March 9, 2026 - 1 - 6:00 PM
Agenda • City Council Meeting
Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 324-2060 www.clovisca.gov
March 9, 2026 6:00 PM Council Chamber
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to access the City Council Chamber to participate at this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (559) 324-2060 (TTY – 711). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the Council Chamber.
The Clovis City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical address listed above. There are numerous ways to participate in the City Council meetings: you are able to attend in person; you may submit written comments as described below; and you may view the meeting which is webcast and accessed at www.clovisca.gov/agendas.
Written Comments
• Members of the Public are encouraged to submit written comments at:
www.clovisca.gov/agendas at least two (2) hours before the meeting (4:00 PM). You will be prompted to provide Council Meeting Date, Item Number, Name, Email, Comment • Please submit a form for each item you are commenting on. • A copy of your written comment will be provided to the City Council noting the item number.
If you wish to make a verbal comment, please see instructions below. • Please be aware that any written comments received that do not specify a particular agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the agenda. • If a written comment is received after 4:00 PM on the day of the meeting, efforts will be made to provide the comment to the City Council during the meeting. However, staff cannot guarantee that written comments received after 4:00 PM will be provided to City Council during the meeting. All written comments received prior to the end of the meeting will be made part of the record of proceedings.
Campaign Contribution Prohibition and Mandatory Disclosure – Pursuant to Government Code section 84308, a Councilmember shall not accept, solicit, or direct a campaign contribution of more than $500 from any party or their agent, or from any participant or their agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, contract, or other entitlement for use is pending before the City or for 12 months after a final decision is rendered in that proceeding. Any Councilmember who has received a campaign contribution of more than $500 within the preceding 12 months from a party or their agent, or from a participant or their agent, must disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence the decision.
March 9, 2026 - 2 - 6:00 PM
Pursuant to Government Code section 84308, subdivision (e), any party to a covered proceeding before the City Council is required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made within the preceding 12 months by the party or their agent to any Councilmember. The disclosure shall be made as required by Government Code Section 84308, subdivision (e)(1) and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 18438.8. No party or their agent, and no participant or their agent, shall make a campaign contribution of more than $500 to any Councilmember during the covered proceeding or for 12 months after a final decision is made in that proceeding. The foregoing statements do not constitute legal advice, and parties and participants are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the applicable requirements of the law.
Call to Order
Flag Salute - Councilmember Bessinger
Roll Call
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the City Council on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic. Anyone wishing to be placed on the Agenda for a specific topic should contact the City Manager’s office and submit correspondence at least 10 days before the desired date of appearance.
Consent Calendar
Items considered routine in nature are to be placed upon the Consent Calendar. They will all be considered and voted upon in one vote as one item unless a Councilmember requests individual consideration. A Councilmember’s vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Motions in favor of adoption of the Consent Calendar are deemed to include a motion to waive the reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items.
1. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the March 2, 2026 City Council Meeting.
2. Finance – Receive and File – Investment Report for the Month of September, 2025.
3. Finance – Receive and File – Treasurer's Report for the Month of September, 2025.
4. Finance - Approval - Res. 26-___, Request to Grant Authority for Additional Finance Department staff to transfer monies to and from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and Rescind the Authority of Staff to Deposit or Withdraw Funds.
5. General Services - Approval - Res. 26-___, Amending the City's FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan by adding one (1) Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst Position within the Fire and Police Departments and removing one (1) GIS Specialist Position from the City Manager's Department.
6. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Res. 26-____, Annexation of Miscellaneous Properties to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
Public Hearings
A public hearing is an open consideration within a regular or special meeting of the City Council, for which special notice has been given and may be required. When a public hearing is continued, noticing of the adjourned item is required as per Government Code 54955.1.
March 9, 2026 - 3 - 6:00 PM
7. Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-___, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis Making Technical Amendments to Article 2 of Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal Code relating to the Personnel Commission.
Staff: Amy Hance, General Services Director
Recommendation: Approve
8. Consider Approval - Res. 26-___, CUP2025-006 Appeal, A request to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP2025-006 for a three-story, mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial space and parking, and one residence above located at 319 Bullard Avenue. Rick Sassano, Owner and Applicant; and Paul Halajian Architects, Representative.
Staff: Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Deny the request for appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
Administrative Items
Administrative Items are matters on the regular City Council Agenda other than Public Hearings.
9. Workshop: Finance Department Update.
Staff: Jay Schengel, Finance Director
Recommendation: Receive and File
10. Receive and File - 2026 Five-Year Financial Forecast for the City of Clovis through Fiscal Year 2030/31 and discuss options for budget preparation for 2026-2027.
Staff: Jay Schengel, Finance Director
Recommendation: Receive and File
City Manager Comments
Council Comments
Adjournment
Future Meetings
Regular City Council Meetings are held at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber. The following are future meeting dates:
Mar. 16, 2026 (Mon.)
Apr. 6, 2026 (Mon.) To be Cancelled
Apr. 13, 2026 (Mon.)
Apr. 20, 2026 (Mon.)
PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 2, 2026 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber
Meeting called to order by Mayor Mouanoutoua at 6:00
Flag Salute led by Councilmember Basgall
Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Ashbeck, Basgall, Bessinger, Mayor Pro Tem Pearce Mayor Mouanoutoua
PRESENTATION – 6:01
6:01 – ITEM 1 - Presentation of Proclamation Declaring March 6, 2026, as Arbor Day.
6:07 – ITEM 2 - Presentation of Proclamation Declaring March 2026, as American Red Cross Month.
6:11 – ITEM 3 - Presentation by City Clerk on the Public Agenda and Meetings Portal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – 6:21
Steven Trevino, resident, spoke about the importance of preserving Clovis history and suggested local libraries include the Clovis Children’s book.
Brian Wilson, resident, noted that the Clovis Library has five copies of the book available in its inventory.
Eddie Stark, resident, raised concerns about limited parking at the senior center and suggested relocating city buses or the transit center to free up parking spaces and expand facilities for seniors, while also asking about plans for the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary.
Bill Scott, resident, encouraged the city to recognize and commemorate key historical events related to the 250th anniversary of the United States, including Revolutionary War milestones throughout the year.
CONSENT CALENDAR – 6:32
Upon call, there was no public comment.
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
4. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the February 17, 2026, City Council Meeting.
5. Administration – Receive and File – Economic Development Corporation Serving Fresno County Quarterly Report, Q2 October - December 2025.
6. Administration – Approval – Award the Request for Proposals and approve the purchase of Storage Area Network equipment from vCloud Tech Inc. in the amount of $79,432.13.
PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
7. General Services – Approval – Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Property Located near the intersection of East International Avenue and North Minnewawa Avenue in the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, California, bearing Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel No. 580-072-41s from GV Land Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company, in the Amount of $4,150,000; and Approval – Res. 26-22, Amending the 2025-2026 General Government Facilities Fund to Allocate Funds in the Amount of $4,150,000 for Purchase of the Property.
8. General Services – Approval - Claim Rejection of the General Liability Claim on behalf of Carmen Garcia.
9. General Services - Approval - Res. 26-23, Approving a Side Letter Agreement with the Transit Employees Bargaining Unit (TEBU) Establishing a "4-9-4" Work Schedule.
10. Public Utilities - Approval - Waive Formal Bidding Requirements, Award a Contract to Karbonous, Inc. to Purchase and Replace Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) at Well 27 in the Total Amount of $117,011, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.
11. Public Utilities – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 25-20, Sierra Bicentennial Park – Stadium Lighting Upgrade, to Wild Electric, Inc., in the Amount of $85,500, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract on Behalf of the City.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – 6:34
6:34 ITEM 12 - Workshop: Planning and Development Services Department Update.
Upon call, there was no public comment.
Received and File.
7:00 ITEM 13 - Receive and File – Status Report for Facilities Condition Assessment.
The following members of the public addressed Council on the above item: Steven Trevino.
Received and File.
7:35 ITEM 14 - Receive and File - Report on the 2025 National Community Survey (NCS) results.
The following members of the public addressed Council on the above item: Crystal Dumas, Tara Wink, and Steven Trevino.
Received and File.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – 8:22
City Manager Haussler announced that the General Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be held March 5, 2026, at 6 p.m. at the Clovis Transit Center and reminded residents about the city’s annual compost giveaway event taking place on Saturday, March 7, 2026. He referenced the Council directed items report provided to council and noted that the community survey helps guide staff in evaluating priorities and budget planning.
PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
COUNCIL COMMENTS – 8:23
There was consensus of the council to place a discussion of the transportation measures on the next agenda, with direction to staff to provide a brief overview and background information on the competing proposals, including basic requirements and timelines.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mouanoutoua adjourned the meeting of the Council to March 9, 2026.
Meeting adjourned: 8:42 p.m.
______________________________ ________________________________ Mayor City Clerk
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director
Subject: Finance – Receive and File – Investment Report for the Month of September, 2025.
Recommendation: Receive and File
Attachments:
1. Investment Report September ATT 1 Dist of Investments
2. Investment Report September ATT 2 Monthly Inv Trans
3. Investment Report September ATT 3 Cert of Deposit
4. Investment Report September ATT 4 Municipal Securities
5. Investment Report September ATT 5 Corporate Securities
6. Investment Report September ATT 6 Treasury Rates
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Investment Report for the Month of September 2025.
Executive Summary:
Attached is the Investment Report for the month of September 2025. Shown in Attachment 1 is the distribution of investments which lists all the individual securities owned by the City with the book and market values. Book value is the actual price paid for the investment. Market value is the amount that the investment is worth if sold in the open market. The market value (which fluctuates daily) that is used in the report is as of the last working day of the month. Attachment 2 reflects the monthly investment transactions for the month of September 2025. Attachment 3 lists the certificates of deposit. Attachment 4 lists the municipal securities. Attachment 5 lists the corporate securities.
Attachment 6 is a graph of Treasury rates on September 30, 2025.
The investment of the City’s funds is performed in accordance with the adopted Investment Policy.
Funds are invested with the following objectives in mind:
1. Assets are invested in adherence with the safeguards and diversity of a prudent investor.
2. The portfolio is invested in a manner consistent with the primary emphasis on preservation of the
principal, while attaining a high rate of return consistent with this guideline. Trading of securities for the sole purpose of realizing trading profits is prohibited.
3. Sufficient liquidity is maintained to provide a source for anticipated financial obligations as they become due.
4. Investments may be made, consistent with the Investment Policy Guidelines, in fixed income securities maturing in three years or less and can be extended to five years with the City Manager’s approval.
The Finance Department invests the City’s assets with an expectation of achieving a total rate of return at a level that exceeds the annualized rate of return on short-term government guaranteed or insured obligations (90-day Treasury bills) and to assure that the principal is preserved with minimal risk of depreciation or loss. In periods of rising interest rates, the City of Clovis portfolio return may be less than that of the annualized 90-day Treasury bill. In periods of decreasing interest rates, the City of Clovis portfolio return may be greater than the annualized 90-day Treasury bill. The current 90-day Treasury bill rate (annualized) is 4.37%. The rate of return for the City of Clovis portfolio is
3.84%. The goal for the City of Clovis investment return is 120% of the 90-day Treasury bill rate. The current rate of return is 88% of the Treasury bill rate.
The Finance Department began investing in corporate securities in February 2024 to provide additional diversification and yield to the portfolio. To date, 39 corporate securities have been purchased at a net book value of $80,667,249 as of September 30, 2025. Their average yield is
4.07%, which is roughly 33 basis points higher than current yields on 5-year Treasury bonds.
In accordance with the Investment Policy, the investment period for each investment is up to three years and can be extended to five years with the City Manager’s approval. As of September 2025, the average investment life of the City’s investment portfolio is 1.83 years.
Current Investment Environment and Philosophy
During the month of September 2025, the federal funds rate target range was lowered to 4.00%-
4.25%. On September 30, 2025, the Treasury yield curve decreased from 3-month to 3-year notes and increased from 3-year to 10-year notes.
Certificates of Deposit (CD’s)
The City purchases both negotiable and non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit (CD’s). Although negotiable CD’s can be traded, it is the City’s policy to buy and hold all CD’s. Negotiable CDs are held by U.S. Bank, a third-party custodian. Non-negotiable CDs are held in the City’s safe.
Purchases and Maturities
• 0 government securities were purchased.
• 2 government securities matured.
• 4 certificates of deposit were purchased.
• 12 certificates of deposit totaling $3,000,000 matured. • 4 municipal securities were purchased.
• 1 municipal security was called or matured.
• 1 corporate security was purchased.
• 0 corporate securities were called or matured.
Market Environment
• During September, the federal funds target rate range was lowered to 4.00%-4.25%. • On September 30th, the yield curve decreased from 3-month to 3-year notes and increased from 3- year to 10-year notes. See Attachment 6, Graph of Treasury Rates on September 30, 2025.
Background:
State law (Government Code Section 53646(b)) requires that the City Treasurer provide quarterly reports on their investment activities to their governing body.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Reason for Recommendation:
The Finance report is for information only and no action is required.
Actions Following Approval:
Staff will file the report.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
STATED
DAYS TO
MATURITY
NET BOOK MARKET YIELD TO INTEREST INVEST MATURIT Y FROM COST VALUE VALUE * MATURIT Y RATE DATE DATE 9/30/2025
GOV'T SECURITIES
FHLB 871,150 945,327 944,889 3.886% 0.500% 04/26/23 11/25/25 56 FHLB 4,963,000 4,996,933 4,940,200 0.750% 0.580% 09/08/21 02/11/26 134 FHLB 3,922,000 3,992,510 3,949,320 1.229% 0.750% 12/16/21 02/24/26 147 FHLB 2,751,000 2,959,823 2,957,520 3.916% 0.790% 05/17/23 03/16/26 167 FFCB 4,967,500 4,993,482 4,869,100 1.075% 0.940% 10/14/21 09/28/26 363 FHLB 3,649,200 3,912,854 3,894,040 3.342% 1.150% 06/29/22 10/28/26 393 FHLB 5,988,000 5,997,240 5,835,000 1.291% 1.250% 11/24/21 11/24/26 420 FHLB 5,127,757 5,031,260 4,910,000 1.580% 2.125% 01/20/22 12/11/26 437 FHLB 4,043,250 4,362,519 4,311,432 3.397% 1.020% 06/29/22 02/24/27 512 FHLB 4,550,000 4,860,533 4,851,793 3.173% 1.020% 08/17/22 02/24/27 512 FHLB 3,695,200 3,912,623 3,970,580 2.564% 0.900% 03/31/22 02/26/27 514 FHLB 6,072,400 6,550,510 6,524,938 3.737% 0.900% 01/19/23 02/26/27 514 FHLB 5,247,000 5,736,885 5,638,026 4.329% 0.900% 02/16/23 02/26/27 514 FHLB 5,050,770 5,482,604 5,489,898 3.971% 1.000% 12/14/22 02/26/27 514 FHLB 4,000,000 4,000,000 3,926,000 2.375% 2.375% 03/08/22 03/08/27 524 FFCB 5,160,000 5,590,985 5,611,920 3.996% 0.830% 03/23/23 02/22/28 875 FHLB 355,160 373,754 375,996 4.123% 1.125% 01/18/24 02/25/28 878 FFCB 2,123,750 2,294,434 2,344,925 4.812% 1.000% 09/27/23 03/02/28 884 FHLB 1,893,209 2,049,488 2,103,094 5.018% 1.000% 10/18/23 03/10/28 892 FHLB 3,124,500 3,063,099 3,056,070 3.553% 4.500% 05/17/23 03/10/28 892 FFCB 626,780 656,624 662,046 4.121% 1.370% 01/18/04 03/22/28 904 FFCB 6,102,000 6,052,396 6,025,140 3.501% 3.875% 04/26/23 04/25/28 938 FFCB 5,354,250 5,423,030 5,476,845 4.349% 3.740% 06/14/23 04/27/28 940 FFCB 2,641,500 2,781,287 2,805,270 4.130% 1.230% 12/20/23 07/13/28 1,017 FHLMC 853,500 911,980 930,870 4.601% 1.100% 11/15/23 07/27/28 1,031 FNMA 848,800 909,122 928,150 4.613% 1.000% 11/15/23 07/28/28 1,032 FHLB 882,500 927,719 935,630 4.117% 1.300% 12/20/23 08/04/28 1,039 FHLB 2,981,700 2,989,001 3,090,330 4.892% 4.750% 10/18/23 09/08/28 1,074 FHLMC 842,300 902,313 922,510 4.614% 1.000% 11/15/23 10/19/28 1,115 FFCB 1,799,000 1,802,798 1,796,980 3.764% 1.450% 08/28/25 06/01/30 1,705 SECURITIES TOTAL 100,487,175$ 104,463,132 $ 104,078,512 $ LAIF 60,596,907$ 60,596,907 $
Municipal Issuance 61,534,541$ 61,651,440 $
Corporate Securities 80,667,249$ 81,819,219 $
Sweep Account (Union Bank) 33,825,743$ 33,825,743 $ TOTAL CD'S 26,500,000$ 26,704,488 $
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 367,587,572$ 368,676,309 $
* Market values for securities obtained from US Bank.
