Noise

While the predominant source of noise in the Project area is related to traffic noise along Clovis Avenue, Herndon Avenue, and SR 168, stationary point-source noise impacts were evaluated considering Project operations. Noise from Project operations would be consistent with other commercial/office type developments in the City of Clovis.

Drive-Thru/Customer Order Display
Noise will be generated from two restaurant drive-thrus located at the northeast corner of the Project site. The drive-thru customer order displays and idling vehicles are the most common stationary noise source generated by restaurant drive-thrus. The estimated noise level from customer order displays and idling vehicles is reflected in Table 8 and includes data from three (3) independent sources. For purposes of this analysis, the highest noise levels reflected in Table 8 were used to estimate impacts associated with the Project.

Truck Deliveries
Reference noise levels at an Albertson’s Shopping Center (Ldn Consulting 2011/San Diego) was used to conservatively estimate noise from truck deliveries at the Project site. The measurements include truck drive-by noise and a single truck’s engine noise. Noise levels were measured at 66.5 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that trucks would idle for no more than five minutes due to state air quality requirements. As a result, it is estimated that trucks would operate for up to 15 minutes of the total time required during the delivery process (five minutes for arrival, five minutes of idling, and five minutes during departure). The average hourly noise levels from truck deliveries (assuming one delivery completed over an hour period) would equate to 60.5 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet.

Dealership Repair Shop
The Project includes the development of a dealership repair shop(s) which also generates noise with the potential to impact sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and the Exposure Assessment in Auto Collision Repair Shops show that typical tools associated with a repair shops generate noise levels of 90 dBA at the sound source (5 feet). While repair shop work would be performed indoors, to be conservative, it was assumed that repairs would be performed outdoors with no noise attenuation from building interior/exterior. 519
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
HVAC Units
HVAC units would be associated with the development of the Project site. Specific equipment/data for HVAC units to be included with the development of the Project was not known at the time this analysis was prepared. Representative sound power levels for the 2-ton Carrier 38HDRD018 was used for this analysis since it is a HVAC unit used for commercial type buildings. The manufacturer’s noise data (See attachments for specifications) indicates a standard noise rating of 68 dBA at 25 feet.

Cumulative Project Related Stationary Noise Sources
Caltrans’ Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013) provides methodology (Table 9) for determining the approximate noise level at sensitive receptors considering multiple noise sources. This methodology was used in determining impacts to sensitive receptors in the Project area as depicted in Figure 4. Table 10 shows the maximum noise levels generated by the restaurant drive-thrus, truck deliveries, dealership repair shops, and the HVAC units at a distance of 100 feet. Figure 8 shows the maximum noise levels at sensitive receptors considering Project site operations. Results show that stationary noise sources would not exceed 54 dBA considering the combined noise generated by the drive-thru customer display-idling vehicle area, truck deliveries, dealership repair shops, and HVAC unit.

This equates to 60 dBA CNEL assuming adjacent sensitive receptors were solely impacted by Project stationary noise sources that operated for a 24-hour period. Impacts from Project stationary noise sources at sensitive receptors are within the City of Clovis’ Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix (Table 2) and Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Energy Average (Table 3) noise criteria as defined in the City of Clovis General Plan. Therefore, operational related noise impacts associated with Project stationary noise sources would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. Mitigation measures are not required.
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Ground-borne vibration impacts were evaluated by identifying potential vibration sources and measuring the distance between vibration sources and surrounding structure locations. It should be noted that the City of Clovis does not have established criteria for vibration impacts. However, the City of Clovis General Plan relies upon Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria in determining acceptable levels of groundborne vibration and vibration thresholds in terms of human annoyance. As shown in Table 5.12-3 (Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings for Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels) of the City of Clovis General Plan, a velocity level of 0.02 in/sec PPV is barely perceptible by human beings while 0.08 in/sec PPV is distinctly perceptible. A vibration threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV was used to estimate the impact of vibrations from construction activities associated with the Project.

The predicted vibration velocity levels for sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project are predicted to approach 0.026 in/sec using a Vibratory Roller level (0.210 at 25ft) as shown in Table 11. The level of vibration generated by the Project's construction phase is considered less than significant based on vibration velocity levels presented in Table 11 and the location of sensitive receptors as shown in Figure

4. As a result, mitigation measures are not required.
520
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 521
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 522
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 5

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT NOISE CONDITONS

SENSITIVE

RECEPTOR ID LAND USE

ESTIMATED

EXISTING NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

EXISTING PLUS

PROJECT NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

CHANGE IN NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA
3 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0
4 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0
5 Office/Commercial 65.0 66.0 1.0
6 Office/Commercial 66.0 66.0 0.0
7 Office/Commercial 66.0 66.0 0.0
8 Residential 62.0 62.0 0.0
9 Residential 62.0 62.0 0.0
10 Institutional 63.0 64.0 1.0
11 Residential 61.0 62.0 1.0
12 Residential 61.0 62.0 1.0
13 Residential 70.0 71.0 1.0
14 Residential 68.0 69.0 1.0
Source: JK C onsulting Group, LLC
523
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 6

NEAR-TERM NOISE CONDITONS

SENSITIVE

RECEPTOR ID LAND USE

NEAR-TERM NO

PROJECT NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

NEAR-TERM PLUS

PROJECT NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

CHANGE IN NOISE
LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA
3 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0
4 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0
5 Office/Commercial 66.0 66.0 0.0
6 Office/Commercial 66.0 67.0 1.0
7 Office/Commercial 66.0 67.0 1.0
8 Residential 62.0 63.0 1.0
9 Residential 62.0 63.0 1.0
10 Institutional 64.0 65.0 1.0
11 Residential 62.0 62.0 0.0
12 Residential 61.0 62.0 1.0
13 Residential 70.0 71.0 1.0
14 Residential 68.0 69.0 1.0
Source: JK C onsulting Group, LLC
524
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 7
CUMULATIVE YEAR (2046) NOISE CONDITONS
TABLE 8

REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

SENSITIVE

RECEPTOR ID LAND USE

CUMULATIVE YEAR

NO PROJECT NOISE LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

CUMULATIVE YEAR

PLUS PROJECT

NOISE LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

CHANGE IN NOISE LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

ESTIMATED

EXISTING NOISE LEVEL
Leq(h) dBA

CHANGE IN NOISE

LEVEL FROM

EXISTING
Leq(h) dBA
3 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0 67.0 1.0
4 Office/Commercial 67.0 68.0 1.0 67.0 1.0
5 Office/Commercial 66.0 66.0 0.0 65.0 1.0
6 Office/Commercial 66.0 67.0 1.0 66.0 1.0
7 Office/Commercial 66.0 67.0 1.0 66.0 1.0
8 Residential 62.0 63.0 1.0 62.0 1.0
9 Residential 62.0 63.0 1.0 62.0 1.0
10 Institutional 64.0 65.0 1.0 63.0 2.0
11 Residential 62.0 62.0 0.0 61.0 1.0
12 Residential 62.0 62.0 0.0 61.0 1.0
13 Residential 70.0 71.0 1.0 70.0 1.0
14 Residential 68.0 69.0 1.0 68.0 1.0
Source: JK Consulting Group, LLC

NOISE SOURCE
Distance
from Noise
Source
(feet)
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Two Drive-Thru Customer Order Displays and Idling Vehicles 1

20.0 64.0
One Drive-Thru Customer Order Display and Idling Vehicles 2

20.0 59.0
Two Drive-Thru Customer Order Displays 3
4 / 20 68 / 54
1: Noise Expert, LLC - Noise Analysis for Proposed McDonalds, November 2014 2: Extant Acoustical Consulting, LLC - 645 Horning Street Environmental Noise Assessment, February 2017 3: 3M XT-1 Intercom System Manufacturer Specifications (Considering two intercom systems). Caltrans methodolgy used to estimate noise levels at a distance of 20 feet 525
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 9

DECIBEL ADDITION
TABLE 10

PROJECT STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS

WHEN TWO DECIBEL VALUES
DIFFER BY:

ADD THIS AMOUNT TO THE
HIGHER VALUE: EXAMPLE:
0 or 1 dB 3 dB 70+69 = 73
2 or 3 dB 2 dB 74+71 = 76
4 to 9 dB 1 dB 66+60 = 67
10 dB or more 0 dB 65+55 = 65
Source: Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement

STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE
Maximum Sound Level
(Leq dBA)
at 100 feet
Drive-Thru/Customer Order Display 53.0
Truck Deliveries 49.0
Dealership Repair Shop(s) 64.0
HVAC Unit(s) 42.0
Source: JK Consulting Group, LLC
526
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com 527
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
TABLE 11

VIBRATION LEVELS
EQUIPMENT CATEGORY PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)1 PPV at 75 ft.
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 ft.
(in/sec)
Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 0.025 0.025
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.026 0.026
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.017 0.011
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.017 0.011
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.017 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.015 0.010
Jackhammer 0.035 0.007 0.004
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Source: JK Consulting Group, LLC
1 -Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning Environment, Federal Trnasit Administration, May 2006
528
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Mr. Jeff Milgrom
May 15, 2024

JK Consulting Group, LLC
www.Jkconsultinggroupllc.com
c) Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 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 Project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport.

The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately four (4) miles south of the Project and the Sierra Skypark Airport is located nine (9) miles to the west. The Fresno Chandler Executive Airport is located ten (10) miles southwest of the Project site. As a result, aircraft noise is not expected to result in significant impacts in the Project Area. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

SUMMARY
The significance criteria established by the City of Clovis are used for determining environmental significance. These screening criteria can be used to demonstrate that a project’s noise impacts would not result in a significant impact as defined by CEQA. As discussed above, the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment as it relates to Noise.

Should you have any further questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (559) 246-4204 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jason Ellard, Principal
JK Consulting Group, LLC
Attachment – Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 3.1 Worksheets
529
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REFERENCES
 City of Clovis – General Plan. August 2014
 Placeworks – Final Program Environmental Impact Report – General Plan and Development Code Update. September 2014.
 City of Clovis – Municipal Code. January 8, 2024
 California Department of Transportation – Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013
 California Department of Transportation – Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020
 Noise Expert, LLC – Noise Analysis: Proposed McDonald’s Restaurant. November 2014  Extant Acoustical Consulting, LLC – 645 Horning Street Environmental Noise Assessment. February, 27, 2017
 Carrier – HVAC Technical Data: 38HDR Performance Series Air Conditioner  3M Wireless Communication System – Technical Data: Wireless Communication System Model XT-1  Michigan State University College of Human Medicine – Auto Brochure. November 12, 2012  Bejan A, Brosseau LM, Parker DL – Exposure Assessment in Auto Collision Repair Shops. July 2011  Federal Highway Administration – Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 1st, 2018.
530
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

TNM 3.1 Worksheets
531
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:13:11 PM CASE: Existing Conditions
Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-1 1 1 --- 68.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-2 2 1 --- 68.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 67.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 67.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 65.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 65.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 65.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 61.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 61.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 63.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 61.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 70.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 68.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

532
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:19:50 PM CASE: Existing Plus Project
Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 68.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 68.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 66.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 66.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 66.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 62.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 62.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 64.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 70.9 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 68.9 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

533
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:24:39 PM CASE: Near-Term No Project
Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 67.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 67.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 65.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 66.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 66.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 63.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 61.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 70.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 68.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

534
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:36:48 PM CASE: Near-Term Plus
Project Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 68.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 68.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 66.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 66.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 66.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 62.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 62.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 64.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 62.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 71.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 69.1 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

535
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:47:19 PM CASE: Cumulative Year No
Project Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 67.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 67.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 65.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 66.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 66.0 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 63.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 61.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 70.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 68.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

536
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

REPORT: Results: Sound Levels - No Barrier Objects
TNM VERSION 3.1.7970.37608 REPORT DATE: 12 May 2024
CALCULATED WITH: 3.1.7970.37608 CALCULATION DATE: 5/12/2024 11:52:45 PM CASE: Cumulative Year Plus
Project Scenario
ORGANIZATION: Clovis Golden Triangle PCC
UNITS: English ANALYSIS BY: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

DEFAULT GROUND TYPE: HardSoil PROJECT/CONTRACT Clovis Golden Triangle PCC ATMOSPHERICS: 68°F, 50% Average pavement type shall be used unless a state PAVEMENT TYPE(S) USED: Average highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with approval FHWA.

Receiver Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Nb. LAeq Increase over Existing
Name No. R.R. Existing Absolute Relative Type
LAeq Calc. Criterion Calc. Criterion of
dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Impact
Receptor-3 3 1 --- 68.3 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-4 4 1 --- 68.5 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-5 5 1 --- 66.4 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-6 6 1 --- 66.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-7 7 1 --- 66.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-8 8 1 --- 62.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-9 9 1 --- 62.7 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-10 10 1 --- 64.6 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-11 11 1 --- 62.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-12 12 1 --- 61.8 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-13 13 1 --- 71.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level
Receptor-14 14 1 --- 69.2 0.0 --- --- Sound Level

537
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

APPENDIX E
Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis
538
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

October 2, 2024
Golden Triangle
Located on the Southwest Quadrant of Clovis
Avenue at Magill Avenue
In the City of Clovis, California
Prepared for
Legacy Realty & Development
5390 East Pine Avenue
Fresno, CA 93727
Project No. 006-047
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93710
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com 539
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\006 Clovis\006-047 Golden Triangle TIA VMT\Report\VMT Report\R20241002 Golden Triangle VMT Analysis.docx Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
For the Golden Triangle located on the Southwest Quadrant of Clovis Avenue at Magill Avenue
In the City of Clovis, CA
October 2, 2024
This Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.

Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE
President

540
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024

Table of Contents
Project Description ...............................................................................................................................1 Project Trip Generation.........................................................................................................................1 VMT Analysis........................................................................................................................................2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................................................ 2 VMT Screening ............................................................................................................................................. 4 VMT Results................................................................................................................................................. 4 VMT Improvement....................................................................................................................................... 5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 6 Study Participants.................................................................................................................................7 References............................................................................................................................................8 List of Tables Table I: Project Trip Generation................................................................................................................................ 1 Table II: VMT Results with Pass-by Rate Reduction Prior to Improvement ............................................................... 5 Table III: VMT Improvement..................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Project Site Plan
Exhibit B: Fresno COG ABM Output
Exhibit C: VMT Improvements
541
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024

Project Description
This report describes a Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (VMT) Analysis prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Golden Triangle (Project) located on the Southwest Quadrant of Clovis Avenue at Magill Avenue in the City of Clovis. The Project proposes to develop auto dealerships, a brewery with ancillary buildings, general office buildings, general retail buildings and fast food restaurants with drive through windows. The Project will displace existing buildings. These buildings include a used car dealership, RV storage, general storage and single family residential. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the City of Clovis General Plan. A Project Site Plan is shown in Exhibit A.

Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table II presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for General Office Building (710), Strip Retail Plaza (822), Automobile Sales – New (840), Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (934), Wine Tasting Room (970), Brewery Tap Room (971) and Banquet Hall. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 8,881 daily trips, 628 AM peak hour trips and 840 PM peak hour trips.

Table I: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
General Office Building (710) 15.000 KSF 10.84 163 1.52 88 12 20 3 23 1.44 17 83 4 18 22 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) 13.396 KSF 54.45 729 2.36 60 40 19 13 32 6.59 50 50 44 44 88 Automobile Sales (New) (840) 133.963 KSF 27.84 3,730 1.86 73 27 182 67 249 2.42 40 60 130 194 324 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive
Through Window (934) 6.844 KSF 467.48 3,199 44.61 51 49 156 149 305 33.03 52 48 118 108 226 Wine Tasting Room (970) 3.000 KSF 45.96 138 2.07 70 30 4 2 6 7.31 50 50 11 11 22 Brewery Tap Room (971) 10.575 KSF 61.69 652 0.68 88 12 6 1 7 9.83 59 41 61 43 104 Banquet Hall¹ 200 PPL 1.35 270 0.03 90 10 5 1 6 0.27 98 2 53 1 54 Total Driveway Trips 8,881 392 236 628 421 419 840
Note: 1 = Based on Non-ITE Rates
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
PPL = People

542
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024

VMT Analysis
Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as 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 project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State 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 that “[a] lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, 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 vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
On October 17, 2022, the City of Clovis adopted the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT pursuant to Senate Bill 743 which was effective on July 1, 2020. The City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines document was prepared and adopted consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (TA) published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the Clovis VMT thresholds.

The City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified development projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT Analysis. These criteria may be size, location, proximity to transit, of trip making potential. In general, development projects that are consistent with the City of Clovis' General Plan and Zoning that meet one or more of the following criteria can be screened out from a quantitative VMT analysis.

1. Project Located in a Transit Priority Area/High Quality Transit Corridor (within 0.5 miles of a transit stop).

2. Project is Local-serving Retail of less than 100,000 square feet.

3. Project is a Low Trip Generator (Less than 500 average daily trips)

4. Project is 100% Affordable Housing Units

5. Project is located in a Low VMT Zone
543
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024
This screening tool is consistent with the OPR December 2018 Guidance referenced above. The screening tool includes an analysis of those portions of the City that satisfy the standard of reducing VMT by 13% from existing per capita and per employee VMT averages within the relevant region. The relevant region adopted by the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines is Fresno County. The City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Section 2.1.1.6. regarding project screening states that "… projects that are inconsistent with the RTP/SCS would not qualify for screening out of a detailed VMT analysis".

For projects that are not screened out, a quantitative analysis of VMT impacts must be prepared and compared against the adopted VMT thresholds of significance. The City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines document includes thresholds of significance for development projects, transportation projects, and land use plans. These thresholds of significance were developed using the County of Fresno as the applicable region, and the required reduction of VMT (as adopted in the Clovis VMT Thresholds) corresponds to Fresno County’s contribution to the statewide GHG emission reduction target. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction target of 15%, Fresno County must reduce its GHG emissions by 13%.

The method of reducing GHG by 13% is to reduce VMT by 13% as well.

VMT is simply the product of a number of trips and those trips’ lengths. The first step in a VMT analysis is to establish the baseline average VMT, which requires the definition of a region. The City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines provide that the Fresno County average VMT per Capita (appropriate for residential land uses) and Employee (appropriate for office/commercial non-retail land uses) are 16.1 and 25.6, respectively. The City’s threshold targets a 13% reduction in VMT for residential and office/commercial non-retail land uses and a net zero (0) increase in regional VMT for commercial retail land uses.

The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional averages modeled by Fresno Council of Government’s (COG’s) Activity Based Model (ABM). For residential and office development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction, which means that projects that generate VMT in excess of a 13% reduction from the existing regional VMT per capita or per employee would have a significant environmental impact. Projects that reduce VMT by 13% or more are less than significant. The adopted threshold for all “other” land use types that do not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change is no net increase in VMT per employee. The adopted threshold for retail projects is any net increase in Regional VMT compared to the existing Regional VMT. Quantitative assessments of the VMT generated by a development project are determined using the COG ABM, which is a tour-based model.

For mixed use projects, the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines state that the VMT can be estimated based on each component of the project, independently, after taking credit for internal trip capture. It also confirms that mixed use projects must use the Fresno COG’s Activity Based Model. The VMT per capita (for the residential component) and the total VMT (for the retail component) is then compared against the relevant threshold.
544
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024
The target VMT for residential and commercial non-retail land uses are (16.1 X (1-.13) = 14.0) 14.0 VMT per capita and (25.6 X (1-.13) = 22.3) 22.3 VMT per employee, respectively. The threshold for retail land uses is a net zero (0) increase in Regional VMT for retail land uses (City of Clovis, 2022). The target VMT for all “other” type of land uses that are consistent with the General Plan is dependent on the land use type, project description and setting. These will be determined on a case-by-case basis to either be more aligned with commercial non-retail or retail land uses. In either case, the target VMT will be based on that of the commercial non-retail or retail land uses.

Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and do not meet a VMT Screening Criteria would be required to identify feasible VMT improvement measures. If it cannot be demonstrated that improvement would reduce VMT of the proposed Project below the applicable threshold, then a significant and unavoidable impact would be reported. Section 4.2.2.3 of the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines states that significant and unavoidable VMT impacts associated with City of Clovis General Plan development have already been disclosed. Thus, the Project can tier off of the Clovis General Plan SEIR with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with VMT improvement.

VMT Screening
There are three land use categories identified in the Project. The auto dealership is designated as the “other” land use category, the general office buildings are designated as the office land use category and the brewery with ancillary buildings, general retail buildings and fast food restaurants with drive through windows are designated as the retail land use category. Within the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines there are five (5) screening criteria. These criteria are stated in the Regulatory Settings sections of this Report. According to Section 2.1.1.5 of the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, “Office or the employment portions of other non-residential uses with total daily employeebased VMT per employee that is 13 percent less than the existing average baseline level in Fresno County. . . are shown in green in the maps provided. . .” (City of Clovis, 2022). The Project is located within a low VMT area in terms of VMT per employee. This screening map can be found in Exhibit B. As the “other” and office land use categories are employment driven land uses and are located in a low VMT zone, they are screened out from a detailed VMT analysis.

VMT Results
The Project’s trip generation was provided to Fresno COG in order to conduct a Project-specific VMT analysis using the Fresno COG ABM. As the office and “other” land use categories were screened out, this Report is now focused on the retail land use category. This land use category includes Strip Retail Plaza (822), Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through (934), Wine Tasting Room (970), Brewery Tap Room (971) and Banquet Hall. Based on Fresno COG results, the regional VMT without the Project is 23,414,391 and the VMT with the Project is 23,416,418. This exceeds the VMT threshold for retail land use categories of no net increase to regional VMT by 2,027. However, it should be noted that the regional VMT with the Project does not account for VMT reductions associated with a Project’s pass-by rate trip reductions. As the retail portion of the Project generates 4,988 daily trips and increases the regional VMT by 2,027, each daily trip would need to be reduced by approximately 0.41 miles (2,027 total miles / 4,988 daily trips =

0.41 miles per trips) in order to reduce the Projects Regional VMT to less than significant. Fresno COG 545
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024
reported an average retail internal trip length of 5.28 miles. The internal trip length is the length in miles that the Project generates solely within the regional boundary, in this case the County of Fresno. Appendix A presents the Project VMT output from the Fresno COG ABM.

It is anticipated that this Project, specifically the Strip Retail Plaza and Fast-Food Restaurant with DriveThrough portions, will benefit from pass-by trip reductions. Pass-by trip reductions are a representation of vehicles already on the road that the Project is anticipated to attract. Considering that pass-by trips do not add any VMT to the roadway network as a result of the Project, pass-by trips can be removed from the VMT generated by the Project. Per Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, pass-by rates are to be limited to 15 percent of the trip generation unless substantial evidence can demonstrate otherwise. While it is anticipated that the Project will attract a larger rate of pass-by trips, this VMT analysis has been limited to 5 percent in order to provide a conservative result. Furthermore, since ITE does not provide data for pass-by trip reduction characteristics related to Wine Tasting Room (970), Brewery Tap Room (971) and Banquet Hall, pass-by trips were not applied to these land uses. Therefore, the Project’s total VMT is reduced by 5 percent of the traffic generated by the Strip Retail Plaza and FastFood Restaurant with Drive-Through portions. The Strip Retail Plaza and Fast-Food Restaurant with DriveThrough portions generate approximately 3,928 daily trips. This equates to 196 daily pass-by trips (3,928 daily trips * 0.05 = 196) when rounded down or 1,034 miles (196 pass-by trips * 5.28 miles = 1,1034 miles).