City of Clovis
Distribution of Investments
As of September 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Activity Maturity
Institution Description Activity Am ount Market Value Rate Date Date Auto Data Process Corp Purchase 3,000,000 2,640,000 1.250% 09/26/25 09/01/30 California State Mun Iss. Purchase 2,000,000 2,095,000 4.875% 09/02/25 09/01/30 Marin Calif Cmnty College Dist Mun Iss. Purchase 500,000 450,750 1.610% 09/26/25 08/01/30 Snta Clara Vy CA Mun Iss. Purchase 800,000 726,880 1.622% 09/26/25 04/01/30 University Calif Revs Mun Iss. Purchase 3,000,000 2,715,000 1.614% 09/26/25 05/15/30 BNY Mellon CD Purchase 250,000 250,000 3.550% 09/17/25 09/18/28 Civic Fed Cr Un CD Purchase 250,000 250,000 3.650% 09/26/25 09/26/28 Hope Fed Cr Un CD Purchase 250,000 250,000 3.650% 09/29/25 09/29/29 State Bank India CD Purchase 250,000 250,000 3.600% 09/15/25 09/15/28 FAMCMTN Gov. Sec. Maturity 5,000,000 4,999,711 0.600% 09/08/25 09/08/25 FFCB Gov. Sec. Maturity 3,000,000 2,974,464 4.470% 09/23/25 09/23/25 San Jose CA Mun Iss. Maturity 2,355,000 2,354,881 2.450% 09/01/25 09/01/25 Skyone Fed Credit CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.600% 09/02/25 09/02/25 Credit Union of Texas CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.600% 09/15/25 09/15/25 Forbright Bank CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.500% 09/16/25 09/16/25 Alabama Credit Union CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.600% 09/22/25 09/22/25 Kemba Finl Credit Union CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.000% 09/22/25 09/22/25 Ally Bank Sandy Utah CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.050% 09/29/25 09/29/25 Farmers Merchants CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.750% 09/29/25 09/29/25 Jefferson Finl FCU CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.150% 09/29/25 09/29/25 Dort Finl Credit Union CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.000% 09/30/25 09/30/25 First National Bank CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 3.625% 09/30/25 09/30/25 Numerica Credit Union CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.200% 09/30/25 09/30/25 Vystar Credit Union CD Maturity 250,000 250,000 4.350% 09/30/25 09/30/25
PORTFOLIO DATA
Current Month (09/25)
Book Market
CD'S 26,500,000 $ 26,704,488 $
Gov't Securities* 104,463,132 104,078,512
Municipal Securities 61,534,541 61,651,440
Corporate Securities 80,667,249 81,819,219
LAIF 60,596,907 60,596,907
Sweep Account (Union Bank) 33,825,743 33,825,743
TOTAL 367,587,572 $ 368,676,309 $
Prior Month (08/25)
Three Months Previous (06/25)
Book Market Book Market
CD'S 28,500,000 $ 28,667,375 $ CD'S 28,000,000 $ 28,151,018 $ Gov't Securities* 110,375,689 111,833,574 Gov't Securities* 119,242,114 118,384,399 Municipal Securities 57,827,526 57,892,673 Municipal Securities 60,084,332 59,995,964 Corporate Securities 78,007,264 79,243,980 Corporate Securities 70,073,902 71,006,745 LAIF 60,596,907 60,596,907 LAIF 59,940,157 59,940,157
Sweep Account (Union Bank) 19,231,947 19,231,947 Sweep Account (Union Bank) 35,184,563 35,184,563 TOTAL 354,539,333 $ 357,466,456 $ TOTAL $372,525,068 372,662,846 $ Six Months Previous (03/25)
One Year Previous (09/24)
Book Market Book Market
CD'S 30,750,000 $ 30,898,495 $ CD'S 32,000,000 $ 32,288,575 $ Gov't Securities* 122,849,665 121,483,239 Gov't Securities* 136,720,360 135,311,582 Municipal Securities 60,815,018 60,478,344 Municipal Securities 57,218,333 57,210,355 Corporate Securities 58,287,786 58,733,350 Corporate Securities 37,931,220 38,848,900 LAIF 59,312,273 59,312,273 LAIF 57,959,324 57,959,324
Sweep Account (Union Bank) 17,855,116 17,855,116 Sweep Account (Union Bank) 13,316,007 13,316,007 TOTAL $349,869,858 348,760,817 $ TOTAL 335,145,244 $ 334,934,743 $ *Adjusted Quarterly for Premium/Discount Amortization
As of September 30, 2025
Monthly Investment Transactions
City of Clovis
ATTACHMENT 2
MARKET INTEREST INVEST MATURITY MATURITY FROM INTEREST
Negotiable CDs COST PRICE RATE DATE DATE 09/30/25 FREQUENCY 1st Financial Bank 250,000 250,000.00 4.150% 10/13/22 10/14/25 14 QUARTERLY Bell Bank Fargo 250,000 250,000.00 4.150% 10/13/22 10/14/25 14 QUARTERLY Pacific Alliance 250,000 250,005.00 4.200% 10/14/22 10/14/25 14 QUARTERLY Great Southern Bank 250,000 250,047.50 4.500% 10/20/22 10/20/25 20 QUARTERLY American Bank 250,000 249,932.50 4.350% 10/21/22 10/21/25 21 QUARTERLY Queensborough Natl Bank 250,000 250,015.00 4.100% 10/21/22 10/21/25 21 QUARTERLY Public Alliance Cr Un 250,000 250,065.00 4.500% 10/25/22 10/27/25 27 QUARTERLY First Citizens Bank 250,000 250,000.00 4.700% 10/28/22 10/28/25 28 QUARTERLY LCA Bank Corp 250,000 249,950.00 4.400% 10/28/22 10/28/25 28 QUARTERLY Sharonview Fed Cr Un 250,000 250,177.50 4.850% 10/31/22 10/31/25 31 QUARTERLY United Heritage Cr Un 250,000 250,145.00 4.700% 11/04/22 11/04/25 35 QUARTERLY Capital One Natl Assn 250,000 250,232.50 4.900% 11/16/22 11/17/25 48 QUARTERLY Spokane Teachers Cr Un 250,000 250,352.50 5.000% 11/23/22 11/23/25 54 QUARTERLY Morgan Stanley Private 250,000 250,182.50 4.750% 12/09/22 12/09/25 70 QUARTERLY Community Bank Topeka 250,000 250,092.50 4.300% 12/14/22 12/15/25 76 QUARTERLY Austin Telco Fed 250,000 250,450.00 4.950% 12/16/22 12/16/25 77 QUARTERLY Alliant Credit Union 250,000 250,622.50 5.100% 12/30/22 12/30/25 91 QUARTERLY First Technology Fed Cr Un 250,000 250,652.50 5.150% 06/30/23 12/30/25 91 MONTHLY Liberty First Cr Un 250,000 250,400.00 4.550% 01/17/23 01/19/26 111 QUARTERLY Capital Educators Fed Cr 250,000 250,400.00 4.550% 01/19/23 01/20/26 112 QUARTERLY City Natl Bank 250,000 250,242.50 4.350% 01/25/23 01/26/26 118 QUARTERLY Manufacturers Traders 250,000 250,187.50 4.250% 01/31/23 02/02/26 125 QUARTERLY Coastlife Cr Un 250,000 250,605.00 4.650% 02/13/23 02/13/26 136 QUARTERLY Achieve Finl Cr Un 250,000 250,632.50 4.650% 02/17/23 02/17/26 140 QUARTERLY California Cr Un Glendale 250,000 250,402.50 4.500% 02/23/23 02/23/26 146 QUARTERLY Truliant Fed Cr Un 250,000 250,685.00 4.600% 02/28/23 02/27/26 150 QUARTERLY Pioneer Fed Cr Un Mtn Home 250,000 250,702.50 4.600% 02/28/23 03/02/26 153 QUARTERLY Tradition Cap Bankk 250,000 250,637.50 4.600% 03/03/23 03/03/26 154 MONTHLY Alaska Fed Cr 250,000 250,832.50 4.650% 03/05/23 03/09/26 160 MONTHLY Mid Carolina Credit 250,000 251,200.00 4.600% 03/13/23 03/13/26 164 MONTHLY Blue Ridge Bank 250,000 251,200.00 4.500% 03/16/23 03/16/26 167 MONTHLY Northwest Bank 250,000 251,250.00 4.600% 03/17/23 03/17/26 168 MONTHLY Valleystar Credit Union 250,000 251,282.50 4.600% 03/20/23 03/20/26 171 MONTHLY First Community Bank 250,000 251,247.50 4.500% 03/22/23 03/23/26 174 MONTHLY Technology Credit Union 250,000 251,332.50 4.650% 03/23/23 03/23/26 174 MONTHLY Cibc Bank 250,000 251,225.00 4.650% 03/24/23 03/24/26 175 MONTHLY Signature Bank 250,000 251,325.00 4.500% 03/24/23 03/24/26 175 MONTHLY Point West Credit Union 250,000 251,442.50 5.000% 04/12/23 04/13/26 195 MONTHLY Flagstar Bank 250,000 251,580.00 4.650% 03/30/23 04/24/26 206 MONTHLY Utah Cmnty Credit Union 250,000 251,075.00 4.600% 04/26/23 04/27/26 209 MONTHLY Cross River Bank 250,000 251,107.50 4.650% 05/19/23 05/19/26 231 MONTHLY Raiz FCU 250,000 251,540.00 4.650% 05/24/23 05/26/26 238 MONTHLY Usalliance FCU 250,000 251,377.50 4.700% 05/26/23 05/26/26 238 MONTHLY City of Clovis
Certificates of Deposit
As of September 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 3
MARKET INTEREST INVEST MATURITY MATURITY FROM INTEREST
Negotiable CDs COST PRICE RATE DATE DATE 09/30/25 FREQUENCY City of Clovis
Certificates of Deposit
As of September 30, 2025
Chartway Fed Cr Un 250,000 251,805.00 4.900% 06/09/23 06/09/26 252 MONTHLY Customers Bank 250,000 251,452.50 4.700% 06/14/23 06/15/26 258 MONTHLY Lafayette Fed Cr Un 250,000 251,975.00 4.950% 12/13/23 06/15/26 258 QUARTERLY Latino Cmnty Cr Un 250,000 252,002.50 4.900% 06/27/23 06/29/26 272 MONTHLY Leaders Cr Un 250,000 252,162.50 5.000% 06/30/23 06/30/26 273 MONTHLY Farmers Insurance 250,000 252,350.00 5.000% 07/21/23 07/21/26 294 MONTHLY Maine Svgs FCU 250,000 252,350.00 5.000% 07/21/23 07/21/26 294 MONTHLY Popular Bank New York 250,000 252,432.50 4.850% 09/06/23 09/04/26 339 QUARTERLY Freedom Northwest Cr Un 250,000 253,740.00 5.350% 09/19/23 09/18/26 353 QUARTERLY Amex National Bank 250,000 252,985.00 5.000% 09/20/23 09/21/26 356 QUARTERLY First Gty Bank 250,000 253,360.00 5.100% 10/13/23 10/13/26 378 MONTHLY Bridgewater Bank 250,000 253,557.50 5.100% 11/03/23 11/03/26 399 MONTHLY Taylorsville Svgs Bk 250,000 253,557. 50 5.100% 11/03/23 11/03/26 399 MONTHLY Mountain Comm Bk 250,000 252,240.00 4.500% 12/20/23 12/21/26 447 QUARTERLY American Bk Freedom 250,000 252,127.50 4.500% 12/22/23 12/22/26 448 QUARTERLY Rockland Fed Cr Un 250,000 252,545.00 4.600% 12/22/23 12/22/26 448 QUARTERLY Hughes Fed Cr Un 250,000 252,172.50 4.400% 01/29/24 01/29/27 486 QUARTERLY MVB Bk Inc Fairmont 250,000 251,685.00 4.250% 01/31/24 01/29/27 486 QUARTERLY Farmers & Merchants Tr Co 250,000 251,372.50 4.150% 01/30/24 02/01/27 489 QUARTERLY Oregon Cmnty Cr Un 250,000 251,875.00 4.300% 02/09/24 02/09/27 497 MONTHLY Valley Natl Bk 250,000 252,437.50 4.450% 02/21/24 02/22/27 510 MONTHLY CFBank Fairlawn 250,000 252,522.50 4.450% 03/05/24 03/05/27 521 QUARTERLY Haven Svgs Bk 250,000 252,695.00 4.500% 03/06/24 03/08/27 524 QUARTERLY Univest Natl Bk 250,000 253,055.00 4.600% 03/13/24 03/15/27 531 QUARTERLY First Natl Bk 250,000 253,142.50 4.600% 03/19/24 03/19/27 535 QUARTERLY Nicolet Natl Bk 250,000 253,165.00 4.600% 03/22/24 03/22/27 538 QUARTERLY People Bank Co 250,000 253,972.50 4.650% 03/30/23 03/30/27 546 MONTHLY United FID Bank FSB 250,000 253,307.50 4.600% 04/12/24 04/12/27 559 QUARTERLY Maine Cmnty Bk 250,000 253,957.50 4.700% 05/15/24 05/17/27 594 QUARTERLY Fahey Banking Co 250,000 253,987.50 4.700% 05/21/24 05/21/27 598 QUARTERLY Crown Bank Edina 250,000 253,812.50 4.650% 05/23/24 05/24/27 601 QUARTERLY Gilmer Natl Bk 250,000 254,322.50 4.750% 06/07/24 06/07/27 615 QUARTERLY First Fndtn Bk 250,000 254,920.00 4.900% 06/13/24 06/14/27 622 QUARTERLY Empower Fed Cr Un 250,000 255,130.00 4.900% 06/26/24 06/28/27 636 QUARTERLY Optum Bk Draper 250,000 254,270.00 4.700% 07/10/24 07/12/27 650 QUARTERLY Generations Cmnty Fed Cr Un 250,000 251,567.50 4.000% 08/21/24 08/23/27 692 QUARTERLY National Bk Superior 250,000 249,270.00 3.500% 10/08/24 10/08/27 738 QUARTERLY True Sky Cr Un 250,000 252,302.50 4.100% 11/06/24 11/08/27 769 QUARTERLY Workers Cr Un 250,000 252,317.50 4.100% 11/22/24 11/22/27 783 QUARTERLY Morgan Stanley Bk 250,000 251,897.50 4.000% 01/15/25 01/18/28 840 QUARTERLY Carroll County 250,000 255,092.50 4.650% 03/30/23 03/30/28 912 MONTHLY Discover Bank 250,000 254,237.50 4.350% 04/26/23 04/24/28 937 MONTHLY TTCU Fed Cr Un 250,000 259,037.50 5.000% 07/26/23 07/26/28 1,030 MONTHLY Goldman Sachs Bk 250,000 251,280.00 3.850% 08/05/25 08/07/28 1,042 QUARTERLY Adams Cmnty Bk 250,000 251,232.50 3.850% 08/08/25 08/08/28 1,043 QUARTERLY American Eagle Bk 250,000 251,015.00 3.800% 08/08/25 08/08/28 1,043 QUARTERLY BMW Bk NA 250,000 251,242.50 3.850% 08/15/25 08/15/28 1,050 QUARTERLY Financial Plus Cr Un 250,000 251,385.00 3.850% 08/15/25 08/15/28 1,050 QUARTERLY Connexus Cr Un 250,000 252,425.00 4.000% 08/19/25 08/21/28 1,056 QUARTERLY Fisher Natl Bk 250,000 250,467.50 4.050% 08/28/25 08/28/28 1,063 QUARTERLY Luana Svgs Bk 250,000 250,622.50 3.750% 08/27/25 08/28/28 1,063 QUARTERLY First Natl Bk 250,000 250,690.00 3.750% 08/29/25 08/29/28 1,064 QUARTERLY State Bk India 250,000 249,625.00 3.600% 09/15/25 09/15/28 1,081 QUARTERLY BNY Mellon NA 250,000 249,365.00 3.550% 09/17/25 09/18/28 1,084 QUARTERLY Civic Fed Cr Un 250,000 250,000.00 3.650% 09/26/25 09/26/28 1,092 QUARTERLY Wells Fargo Natl Bk 250,000 260,217.50 5.050% 11/14/23 11/14/28 1,141 MONTHLY Consumers Fed Cr Un 250,000 259,862.50 5.000% 11/16/23 11/16/28 1,143 MONTHLY San Francisco Fed Cr Un 250,000 254,347.50 4.250% 11/27/24 11/27/28 1,154 QUARTERLY Amerasia Bk 250,000 252,470.00 4.000% 02/15/24 02/15/29 1,234 MONTHLY Merrick Bk South 250,000 252,847.50 4.050% 12/20/24 06/11/29 1,350 QUARTERLY USF Fed Cr Un 250,000 255,520.00 4.350% 07/30/24 07/30/29 1,399 QUARTERLY Sallie Mae Bk 250,000 254,895.00 4.300% 07/31/24 07/31/29 1,400 QUARTERLY Hope Fed Cr Un 250,000 249,975.00 3.650% 09/29/25 09/29/29 1,460 QUARTERLY Negotiable CD TOTAL 26,500,000$ 26,704,488$
CD TOTAL 26,500,000$ 26,704,488$
NET BOOK MARKET INTEREST INVEST MATURITY MATURITY FROM INTEREST Municipal Securities VALUE PRICE RATE DATE DATE 09/30/25 FREQUENCY Los Angeles CA USD Ref Bond 1,001,622 982,890 1.455% 11/15/21 07/01/26 274 QUARTERLY Chabot Las Positas Cmnty Clg CA 3,448,851 3,424,736 1.080% 07/27/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY Chaffey CA High School Ref Bond 1,552,053 1,549,522 2.475% 06/30/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY Huntington Beach HS Dist Ref Bond 3,260,012 3,234,306 1.208% 04/29/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY Placentia Yorba USD Ref Bond 1,093,595 1,085,902 1.070% 05/31/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY San Diego CA Cmnty Ref Bond 467,004 464,680 2.299% 04/29/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY San Ramon Valley CA USD Ref Bond 2,125,000 2,081,905 1.147% 11/03/21 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY Sonoma Cnty Jr College Ref Bond 1,983,004 1,978,140 2.447% 06/30/22 08/01/26 305 QUARTERLY San Diego CA Pub Facs Ref Bond 1,599,877 1,592,533 1.812% 08/18/22 10/15/26 380 QUARTERLY CA ST Univ Rev Ref Bond 2,417,475 2,431,075 1.142% 02/17/23 11/01/26 397 QUARTERLY El Dorado CA Irr Dist Ref Bond 1,148,441 1,138,575 1.687% 08/18/22 03/01/27 517 QUARTERLY Rancho Santiago Cmnty Clg 318,832 318,582 1.106% 11/17/22 03/01/27 517 QUARTERLY University Gen Rev Bond 2,273,311 2,297,447 1.316% 10/13/22 05/15/27 592 QUARTERLY El Monte Ca Ref Bond 572,129 575,592 1.326% 03/24/23 06/01/27 609 QUARTERLY Los Angeles CA Dept Wtr Ref Bond 2,048,124 2,029,540 5.516% 04/27/23 07/01/27 639 QUARTERLY Colton CA Jt Uni Sch 1,009,236 1,018,628 1.603% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Contra Costa Ref Bond 854,841 856,574 2.163% 09/15/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Corona Norco Ref Bond 238,658 243,415 2.297% 09/28/23 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Foothill De Anza CCD 514,539 519,545 1.473% 12/15/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Fremont CA Uni Sch Dist 1,038,055 1,047,618 1.113% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Fremont CA USD Ref Bond 1,120,055 1,103,440 2.000% 05/31/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Marin CA Cmnty Clg Dist 328,034 333,007 3.330% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Mount San Antonio Cmnty Clg 268,529 272,044 1.139% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Mount San Antonio Ref Bond 390,040 395,049 2.329% 10/13/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Saddleback VY Uni Ref Bond 2,953,683 2,927,430 2.400% 08/10/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY San Diego CA Com CD 571,766 577,126 2.407% 12/15/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY San Ramon Valley Ref Bond 1,377,021 1,379,810 3.415% 09/15/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Santa Monica Cmnty Clg Ref Bond 992,363 993,790 3.050% 09/15/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY Sierra CA Cmnty Clg Dist 439,086 443,777 1.129% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY William Hart CA Un High 188,690 190,520 1.174% 11/17/22 08/01/27 670 QUARTERLY San Jose CA Txble Ser B 879,785 891,127 2.600% 10/13/22 09/01/27 701 QUARTERLY Soquel Creek Cnty Ref Bond 512,432 514,780 1.445% 05/18/23 03/01/28 883 QUARTERLY Gardena Calif Pension Oblig 942,445 965,550 2.663% 10/19/23 04/01/28 914 QUARTERLY Beverly Hills Ref Bond 591,850 597,097 1.514% 06/15/23 06/01/28 975 QUARTERLY California Health FACS 732,084 748,281 3.378% 11/16/23 06/01/28 975 QUARTERLY Alameda Cnty Calif 527,365 537,116 3.519% 03/21/24 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Desert CA Cmnty College 942,076 951,220 2.023% 01/19/24 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Long Beach Calif Cmnty 689,672 699,544 2.337% 03/21/24 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Redondo Beach Ref Bond 614,517 629,883 1.430% 09/28/23 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY San Ramon Valley CA Uni 1,689,095 1,721,174 1.670% 07/13/23 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Santa Ana College Impt 1,377,227 1,398,795 1.320% 07/13/23 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Santa Clarita CA Cmnty 930,329 940,280 1.563% 01/19/24 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY William Hart CA High 926,219 932,880 1.429% 12/21/23 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Yosemite Calif Cmnty Clg 709,190 719,288 2.210% 12/21/23 08/01/28 1,036 QUARTERLY Los Angeles Calif Cmnty 1,027,362 1,042,876 5.520% 02/13/25 08/01/29 1,401 QUARTERLY Riverside Calif Cmnty 1,827,433 1,853,340 1.785% 03/27/25 08/01/29 1,401 QUARTERLY Berkeley Calif Jt Pwrs 3,034,400 3,044,580 4.375% 07/24/25 10/01/29 1,462 QUARTERLY Santa Clara VY 727,057 723,248 1.622% 09/26/25 04/01/30 1,644 QUARTERLY University CA 2,715,674 2,714,340 1.614% 09/26/25 05/15/30 1,688 QUARTERLY Marin CA Cmnty Clg 450,861 450,085 1.610% 09/26/25 08/01/30 1,766 QUARTERLY California ST 2,093,545 2,088,760 4.875% 09/02/25 09/01/30 1,797 QUARTERLY Mun. Securities TOTAL 61,534,541$ 61,651,440 $
Municipal Securities TOTAL 61,534,541$ 61,651,440 $
City of Clovis
Municipal Securities
As of September 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 4
NET BOOK MARKET INTEREST INVEST MATURITY MATURITY FROM INTEREST Corporate Securities VALUE PRICE RATE DATE DATE 09/30/25 FREQUENCY Duke Energy Carolinas 1,966,148 1,999,520 3.950% 02/16/24 11/15/28 1,142 QUARTERLY Toyota MTR Cr Corp 1,994,653 2,036,660 4.650% 02/16/24 01/05/29 1,193 QUARTERLY Procter & Gamble Co 1,996,368 2,032,680 4.350% 02/16/24 01/29/29 1,217 QUARTERLY Air Products and Chemicals Inc 1,994,581 2,036,020 4.600% 07/29/24 02/08/29 1,227 QUARTERLY Texas Instrument Inc 2,006,673 2,041,740 4.600% 05/24/24 02/08/29 1,227 QUARTERLY Cummins Inc 2,022,297 2,058,020 4.900% 07/29/24 02/20/29 1,239 QUARTERLY Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2,002,861 2,053,600 4.900% 05/24/24 02/22/29 1,241 QUARTERLY AstraZeneca Finance LLC 1,987,367 2,051,500 4.850% 04/19/24 02/26/29 1,245 QUARTERLY Cisco Sys Inc 2,013,810 2,052,260 4.850% 03/21/24 02/26/29 1,245 QUARTERLY Caterpillar Finl 2, 014,557 2,053,700 4.850% 06/21/24 02/27/29 1,246 QUARTERLY Merck Co Inc 1,929,411 1,959,420 3.400% 03/21/24 03/07/29 1,254 QUARTERLY Blackrock Funding Inc 2,006,932 2,045,780 4.700% 03/21/24 03/14/29 1,261 QUARTERLY Adobe Inc 2,007,507 2,053,920 4.800% 05/24/24 04/04/29 1,282 QUARTERLY Home Depot Inc 1,994,323 2,057,480 4.900% 04/19/24 04/15/29 1,293 QUARTERLY Midamerican Energy Co 1,459,810 1,478,130 3.650% 11/20/24 04/15/29 1,293 QUARTERLY United Health Group 1,978,710 2,037,200 4.700% 04/19/24 04/15/29 1,293 QUARTERLY Glaxosmithkline Capital 1,918,383 1,952,420 3.375% 06/21/24 06/01/29 1,340 QUARTERLY John Deere Capital 2,009,664 2,054,580 4.850% 06/21/24 06/11/29 1,350 QUARTERLY Citibank NA 2,033,110 2,048,320 4.838% 08/15/24 08/06/29 1,406 QUARTERLY Honeywell Intl Inc 2,071,600 2,056,520 4.875% 09/27/24 09/01/29 1,432 QUARTERLY Unilever Capital Corp 1,376,899 1,397,040 2.125% 11/20/24 09/06/29 1,437 QUARTERLY Paccar Financial Corp 1,964,035 1,998,760 4.000% 12/19/24 09/26/29 1,457 QUARTERLY State Street Corp 1,825,360 1,875,060 2.400% 02/13/25 01/24/30 1,577 QUARTERLY Pepsico Inc 2,986,887 3,064,410 4.600% 02/13/25 02/07/30 1,591 QUARTERLY Eli Lilly & Co 3, 000,000 3,077,220 4.750% 02/13/25 02/12/30 1,596 QUARTERLY Target Corp 1,837,951 1,862,020 2.350% 03/27/25 02/15/30 1,599 QUARTERLY Hershey Co 2,023,291 2,048,100 4.750% 03/27/25 02/24/30 1,608 QUARTERLY Johnson & Johnson 2,031,335 2,059,800 4.700% 03/27/25 03/01/30 1,613 QUARTERLY President & Fellow 2,551,214 2,574,350 4.887% 04/23/25 03/15/30 1,627 QUARTERLY Kimberly Clark Corp 2,386,056 2,399,600 3.100% 05/30/25 03/26/30 1,638 QUARTERLY Mastercard Inc 1,912,042 1,946,420 3.350% 03/27/25 03/26/30 1,638 QUARTERLY Nike Inc 2,360,471 2,374,525 2.850% 05/30/25 03/27/30 1,639 QUARTERLY Gen Dynamics Corp 2,424,817 2,452,874 3.625% 04/23/25 04/01/30 1,644 QUARTERLY Costco Whsl Corp 2,037,873 1,803,120 1.600% 08/28/25 04/20/30 1,663 QUARTERLY Pfizer Investment Enterprise 2,011,959 2,037,500 4.650% 06/27/25 05/19/30 1,692 QUARTERLY Dartmouth College 1,810,951 2,014,180 4.273% 07/29/25 06/01/30 1,705 QUARTERLY Trustees Princeton Univ 2,018,651 2,041,640 4.146% 08/28/25 07/01/30 1,735 QUARTERLY Stanford Univ 2,057,892 2,006,960 4.647% 08/28/25 08/01/30 1,766 QUARTERLY Auto Data Process 2,640,800 2,626,170 1.250% 09/26/25 09/01/30 1,797 QUARTERLY Corp. Securities TOTAL 80,667,249$ 81,819,219 $
Corporate Securities TOTAL 80,667,249$ 81,819,219 $
City of Clovis
Corporate Securities
As of September 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 5
Treasury Rates as of September 30, 2025
3 month Treasury bill 4.02
6 month Treasury bill 3.83
2 Yr Treasury note 3.60
3 Yr Treasury note 3.61
5 Yr Treasury note 3.74
10 Yr Treasury note 4.16
CITY OF CLOVIS
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 TREASURY RATES
As indicated in the above graph, treasuries decreased from 3-month to 3-year notes, and increased from 3-year to 10-year notes.
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 3 month
Treasury bill
6 month
Treasury bill
2 Yr Treasury
note
3 Yr Treasury
note
5 Yr Treasury
note
10 Yr
Treasury note
INTEREST RATES
TREASURIES
TREASURY RATES ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 6
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director
Subject: Finance – Receive and File – Treasurer's Report for the Month of September, 2025.
Recommendation: Receive and File
Attachments:
1. Treasurer's Report September ATT 1 Cash Balances
2. Treasurer's Report September ATT 2 Inv. Activity
3. Treasurer's Report September ATT 3 Orig. Maturities
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Treasurer’s Report for the Month of September 2025.
Executive Summary:
Attached for the Council’s information is the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2025.
Pursuant to Section 41004 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Treasurer is required to submit a monthly report of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the beginning balance, total receipts, total disbursements, ending balance for all funds, and a listing, by fund, of all month-end fund balances. Attachment 2 summarizes the investment activity for the month and distribution, by type of investment, held by the City. Attachment 3 lists all investments with original maturities exceeding one year as of the month ended September 30, 2025.
Background:
State law (Government Code Section 41004) requires that the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk each month a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Reason for Recommendation:
The Finance report is for information only and no action is required.
Actions Following Approval:
Staff will file the report.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Previous Balance 19,340,115.13$
Deposits 30,926,586.78
Disbursements (45,143,621.60)
Current Balance 5,123,080.31$
FUNDS BALANCE
100 General Fund (490,303.42) $
101 General Fund - Measure Y 8,808,435.63
201 Local Transportation 20,756,104.45
202 Parking and Business Improvements 249,927.64
203 Off Highway Use 78,143.25
204 Community Facilities District 2020-1 438,173.87 205 Senior Citizen Memorial Trust 69,556.50
207 Landscape Assessment District 8,978,612.21
208 Blackhorse III (95-1) Assessment District 1,289.00 209 Blackhorse III (95-1) Assessment District 2 43,150.73 275 HCD Block Grant Fund 796,847.29
301 Park & Recreation Acquisition 9,139,336.92
304 Affordable Housing 1,042,623.16
305 Refuse Equipment Reserve 2,964,744.82
310 Special Street Deposit Fund 61,823,278.10
314 Housing Successor Agency 449,465.75
402 1976 Fire Bond Redemption 25,446.16
404 1976 Sewer Bond Redemption Fund 451,984.49
501 Community Sanitation Fund 17,179,997.75
502 Sewer Service Fund 39,521,358.56
504 Sewer Capital Projects-Users 726,592.04
506 Sewer Capital Projects-Developer (954,251.66)
507 Water Service Fund 48,396,864.14
508 Water Capital Projects-Users 7,953,433.32
509 Water Capital Projects-Developer 12,174,067.48 515 Transit Fund 19,746,775.79
540 Planning & Development Services 16,773,233.26
601 Property & Liability Insurance 546,186.35
602 Fleet Maintenance 31,196,388.94
603 Employee Benefit Fund 22,958,688.46
604 General Government Services 26,062,402.30
605 Facilities Maintenance 6,032,393.42
606 Information Technology 6,015,753.91
701 Curb & Gutter Fund 178,451.97
703 Payroll Tax & Withholding Fund 1,914,414.50
712 Temperance/Barstow Assmt Dist (98-1) 84,124.78 713 Shepherd/Temperance Assmt Dist (2000-1) 5,660.47 715 Supp Law Enforcement Serv 7,649.89
716 Asset Forfeiture 686,858.94
720 Measure A-Public Safety Facility Tax 2,160.96
736 SA Admin Trust Fund 1,421.40
741 SA Debt Service Trust Fund (127,929.73)
747 Housing Successor Trust Fund 1,137.98
SUBTOTALS 372,710,651.77$
999 Invested Funds (367,587,571.46)
TOTAL 5,123,080.31$
Statement of Cash Balances
As of September 30, 2025
City of Clovis
ATTACHMENT 1
Balance of Investments Previous Month End 356,471,135.22 $ Time Certificates of Deposit Transactions
Investments 1,000,000.00
Withdrawals (3,000,000.00)
Total CD Changes (2,000,000.00)
Other Changes
Government Securities (7,844,367.00)
Local Agency Investment Fund 0.00
Municipal Securities 3,707,014.50
Corporate Securities 2,659,993.00
Sweep Account 14,593,795.74
Total Other Changes 13,116,436.24
Balance of Investments Current Month End 367,587,571.46$ Insured CD's 26,500,000.00
Government Securities 104,463,132.10
Corporation Securities 80,667,249.00
Local Agency Investment Fund 60,596,906.65
Municipal Securities 61,534,540.55
Sweep Account 33,825,743.16
Investment Total 367,587,571.46$
City of Clovis
Distribution of Investments
As of September 30, 2025
City of Clovis
Summary of Investment Activity
For the month of September 30, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
Investment
Balance At Stated
Institution Face Value Amortized Cost Maturity Rate
FHLB 980,000.00 945,327.00 11/25/2025 0.500%
FFCB 5,000,000.00 4,996,933.00 2/11/2026 0.580%
FHLB 4,000,000.00 3,992,510.00 2/24/2026 0.750%
FHLB 3,000,000.00 2,959,823.00 3/16/2026 0.790%
FHLB 5,000,000.00 4,993,482.00 9/28/2026 0.940%
FHLB 4,000,000.00 3,912,854.00 10/28/2026 1.150%
FHLB 6,000,000.00 5,997,240.00 11/24/2026 1.250%
FHLB 5,000,000.00 5,031,259.60 12/11/2026 2.125%
FHLB 4,500,000.00 4,362,519.00 2/24/2027 1.020%
FHLB 5,000,000.00 4,860,533.00 2/24/2027 1.020%
FHLB 4,000,000.00 3,912,623.00 2/26/2027 0.900%
FHLB 6,800,000.00 6,550,510.00 2/26/2027 0.900%
FHLB 5,700,000.00 5,736,885.00 2/26/2027 0.900%
FHLB 6,000,000.00 5,482,604.00 2/26/2027 1.000%
FHLB 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3/8/2027 2.375%
FHLB 6,000,000.00 5,590,985.00 2/22/2028 0.830%
FHLB 400,000.00 373,754.00 2/25/2028 1.125%
FFCB 2,500,000.00 2,294,434.00 3/2/2028 1.000%
FHLB 3,000,000.00 3,063,099.00 3/10/2028 4.500%
FFCB 2,245,000.00 2,049,487.50 3/10/2028 1.000%
FFCB 700,000.00 656,624.00 3/22/2028 1.370%
FFCB 6,000,000.00 6,052,396.00 4/25/2028 3.875%
FFCB 5,500,000.00 5,423,030.00 4/27/2028 3.740%
FFCB 3,000,000.00 2,781,287.00 6/22/2028 4.470%
FFCB 1,000,000.00 911,980.00 7/13/2028 1.230%
FHLMC 1,000,000.00 909,122.00 7/27/2028 1.100%
FNMA 1,000,000.00 927,719.00 7/28/2028 1.000%
FHLB 1,000,000.00 902,313.00 8/4/2028 1.300%
FFCB 3,000,000.00 2,989,001.00 9/8/2028 4.750%
FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1,802,798.00 10/19/2028 1.000%
Government Maturities Exceeding One Year
As of September 30, 2025
City of Clovis
ATTACHMENT 3
Investment
Balance At Stated
Institution Face Value Amortized Cost Maturity Rate
LA CUSD GO Bonds 1,000,000.00 1,001,622.00 7/1/2026 1.455% Chabot Las Positas Comm Coll 3,505,000.00 3,448,851.00 8/1/2026 1.080% Chaffey Joint Union HS 1,565,000.00 1,552,052.50 8/1/2026 2.475% Huntington Beach Union HS 3,305,000.00 3,260,012.00 8/1/2026 1.208% Placentia Yorba Linda USD 1,110,000.00 1,093,595.00 8/1/2026 1.070% San Diego Comm Coll Dist 470,000.00 467,004.00 8/1/2026 2.299% San Ramon Valley CUSD 2,125,000.00 2,125,000.00 8/1/2026 1.147% Sonoma County Jr Coll Dist 2,000,000.00 1,983,004.00 8/1/2026 2.447% San Diego Pub Facilities Dist 1,625,000.00 1,599,877.00 10/15/2026 1.812% California St Univ Taxable 2021B 2,500,000.00 2,417,475.00 11/1/2026 1.142% El Dorado Irrigation Dist 1,175,000.00 1,148,441.00 3/1/2027 1.687% Rancho Santiago CC Ref 2020 335,000.00 318,831.50 3/1/2027 1.106% UC Taxable Gen Bds 2020 B 2,385,000.00 2,273,310.50 5/15/2027 1.316% El Monte HSD Taxable Ref 2021 600,000.00 572,129.00 6/1/2027 1.326% LA Dept Wtr Pwr Rev Bonds 2010C 2,000,000.00 2,048,124.00 7/1/2027 5.516% Colton CA USD Ref Bonds 2020 1,060,000.00 1,009,236.00 8/1/2027 1.603% Contra Costa Comm College Dist 880,000.00 854,841.00 8/1/2027 2.163% Corona Norco USD Ref Bond 2019 250,000.00 238,658.00 8/1/2027 2.297% Foothill De Anza CC Taxable 2021 540,000. 00 514,539.00 8/1/2027 1.473% Fremont USD Alameda County 1, 100,000.00 1,038,055.00 8/1/2027 1.113% Fremont USD Taxable Ref 2021 1,140,000.00 1,120,055.00 8/1/2027 2.000% Marin County Comm Coll 2016 335,000.00 328,033.80 8/1/2027 3.330% Mount San Antonio CC 2021 285,000.00 268,529.00 8/1/2027 1.139% Mount San Antonio Comm Coll 405,000.00 390,039.75 8/1/2027 2.329% Saddleback Valley USD 3,000,000.00 2,953,683.00 8/1/2027 2.400% San Diego CCD Taxable 2019 590,000.00 571,766.00 8/1/2027 2.407% San Ramon Valley CUSD 1,435,000.00 1,377,021.00 8/1/2027 1.440% Santa Monica Comm College Dist 1,000,000.00 992,363.00 8/1/2027 3.415% Sierra CA CCD 2021A Ref 465,000.00 439,085.50 8/1/2027 1.129% William Hart USD 2020 Ref 200,000.00 188,690.00 8/1/2027 1.174% San Jose Ca Taxable Series B 910,000.00 879,785.00 9/1/2027 2.600% Soquel Creek Wtr Ref 2020 545,000.00 512,431.50 3/1/2028 1.445% Gardena Calif Pension Obligation 1,000,000.00 942,445.00 4/1/2028 2.663% Beverly Hills Taxable Ref 2020B 635,000.00 591,849.50 6/1/2028 1.514% California Health Facs Fing Au 760,000.00 732,084.00 6/1/2028 3.378% Alameda Cnty Calif 540,000.00 527,365.00 8/1/2028 3.519% Desert CA Cmnty College 1,000,000.00 942,076.00 8/1/2028 2.023% Long Beach Calif Cmnty 730,000.00 689,672.00 8/1/2028 2.337% Redondo Beach CA Uni Bond 2018 675,000.00 614,517.00 8/1/2028 1.430% San Ramon Valley CA 1,820,000.00 1,689,095.00 8/1/2028 1.670% Santa Ana College Impt 1,500,000.00 1,377,227.00 8/1/2028 1.320% Santa Clarita Calif Cmnty 1,000,000.00 930,329.00 8/1/2028 1.563% William Hart High 1,000,000.00
926,219.00 8/1/2028 1.429%
Yosemite Calif Cmnty College 750,000.00 709,190.00 8/1/2028 2.210% Los Angeles Community College Dist 1,250,000.00 1,027,362.00 8/1/2029 5.520% Riverside Community College Dist 2,000,000.00 1,827,433.00 8/1/2029 1.785% Berkeley Calif Jt Pwers 3,000,000.00 3,034,400.00 10/1/2029 4.375% Santa Clara Valley Transport 800,000.00 727,057.00 4/1/2030 1.622% University of California 3,000,000.00 2,715,674.00 5/15/2030 1.614% Marin Community College 500,000.00 450,861.00 8/1/2030 1.610% State of California 2,000,000.00 2,093,545.00 9/1/2030 4.875% As of September 30, 2025
City of Clovis
Municipal Maturities Exceeding One Year
Investment
Balance At Stated
Institution Face Value Amortized Cost Maturity Rate
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC 2,000,000.00 1,966,148.00 11/15/2028 3.950% Toyota MTR Cr Corp 2,000,000.00 1,994,653.00 1/5/2029 4.350% Procter & Gamble Co 2,000,000.00 1,996,368.00 1/29/2029 4.650% Air Products and Chemicals 2,000,000.00 1,994,581.00 2/8/2029 4.600% Texas Instrument Inc 2,000,000.00 2,006,673.00 2/8/2029 4.600% Cummins Inc 2,000,000.00 2,022,297.00 2/20/2029 4.900%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2,000,000.00 2,002,861.00 2/22/2029 4.900% Astrazeneca Finance LLC 2,000,000.00 1,987,367.00 2/26/2029 4.850% Cisco Sys Inc. 2,000,000.00 2,013,810.00 2/26/2029 4.850% Caterpillar Finl 2,000,000.00 2,014,557.00 2/27/2029 4.850% Merck Co Inc. 2,000,000.00 1,929,411.00 3/7/2029 3.400% Blackrock Fund Inc. 2,000,000.00 2,006,932.00 3/14/2029 4.700% Adobe Inc 2,000,000.00 2,007,507.00 4/4/2029 4.800%
Home Depot Inc. 2,000,000.00 1,994,323.00 4/15/2029 4.900% United Health Group 2,000,000.00 1,978,710.00 4/15/2029 4.700% Midamerican Energy Co 1,500,000.00 1,459,810.00 4/15/2029 3.650% Glaxosmithkline Capital 2,000,000.00 1,918,383.00 6/1/2029 3.375% John Deere Capital 2,000,000.00 2,009,664.00 6/11/2029 4.850% Citibank NA 2,000,000.00 2,033,110.00 8/6/2029 4.838%
Honeywell Intl Inc 2,000,000.00 2,071,600.00 9/1/2029 4.875% Unilever Capital Corp 1,500,000.00 1,376,899.00 9/6/2029 2.125% Paccar Financial Group 2,000,000.00 1,964,035.00 9/26/2029 4.000% State Street Corp 2,000,000.00 1,825,360.00 1/24/2030 2.400% Pepsico Inc 3,000,000.00 2,986,887.00 2/7/2030 4.600%
Eli Lilly & Co 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2/12/2030 4.750% Target Corp 2,000,000.00 1,837,951.00 2/15/2030 2.350%
Hershey Company 2,000,000.00 2,023,291.00 2/24/2030 4.750% Johnson & Johnson 2,000,000.00 2,031,335.00 3/1/2030 4.700% President & Fellow 2,500,000.00 2,551,214.00 3/15/2030 4.887% Kimberly Clark Corp 2,500,000.00 2,386,056.00 3/26/2030 3.100% Mastercard Inc 2,000,000.00 1,912,042.00 3/26/2030 3.350% Nike Inc 2,500,000.00 2,360,471.00 3/27/2030 2.850%
Gen Dynamics Corp 2,500,000.00 2,424,817.00 4/1/2030 3.625% Pfizer Investment Enterprise 2,000,000.00 2,037,873.00 5/19/2030 4.650% Dartmouth College 2,000,000.00 2,011,959.00 6/1/2030 4.273% Costco Wholesale Corp 2,000,000.00 1,810,951.00 4/20/2030 1.600% Stanford University 2,000,000.00 2,018,651.00 8/1/2030 4.146% Trustees Princeton Univ 2,000,000.00 2,057,892.00 7/1/2030 4.647% Automatic Data Processing 3,000,000.00 2,640,800.00 9/1/2030 1.250% City of Clovis
Corporate Maturities Exceeding One Year
As of September 30, 2025
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director
Subject: Finance - Approval - Res. 26-___, Request to Grant Authority for Additional Finance Department staff to transfer monies to and from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and Rescind the Authority of Staff to Deposit or Withdraw Funds.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:
1. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) ATT 1 Res 26-___
Recommendation:
For the City Council to approve the resolution authorizing, per California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) requirements, to grant authority to Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director and Susan Evans, Deputy Finance Director or their successors in office, to transfer monies (idle cash) to and from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); also to rescind authority of Jeffrey Blanks, who has resigned from City service, to deposit or withdraw funds in LAIF.
Executive Summary:
Authority is granted to the Finance Director to invest the City’s funds in compliance with guidelines established in the City’s investment policy. The investment objectives of the policy state the following:
Assets shall be investment in a manner consistent with safeguards and diversity that a prudent investor would adhere to.
1. The portfolio shall be invested in a manner consistent with primary emphasis on the preservation of the principal, while attaining a high rate of return consistent with this emphasis.
2. Sufficient liquidity shall be maintained to provide a source for anticipated payment outflows.
Specific types of securities that are deemed to be eligible for inclusion among the account assets include monies deposited with the LAIF. The LAIF began in 1977 as an investment alternative for California’s local governments and special districts. The enabling legislation for the LAIF is Section 16429.1 et seq. of the California Government Code. This program offers local agencies the
opportunity to participate in a major portfolio, which invests hundreds of millions of dollars, using the investment expertise of the State of California Treasurer’s Office investment staff at no additional cost to the taxpayer.
Background:
The City of Clovis has historically utilized LAIF to optimize portfolio yield and maintain essential liquidity for cash management. In response to the City’s continued growth and the increasing operational demands on the Finance Director, staff recommends expanding the authorized management personnel permitted to execute LAIF transactions.
Key objectives of this update include:
• Operational Continuity: Designating the Deputy Finance Director as an authorized signatory ensures a seamless transition in managing daily cash requirements during the Finance Director’s absence.
• Internal Controls & Security: Formalizing the immediate removal of access for any personnel no longer affiliated with the Finance Department or City of Clovis to maintain fund security. • Risk Mitigation: The Deputy Finance Director shall be subject to the same operational constraints as the Finance Director, including a daily transfer maximum of $10,000,000.
By diversifying administrative responsibilities within the Finance Department’s leadership, the City enhances its fiscal resilience and ensures uninterrupted management of its surplus funds.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Reason for Recommendation:
To facilitate the transfer of funds, LAIF mandates a formal resolution from the local governing body identifying all authorized personnel. Adopting this resolution will enhance cash management flexibility and ensure operational continuity, allowing for the uninterrupted handling of the City’s daily fiscal needs during the Finance Director’s absence.
Actions Following Approval:
The Finance Department will notify the LAIF office with the additional approvals and the staff rescinded by forwarding a copy of the approved resolution.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
AUTHORIZING INVESTING IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
WHEREAS, The Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury under Government Code section 16429.1 et. seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and
WHEREAS, the Council authorized Jay Schengel, Finance Director, Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director or Susan Evans, Deputy Finance Director or their successors in office, to order the deposit or withdrawal of funds on behalf of the city; and
WHEREAS, the Council seeks to rescind the authorization for Jeffrey Blanks, Deputy Finance Director, to execute LAIF transactions, due to his separation from the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Jay Schengel, Finance Director or in his absence, Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director and Susan Evans, Deputy Finance Director, or their successors in office are authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the name of the City of Clovis, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California, 93612 and the authority for Jeffrey Blanks is rescinded.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 9, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Lori Shively, Deputy General Services Director
Subject: General Services - Approval - Res. 26-___, Amending the City's FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan by adding one (1) Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst Position within the Fire and Police Departments and removing one (1) GIS Specialist Position from the City Manager's Department.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:
1. Position Allocation Fire Police Departments ATT 1 Res 26-___
Recommendation:
For City Council to approve a resolution amending the City’s FY 2025-2026 position allocation plan by adding one (1) Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst Position within the Fire and Police Departments and removing one (1) GIS Specialist Position from the City Manager's Office.
Executive Summary:
Approval was given to recruit for a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist position to be split 50/50 by the Fire and Police Departments in the FY 2025-2026 budget and position allocation.
When the duties and responsibilities were reviewed by the departments in preparation for the recruitment, it was determined that the expertise and level of work needed to be completed was more appropriate for the job requirements of a GIS Analyst position. The position was originally allocated to the City Manager’s office as part of the Information Technology Division; however, it was determined after review that the management of the position is better allocated to sit with the Fire and Police Departments. It is recommended that the City’s Position Allocation Plan be amended to add one (1) GIS Analyst position and eliminate one (1) GIS Specialist position in the Fire and Police Departments.
Council approval is required for changes to the Position Allocation Plan.
Background:
During preparation of the FY 2025–2026 budget, the Police and Fire Departments jointly identified the need for a dedicated position to develop, manage, and analyze Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data. A proposal was submitted to establish a shared GIS position funded through Measure Y.
The City Council approved the request in June 2025 as part of the annual budget adoption and position allocation process, with funding authorized to begin in January 2026. The position was
allocated to the City Manager within the Information Technology Division.
Subsequent discussions between the departments regarding recruitment and implementation revealed that the originally proposed GIS Specialist classification would not adequately meet the operational needs of either department.
For the Fire Department, the position will play a foundational role in building and configuring its GIS infrastructure. Responsibilities include developing critical fire operations map layers for integration into incident command software, analyzing apparatus deployment, evaluating response districts, and assessing overall system performance. The Fire Department has not previously had a dedicated GIS position, and its GIS platform has not been fully developed or implemented, leaving a significant operational data gap.
For the Police Department, the position will focus on advanced analytics across multiple departmental data systems. The role is expected to expand alongside departmental growth, including integration with the Real Time Incident Center (RTIC), enhanced video capabilities, and increasing call volumes associated with population growth.
Given the complexity, independence, and strategic impact required by both departments, it was determined that a GIS Analyst classification—reflecting a higher level of technical expertise and autonomous analytical capability—would better align with the scope and expectations of the position.
The Assistant City Manager, who serves as Department Head for the Information Technology Division, determined that the position was best allocated to Fire and Police Departments directly.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact of salary and benefits for the remainder of FY 2025-2026 is approximately $4,200.
The position was scheduled to start in January 2026 and with the hiring process still to take place, the position will not start until June. The salary savings from January to the new hire date will cover any difference.
Reason for Recommendation:
The addition of one (1) GIS Analyst position and the elimination of one (1) GIS Specialist position reflect the level of responsibility of the shared position in the Fire and Police Departments. The adjustment to the position allocation requires City Council approval.