As a result, the Regional VMT with Project is expected to be reduced to 23,415,384 after accounting for the reduction from pass-by trips. Table II provides the regional VMT once pass-by rate reductions are accounted for but prior to accounting for the Project’s VMT improvement measures.

Table II: VMT Results with Pass-by Rate Reduction Prior to Improvement Project
Component
Regional VMT
without Project¹
Regional VMT
with Project¹
Pass-By
Reductions
Regional VMT with Project
After Pass-By Reductions
Above VMT
Threshold?
Retail 23,414,391 23,416,418 1,034 23,415,384 Yes
Note: 1 = VMT Results from Fresno COG ABM Output.

VMT Improvement
The VMT improvement measures considered for this Project include those appropriate for the respective land use as noted in the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Exhibit C presents a summary of the VMT reduction associated with each improvement measure utilized in this Report. The selected VMT reduction rates appropriate for the Project were based on the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The improvement measure found feasible is Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (T-14). This improvement was calculated using eight (8) electric vehicle (EV) chargers. There are more EV chargers shown on the site plan, but eight (8) of the EV chargers serve the retail components of the Project. Calculations for this measure can be found in Exhibit C. As can be seen in Table III, the improvement measure results in a reduction of 6.2% of Project related VMT. After the application of pass-by reductions and the improvement measure, the resulting regional VMT with Project is 23,413,815. Therefore, the regional VMT with Project is less than the regional VMT without project. In conclusion, the Project is projected to have a less than significant VMT impact when implementing eight (8) EV chargers that serve the retail components.
546
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024
Table III: VMT Improvement
Project
Component
Regional VMT
without Project¹
Regional VMT
with Project After
Pass-By
Reductions
Improvement
Reductions
Regional VMT with
Project After
Improvements and
Pass-By Reductions
Above VMT
Threshold?
Retail 23,414,391 23,415,384 1,569 23,413,815 No
Note: 1 = VMT Results from Fresno COG ABM Output.

Conclusion
Conclusions regarding the VMT Analysis of the proposed Project are provided below. • The “other” and office land use categories are employment driven land uses and are located in a low VMT zone, and thus are screened out from a detailed VMT analysis as its VMT impacts have been previously reported to be less than significant by the City’s General Plan and VMT Guidelines. • Once pass-by trip reductions and VMT improvements are accounted for the Project’s retail components, the regional VMT for the Project is determined to be less than significant. o Per the Fresno COG VMT Analysis output, the regional VMT without the Project is 23,414,391 and the regional VMT with the Project is 23,416,418.
o After applying pass-by reductions, the regional VMT with the Project is 23,415,384. o The improvement measure found feasible is Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (T14). o After the implementation of feasible improvements measure, the regional VMT with the Project is 23,413,815.
o The City of Clovis threshold for retail projects is a no net increase to regional VMT. • Therefore, once improvements are taken into account, the Project as a whole is projected to result in a less than significant VMT impact.
547
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024

Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel:

Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Christian Sanchez, EIT Engineer I/II
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide
Carlos Topete Engineering Aide
Dennis Wynn Sr. Engineering Technician
Persons Consulted:

Jeff Milgrom Legacy Realty & Development
Bryan Pok Centerline Design, LLC
Sean Smith, PE City of Clovis
Christopher Kelly City of Clovis
Hector Luna County of Fresno
David Padilla Caltrans, D6
Christopher Xiong Caltrans, D6
Santosh Bhattarai Fresno COG

548
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 8
(559) 570-8991
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
October 2, 2024

References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. "Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Health and Equity". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2020. "Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2021. "California Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.

City of Clovis. 2014. "Clovis General Plan". Clovis: City of Clovis.

City of Clovis. 2022. "Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines". Clovis: City of Clovis.

County of Fresno. 2000. "Fresno County General Plan". Fresno: Fresno County.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Ebook. Sacramento: State of California.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. "Trip Generation Manual: 11th Edition". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Vol. 1-3.
549
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
006-047 - 04/30/24 - AD
N
Not To Scale

PALO ALTO AVENUE CLOVIS AVENUE
LEGEND
# = PROJECT DRIVEWAY = XX
(XX)
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= NOT APART OF PROJECT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Golden Triangle - City of Clovis
Project Site Plan
Exhibit A

MAGILL AVENUE
550
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | B
(559) 570-8991
Exhibit B: Fresno COG ABM Output
551
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Golden Triangle Project located Southwest Corner of Clovis Avenue and Magill Avenue in the City of Clovis (JLB Project 006-047) VMT Analysis for the Mixed-Use Project:

Retail/TAZ A
Scenario Total VMT Net Difference Significant
Without Project 23,414,391
With Project 23,416,418 2,027 Yes
Other and Office
TAZ Total VMT Employee VMT/Emp Type
2858/B 3338.04 118 28.3 Other
2859/C 1323.90 49 27.0 Office
552
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

BARSTOW AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N FOWLER AVE

NEES AVE

SHAW AVE

W TEAGUE AVE

CLOVIS AVE

BULLARD AVE

W BULLARD AVE

W SIERRA AVE

ASHLAN AVE

N MINNEWAWA AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

N CLOVIS AVE

ALLUVIAL AVE

FOWLER AVE

N LOCAN AVE

N TEMPERANCE AVE

HERNDON AVE

SIERRA AVE

LOCAN AVE

MINNEWAWA AVE

VILLA AVE

PEACH AVE

W NEES AVE

WILLOW AVE

SHEPHERD AVE

W ALLUVIAL AVE

FIFTH ST

GETTYSBURG AVE

DE WOLF AVE

W HERNDON AVE

LEONARD AVE
∙þ168
24913 - City of Clovis VMT Implementation
¯
Figure
B2
Existing VMT Per Employee (2019)
City of Clovis VMT Implementation
H:\24\24913 - City of Clovis VMT Impletentation\gis\Clovis_VMTperemp(2019)_nolabel.mxd - gcarsky - 9:22 AM 2/4/2021 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Data Source: City of Clovis
VMT per Employee
VMT per Employee Regional Average = 25.6
No Data
Less than 13% Below Regional Average
13% Below to Regional Average
Regional Average to 13% Above
More than 13% Above Regional Average
Sphere of Influence
0 0.5 1 Miles
553
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | C
(559) 570-8991
Exhibit C: VMT Improvements
554
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.
1404
Residential
23,414,391
23,416,418
26,337
1,034
23,415,384
25,303
FALSE
Measure VMT Improvement Maximum Reduction VMT Reduction (%) T-1 Increase Residential Density 30.0% 0.0%
T-2 Increase Job Density 30.0% 0.0%
T-3 Provide Transit-Oriented Development 31.0% 0.0%
T-4 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 28.6% 0.0%

65.0% 0.0%
T-5 Implement CTR Program (Voluntary) 4.0% 0.0%
T-6 Implement CTR Program (Mandatory and Monitoring) 26.0% 0.0% T-7 Implement CTR Marketing 4.0% 0.0%
T-8 Provide Ridesharing Program 8.0% 0.0%
T-9 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 5.5% 0.0% T-10 Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities 4.4% 0.0%
T-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool 20.4% 0.0%
T-12 Price Workplace Parking 20.0% 0.0%
T-13 Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out 12.0% 0.0%

45.0% 0.0%
T-14 Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 11.9% 6.2% T-15 Limit Residential Parking Supply 13.7% 0.0%
T-16 Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Costs 15.7% 0.0%

35.0% 6.2%

70.0% 6.2%
1404
Residential
23,414,391
23,416,418
26,337
1,034
23,415,384
25,303
1,569
23,413,815
TRUE
Project/Site Scale
Land Use
Combined Land Use
Trip Reduction Programs
Golden Triangle VMT Analysis
TAZ:

Land Use:

Regional VMT without Project
Regional VMT with Project
Total Internal Retail Miles after Pass-By Reductions
Target VMT Satisfied Prior to Improvement?
Pass-By Reductions
Regional VMT with Project after Pass-By Reductions
Total Internal Retail Miles
Target VMT Satisfied?
VMT Improvement Calculations
TAZ:

Land Use:

Regional VMT without Project
Regional VMT with Project
Pass-By Reductions
Regional VMT with Project after Pass-By Reductions
Total Internal Retail Miles after Pass-By Reductions
Improvement Reduction
Total Internal Retail Miles
Regional VMT with Project after Pass-By Reductions and Improvement Combined Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Combined Project/Site Scale Improvements
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Combined Trip Reduction Programs
555
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

TRANSPORTATION | 116
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 11.9% of GHG
emissions from vehicles
accessing the commercial or
multifamily housing building
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Providing electric vehicle charging
infrastructure increases fuel redundancy
for electric vehicles even if an extreme
weather event disrupts other fuel sources.

Electric vehicles could also provide benefits
to buildings and the grid, such as
emergency backup, energy reserves, and
demand response.

Health and Equity Considerations
Differential costs of PHEVs compared to
conventional vehicles are decreasing over
time, but at present are more expensive,
which means this measure could
disproportionately benefit those of greater
economic means. As costs come into parity
over time, this will be less of an issue.

Employer, electricity provider, and state
incentives for PHEV purchase could help
address near-term disparities.

Measure Description
Install onsite electric vehicle chargers in an amount beyond what is required by the 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) at buildings with designated parking areas (e.g., commercial, educational, retail, multifamily). This will enable drivers of PHEVs to drive a larger share of miles in electric mode (eVMT), as opposed to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lesser amount of indirect emissions from electricity. Most PHEVs owners charge their vehicles at home overnight. When making trips during the day, the vehicle will switch to gasoline mode if/when it reaches its maximum all-electric range.

Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Parking at the chargers must be limited to electric vehicles.

Cost Considerations
The primary costs associated with electric vehicle charging infrastructure include the capital costs of purchasing and installing charging stations, electricity costs from use of stations, and maintenance costs of keeping the charging stations in working order. Costs initially fall to the station owners, either municipalities or private owners, but can be passed along to station users with usage fees. Depending on station placement and charging times required for PHEVs, businesses near charging stations can derive benefits from patronage of station users.

Expanded Mitigation Options
In addition to increasing the percentage of electric miles for PHEVs, the increased availability of chargers from implementation of this measure could mitigate consumer “range anxiety” concerns and increase the adoption and use of battery electric vehicles (BEVs), but this potential effect is not included in the calculations as a conservative assumption. Expanded mitigation could include quantification of the effect of this measure on BEV use.

11.9%
556
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 117 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B × D × (F − E) × (G − (H × I × K × L))
-C × J
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicles accessing the office building or
housing
0–11.9 % calculated
User Inputs
B Number of chargers installed at site [ ] integer user input C Total vehicles accessing the site per day [ ] integer user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Average number of PHEVs served per day
per charger installed
2 integer CARB 2019
E Percent of PHEV miles in electric mode
without measure
46 % CARB
2020a
F Percent of PHEV miles in electric mode with
measure
80 % CARB 2017
G Average emission factor of PHEV in gasoline
mode
205.1 g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a; U.S.

DOE 2021
H Energy efficiency of PHEV in electric mode 0.327 kilowatt hours (kWh)
per mile
CARB
2020b; U.S.

DOE 2021
I Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
megawatt
hour (MWh)
CA Utilities
2021
J Average emission factor of non-electric
vehicles accessing the site
307.5 g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a
K conversion from lb to g 454 g per lb conversion
L Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (D) – The average number of PHEVs served per day per charger installed is 2 vehicles (CARB 2019). If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (E) - Based on the EMFAC2017 model (v1.0.3), 46 percent of miles traveled by PHEVs in California are eVMT, and 54 percent are in gasoline mode (CARB 2020a). =
4,988*307.5
8*2*(80-46)*(205.1-(0.327*454*0.001*206))
= 6.2%
557
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 118 ▪ (F) – A review of EV user surveys and analytics included in the CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars Mid-Term Report suggest that PHEV owners can reach 80 percent eVMT with access to adequate supportive charging infrastructure (CARB 2017). ▪ (G) – As described for (J), the average GHG emission factor for gasoline vehicles is 307.5 grams of CO2e per mile.
▪ The fuel efficiency of a PHEV in gasoline mode is calculated as 66.7 percent of the fuel consumption rate of a gasoline vehicle, based on the assumption that a gasoline hybrid vehicle has 50 percent higher fuel economy (miles per gal [mpg]) than a comparable gasoline vehicle, based on a comparison of the gasoline and hybrid Toyota Camry and Corolla models (U.S. DOE 2021). This percentage is applied to the average GHG emission factor for gasoline vehicles to determine the average emission factor for PHEVs in gasoline mode as (66.7%×307.5 g CO2e per mile). If the user can provide a projectspecific value by running EMFAC based on the future year of a project, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (H) – Scaled from a light-duty automobile gasoline equivalent fuel economy 30.3 mpg (CARB 2020a), an energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 2.5 (CARB 2020b), and an assumption of 33.7 kWh electricity per gallon of gasoline (U.S. DOE 2021). ▪ (I) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.
▪ (J) – The average GHG emission factor for non-electric vehicles accessing the site was calculated in terms of CO2e per mile using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average of LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicles using diesel and gasoline fuel. The running emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (CARB 2020a) were multiplied by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 11.9 percent, which is based on the following assumptions used to generate a maximum scenario:
▪ (B) – number of chargers installed = 20. CALGreen provides a non-residential voluntary Tier 2 measure that requires projects with 201 or more parking spaces to allocate 10 percent of total parking spaces for “EV Capable” parking spaces (or 20 parking spaces) (CBSC 2019). Note that EV Capable parking spaces do not actually have EV chargers installed, though they do have electrical panel capacity, a dedicated branch circuit, and a raceway to the EV parking spot to support future installation of charging stations.

Therefore, using the number of EV Capable parking spaces as a proxy for EV chargers as a high-end estimate is conservative.
558
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 119 ▪ (C) – total vehicles accessing the site = 200. Per the CALGreen voluntary measure, the number of total parking spaces that correspond with 20 “EV Capable” parking spaces is 201.
▪ (D) – PHEVs served per day per charger installed = 7. This value is the max (Dmax). This assumes that all PHEV drivers would coordinate sharing of the limited number of chargers at the site. Value is based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (CARB 2019).
▪ (I) – carbon intensity of local electricity provider = 0 lb CO2e per MWh. This assumes that the local electricity provider is powered 100 percent by renewables and thus has a carbon intensity of zero.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-14 through T-16 ≤35%) This measure is in the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-14 through T-16. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 35 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user will install electric vehicle chargers at their proposed office or multifamily housing development, which will enable employees or residents with PHEVs to drive a larger share of miles in electric mode, as opposed to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lesser amount of indirect emissions from indirect electricity. In this example, 20 chargers (B) will be installed at a workplace with 200 daily employee vehicles accessing the site (C). The electricity provider for the project area is the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and the analysis year is 2022. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 344 lb CO2e per MWh (I). The GHG impact is calculated as a 3.4 percent reduction from the total emissions from vehicles accessing the site.

Quantified Co-Benefits
While the measure will achieve fuel savings, it will also increase electricity consumption.

This section defines the methods for quantifying Improved Local Air Quality and fuel savings, as well as increased electricity consumption.

Improved Local Air Quality
Local criteria pollutants will be reduced by the reduction in fossil fuel combustion.

The percent reduction in criteria pollutants can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula. Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, electricity consumption from vehicles charging will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions. Consequently, for the quantification A =
20 × 2 PHEVs
charger∙day × (80% − 46%) × (205.1 g CO2e
miles − (0.327 kWh
mile × 344 lb CO2eMWh × 454 g
lb × 0.001 MWh
kWh ))
-200 vehicles × 307.5 g CO2e
miles
= 3.4%
559
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 120 of criteria pollutant emission reductions, either the electricity portion of the equation can be removed, or the electricity intensity (I) can be set to zero.

Fuel Savings (Increased Electricity)
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions. The percent increase in electricity use (M) from this measure can be calculated as follows.

Electricity Use Increase Formula
M =
B × D × (F − E) × J × N × O
-C × P
Electricity Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
M Increase in electricity from PHEVs [ ] % calculated
User Inputs
N Existing electricity consumption
of project/site
[ ] kWh per year user input
O Days per year with vehicles
accessing the site
260–365 days per year user input
P Average annual VMT of vehicles
accessing the site
[ ] miles per day
per vehicle
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (N) – The user should take care to properly quantify building electricity using accepted methodologies (such as CalEEMod).
▪ (O) – If the proposed development is a workplace in which employees access the site an average of 5 days per week, the user should input 260 workdays. If the development is multifamily dwelling, the user should input 365 days. ▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. Advanced Clean Cars Mid-Term Report, Appendix G:

Plug-in Electric Vehicle In-Use and Charging Data Analysis. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2017-midterm-review-report. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. Final Sustainable Communities Strategy Program and Evaluation Guidelines Appendices. November. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
11/Final%20SCS%20Program%20and%20Evaluation%20Guidelines%20Appendices.pdf. Accessed:

January 2021.
560
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 121 ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Unofficial electronic version of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/2020_lcfs_fro_oal-approved_unofficial_06302020.pdf
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. OFFROAD2017–ORION. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Database queried by Ramboll and provided electronically to ICF. March 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Appendix A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures. Table A5.601 Nonresidential Buildings:

Green Building Standards Code Proposed Performance Approach. July. Available:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/appendix-a5-nonresidential-voluntary-measures.

Accessed: May 2021.
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Download Fuel Economy Data. January. Available:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml. Accessed: January 2021. 561
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services
DATE: November 18, 2024
SUBJECT: Consider items associated with approximately 18 acres of land located at the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. Frances Ricchiuti and Patrick V. Ricchiuti, owners; Lennar Homes, applicant; Yamabe & Horn Engineering Inc., representative.
a. Consider Approval - Res. 24-__, A resolution of the City Council adopting an environmental finding of a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 and Planned Development Permit 2023-001. b. Consider Approval - Res. 24-__, TM6452, A resolution of the City Council approving a vesting tentative tract map for a 153-lot single-family planned residential development on approximately 18 acres of land. c. Consider Approval - Res. 24-__, PDP2023-001, A resolution of the City Council approving a planned development permit for a 153-lot single-family residential development.

Staff: Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
Recommendation: Approve
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution CEQA

2. Draft Resolution TM6452

3. Draft Resolution PDP2023-001

4. Proposed Development Standards for PDP2023-001

5. Proposed PDP2023-001 Park Amenity

6. Elevations and Floor Plans

7. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP

8. Correspondence from Commenting Agencies
562
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
 Deny a resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 and Planned Development Permit 2023-001.
 Deny a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452.  Deny a resolution approving Planned Development Permit 2023-001.

Staff recommends that the City Council:
 Approve a resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 and Planned Development Permit 2023-001 (See Attachments 1 and 7).
 Approve a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452, subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 2B).
 Approve a resolution approving Planned Development Permit 2023-001, subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 3A).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lennar Homes (“Applicant”) is requesting approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (“TM6452”), hereinafter referred to as the “Project.” This Project is designed as a 153-lot planned single-family development on approximately 18 acres of land within the City’s Heritage Grove planned growth area. Approval of this Project would allow the developer to continue processing a residential site plan review (RSPR) entitlement and development drawings.

BACKGROUND
 General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (0.6 – 2 DU/Ac) Medium Density Residential (4.1 – 7.0 DU/Ac)
 Master Plan Designation: Heritage Grove Master Plan
 Existing Zoning: R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development)
 Parcel Size: ±22 acres
 Project Size: ±18 acres
 Current Land Use: Vacant
 Adjacent Land Uses:
o North: FMFCD Basin BY2
o South: Single-Family Residential (in construction) &
PG&E Substation
o East: Rural Residential
o West: Vacant
 Previous Entitlements: R2021-006 & RO305
The Project parcel was included in Tract Map 6343 annexation’s boundary and associated Rezone (R) 2021-006, which were approved by City Council on May 20, 2024. R2021-006 approved the Project site’s zoning as R-1-PRD.
563
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

The Project site has two (2) existing General Plan Land Use designations of Very Low Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 0.6 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac) and Medium Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 4.1 to 7.0 DU/Ac. The Project site is approximately split in half regarding land use designations. Therefore, these designations would allow for development of a minimum of 42 dwelling units and a maximum of 80 dwelling units. As noted in the Project description, 153 lots are proposed in conjunction with TM6452, which is more than the 80 units that would be allowed based on the existing land use designations. Prior to submitting any applications, the applicant met with staff and proposed the use of a blended product calculation in conjunction with the adjacent tract map, the previously approved TM6200. The property owner and the developer of the current Project are the same parties that were involved with TM6200, and the two properties are contiguous to one another.

Based on these very limited circumstances, staff determined that a blended density calculation was reasonable. The resulting calculation is as follows:

Max Density on TM 6200 Property 871 Lots
Max Density on TM 6452 Property 80 Lots
Combined (Blended) Max Number of Lots 951 Lots
Actual Number of Lots As Approved by TM 6200 (588 Lots) Remaining Lots Available for TM 6452 363 Lots
Actual Lots Proposed by TM 6462 153 Lots
In summary, TM 6200 was approved with a number of lots that was well under the maximum density, and TM6452 proposes to utilize some of the “excess capacity” to increase its allowable yield.

PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The Project proposes a 153-lot, non-gated planned single-family development on an ±18-acre portion of the larger ±22-acre parcel. The remaining ±4 acres are planned for a future City public facility site and is not included as part of this Project. As depicted in Figure 1 below, the Project site is located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Project would include construction of public and private streets, sidewalks, landscaped areas, and a pocket park with related amenities. The Project will include a Homeowner’s Association (HOA). 564
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 1 – Project Site
Planned Development Permit
The Project site was included in the recently approved TM6343 annexation and pre-zoning applications and designated as R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District. The R-1-PRD Zone District is appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached single-family structures on small lots. Planned development permits (PDPs) are required for all planned residential developments, including the proposed Project. (CMC § 9.10.010, subd. (B)(6).) PDPs facilitate design flexibility and encourage innovative and superior site planning, culminating in a comprehensive development of high quality. Further details regarding the PDP are outlined below.

Development Standards
The PDP has the authority to adjust or modify development standards, such as building coverage, height, setbacks, fence and wall heights, landscaping, open space, and street layout, where necessary and justifiable. The Applicant is requesting approval of a non-gated detached single-family PDP with reduced parcel size, reduced setbacks, and increased lot coverage. The table below outlines the proposed development standards for the Project. There are three housing product types that are distinguishable by their elevation and floor plans. While the Applicant has provided models for each of their products, they will be assessed against the established development standards and formalized through the RSPR process, which has been 565
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
included as a condition of approval for the tract map and PDP. The proposed development standards for TM6452 are outlined below in Table 1.

Table 1
Development Feature TM6452 PRD Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size 2,184 sq. ft.

Maximum Lot Size 5,818 sq. ft.

Front Setback (garage side) 4 ft.

Front Setback 10 ft.

Corner Street Sides Setbacks 3 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (uncovered
patio side)
7 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (garage side) 0 ft. (Lots 44-48, 101-107, 111-114, 116- 119) 3 ft. (all other lots)
Rear Setback (opposite of garage) 10 ft.

Rear Setback 4 ft.

Lot Coverage 62%
Maximum Height 26 ft. 7 in.