Actions Following Approval:
The position allocation for the City of Clovis Position Allocation will be modified as noted in Attachment 1 and the hiring process will begin through the Personnel Division.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S FY 2025-2026 POSITION ALLOCATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan for all City of Clovis Departments was approved as part of the FY 2025-2026 City Budget adoption process; and
WHEREAS, a review of the position responsibilities for the Fire and Police Departments indicates that the addition of one (1) GIS Analyst position and the removal of one (1) GIS Specialist from the City Manager’s office is needed in order to provide the necessary support for the Fire and Police Departments; and
WHEREAS, amending the City’s adopted FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan requires City Council authorization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis shall amend the City’s FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan as noted in Attachment A.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 9, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
POSITION ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT BY DEPARTMENT FY 2025-2026
DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF POSITIONS
City Manager
Remove: GIS Specialist 1.0
Fire
Add: GIS Analyst 0.5
Police
Add: GIS Analyst 0.5
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Thad Avery, City Engineer
Subject: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Res. 26-____, Annexation of Miscellaneous Properties to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:
1. Misc LMD Annexations ATT 1 Res. 26-___
Recommendation:
For the City Council to approve a resolution approving annexation of miscellaneous properties into City of Clovis Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 1.
Executive Summary:
The developers / property owners of the properties listed in Attachment A of the proposed resolution have submitted executed landscape maintenance covenants, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk, indicating consent to annexation of the subject property into the City of Clovis Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. This action will annex each of these properties into the Landscape Maintenance District so that they can be assessed for maintenance costs within their respective areas.
Background:
Council formed the original district on July 15, 1985, for the purpose of funding the maintenance of landscaped areas and parks. These properties are being brought to Council for annexation to the district as a group rather than separately in an effort to conserve staff resources and Council’s time.
Under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, if all of the owners of property proposed for annexation provide written consent to annexation, then noticing, hearing, and filing of an Engineer’s Report is not required.
Under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and in accordance with Article XIII C and Article XIII D of Proposition 218, all the owners of property proposed for annexation have provided a written request and consent to annexation and have executed a covenant (petition) indicating acceptance of the annual assessment.
Fiscal Impact:
This project will add any landscaped areas and will incrementally increase maintenance revenue through annual assessments from the annexed properties. The current year-to-date status of landscape maintenance district facilities is as follows:
Various LMD's Under Consideration Year-to-Date
LMD Landscaping added: 0.000 acres 7.810
Resource needs added: 0.000 person 0.781 person
The resource needs estimate is based on 1 person per 10 acres of landscaped area.
Reason for Recommendation:
The property owners for the miscellaneous properties have requested or consented to annexation into the City of Clovis LMD No. 1.
Actions Following Approval:
The miscellaneous properties shall become a part of the City of Clovis LMD No. 1 and will be assessed next year for maintenance costs.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
APPROVING ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF
THE CITY OF CLOVIS
WHEREAS, City of Clovis Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ("District") was formed by Resolution No. 85-78, adopted July 15, 1985, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972), herein the "Act"; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property proposed to be annexed to the District consisting of proposed developments as described in Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, have consented to said annexation and such annexation may be ordered without notice and hearing or filing of engineer's report, or both.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Clovis:
1. That the public interest and convenience require that certain property described in Attachment A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein be annexed into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 of the City of Clovis for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping facilities.
2. The City Clerk shall receive and file the maps showing the boundaries of the areas annexed as set forth in Attachment A, which boundaries shall be used for assessment proceedings until and unless a change of organization is approved pursuant to the Act.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 9, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
Miscellaneous properties to be added to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 of the City of Clovis:
Project Number Address Developer/Owner
BD-CMBR-25-02393 560 W Stuart Ave Lisa Kay Johnson
BD-CMBR-25-03262 627 W Dennis Ave Isreal Torres
SPR 2025-023 1099 Sylmar Ave April A. Worden
BD-CMBR-24-03143 6 Pollasky Ave Warren Fortier
BD-CMBR-25-02760 124 Sunnyside Ave Jeffrey D. Krueger
BD-CMBR-25-03355 525 Third St Doua Yong Lee
BD-CMBR-25-03836 328 Pollasky Ave Donald D. Deaver
BD-CMBN-25-02690 511 Fourth St Madeline F. Sheldon
BD-CMBR-25-02832 414 Pollasky Ave John Efird
BD-CMBR-25-03761 608 Fourth St Hugh W. Willoughby
BD-CMBR-25-02705 1627 Griffith Ave Liana Pino
BD-CMBR-25-02292 727 Woodworth Ave Michael Anthony Moreno BD-CMBR-25-03598 836 Cherry Ln Linda Mayr
BD-PVT-25-01528 902 Clovis Ave Agaron Davoyan
BD-CMBR-25-02074 115 San Jose Ave Carina Miranda
BD-CMBN-25-02174 1458 Clovis Ave Jared Ennis/ Kevin M Land/ Katelyn B Land BD-CMBN-25-03553 839 Barstow Ave Joseph C. Kyriakides
BD-CMBR-25-02403 1515 Keats Ave Rodney Hayes
BD-CMBN-25-02714 540 Shaw Ave Gregory R. Hinds
BD-CMBR-25-02792 2411 Villa Ave Guadalupe M. Espudo
BD-CMBR-25-02616 25 Pico Ave Daniel Chavarria, Jr./ Melissa Rios Chavarria BD-CMBN-25-03009 390 Shaw Ave Satvinder Dhillon
BD-CMBR-25-02626 2071 Polson Ave Timothy Joseph Ayuso/ Erin Marie Ayuso BD-CMBR-25-03083 86 Magnolia Ave Scott Vincent
BD-CMBR-25-01841 2236 Ellery Ave Kelli Brianne Mayhew/Mathew Joseph Bowe BD-CMBR-25-02762 940 Whittier Ave David Barksdale/Janelle Barksdale BD-CMBR-24-03904 3334 Bullard Ave Warren Fortier
BD-PVT-25-01340 1301 De Wolf Ave Joshua B. Crampton
SPR 2022-003 2307 Herndon Ave Justin Preas
BD-CMBR-25-03630 964 W San Gabriel Ave Melinda Hatler
BD-CMBR-25-04079 344 Woodworth Ave John Ja-Ru Eichmann/ Kelly Kim Eichmann BD-CMBR-25-04305 1076 Helm Ave Brett Fugman
BD-CMBR-25-04259 350 Cole Ave Audree H. Mc Dowell
BD-CMBR-25-04477 2488 Escalon Ave Long Duc Mai
BD-CMBR-25-03821 2496 Ashcroft Ave Luis Cardenas/ Lilian Alicia Cardenas
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Amy Hance, General Services Director
Subject: Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-___, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis Making Technical Amendments to Article 2 of Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal Code relating to the Personnel Commission.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:
1. Municipal Code Update Personnel Commission ATT 1 Ord. 26-___
Recommendation:
For the City Council to consider introduction of an ordinance making technical amendments to Article 2 of Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal code relating to the Personnel Commission.
Executive Summary:
City staff is requesting an amendment to the Clovis Municipal Code, Article 2 of Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 to increase the number of Personnel Commissioners from seven (7) to nine (9) and to adjust commissioner compensation from $45 per day to $65 per day. The proposed change is intended to improve the City's ability to efficiently schedule and conduct disciplinary hearings. Coordinating the availability of commissioners for hearings can be challenging, particularly when multiple matters arise or when commissioners have professional and personal obligations that limit their availability.
Expanding the commission to nine (9) members will provide greater flexibility in assembling hearing panels and reduce delays associated with scheduling conflicts.
In addition, the proposed adjustment to commissioner compensation reflects the level of responsibility associated with serving and supports the City’s ability to recruit and retain qualified individuals.
Increasing the per diem from $45 to $65 per day will help ensure continued engagement and availability of commissioners while remaining fiscally reasonable.
Background:
The Clovis Municipal Code currently establishes a seven-member Personnel Commission responsible for hearing disciplinary appeals and other personnel-related matters. Commissioners serve in a quasi-judicial capacity, ensuring that employees are afforded due process and that personnel actions are reviewed in a fair and impartial manner. Over time, scheduling disciplinary
hearings has presented logistical challenges. Coordinating the availability of multiple commissioners—each of whom may have professional and personal commitments—can result in delays in convening hearing panels. When availability conflicts arise, hearings may need to be postponed, which can extend resolution timelines for both the employee and the organization. Timely adjudication of disciplinary matters is important to maintaining organizational stability, ensuring procedural fairness, and minimizing operational disruption. To address these scheduling constraints, staff is proposing an amendment to the Municipal Code to increase the membership of the Personnel Commission from seven (7) to nine (9). Expanding the Commission will provide greater flexibility in assembling hearing panels and help ensure that disciplinary hearings can be scheduled and conducted more efficiently.
In conjunction with the proposed membership increase, staff also recommends adjusting commissioner compensation from $45 per day to $65 per day. The proposed increase recognizes the responsibilities associated with reviewing complex personnel matters and will support the City’s efforts to attract and retain qualified commissioners to serve in this important role.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of the Personnel Commission varies depending upon the number of disciplinary hearings.
Including the recommended increase in compensation, the estimate for FY2026-2027 is $1,000.
Reason for Recommendation:
Revisions to Article 2 Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal Code are necessary to update the number of Personnel Commissioners and increase the daily pay rate.
Actions Following Approval:
Amendments to the ordinance will return for a second reading on March 16, 2026, and if adopted, go into effect 30 days thereafter.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE 26-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PERSONNEL COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Clovis does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 2.2.203 Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
2.2.203 Personnel Commission: Created: Membership: Terms of office: Vacancies:
Removal from office.
…………………………………..
(a) Created. The Personnel Commission is hereby established and shall consist of nine (9) members who shall be residents of the City.
(b) Terms of office. Personnel Commissioners shall serve for four (4) years each with the terms and appointments being staggered such that four (4) positions and five (5) positions, respectively, are appointed every two (2) years.
Section 2. Subsections (c) and (d) of Section 2.2.204 of Chapter 2.2 of Title 2 of the Clovis Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
2.2.204 Personnel Commission: Meetings: Compensation.
…………………………………….
(c) Quorum. Any Five (5) members of the Personnel Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of Commission business except as follows:
(1) Five (5) members of the Commission, selected as follows, shall hear an appeal of a disciplinary termination of employment, unless otherwise agreed by the Personnel Officer and appellant. Two (2) members shall be designated by the Personnel Officer, two (2) members shall be designated by the appellant, and those four (4) designated members of the Commission shall designate the fifth member of the Commission for the termination appeal.
(2) Three (3) members of the Commission, selected as follows, shall hear an appeal of any other appealable disciplinary action and shall hear grievances that come before the Commission, unless otherwise agreed by the Personnel Officer and appellant or grievant. One member shall be designated by the Personnel Officer, one member shall be designated by the appellant or grievant, and those two (2) designated members of the
Commission shall designate the third member of the Commission for the appeal or hearing.
(d) Compensation. Each member of the Personnel Commission shall receive as compensation for attendance at Personnel Commission meetings the sum of sixty-five and no/100ths dollars ($65.00) per meeting unless such individual is prohibited from receiving such compensation by applicable law. (§ 4, Ord. 256; as amended by § 1, Ord. 77-45, eff. October 1, 1977; § 1, Ord. § 85-3, eff. April 13, 1985; § 4, Ord. 96-5, eff. April 13, 1996; § 1, Ord. 00-14, eff. July 1, 2000; § 3, Ord. 06-44, eff. December 6, 2006; § 1, Ord. 07-09, eff. March 22, 2007; § 1, Ord. 14-15, eff. October 15, 2014; § 1, Ord 18-24, eff. November 14, 2018)
Section 3. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
APPROVED: March 9, 2026
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
* * * * * * * * * *
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on March 9, 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of said Council held on ____________, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: _________, 2026
________________________________
City Clerk
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner
Subject: Consider Approval - Res. 26-___, CUP2025-006 Appeal, A request to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP2025-006 for a three- story, mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial space and parking, and one residence above located at 319 Bullard Avenue. Rick Sassano, Owner and Applicant; and Paul Halajian Architects, Representative.
Recommendation: Deny the request for appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
Attachments:
1. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 1 Res. 26-___
2. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 2 Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elev
3. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 3 Operational Statement
4. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 4 Correspondence
5. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 5 Applicant's Parking Analysis
6. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 6 Notice of Exemption
7. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 7 Public Comments
8. CUP 2025-006 Appeal ATT 8 Appeal Letter
Recommendation:
For the City Council to deny the request for appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2025-006, subject to findings of fact and the conditions of approval attached to the resolution as Attachment 1A.
Executive Summary:
The Project was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2025; however, at the request of Rick Sassano (“Applicant”), the Planning Commission granted a continuance to January 22, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 26-02, approving the Project with additional conditions of approval. (See Attachment 1A, Nos. 20 & 21.) Per Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) section 9.88.030, no additional notice is required for the continued hearing.
The approved Project represents the first mixed-use development proposed within the Downtown area, introducing vertical integration of commercial and residential uses consistent with the Downtown Commercial (C-3) zone district and the Central Clovis Specific Plan (CCSP).
The approved CUP2025-006 allows for the development of a three-story, mixed-use building with ground-floor commercial space and parking, and one (1) residence above on a vacant infill parcel located near the northwest corner of Bullard and De Witt Avenues, as shown in Figure 1 below. The Project is located within the C-3 zone district and within Planning Area (PA) 1 of the CCSP, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. Under the CCSP and CMC, Mixed Use is permitted subject to an approved CUP (CMC § 9.12.020, Table 2-4.)
Background:
The subject property is located within Planning Area 1 (PA1) of the CCSP. PA1 is designated as Old Town Storefront Commercial (OTC), which is a “historic” neighborhood of pedestrian-oriented
commercial uses. The Project site is vacant and makes up ±0.05 acres. The surrounding properties are all commercial. If the Planning Commission’s approval is upheld, the Applicant will move forward with a site plan review (SPR).
The Applicant submitted his CUP application on May 7, 2025, and the Project was assigned project number CUP2025-006. The CUP was then brought before the Planning Commission for consideration at its October 23, 2025, meeting. Before the Planning Commission motioned to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Woodworth (“Appellant”) spoke in opposition of the Project. At the January 22, 2026, meeting following staff’s presentation, the Appellant again spoke in opposition of the Project. The Planning Commission deliberated and ultimately approved CUP2025-006 with additional conditions of approval to address some of the issues raised by the Appellant’s comments, specifically that no subsequent CUP requesting a bar in this location would be brought before the Commission and the requirement that staff work with the Applicant to reconfigure the toter plan to ensure minimal impact on neighboring properties and public parking. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Project with the additional conditions of approval.
Consideration of the Appeal
On February 9, 2026, the Appellant filed an appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of the Project within the required appeal period pursuant to CMC section 9.90.030, subdivision (C). The appeal challenges the Project’s compliance with applicable zoning standards and the environmental determination under CEQA. The City Council has been asked to consider the appeal and determine whether to uphold, modify, or overturn Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
An appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of the Project was received pursuant to CMC section
9.90.020, subdivision (B). Per CMC section 9.90.040, subdivision (D), the appeal hearing is considered a new hearing, as such the City Council may consider any issue(s) associated with the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. Furthermore, when reviewing an appeal, City Council may:
a. By resolution, affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, the determination, or decision that is the subject of the appeal;
b. Adopt additional conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary, and may even address issues or concerns that go beyond the subject of the appeal; or c. Disapprove the permit or approval granted by the previous review authority, even though the appellant only requested a modification or elimination of one or more conditions of approval.
If new or different evidence is presented on appeal, the Council may, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, for further consideration. (CMC § 9.90.040, subd. (D)(2).)
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
Project Description
The Planning Commission approved CUP2025-006, allowing construction of a three-story, mixed-use development on a vacant infill site as shown in the conceptual plan in Figure 2 below. The Project consists of a three-story, ±4,035 square-foot building that will include a ground level commercial retail space (±368 square feet) along with two (2) parking spaces exclusively for the residence above (±489 square feet); and a single residential dwelling unit will occupy the second and third floors (±2,575 square feet). The remaining 603 square feet are allocated to the lobby area, trash toter space, and
restrooms. Streetscape improvements, including trees near the new building façade, are also included as part of the Project.
Central Clovis Specific Plan
The Project site consists of ±0.05 acres located near the northwest corner of Bullard and De Witt Avenues in an established mixed-use corridor of Old Town Clovis, which allows for a combination of commercial and residential uses. The Project site is within PA1 of the CCSP as shown in Figure 3.
The CCSP is bounded by Sunnyside Avenue to the east, Barstow Avenue to the south, Minnewawa Avenue to the west, and State Route 168 and the Old Town Trail to the north. All uses allowed in the C-3 (Downtown Commercial) zone district are permitted in PA1.
Mixed Use Development
Per the CMC, mixed use is defined as the combination of commercial (e.g., retail, office, etc.) and residential uses, with the residential component typically above the commercial although the combination of land uses may be horizontal. (CMC § 9.120.020, subd. (M).) Mixed use projects are permitted in the C-3 zone district subject to approval of a CUP and/or SPR to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties, appropriate site design, and consistency with applicable development and operational standards. (CMC § 9.12.020, Table 2-4.) Mixed use development is intended to promote efficient land use, support commercial activity, and provide opportunities for residential units within proximity to services and amenities. All mixed-use projects must comply with applicable CMC development standards, parking requirements, and design standards, unless modified through an approved entitlement.
The Project is subject to approval of a CUP because the Project includes residential use above commercial space and consists of (3) stories. As such, the Project was reviewed through the CUP process and determined by the Planning Commission to meet the definition and applicable requirements under the CMC for mixed-use development, including compatibility with surrounding properties, appropriate site design, and compliance with applicable development, operational,
parking, and design standards.
Site Layout and Surrounding Area
The site is currently vacant and contains only a foundation. Historical records indicate that a single- family dwelling previously occupied the parcel but was demolished in June of 2000. No structures remain on-site, and the property has remained undeveloped since the demolition. As it stands, the parcel is underutilized, visually blighted, and inconsistent with the goals of the CCSP for a vibrant, walkable, and attractive central area. The Project is consistent with the general plan, specific plan, and applicable zoning standards, promoting infill development and mixed-use activity. The three-story structure will exceed the height of the immediate surrounding buildings, contributing to differing building heights and visual interest consistent with the CCSP, and serving as a gateway to Old Town Clovis. By adding the ground floor commercial retail and one (1) dwelling unit on the floors above, the Project meets the definition of mixed-use development, revives a blighted site, supports local business activity, and contributes to the livability and walkability envisioned in the CCSP.
The properties fronting Bullard Avenue to the north include small residential dwellings, where some have been converted into commercial or mixed use. East, west, and south of the Project along Bullard Avenue are mixed commercial and office uses.
Operations of Commercial Space
As of the date of this report, a tenant for the commercial retail space has not been identified. At the January 22, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Project with an added condition that no subsequent CUP requesting a bar at this location come before the Commission. (See Attachment 1A, No. 20.) The Applicant indicated in the operational statement (Attachment 3) that the anticipated commercial hours of operation will generally be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., consistent with typical daytime business or office uses. Any future commercial tenant will be required to operate within the permitted uses, hours, and noise requirements defined in the applicable zoning regulations.
Zoning and General Plan Consistency
The C-3 (Downtown Commercial) zone district is intended for the Old Town area to support land uses that provide both daytime and evening activities, encourage a human scale and pedestrian shopping experience, promote the adaptive reuse of commercial and industrial structures with a consistent turn-of-the-century design theme, and provide a diversity of retail uses to attract a regional market, including a broad range of specialty retail shops, clothing and apparel, jewelry stores, and personal service businesses. The C-3 zone district is consistent with the existing Mixed Use Village land use designation.
Per the 2014 Clovis General Plan, all commercial zone districts, which includes the C-3 Zone district, are consistent with the Mixed Use Village General Plan Land Use Designation. Therefore, mixed-use development is allowed in properties zoned C-3 (Downtown Commercial), including those within PA1 of the CCSP, which aims to integrate commercial, residential, and pedestrian-oriented improvements in the downtown district. PA1 under the CCSP requires 15.0 or more dwelling units per acre. With one (1) residential unit on a 0.05-acre site, the Project results in a density of 19 dwelling units per acre, consistent with this requirement.
The C-3 zone district and MU-V land use designation are intended to accommodate compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed-use development at an urban scale, as well as vertically integrated development with housing, shops, and services in proximity. As such, the mixed-use development is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning regulations applicable to
the site.
The proposed mixed-use building in Old Town Clovis with a small commercial retail space on the ground floor and one residence above will provide measurable economic and community benefits, while supporting City goals for compact and walkable infill development. Mixed-use projects such as this can increase local sales tax revenue and foot traffic that supports adjacent merchants, provide modest new housing opportunities that serve workforce needs, makes more efficient use of an under- utilized and undeveloped parcel, and signals private investment that can support higher nearby property values. The Project aligns with the City’s Economic Development Element, OTC zoning standards promoting pedestrian-oriented development, and broader general plan and redevelopment goals related to density, sustainability, and downtown revitalization.
Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies
Staff has evaluated the Project considering the CCSP Goals, along with the General Plan Goals and Policies. The following goals and policies reflect Clovis’s desire for a balanced and sustainable city that maintains its small-town character and premier quality of life through balanced growth, development, and reinvestment.
Land Use Element of the General Plan
Goal 5: A city with housing, employment, and lifestyle opportunities for all ages and income residents.
Policy 5.3 Innovative housing. Encourage innovative housing product types, including multigenerational, cooperative, and variations on live-work housing.
Goal 6: A city that grows and develops in a manner that implements its vision, sustains the integrity of its guiding principles, and requires few and infrequent amendments to the general plan.
Policy 6.2: Smart growth. The city is committed to the following smart growth goals.
1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
2. Create walkable neighborhoods
3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
5. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective
6. Mix land uses
7. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices
9. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities
10. Take advantage of compact building design
11. Enhance the economic vitality of the region
12. Support actions that encourage environmental resource management
Central Clovis Specific Plan Goals and Actions Items:
• A place with distinctive gateways and thematic elements. o Identify gateway points and develop thematic elements which identify one’s arrival and departure in Old Town.
• An authentic heart of the Clovis Community that offers employment, housing, and
lifestyle opportunities for all ages and incomes.
o Facilitate a variety of housing opportunities to serve the needs of the spectrum of community residents.
o Consider opportunities for new residential development and the development of underutilized properties.
This mixed-use Project on a vacant, small parcel directly advances the City’s infill strategy. It helps revitalize and make better use of the land that is currently not contributing to the tax base or community vitality and enhances the economic vitality of the region. The design includes ground floor commercial, sidewalks, minimal setbacks, pedestrian-friendly details (lighting, streetscape, attractive façade) which aligns with the goals and policies for walkability and non-vehicular circulation.
Commercial uses give opportunity for business services, which can draw customers, create jobs, and provide services for nearby residents. This supports balanced growth. Adding a residential component helps meet goals for housing options and mixed use reduces trip lengths supporting policies in the circulation element about reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Development Standards Compliance
The Project is subject to the City of Clovis development standards consistent with the C-3 (Downtown Commercial) zone district. There are no setback or maximum lot coverage requirements for the site.
The maximum allowable height is 50 feet supporting a vertical mixed-use configuration and structures should be sited directly upon the front property line to promote active street frontage.
The development is 32 feet in height and positioned 10 feet from the front property line (to accommodate a public utility easement) and close to the side and rear property lines. The Project’s height and mass are consistent with development standards of the C-3 zone district and are comparable to other urban-scale structures envisioned within the Central Clovis area. The CCSP highlights that differing building heights that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings provide important visual interest. The Project has been designed in compliance with all applicable development standards and aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations, also ensuring compatibility with the surrounding parcels.
Circulation and Parking
The subject property has direct frontage along Bullard Avenue, a two-lane collector street. An existing public alley abuts the property along the west property line, providing the only point of vehicular access. This alley is paved and functions as a driveway for neighboring parcels and will also serve as a driveway to the enclosed parking spaces for the proposed residence.
Sidewalks exist along Bullard Avenue and most adjacent streets, providing safe pedestrian connectivity. Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities are found throughout the area as well as amenities including bicycle racks, bicycle service facilities, drinking fountains, and restrooms. The sites proximity to schools, retail centers, and Old Town Clovis makes it suitable for infill development that reduces auto dependency and supports walkability.
The Applicant is required to provide frontage improvements along Bullard Avenue, including stamped concrete sidewalks, decorative streetlights, and new landscaping with irrigation. The Project includes planting of trees and box planters as part of landscape design. All landscaping will be located on the Applicant’s parcel and maintained privately.
Off-street parking for the C-3 zone is governed by CMC Chapter 9.32. Pursuant to CMC Chapter
9.32, the parking requirement for the mixed-use development is determined as part of the CUP application. (CMC § 9.32.040, Table 3-12.) The Project provides on-site, enclosed (garage) parking exclusively for the residential component. No on-site parking is provided for the commercial portion of the Project. The Applicant provided information in support of the Project, not including any on-site parking for the commercial portion of the Project (Attachment 5). The lack of on-site parking for this Project is considered reasonable based on several key factors:
• The limited size (2,305 square feet) and constraints of the Project site restrict the ability to provide additional on-site parking without compromising the viability of the proposed mixed-use development.
• The Project site is located within close proximity to public transit, including Clovis transit and Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus stops, which offer convenient alternatives:
1. South Harvard Avenue and Fifth Street (approximately 350 feet)
2. Fifth Street and Woodworth Avenue (approximately 690 feet) • The Project site has four (4) on-street parking spaces, which are available to support parking needs associated with development.
• While the Project site is not within the Parking Business Improvement Area (PBIA), it is however, just 0.10 miles (528 feet) west of Parking Lot 2 in the PBIA, which contains 60 public parking spaces. This nearby public parking option helps accommodate parking demand for the commercial portion of the Project and supports walkability goals of the area. • The Project lies within the boundaries of the CCSP, which prioritizes reduced reliance on automobiles and promotes walkability.
For informational purposes only, if the commercial parking was evaluated under typical use-based parking ratios, with a 368 square foot space, a limited parking demand of two (2) stalls would be required. However, such ratios are not the governing standard for mixed-use developments under the CMC and CCSP. Parking requirements are determined through the CUP process. (CMC § 9.32.040, Table 3-12.)
Given these considerations, no additional on-site parking is required, as the Project aligns with the intent of the CCSP which emphasizes sustainable transportation and infill development.
Architecture
The primary goal of the OTC design guidelines is to preserve and enhance the attractiveness of the business core, including maintaining a distinction between the first and second floors by having a more transparent commercial ground floor, as well as several aspects including color, texture, and materials. The developer is required to incorporate materials and colors that are consistent with the adjacent buildings and the design guidelines of the CCSP.
The Project consists of a three-story building with ground floor commercial retail space oriented toward Bullard Avenue and a residential unit above. The structure features storefront windows, doors, entries, transom windows, awnings, and other architectural features that complement existing structures, without copying their architectural style. All mechanical equipment will be screened. The elevations (Attachment 2) incorporate modern materials and clean lines, while maintaining compatibility with the scale, massing, and rhythm of nearby buildings consistent with the CCSP and neighboring parcels.
Primary exterior materials include concrete masonry, vertical metal paneling, horizontal wood siding, and brick veneer. The color pallet consists of earth tones and neutral hues that complement
surrounding development while maintaining a modern aesthetic. Rooflines are flat with parapet walls, consistent with the design guidelines. The Project will be sustainable and will use traditional materials found in the turn of the century architecture.
Garage parking for the residential unit is on the ground floor, enclosed, and accessed from the alley, minimizing visual impacts to the street frontage and enhancing pedestrian engagement along Bullard Avenue.
Overall, the architectural character is consistent with the City’s vision for high-quality, walkable development, and contributes positively to evolving fabric of the Old Town Area. Additionally, the architectural design will undergo review through the SPR process.
Infrastructure and Utilities
This in-fill site is situated in an urban area already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., fire, police, schools). Given the existing infrastructure and availability of services, the proposed development can be readily accommodated without the need for additional public investment or expansion of utility networks.
Final infrastructure design will be reviewed during the SPR. Solid waste and recycling services will be provided by the City of Clovis. A trash enclosure is not required for this site due to the limited parcel size. Instead, the Applicant will use 96-gallon commercial toters and the Project has been conditioned such that staff will work with the Applicant to reconfigure the toter plan to ensure minimal impact on the adjacent parcel to the west of the Project and public parking. (Attachment 1A, No. 21.) The Applicant is responsible for coordinating all utility connections as necessary. Review for compliance with fire and life safety requirements for the building interior and its intended uses are reviewed by the Fire Department during the building plan review phase.
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 of California Department of Fish and Game, County of Fresno, and Fresno County Environmental Health.
Comments received are attached (Attachment 4) 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.
Public Comments
As mentioned above, the Project was originally noticed on October 6, 2025, to be considered by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2025. During the October meeting, the Planning Commission received written public comment on the project from Ronald Oliver, who indicates he is the co-owner of the property located at 375 Bullard Avenue, a property adjacent to the Project. (See Attachment
7.) As previously mentioned, the Appellant also commented in opposition of the Project. At the request of the Applicant, the Planning Commission granted a continuance to Thursday, January 22, 2026.
On January 21, 2026, attorneys for the Appellant provided a comment letter in opposition to the Project, outlining issues with the Project creating a public nuisance, lack of public outreach, and issues with the City’s CEQA analysis related to the Project. (See Attachment 7.) On January 22, 2026, the Planning Commission held the hearing to consider the Project. Following staff’s presentation, only Appellant spoke in opposition of the Project. The Planning Commission deliberated
and ultimately approved the Project with additional conditions that no subsequent CUP requesting a bar in this location, be brought before the Commission, as well as the condition that staff work with the Applicant to reconfigure the toter plan to ensure minimal impact on neighboring properties and public parking. The vote passed 5-0.
On February 9, 2026, the Appellant filed his appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. (See Attachment 8.) The appeal was timely filed. (CMC § 9.90.030, subd. (C).) The appeal challenges the Project’s compliance with applicable zoning standards, alleges it will create a public nuisance, challenges the City compliance with CEQA and raises issues with the Class 32 categorical exemption that was adopted by the Planning Commission. The content of the appeal letter is substantially the same as what was provided in the comment letter dated January 21, 2026.
The comments summarized below represent the written and verbal comments received by the City through the Planning Commission hearing and subsequent appeal process, as of the date of preparation of this staff report.
Commenters expressed concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposed development, including increased vehicle traffic and associated wear and tear. Commenters cited accelerated wear and tear on the adjacent alley, inadequate on-site parking, insufficient back-up space for residential vehicles, and increased demand for on-street parking that can lead to congestion and unauthorized use of neighboring private parking spaces. Traffic congestion was noted as a concern, particularly at the intersection of Bullard Avenue and Fifth, due to anticipated continued use of the alley as a cut- through. Additionally, in the appeal letter, it is stated that the commercial component does not comply with the parking standards of the C-3 Zone District, and that City had failed to comply with CEQA.
With respect to traffic and alley use, the Project’s limited size and intensity are expected to generate a modest number of vehicle trips, consistent with comparable small-scale commercial uses permitted in the C-3 zone district and infill development. Alley access is provided to two (2) parking spaces serving the residential component, while no on-site parking is proposed for the commercial use.
Existing alley congestion associated with cut-through traffic is not attributable to the Project, and the Project’s limited trip generation would not exacerbate current traffic back-up conditions. The public alley is designed to accommodate service and vehicular circulation, and the Project is not anticipated to generate traffic volumes that would exceed the alley’s functional capacity or result in unsafe conditions. All drive aisles, access points, and any adjacent public rights-of-way shall remain unobstructed and in compliance with applicable city standards at all times. Any temporary obstruction of the public alley during construction would require issuance of an encroachment permit from the city. The Project would be required to comply with applicable encroachment permit requirements and conditions to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.
Parking
With respect to parking, staff acknowledges community concerns regarding reduced parking and the potential impacts on neighboring properties. Pursuant to the C-3 zone district, off-street parking requirements are governed by the CMC Chapter 9.32. (See CMC § 9.12.050, Table 2-5.) CMC Chapter 9.32 [Parking and Loading standards] provides the number of parking spaces required for each land use in section 9.32.040. Table 3-12 of section 9.32.040 states that mixed use developments’ required vehicle spaces are determined by the CUP. Unlike other land use types, there is no fixed number of spaces for mixed use development. Projects located outside the PBIA, but within the CCSP, do not have a fixed minimum parking requirement for mixed-use developments.
Instead, staff evaluates whether the proposed parking is adequate to serve the project without creating adverse impacts to surrounding properties or the public right-of-way.
Accordingly, the proposed parking for this Project has been evaluated as part of the CUP application based on site-specific and relevant contextual factors including proximity to transit, pedestrian accessibility, and the availability of nearby public parking. Staff has considered the proposed mix of uses, project intensity and scale, and surrounding context. Based on the analysis, staff find that the proposed parking is adequate, consistent with applicable parking standards, zoning regulations, consistent with the City’s adopted transportation and land-use policies, and advances the vision and objectives of the CCSP.
The Project does not propose or rely upon the use of nearby private parking to serve customers.
While individual parking behavior cannot be guaranteed, the Project is designed to operate independently of nearby private parking areas and does not anticipate customers parking in adjacent private properties. Parking on private property is not regulated by the City and is subject to enforcement by the property owner through posted signage or towing in accordance with applicable state and local regulations. To address parking concerns, the Project shall be conditioned to require advertising and promotional materials for the business to include clear information directing customers to appropriate parking locations. (See Attachment 1A, No. 17.) Additionally, the street parking is open for public use and is not designated for any specific business. The City remains willing to work with the appellant to address concerns related to unauthorized use of private property and to identify lawful enforcement mechanisms for anyone unlawfully parking on Appellant’s property.
Space for Vehicles to Reverse
With respect to the amount of space for vehicles to back-up, the Project will be required to provide 26 feet of back-up space. This distance allows vehicles to safely enter and exit the garage without impacting alley circulation or adjacent properties. Staff find that the Project complies with applicable design standards and provides adequate maneuvering space for residential vehicles.
The Project is not expected to generate any adverse air quality impacts from vehicles backing out of the residential garage of the proposed development and their effect on adjacent office spaces.
Vehicle movements associated with the residential spaces are limited in scale and duration, occur in an open-air alley, and are not expected to result in concentrated or prolonged exposure to neighboring offices. The parcel is designated for development, and parking is planned on-site for the residential use. Based on its scale and operations, the Project is not anticipated to create significant air quality impacts to neighboring offices.
Project’s Consistency with City Zoning Standards and CCSP Standards Additional concerns include the height of the Project relative to surrounding development, potentially obstructing light to neighboring properties and posing privacy impacts by allowing occupants to view sensitive work areas within the neighboring office to the west, air quality impacts, and the potential for loitering and nuisance activities associated with the commercial space. Overall, the Project was characterized as excessive for the site, and incompatible with surrounding properties.
The Project height is fully consistent with the C-3 zone district, which allows four (4) stories/50 feet. (CMC § 9.12.050, Table 2-5; see also CCSP, 3.2.) The proposed structure is within that limit at 32 feet in height with three (3) stories. In the design guidelines of the CCSP, multi-story buildings are said to be desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor residential and ground floor retail. The CCSP states that differing building heights that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings provide important visual interest. This site will be a gateway that identifies one’s arrival into Old Town.
The appeal raises concerns regarding the Project being sited to close to the lot line (0’-6”). The Project has been designed consistent with the CCSP – PA1, which states structures may be sited directly upon the side property line; however, provision of private patios and open space is allowable.
In this district, buildings are commonly located at or near the property lines to create a continuous street frontage and reinforce the traditional Old Town development pattern.
Numerous existing businesses within the surrounding area have been developed in a similar zero lot line configuration and have benefitted from the pedestrian-oriented design. This Project follows established development patterns and would reap the same benefit afforded to other commercial sites within the district of contributing to an active, walkable commercial corridor.
Disallowing a near or zero lot line configuration for this Project, while similar developments exist throughout the district, would be inconsistent with the adopted zoning framework and intent of the applicable specific plan, and could result in potential challenge from the Applicant if the Project meets the City’s standards, but is arbitrarily denied. Accordingly, the Project’s lot line design is consistent with zoning regulations, the CCSP, and the established development character of the area.
Construction and Nuisances
Concerns regarding potential loitering and construction-related impacts have been considered. The Project incorporates site design and operational features such as adequate lighting, clear visibility, and an active building frontage that promotes safe and appropriate use of the site. During construction, noise impacts will be temporary and limited to permitted hours in compliance with local noise regulations, and thus not significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3, subd. (d); Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15183, subd. (c); see also Hilltop Group, Inc., et al v. County of San Diego, et al. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 921.)
The appellant asserts that the Project would create a public nuisance. However, the Project is a permitted land use within the C-3 zone district, subject to approval of a CUP and compliance with applicable development standards and conditions of approval. (Civ. Code § 3482; see also Wheeler v. Gregg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 348, 370-371.) Potential impacts related to traffic, parking, construction, and operations are entirely speculative and conclusory. Appellant has not presented substantial evidence to support that his or others’ use and enjoyment of their properties would be substantially interfered with, or that the construction at the Project site would be an unreasonable interference with their properties. (Mendez v. Valencia Resort Partners, LLC (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 248, 262.)
The law relating to nuisances does not create liability whenever someone is faced with an inconvenience, it recognizes that we live in an organized society that depends on the principle of “give and take”. (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 937-938, citing to Res.2d Torts, § 822, com. g, p. 112, [“…therefore the law of torts does not attempt to impose liability or shift the loss in every case in which one person's conduct has some detrimental effect on another. Liability for damages is imposed in those cases in which the harm or risk to one is greater than he ought to be required to bear under the circumstances, at least without compensation.”].) The temporary inconvenience caused by construction at the Project site is not enough to be considered a public nuisance, especially considering the City’s standards relating to construction and noise will be implemented to reduce any perceived harm. Appellant has not presented substantial evidence to demonstrate that the construction or operation of the Project would cause him substantial and unreasonable interference with his business.
Future Use of Property
In the appeal letter (Attachment 8), there are concerns presented about the Applicant wanting to open a bar. The Applicant did not propose a bar or similar alcohol-serving establishment as part of the application submitted to the City, and such use was not evaluated as part of the Project review.
Establishing a bar at the Project site would require separate entitlement review and Planning Commission approval. During the January 22, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, the Project was conditioned such that no subsequent CUP requesting a bar in this location be brought before the Commission. (See Attachment 1A, No. 20.)
Public Outreach
Public outreach for a CUP is conducted through the required public hearing notice, including mailed and published notice, consistent with the requirements of the CMC. (CMC § 9.64.030, subd. (D).) Staff have made additional outreach efforts to the Appellant to address concerns throughout the review process. The Appellant reached out to our office on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, requesting the development application packet and CEQA documents. Staff responded the following day, Thursday, October 9, 2025, providing the development application and notifying Appellant that the CEQA documents were not yet finalized. Staff also responded to an email from the Appellant on December 29, 2025, providing the continued hearing date and information on when and where the agenda and staff report would be available. Staff additionally emailed the Appellant on January 16, 2026, to provide the City Weblink to access the agenda and packet. Staff has remained available to discuss Project-related issues and potential solutions to the Appellant’s concerns.
Prior to the January 22, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing, a condition of approval was added to address the Appellant’s concern regarding use of nearby private parking to serve customers. The Project has been conditioned to require advertising and promotional materials for the business to include clear information directing customers to appropriate parking locations. (See Attachment 1A, No. 17.) And as previously mentioned, two (2) additional conditions of approval were incorporated by Planning Commission during the public hearing, such that no subsequent CUP requesting a bar in this location be brought before the Commission and requiring staff will work with the Applicant to reconfigure the toter plan to ensure minimal impact on the Appellant and public parking. (See Attachment 1A, Nos. 20-21.)
Appellant’s letter inaccurately characterizes both the City’s and the Applicant’s responses to his concerns. In reference to these additional conditions of approval, the Appellant dismisses these efforts as being only “verbal modifications.” (See Attachment 8, p. 1-2.) These are not merely “verbal modifications,” but rather specific conditions tied to the Project. Failure to comply with a condition of approval can result in additional modifications or even revocation of an entitlement. (CMC §
9.92.060.)
Comments from County Dept. of Public Health
Appellant raises a concern regarding the County of Fresno, Department of Public Health (“Dept. of Public Health”) comment (Attachment 4) that the Project has the potential to result in various adverse impacts, including impacts on solid waste, water quality degradation, excessive noise, and odor, which the Appellant stated is an air quality impact. The Dept. of Public Health provided review comments noting that because individual commercial tenants have not yet been identified, a range of potential commercial impacts must be considered. The comments generally identify potential impacts that could occur with certain commercial uses, such as hazardous material storage, waste generation, noise, and odors. However, the Project’s conditions of approval have incorporated the Dept. of Public Health’s conditions of approval to address and mitigate these concerns. (Attachment 1A, No. 30.)
Further, the Project, has been proposed and evaluated as retail commercial space, which is generally characterized by lower intensity operations, limited hazardous material use, and minimal waste generation compared to higher-intensity commercial uses, such as food service or medical uses.
Food service, medical, or other higher-impact uses are not proposed as part of this Project. Although the Project architect referenced the potential for a live-work space during the previous public hearing, the Project application and entitlement request are for retail commercial space. Staff will ensure the Project is developed in compliance with all applicable zoning, general plan, specific plan standards, including those applicable to mixed-use projects, through an SPR and permitting process.
Notwithstanding, any future tenant would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, including hazardous material handling, waste disposal requirements, noise standards, and water quality protections. If a future tenant proposes a use outside of the scope of light retail, additional review and permitting would be required at that time, subject to the conditions of approval identified in the Dept. of Public Health’s letter.
Thus, the Dept. of Public Health’s comments do not preclude approval of the Project, but instead identify regulatory requirements that would apply to future tenants, if applicable. The Project will remain subject to ongoing oversight by Dept. of Public Health and other applicable agencies to ensure protection of public health and safety.
Conclusion to Responses to Comments
The Project represents appropriate infill development, as it is consistent with applicable zoning standards, fits within the existing urban context, and utilizes an underdeveloped site in a manner that supports orderly growth and land-use compatibility. The appeal letter reproduces the comments of the letter provided to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 2026, and reiterates concerns such as parking, traffic, construction impacts, which were previously evaluated by staff and considered by the Planning Commission as part of the public hearing and decision-making process. Based on the required findings and modifications incorporated through the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission adopted findings that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, CCSP, and zoning regulations; compatible with surrounding land uses; and physically suitable for the site and ultimately approved the Project.
California Environmental Quality Act
Staff has determined that this Project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 – In-Fill Development Projects) and that the exceptions identified under section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines would not be triggered as a result of the Project.
The Class 32 categorical exemption exempts in-fill development projects that: (a) are consistent with the applicable land use designation, General Plan policies, and zoning; (b) are within city limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) are located on sites with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality; and (e) is located on a site that can be adequately served by all utilities.
Based on staff review of the Project, the Project meets the parameters for a Class 32 categorical exemption. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15332.) As discussed, the Project is consistent with the applicable Mixed Use Village (MU-V) general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies and applicable Downtown Commercial (C-3) zoning designations and regulations. The Project is within City limits, situated on a site that is +/- 0.05 acres, and surrounded by commercial uses. The
Project site is currently vacant and contains only the foundation of a prior single-family residence, and thus has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Also, as discussed, the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
The Project is an urban in-fill development, and thus can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The exceptions identified in section 15300.2 identify further review of a categorical exemption by the Project’s potential to result in a cumulative impact, significant effect, or proximity to a scenic highway, location on or within the vicinity of a hazardous waste site, and/or the potential to negatively impact a historical resource. Based on staff’s review, these exceptions would not be triggered by the proposed Project. Further, any such impacts have already been considered within the City’s General Plan EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption was prepared and filed with the County Clerk following Planning Commission approval (Attachment 6).
Appellant raises a concern that the City failed to adequately conduct its environmental analysis for the Project. As referenced above, environmental review for the Project was conducted in accordance with CEQA. The Project was determined to be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects).
As documented in the Categorical Exemption – Notice of Exemption (Attachment 6), the Project satisfies all required elements of the Class 32 exemption. In addition, staff evaluated the potential applicability of the exceptions to categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15300.02 and determined that none apply to the Project, including cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances, hazardous waste sites, scenic highways, or historical resources. The City’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, including site characteristics, project plans, zoning consistency analysis, infrastructure availability, and prior environmental analysis conducted in connection with the 2014 General Plan EIR.
CEQA review is conducted based on the project proposed and approved, which consists of a mixed- use development with a retail commercial space. Any future change in the use of the Project site that could result in new or more severe environmental impacts would be subject to additional environmental review, as required by CEQA.
Appellant also takes issue with the description of the Project, stating the Project’s description must include reasonably foreseeable future activities of the Project, and must be clear and consistent.
Attachment 6 is very clear that the Project is a three-story mixed-use building with a commercial retail space on the bottom floor, and residential uses above. The Appellant is asking the City to speculate as to what the Project could be, but the City is only required to evaluate effects from the most probable development patterns. (Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 295.) In a case cited by the Appellant, “where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 395.)