Minimum Parcel Width 39 ft.

Minimum Corner Parcel Width 45 ft.

Minimum Parcel Depth 56 ft.

Garages 20’x20’ interior dimension (2-car)
Table 1 above delineates alterations to the customary development criteria associated with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone District. The requested deviations specifically include a reduction in lot size, parcel width and depth, setbacks, height, and an increase in parcel coverage. Staff has reviewed the proposed development standards mentioned above for the proposed single-family residential development and found them to be compatible with similar projects recently approved through the PDP process. The Project proposes a narrow side-yard on the garage-side (typically between 0 and 3 feet), with a minimum of a seven (7) foot setback on the opposite from the garage. The side with a seven (7) foot minimum setback will include a fenced uncovered patio area that will also accommodate toters. A condition of approval is recommended requiring a paved path leading from the street to a gate for each uncovered patio area.

For parcels identified with a zero (0) foot interior setback, staff recommend a condition of approval requiring acceptable covenant and deed restrictions allowing access to the abutting properties for repair and maintenance purposes.

Residential Site Plan Review
The Applicant will be required to submit an RSPR to allow staff to review lot-specific development standards. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans.
566
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Parking and Driveways
Per planned residential development standards, the minimum parking requirement is two (2) covered spaces, plus one (1) covered or uncovered guest space for each dwelling unit; therefore, the Project shall provide a minimum of 306 covered spaces and 153 guest spaces. The Applicant is proposing a two-car garage for each unit and 182 uncovered street parking stalls, thus meeting the minimum parking requirements. Each two-car garage shall provide a minimum size of twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet interior dimension, which will be reviewed with the residential site plan review. The Project proposes internal private streets that will be used to access garages.

Each garage driveway shall provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) foot back-up distance from the back of the garage to the curb.

Homeowners Association
Although the Project is non-gated, an HOA is required for the purpose of maintaining open spaces and common areas, ensuring they remain well-kept and functional as well as enforcing the covenants, conditions and restrictions. This requirement is designed to uphold community standards and elevate the quality of life for residents within the Project's jurisdiction.

Proposed Amenities
Chapter 9.66 of the Clovis Municipal Code (Planned Development Permits) provides for flexibility in development standards to accommodate various development types that may not conform to standard regulations. Within this context, planned residential developments are mandated to provide a program of amenities proportional to the deviations being sought.

In exchange for the requested development standard deviations described in Table 1 of the report, the Applicant is proposing a combination of an on-site amenity that is targeted at homeowners and an off-site amenity that will provide a public benefit. An 8,990 square foot pocket park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, a 250 square foot shade structure, and a children’s play structure is proposed as an on-site amenity. A conceptual illustration of the proposed park is shown in Figure 2 below.

When assessing and determining an adequate amenity that would provide a public benefit, staff evaluated opportunities for open space and other public improvements within and near the proposed tract map. The feasibility of incorporating a trail adjacent to the Project along Perrin Avenue that would be consistent with the future amenity trail located to the west within TM6343 was preliminarily identified as an appropriate alternative. However, the amenity trail along Perrin Avenue within TM6343 is planned with a fifty (50) feet wide design and would not be feasible for the subject Project. Staff then assessed other public benefit amenity options within proximity to the Project site and identified construction of the planned trail along N. Sunnyside Avenue adjacent to the existing PG&E substation. However, due to the overall cost and need to obtain the right of way, this option proved not to be proportionate to the Project.

In the absence of a physical improvement to serve as an amenity, the applicant has agreed to contribute a dollar amount totaling approximately $38,000, based on value of amenities provided in conjunction with other projects. This monetary amount will be reserved for utilization towards the portion of the trail along N. Sunnyside Avenue adjacent to the PG&E substation. Ultimately, if development of this portion of the trail is infeasible, the funds could be used for alternative 567
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
public benefit improvements that have previously been identified outside of the Project vicinity, such as:
 Restoration of the San Gabriel Restroom Facility within the San Gabriel Park located at the southeast corner of Willow and San Gabriel Avenues.
 Installation of playground equipment, shade structure over playground equipment and playground soft foam flooring at an existing neighborhood park located within the Helm Ranch Community Area or Old Town Area.

It is important to highlight that, in addition to the requirement for proportional amenities, approval of a PDP necessitates the demonstration of superior development quality compared to what could be achieved through conventional development practices on the site. The Project proposes three (3) landscaped direct pedestrian connections from the subdivision to Perrin Avenue. The Project also proposes that each home have a paved pedestrian walkway connecting to a sidewalk. Additional enhanced architectural and landscaping features are subject to review and approval during the residential site plan evaluation for individual lots and the civil plan review.

Figure 2 – Proposed Park Amenity
568
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Findings for Planned Development Permits
The required findings for the approval of a PDP application, and staff’s response to each of those findings are listed below. (CMC § 9.66.060.)

1. The PDP would:
a. Be allowed within the subject base zoning district.

The proposed PDP is permissible within the R-1-PRD Zone District, which was zoned with the approval of R2021-006.
b. Be consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project proposes a single-family residential use, which is consistent with the established land uses of the General Plan. Policy 3.6 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities. The Project as a blended density product and being of a similar development type and density as surrounding development to the south and west (in entitlement processing), would serve as a transition from the rural residential neighborhood to the east. The Project would comply with Policy 3.6 by resulting in a housing product that adds to the variety of housing stock within the City.
c. Be generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code relating to both on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to accommodate flexibility in site planning and property development and to carry out the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and the subject base zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines.

Although the Project requests deviations from development standards, the requested PDP is in compliance with the prescribed development standards attached as Attachment 4. The Project proposes to construct both on-site and off-site improvements as required and directed by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the City’s Development Code.
d. Ensure compatibility of property uses within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed development.

The Project shares a comparable density and development type with the existing surrounding development to the south and future development to the west (in entitlement processing), thus ensuring compatibility within the area. 569
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

2. The proposed Project would produce a comprehensive development of superior quality (e.g., appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high-quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, incorporation of a program of enhanced amenities, etc.) than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development applications.

The Project will provide an amenity program associated with the PDP as described in the Proposed Amenities section of this report. The architectural design of the homes will undergo thorough evaluation during the RSPR process to ensure high quality. Furthermore, enhanced landscaping will be required within the N. Marion Avenue entrance as part of the Project's aesthetic improvements.

3. Proper standards and conditions have been imposed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

The proposed PDP will comply the Development Code, with Fire Department standards, and Building Code regulations to ensure adherence to public health and safety requirements.

4. Proper on-site traffic circulation and control is designed into the development to ensure protection for fire suppression and police surveillance equal to or better than what would normally be created by compliance with the minimum setback and parcel width standards identified in Division 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).

The proposed PDP will adhere to the standards set by the Fire Department and the requirements of the City Engineer concerning fire suppression measures and enhancements to traffic flow related to TM6452, respectively.

5. The subject parcel is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development.

The proposed TM6452 associated with the requested PDP affects ±18 acres of land with the average lot size of 2,634 square feet; therefore, the site is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed Project.

6. The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the proposed development would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values, character, scale, and view protection.

As indicated above, the proposed PDP is compatible with the existing and planned adjacent land uses. In regard to view protection, the PDP proposes a reduced maximum height limit than that prescribed under the comparable R-1 Zone District. The proposed development will process a RSPR application where aesthetics and design will be evaluation in compliance with the Development Code.
570
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map
As shown in Attachment 2A, the Applicant is requesting approval of TM6452 for 153 lots with various outlots for the purposes of private streets and open space. The proposed TM6452 features a range of lot sizes from 2,184 square feet to 5,818 square feet, with an average size of about 2,634 square feet. Further specifics regarding the vesting tentative tract map are detailed below.

Circulation
The Project proposes two points of access, one along N. Baron Avenue and one along Perrin Avenue. The Project is designed with one main internal street that ends with a cul-de-sac. The Project includes several private streets that lead to garages of the single-family homes. Perrin Avenue will end at the N. Marion Avenue intersection and will not continue east to connect to N.

Sunnyside Avenue. The Project includes sidewalks along N. Baron and Perrin Avenues, along with sidewalks on both sides the internal street and internal pedestrian pathways within each residential block.

Heritage Grove Thematic Elements
The City’s 2014 General Plan directed the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive design document for the Heritage Grove area. As a result, the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines was developed and adopted on December 5, 2016. The document is intended to accommodate growth in a manner that is of high quality, fiscally sustainable, and balanced. The design document establishes an overall agricultural theme and quality for Heritage Grove. It illustrates and directs the intended architectural, landscape, and site elements to reinforce the theme and quality. The proposed Project is required to adhere to design standards outlined in the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.

The Project will develop N. Baron and Perrin Avenues as neighborhood boulevards as designated by the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. The neighborhood boulevard design requires a twenty (20) foot parkway between the right-of-way and private parcels. The Project will design the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues with a community corner paseo, incorporating a stone wall, a corner paseo tree, and a pedestrian pathway link into the subdivision. Staff will work with the developer to establish a design that meets the intent provided in the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.

Findings for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The following are findings required to approve a vesting tentative tract map. (CMC §§ 9.102.060, subd. (A), and 9.102.110, subd. (C).) It is essential to note that some of these findings overlap with those detailed in the previous Findings for Planned Development Permit section of this report and will reference the information provided therein.

1. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed map design maintains consistency with both the General Plan and the proposed PDP. The Project meets various goals and policies of the General Plan as stated in the Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies section of this report. All 571
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
improvements will adhere to the conditions of approvals and City standards. The specifics of these improvements will undergo scrutiny during the City's civil plan review process to ensure compliance with standards.

2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

Refer to number 5 of the Findings for Planned Development Permit section.

3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

As described in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Project (Attachment 7), environmental impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Consequently, the Project is not anticipated to inflict substantial environmental harm or endanger fish and wildlife.

4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.

The design of the Project will comply with the Development Code, Fire Department standards, and Building Code regulations to ensure adherence to public health and safety requirements. Furthermore, during review of the Project, agencies and City departments had the opportunity to review the Project to ensure consistency with City codes and regulations and no serious public health or safety concerns were identified. Therefore, the Project was determined not to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare of the City.

5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding may also be made if the review authority finds that alternate easements for access or use will be provided, and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record, or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the review authority to determine that the public at large has acquired easements of access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

During the final map review process conducted by the City's Engineering Division, all easements will be identified. Additionally, during the final map review, the City Engineer and other outside agencies will ensure that no conflicts with easements would occur as a result of the Project. As needed, alternate easements will be found that will be substantially equivalent to those previously required in TM6452.

6. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
572
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

The City Engineer has determined that the City has the capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. Installation of sewer lines within the proposed subdivision and beyond its borders will adhere to the regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

7. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.

The proposed subdivision will comply with the Development Code and California Building Code requirements as it relates to heating and cooling opportunities within TM6452.

8. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of this Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.

The proposed subdivision comprises of single-family housing, consistent with the prescribed land uses outlined in the General Plan. The existing R-1-PRD Zone District allows for the proposed use and PDP development standards. The proposed development will process an RSPR application, where aesthetics and design will be evaluated in compliance with the Development Code and established PDP development standards.

Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies
Staff has evaluated the Project in light of the goals and policies of the General Plan. The following goals and policies reflect Clovis' desire to maintain Clovis’ tradition of responsible planning and well-managed growth to preserve the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and ensure the development of new neighborhoods with an equal quality of life. These goals and polices seek to foster more compact development patterns that can reduce the number, length, and duration of auto trips.

Goal 3: Orderly and sustainable outward growth into three Urban Centers with neighborhoods that provide a balanced mix of land uses and development types to support a community lifestyle and small-town character.

Policy 3.5: Fiscal sustainability. The City shall require establishment of community facility districts, lighting and landscaping maintenance districts, special districts, and other special funding or financing tools in conjunction with or as a condition of development, building or permit approval, or annexation or sphere of influence amendments when necessary to ensure that new development is fiscally neutral or beneficial.

Policy 3.6: Mix of housing types and sizes. Development is encouraged to provide a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities at the block level. To accomplish this, individual projects five acres or larger may be developed at densities equivalent to one designation higher or lower than the assigned 573
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
designation, provided that the density across an individual project remains consistent with the General Plan.

Goal 5: A city with housing, employment, and lifestyle opportunities for all ages and incomes of residents.

Policy 5.1: Housing variety in developments. The Clovis General Plan has been planned to provide a variety of housing product types suitable to each stage of a person’s life. Each development should contribute to a diversity of housing sizes and types within the standards appropriate to the land use designation. This policy does not apply to projects smaller than five acres.

Policy 5.2: Ownership and rental. Encourage a mixture of both ownership and rental options to meet varied preferences and income affordability needs.

Planning Commission Hearing – October 24, 2024
On Thursday, October 24, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the Project, with staff presenting the Project alongside its recommendations and detailed information as described in the staff report. There was one public comment in opposition voiced during the public hearing.

The commenter raised concerns regarding the density of the Project, including the Project’s proposed density in comparison to Lennar’s adjacent development to the south. Commissioners voiced concerns to the proposed Project, expressing the following key concerns:
 Opposition to higher density projects and compatibility to the neighborhood.  Desire to have a mix of housing with more large lot developments.  Objection towards the two-story design because it excludes the aging population.  Hesitant to allow blended density from the adjacent previously approved project due to concerns for creating a precedence.
 Concern that the homes will not be affordable enough and will be bought by investors and turned into rental homes.
 Lack of green space and desire to see projects that promote trail access, being outside, and walkability.

After further discussion and consideration, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the entitlements associated with the proposed Project. All Project items were recommended to deny with a vote of 5-0. The Planning Commission cited that the Project could not make the necessary findings for consistency with the General Plan and that the site was not physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

Public Comments
A public hearing notice was sent to area residents within 1,000 feet of the property boundaries for the November 18, 2024, City Council hearing. As of the completion of this staff report, staff has not received any comments from the public.
574
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Review and Comments from Agencies
The Project was distributed to all City divisions as well as outside agencies, including Caltrans, Clovis Unified School District, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, AT&T, PG&E, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the County of Fresno.

Comments received are attached (Attachment 8) only if the agency has provided concerns, conditions, or mitigation measures. Routine responses and comment letters are placed in the administrative record and provided to the Applicant for their records.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City of Clovis has completed an initial study (see Attachment 7) assessing the Project’s impact on natural and man-made environments, as required by the State of California. Staff is recommending approval of a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”). An MND is a written statement announcing that this Project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures. The complete initial study/mitigated negative declaration can be found on the City’s website at: https://cityofclovis.com/planning-anddevelopment/ceqa.

In summary, environmental impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. (See the mitigation and monitoring program attached hereto as Attachment 7.) The notice of intent to adopt an MND was posted to the City’s website at the web address listed above. (14 CCR § 15072, subd. (b)(2).) The proposed MND was made available for public comment and review at the City’s Planning and Development Services Department from September 30, 2024, to October 24, 2024. (15 CCR § 15073, subd. (a).)
The City published a notice of this public hearing in The Business Journal on November 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

Annexation
As indicated earlier in this report, the Project site was part of a larger 246-acre annexation area (see Figure 3 below), which was processed in conjunction with Wilson’s TM6343. The annexation area, titled RO305, Behymer-Sunnyside Southwest Reorganization, was approved by the City Council on May 20, 2024, and the Fresno LAFCo Commission on September 11, 2024. On October 14, 2024, the annexation area was recorded and officially annexed into the City.
575
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 3

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Project will provide a diversity in housing types, contribute a quality residential product, and further advance growth within the Heritage Grove growth area as envisioned by the General Plan. The Project does not substantially impact sewer, water and other public services and will contribute to their proportionate share of infrastructure and open space. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code and each component of the Project meets the findings that must be considered when making a decision on a project, as outlined in sections above. Staff therefore recommend that the City Council approve resolutions to adopt an MND and mitigation monitoring and reporting program in accordance with CEQA, and approve TM6452 and PDP2023-001, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachments 2B and 3A.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If approved, the Project will continue with RSPR.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: City Manager JH
576
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 24-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6452 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2023-001, PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC 8080 N. Palm Avenue Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93711, has submitted various applications including a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (“TM6452”) and Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2023-001 (“Project”) for property located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues; and WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (“City”) caused to be prepared an initial study (hereinafter incorporated by reference) to evaluate potential environmental impacts from the Project, and on the basis of that study, it was determined that no significant environmental impacts would result from this Project with the adoption of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the 2014 General Plan Circulation Element Update on October 17, 2022. The SEIR evaluated potential land uses consistent with the General Plan and their associated VMT impacts. The SEIR finds that implementation of the 2014 General Plan may result in VMT metrics that are greater than the applicable thresholds. Mitigation measures include policies to reduce VMT. Because the City cannot demonstrate that the implementation of these policies would achieve VMT reductions to meet the VMT thresholds, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, following approval of the SEIR, individual land use development projects that are consistent with the 2014 General Plan have the opportunity to tier their environmental review from the General Plan SEIR. The SEIR has disclosed the VMT impacts of land use development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, significant and unavoidable VMT impacts associated with the General Plan have already been disclosed. Because the proposed Project is consistent with the 2014 General Plan, the Project’s significant transportation impact does not require a project specific EIR. Overall, the Project, as determined to be consistent with the 2014 General Plan, would result in a Significant and Unavoidable impact; and WHEREAS, on the basis of this initial study, a proposed mitigated negative declaration has been prepared, circulated, and made available for public comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code, section 21000, et seq., and Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on October 24, 2024, recommending denial of said MND and MMRP; and
577
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

WHEREAS, the notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration was posted to City’s website in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15072, subdivision (b)(2), and notice of the public hearing for this item was published with the Fresno Business Journal on November 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed, evaluated, and considered the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report, initial study, mitigated negative declaration, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and all comments, written and oral, received from persons who reviewed the mitigated negative declaration, or otherwise commented on the Project (Administrative Record).

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals as true and correct.

2. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the Project are adequate, reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

3. The initial study and mitigated negative declaration were presented to the City Council and the City Council has independently reviewed, evaluated, and considered the initial study, mitigated negative declaration, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and all comments, written and oral, received from persons who reviewed the initial study and mitigated negative declaration, or otherwise commented on the Project in the Administrative Record prior to approving the Project.

4. On the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the adoption of the mitigation measures identified in Attachment A.

5. The mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Attachment A, including the mitigation measures identified therein and as described in the mitigated negative declaration itself are hereby adopted.

6. Directs that the record of these proceedings shall be contained in the Department of Planning and Development Services located at 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California 93612, and the custodian of the record shall be the City Planner or other person designated by the Planning and Development Services Director.

7. The Planning and Development Services Director, or his/her designee, is authorized to file a notice of determination for the Project in accordance with CEQA and to pay any fees required for such filing.
578
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

8. The basis for the findings is detailed in the November 18, 2024, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, the entire Administrative Record, as well as evidence and comments presented in connection with the mitigated negative declaration.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on November 18, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: November 18, 2024
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
579
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

ATTACHMENT A:

Mitigation Monitoring Program
TM6452 and PDP2023-001
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Swainson’s Hawk. If possible, construction
activities should occur outside of the avian nesting
season, typically defined as February 1 – August

31. If that is not feasible, pre-construction surveys
shall occur if construction must occur between
February 1 – August 31. A qualified biologist shall
conduct surveys for active bird nests within seven
(7) days prior to the start of work during this period.

The survey area shall encompass the Project site
and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for
nesting Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting
raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds. Should any
active nests be discovered in or near proposed
construction zones, the biologist will identify a
suitable construction free buffer around the nest.

This buffer will be identified on the ground with
flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the
biologist has determined that the young have
fledged are capable of foraging independently.

City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Cultural Resources
CULT-1
If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate
the significance of the find and make
recommendations. Cultural resource materials may
include prehistoric resources such as flaked and
ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone,
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
580
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic
resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or
structural remnants.

If the qualified professional archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a
potentially significant cultural resource, additional
investigations may be required to mitigate adverse
impacts from project implementation. These
additional studies may include avoidance, testing,
and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist, the
Lead Agency, and the project proponent 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 Lead Agency as verification that the provisions
for managing unanticipated discoveries have been
met.

CULT-2 If human remains are discovered during
construction or operational activities, further
excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Project shall follow the
procedures and protocols set for un CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains
are identified to be those of Native American,
California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires
the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours
of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and
determinations regarding the discovery of human
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
581
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
remains on the project site shall be submitted to the
Lead Agency.

Geological Resources
GEO-1
If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist and/or
paleontologist, can evaluate the significance of the
find and make recommendations. Cultural resource
materials may include prehistoric resources such as
flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell,
bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as
historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick,
or structural remnants.

If the qualified professional determines that the
discovery represents a potentially significant
cultural resource, additional investigations may be
required to mitigate adverse impacts from project
implementation. These additional studies may
include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data
recovery excavation.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist and/or
paleontologist, the Lead Agency, and the project
proponent 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 Lead Agency as
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
582
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
verification that the provisions for managing
unanticipated discoveries have been met.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan 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.

City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Noise
NOISE-1 Interior Noise. Mechanical ventilation or air
conditioning shall be provided for all homes to
enable windows and doors to remain closed for
sound insulation purposes.

City of Clovis Planning During
Construction and
Prior to
Occupancy
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1
If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate
the significance of the find and make
recommendations. Cultural resource materials may
include prehistoric resources such as flaked and
ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone,
ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic
resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or
structural remnants.

If the qualified professional archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a
potentially significant cultural resource, additional
investigations may be required to mitigate adverse
impacts from project implementation. These
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
583
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
additional studies may include avoidance, testing,
and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist, the
Lead Agency, and the project proponent 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 Lead Agency as verification that the provisions
for managing unanticipated discoveries have been
met.

TCR-2 If human remains are discovered during
construction or operational activities, further
excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Project shall follow the
procedures and protocols set for un CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains
are identified to be those of Native American,
California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires
the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours
of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and
determinations regarding the discovery of human
remains on the project site shall be submitted to the
Lead Agency.

City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
584
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 24-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6452 FOR A 153-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BARON AND PERRIN AVENUES
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (“Applicant”), 8080 N. Palm Avenue Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93711, submitted an application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (“TM6452”) for a 153-lot single-family subdivision on approximately 18 acres of property (“Project”) located on the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues (“Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered TM6452 on October 24, 2024 recommending denial of said map; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (“City”) published notice of the public hearing in the Fresno Business Journal on November 1, 2024, mailed public notices to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Property, a minimum of ten (10) days prior to said City Council hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the Public Hearing according to applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed TM6452 was presented to the City Council for approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 102 of Title 9 of the Clovis Municipal Code (Development Code); and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held on November 18, 2024, at which time the City Council considered TM6452; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to this map on November 18, 2024, and considered the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record which determines that said map meets the requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and does adopt the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the entire Administrative Record relating to said map, which is on file with the City of Clovis Department of Planning and Development Services, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not limited to, the staff report, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing, and the conditions of approval attached as Attachment B to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
585
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis resolves and finds as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves TM6452 as shown in Attachment A, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment B to this Resolution.

2. The Project satisfies the required findings for approval of a tentative tract map, as follows:
a. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
b. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development. c. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
d. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.
e. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding may also be made if the review authority finds that alternate easements for access or use will be provided, and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.