Appellant’s letter generally and without further facts or analysis, raises concerns regarding aesthetics and scenic resources, light and glare, health impacts, land use impacts, water and resource impacts, and cumulative impacts. However, without specific facts relating to these concerns, these issues serve as nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15384, subd. (a).) There are a lot of assumptions made by the Appellant regarding potential impacts, but substantial evidence of such impacts is required to be supported by facts, or reasonable assumption predicated
by facts. (Id. at subd. (b); see also Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 929 [“On the other hand, mere argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated opinion, even expert opinion, is not substantial evidence for a fair argument… Neither is the mere possibility of adverse impact on a few people, as opposed to the environment in general.”].)
As mentioned, full build-out of the Project site has already been considered in the City’s General Plan EIR. The use of the Project site is consistent with both the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance.
The City implements various conditions of approval and standards relating to construction and operation of businesses within the City that work to mitigate potential impacts.
There is no substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the approved Project would result in a significant environmental effect or that any exception to the Class 32 categorical exemption applies. (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 115, [“A challenger must therefore produce substantial evidence showing a reasonable possibility of adverse environmental impact sufficient to remove the project from the categorically exempt class”].) Accordingly, staff finds the Project was properly determined to be exempt under CEQA, and the appeal does not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the City’s environmental determination.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Reason for Recommendation:
In consideration of the information provided in this report, staff continues to support Planning Commission’s approval of CUP2025-006. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, CMC, and the CCSP. The CCSP encourages and supports infill mixed-use development within the Old Town area to promote revitalization, economic activity, and efficient use of existing infrastructure. Additionally, the Project will not substantially impact traffic, sewer, water, or other public services. Based on the findings, staff is recommending that City Council uphold Planning Commission’s adoption of the categorical exemption under CEQA and approval of CUP2025-006, subject to the conditions of approval listed as Attachment 1A.
The findings required to approve a CUP application are as follows (CMC § 9.64.050, sudb. (C):
1. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within, and would not impair the integrity and character of, the subject zoning district and is in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code.
The Project is allowed within the C-3 zone district per the CCSP subject to an approved CUP. The Project will be in compliance with applicable provisions and development standards identified in the CMC and will be subject to the conditions of approval. This Project is required to undergo a SPR for the site modifications. The SPR process will ensure that development standards are met.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
This Project is consistent with the 2014 Clovis General Plan and the CCSP. The underlying General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Village would remain unchanged, and the proposed use is permitted and consistent with the goals, policies, and development standards of the CCSP. The project supports the Specific Plan’s intent for compatible mixed use development and orderly growth
within the Central Clovis area.
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses and would not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other allowed uses operating nearby or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
The Project is compatible with the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. The Project consists of ground-floor commercial/retail and parking, with one (1) residential unit above, which is an appropriate scale and intensity for Bullard Avenue because it hosts a variety of residential, commercial, retail, service, and restaurant uses. The project is consistent with the C-3 zone district, the CCSP, and the 2014 Clovis General Plan, which support mixed-use infill development within the Central Clovis area.
The Project complements the surrounding uses and would not be out of the ordinary as it relates to the character of the surrounding area. The Project’s architectural design, materials, and massing are consistent with applicable development standards and the design objectives of the C-3 zone district and the CCSP. The building incorporates features and scale that are compatible with surrounding development while contributing to the urban, pedestrian oriented character envisioned for the Old Town area. Additionally, the design will undergo review through the SPR process.
Construction activities associated with development projects typically generate temporary noise.
These impacts are regulated and minimized through compliance with the CMC, including permitted construction hours and applicable noise standards. Accordingly, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CMC, so that it does not generate noise, odor, or vibration that adversely affects adjacent properties. Regarding operation noise, the design and construction will comply with applicable building codes, including requirements for sound transmission control between the commercial and residential areas.
The CCSP development standards permit structures to be sited directly upon the front and side property line, consistent with businesses in the area. The site is suitably located and adequately served by existing on-street parking, nearby transit stops, and walkable access to public parking facilities.
Based on the Project’s scale, design, and operational characteristics, the Project would not generate traffic volumes or parking demand that would result in traffic congestion, circulation conflicts, or other transportation-related impacts. The Project is located within an established area and is consistent with the land use and development assumed in the 2014 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR analyzed traffic and circulation impacts associated with projected growth within the city, including mixed-use infill development in the Central Clovis area. The Project represents a small-scale infill development consistent with the General Plan land use designation and does not exceed the development intensity analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Due to the Project’s small scale and being an in-fill site, it falls below the thresholds for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis established by the city and thus does not require a focused VMT assessment. Accordingly, no additional project-level VMT analysis is required beyond the determination made under the applicable CEQA exemption.
Imposing additional requirements beyond those established in the CMC, General Plan, and Specific
Plan could render the Project infeasible and would be inconsistent with adopted City policy supporting infill and mixed-use development. Based on the analysis contained in this staff report, the Project would not create noise, traffic, or other conditions that would be objectionable or detrimental to other allowed uses operating nearby or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
The Project would also serve the public interest through development of a currently vacant and underutilized parcel. Activation of the site with commercial space capable of providing local services and economic activity supports the vitality of the Central Clovis area and is consistent with the City’s adopted goals promoting infill development, efficient use of existing infrastructure, and orderly growth.
Development of vacant infill sites within the established urban areas is a key objective of the 2014 General Plan and the CCSP.
4. The subject parcel is physically suitable in size and shape for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed.
The Project is ±0.05 acres (2,305 square feet) in size, rectangular shaped, and proposes one (1) residential unit, which meets the density for the parcel. Although compact, the parcel dimensions support vertical development with commercial and parking on the ground floor, and the residential unit above. The parcel does not present any unusual constraints that would prevent reasonable development and have the infrastructure in place to support it. For these reasons, the parcel is physically suitable in both size and shape for the proposed mixed-use development.
5. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.
The Project will comply with all applicable public health standards. Further, the site was previously developed; therefore, adequate provisions (i.e. water, sanitation, utilities, etc.) are readily available and accessible to the proposed use. Existing infrastructure is in place to adequately serve the proposed use at the Project site.
6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the CEQA and there would be no potential significant negative effects upon environmental quality and natural resources that would not be properly mitigated and monitored, unless findings are made in compliance with CEQA.
The Project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA. As identified above under the “California Environmental Quality Act” section of this staff report, the Project was determined to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from further environmental review. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA.
The Project is also consistent with the development assumptions evaluated in the 2014 Clovis General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with mixed-use development, infill development, and growth within established urban areas. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, zoning regulations, and planned development intensity for the site and does not introduce land uses or development patterns beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those previously evaluated.
Actions Following Approval:
If the Planning Commission’s decision to approve is upheld, the Project will continue with the site plan review process.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS FINDING THAT THE
PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32 – INFILL DEVELOPMENT) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-006 FOR A THREE-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
WITH GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND PARKING AND ONE RESIDENCE ABOVE AT 319 BULLARD AVENUE
WHEREAS, Rick Sassano, (“Applicant”), 1427 Las Rosas, Clovis, CA, 93619, applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2025-006 to allow a three-story, mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial and parking, and one residence above at 319 Bullard Avenue in the City of Clovis (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and voted 5-0 to approve Conditional Use Permit 2025-006 and the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report provided for its January 22, 2026 meeting and determined the Project meets the requirements of a Class 32 (Infill Development) Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 on January 22, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, on behalf of Mountain View Investment Properties, LLC, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on February 9, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing in the Fresno Business Journal on Monday, February 23, 2026, mailed public notices to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site more than ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the public hearing according to applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on March 9, 2026, to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings as reflected in the March 9, 2026, staff report, which includes additional information presented to the City Council during the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider 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 hereto as Attachment 1A to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by this reference (“Administrative Record”).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Clovis as follows:
1. The Project satisfies the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit, as follows:
a. The proposed use is conditionally allowed within, and would not impair the integrity and character of, the subject zoning district and is in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
c. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses and would not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other allowed uses operating nearby or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. d. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.
e. The subject parcel is physically suitable in size and shape for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed.
f. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. The City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 – Infill Development).
3. The Planning Commission’s approval of CUP2025-006 for the reasons expressed during the public hearing as further set forth in the administrative record.
4. The basis for the findings is detailed in the March 9, 2026, staff report, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
5. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's approval of CUP2025-006 with incorporation of the conditions of approval (Attachment 1A to this resolution).
* * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on March 9, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: March 9, 2026
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CUP2025-006
(As approved by the Planning Commission – January 22, 2026)
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS
(Tiffany Williams, Division Representative – (559) 324-2328)
1. This conditional use permit (CUP) approval allows the applicant to construct a three-story, mixed-use development with ground-floor commercial and parking, and one residence above, on the second and third floors.
2. This CUP is not transferable to another location.
3. This CUP does not permit or otherwise allow for the operation of the site and/or uses other than explicitly described in the accompanying staff report.
4. A separate site plan review (SPR) and approval shall be required prior to the construction of any structures and/or prior to any site modifications and shall comply with development standards prescribed for the MU-V (Mixed-Use Village) land use designation, C-3 (Downtown Commercial) zone district, Central Clovis Specific Plan (Planning Area 1 (PA1)), and other applicable standards as determined by the Planning Division during the SPR review process.
5. The site and its exterior shall remain maintained and free from debris and trash. This includes no outdoor stacking of empty crates, boxes, and/or pallets along the exterior of the structures.
6. There shall be no outside storage of materials, supplies, or equipment in any area of the site except inside a closed building or behind a six (6'-0") foot visual barrier intended to screen such area from view of adjoining properties and from the street.
7. All lighting associated with this use shall be screened from direct view from the public right-of- way and adjacent residential properties.
8. The applicant shall make provisions for refuse service in an approved refuse container(s) on the subject property.
9. The applicant shall operate in a manner that complies with the Clovis Municipal Code so that it does not generate noise, odor, or vibration that adversely affects any adjacent properties.
10. Operational noise from the Project shall conform with the Clovis General Plan noise standards and not be in excess of 65 decibels to the outside of any residential structure nor 45 decibels to the interior of any structure.
11. There shall be no public address (PA) system, phone ringing, or music system used that may be heard on the exterior of the building/ facility.
12. The applicant shall consult with the City of Clovis Building Division on any building code requirements. All conditions of this CUP shall be addressed prior to operation of the facility.
13. Any future request to expand and/or modify the use shall be subject to an amendment to the CUP.
14. An abandonment or cessation of this use for a period exceeding 365 days shall cause this approval to be scheduled for revocation.
15. Building design and architectural character shall be consistent with the requirements of the Old Town Clovis design guidelines of PA1, and with the surrounding developments.
16. The project requires the following parking for the mixed-use development under the approved CUP:
• Two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided within a fully enclosed garage, to be reserved exclusively for the residential unit located above the commercial/retail space.
• These spaces shall be maintained for residential use only and shall not be leased, assigned, or otherwise made available for commercial/retail or public use.
17. All advertising and promotional materials for the business to include clear information directing customers to appropriate parking locations.
18. Businesses must have on file a current City of Clovis Business License prior to conducting business.
19. CUP2025-006 may be reviewed at any time for compliance with the conditions of approval.
Clovis Planning staff may conduct a review of the use in regard to conditions of approval and may present findings of this review to the Planning Commission.
20. No subsequent conditional use permit requesting a bar at this location shall be permitted.
21. City staff shall work with the applicant to reconfigure toter plan to minimize impact on public parking and the adjacent property to the west.
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
(Amber Cocilova, Police Department Representative – (559) 324-3423) (Sean O’Brien, Police Department Representative – (559) 324-3468)
22. Security cameras shall be installed to cover at a minimum the lobby, entry / exit points of the building(s), common areas, common hallways, and parking garage. The video shall be retained for a minimum period of 30 days. Video shall be made available to Clovis PD upon request in conjunction with a criminal investigation.
23. Access to the residential units must be controlled by key card access or another form of controlled access.
24. The sidewalks and parking lots shall be reasonably illuminated to enhance public safety and deter criminal activity. The lighting, to include vehicle traffic lighting, shall be shielded in a manner to that it does not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
25. The property must be maintained and cared for in a manner that increases public safety and complies with the Clovis Municipal Code and all other applicable City codes. All lighting, gates and fences shall be maintained and in working order, and landscaping shall be kept clean and free of debris and other hazards.
26. The name and telephone number of a 24-hour emergency contact person(s) shall be provided to Clovis PD and shall be updated regularly.
27. If the property is alarmed, 24-hour contact information for the responsible party shall be maintained with the Clovis Police Department Dispatch Center.
28. The site owner shall maintain all structures and adjoining fences/walls and keep them free of graffiti. All forms of graffiti shall be removed within 48 hours.
29. Construction hours shall not commence before or after the specified times as listed in the Clovis Municipal Code.
COUNTY OF FRESNO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
(Kevin Tsuda, County of Fresno Health Representative – (559) 600-3271)
30. The applicant shall refer to the attached Fresno County Health Department correspondence.
If the list is not attached, please contact the agency for the list of requirements.
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
(Antony Zaragoza, FMFCD Department Representative – (559) 456-3292)
31. The applicant shall refer to the attached Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the District for the list of requirements.
FRESNO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
(Jeremy Landrith, FID Department Representative – (559) 233-7161)
32. The applicant shall refer to the attached Fresno Irrigation District correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the District for the list of requirements.
Attachment 2
PAUL HALAJIAN ARCHITECTSPage 1 of 1
06/10/2025
Joyce Roach
City of Clovis Planning Department
1033 5th St, Clovis, CA 93612
Subject: 319 Bullard Ave. Operational Statement
Dear Joyce,
Please see the body of this document for our operational statement for 319 Bullard Ave.
Located in an area the city has designated as a gateway to the city; this mixed- use project would serve as a prominent structure announcing one's arrival to Old Town Clovis. This 3-story mixed-use development would serve as a private residence for the client, as well as provide space for a small business to operate below, while also providing landscape and sidewalk improvements that exceed the city standard, helping to make the surrounding area more walkable and pedestrian-oriented. The design of the building reflects the city's commitment to “turn of the century” architecture through period appropriate materials, and forms to help this new structure create a harmonious connection with the surrounding context. A two-car private garage is included with the private residence. The garage is accessed through the alley so as not to allow for a commercial storefront to be prominent along the street. The business will operate within standard business hours. The building will be 32 feet tall, well below the 50-foot maximum height allowable within the code.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or further comments.
Sincerely:
PAUL HALAJIAN ARCHITECTS
Mark Halajian, M.Arch, M.U.D
Architectural Designer
Attachment 3
PROJECT NO:
APN:
ADDRESS:
SENT:
2025-006
319 BULLARD AVE.
492-196-02
July 07, 2025
PUBLIC AGENCY
JOYCE ROACH
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CITY OF CLOVIS
1033
FIFTH ST.
CLOVIS, CA
93612
DEVELOPER
MARK HALAJIAN
365
E. RIVERPARK CIRCLE, SUITE
400
.
FRESNO, CA
93720
* The Development Review Service Charge shown above is associated with CL SPR 2025-025 and is currently proposed to develop in conjunction with this permit. Payment for this entitlement shall satisfy the amount due on the associated permits.
Drainage Area(s)
Preliminary Fee(s)
4C
$1,273.00
Development Review
Service Charge(s)
Fee(s)
NOR Review *
$50.00
To be paid prior to release of District comments to Public Agency and Developer.
Grading Plan Review *
$100.00
Amount to be submitted with first grading plan submittal.
Total Drainage Fee: $1,273.00
Total Service Charge: $150.00
The proposed development will generate storm runoff which produces potentially significant environmental impacts and which must be properly discharged and mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The District in cooperation with the City and County has developed and adopted the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Compliance with and implementation of this Master Plan by this development project will satisfy the drainage related CEQA/NEPA impact of the project mitigation requirements.
Pursuant to the District
’
s Development Review Fee Policy, the subject project shall pay review fees for issuance of this Notice of Requirements (NOR) and any plan submittals requiring the District ’
s reviews. The NOR fee shall be paid to the District by Developer before the Notice of Requirement will be submitted to the City. The Grading Plan fee shall be paid upon first submittal. The Storm Drain Plan fee shall be paid prior to return/pick up of first submittal.
The proposed development shall pay drainage fees pursuant to the Drainage Fee Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit at the rates in effect at the time of such issuance. The fee indicated above is valid through 2/28/26
based on the site plan
submitted to the District on
6/25/25
Contact FMFCD for a revised fee in cases where changes are made in the proposed site plan which materially alter the proposed impervious area.
Considerations which may affect the fee obligation(s) or the timing or form of fee payment:
a.)
Fees related to undeveloped or phased portions of the project may be deferrable. b.)
Fees may be calculated based on the actual percentage of runoff if different than that typical for the zone district under which the development is being undertaken and if permanent provisions are made to assure that the site remains in that configuration.
c.)
Creditable storm drainage facilities may be constructed, or required to be constructed in lieu of paying fees. d.)
The actual cost incurred in constructing Creditable drainage system facilities is credited against the drainage fee obligation.
e.)
When the actual costs incurred in constructing Creditable facilities exceeds the drainage fee obligation, reimbursement will be made for the excess costs from future fees collected by the District from other development. f.)
Any request for a drainage fee refund requires the entitlement cancellation and a written request addressed to the General Manager of the District within 60 days from payment of the fee. A non refundable $300 Administration fee or 5% of the refund whichever is less will be retained without fee credit. 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS
File No. 210.433
Attachment 4
Approval of this development shall be conditioned upon compliance with these District Requirements.
1. X
a.
Drainage from the site shall BE DIRECTED TO BULLARD AVENUE.
b.
Grading and drainage patterns shall be as identified on Exhibit No.
c.
The grading and drainage patterns shown on the site plan conform to the adopted Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
2. The proposed development shall construct and/or dedicate Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan facilities located within the development or necessitated by any off-site improvements required by the approving agency:
Developer shall construct facilities as shown on Exhibit No. 1 as X
None required.
3. The following final improvement plans and information shall be submitted to the District for review prior to final development approval:
X
Grading Plan
Street Plan
Storm Drain Plan
Water & Sewer Plan
Final Map
Drainage Report (to be submitted with tentative map)
Other
None Required
4. Availability of drainage facilities:
X
a.
Permanent drainage service is available provided the developer can verify to the satisfaction of the City that runoff can be safely conveyed to the Master Plan inlet(s).
b.
The construction of facilities required by Paragraph No. 2 hereof will provide permanent drainage service.
c.
Permanent drainage service will not be available. The District recommends temporary facilities until permanent service is available.
d.
See Exhibit No. 2.
5. The proposed development:
Appears to be located within a 100 year flood prone area as designated on the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps available to the District, necessitating appropriate floodplain management action. (See attached Floodplain Policy.)
X
Does not appear to be located within a flood prone area.
6. The subject site contains a portion of a canal or pipeline that is used to manage recharge, storm water, and/or flood flows. The existing capacity must be preserved as part of site development. Additionally, site development may not interfere with the ability to operate and maintain the canal or pipeline. 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS
7. The Federal Clean Water Act and the State General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Industrial Activities (State General Permits) require developers of construction projects disturbing one or more acres, and discharges associated with industrial activity not otherwise exempt from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, to implement controls to reduce pollutants, prohibit the discharge of waters other than storm water to the municipal storm drain system, and meet water quality standards.
These requirements apply both to pollutants generated during construction, and to those which may be generated by operations at the development after construction.
a.
State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, effective July 1, 2010, as amended. A State General Construction Permit is required for all clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground that result in soil disturbance of at least one acre (or less than one acre) if part of a larger common plan of development or sale). Permittees are required to: submit a Notice of Intent and Permit Registration Documents to be covered and must pay a permit fee to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non-storm water discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, and complete an annual certification of compliance.
b.
State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, April, 2014 (available at the District Office). A State General Industrial Permit is required for specific types of industries described in the NPDES regulations or by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. The following categories of industries are generally required to secure an industrial permit: manufacturing; trucking; recycling; and waste and hazardous waste management. Specific exemptions exist for manufacturing activities which occur entirely indoors. Permittees are required to: submit a Notice of Intent to be covered and must pay a permit fee to the State Water Resources Control Board, develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan, eliminate non-storm water discharges, conduct routine site inspections, train employees in permit compliance, sample storm water runoff and test it for pollutant indicators, and annually submit a report to the State Board.
c.
The proposed development is encouraged to select and implement storm water quality controls recommended in the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Construction and Post-Construction Guidelines (available at the District Office) to meet the requirements of the State General Permits, eliminate the potential for non-storm water to enter the municipal storm drain system, and where possible minimize contact with materials which may contaminate storm water runoff.
8. A requirement of the District may be appealed by filing a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of the District within ten days of the date of this Notice of Requirements.
9. The District reserves the right to modify, reduce or add to these requirements, or revise fees, as necessary to accommodate changes made in the proposed development by the developer or requirements made by other agencies.
10. X
See Exhibit No. 2 for additional comments, recommendations and requirements.
Debbie Campbell
Anthony Zaragoza
Design Engineer, RCE
Engineer III
Digitally signed by Debbie Campbell Date: 7/7/2025 2:34:07 PM Digitally signed by Anthony Zaragoza Date: 6/27/2025 11:03:20 AM 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194
FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS
No surface runoff shall be directed towards the alley.
In an effort to improve storm runoff quality, outdoor storage areas shall be constructed and maintained such that material that may generate contaminants will be prevented from contact with rainfall and runoff and thereby prevent the conveyance of contaminants in runoff into the storm drain system.
The District encourages, but does not require that roof drains from non-residential development be constructed such that they are directed onto and through a landscaped grassy swale area to filter out pollutants from roof runoff.
Runoff from areas where industrial activities, product, or merchandise come into contact with and may contaminate storm water must be treated before discharging it off-site or into a storm drain.
Roofs covering such areas are recommended. Cleaning of such areas by sweeping instead of washing is to be required unless such wash water can be directed to the sanitary sewer system.
Storm drains receiving untreated runoff from such areas shall not be connected to the District ’
s
system. Loading docks, depressed areas, and areas servicing or fueling vehicles are specifically subject to these requirements. The District
’
s policy governing said industrial site NPDES program
requirements is available on the District
’
s website at: www.fresnofloodcontrol.org or contact the District
’
s Environmental Department for further information regarding these policies related to industrial site requirements.
Development No.
CL CUP No. 2025-006
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT NO. 2
X
7/7/2025
Distribution Date:
(In House) (Out-of-House)
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
Item(s): Location:
APN: Zoning: General Plan: RHNA Site:
Name of Applicant: Phone/Email:
Applicant Address: City: State: CA Zip: 93720
Previously Reviewed Under DRC: Or Other Entitlement:
Project Description:
Please check one below:
No Comments Comments e-mailed or saved on:
They must be legible. Please phrase positively and clearly:
GOOD EXAMPLE:
POOR EXAMPLE:
REVIEWED BY (please sign):
Paul Halajian Architects - Mark Halajian
Fresno County Environmental Health
492-196-02 C-3 MU-V
559-297-7900/[email protected]
CUP2025-006 319 Bullard Avenue
Legal Description Review
This item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing to be considered by the Planning Commission.
Fresno
CUP2025-006; a conditional use permit request to allow a mixed-use building with commercial and parking on first floor and a dwelling unit located on the second floor and above) on a currently vacant lot located at 319 Bullard Avenue. This entitlement is being processed concurrently with SPR2025-025. condition form and return to the project manager by7/17/2025 365 E. Riverpark Cir., #400
The attached information is circulated for your comments. Please attach your comments and recommendations in PLEASE RETURN TO:
Joyce Roach, Planning Technician II
Planning and Development Services Dept.
1033 Fifth St., Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 324-2341 Fax: 324-2866
"1. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall install all landscaping as per the approved plans.""1. Install landscaping."
DRC2025-001
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: Please draft conditions in final form that are acceptable to your department.
Utilities Division
Other (Specify) County of Fresno Development
LAFCO (when annexation is involved)
Solid Waste Division
AT&T
Clovis Unified School District
City of Clovis
Department of Planning and Development Services
CITY HALL - 1033 Fifth Street - Clovis, CA 93612
PLANNING APPLICATION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Project Manager - Joyce Roach, Planning Technician II
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Building Division
Fresno Irrigation District
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Dist.
Pacific Gas & Electric
PLEASE ROUTE TO:
6/25/2025
State of California Department of Fish and Game
Fire Department Cal Trans
Police Department
City Landscape Committee
SJV Unified Air Pollution Control Dist.
County of Fresno
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Environmental Health Division
Promotion, preservation and protection of the community’s health 1221 Fulton Street /P. O. Box 11867, Fresno, CA 93775
(559) 600-3357 FAX (559) 455-4646
The County of Fresno is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer www.co.fresno.ca.us www.fcdph.org
July 2, 2025
LU0023053
2604
Joyce Roach, Planning Technician II
City of Clovis
Planning and Development Services Department
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Dear Ms. Roach:
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP2025-006, SPR2025-025
CUP2025-006; a conditional use permit request to allow a mixed-use building with commercial and parking on first floor and a dwelling unit located on the second floor and above on a currently vacant lot located at 319 Bullard Avenue. SPR2025-025; a site plan review for a 3-story mixed-use building with parking and associated site improvements.
APN: 492-196-02 ZONING: C-3 ADDRESS: 319 Bullard Avenue Comments/Concerns:
Since the commercial tenants have not been identified for this application, the full range of Commercial uses must be considered. The potential adverse impacts could include (but are not limited to) storage of hazardous materials and/or wastes, medical waste, solid waste, water quality degradation, excessive noise, and odors.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Should a food facility be proposed, the applicant(s) will be required to submit complete food facility plans and specifications to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division, for review and approval. A permit, once issued, is nontransferable. Contact the Consumer Food Protection Program at (559) 600-3357 for more information. Should food facilities be proposed, the applicant(s) shall apply for and obtain permits to operate a food facility from the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. A permit, once issued, is nontransferable. Contact the Consumer Food Protection Program at (559) 600-3357 for more information.
Should alcohol sales be proposed, the applicant(s) shall first obtain their license to sell alcoholic beverages. Contact the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Department at (559) 225-6334 for more information.
Joyce Roach
CUP2025-006, SPR2025-025
July 2, 2025
2 Facilities that use and/or store hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes shall meet the requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. Your proposed business will handle hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste and will be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan pursuant to the HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.95 (http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/).
Contact the Fresno County Hazmat Compliance Program at (559) 600-3271 for more information. The proposed project and construction have the potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels. Consideration should be given to the noise elements of your City’s municipal code. As a measure to protect ground water, all water wells and/or septic systems that exist or have been abandoned within the project area should be properly destroyed by an appropriately licensed contractor.
Should any underground storage tank(s) be found during the project, the applicant shall apply for and secure an Underground Storage Tank Removal Permit from the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Contact the Fresno County Hazmat Compliance Program at (559) 600-3271 for more information.
REVIEWED BY:
Kevin Tsuda, R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Specialist II (559) 600-33271
KT
cc: Rogers, Moreno, S. Xiong & Morgan (assigns)- Environmental Health Division (CT. 56.02) Mark Halajian- Applicant ([email protected])
August 11, 2025
Tiffany Williams
City of Clovis Planning Department
1033 Fifth St.
Clovis, CA, 93612
Subject: Parking Requirement for 319 Bullard Mixed Use Project
Dear Tiffany,
Fg.d
f.gd
‘.gd
‘.gd
Fg.d
‘f.gdf
‘.gdghd;hkl;ldkd;lkgd’gl;dkghl;kf’;lkghdfl’;k
We would like to thank you for your consideration o f the mixed-use development project located at 319 Bullard Ave. This unusually small site, which would otherwise remain a blight, provides the city a unique opportunity to create a regional gateway building into Old Town Clovis; something that is expressly called for in the Central Clovis Specific Plan.
However, given the disproportionately small site area, the project is presented with unique challenges in terms of accommodating the parking required for a mixed-use development. On any other lot that complies with the city regulations regarding lot size, parking could easily be provided. However, given the nature of this infill project on an unusually small site, any parking requirement beyond what is already shown in the design package would create an insurmountable challenge to this project.
Along with the consideration of the unique nature o f this relatively small infill site and desired project use, this mixed-use project furthers the City’s mission to foster a more walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. With the parking strategy as currently designed, we have provided private parking for the residential tenant, who will occupy the street facing commercial space below.
The site itself is within 1/10th of a mile from the special parking district, and is near multiple bus stations; the stations located at South Harvard and 5th Ave, and the station located at 5th St. and Woodworth Ave. This site is easily accessible through multiple transportation modalities, which is a key goal of the Central Clovis Specific Plan, creating multi-modal, easily walkable, pedestrian environments.
Not only can this project serve as a gateway that helps announce entrance into Old Town Clovis, but it can serve as a prototype for other mixed-use, infill projects that reinforce the mission of the Central Clovis Specific Plan. These types of projects can help the city truly reclaim the essence of “Turn of the Century Architecture” envisioned in the Old Town Clovis Design Guidelines. This project will go a long way towards creating street facing, complete street walls lined with business and housing, while promoting a non-auto-dominated, pedestrian friendly environment, which is the essence of Turn of the Century Clovis.
Thank you once again for your consideration of this project and eagerly await any comments and questions who may have.
Paul Halajian Architects
Attachment 5
£26 20(00056(4
C | T ~ ' of C L. O V | S
Lead Agency: City of Clovis, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2025-006
Project Applicant: Paul Halajian Architects
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption, section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
1033 FIFTH STREET ■ CLOVIS, CA 93612
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Conditional Use Permit 2025-006
Exemption Filed With: Fresno County Clerk, 2220 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA, 93721 Office of Planning & Research, 1400 10,h Street #100, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Description: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2025-006 proposes a three-story, ±4,035 square-foot building that will include a ground level commercial retail space (±368 square feet) along with two (2) garage parking spaces exclusively for the residence above (±489 square feet); and a single residential dwelling unit will occupy the second and third floors (±2,575 square feet). The remaining 603 square feet are allocated to the lobby area, trash toter space, and restrooms. The project also includes planting new trees on-site and off-site improvements (“Project").
Project Location: 319 Bullard Avenue, Clovis, CA 93612, Fresno County; located near the northwest corner of Bullard and De Witt Avenues
Reasons Why Project Is Exempt: The project listed is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects).
Lead Agency Contact: Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner, (559) 324-2328, [email protected]
The City of Clovis has determined that the project described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and shall be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project listed is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects).
City Manager 559.324.2060 • Community Services 559.324.2095 - Engineering 559.324.2350 Finance 559.324.2130 • Fire 559.324.2200 • General Services 559.324.2060 • Personnel/Risk Management 559.324.2725 Planning & Development Services 559.324.2340 • Police 559.324.2400 ■ Public Utilities 559.324.2600 • TTY-711 www.cityofclovis.com
Attachment 6
£251(00000 (4
The project site is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Clovis on a lot totaling 0.05-acres. The Project site is vacant and is surrounded by existing commercial buildings in all directions. Given these facts, the Project adheres to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b) as a site of no more than five acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
Given these considerations, the Project has been designed in compliance with all applicable development standards and is consistent with the intent of the CCSP and the C-3 (Downtown Commercial) Zone District, which emphasizes sustainable transportation and in-fill development.
The property is planned for Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned Downtown Commercial (C-3). The zoning is consistent with the MU-V planned land use. The property is also located within the Central Clovis Specific Plan (CCSP), which refines and implements the General Plan and is consistent with the general land use provisions contained in the adopted City General Plan. The CCSP is composed of 12 Planning Areas, which provide for different mixes and intensities. The Project site is located within Planning Area 1 (PA1). PA1 is designated as Old Town Storefront Commercial, which is a historic neighborhood of pedestrian oriented commercial uses that allows dwelling units on the second floor and above with an approved CUP.
In accordance with the CCSP, multistory buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices, restaurants and residential units and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses. Also, one of the CCSP goals and action items is to consider opportunities for new residential development and the development of underutilized properties.
The Project is proposed at 32 feet in height, positioned 10 feet from the front property line (for a public utility easement), and close to the side and rear property lines. The Project includes one (1) residential unit on a 0.05-acre site, which results in a density of 19 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the PA1 density requirement. The Project provides an on-site two-car garage exclusively for the residential unit. No on site parking is proposed for the commercial portion of the Project. The project lies within the boundaries of the CCSP, which prioritizes reduced reliance on automobiles and promotes walkability. The site is near public transit, including Clovis transit and Fresno Area Express with nearby bus stops at South Harvard Avenue and Fifth Street, and at Fifth Street and Woodworth Avenue. Although, the property is outside the Parking Business Improvement Area (PBIA) of the CCSP, it is only 0.10 miles west of Parking Lot 2 in the PBIA, which contains 60 public parking spaces to support commercial parking demand.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
£7jrLb(ooo<Jb(<\
c) The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Exceptions:
The Project is in an urbanized area and surrounded by sites that have either been previously developed or heavily disturbed; therefore, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c) and is highly unlikely to support or provide value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 set forth exceptions to categorical exemptions which must be assessed as part of the determination to use a Categorical Exception. If any of the exceptions apply, a Categorical Exemption cannot be used. (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
This in-fill site is situated in an urban area already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., fire, police, schools). Given the existing infrastructure and availability of services, the proposed development can be readily accommodated without the need for additional public investment or expansion of utility networks.
The Project site is substantially surrounded by existing development and is considered an in-fill site. The proposed use is consistent with the land use and zoning designations, and it represents a continuation of planned urban growth rather than an expansion into undeveloped areas. As such, it benefits from the existing infrastructure and public services, which helps minimize environmental impacts commonly associated with new developments. Due to the project’s small scale and being an in-fill site, it falls below the thresholds for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis established by the city and thus does not require a focused VMT assessment. Both temporary construction and operational noise must adhere to the Clovis Municipal Code, which enforces permitted construction hours and noise standards for the relevant noise zone. Moreover, the environmental impacts were evaluated in the 2014 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which concluded that no significant adverse effects would result from implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality are anticipated as a result of this project. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
£267kl00000(“
The project site has no trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar visual resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. While the site is less than a mile away from State Highway 168, this highway is not officially designated as a state scenic highway, and the site is not visible from the Highway. Therefore, this exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the Project.
There are no known unusual circumstances applicable to the proposed mixed-use development or its site that may result in a significant effect on the environment. The project is allowed within the zone district and land use designation with an approved CUP.
Therefore, this exception would not apply to the Project. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, overtime is significant.
This possible exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11.
Since the Project qualifies for a Class 32 In-fill Development Project exemption, this criterion is not applicable. This project is located within a developed area and is not located within a sensitive environment. The Project site is not located on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Therefore, this exception would not apply to the project.
The proposed use is allowed in the land use designation and zone district with approval of the requested entitlement(s). Additionally, the Project site was previously analyzed during the 2014 General Plan Update EIR; therefore, the use and operation would be compatible with the area and would not result in cumulative impacts with the operation of the use. The effects of the Project would generally be beneficial, because the Project would place new residents in an area well served by existing transit, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled by residents. The Project would develop a vacant, blighted lot that is already served by utilities and public services, as well as transportation. Any construction effects would be temporary and confined to the Project vicinity. No successive projects of the same type in the same place are known or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) does not apply to the Project.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
rzozol 000@/4
There are no historical resources on the Project site or within its immediate vicinity.
Therefore, thi ception would not apply to the Project.A Date: January 23, 2026Signature:
Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner
The Project site is not located on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
fit atw *'l
-hen" -
pd
iiC
____j
A
3 1,
■
— le y
s
J h **Mi4*4
sI #ia
e s#*
. i eu
w
L
ja
.2 27993 _abodh1’1
1.,,
I
l--
er 1
3a .
3®oC 1P r >
wl s
1.”
D
. ■
sma
Bullard Avenue
i-pp Aut
nl
9 4
t
n
h • i,1
t.
1.2 te sewdolemenssmee
%
Nt: 5a
drt
2 s
_ a
a a
gr
sa '
.3
4af
t crdle
z
. A”
m.P.
Tb * atari
e.C 17
• 9,"s'g ' s r
974“ ! --ai
227 ' am
— M
CH ?M "J P
£22000000 (4
Project Location
] Project Site A
N
De Witt Avenue
1 Tiffany Williams
From: Aaron La Mattina
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 3:01 PM
To: Tiffany Williams
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Public Comment
Aaron La Mattina
Staff Analyst | PC Clerk
Office: 559-324-2352
[email protected]
From: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 2:55 PM
To:
Cc: Briana Parra <[email protected]>; Rebecca Simonian <[email protected]>; Andrew Haussler <[email protected]>; Paul Armendariz <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Aaron La Mattina <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Council Meeting Public Comment
Hi Mr. Oliver.
Thank you for your public comment for the Planning Commission. We’ve received it and shared it with staff.
Briana Parra, CMC | City Clerk
Clovis City Hall | Administration
1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612
P. 559.324.2057
[email protected]
https://www.clovisca.gov/
From: [email protected] <[email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 2:47 PM
To: CityClerk < [email protected] >
Cc: Briana Parra < [email protected] >; Rebecca Simonian < [email protected] >; Andrew Haussler <[email protected] >; Paul Armendariz < [email protected] > Subject: Council Meeting Public Comment
Council-Meeting-Date = 2025-10-23
Item-Number = Agenda Item 4 - Res 25-___CUP2025-006
Full-Name = Ronald T Oliver
Attachment 7
2 Comment = I am a co-owner of the property located at 375 Bullard. Our family has lived in the Clovis area for over 100 years. This is a property my father, James E. Oliver Sr. built many years ago which consists of 3 offices. He operated a State Farm Insurance business there for many years along with my now deceased brother, James E. Oliver Jr. My brother Gary Oliver is in one of the offices. He has already filed his written comments with you, but I believe he entered the wrong agenda item number, but you should know he is talking about the proposed building at 319 Bullard Avenue.
My brother Gary spoke to Ms. Williams, an Associate Planner with the City of Clovis. During their conversation, he became aware some of her comments/facts were not correct. Gary asked if someone could physically come to the property for a discussion. He was given Ms. Antuna's name and he immediately sent off an email to her on October 16, 2025, at 11:09 AM. He resent it again on Friday, 10/17/25 and again on Monday, 10/20/25. Ms. Antuna has NEVER responded. I've been a CPA and a professional for almost 50 years, and I think we all know this lack of responding is very unprofessional.
How can the staff of the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval when some facts may not be correct? Why are they not responding to our communications? Should the City Planning Commission exempt this project from further environmental review and approve this project even though
they don't have all the correct information? This is why my brother reached out to Ms. Antuna, only to be ignored. Do you believe this is the correct way for the City to operate?
Unfortunately, I cannot come to the meeting as I currently reside in San Diego, but I appreciate being able to respond in this way. It is my understanding others will be there asking for this project not to be approved. I hope and pray the planning commission listens to its constituents.
Client IP = 99.10.71.135
T I M O T H Y J O N E S *
M I C H A E L S . H E L S L E Y
R I L E Y C . W A L T E R
P A T R I C K D . T O O L E
S C O T T D . L A I R D
J O H N P . K I N S E Y
K U R T F . V O T E
R O B E R T E . D O N L A N
T R O Y T . E W E L L
J A Y A . C H R I S T O F F E R S O N
A M A N D A G . H E B E S H A * *
P E T E R M . J O N E S†
J E F F R E Y B . P A P E†
M A R I S A L . B A L C H†
D E B O R A H K . B O Y E T T
S T E V E N K . V O T E
N I C O L A S R . C A R D E L L A
G I U L I O A . S A N C H E Z
K A T H L E E N D . D E V A N E Y
C R A I G A . C A R N E S , J R . †
* A l s o a d m i t t e d i n W a s h i n g t o n
**
***
A l s o a d m i t t e d i n I d a h o
E m e r i t u s
† O f C o u n s e l
†† A l s o a d m i t t e d i n T e x a s
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
A T T O R N E Y S
265 EAST RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720
AND
400 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2550
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
M A I L I N G A D D R E S S
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 2 8 3 4 0
F R E S N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 7 2 9
T E L E P H O N E
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 4800
F A X
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 9330
W e b s i t e :
w w w . w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
W r i t e r ’ s E- M a i l A d d r e s s :
h c a s t r o@ w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
S H A W N D A M . G R A D Y†
E T H A N E . M O R A†
B E N J A M I N C . W E S T
H U N T E R C . C A S T R O
S T E P H A N I E M . H O S M A N
I A N J . Q U I N N††
K E V I N W . B U R S E Y
R A C H E L L . P O M B O
D A N I E L J . F R E A
C O L L E E N E . L I T T L E
D A N I K A E . J O N E S
J E S S I C A L . V I V E D
J O S H U A P . J E N D I A N
R A C H E L L . A L S T R O M
H A N N A H L . R A V I Z Z A
P A Y T O N D . D O L E N A R
N I N A M . A L V A R A D O
O L I V E R W . W A N G E R * * *
L E G A L A D M I N I S T R A T O R
L Y N N M . H O F F M A N
January 21, 2026
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL & EMAIL
Planning Commission
CITY OF CLOVIS
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
[email protected]
[email protected], Renee Mathis, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected], Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner Re: Comments and Objections to Public Hearing Item No. 2:
Proposed Adoption of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing to the Planning Commission (“ Commission”) of the City of Clovis (“City”) on behalf of Mountain View Investment Properties, LLC (“Mountain View”), the owner of a commercial office building located at 311 Bullard Avenue in Clovis, California (the “Mountain View Property”), and its Manager, Paul J. Woodworth. The Mountain View Property is adjacent to vacant real property at 319 Bullard Avenue, Clovis, California (the “ Subject Property”), which is the subject of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 (the “CUP”).
The CUP is required as a condition of the Subject Property’s proposed development into a three - story, mixed-use structure (the “Project”).
On behalf of Mountain View, I am writing to express my clients’ concerns regarding the CUP and the severe, unaddressed environmental and economic impacts on my clients and their tenants, likely leading to pervasive public nuisance conditions affecting all neighboring properties. Both my client and neighboring property owners have met with the applicant, Rick Sassano (“Applicant”), and their representatives; however, the Applicant has not agreed to a single
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
concession to help avoid the significant issues the Project will create for the adjoining landowners.
Nor has City staff performed any outreach regarding the Project. As a result, and due to the lack of constructive engagement, the Commission should deny the Project.
I. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
The Project, as proposed, would result in actionable nuisance conditions resulting in damages to Mountain View and its tenants. The Project would unreasonably obstruct the free use of the Mountain View Property and other neighboring properties, “so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” (Civil Code, § 3479.) Based on prior activities that have occurred on the Subject Property, the interference would be “substantial” and r esult in significant damages to Mountain View and its tenants. (Rest.2d Torts, § 821F.) Further, based on these prior activities, Mountain View and its tenants, as well as neighboring property owners and businesses, have a reasonable fear these nuisance conditions will continue. (See, e.g., Wilson v.
Southern Calif. Edison Co. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 786, 804 -05.) Moreover, because the activity will affect many people, and the harm to Mountain View and its property will be “specially injurious,” the proposed activities will also constitute a public nuisance. (See Civ. Code, § 3493; see also Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1547-48.) These nuisance conditions would be severe and pervasive. As an initial matter, construction activities will directly interfere with my client’s business. For example, when mere soil testing occurred on the Subject Property, the activities created noise and vibration impacts on the Mountain View Property that made it impossible for Mountain View’s tenants to conduct business by phone or in person . The noise was so loud it was simply not possible to conduct a conversation inside the structure. In addition, during the limited number of activities that have already occurred on the Subject Property, there have been numerous vehicles obstructing the single-lane alleyway which is the only means for Mountain View, its tenants, and the tenants’ clients to access the Mountain View Property.
Mountain View is rightly concerned that these conditions will continue if the Project is approved . Indeed, the staff report for the Project contains no information about how access to the Mountain View Property will remain available during construction. Because of the space needed to construct a three -story property, and the amount of time necessary for such construction, my clients are rightly concerned that access to the Mountain View Property will be impeded for a year or more. This is particularly di sconcerting because the proposed structure contemplates a zero-lot line, and the only way to access the western and northern portions of the site with construction equipment would be to block the access route used by Mountain View, its tenants, and the clients of its tenants. Neither the staff report nor any proposed conditions of approval contain any assurances that Mountain View and its tenants will be free from noise and related impacts that will undermine their businesses.
Mountain View is also concerned about the operational impacts of the Project.
Because the structure includes a commercial component, and parking in the surrounding area is severely constrained, nuisance conditions associated with unauthorized parking on the Mountain View Property (and other nearby properties) will be exacerbated. There are likewise no conditions
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
of approval or other assurances to ensure traffic and/or access will not be impeded, to ensure parking for Mountain View, its tenants, and their clients will not be impeded, or that noise associated with the commercial operation will not interfere with tenants and existing operations at the Mountain View Property. Instead, the Project’s staff report asserts parking issues at the Subject Property and Mountain View Property are a private concern, and, although Applicant does not anticipate its customers affe cting adjacent properties, “individual parking behavior cannot be guaranteed.”