This finding shall apply only to easements of record, or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the review authority to determine that the public at large has acquired easements of access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. f. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
g. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
h. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of this Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.

3. Without the conditions of approval (Attachment B of this resolution), the City Council could not make the findings necessary for approval of TM6452 (attached and labeled Attachment A).
586
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

4. The basis for the findings is detailed in the November 18, 2024, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing. * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on November 18, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
587
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

OUTLOT I 51273SF OUTLOT H 38992SF OUTLOT D
2328SF

OUTLOT A
2328SF OUTLOT B
2328SF

OUTLOT E
2328SF OUTLOT F 8990SF REMAINDER 154102SF OUTLOT J 74991SF 67 4,783 S.F. 4 2,879 S.F. 1 2,915 S.F. 2 2,827 S.F. 3 2,844 S.F. 6 2,844 S.F. 5 2,879 S.F. 7 2,867 S.F. 10 2,832 S.F. 9 2,891 S.F. 8 2,856 S.F. 11 2,832 S.F. 14 2,832 S.F. 13 2,891 S.F. 12 2,891 S.F. 15 2,785 S.F. 18 2,825 S.F. 17 2,981 S.F. 16 2,938 S.F. 19 2,754 S.F. 20 2,969 S.F. 21 2,464 S.F. 22 2,363 S.F. 23 2,556 S.F. 24 2,327 S.F. 25 2,341 S.F. 26 2,521 S.F. 27 2,548 S.F. 36 2,548 S.F. 28 2,352 S.F. 35 2,352 S.F. 29 2,316 S.F. 30 2,316 S.F. 33 2,316 S.F. 31 2,422 S.F. 32 2,422 S.F. 42 2,464 S.F. 43 2,290 S.F. 41 2,349 S.F. 44 2,185 S.F. 40 2,310 S.F. 45 2,184 S.F. 46 39 2,184 S.F. 2,310 S.F. 47 2,359 S.F. 48 37 2,696 S.F. 2,532 S.F. 51 2,364 S.F. 50 2,450 S.F. 49 3,032 S.F. 52 2,825 S.F. 54 2,853 S.F. 57 2,674 S.F. 58 2,675 S.F. 56 2,352 S.F. 59 2,352 S.F. 55 2,566 S.F. 60 2,565 S.F. 63 2,689 S.F. 64 2,660 S.F. 62 2,365 S.F. 65 2,339 S.F. 66 2,551 S.F. 61 2,579 S.F. 68 3,627 S.F. 69 5,406 S.F. 70 4,886 S.F. 71 3,830 S.F. 72 3,586 S.F. 73 4,961 S.F. 77 2,753 S.F. 76 2,752 S.F. 75 2,352 S.F. 78 2,352 S.F. 79 2,520 S.F. 74 2,520 S.F. 84 2,752 S.F. 83 2,753 S.F. 85 2,352 S.F. 82 2,352 S.F. 86 2,352 S.F. 87 2,593 S.F. 80 2,593 S.F. 88 2,352 S.F. 92 2,520 S.F. 91 4,021 S.F. 90 3,226 S.F. 96 2,784 S.F. 95 2,568 S.F. 94 2,594 S.F. 93 3,263 S.F. 100 2,813 S.F. 99 2,568 S.F. 98 2,568 S.F. 97 2,926 S.F. 101 2,189 S.F. 102 2,186 S.F. 103 2,182 S.F. 104 2,184 S.F. 105 2,184 S.F. 106 2,184 S.F. 107 2,184 S.F. 114 2,184 S.F. 115 2,352 S.F. 116 2,184 S.F. 110 2,352 S.F. 124 2,642 S.F. 125 2,361 S.F. 126 2,479 S.F. 129 2,642 S.F. 128 2,361 S.F. 127 2,479 S.F. 130 2,642 S.F. 135 2,642 S.F. 131 2,340 S.F. 134 2,354 S.F. 132 2,500 S.F. 133 2,486 S.F. 136 2,642 S.F. 137 2,361 S.F. 138 2,361 S.F. 139 2,737 S.F. 140 2,736 S.F. 141 2,361 S.F. 142 2,361 S.F. 143 2,642 S.F. 144 2,642 S.F. 145 2,361 S.F. 146 2,479 S.F. 149 2,642 S.F. 148 2,361 S.F. 147 2,479 S.F. 153 2,632 S.F. 151 2,700 S.F. 150 2,966 S.F. 123 2,705 S.F. 122 2,414 S.F. 121 2,387 S.F. 117 2,184 S.F. 118 2,184 S.F. 119 2,184 S.F. 120 2,383 S.F. 152 2,727 S.F. 34 2,316 S.F. 38 2,352 S.F. 53 2,352 S.F. 89 2,352 S.F. 81 2,352 S.F. 109 2,352 S.F. 108 2,352 S.F. 111 2,184 S.F. 112 2,184 S.F. 113 2,189 S.F. CITY OF CLOVIS WELL SITE

OUTLOT C
2328SF Ref. & Rev.

PROJECT TITLE
SHEET DESCRIPTION Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/15/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 1.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM JPAL 8/7/2024 23-196 1 5

LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC

NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
TRACT 6452 EXISTING TREES EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED USE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PROPOSED ZONING SOURCE OF WATER SOURCE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY SOURCE OF GAS SOURCE OF CABLE T.V. SOURCE OF TELEPHONE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER SITE AREA SITE ADDRESS PREPARED BY: SUBDIVIDER:
“
”
”
”
” LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER: NOTES: NOTES: VICINITY MAP: SITE LOCATION PARKING LOT INFO: APN: 556-050-07S TTM 6343 FMFCD APN: 556-040-22T APN: 557-011-09 T6292 BK 92 AT PAGES 89-94 F.C.R. T6344 BK 92 AT PAGES 100-103 F.C.R. PERRIN AVE BARON AVE FMFCD BASIN BY2 Attachment A Structure placement is not approved through this exhibit. A RSPR is required to assess the established development standards. 588

OUTLOT C
2328SF

OUTLOT D
2328SF

OUTLOT E
2328SF

OUTLOT A
2328SF

OUTLOT B
2328SF OUTLOT J 67074SF

BARON AVE PERRIN AVESTREET 'A'

STREET 'B'

STREET 'C'

STREET 'D'

STREET 'E'

STREET 'F' STREET 'G'

STREET 'B'

STREET 'C'

STREET 'D'

STREET 'E'
STREET 'F' STREET 'H' 4 2,879 S.F. 1 2,915 S.F. 2 2,827 S.F. 3 2,844 S.F. 6 2,844 S.F. 5 2,879 S.F. 7 2,867 S.F. 10 2,832 S.F. 9 2,891 S.F. 8 2,856 S.F. 11 2,832 S.F. 14 2,832 S.F. 13 2,891 S.F. 12 2,891 S.F. 15 2,785 S.F. 18 2,825 S.F. 17 2,981 S.F. 16 2,938 S.F. 19 2,754 S.F. 20 2,969 S.F. 104 2,184 S.F. 105 2,184 S.F. 106 2,184 S.F. 107 2,184 S.F. 114 2,184 S.F. 115 2,352 S.F. 116 2,184 S.F. 110 2,352 S.F. 124 2,642 S.F. 125 2,361 S.F. 126 2,479 S.F. 129 2,642 S.F. 128 2,361 S.F. 127 2,479 S.F. 130 2,642 S.F. 135 2,642 S.F. 131 2,340 S.F. 134 2,354 S.F. 132 2,500 S.F. 133 2,486 S.F. 136 2,642 S.F. 137 2,361 S.F. 138 2,361 S.F. 139 2,737 S.F. 140 2,736 S.F. 141 2,361 S.F. 142 2,361 S.F. 143 2,642 S.F. 144 2,642 S.F. 145 2,361 S.F. 146 2,479 S.F. 149 2,642 S.F. 148 2,361 S.F. 147 2,479 S.F. 153 2,632 S.F. 151 2,700 S.F. 150 2,966 S.F. 123 2,705 S.F. 122 2,414 S.F. 121 2,387 S.F. 117 2,184 S.F. 118 2,184 S.F. 119 2,184 S.F. 120 2,383 S.F. 152 2,727 S.F. 109 2,352 S.F. 108 2,352 S.F. 111 2,184 S.F. 112 2,184 S.F. 113 2,189 S.F. Ref. & Rev.

PROJECT TITLE
SHEET DESCRIPTION Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/9/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 2-4.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM JPAL 8/7/2024 23-196 2 5

LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC

NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
TRACT 6452
SEE SHEET 3 T6292 589
OUTLOT F 8990SF OUTLOT E
2328SFOUTLOT G 23795SF OUTLOT H 38992SF OUTLOT I 51273SF

STREET 'F' STREET 'F' STREET 'A'

STREET 'I'

STREET 'K'

STREET 'L'

STREET 'M'

STREET 'N' STREET 'N'

STREET 'M'

STREET 'L' STREET 'J' STREET 'O' STREET 'Q' STREET 'P' STREET 'A' PERRIN AVE

MARION AVE
MARION AVE 2,825 S.F. 2,981 S.F. 19 2,754 S.F. 20 2,969 S.F. 21 2,464 S.F. 22 2,363 S.F. 23 2,556 S.F. 24 2,327 S.F. 25 2,341 S.F. 26 2,521 S.F. 27 2,548 S.F. 36 2,548 S.F. 28 2,352 S.F. 35 2,352 S.F. 29 2,316 S.F. 30 2,316 S.F. 33 2,316 S.F. 31 2,422 S.F. 32 2,422 S.F. 42 2,464 S.F. 43 2,290 S.F. 41 2,349 S.F. 44 2,185 S.F. 40 2,310 S.F. 45 2,184 S.F. 46 2,184 S.F. 39 2,310 S.F. 47 2,359 S.F. 48 2,696 S.F. 37 2,532 S.F. 51 2,364 S.F. 50 2,450 S.F. 49 3,032 S.F. 52 2,825 S.F. 54 2,853 S.F. 57 2,674 S.F. 58 2,675 S.F. 56 2,352 S.F. 59 2,352 S.F. 55 2,566 S.F. 60 2,565 S.F. 84 2,752 S.F. 83 2,753 S.F. 85 2,352 S.F. 82 2,352 S.F. 86 2,352 S.F. 87 2,593 S.F. 80 2,593 S.F. 88 92 2,352 S.F. 2,520 S.F. 91 4,021 S.F. 90 3,226 S.F. 96 2,784 S.F. 95 2,568 S.F. 94 2,594 S.F. 93 3,263 S.F. 100 2,813 S.F. 99 2,568 S.F. 98 2,568 S.F. 97 2,926 S.F. 101 2,189 S.F. 102 2,186 S.F. 103 2,182 S.F. 104 2,184 S.F. 105 2,184 S.F. 106 2,184 S.F. 149 2,642 S.F. 148 2,361 S.F. 147 2,479 S.F. 153 2,632 S.F. 151 2,700 S.F. 150 2,966 S.F. 152 2,727 S.F. 34 2,316 S.F. 38 2,352 S.F. 53 2,352 S.F. 89 2,352 S.F. 81 2,352 S.F. Ref. & Rev.

PROJECT TITLE
SHEET DESCRIPTION Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/9/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 2-4.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM JPAL 8/7/2024 23-196 3 5

LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC

NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
TRACT 6452
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 4 STREET 'H' T6292 T6344 590

STREET 'O'
STREET 'R' STREET 'R' CITY OF CLOVIS WELL SITE 67 4,783 S.F. 63 2,689 S.F. 64 2,660 S.F. 62 2,365 S.F. 65 2,339 S.F. 66 2,551 S.F. 61 2,579 S.F. 68 3,627 S.F. 69 5,406 S.F. 70 4,886 S.F. 71 3,830 S.F. 72 3,586 S.F. 73 4,961 S.F. 77 2,753 S.F. 76 2,752 S.F. 75 2,352 S.F. 78 2,352 S.F. 79 2,520 S.F. 74 2,520 S.F. Ref. & Rev.

PROJECT TITLE
SHEET DESCRIPTION Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/9/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 2-4.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM JPAL 8/7/2024 23-196 4 5

LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC

NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
TRACT 6452
SEE SHEET 3 FMFCD BASIN BY2 591
20' ALLEY DETAIL A
24' ALLEY DETAIL B
56' LOCAL STREET DETAIL C

37.2' LOCAL STREET DETAIL D

42.2' LOCAL STREET DETAIL E
BARON AVE. CROSS-SECTION F
PERRIN AVE. CROSS-SECTION G

37.2' LOCAL STREET DETAIL H
Ref. & Rev. PROJECT TITLE SHEET DESCRIPTION
Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/8/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 5.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM DBNR
8/16/2023
23-196 5 5 LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE TRACT 6452 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

ATTACHMENT B
Conditions of Approval – TM6452
Planning Division Comments
(Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner – 559-324-2305)

1. The developer shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, included as Attachment 8 to the staff report.

2. TM6452 is approved per Attachment A.

3. This Project is subject to the development standards of the Heritage Grove Master Plan.

4. The proposed project shall produce a comprehensive development of superior quality than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development on the site which will be reviewed and approved through the civil plan review process and residential site plan review (RSPR).

5. The developer shall enter into a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) covenant regarding the maintenance of open space, common areas, and private drive aisles. Such agreements shall be disclosed to all future home buyers. The HOA shall be formed and functioning prior to tract acceptance.

6. The developer shall obtain City approval in advance of temporary and permanent subdivision signs through separate sign review, consistent with the development criteria of the Development Code Sign Ordinance.

7. No more than two of the same unit type (floor layout and exterior materials package) shall be repeated side by side. When two of the same units are repeated side by side, they shall be different colors. These identical provisions may be waived by the City Planner on a specific lot basis within the project when the size or configuration of a lot would otherwise prevent compliance with the above requirements of any other siting or setback/yard requirements established under this application. If such a waiver is requested, the developer and City Planner shall work together to ensure that any sitings of units not in compliance with the above requirements shall be of different materials and elevations in order to minimize any adverse visual impacts that may result.

8. TM6452 is subject to the development standards of Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2023-001 and any amendments thereafter. Any development standards not expressed within PDP2023-001 and TM6452 shall be subject to the underlying Zone District R-1-PRD Standards and Guidelines, and the Development Code.

9. A RSPR is required to memorialize building plans and elevations for the different product types of TM6452. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans.
593
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

10.Setbacks shall be measured to the exterior face of the framing of the structure. Exceptions to the setbacks are identified in §9.24.100, of the Development Code.

11.Development standards for the lots of TM6452 shall be as follows:

Development Feature TM6452 PRD Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size 2,184 sq. ft.

Front Setback (garage side) 4 ft.

Front Setback 10 ft.

Corner Street Sides Setbacks 3 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (uncovered
patio side)
7 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (garage side) 0 ft. (Lots 44-48, 101-107, 111-114, 116- 119) 3 ft. (all other lots)
Rear Setback (opposite of garage) 10 ft.

Rear Setback 4 ft.

Lot Coverage 62%
Maximum Height 26 ft. 7 in.

Minimum Parcel Width 39 ft.

Minimum Corner Parcel Width 45 ft.

Minimum Parcel Depth 56 ft.

12.N. Baron and Perrin Avenues are designated as Neighborhood Boulevards and shall have a 20-foot landscape/pedestrian setback, with a 10-foot landscape, 6-foot walk, and 4-foot landscape buffer setback. Perrin Avenue may combine the 6-foot walk and 4-foot landscape are to form a 10-foot wide sidewalk serving as a continuation of the trail along Perrin Avenue to the west.

13.The developer shall construct a minimum six-foot high solid split face masonry wall along the eastern limits of TM6452.

14.Each lot with a zero (0) foot interior setback shall enter into a recordable covenant that provides access to each abutting property for repair and maintenance and other provisions as deemed necessary by the Planning and Development Services Director.

15.To ensure consistency with the conditions of approval for TM6452, the developer shall provide, for the Planning Department’s review and approval, a copy of the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions prior to start of construction of homes on any lots.

16.The developer shall utilize street lights along local and private streets within the development area that are of the same design and luminosity as surrounding developments within Heritage Grove.

17.The developer shall contribute a proportionate share towards the acquisition and development of future parks in order for the City to maintain its adopted ratio of providing 594
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, as stated in Policy 1.1 in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2014 General Plan. The proportionate fair share will be accessed by the Engineering Division.

18.All lighting shall be screened from direct view from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential properties.

19.All landscaping (open space and private yards) shall conform to the City of Clovis Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

20.Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved separately by the landscape review committee with the civil set for tree and landscape type and location.

21.All lots shall provide an all-weather surface and path for the placement and storage of trash toters. The paved path shall lead from the street to the fenced noncovered patio areas within the 7-foot side yard to the street. The fenced noncovered patio area shall provide gate access.

22.Placement of trash toters for service pick-up shall be approved by the Engineering Department. Trash toters will not be serviced along Perrin Avenue. The developer shall restrict parking as necessary along “Street Q” and “Street O” in order to accommodate service for lots 55-66 and 97-100. A minimum of 153 guest parking shall be maintained.

23.Landscape features and forms within amenity areas shall be consistent with Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. Details shall be provided in the construction plan.

24.An 8,990 square foot pocket park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, a 250 square foot shade structure, and a children’s play structure shall be constructed as the private amenity.

25.As a public amenity for the Project, the developer shall contribute the dollar amount totaling $37,929 to the City for utilization in existing or future open space and/or park improvements.

26.The developer shall design and install the Community Gateway (Community Corner Paseo) at the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Corner Paseo shall be designed to meet the intent outlined in the Heritage Grove Guidelines. Final approval of the design shall be made by the Director of Planning and Development Services.

27.The developer shall record a Covenant regarding a “right to farm,” for adjacent property owners. Such agreement shall be disclosed to all future home buyers.

28.The applicant shall record a Notice of Nonconformance dealing with any structure used for model homes where the garage is converted for the use as a sales office. 595
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

29.Upon final recordation of this vesting tentative tract map, it shall be the applicant’s responsibility to furnish to the Planning Department an electronic (PDF) copy of the original map obtained from the Fresno County Recorder’s Office.

30.The applicant shall relay all conditions of approval for TM6452 to all subsequent purchasers of individual lots, if applicable, and/or to subsequent purchasers of this entire tract map development.

31.Prior to the final map acceptance, the developer shall incorporate an 8-foot wide pedestrian easement along the eastern property line, adjacent to the future City water storage tank(s) site.

Fire Department Conditions
(Rick Fultz, Fire Department Representative – 559-324-2224) Roads/ Access

32.Street Width: Fire apparatus access width shall be determined by measuring from “base of curb” to “base of curb” for roadways that have curbs. When roadways do not have curbs, the measurements shall be from the edge of the roadway surface (approved all weather surface).

33.Street Width for Single Family Residences: Shall comply with Clovis Fire Standard #1.1. Streets highlighted on the plan in blue do not require fire department access. All other streets shall have a minimum of 36’ measured base of curb to base of curb.

34.Turning Radius: All access way roads constructed shall be designed with a minimum outside turning radius of forty-five feet (45’).

35.Security Gates: All security gates shall comply with Clovis Fire Department Gates Standard #1.5. Plans shall be submitted for Fire Department review and approval prior to installation.

36.Temporary Street Signs: The applicant shall install temporary street signs that meet City Temporary Street Sign Standard #1.9 prior to issuance of building permits within a subdivision.

37.All Weather Access &Water Supply : The applicant shall provide all weather access to the site during all phases of construction to the satisfaction of the approved Clovis Fire Department Standard #1.2.

38.Two Points of Access: Any development to this parcel will require a minimum of two (2) points of access to be reviewed and approved by the Clovis Fire Department. All required access drives shall remain accessible during all phases of construction which includes paving, concrete work, underground work, landscaping, perimeter walls. 596
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Water Systems

39.Residential Fire Hydrant: The applicant shall install ___11____ 4 ½” x 2 ½” approved Residential Type fire hydrant(s) and “Blue Dot” hydrant locators, paint fire hydrant(s) yellow with blue top and caps, and paint the curb red as specified by the adopted Clovis Fire Department Standard #1.4. Plans shall be submitted to the Clovis Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. The hydrant(s) shall be charged and in operation prior to any framing or combustible material being brought onto the site. See marked up plans as follows: hydrants with a red circle around them are acceptable as shown, hydrants with a red X through them need to be removed and relocated, and a red solid circle is the location of additional or relocated hydrants.

40.Looped Water Main: The applicant shall install approved looped water main capable of the necessary flow of water for adequate fire protection and approved by the Clovis Fire Department.

Engineering / Utilities / Solid Waste Division Conditions (Sean Smith, Engineering Division Representative – 559-324-2363) (Paul Armendariz, Department Representative – 559-324-2649) Maps and Plans

41.The conditions of this tract map are written under the assumption that all dedications and improvements have been completed by the adjacent TM 6292 and TM 6344 development, and that these dedications and improvements have been accepted by the City. Additional conditions shall be required at the discretion of the City Engineer, if the improvements and dedications by TM 6292 and TM 6344 have not been accepted by the City.

42.The applicant shall have a final tract map prepared, in the form prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act and City of Clovis Municipal Code. The final tract map shall be submitted to the City of Clovis Engineering Division, and should include, but not be limited to, final tract map, the current filing fee, closure calculations, current preliminary title report, legal descriptions and drawings of required dedications.

43.The applicant shall submit separately to the City of Clovis Engineering Division, a set of construction plans on 24" x 36" sheets with City standard title block for all required improvements and a current preliminary title report. These plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall include a grading plan, landscape plan, a site plan showing trash enclosure locations and an overall site utility plan showing locations and sizes of sewer, water, storm drain, and irrigation mains, laterals, manholes, meters, valves, hydrants, fire sprinkler services, other facilities, etc. Plan check and inspection fees per City of Clovis Resolution No. 23-34 shall be paid with the first submittal of said plans. All plans shall be submitted at or before the time the building plans are submitted to the Building Division and shall be approved by the City and all other involved agencies prior to the release of any development permits.
597
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

44.Prior to the initial submittal of the improvement plans, the applicant shall contact Sean Smith at (559) 324-2363 to setup a coordination meeting (Pre-submittal Meeting).

45.Upon approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall provide the City with the appropriate number of copies. After all improvements have been constructed and accepted by the City, the applicant shall submit to the City of Clovis Engineering Division (1) digital copy to the City in PDF format of the approved set of construction plans revised to accurately reflect all field conditions and revisions and marked "AS-BUILT" for review and approval. Upon approval of the AS-BUILTs by the City, and prior to granting of final occupancy or final acceptance, the applicant shall provide to the City (1) digital copy in PDF format and two (2) bond copies.

46.The applicant shall comply with reporting requirements in accordance with Government Code 65940.1, which requires the City to, “request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued. The City shall post this information on its internet website, and update it at least twice per year.”
General Provisions

47.The applicant shall pay all applicable development fees at the rate in effect at the time of payment and prior to final map approval by Council or have the fees payable directly to the City through a separate escrow account at the time of recordation of the map.

48.The applicant is advised that, pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66020, any party may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency. Protests shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code and shall be filed within 90 days after conditional approval of this application is granted. The 90 day protest period for this project shall begin on the “date of approval” as indicated on the “Acknowledgment of Acceptance of Conditions” form.

49.All reimbursement requests shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of the current version of the “Developer Reimbursement Procedures” a copy of which may be obtained at the City Engineer’s Office.

50.The applicant shall install all improvements within public right-of-way and easements in accordance with the City of Clovis standards, specifications, master plans, and record drawings in effect at the time of improvement plan approval.

51.The applicant shall address all conditions, and be responsible for obtaining encroachment permits from the City of Clovis for all work performed within the City's right-of-way and easements.
598
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

52.The applicant shall submit a soils report or a waiver of soils report to the City of Clovis Engineering Division for approval by the City Engineer.

53.The applicant shall provide and pay for all geotechnical services per City policy.

54.The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the local utility, telephone, and cable companies. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to notify the local utility, telephone, and cable companies for the removal or relocation of utility poles where necessary. The City shall not accept first submittals without proof that the applicant has provided the improvement plans and documents showing all proposed work to the utility, telephone, and cable companies. All utility vaults in which lids cannot be sloped to match proposed finished grading, local utilities have 5% max slope, shall be located in sidewalk areas with pedestrian lids so the lid slope matches sidewalk cross slope.

55.All existing overhead and new utility facilities located on-site, within alleys, or within the street right-of-way along the streets adjacent to this tract shall be undergrounded unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

56.The applicant shall contact and address all requirements of the United States Postal Service Clovis Office for the location and type of mailboxes to be installed. The location of the facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of improvement plans or any construction.

57.The applicant shall contact and address Caltrans requirements, and be responsible for obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans for all work performed within the State rightof-way. The applicant shall be required to mitigate impacts to State Highway facilities as determined by the City Engineer.

Dedications and Street Improvements

58.The applicant shall provide right-of-way acquisition or dedicate free and clear of all encumbrances and/or improve the following streets to City standards. The street improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s specific plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the type, location, and grades of existing improvements.
a. Perrin Avenue – Along frontage, dedicate to provide right-of-way acquisition for 94' (exist 47') 47’ north of centerline and improve with sidewalk, curb return ramps, street lights, and a landscape strip.
b. North Baron Avenue – Along frontage, dedicate to provide right-of-way acquisition for 89' (exist 0') 44.5’ east of centerline and 44.5’ west of centerline, and improve with curb, gutter, 6’ sidewalk, drive approaches, curb return ramps, street lights, fiber optic conduit, landscape strip, 45' (22.5’ east + 22.5’ west) permanent paving, permanent paving and overlay as necessary to match the existing permanent pavement, 3' paved swale, and transitional paving as needed. 599
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
c. Eclipse Avenue – Improve with a drive approach in the cul-de-sac at the east end of the street and gated access to parcel on the eastern property line. d. Eclipse Avenue – Dedicate to provide for 50’ or 54’ of right-of-way in conformance with the City policy on street widths, and improve with curb, gutter, 5’ sidewalk adjacent to the curb, drive approaches, curb return ramps, streetlights, permanent paving, and all transitional paving as needed. e. Interior streets shall be private. For two-way traffic with no parking on both sides, the minimum travel width shall be 25’ with a clear width of 30’. For two-way traffic with parking on one side, the minimum travel width shall be 32’. For two-way traffic with parking on both sides, the minimum travel width shall be 36’. f. Entry feature streets with median islands shall have a minimum of 22’ wide travel lanes in each direction with parking or without parking. g. Cul-De-Sacs - dedicate to provide for 52' radius and improve with curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, 43' permanent paving and all transitional paving as needed.
h. The applicant shall relinquish all vehicular access to North Baron Avenue and Perrin Avenue for lots that back or side on these streets.

59.The applicant shall provide a dedication for a 10' public utility easement, where applicable, along all frontages or alternate widths approved by the utilities companies.

60.For new onsite ADA paths of travel that connect to the City sidewalk, the applicant shall replace enough sidewalk to provide a compliant landing with appropriate transitions to existing sidewalk grades.

61.If the applicant is required to make onsite ADA path of travel improvements, then the applicant may be required to remove and replace concrete improvements along the property frontage that do not meet current City of Clovis and ADA standards.

62.The applicant shall remove and repair all damaged or broken concrete improvements. The City Engineer may require the repair of additional improvements if they are damaged prior to occupancy.

63.The applicant shall not install any fences, temporary or permanent in public right-of-way.

64.The applicant shall provide preliminary title report, legal description and drawings for all dedications required which are not on the site. All contact with owners, appraisers, etc. of the adjacent properties where dedication is needed shall be made only by the City. The City will prepare an estimate of acquisition costs including but not limited to appraised value, 600
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
appraisal costs, negotiation costs, and administrative costs. The applicant shall pay such estimated costs as soon as they are determined by the City.

65.The sideyard side of all corner lots shall have full width sidewalk except where planter strips or meandering sidewalk is proposed.

66.The applicant shall obtain "R Value" tests in quantity sufficient to represent all street areas, and have street structural sections designed by a registered civil engineer based on these "R Value" tests.

67.The applicant shall, at the ends of any permanent pavement abutting undeveloped property, install 2" x 6" redwood header boards that shall be placed prior to the street surfacing.

68.Standard barricades with reflectors shall be installed at ends of streets abutting undeveloped property and any other locations to be specified by the City Engineer.

Sewer

69.The applicant shall identify and abandon all septic systems to City standards.

70.The applicant shall install sanitary sewer mains of the size and in the locations indicated below, prior to occupancy. The sewer improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and shall be supported by appropriate calculations.
a. North Baron Avenue – install 10" main.
b. Interior Streets – install 8" mains.
c. Interior Private Streets – install 8” mains.

71.The applicant shall provide dedication of a 15' wide utility easement for all on-site sewer mains, not located in otherwise dedicated rights-of-way.

72.The applicant shall install one (1) 4" sewer service house branch to each lot within the tentative tract.

73.All existing sewer services that will not be used with this development shall be abandoned by cutting and capping the service at the right-of-way line.

74.The applicant shall notify all property owners annexed to the City and along streets where a new sewer main will be constructed to determine if they wish to be connected to City sewer. Property owners shall work directly with the applicant regarding costs and location.

The applicant shall notify property owners that sewer connection fees are required if they choose to connect.
601
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

75.The City cannot guarantee at this time that sewer capacity will be available for this development when site construction occurs. The applicant, therefore, waives any claim or demand against the City for any delay in availability of sewer capacity for this subdivision.

76.Applicant acknowledges that sewage collection and treatment capacity for the area within which the proposed subdivision is located is extremely limited, and that capacity may not be available to provide service for the proposed subdivision at such time as applicant is ready to seek approval of a final map. Applicant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that if such sewage collection and treatment capacity is not available to serve the proposed subdivision, as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis, the final map may not be approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant has freely and voluntarily chosen to proceed with the submittal and processing of the tentative map, intends to expend money, time and effort in connection therewith, and accepts the risks that the final map approval may be delayed until sufficient capacity is available as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis. Applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Clovis from any and all claims, costs, expenses, and damages incurred or suffered by applicant, its principals, officers, employees, agents, or contractors, caused by, in connection with, or arising out of the unavailability of sewage collection or treatment capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, or the City’s refusal or failure to approve a final map for the proposed subdivision because of the unavailability of sewage collection or treatment.

Water

77.The applicant shall identify and abandon all water wells to City standards.

78.The applicant shall install water mains of the sizes and in the locations indicated below, and provide an adequately looped water system prior to occupancy. The water improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements.

The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and shall be supported by appropriate calculations. a. North Baron Avenue – install 24" main along frontage. b. Install 24" main between the Perrin Avenue & North Marion Avenue intersection and Sunnyside Avenue.
c. North Sunnyside Avenue – install 24” main between Perrin and Heirloom. d. North Sunnyside Avenue - install 16” main between Shepherd and Teague Avenues. The City Engineer shall determine the timing for the installation. e. North Sunnyside Avenue - install 12” main between Teague and Omaha Avenues. The City Engineer shall determine the timing for the installation. f. Interior Streets – install 8" mains.
g. Interior Private Streets – install 8” mains.

79.The applicant shall provide dedication of 15-foot wide utility easements for all on-site water mains, hydrants, blow-offs, and water meters not located in otherwise dedicated rights-ofway. 602
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

80.The applicant shall install a City standard water service to each lot of the proposed subdivision. Water services shall be grouped at property lines to accommodate automatic meter reading system, including installation of connecting conduit. The water meter shall be placed in the sidewalk and not in planters or driveways.

81.All existing water services that will not be used with this development shall be abandoned by closing the service’s corporation stop and creating a physical separation between the corporation stop and the service.

82.The applicant shall notify all property owners’ annexed to the City and along streets where a new water main will be constructed to determine if they wish to be connected to City water.

Property owners shall work directly with the applicant regarding costs and location. The applicant shall notify property owners that water connection fees are required if they choose to connect.

83.Prior to recording a final map of any phase, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Engineer that there is adequate water pressure to serve the units to be constructed. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to determine the adequacy of water supply/pressure for the proposed development.

84.Applicant acknowledges that water distribution and treatment capacity for the area within which the proposed subdivision is located is extremely limited, and that distribution may not be available to provide service for the proposed subdivision at such time as applicant is ready to seek approval of a final map. Applicant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that if such water distribution and treatment capacity is not available to serve the proposed subdivision, as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis, the final map may not be approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant has freely and voluntarily chosen to proceed with the submittal and processing of the tentative map, intends to expend money, time and effort in connection therewith, and accepts the risks that the final map approval may be delayed until sufficient distribution is available as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis. Applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Clovis from any and all claims, costs, expenses, and damages incurred or suffered by applicant, its principals, officers, employees, agents, or contractors, caused by, in connection with, or arising out of the unavailability of water distribution or treatment capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, or the City’s refusal or failure to approve a final map for the proposed subdivision because of the unavailability of water distribution or treatment capacity.
a. The City Engineer shall determine the timing for the installation of T-6 by a future City CIP project.

Recycled Water

85.The applicant shall install recycled water mains of the sizes and in the locations indicated below. The recycled water improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. All areas utilizing recycle water for irrigation 603
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
shall be clearly marked on the improvement plans. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and may require appropriate calculations.
a. North Baron Avenue – install 8” main along the property frontage.

Grading and Drainage

86.The applicant shall contact the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and address all requirements, pay all applicable fees required, obtain any required NPDES permit, and implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution.

Plans for these requirements shall be included in the previously required set of construction plans, and shall be submitted to and approved by FMFCD prior to the release of any development permits.

87.In the event permanent storm drainage facilities are not available, the applicant shall provide temporary on-site retention basins for storm water disposal and provide a cash deposit for each basin to offset the City’s cost of maintaining the basins. The size and design shall be in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and may change based on design calculations and access requirements for maintenance. The temporary pond maintenance deposit shall be based on size, depth, expected maintenance schedule, etc. However, the property owner shall be responsible for periodic cleaning of toxic material. The temporary basin is solely for the convenience of the subdivision.

88.The owner of the property on which the temporary basin(s) are located shall backfilled said basin(s) within ninety (90) days after notice is given by the City that the basin(s) are no longer needed. In the event the owner fails to backfill said basin(s) within said 90 days, the City may cause the basin to be backfilled. A lien to cover the cost of the work will be placed on the property, including the costs to prepare and enforce the lien. A covenant shall be prepared and recorded on the lot on which the basin(s) is/are located.

89.Grade differentials between lots and adjacent properties shall be adequately shown on the grading plan and shall be treated in a manner in conformance with City of Clovis Standard Drawing No. M-4 as modified by the City Council. Any retaining walls required on-site or in public right of way shall be masonry construction. All retaining walls shall be designed by a registered civil engineer.

Irrigation and Landscaping Facilities

90.The applicant, as a portion of the required tract improvements, shall provide landscaping and irrigation as required herein. The landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in public right-of-way and the area reserved for landscaping. The irrigation and landscape improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Plans for the required landscaping and irrigation 604
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
systems shall be prepared by an appropriately registered professional at the applicant's expense and shall be approved by the City of Clovis Planning and Development Services Department and Public Utilities Department prior to the beginning of construction or the recording of the final tract map, whichever occurs first. Landscape and irrigation facilities that the City Landscape Maintenance District shall maintain: the mini-park, paseos, paseo lights, interior street lights, entry features, landscape strips along Perrin and Baron Avenues. The landscape strip around the planned unit development may be maintained by a perpetual maintenance covenant.

91.The owner shall request annexation to and provide a covenant for the Landscape Maintenance District. The property owner acknowledges and agrees that such request serves as a petition pursuant to California State Proposition 218 and no further election shall be required for the establishment of the initial assessment. The assessment for each lot shall be obtained from the City for the tax year following the recordation of the final map.

The estimated annual assessment per average sized lot is $540.26, which is subject to change prior to issuance of building permit or final tract map approval and is subject to an annual change in the range of the assessment in the amount of the Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average, All Urban Consumers (CPI Index), plus two percent (2%). The additional landscaping enhancements that exceed the City norms and are specific benefit to the property, such as the entry feature, columns, monuments, interior median islands, round-abouts, special street lights, etc, if determined to be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District, shall be maintained by an additional landscape maintenance assessment. The applicant shall provide construction costs and deposit with the City an amount equal to 50% of the value of the enhanced landscaping hardscape features, or an alternate amount approved by the City Engineer, such as columns, monuments, and special street lights, that exceeds the City norms. The applicant shall provide the City with an estimate of the annual maintenance for the special lighting and landscaping enhancements that exceeds the City norms. The owner/developer shall notify all potential lot buyers before they actually purchase a lot that this tract is a part of a Landscape Maintenance District and shall inform potential buyers of the assessment amount. Said notification shall be in a manner approved by the City. The owner/developer shall supply all pertinent materials for the Landscape Maintenance District.

92.The applicant shall comply with the City of Clovis Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance.

93.The applicant shall contact and address all requirements of the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). This may include dedicating easements, piping or relocating any existing FID canals and ditches, replacing any existing irrigation piping, concrete lining or improving any existing canals, construction or reconstruction of any canals, culverts, and bridge crossings. Plans for these requirements and improvements shall be included as in the previously required set of construction plans, and shall be submitted to and approved by FID prior to the release of any development permits or recording of the final tract map. If a FID or private irrigation line is to be abandoned, the applicant shall provide waivers from all downstream users. 605
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

94.The applicant shall indicate on construction drawings the depth, location and type of material of any existing Fresno Irrigation District's irrigation line along the proposed or existing street rights-of-way or onsite. Any existing canals shall be piped. The material of the existing pipe shall be upgraded to the proper class of rubber gasket pipe at all locations unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

95.The applicant shall apply to the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) for transfer of irrigation water rights to the City of Clovis, if the property has not already been removed from FID and transferred to the City. The applicant shall execute a “Request for Change of Relative Value” that can be obtained and processed through FID. The applicant shall provide a copy of the completed form to the City.

96.All existing agricultural irrigation systems either on-site or in public right of way, whether FID or privately owned, shall be identified prior to any construction activity on the site.

Service to all downstream users of irrigation water shall be maintained at all times through preservation of existing facilities or, if the existing facilities are required to be relocated, the relocation and replacement of the existing facilities. It is the intent that downstream users not bear any burden as a result of development of the site. Therefore, the applicant shall pay all costs related to modification, relocation, or repair of any existing irrigation facilities resulting from or necessitated by the development of the site. The applicant shall identify on site plans and construction plans, all existing irrigation systems and their disposition (abandonment, repair, relocation, and/or piping). The applicant shall consult with the Fresno Irrigation District for any additional requirements for lines to be abandoned, relocated, or piped. The applicant shall provide waivers from all users in order to abandon or modify any irrigation pipelines or for any service interruptions resulting from development activities.

97.The applicant shall provide a landscape and irrigation perpetual maintenance covenant recorded for landscaping installed in the public right-of-way behind the curb including easements that will not be maintained by the Clovis Landscape Maintenance District. A recordable covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Clovis City Engineer prior to final map approval.

98.The applicant shall provide a perimeter wall perpetual maintenance covenant on all properties that have a perimeter wall that is installed on private property. A recordable covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Clovis City Engineer prior to final map approval.

Miscellaneous

99.The applicant shall install street lights per the attached street light exhibit. Street lights along the major streets shall be installed on metal poles to local utility provider’s standards at the locations designated by the City Engineer. Street light locations shall be shown on the utility plans submitted with the final map for approval. Street lights at future traffic signal locations shall be installed on approved traffic signal poles, including all conduits and pull boxes. Street lights along the major streets shall be owned and maintained by local utility 606
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
providers. Proof of local utility provider’s approval shall be provided. The applicant may install thematic lighting, as approved by the City Engineer. If the applicant chooses to install thematic lighting, the applicant shall provide a conceptual lighting plan identifying adjacent properties that may be incorporated with thematic lights to create a neighborhood effect.

Thematic lighting owned by the City shall be maintained by an additional landscape maintenance assessment.
100.The applicant shall provide a Solid Waste Receptacle Locations covenant for Lots 01 – 20, 52 – 63, 77 – 90, 93 – 100, 101 – 104, 109, 119, 129 – 132, and any other lot located where solid waste receptacles cannot be properly serviced as determined by the Solid Waste manager. A recordable covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Clovis City Engineer prior to final map approval.
101.The applicant shall install all major street monumentation and section corner monumentation within the limits of the project work in accordance with City Standard ST32 prior to final acceptance of the project. Monumentation shall include all section corners, all street centerline intersection points, angle points and beginning and end of curves (E.C.'s & B.C.'s). The applicant/contractor shall furnish brass caps. Any existing section corner or property corner monuments damaged by this development shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer licensed to perform land surveying shall certify the placement of all required monumentation prior to final acceptance. Brass caps required for installation of new monuments or replacement of existing monuments shall be provided by the contractor/the applicant and approved by City prior to installation. Within five days after the final setting of all monuments has been completed, the engineer or surveyor shall give written notice to the City Engineer that the final monuments have been set. Upon payment to the engineer or surveyor for setting the final monuments, the applicant shall present to the City Engineer evidence of the payment and receipt thereof by the engineer or surveyor.
102.A deferment, modification, or waiver of any engineering conditions shall require the express written approval of the City Engineer.
103.The conditions given herein are for the entire development. Additional requirements for individual phases may be necessary pending review by the City Engineer Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Comments (Amjad M. Qader, FMFCD Representative – 559-456-3292)
104.The applicant shall refer to the attached FMFCD correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the FMFCD for the requirements.

Fresno Irrigation District (FID) Comments
(Jeremy Landrith, Department Representative – 559-233-7161 ext. 7407) 105.The applicant shall refer to the attached FID correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the FID for the list of requirements.
607
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

County of Fresno Health Department Comments
(Kevin Tsuda, County of Fresno Health Department Representative – 559-600-3271) 106.The applicant shall refer to the attached Fresno County Health Department correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the Health Department for the list of requirements.

California Department of Transportation
(Christopher Xiong, Caltrans Representative – 559-908-7064) 107.The applicant shall refer to the attached Caltrans correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the Caltrans for the list of requirements.

County of Fresno Dept. of Public Works and Planning
(David Randall, Department Representative – 559-600-4052) 108.The applicant shall refer to the attached County of Fresno correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the County of Fresno for the list of requirements.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (Ryan Grossman, District Representative – 559-230-6569) 109.The applicant shall refer to the attached SJVAPCD correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the SJVSPCD for the list of requirements.

Clovis Unified School District
(Andrew Nabors, CUSD Representative – 559-327-9264)
110.The applicant shall refer to the attached CUSD correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the CUSD for the list of requirements.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
(Tamara Purvis, DTSC Representative – [email protected]) 111.The applicant shall refer to the attached DTSC correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the DTSC for the list of requirements.
608
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 24-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2023-001 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6452 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BARON AND PERRIN

AVENUES
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (“Applicant”), 8080 N. Palm Avenue Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93711, submitted an application for Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2023-001 to deviate from the R-1 Zone District development standards associated with Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (“TM6452”) for a 153-lot single-family subdivision (“Project”) on approximately 18 acres of property located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed PDP2023-001 is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Clovis Municipal Code (Development Code); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered PDP2023-001 on October 24, 2024, recommending denial of said PDP; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (“City”) City published notice of the public hearing in the Fresno Business Journal on November 1, 2024, mailed public notices to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Property, a minimum of ten (10) days prior to said City Council hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the public hearing according to applicable law; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing was held on November 18, 2024, at which time the City Council considered PDP2023-001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to this PDP on November 18, 2024, and considered the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record which determines that the PDP meets the requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and does adopt the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the entire Administrative Record relating to the Project, which is on file with the Department, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing, and the conditions of approval attached as Attachment A to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council hereby approves PDP2023-001, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution.
609
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

2. The Project satisfies the required findings for approval of a Planned Development Permit, as follows:
a. The Project is allowed within the subject base zoning district; b. The Project is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; c. The Project is generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code relating to both on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to accommodate flexibility in site planning and property development and to carry out the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and the subject base zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines; d. The Project ensures compatibility of property uses within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed development;
e. The Project would produce a comprehensive development of superior quality (e.g., appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, incorporation of a program of enhanced amenities, etc.) than which might otherwise occur from more
traditional development applications;
f. Proper standards and conditions have been imposed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare;
g. Proper on-site traffic circulation and control is designed into the development to ensure protection for fire suppression and police surveillance equal to or better than what would normally be created by compliance with the minimum setback and parcel width standards identified in Division 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards);
h. The subject parcel is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and i. The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the proposed development would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values, character, scale, and view protection.

3. Without the conditions of approval (Attachment A of this resolution), the City Council could not make the findings necessary for approval of PDP2023-001. 610
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

4. The basis for the findings is detailed in the November 18, 2024, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing. * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on November 18, 2024, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: November 18, 2024
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
611
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Conditions of Approval – PDP2023-001
Planning Division Comments
(Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner – 559-324-2305)

1. The Project must produce a comprehensive development of superior quality than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development on the site. This will be reviewed and approved through the civil plan review process and residential site plan review.

2. An 8,990 square foot pocket park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, a 250 square foot shade structure, and a children’s play structure shall be constructed as the private amenity.

3. As a public amenity for the Project, the developer shall contribute the dollar amount totaling $37,929 to the City for utilization in existing or future open space and/or park improvements.

4. The developer shall design and install the Community Gateway (Community Corner Paseo) at the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Corner Paseo shall be designed to meet the intent outlined in the Heritage Grove Guidelines. Final approval of the design shall be made by the Director of Planning and Development Services.

5. The developer shall construct a minimum six-foot high solid split face masonry wall along the eastern limits of TM6452.

6. The developer shall screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment from public view from abutting public streets and rights-of-way and open space uses. Screening material shall be constructed of materials consistent with the superior quality of the PDP and Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.

7. Lots with frontage along N. Baron and Perrin Avenues shall adhere to front yard fencing standards. Fencing shall be limited to three (3) feet in height for material limiting 50% or more of visibility and seven (7) feet in height for material providing 50% or more of visibility.

Fencing material shall be consistent with Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. Chain link is not permitted.

8. Landscape features and forms within amenity areas shall be consistent with Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. Details shall be provided in the construction plan.

9. No more than two (2) of the same unit type (floor layout and exterior materials package) shall be repeated side by side. When two (2) of the same units are repeated side by side, they shall be different colors. These identical provisions may be waived by the City Planner on a specific lot basis within the project when the size or configuration of a lot would otherwise prevent compliance with the above requirements of any other siting or setback/yard requirements established under this application. If such a waiver is requested, the developer and City Planner shall work together to ensure that any sitings of units not in compliance with the above requirements shall be of different materials and elevations in order to minimize any adverse visual impacts that may result.

ATTACHMENT A
612
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

10.Setbacks shall be measured to the exterior face of the framing of the structure. Exceptions to the setbacks are identified in § 9.24.100, of the Clovis Municipal Code.

11.Development standards for the lots of TM6452 shall be as follows:

Development Feature TM6452 PRD Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size 2,184 sq. ft.

Front Setback (garage side) 4 ft.

Front Setback 10 ft.

Corner Street Sides Setbacks 3 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (uncovered
patio side)
7 ft.

Interior Side Yard Setback (garage side) 0 ft. (Lots 44-48, 101-107, 111-114, 116- 119) 3 ft. (all other lots)
Rear Setback (opposite of garage) 10 ft.

Rear Setback 4 ft.

Lot Coverage 62%
Maximum Height 26 ft. 7 in.

Minimum Parcel Width 39 ft.

Minimum Corner Parcel Width 45 ft.

Minimum Parcel Depth 56 ft.

12.All lighting shall be screened from direct view from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential properties.

13.The developer shall utilize streetlights along local and private streets within the development area that are of the same design and luminosity as surrounding developments within Heritage Grove.

14.A residential site plan review is required to memorialize building plans and elevations for the different product types of TM6452. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans. 613
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TRACT 6452
Residential Land Use Development Standards
Single Family Residential Standard Notes
Designation
Zone District R-1 PRD
GP Density Range Meduim Density and very
low density (8.39 DU/AC)
Dwelling Units 153

BUILDING INTENSITY
Minimum Lot Area 2184
Minimum Lot Width 39 45' for corner lots
Minimum Lot Depth 56
Maximum Coverage 62%
Maximum Height 26' 7"
Curved Cul-de-Sac or Corner Lot N/A
Permitted Density
Residential Density 1 Dwelling
Set Backs (Minimum)
Front: 10' from property line
Side: 0ft or 3ft Non Patio/7ft to dwelling
Fenced uncovered patio
dimmensions 22X7. 154 SqFt.
lots 44-48, 101-107, 111-
114, 116-119 will have
0'/7' (Patio side/Dwelling
unit)
All other lots not included
will have a 3'/7' minimum
(patio side/Dwelling Unit)
Rear:

Garages/Street/Parking 2-car 20x20 min
Street (Interior) 24 ft min curb-to curb w/o parking
Street
Parking 182 uncovered spaces
Accessory Uses
Walls/Fences 4' min.-7'
Trellises 12' High max.

Pools and Spas 3' min
Equiptment N/A
Covered Structures 12' High max.

Building Exterior
Amenities
Architectural treatment applied to all elevations of a
building. At minimum, all doors, windows and other
wall openings shall be trimmed consistant with
architectural style.
8990 sf. community park and gathering area with BBQ
station, picnic tables, walkways, and open grass area
and 250 sf. shade structure. Direct access to the
existing city trail to the south.
37 ft with parking on both sides
4 ft. min from property line
Street widths shall comply
with Engineering
conditions RSPR Details Attachment 4
614
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Attachment 5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Bronte
Bronte A Bronte B
Attachment 6
616
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Bronte
The Wilde Series at Heritage Grove
Approx. 1893 sq. ft.

Two Story
3 Bedrooms

2.5 Bathrooms
2-Bay Garage
617
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Kipling
Kipling A Kipling B
618
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Kipling
The Wilde Series at Heritage Grove
Approx. 2019 sq. ft.

Two Story
3 Bedrooms

2.5 Bathrooms
2-Bay Garage
619
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

XXXX Hemingway
620
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Hemingway
The Wilde Series at Heritage Grove
Approx. 2169 sq. ft.

Tow Story
4 Bedrooms

2.5 Bathrooms
2-Bay Garage
621
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

September 2024
PREPARED BY:
& *
CITY «/CLOVIS fP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
FIFTH10 3 3 STREET 9 3 6 1 2
1 Hl
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
Liz Salazar
Assistant Planner
Planning & Development Services
(559) 324-2305
[email protected]
Lennar Homes
TM6452
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 7
622
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT TITLE:

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:

PROJECT LOCATION:

LAND USE DESIGNATION: See page 6 of this Initial Study
ZONING DESIGNATION: See page 7 of this Initial Study
See page 6 of this Initial Study
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See page 7 of this Initial Study
REQUIRED APPROVALS: See page 8 of this Initial Study
No
2 HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN
TRIBES REQUESTED CONSULTATION?
IF SO, HAS CONSULTATION BEGUN?
This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., CEQA Guidelines Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations.

PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND
ADDRESS:

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE
NUMBER:

Jeff Callaway, Project Manger
Lennar Homes of California
8080 North Palm Ave., Suite 110
Clovis, CA 93711
Northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin
Avenues
County of Fresno, CA 93619
APN: 556-040-23S (portion)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS

SURROUNDING CONDITIONS AND LAND
USES:

City of Clovis
Planning & Development Services
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Lennar Homes
(TM6452)
Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
(559) 324-2305
[email protected]
623
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 5
B. PROJECT OVERVIEW 6
C. PROJECT LOCATION 6
D. EXISTING SETTING 6

1. 6

2. 6

3. Land Use Designation 6

4. Zoning Designation 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONE. 7

1. 7

2. 7

3. Project Components 7
F. REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS 9
G. TECHNICAL STUDIES 9
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16

1. Aesthetics 17

2. 19

3. 21

4. 25

5. 28

6. Energy 30

7. 31

8. 33

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 37

10. Hydrology and Water Quality 39

11. Land Use and Planning 43

12. Mineral Resources 44

13. Noise 45

14. 47

15. 48

16. Recreation 50

17. 51

18. 56
5 Biological Resources
Cultural Resources...

Project Construction
Site Preparation......

Existing Conditions......

Surrounding Conditions
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality........................................

Transportation.................

Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils...............

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population and Housing
Public Services.............

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
624
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

19. Utilities and Service Systems 58

20. Wildfire 60

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 61

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION 10
FIGURE 2: AERIAL OF PROJECT SITE 11
FIGURE 3: LAND USE DESIGNATION 12
FIGURE 4: ZONING DISTRICT 13
FIGURE 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 14
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 15
FIGURE 7: CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 16

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SURROUNDING LAND USES 6
TABLE 2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 22
4 LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
625
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
□ Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality □ □ X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy El □
X Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials El □ □ Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use/Planning □ □ Mineral Resources X Noise □ □ Population/Housing Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation El X Tribal Cultural Resources □ □ Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance □ □
X
□
□
□
Prepared By:

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

Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
2024.09.30
13:36:28-07'00'
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion in this Initial Study.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environmental, 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.

Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
City of Clovis Planning & Development Services
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 analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environmental, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) will be prepared.

Renee Mathis, Director
City of Clovis Planning & Development Services
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 proponents. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
9/30/2024
Date
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
Approved By:
(ou (ahis
626
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

1. 2.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
*
R-1-PRD
*Low Density Residential (2.1-4.0 Dwelling Units/Acre (DU/AC)), Medium Density Residential (4.1-7.0 DU/AC), Medium-High Density Residential (7.1-20 DU/AC) **|P-F (Public Facilities), AL20 (County of Fresno Zoning, Limited Agricultural), R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development)

3. 6
C. PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figure 1 below, the Project is located northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues and consists of approximately 18 acres of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 556-040-23S. A remainder portion of approximately 3.54 acres of the subject parcel is planned for a City of Clovis public facility site and is not a part of the Project. The Project site is bound by a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Basin to the north, Sunnyside Avenue approximately 338 feet to the east, Perrin Avenue to the south, and N. Baron Avenue to the west.

D. EXISTING SETTING
This section describes the existing conditions, surrounding conditions, as well as the General Plan land use and zoning designations.

SURROUNDING CONDITIONS
As referenced in Table 1 below, the Project site is partially surrounded by existing development consisting of single-family residential uses at varying densities to the south and east. To the west of the Project site, single-family homes are currently under entitlement processing, with these homes to the west, there will be residential uses surrounding the majority of the Project site.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Figure 2 below, the existing site is vacant and undeveloped, consisting of portions of clear areas and portions of vegetation, grasses, sunflower, jimson weed, and lupine. The site is generally flat and includes a graded dirt access road along the southern border. The existing site does not include any pedestrian or other vehicle circulation infrastructure.

LAND USE DESIGNATION
As shown on Figure 3, the Project site has two existing General Plan Land Use designations of Very Low Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 0.6 to 2.0 DU/AC and Medium Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 4.1 to 7.0 DU/AC. According to the 2014 Clovis General Plan, the Very Low Residential designation is intended for large lot single family residences and the Medium Density Residential designation is intended for detached and attached single family homes, patio homes, or zero lot lines.

West
Notes:

North
East
South Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Public/Quasi Public Facilities
Medium-High Density Residential
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lennar Homes proposes the construction of 153 single-family homes and associated site improvements (i.e., landscape, parking, sidewalks, and utilities infrastructure) on approximately 18 acres of vacant and undeveloped land on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues in the County of Fresno, California, herein referred to throughout the document as “proposed Project” and/or “Project.” Land Use Designation
Water
Rural Residential
Existing Land Use
Vacant
Rural Residential
Single-Family Residential (in
construction) & PG&E Substation
Vacant
Zoning**
P-F
AL20
R-1 & P-F
627
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

1. 2.

3. 1 2014 Clovis General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-1, Circulation Diagram. 7 E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including site preparation, proposed structures, and on- and off-site improvements.

SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation would include typical grading activities to ensure a level surface. Part of the preparation would include removal of vegetation, such as grasses, shrubs, and weeds. Other site preparation activities would include minor excavation for the installation of utility infrastructure, for coneyance of water, sewer, stormwater, and irrigation.

PROJECT COMPONENTS
This section describes the overall components of the Project, such as the proposed buildings, landscape, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and utilities.

The Project includes a network of public and private streets throughout the neighborhood, which includes ingress/egress off of N. Baron Avenue to the west and Perrin Avenue to the South. There would be no direct access to Sunnyside Avenue further east. According to the Circulation Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan,1 the roadways bordering the Project along its western and southern frontages are designated as collectors.

Other features of the Project include pedestrian sidewalks that connect to the street network, as well as sidewalks along the frontage of the site along N. Baron and Perrin Avenues.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The Project is anticipated to begin construction April 2024, first occupancy June 2027, with full buildout by April 2029. This schedule is an estimation only and is contingent upon entitlements, and the market, among other factors.

4. ZONING DESIGNATION
The Project site is currently within the County of Fresno jurisdiction and zoned AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural). However, the Project site will be rezoned to the R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District through a separate entitlement application (Rezone 2021-006).

According to Section 9.10.010(B)(5) of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC), the R-1-PRD Zone District identifies areas appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached single-family structures on small lots.

DEMOLITION
As described in existing conditions the site is vacant; therefore, no demolition is required.

SITE LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION
As shown in Figure 5, the Project proposes 153 individual single-family residential lots ranging in sizes from approximately 2,184 square-feet to 5,818 square-feet, with an average lot size of approximately 2,619 square-feet under Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (TM6452). The Project also proposes an 8,990 square foot lot for a pocket park.

PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The Project site is included in a separate annexation (RO305) and prezoning (R2021-006) entitlement process for the change from the County of Fresno AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural) Zone District to the R-1- LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
628
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
8 2 City of Clovis Municipal Code, Chapter, 9.32, Parking and Loading, Section 9.32.040, Number of Parking Spaces Requires, Table 3-12, Parking Requirements by Land Use.

Utilities are provided by and managed from a combination of agencies, including Fresno Irrigation District (FID) which provides the City’s water supply, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) which has responsibility for storm water management, and the City’s Public Utilities Department which provides for solid waste collection, and sewer collection services. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas within the City of Clovis.

As part of the requirements for consideration of approval of a Planned Development Permit, the applicant has provided a draft of the proposed development standards, such as height limit, lot coverage, front, rear, and side setbacks that would apply to the proposed TM6452. These development standards are provided as Figure 6.

UTILITIES
Utilities for the site would consist of water, sewer, electric, cable, gas, and stormwater infrastructure.

Trenching and digging activities would be required for the installation of necessary pipelines typical of residential development. All utility plans would be required to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agency, and/or department to ensure that installation occurs to pertinent codes and regulations. Other infrastructure would include new fire hydrants as required by the City of Clovis Fire Department.

PARKING
The CMC requires that residential planned unit developments provide a minimum of two (2) covered spaces plus one (1) covered or uncovered guest space for each dwelling unit.2 Each garage would be required to have an interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet. Each single-family home would have a twocar garage and the Project proposes sufficient guest parking, thus meeting the minimum parking requirement.

PROJECT DESIGN
Conceptual design of the units are shown in Figure 7; however, it is important to note that at this stage of the process, these designs are conceptual only. The overall footprint, height limit, and placement of the structures, described above, would generally remain the same, however, the color palette and design details are subject to change throughout the Residential Site Plan Review Process (RSPR), which typically occurs later on in the entitlement process.

LANDSCAPE
The Project would include landscape throughout the site. Landscaped areas would generally be located along the perimeter of the site where a variety of ornamental shrubs, plants, and trees would be planted, as well as landscape in areas in the perceived front yard area of each home. Landscape plans are typically provided at a later date at which time the proposed landscape would be reviewed for compliance with the City’s water efficient landscape regulations and guidelines.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District. Chapter 9.66, Planned Development Permits, of the CMC provides a method whereby land may be designed and developed taking advantage of modern site planning techniques resulting in a more efficient use of land and better living environment than otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards. In general, this section of the CMC provides a mechanism to afford some relief to typical development standards, subject to an approved rezone to the R-1-PRD Zone District. 629
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

F. REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS
9 • Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment dated January 2024 • Appendix B: Biological Evaluation Report dated November 2023 • Appendix C: Cultural Resource Study dated November 2023 • Appendix D: Acoustical Analysis dated March 2024
• Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis dated February 2024 The City of Clovis requires the following review, permits, and/or approvals for the proposed Project; however, other approvals not listed below may be required as identified throughout the entitlement process:

G. TECHNICAL STUDIES
The analysis of the Project throughout this Initial Study relied in part on the technical studies listed below prepared for the Project, as well as other sources, including, but not limited to, the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, departmental staff, California Department of Conservation, and the California Department of Toxic Control Substances.
• Annexation (processed separately through RO305)
• Prezone (processed separately through R2021-006)
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Planned Development Permit
• Residential Site Plan Review
• Grading Permit(s)
• Building Permit(s)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
630
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

O
JimIT
z— 1^1 '
Perrin Rd
— 1
o 09 — Fru Fruitwood Ave
E •
— in
■
—
S
Plum Tree Ave 5 — Springtime Ave
■
-
1 T7
s
Summerset Ave
5 F Lexington A
Windmill Ave (
r
□ T T
Heirloom Ave
I
= Project Site (approximate limits)
N
io
3 p
cs

2. o
8 a
M
Z
D
S
0 o
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 1: Project Location
2 z
o
C
5 3
4 631
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 2: Aerial of Project Site
----------------------
erdtam
es
6 ‘s
L
। r
?
4 -A.
rape =
4 w Y £h lam —Aid ers £ Fruitwood Ave, m ‘4 1
4; 1 hh Tee - a “l t
I •
i II ••. eth #
Ls . e
//. |
। Springtime Ave । ' 7 I
s 8
6 j
&
= Project Site (approximate limits)
N
11 i
J
t
he
u
hi
f.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
fo’t 3
3 Plum Tree Ave.
ih%
ai
nt
*
1 2
632
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
3 Water
I
I
A
V
L
1 = Project Site (approximate limits) N
12 in Rd
Z
i-OW Density
Resicentia!
(2.14.0 DDUiAc}
Io T ens ty
Residential
(2 CUtAc)
Public/Quasi-Public
Facilities
Public/Quasi-Public
Facilities
EXISTING DENSITY:

Medium Density and Very Low Density Residential
PROPOSED DENSITY:

No change
Rural
Residential
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 3: Land Use Designation
Very Low Density
Residential
(0.6-2.0 DU/Ac)
Medium Density H
Residential
(4.1 -7.0 DI/Ac)
it
th
ii
ig
•g•g
633
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 4: Zoning District
= Project Site (approximate limits)
O
□ :

R-1-PRD
Z ; WMH44M
Perrin Avenue
N
13 V
U.9F.M55 fshadaa
PROPOSED ZONING:

R-1-PRD (processed separately through R2021-006)
EXISTING ZONING:

AE20 - Exclusive Agricultural (Fresno County)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
0)
3 C
O
>
<
o
O
g
C
C
3 0
C
9 4
C
o
tn
634
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan
X
7e * nua I
10 19 Cori
u. I| • : "I 12 13 4
32 + +5. 2as/1 lzaxar. 57 58 63
51 1 J
- a 62 30 1
|
53 59 65
I | 26k
—- 1 46 A
T 2.1 55.1 | 60 54 1 66
150. — i
I 149 -
49 T 28 I 1 35 38 1
*5* P* 1
27 138
151=== i i* >—
F i 1,26,
=
145 + 1 148
|? 37 f 14. #
TT
t +76 I I
146 152 I 147 84 83 8 f 90 77 "l !
85 * I 82
4 ll 78 n “J hi 93
79 I "I
107 106 105 104 103 102 72 mlfiff 1
LI =FTE 80 =lala 1
—*
i I I4
100 — —OUor _ _ 73 .1485--
— ====== 291 mmmmmmn 338’* CL
Approximate layout
14 LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
101
I
.50..
240.7
f 74 unsr
—*)
.56, 1.2.
„8. _ 1
635
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 6: Proposed Development Standards
Standard Notes
1 Dwelling I
| None
15 Architectural treatment
applied to all elevations
of a building. At minimum,
all doors, windows and
other wall openings shall
be trimmed consistant
with architectural style.

Proposed development standards only. Actual standards may change during the Planned Development Permit and Residential Site Plan Review process. 20x20 min
curb-to curb
10'from propertyline
0 ft. Non Patio/7 ft. Patio
4 ft. min from property line
TRACT 6452
Residential Land Use Development Standards
Single Family Residential
Designation
Zone District
GP Density Range
2-car
24 ft. min
174 uncovered spaces
Dwelling Units

BUILDING INTENSITY
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Coverage
Maximum Height
Curved Cul-de-Sac or Corner Lot
Permitted Density
Residential Density
Set Backs (Minimum)
Front:

Side:

Rear:

Coverage (maximum)
Site Coverage
Garages/Street/Parking
Garages/Street/Parking
Street (Interior)
Parking
Accessory Uses
Walls/Fences
Trellises
Pools and Spas
Equiptment
Covered Structures
Accessory Buildings
Building Exterior
4' min.-8'
12' High max.
3' min
N/A
12' High max.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
R-IPRD
Meduim Densityand very
low density (8.39 DU/AC)
153
2184
39 56
62%
26'7"
N/A
636
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Figure 7: Conceptual Elevations
' Bl 5
-
»
—
I
BE kJ
HIM
—
" r
i
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
16 ’ tmrveg
EX
This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For each issue area, one of four conclusions is made:

F . 7
ft H I
yl 5
O
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
IE
I
fill5
637
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
• No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project development.

1. AESTHETICS
X
X
X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
17 Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
• Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project would result in an environmental impact or effect that is potentially significant, but the incorporation of mitigation measure(s) would reduce the project-related impact to a less than significant level.

Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The City of Clovis is located within the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, much of the City and its surrounding areas are predominately flat. As a result, on clear days, the Sierra Nevada Mountains are visible to the east depending on your location. Aside from Sierra Nevada, there are no officially designated focal points or viewsheds within the City. Policy 2.3, Visual Resources, of the Open Space Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan, requires maintaining public views of open spaces, parks, and natural features and to preserve Clovis’ viewshed of the surrounding foothills.
• Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in an environmental impact or effect that is potentially significant, and no mitigation can be identified that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

As mentioned above in the Project Description, the site is located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. In general, the Project site is located in the fringes of Clovis and is situated adjacent to a mix of neighboring agricultural lands, rural residential, and low to medium density residential housing. a. Have a substantial 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. 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). 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 that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
• Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
638
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

No impact. As stated in the 2014 Clovis General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), there are no Further, there are no existing historical
3 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, June 2014, Page 5 1-1.
18 Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project consists of 153 single-family homes. As a result of the existing site being vacant and undeveloped, the Project would result in new sources of light and glare. Light and glare from the Project would be typical of residential development, including but not limited to, sources such as exterior lighting for safety, light and glare from vehicles or from light reflecting off of surfaces such as windshields. Other sources of light would be the interior lighting of the units at night. These sources of light and glare are not Further, the Project would undergo the RSPR process which would ensure that the overall design and character is consistent and/or complements the surrounding areas. The RSPR process will ensure the Project complies with relevant design policies, such as in the Heritage Grove Master Plan, the CMC, and the General Plan. During the review, the height, color and materials are reviewed for consistency with these plans and guidelines.

Consequently, a less-than-significant impact would occur with regards to substantially degrading the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, and no mitigation measures are required. c) 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 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?
structures or rock outcroppings located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site; therefore, the Project would result in no impact with regards to substantially damaging scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and no mitigation measures are required.

Policy 3.6 of the Land Use Element of the Clovis General Plan encourages a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities. The Project being of a similar scale as surrounding development to the south and west (in entitlement processing) and as a blended density, would serve as a transition from the rural residential neighborhood to the east, which would comply with Policy 3.6 by resulting in a housing product that adds to the variety of housing stock within the City.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the existing site is currently surrounded by residential uses of varying densities including medium, low, and rural. Thus, as a proposed blend of medium and very lowdensity residential project, the homes would fit within the character of the surrounding area.

No impact. As mentioned above, there are no officially designated scenic vistas or focal points in the City of Clovis. While the Sierra Nevada Mountains can be viewed on clear days, the Project would allow structures to be constructed at a maximum height of 26 feet 7 inches. The Project site is not within the immediate vicinity of open space, parks, or other natural features. Therefore, because the Project would be constructed at a reduced maximum height in comparison to the standard single family residential zone districts and because there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the area, no impact would occur with regards to the project having a substantial effect on a scenic vista. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_______________________________________________________________ a) Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? Caltrans-designated scenic highways within the City of Clovis.3 639
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
X
X
X
X
forest land to non-forest

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
19 Although the Project would introduce new sources of light and glare, the RSPR process would ensure that the design and placement of lighting is appropriate to minimize potential light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Section 9.22.050, Exterior Light and Glare, of the CMC, which requires light sources to be shielded and that lighting does not spillover to adjacent properties.

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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Project site is located on northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The site is within the fringe of the City and is surrounded by existing residential at varying densities to the south and east with future residential to the west.

Overall, through the City’s design review process and compliance with Section 9.22.050 of the CMC, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to lighting adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation measures are required.
conversion of
use?
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)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?___
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
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS typically associated with causing significant effects on the environment, especially given that the surrounding developed area already emits similar sources of light and glare and are part of the existing conditions present in the vicinity. Further, the site will be surrounded by residential uses soon to be occupied to the south resulting in similar sources and intensities of light and glare. The development to the south that is under construction will contribute to the urbanization of the area, therefore, lighting and glare will be emitted in the vicinity. Sources of future light and glare are comprised of streetlights, and light and glare from vehicles going to and from home. 640
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. See discussion under Section 2c.
4 Farmland Mapping, California Department of Conservation, Interactive mapping tool (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/). 20 No Impact. As shown on Figure 5.2-2 of the Agricultural Resources Chapter of the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Further, as mentioned above, the site is not currently zoned or designated for agricultural use. As a result, the Project would have no impact with regards to conflicting with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? The Project site does not appear to have previously been cultivated, other than possible dry farming, nor is it zoned or designated for farming-related activities under the 2014 Clovis General Plan. Although the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance it is not considered Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped, thus, does not contain forest land. Further, the site is not zoned for forestry or other forestry related uses. As a result, no impact would occur with regards to conflicts with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land. No mitigation measures are required.

No impact. According to the California Important Farmland finder interactive map from the California Department of Conservation,4 the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance (2020 data), which is defined by the Department of Conservation as farmable lands within Fresno County that do meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmlands. Generally, Farmland of Local Importance is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, livestock, dairy, and grazing land.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
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 nonforest use? No impact. Although the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance according to the Department of Conservation, the site is not zoned for or designated for agricultural uses. Further, the existing site hasn’t been used for agricultural-related uses in recent years. The 2014 Clovis General Plan designates the site for residential uses. Additionally, see discussion under Section 2.C related to forest land. Overall, the project would have a no impact with regards to this topic and no mitigation measure are required. 641
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

3. AIR QUALITY
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography5
5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 18-20, January 2024. 21 Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (AQ/GHG Report) was prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. in January 2024 (see Appendix A). Information in this AQ/GHG Report is used for the analysis included in both the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of this Initial Study.

The City of Clovis (City) is in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.

The SJVAB is approximately 24,840 square miles and is the second largest air basin in California. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi mountains to the south.

The SJVAB is open to the north extending to the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. Wind patterns within the SJVAB generally flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta. The mountain ranges from the west hinder wind access into the SJVAB while the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range provides a barrier to the east. As mentioned above, these topographic features result in weak airflow that becomes restricted vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJVAB.

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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
642
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion.

Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 14,22, January 2024. 22 The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone. Mediterranean climates are characterized by hot, dry summers with sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly in winter. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F while winter low temperatures range between 40-50 degrees and is not uncommon to drop below freezing.

In addition to the topographic conditions, the climate can contribute to air quality problems. Temperature inversions can trap air within the SJVAB, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants.

Ozone often afflicts aeras downwind of the original source and can be easily transported by winds. Peak ozone tends to be higher in the southern portion of the SJVAB. Other primary pollutants such as carbon monoxide may form in high concentrations when wind speed is low, during winder cooler temperatures and calm conditions increase the likelihood of carbon monoxide concentrations.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

These National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors,” those most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 4, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants, these pollutants are ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). 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.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
Climate6
In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern.

TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants.

Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.
643
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

0.07 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide

0.04 ppm
PMw
PM25
Lead
,3
Attainment Status7

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 14,22, January 2024. 23 20 ppm
9 ppm

0.18 ppm

0.030 ppm

0.25 ppm
Federal
Primary
Standard
35 ppm
9 ppm
100 ppb

0.053 ppm
75 ppb
Pollutant
Ozone
State
Standard

0.09 ppm

0.07 ppm
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Fresno County and throughout SJVAB. The SJVAPCD prepares plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by FCAA and CCAA. The SJVAPCD adopted the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), in response to the requirements of the State CCAA.

Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 9, January 2024.

The SJVAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County to measure ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The SJVAB is nonattainment for ozone (1 hour and 8 hour) and PM. The EPA uses standard classifications to reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. The SJVAB was classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone by the EPA (2004). The federal 1 hour ozone standard was revoked on June 6, 2005.

Averaging
Time
1-Hour
8-Hour
1-Hour
8-Hour________
1-Hour
Annual
1-Hour
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
30-Day Avg.

Calendar Quarter
3-Month Avg.
24 Hour
1 Hour
24 Hour
Sulfates
Hydrogen Sulfide
Vinyl Chloride
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3

0.15 ug/m
50 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
12 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3
25 ug/m3

0.03 ppm

0.01 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.030 ppm
150 ug/m3
644
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion under Section 3a above. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 52-53, January 2024. 9 Biological Evaluation Report for Tract 6263 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc , pages 8 to 21, May 2019. 24 Lastly, the SJVAPCD provided a comment letter, dated March 15, 2024 indicating that the Project would not exceed thresholds for criteria pollutants. However, the Project would be subject to compliance with District Rule 9510 which is intended to mitigate a project’s impact through project design elements or payment of off-site fees. The Project applicant would be required to submit to the SJVAPCD an Air Impact Assessment (AIA).

Further, the Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the SJVAPCD for review and approval. Consequently, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 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? Additionally, results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are generally considered to include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, or people with illnesses. Examples of these receptors are considered to be hospitals, residences, schools and school facilities, daycare facilities, and convalescent facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would be the residences adjacent to the site to the south (in construction) and east (existing). Based the AQ/GHG Report, an evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of exiting toxic sources and is located 2.5 miles from the State Route 168 freeway9; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.

The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s assumptions is determining consistency with the General Plan to ensure that the Project’s density and land use are consistent with the growth assumption used in the air quality plan. The Project is consistent with the currently adopted 2014 General Plan; therefore, is consistent with the growth assumptions under the applicable air quality plan and per the AQ/GHG Report, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS____________
Less-Than-Significant Impact. In general, regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Thus, individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation or air quality standards alone.

Although the CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project were to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, the SJVAPCDs 2015 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) does not provide specific guidance on analyzing conformity with the plan. Thus, for purposes of analyzing this potential impact, the AQ/GHG Report considered impacts based on:
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase if any criteria pollutant for which the project region nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard: (3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and (4) Result in other emissions such as those lead to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.8
645
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
X
X
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
X
X
f.

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
X
25 No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
tree preservation policy or ordinance?_____
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Generally, sources considered to emit odors are associated with wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing, and other industrial/manufacturing related uses. The Project is a residential use, thus, the odors associated with such use would be similar to that of the surrounding area which include residential uses. Overall, because the Project is a residential use, similar to existing residential uses, the types of odor that could result from the Project would not be considered an objectionable odor source. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
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
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 Game
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, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US 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,
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF CLOVIS d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
646
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following analysis is based on information provided by the Biological Report prepared by LOA.

DISCUSSION
10 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., pages 10 to 16, September 2023. 26 As part of the Biological Report, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted to determine the possible presence of special-status species in the vicinity of the Project. According to the search and field survey the Project site has the potential to be used by various wildlife including special status tricolored blackbird Swainson’s hawk (CA threated species), golden eagle, pallid bat, spotted bot, and western mastiff bat.10 While none of these species have the potential to nest or roost on the Project site, the Swainson’s hawk could potentially nest close enough to the site that individuals could be disturbed by construction activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Swainson’s hawk. If possible, construction activities should occur outside of the avian nesting season, typically defined as February 1 - August 31. If that is not feasible, preconstruction surveys shall occur if construction must occur between February 1 - August 31. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for active bird nests within seven (7) days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area shall encompass the Project site and accessible surrounding lands within 14 mile for nesting Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds.

Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. As described in the Biological Report, a reconnaissance-level field survey of the Project area was conducted on September 25, 2023 by LOA. The survey consisted of driving and walking throughout the site to identify habitats, plant, and animal species. During the field survey, the site was identified as ruderal grasslands; although presence of disturbance including disking and mowing, road construction, and localized grading was present.

The existing Project site is vacant and undeveloped with dirt roads containing several cleared and graded areas.

The Project site supported grasses and forbs typical of annual grasslands, best characterized as ruderal grassland habitat.

A Biological Evaluation Report (Biological Report) was prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) in November 2023 (see Appendix B). This Biological Report included an investigation of the biotic resources of the Project area and assessed potential project-related impacts pursuant to CEQA. As part of the Biological Report, the Project area was surveyed in September 2023 for habitat, plants, and animals.

There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the area; however, Swainson’s hawk, has occasionally been sighted in the Project vicinity and there is some chance for individuals of the species to forage on the site from time to time. Possible Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat is absent from the Project site but may be found on nearby rural residential along the Enterprise Canal.

Nevertheless, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 would ensure that a less-than-significant impact with mitigation occurs.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
647
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures
11 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 27, September 2023. 12 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 16, September 2023. 13 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 17, September 2023. 27 No Impact. Wildlife corridors are typically considered to be valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. According to the Biological Report, the Project site does not contain or adjoin any features No Impact. The Project site does not indicate the presence of any sensitive habitat or wildlife features that would be impacted and will be consistent with the CMC and 2014 General Plan polices. Although Policy 2.6 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan calls for the protection of biological resources, the Biological Evaluation did not identify any such resources at the site due to its location. Further, trees and shrubs are absent from the Project site; therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
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, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project site is characterized as vacant and undeveloped with ruderal grassland as the only habitat with the Project site. According to the Biological Report, 19 special status plants documented in the general vicinity of the project site; however, all 19 species are considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat and or soils.11 Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
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? e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF CLOVIS a suitable construction free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged are capable of foraging independently.
likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.13
are required.

No impact. Aquatic features, including any potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands, are absent from the Project Site.12
648
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
X
X
c. Disturb any human remains,
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
14 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 29, September 2023. 15 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 14, November 2023. 28 No Impact. As part of the Cultural Study, the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at the California State University, Bakersfield preformed a records search on June 31,2023, to identify previously recorded resources and prior surveys within the Project area and surrounding 0.25 mile search radius.15 According to the results, there were four previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area and one previous investigation with the 0.25 mile radius Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Project site is located on a vacant undeveloped site. The site is surrounded by existing and future residential development at varying densities.
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
In addition to the Cultural Study, City staff conducted Native American Consultation in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). In compliance with AB52, invitations for consultation were mailed on April 8, 2024 which affords Native tribes thirty (30) days to respond and to request consultation. During this timeframe, no requests for consultations were received.

A Cultural Resource Study (Cultural Study) was prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc. dated November 2023 (see Appendix C). This Cultural Study included a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), Native American Hertiage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, desktop archival research, as well as a pedestrian survey of the Project site.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ No Impact. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans for the Project vicinity14; thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 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?
649
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 16 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 16, November 2023. 17 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 17, November 2023. 18 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 21, November 2023. 29 Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. As mentioned in the discussion for Section 5a the site is undeveloped. The Cultural Study concluded no cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area.

Because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of archaeological resources during construction, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found artifacts can be properly removed and inventoried by a qualified archaeologist. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the qualified professional archaeologist, the Lead Agency, and the project proponent 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 Lead Agency as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.

If the qualified professional archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.

Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The site is undeveloped with the site’s grounds only have previously disturbed as a result of some light grading with dirt roads and the mowing of weeds. Further, the Cultural Study concluded that there were no cultural resources including potential historical resources were identified in the Project area.17
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS site, the previous studies date from 1991 to 2018.16 Additionally, as part of the Cultural Study historical topographic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed and a requested search of the Sacred Lands File was conducted by the NAHC on August 17, 2023.17 According to Cultural Study no cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area.18 Further, compliance with Policy 2.9 of the 2014 General Plan, which calls for the preservation of historical sites and buildings of state or national significance, would ensure that if there were historical resources present, they would be protected. Therefore, no impact would occur with regard to the Project causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and no mitigation measures are required.
650
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

6. ENERGY
inefficient, or unnecessary X
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
30 Would the project:_________________
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of 153 single-family homes on ±18 acres, along with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure (i.e., drive aisles, utilities, etc.). The Project would include construction activities typical of residential development, thus, is not generally considered the type of use or intensity that would result in the unnecessary consumption of energy. The units themselves would comply with Title 24 Green Building Standards for energy efficiency, as well as be required to comply with the latest water efficient landscape policy regulations, and California Building Code. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Clovis 2014 General Plan Policy 3.4, and 3.7 of the Open Space and Conservation, which call for the use of water conserving and drought tolerant landscape, as well as energy efficient buildings. Consequently, compliance with these measures would ensure that the Project does not result Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of human remains during construction, Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found human remains can be properly removed by the County coroner and/or tribes. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

The Project site is located on a vacant undeveloped site. The site is surrounded by existing and future residential development at varying densities.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Project shall follow the procedures and protocols set for un CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains are identified to be those of Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery of human remains on the Project site shall be submitted to the Lead Agency. operation?___________________
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
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? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nevertheless, the potential remains that human remains could be inadvertently or accidentally uncovered during ground-disturbing activities such as trenching, digging, and the installation of utilities and other infrastructure. 651
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion under Section 6a above.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
X
X
failure, X
X
X
X
X
X
or unique X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
31 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
paleontological resource
geologic feature?
iii) Seismic-related ground
including liguefaction?
iv) Landslides?
The 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR identified no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the Project site.

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 AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault?____________________
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
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 waste disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?_________________
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS in a significant impact due to the unnecessary consumption of energy and less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
652
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
Further, the site is generally flat and therefore landslides would not occur at the b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No impact. See discussion under Section 7a.

No Impact. The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks; therefore, no impact would occur. 19 California Department of Conservation, the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application mapping tool, https://maps.conservation.ca.qov/cqs/EQZApp/app/
20 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, Chapter 5: Geology and Soils, page 5.6-3. 32 No Impact. Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation, the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application mapping tool identifies the Project parcel as not within an Earthquake Fault Zone.19 Additionally, adherence to the most current California Building Codes would ensure that the structures are constructed safely and in compliance with the appropriate Building Codes. With regards to liquefaction, the 2014 General Plan EIR states that the soil types in the area are not considered conducive to liquefaction due to their high clay content Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the site is relatively flat, grading activities would be required to ensure a flat and graded surface prior to construction, which may result in the soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, as part of the Project, grading plans are required to be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division to ensure appropriate grading of the site. Thus, this review and approval process would ensure that a less-thansignificant impact occur and no mitigation measures are required. 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?
No impact. According to the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, expansive soils are mostly present in areas along the northern edge of the non-Sphere of Influence (SOI) and the easternmost part of the Clovis non-SOI plan area. Because the Project is within the City’s SOI; therefore, not within the vicinity of those areas, there would be no potential for creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property with regards to expansive soils.

As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

Project site. Overall, due to the Project site not being located within an earthquake fault zone, adherence to the most recent California Building Codes, and the flat topography, no impact would occur with regards to potential impacts from seismic activity.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
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?; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?; Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?; iv) Landslides?
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? or from being too coarse.20
653
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
greenhouse
either directly X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33 gas
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate
emissions,
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG’s has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic activities which alter the composition of the global atmosphere.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist, can evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.

Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project site is vacant and undisturbed and the Cultural Study concluded that there are no cultural resources including potential historical resources identified in the Project area. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the inadvertent or accidental discovery could occur during ground disturbing construction activities. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-1, below, would serve to protect the accidental discovery of paleontological resources. As such, a less-than-significant with mitigation impact would occur.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the qualified professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist, the Lead Agency, and the project proponent 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 Lead Agency as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met. indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?___
b. Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
If the qualified professional determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
654
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Significance Criteria
34 Projects can reduce their GHG emission impacts to a less than significant level by implementing BPS. Projects can also demonstrate compliance with the requirements of AB 32 by demonstrating that their emissions achieve a 29% reduction below “business as usual” (BAU) levels. BAU is a projected GHG emissions inventory assuming no change in existing business practices and without considering implementation of any GHG emission reduction measures.

In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires the CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

Individual Projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by emitting GHGs during construction and operational phases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change, meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures.

Emissions of carbon dioxide are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs, with much greater heat-absorption potential than carbon dioxide, include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes.

The effects of project-specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and therefore climate change impacts are addressed as a cumulative, rather than a direct, impact. The guidance for determining significance of impacts has been developed from the requirements of AB 32. The guideline addresses the potential cumulative impacts that a project’s GHG emissions could have on climate change. Since climate change is a global phenomenon, no direct impact would be identified for an individual land development project. The following criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant impact for climate change impacts:

In December 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) adopted guidance for addressing GHG impacts in its Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. The guidance relies on performance-based standards, otherwise known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to assess significance of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process.

There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming.

Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years.

Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

The SJVAPCDs Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA provides initial screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
655
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Does the project achieve AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with BAU? Projects that meet one of these guidelines would have less than significant impact on the global climate.

DISCUSSION
21 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 56, January 2024. 35 The 2022 Scoping Plan further recommends that a proposed project be located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). The proposed Project is located in close proximity to other single-family residential uses that are presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). The Project site and adjacent parcels The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that project attributes consistent with specific priority strategies would accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction. The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that a residential or mixed-use project provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

CALGreen requires provision of infrastructure to accommodate EV chargers for new single family and attached dwelling units/town houses. It is not yet known whether the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be required to ensure the proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging.

Does the project achieve 29% GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards? If no, then
Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project would include the construction and operation of 153 single-family homes and associated infrastructure (i.e., sewer and water infrastructure, roadways, sidewalks, etc.). As such, GHG emissions would be produced through the construction and operational phases of the Project. As a result, an estimate of the Project’s operational emissions in 2005 were compared to the operational emission in 2020 in order to determine if the Project meets the 29% emission reduction. Results of the analysis show that the Project’s GHG emission in the year 2020 is 2179.68 MTCO2eq./year, which represents an achievement of 16% GHG emission reduction on the basis of BAU, which does not meet the 29% GHG emission reduction target.21 Although, the Project does not meet the 29% GHG emission reduction, the 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. With the implementation of recommended mitigation, the proposed project is generally consistent with the key project attributes recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan, as further discussed below.

Does the project comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions? If no, then
In December 2022 the 2022 Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB which assesses progress toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Because neither the City of Clovis or the SJVAPCD have developed or adopted numerical GHG significance threshold, the proposed Project was analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan consistent with statewide climate goals. The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
656
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 58-59, January 2024. 36 The proposed project would also be generally consistent with the transit density criteria recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The proposed Project would include an approximately 20-foot-wide parkway containing an approximately 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and 10-foot-wide landscaping along both N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. Additionally, the Project includes multiple direct pedestrian connections into the proposed Project that would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation. As such, the project would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 the Project would result in less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Based on the AQ/GHG Report,22 as required by California law General Plans contain land use elements that detail types and quantities of land uses needed for future growth assumptions.

Therefore, determination of consistency with a county/city’s General Plan can be used to confirm that the Project’s density and land use are consistent with the growth assumption used in the air quality plan. The Project is consistent with the currently adopted 2014 General Plan; therefore, is consistent with the growth assumptions under the applicable air quality plan and per the AQ/GHG Report, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Additionally, as indicated in the discussion above under Section 8a, the Project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, a state adopted plan for Statewide climate goals and greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Consequently, the AQ/GHG Report found this potential impact to be less than significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan 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 design.

The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that a proposed project reduce parking requirements by eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit. The proposed Project would consist of 153 residential lots with construction of approximately 59 dedicated off-street parking spaces. Based on the minimal parking spaces when compared to the number of residential units, the proposed project would be consistent with this key project attribute. An additional State goal is to advance the availability of fair housing. The proposed project would help to address the California housing shortage and would increase the number of residences available to residents of the San Joaquin Valley.

Finally, consistent with the recommendations in the 2022 Scoping Plan, the proposed Project would be all electric and not include natural gas connections.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________
have been identified for future development in the 2014 General Plan. CARB guidance recommends that, to be consistent with State goals, a proposed project should not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands. As discussed in Section 2A the Project will not result in the loss or conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this key project attribute.
657
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
37 “Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
For purposes of this chapter, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. A “hazardous material” is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as “substance or material that is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce” (49 CFR 171.8). California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines a hazardous material as follows:

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
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 one-quarter
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 two 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?
658
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion above under Section 9a. 38 Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 153 single-family homes on ±18 acres. The type of hazardous materials that would be associated with the Project are those typical of residential uses, such as the use of household cleaners, landscape maintenance products, soaps, and potential pesticides (for pest control). These materials, when used and applied properly, would not necessarily create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Further, these materials are not anticipated to be stored in large quantities that could pose a threat. Overall, the Project would not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials other than those typical of residential development, which are not generally considered of the type or quantity that would pose a significant hazard to the public when used as directed. During construction, typical equipment and materials would be used that are associated with residential construction; however, any chemicals or materials would be handled, stored, disposed of, and/or transported according to applicable laws. Consequently, because the Project is not of the type of use that would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.

No impact. As mentioned above, the Project site is located approximately one (1) mile from the nearest school.

Further, the Project is not of the type of use typically associated with emitting hazardous emissions or handling the type or quantity of hazardous materials such that it would pose a risk or threat to the school, or surrounding area. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
The nearest school to the Project site is Woods Elementary School, located approximately one (1) mile southwest of the site at its closest point.
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?
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? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________
reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
659
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Therefore, no impact

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
discharge requirements otherwiseor X
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
X
39 supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site it is not located in an area typically associated with wildfires.

Although urban fires could occur, the Project would be constructed to the latest fire code standards, which would include fire sprinklers in each unit, as well as the installation of several fire hydrants throughout the site as required by the Clovis Fire Department. Further, other life safety features would be required such as smoke detectors, which would be reviewed and checked by the Fire Department to ensure proper operation prior to occupancy. Ultimately, a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project will connect in the internal street network to N. Baron, Perrin, and N. Marion Avenues already developed from previous development. Although the Project could result in temporary traffic detouring or closures during buildout, these delays would be temporary and would be coordinated with the City Planning and Development Services Department and other departments to ensure safe access to and from the area is maintained. Further, the site itself would be reviewed by City departments to ensure adequate site access and circulation is provided in the event of an emergency. Overall, a less-thansignificant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.

Would the project:_____________________
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
e) 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 23 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor Database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.qov/public/map/?myaddress=Clovis, accessed on April 11, 2024
No Impact. The Project is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of a public airport.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF CLOVIS No Impact. According the California Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor Database, the Project site is not located on or within the immediate vicinity of a hazardous materials site.23 would occur.
660
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
40 The Project is located within the FMFCD boundary, and subject to its standards and regulations. Detention and retention basins in the FMFCD’s flood control system are sized to accommodate stormwater from each basin’s drainage area in builtout condition. The current capacity standard for FMFCD basins is to contain runoff from six inches of rainfall during a ten-day period and to infiltrate about 75 to 80 percent of annual rainfall into the groundwater basin (Rourke 2014). Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals (FMFCD 2013). Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer (FMFCD 2014). Basins are built to design criteria exceeding statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation The City is within the drainages of three streams: Dry Creek, Dog Creek, and Redbank Slough. On the north, Dry Creek discharges into the Herndon Canal in the City of Fresno west of Clovis. South of Dry Creek, Dog Creek is a tributary of Redbank Slough, which discharges into Mill Ditch south of Clovis (USGS 2012). A network of storm drains in the City and the Plan Area discharges into 31 retention basins, most of which provide drainage for a one- to two-square-mile area. Most of the Plan Area east and northeast of the City is not in drainage areas served by retention basins. Those areas drain to streams that discharge into reservoirs, including Big Dry Creek Reservoir in the north-central part of the Plan Area and Redbank Creek Dam and Reservoir in the southeast part of the Plan Area. Fancher Creek Dam and Reservoir are near the east Plan Area boundary.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
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 offsite; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite; (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?
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site?_______________________ ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?_______
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?___________________
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?
661
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Groundwater
41 New development in accordance with the General Plan Update would increase the amount of impervious surface in the Plan Area, potentially affecting the amount of surface water that filters into the groundwater supply.

Groundwater levels are monitored in the Plan Area by the FID and the City of Clovis. As described in the 2015 A proposed development that would construct more impervious area on its project site than the affected detention/retention basin is sized to accommodate is required to infiltrate some stormwater onsite, such as through an onsite detention basin or drainage swales (Rourke 2014).

The Big Dry Creek Reservoir has a total storage capacity of about 30 thousand acre-feet (taf) and controls up to 230-year flood flows. Fancher Creek Dam and Reservoir hold up to 9.7 taf and controls up to 200-year flood flows. Redbank Creek Dam and Reservoir hold up to 1 taf and controls up to 200-year flood flows.

The pipeline collection system in the urban flood control system is designed to convey the peak flow rate from a two-year storm.

Clovis is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Basin that spans 1,530 square miles of central Fresno County and small areas of northern Kings and Tulare counties. Figure 5.9-4, Kings Groundwater Basin, shows that the basin is bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River, on the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins, the south by the Kings River South Fork and the Empire West Side Irrigation District, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada foothills. Depth to groundwater in 2016 ranged from 196.5 feet at the northwest City boundary to 69.5 feet at the southeast City boundary (Clovis 2016), 25 feet at the southeast SOI boundary, and about 20 feet at the eastern Plan Area boundary (FID 2013). The Kings Subbasin has been identified as critically overdrafted (Provost & Pritchard 2011).

In addition to their flood control and water quality functions, many FMFCD basins are used for groundwater recharge with imported surface water during the dry season through contracts with the FID and the cities of Fresno and Clovis; such recharge totaled 48,139 acre feet of water in 2020.

In the Plan Area, groundwater levels are monitored by the City of Clovis and FID. The overall area has not experienced land subsidence due to groundwater pumping since the early 1900s (FID 2006). Subsidence occurs when underground water or natural resources (e.g., oil) are pumped to the extent that the ground elevation lowers. No significant land subsidence is known to have occurred in the last 50 years as a result of land development, water resources development, groundwater pumping, or oil drilling (FID 2006). The City has identified a localized area of subsidence of 0.6 feet in the vicinity of Minnewawa and Herndon Avenues within the last 14 years (Clovis 2016). Regional ground subsidence in the Plan Area was mapped as less than one foot by the US Geological Survey in 1999 (Galloway and Riley 1999). Groundwater levels in the San Joaquin Valley are forecast to hit an all-time low in 2014 (UCCHM 2014).

Most drainage areas in the urban flood control system do not discharge to other water bodies, and drain mostly through infiltration into groundwater. When necessary, FMFCD can move water from a basin in one such drainage area to a second such basin by pumping water into a street and letting water flow in curb and gutter to a storm drain inlet in an adjoining drainage area (Rourke 2014). Two FMFCD drainage areas discharge directly to the San Joaquin River, and three to an irrigation canal, without storage in a basin. Six drainage areas containing basins discharge to the San Joaquin River, and another 39 basins discharge to canals (FMFCD 2013).

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS Plan (SUSMP) standards (FMFCD 2013). The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development—not just the specific categories of development defined in a SUSMP—thus providing greater water quality protection for surface water and groundwater than does a SUSMP. 662
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
42 Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are no streams or rivers on the site that would be altered as a result of the Project. Further, some of the infrastructure surrounding the site, such as stormdrains are already in place from existing development to the south. The site is mostly pervious since it is currently undeveloped, and as a result, the Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces by installing paving for roadways and sidewalks. However, the drainage pattern would be constructed per existing policies and regulations through The FMFCD urban stormwater drainage system would provide groundwater infiltration for runoff from developed land uses in detention basins in the drainage system service area.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level due to the Project. The 2014 General Plan EIR identified a net decrease in ground water aquifer throughout the region, however, because the City’s domestic water system is primarily served through surface water via existing water entitlements, the loss of aquifer is less than significant. The City has developed a surface water treatment plant (opened in June, 2004) that reduces the need for pumped groundwater, and has also expanded the municipal groundwater recharge facility. The Projects impacts to groundwater are less than significant with no mitigation measures required.

Projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update and developed outside of the FMFCD urban stormwater drainage system would be required to meet the requirements of NPDES regulations, including the implementation of BMPs to improve water retention and vegetation on project sites. 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. The Project is located on a site that was previously anticipated for residential use. As with any development, existing policies and standards are required to be complied with, which are assessed during review of the entitlements. As such, the Engineering Division, as well as outside agencies such as the FMFCD review all plans to ensure that none of the water quality standards are violated and that waste discharge requirements are adhered to during construction and operation of the Project. Consequently, this process of Project review and approval would ensure that a less-than-significant impact occur with no mitigation measures.
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, 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 offsite; (Hi) 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? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), groundwater recharge occurs both naturally and artificially throughout the City. The Kings Groundwater Basin area is recharged through a joint effort between the Cities of Clovis and Fresno and the FID (CDWR 2006). Approximately 8,400 acre-feet per year (afy) of water are intentionally recharged into the Kings Groundwater Basin by the City of Clovis, and approximately 7,700 afy of water naturally flow into groundwater in the City’s boundaries (Clovis 2011). 663
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
divide existingan
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
43 Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically
community?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of Clovis is within the North Kings County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), certain regions in California are required to develop and implement a groundwater management plan that sustainably manages groundwater resources. The proposed Project would comply with the 2020 City of Clovis UWMP which promotes programs and policies to manage water supplies. Nevertheless, the Project would derive the majority of its water from surface water sources and does not propose or include plans for groundwater use. With regards to water quality control, the Project would be required to adhere to appropriate storm drain conveyance and the protection of water resources which would include the installation of backflow preventers. Consequently, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation measures.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Due to the Central Valley’s location away from the ocean, an impact from a tsunami is unlikely. The majority of the site is located within the 1% annual flood (100-year flood) area as mapped by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); however, the CMC Section 8.12, Floodplain Management lists standards and requirements for new construction within special flood zones; therefore, the Project would implement flood hazard management as required by the CMC. As a result of adhering to required flood hazard management, the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation and consequently, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures. 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?
As described above in the Project Description, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded by residential development, including existing rural residential to the east, residential to the south currently under construction, and development under entitlement processing to the west. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS review of the plans by the City Engineering Division and the FMFCD to ensure the site is properly and adequately drained such that the stormdrain system is maintained and so that no flooding occurs. Consequently, this review and approval by City engineers and FMFCD would mean that the Project result in a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
664
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
X
X
24 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, Chapter 5: Mineral Resources, page 5.11-1. 44 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned in the Existing Setting Section above, the Project site is currently within the County of Fresno jurisdiction and zoned AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural). However, the Project site will be rezoned to the R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District though a separate entitlement application (Rezone 2021-006). According to Section 9.10.010(B)(5) of the CMC, the R-1-PRD Zone District identifies areas appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached singlefamily structures on small lots. If approved, the Project will be required to go through the RSPR entitlement process for review for compliance with relevant design policies, such as in the Heritage Grove Master Plan, the CMC, and the General Plan. During the review, the height, color and materials are reviewed for consistency with these plans and guidelines. As a result of the Project in complying with the land use and zoning designation upon approval, as well as the review process ensuring General Plan and other applicable policies are adhered to, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regards to conflicting with a land use plan.

No mitigation measures are required.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the site is currently vacant and undeveloped, the general area to the south is urbanized with residential uses of varying densities. Typically, physically dividing existing communities is associated with the construction of a new road intersecting an established area or introducing uses that are not necessarily in line with the existing uses and planned land uses of the area. However, the Project site has been previously designated in the 2014 Clovis General Plan and zoned for residential use.

Consequently, because the proposed Project is the type of use previously planned for this site and the general areas, it would not physically divide an existing community. Rather, it seeks to add new housing stock to the City with installation of a new public sidewalk and roadway infrastructure. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Clovis 2014 General Plan EIR defines minerals as any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds formed from inorganic processes and organic substances.24 The 2014 General Plan EIR indicates that there are no active mines or inactive mines within the Plan Area of the City of Clovis. 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? 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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________ a) Would the project physically divide an existing community? 665
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
No Impact. Please refer to the discussion under Section 12a.

13. NOISE
X
X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
45 An acoustical analysis was prepared for the Project by WJV Acoustics on March 14, 2024 and the analysis below is based in part on the study. As part of the acoustical analysis, noise exposure from traffic on Perrin and N. Clovis Avenues was calculated for future (2046) conditions using the Federal Highway Administration Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact. As stated above, the City of Clovis does not have any active mines or inactive mines. Further, the Project site is not designated, or otherwise mapped for mineral resource extraction, or for having mineral resources of value to the region present on or below the surface of the site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

The Project site is vacant and surrounded by residential development, including existing rural residential to the east, residential development to the south currently under construction, and residential development under entitlement processing to the west. As such, existing ambient noise levels are typical of those associated with residential development, such as the sound of vehicles passing by, the sound of talking, and recreating could be expected within the Project vicinity. As a result of construction to the south, existing ambient noise levels may be slightly elevated as a result of the use of construction equipment, such as large trucks, tractors, and other construction tools associated with residential development. These increases would be temporary, however, and would cease upon completion of the neighborhood.

Would the project:____________________
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 two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
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? 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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF CLOVIS
666
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

DISCUSSION
As such, the exterior noise exposure would not exceed the City’s b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 25 Acoustical Analysis Tract 6452, VJV Acoustics, Inc, page 8, March 2024. 46 The acoustical analysis indicated that exterior traffic noise exposure at the closest proposed lots to Perrin Avenue would be approximately 61 dB CNEL for future traffic conditions and approximately 51 dB CNEL for the Less-Than Significant Impact. The Project includes development of 153 single-family homes and associated infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, roadways, curb, gutter, stormdrains, etc.). Therefore, construction equipment typical of the development of residential homes would be utilized temporarily. This equipment could include the use of heavy tractors, trucks, and other equipment; however, this type of equipment isn’t typically associated with excessive groundborne vibration. If any vibration were to occur, it’s likely that it would be temporary in nature and not at levels that would significantly impact the surrounding area. Further, the Project would be required to comply with the provisions of Section 9.22.090 of the CMC which requires that vibration not be perceptible along property lines and that it shall not interfere with operations or facilities on adjoining parcels.

It’s important to note also that temporary construction vibration and noise is exempt from these provisions due to the fact that construction is temporary. Overall, because the type of equipment likely to be used in the Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Interior Noise. Mechanical ventilation or air conditioning shall be provided for all homes to enable windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation purposes.

Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project would include development of 153 single-family homes on an undeveloped site. Thus, the Project would result in a temporary and permanent increase in ambient noise levels as a result of construction and operation. However, as mentioned above, the Project site will be surrounded by residential development of varying densities. The Project would introduce new ambient noise from the construction and operation of the homes, these noises would represent the typical type of noise levels that is expected for a planned residential land use. While increases in ambient noise would occur due to the construction of the Project, this increase would be temporary and would be required to adhere to local regulations limiting the hours of construction.

The CMC Section 9.22.080, Noise, sets forth noise standards for development which would need to be complied with. For example, construction would only be permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends. However, between June 1 and September 15, construction may begin at 6:00 a.m. on weekdays.

The acoustical analysis indicated that the worst-case interior noise exposure within the proposed Project would be approximately 61 dB CNEL which exceeds the City’s standard for interior noise; however, the mitigation measures below would reduce these impacts sufficiently to meet the City standards for noise. Consequently, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation would occur. 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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS____________
(FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The acoustical analysis can be found in Appendix D of this Initial Study.
closest proposed lots to N. Clovis Avenue.25
exterior noise level of 65 dB CNEL.
667
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
47 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would result in 153 single-family homes. The Project site has two existing General Plan Land Use designations of Very Low Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 0.6 to 2.0 DU/AC and Medium Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 4.1 to 7.0 DU/AC.

Calculated with net acres, the Project site would require a range of 42 to 80 dwelling units. Thus, blending of density will be utilized with adjacent TM6200, to the south. TM6200 was recorded on December 24, 2019, which allowed for a maximum of 871 dwelling units. TM6200 has been processed in phases currently with 586 dwelling units approved for development which leaves a 283-unit surplus. Thus, the Project will utilize 73 units of the remaining 283 units for a blended product. Further, the Project includes residential use on a site that is planned for the type of use being proposed. Unplanned population growth is typically associated with providing new services in remote areas of the City or other infrastructure that was not previously identified in the General Plan.

Although the Project would result in new housing units and population to the site, this growth was previously planned and anticipated under the 2014 General Plan. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

The Project is located on a vacant site that is planned for residential use in the 2014 Clovis General Plan. The Project site is ±18 acres and proposes 153 single-family homes. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles a public airport. Therefore, no impact would occur. 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) ?
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?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS development of the Project is not considered to be of the type and intensity to result in substantial vibration or groundborne noise, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 668
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
48 Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in 153 new residential units, the site is located adjacent to an area of the City that is already able to be served by the Clovis Fire Department. Upon annexation (R2021-006), the Project will then be located in an area the City will be able to serve. Also, the site itself is in close proximity to Fire Station’s #3 and #5, which would mean that response times should be able to be maintained during calls for service. As part of the entitlement process for the Project, the Clovis Fire Department will review the design and site layout to ensure adequate fire safety measures and site circulation are achieved.

This would include placement of new fire hydrants in certain locations throughout the site, adequate drive widths for fire truck and emergency vehicle access, and the appropriate application of fire codes, such as installation of sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and smoke detectors. Overall, with the site’s close proximity to numerous fire Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Project would be served by the Clovis Fire Department, Clovis Police Department, with mutual aid from the City of Fresno, when needed. The Project site would also be within the Clovis Unified School District.

The nearest fire station is Fire Station #3, located approximately three (3) miles southwest of the site. The other closest fire station is Fire Station #5, located approximately four (4) miles to southeast of the site.

No impact. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped; therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measure are required.
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 fire protection services? X
X
X
X
X
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Would the project:_____________________
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:______________________________
a. Fire protection?________________
b. Police protection?______________
c. Schools?_____________________
d. Parks?_______________________
e. Other public facilities?
669
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
49 Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in 153 new residential units, residential uses have been previously planned for in the 2014 Clovis General Plan in this area. Also, through the entitlement process, the Project would undergo review by several departments and agencies for compliance with Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the Project proposes one (1) approximately 8,990 square foot pocket park, this park would not cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks. Furthermore, the Project is required to request annexation to and provide a covenant for the Landscape Maintenance District. Consequently, a less-thansignificant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) 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 schools? d) 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 parks? b) 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 police protection services? Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the Project would result in 153 new residential units, the site is located adjacent to an area of the City this already able to be served by the Clovis Police Department. Upon annexation (R2021-006), the Project will then be located in an area the City will be able to serve. The Clovis Police Department headquarters are located at 1233 Fifth Street, which is approximately five (5) miles from the site.

As part of the entitlement process for the Project, the Clovis Police Department will review the design and site layout to ensure adequate safety measures are achieved. Consequently, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As part of the review process, Clovis Unified School District (CUSD) is provided the opportunity to comment and work closely with the City as development is proposed. As mentioned previously, the Project site was previously planned for residential development, as indicated in the 2014 Clovis General Plan. As such, the CUSD has been aware of the potential for this type of development at this location.

As part of the process, the Project would be required to pay school fees which typically go towards the improvement and/or construction of new schools or expanding existing schools if and when needed, as determined by the CUSD. Therefore, because the Project is consistent with what was previously planned for at this site in addition to payment of appropriate school fees set by the CUSD, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
e) 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 other public facilities? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS stations, construction that would meet the latest fire code standards, and review by the Clovis Fire Department, impacts related to effects on the performance of the Fire Department would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required.
670
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

16. RECREATION
X
beoccur or
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
50 Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site itself would construct on-site a pocket park. The Project itself would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities elsewhere that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project would also be required to contribute a proportionate share towards the acquisition and development of future parks in order for the City to maintain its adopted ratio Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Would the project:__________________ Incorporated
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned in the Population and Housing section of this Initial Study, the Project is of the type previously planned and accounted for in the 2014 Clovis General Plan. Although 153 new residential units would be constructed, therefore, adding new population to the area that may utilize parks within the surrounding area, this growth was planned for with regards to park usage throughout the city. Further, the Project itself would include landscaped and open space areas on-site for its residents, as well as a pocket park space within the neighborhood, thereby, providing areas of recreation within the site itself. The Project would also be required to comply with 2014 General Plan Policy 2.2 of the Open Space and Conservation Element which encourages the incorporation of on-site natural resources. b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
The nearest existing recreational site is Dry Creek Trailhead, located at the corner of Shepherd and Sunnyside Avenues. A future community park is planned approximately 0.30 miles west of the Project site.

Overall, the Project is not likely to increase the use of existing parks such that physical deterioration would occur. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required. the facility would
accelerated?
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 that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS____________
appropriate regulations and policies. This could result in various impact fees that are intended to maintain and enhance public facilities as appropriate to be able to accommodate the Project. As such, payment of the typical development fees, as well as project review by the different department and agencies, would result in the Project having a less-than-significant impact to public facilities. No mitigation measures are required. 671
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

17. TRANSPORTATION
a program plan,
X
section 15064.3, X
sharp curves or dangerous X
X

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DISCUSSION
51 Would the project:
a. Conflict with
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the site is on land that was previously planned for residential use in the 2014 Clovis General Plan. As described in the Population and Housing section above, the Project will be consistent with the planned density through density blending with the adjacent TM6200. The 2024 Clovis General Plan considers level of service (LOS) D as the LOS standard vehicle traffic operations, except for roadway segments that are adopted in the City’s General Plan EIR to operate at LOS E or F. At study No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
c. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
Guidelines :
subdivision (b)?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
According to the 2014 Clovis General Plan Circulation Diagram in the Circulation Element (Figure C-1 of the Circulation Element), N. Baron and Perrin Avenues are classified as “Collector” streets. Collectors generally intended to provide for relatively short distance travel between and within neighborhoods and that serve longer through trips. N. Baron Avenue is planned to connect to N. Clovis and N. Minnewawa Avenues "Arterials" to the west.

A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Peters Engineering Group on February 8, 2024 (included as Appendix E of this Initial Study). The information and analysis in the following sections is based in part on the results of the TIA.

The project is bounded by Perrin Avenue to the south, N. Baron Avenue to the west, a planned FMFCD basin to the north, and rural residential to the east. The circulation network serving the site including internal site circulation will be constructed as part of the project. a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?__________________
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Significant
and
Unavoidable
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?_______
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS of providing four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, as stated in Policy 1.1 in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2014 General Plan, and Section 3.4.03 of the CMC. As such, a less-thansignificant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 672
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing-Plus-Project Conditions
Near-Term-With-Project Conditions
These conditions are based on buildout of the Project plus the near term planned or entitled projects that are reasonably foreseeable. The following projects were considered in the near-term analyses: TM6205, 605 single-family homes (NE of Shepherd and Sunnyside), TM6343, 590 single-family homes (NE of Behymer and Baron), TM6406, 51 single-family homes (SW of Perrin and Baron), TM6375, 387 single-family homes 30 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 16. 52 26 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No. 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 2. 27 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 9. 28 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No. 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 9. 29 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 15. (W of Clovis and Baron), and Heritage Grove, 18-acre mixed use development (SE of Willow and Shepherd).

Under this scenario, the intersections of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues and Clovis and N. Baron Avenues would exceed acceptable LOS thresholds per City standards during peak hours.30 Additionally, per the TIS the intersection of N. Clovis and Shepherd Avenues would not meet the 95th percentile gueues for existing storage Existing-Plus-Project conditions represent existing conditions plus buildout of the Project if none of the pending and approved project in the vicinity were constructed. According to the TIA, all intersections currently operating at an acceptable LOS are not expected to operate below the City LOS standard.28 Although delays are expected to increase at the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues, the delays are relatively minimal. Delays are also expected to increase at the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues during the p.m. peak hour causing the LOS to drop from E to F; however, construction of a traffic signal at the intersection is currently underway.

The TIA studied six (6) intersections 1) N. Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues, 2) N. Baron and Behymer Avenues, 3) N. Baron and Perrin Avenues, 4) N. Clovis and Baron Avenues, 5) N. Clovis and Shephard Avenues, and 6) Sunnyside and Sheperd Avenues for existing conditions, existing-plus-project conditions, near term with project conditions, and cumulative conditions to the year 2045. A discussion of each of these scenarios is included below. Each scenario is based on the Projects a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips as determined in the TIS. According to the TIS, the Project would result in 108 trips in the a.m. peak hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 144 trips in the p.m. peak hours between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., as well as a total of 1,444 daily vehicle trips.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________
intersections under the jurisdiction of the City of Clovis, a significant impact would occur at a signalized intersection when LOS falls below the target LOS of D with the addition of project traffic or when project increases the average delay at an intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS.

Based on the TIA,26 existing traffic volumes were determined during morning peak hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and between evening peak hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday. According to the TIA, the intersections of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues and Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues are not currently operating at an acceptable LOS based on City of Clovis standards.27 In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at an acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized or at a minimum a dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches. With signalization this intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during a.m. and p.m. peak hours.29
673
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.

Cumulative 2045 Traffic Conditions
• Eastbound: two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right turn lane • Westbound: one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane 31 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No. 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 16. 32 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 16. 33 Transportation Impact Analysis, Proposed Tract No 6452, Peters Engineering Group, February 8, 2024 page 10. 53 In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized or at a minimum dedicated left turn lanes with protected left turn phasing would be required on all four approaches and a dedicated right turn lame would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

For Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require modification from the planned signalized lane to the following:

To better accommodate the intersection of N. Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, striping may be modified to open the second left-turn on the northbound approach. With the modification the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of N. Baron and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized, at a minimum a dedicated left turn lane with protected left turn phasing would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. peak hour.

In order for the intersection of N. Baron and Perrin to operate at acceptable LOS, all way stop control may be installed. With all-way stop control, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)

INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS capacity for the left-turn lane on the northbound approach, right turn lanes on the eastbound and northbound approaches.

In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at an acceptable LOS the same improved condition as outlined above in the Existing-Plus-Project Conditions summary is recommended. In order for the intersection of N. Clovis and Baron Avenues to operate at an acceptable LOS, the intersection would require signalization. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It is not recommended to require installation of signalization with the Project alone; the intersection should require signalization until N. Clovis Avenue is extended north of Baron Avenue.31 In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of N. Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach, with this modification the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during a.m. and p.m. peak hours.32 These conditions represent anticipated traffic volumes for the year 2045 using the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) travel model. As described in the TIS, only one (1) study intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS for the year 2045.33
674
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.
• Southbound: two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane Bicycle Facilities
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) ? • Provision of affordable housing
• Local-serving retail projects with areas of 100,000 square feet and below 34 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Clovis, September 15, 2022 page 4. 54 With regards to bicycle facilities, Figure C-2 of the 2014 Clovis General Plan does not indicate any planned bicycle or trail systems fronting the Project.