Based on these significant concerns, and due to the lack of any outreach by the Applicant or City to resolve Mountain View’s concerns, Mountain View requests the Commission deny the Project . The Project cannot meet the minimum standards required for the CUP. The Project would impair the integrity and character of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a zero-lot line, three-story structure adjacent to single-story structures. Second, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing land uses, and would create significant noise, traffic, and other conditions that are objectionable to nearby uses, including the businesses on the Mountain View Property, as explained above. The Applicant is seeking to overbuild on an exceedingly small lot; it is not physically suitable in size and shape for a three-story mixed-use project with an anticipated high-volume commercial component.
II. THE PROJECT REQUIRES CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed CUP is a discretionary approval. As a result, the Project requires full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”; Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.) before any affirmative vote can be issued . (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.) That has not occurred.
A. The Project Description is Insufficient
CEQA requires a project’s description include reasonably foreseeable future activities that are consequences of the project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d. 376, 396; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263.) The description must be clear and consistent throughout any analysis documents. (See, e.g. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-93; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 738; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730; Santiago Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830; Christward Ministry v. County of San Diego (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 31, 45; Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1986) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1040.) As outlined above, the application materials and staff report fail to fully describe the Project such that an environmental analysis can be completed. Such information is necessary to evaluate whether the Project would have significant environmental impacts. Ultimately, any determination issued by the Commission in favor of the Project would be invalid without a meaningful and thorough environmental review.
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an environmental impact report is necessary because the Project will produce, at a minimum, the following impacts: (1) aesthetics and scenic resources1; (2) light and glare; (3) construction -related noise; (4) potential health impacts; (5) land use impacts; (6) traffic and parking impacts; (7) water resource impacts; and (8) cumulative impacts2. Nothing demonstrates any CEQA analysis has occurred to evaluate the Project’s many foreseeable impacts on the environment and neighboring properties.
Converting the Subject Property from a small, vacant parcel to a large-scale mixed-use commercial operation does not align with existing uses in the area and requires an environmental analysis to proceed. Instead, the Project’s staff report summarily disposes of these areas of concern as outside of staff’s expectations, issues of private concern staff would not contemplate, or even desirable outcomes for visual interest in staff’s opinion.
Further, Mountain View understands that the Applicant has been vocal about wanting to open a bar on the Subject Property. This proposed use is not reflected in the CUP application materials or staff report explaining the Project. Operation of a bar on th e Subject Property would require additional discretionary approvals beyond those contemplated in the instant CUP application, and the failure to analyze that approval at this stage constitutes unlawful piecemealing of environmental review that constitutes another violation of CEQA’s requirements.
Mountain View respectfully requests that the Commission exercise its discretion to deny the CUP application as a result.
B. The Proposed Class 32 Exemption is Defective
According to the Staff Report, the City intends to rely upon a Class 32 exemption from CEQA for infill projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15332.) To rely on the Class 32 exemption, substantial evidence must support each of the following conditions:
1 CEQA requires analysis of a project’s impacts on “view and other features of beauty.” ( Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 401.) On this topic, “the opinions of area residents, if based on direct observation, may be relevant as to aesthetic impact and may constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument; no special expertise is required on this topic.” ( The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 908, 937 [requiring EIR, rather than Initial Study, in part to address neighbors' concerns regarding aesthetic impacts of project].) 2 CEQA “require[s] a finding that a project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if . . . [t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21083.) A project’s cumulative impacts are significant if the project’s incremental contribution to the impact is “cumulative considerable.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130, subd. (a).) A project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant “when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) The fact that a particular project’s incremental impact is not alone significant, or is relatively small when compared to the greater overall problem, does not mean the project does not have significant cumulative impacts. (Kings County Farm Bureau , supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720 -21.) The proper standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is whether the impacts are “collectively significant.” (Id. at 721, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.)
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.)
Substantial evidence does not support those findings, so t he proposed Class 32 exemption is not available for this Project. As a threshold matter, contrary to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines or the City’s zoning ordinance , the Project does not comply with the parking guidelines of the Central Clovis Specific Plan (“ CCSP”), since it is outside the Parking Business Improvement Area, includes a commercial component, and does not comply with the Parking Standards of the C-3 Zoning District.3
Similarly, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the Project would could be “adequately served by all required utilities and public services,” as the City has merely conducted a “preliminary review” of this issue, and has found only tha t existing infrastructure “appears” at first blush to have adequate capacity; there is no evidence that there is actually adequate capacity.
Finally, the staff report and CUP application materials do not provide substantial evidence necessary for the City to determine the Project would not result in significant noise impacts. Both the protracted construction activity anticipated on the site an d the increased intensity of noise caused by the Project’s uses support the opposite conclusion.
Even if facially applicable, categorical exemptions like the proposed Class 32 Categorical E xemption are not absolute. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2.) The Project’s staff report agrees Class 32 exemption s are limited where there are potential cumulative impacts, significant environmental effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste, or historical resources at
3 For this reason, the Project would also violate State Planning and Zoning Law due to the vertical inconsistency with the CCSP.
T I M O T H Y J O N E S *
M I C H A E L S . H E L S L E Y
R I L E Y C . W A L T E R
P A T R I C K D . T O O L E
S C O T T D . L A I R D
J O H N P . K I N S E Y
K U R T F . V O T E
R O B E R T E . D O N L A N
T R O Y T . E W E L L
J A Y A . C H R I S T O F F E R S O N
A M A N D A G . H E B E S H A * *
P E T E R M . J O N E S†
J E F F R E Y B . P A P E†
M A R I S A L . B A L C H†
D E B O R A H K . B O Y E T T
S T E V E N K . V O T E
N I C O L A S R . C A R D E L L A
G I U L I O A . S A N C H E Z
K A T H L E E N D . D E V A N E Y
C R A I G A . C A R N E S , J R . †
* A l s o a d m i t t e d i n W a s h i n g t o n
**
***
A l s o a d m i t t e d i n I d a h o
E m e r i t u s
† O f C o u n s e l
†† A l s o a d m i t t e d i n T e x a s
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
A T T O R N E Y S
265 EAST RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720
AND
400 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2550
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
M A I L I N G A D D R E S S
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 2 8 3 4 0
F R E S N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 7 2 9
T E L E P H O N E
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 4800
F A X
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 9330
W e b s i t e :
w w w . w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
W r i t e r ’ s E- M a i l A d d r e s s :
h c a s t r o@ w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
S H A W N D A M . G R A D Y†
E T H A N E . M O R A†
B E N J A M I N C . W E S T
H U N T E R C . C A S T R O
S T E P H A N I E M . H O S M A N
I A N J . Q U I N N††
K E V I N W . B U R S E Y
R A C H E L L . P O M B O
D A N I E L J . F R E A
C O L L E E N E . L I T T L E
D A N I K A E . J O N E S
J E S S I C A L . V I V E D
J O S H U A P . J E N D I A N
R A C H E L L . A L S T R O M
H A N N A H L . R A V I Z Z A
P A Y T O N D . D O L E N A R
N I N A M . A L V A R A D O
O L I V E R W . W A N G E R * * *
L E G A L A D M I N I S T R A T O R
L Y N N M . H O F F M A N
February 6, 2026
VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL
City Council
CITY OF CLOVIS
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
[email protected], Briana Parra, City Clerk
[email protected]
[email protected], Renee Mathis, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected], Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner Re: Appeal of Planning Commission’s Adoption of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 and Accompanying CEQA Exemption
Honorable Members of the City Council:
I am writing to the City Council of the City of Clovis (“ City”) on behalf of Mountain View Investment Properties, LLC (“ Mountain View ”), the owner of a commercial office building located at 311 Bullard Avenue in Clovis, California (the “ Mountain View Property”), and its Manager, Paul J. Woodworth. The Mountain View Property is adjacent to vacant real property at 319 Bullard Avenue, Clovis, California (the “ Subject Property”), which is the subject of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 (the “CUP”). The CUP was required as a condition of the Subject Property’s proposed development into a three -story, mixed-use structure (the “Project”).
During its January 22, 2026, meeting (the “ Meeting”), the City’s Planning Commission unanimously voted to issue the CUP for the Project, subject only to the verbal modifications requiring: (i) City staff and the Applicant, Rick Sassano (“ Applicant”), to work Attachment 8
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
together to minimize adverse impacts to Mountain View based on the location of trash receptacles; and (ii) that no future CUP application be made for the use of the Subject Property as a bar.
On behalf of Mountain View, I am writing to express my clients’ concerns regarding the CUP and the severe, unaddressed environmental and economic impacts on my clients and their tenants, likely leading to pervasive public nuisance conditions affecting all neighboring properties. Contrary to City staff’s assertions during the meeting, and as discussed in detail below, no outreach was performed at the City level before this Project was brought for approval. The Applicant has wholly refused to provide any meaningful concessions to my clients or neighboring property owners to reduce the Project’s readily foreseeable impacts.
For all the reasons outlined below, my clients request a formal appeal of the Planning Commission’s January 22, 2026, decision to grant the CUP and approve a Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the Project . Below, this appeal letter reproduces the comments my clients provided to the Planning Commission with references to the dismissive and patently untrue assertions City staff offered during the Meeting.
I. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
As approved, t he Project will result in actionable nuisance conditions causing damages to Mountain View and its tenants. The Project will unreasonably obstruct the free use of the Mountain View Property and other neighboring properties, “so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” (Ci v. Code, § 3479.) Based on prior activities that have occurred on the Subject Property, the interference would be “substantial” and result in significant damages to Mountain View and its tenants. (Rest.2d Torts, § 821F.) Further, based on these prior activities, Mountain View and its tenants, as well as neighboring property owners and businesses, have a reasonable fear these nuisance conditions will continue. (See, e.g., Wilson v.
Southern Calif. Edison Co. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 786, 804 -05.) Moreover, because the activity will affect many people, and the harm to Mountain View and its property will be “specially injurious,” the proposed activities will also constitute a public nuisance. (See Civ. Code, § 3493; see also Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1547-48.) These nuisance conditions would be severe and pervasive. As an initial matter, construction activities will directly interfere with my client s’ business. For example, when mere soil testing occurred on the Subject Property, the activities created noise and vibration impacts on the Mountain View Property that made it impossible for Mountain View’s tenants to conduct business by phone or in person . The noise was so loud it was simply not possible to conduct a conversation inside the structure. In addition, during the limited number of activities that have already occurred on the Subject Property, there have been numerous vehicles obstructing the single-lane alleyway which is the only means for Mountain View, its tenants, and the tenants’ clients to access the Mountain View Property.
Mountain View is rightly concerned that these conditions will continue if the Project is approved . Indeed, the staff report for the Project contains no information about how access to the Mountain View Property will remain available during construction. Because of the
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
space needed to construct a three -story property, and the amount of time necessary for such construction, my clients are rightly concerned that access to the Mountain View Property will be impeded for a year or more. This is particularly disconcerting because the proposed structure contemplates a zero-lot line, and the only way to access the western and northern portions of the site with construction equipment would be to block the access route used by Mountain View, its tenants, and the clients of its tenants. Neither the staff report nor any conditions of approval contain any assurances that Mountain View and its tenants will be free from noise and related impacts that will undermine their businesses.
Mountain View is also concerned about the operational impacts of the Project.
Because the structure includes a commercial component, and parking in the surrounding area is severely constrained, nuisance conditions associated with unauthorized parking on the Mountain View Property (and other nearby properties) will be exacerbated. There are likewise no conditions of approval or other assurances to ensure traffic and/or access will not be impeded, to ensure parking for Mountain View, its tenants, and their clients will n ot be impeded, or that noise associated with the commercial operation will not interfere with tenants and existing operations at the Mountain View Property. Instead, the Project’s staff report asserts parking issues at the Subject Property and Mountain View Property are a private concern, and, although Applicant does not anticipate its customers affecting adjacent properties, “individual parking behavior ca nnot be guaranteed.”
Based on these significant concerns, and due to the lack of any outreach by the Applicant or City to resolve Mountain View’s concerns, Mountain View requests the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s approvals for the Project . The Project cannot meet the minimum standards required for the CUP. The Project will impair the integrity and character of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a zero-lot line, three-story structure adjacent to single- story structures. Second, the design, location, s ize, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing land uses, and will create significant noise, traffic, and other conditions that are objectionable to nearby uses, including the businesses on the Mountain View Property, as explained above. The Applicant is seeking to overbuild on an exceedingly small lot; it is not physically suitable in size and shape for a three-story mixed-use project with an anticipated high-volume commercial component.
During the Meeting, City staff offered only barebones assertions disagreeing with my clients’ complaints regarding the Project’s readily foreseeable impacts. Indeed, City staff spent most of its energy disagreeing with Mr. Woodworth’s and my January 21, 2026, letter’s statements regarding City staff’s failure to perform any outreach regarding the Project. Contrary to staff’s assertions, Mountain View was not contacted by the City in connection with the Project until Mr. Woodworth asked for copies of the r elevant application materials (which had been approved by City staff after working with the Applicant for nearly a year for the Project) after hearing about the same in October 2025. Following the January 2026 Meeting, Mr. Woodworth asked for records confirming City staff’s assertions they communicated with the public regarding the Project. In response, City staff provided just three emails: the October 2025 response to Mr. Woodworth’s request for Project information and two emails regarding the January 2026 Meeting’s agenda.
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
Further, City staff summarily dismissed my clients’ concerns regarding noise , parking, and construction impacts, stating local regulations are sufficient to avoid negative impacts to the Mountain View Property. These blanket statements provide no reasoning or assurances outlining how the Project will avoid the specific concerns Mr. Woodworth raised before the Planning Commission regarding the measurable impacts the basic scoping work for the Project has had on his ability to conduct business.
Instead, City staff sniped at Mr. Woodworth, stating , incorrectly, the construction of the building on the Mountain View Property blocked a portion of the alleyway. To the contrary, the alleyway’s concrete was poured at the time the Mountain View Property was built, as required by the City. The building on the Mountain View Property is not a zero -lot line building like the Project proposes for the Subject Property. The Mountain View Property included setbacks and a full parking lot where construction mat erials were housed in a manner to specifically avoid impacting others. My clients are informed and believe the building on Dewitt that backs to this alleyway was actually built after the Mountain View Property, so there were no buildings or active businesses the construction of the Mountain View Property could have interfered with.
Unfortunately, these factually untrue statements from City staff were provided to the Planning Commission following the close of the public comment period. Mr. Woodworth was not allowed to provide corrections before the Planning Commission held further di scussions and issued its final decision. These misstatements are significant because several members of the Planning Commission specifically noted City staff’s assurances overcame their apprehensions regarding whether they could approve the Project.
Mountain View r espectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s January 22, 2026, approval of the CUP and accompanying CEQA exemption.
II. THE PROJECT REQUIRES CEQA COMPLIANCE
Granting the CUP constituted a discretionary approval that required full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.). (Pub.
Res. Code, § 21080.) That has not occurred.
A. The Project Description is Insufficient
CEQA requires a project’s description include reasonably foreseeable future activities that are consequences of the project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d. 376, 396; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263.) The description must be clear and consistent throughout any analysis documents. (See, e.g. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-93; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 738; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730; Santiago Water District v. County of O range (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830; Christward Ministry v. County of San Diego (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 31, 45; Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1986) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1040.)
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
As outlined above, the application materials and staff report failed to fully describe the Project such that an environmental analysis can be completed. Such information is necessary to evaluate whether the Project would have significant environmental impacts. Ultimately, the Planning Commission’s decision in favor of the Project is invalid without a meaningful and thorough environmental review.
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an environmental impact report is necessary because the Project will produce, at a minimum, the following impacts:
(1) aesthetics and scenic resources1; (2) light and glare; (3) construction-related noise; (4) potential health impacts; (5) land use impacts; (6) traffic and parking impacts; (7) water resource impacts; and (8) cumulative impacts2. Nothing demonstrates any CEQA analysis occurred to evaluate the Project’s many foreseeable impacts on the environment and neighboring properties. Converting the Subject Property from a small, vacant parcel to a large-scale mixed-use commercial operation does not align with existing uses in the area and require d environmental analysis. Instead, the Project’s staff report summarily dispose d of these areas of concern as outside of staff’s expectations, issues of private concern staff would not contemplate, or even desirable outcomes for visual interest in staff’s opinion.
Further, Mountain View understands that the Applicant has been vocal about wanting to open a bar on the Subject Property. This proposed use is not reflected in the CUP application materials or staff report explaining the Project. Operation of a bar on th e Subject Property would require additional discretionary approvals beyond those contemplated in the instant CUP application, and the failure to analyze that approval at this stage constitutes unlawful piecemealing of environmental review that constitutes another violation of CEQA’s requirements.
Despite the Applicant’s own statements regarding the proposed use of the Subject Property being presented to the Planning Commission , City staff referred to the Project as a commercial retail endeavor. Then, the Project’s architect told the Planning Commission the Project proposes the development of a home office on the Subject Property. This ever -changing Project description invites uncertainty that is unacceptable for CEQA purposes.
1 CEQA requires analysis of a project’s impacts on “view and other features of beauty.” ( Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 401.) On this topic, “the opinions of area residents, if based on direct observation, may be relevant as to aesthetic impact and may constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument; no special expertise is required on this topic.” ( The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 908, 937 [requiring EIR, rather than Initial Study, in part to address neighbors' concerns regarding aesthetic impacts of project].) 2 CEQA “require[s] a finding that a project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if . . . [t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21083.) A project’s cumulative impacts are significant if the project’s incremental contribution to the impact is “cumulative considerable.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130, subd. (a).) A project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant “when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) The fact that a particular project’s incremental impact is not alone significant, or is relatively small when compared to the greater overall problem, does not mean the project does not have significant cumulative impacts. (Kings County Farm Bureau , supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720 -21.) The proper standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is whether the impacts are “collectively significant.” (Id. at 721, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.)
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
At the Meeting, City staff asserted the Applicant had agreed not to seek future approvals for a bar on the Subject Property. The Planning Commission’s motion to approve the CUP included a new condition stating no future CUP application for a bar could be made with regard to the Subject Property. These last-minute revisions did not cure the procedural concerns Mountain View raised regarding the Project’s mandatory CEQA compliance. To the contrary, this conduct specifically demonstrated the Project’s descr iption and Applicant’s intentions for the Subject Property were subject to change through the conclusion of the Meeting and beyond.
City staff offered only bare assertions that Mountain View’s comments regarding traffic, sewer, and water analysis inadequacies were irrelevant because no General Plan revision was being sought by the Project. Not only was this assertion insufficient to satisfy the City’s duty to address environmental impacts head-on, it failed to acknowledge any of the other individual and cumulative impacts listed above. The Project requires environmental review.
Mountain View r espectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s January 22, 2026, approval of the CUP and accompanying CEQA exemption.
B. The Proposed Class 32 Exemption is Defective
The Planning Commission used the Class 32 Categorical Exemption from CEQA for infill projects when issuing its approvals. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“ CEQA Guidelines”], § 15332.) To rely on the Class 32 exemption, substantial evidence must support each of the following conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.)
Substantial evidence did not support those findings. As a threshold matter, contrary to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines or the City’s zoning ordinance , the Project does not comply with the parking guidelines of the Central Clovis Specific Plan (“ CCSP”), since it is
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
February 6, 2026
outside the Parking Business Improvement Area, includes a commercial component, and does not comply with the Parking Standards of the C-3 Zoning District.3 Similarly, substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the Project would be “adequately served by all required utilities and public services,” as the City merely conducted a “preliminary review” of this issue, and only found that existing infrastructure “appears” at first blush to have adequate capacity ; there is no evidence that there is actually adequate capacity.
The staff report and CUP application materials did not provide the substantial evidence necessary for the Planning Commission to determine the Project would not result in significant noise impacts. Both the protracted construction activity anticipated on the site and the increased intensity of noise caused by the Project’s uses support the opposite conclusion.
Even if facially applicable, categorical exemptions like the proposed Class 32 Categorical E xemption are not absolute. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2.) The Project’s staff report agrees Class 32 exemption s are limited where there are potential cumulative impacts, significant environmental effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste, or historical resources at issue; however, City staff summarily disposed of these concerns by stating, “[T]hese exceptions would not be triggered by the proposed Project.” This conclusory statement is insufficient.
According to the County of Fresno, Department of Public Health, the Project has the potential to result in various adverse impacts, including “solid waste, water quality degradation, excessive noise,” as well as “odor,” which is an air quality impact. (See July 2, 2025, letter from Kevin Tsuda, County of Fresno.) The Project would also continue to interfere with the easements and ingress/egress from the Mountain view Property, as outlined above . These traffic and air quality impacts would result in exceptions to the Class 32 exemption that render it inapplicable to the Project. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15300.2, 15332.) True CEQA compliance is required here to avoid exposure to litigation and ensure the Project does not result in changes to the environment based on a potentially sensitive location, significant development -related impacts, cumulative impacts, scenic resource impacts, and/or historical resource impacts.
Despite the foregoing, City staff merely told the Planning Commission the CEQA exemption was “appropriate” and “adequate” with a “sufficient” project description. These statements were only supported by staff’s incorrect claim that Mountain View’s January 21, 2026, comment letter contained “unfounded” and “false” statements (refuted above). City staff’s request to add a nebulous condition requiring the City and Applicant to work with Mr. Woodworth to reduce the Project’s impacts does not actually address or reduce those impacts, each of which requires a full CEQA process to identify, evaluate, and mitigate.
Mountain View r espectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s January 22, 2026, approval of the CUP and accompanying CEQA exemption.
3 For this reason, the Project also violates State Planning and Zoning Law due to the vertical inconsistency with the CCSP.
1
2
T I M O T H Y J O N E S *
M I C H A E L S . H E L S L E Y
R I L E Y C . W A L T E R
P A T R I C K D . T O O L E
S C O T T D . L A I R D
J O H N P . K I N S E Y
K U R T F . V O T E
R O B E R T E . D O N L A N
T R O Y T . E W E L L
J A Y A . C H R I S T O F F E R S O N
A M A N D A G . H E B E S H A * *
P E T E R M . J O N E S†
J E F F R E Y B . P A P E†
M A R I S A L . B A L C H†
D E B O R A H K . B O Y E T T
S T E V E N K . V O T E
N I C O L A S R . C A R D E L L A
G I U L I O A . S A N C H E Z
K A T H L E E N D . D E V A N E Y
C R A I G A . C A R N E S , J R . †
* A l s o a d m i t t e d i n W a s h i n g t o n
**
***
A l s o a d m i t t e d i n I d a h o
E m e r i t u s
† O f C o u n s e l
†† A l s o a d m i t t e d i n T e x a s
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
A T T O R N E Y S
265 EAST RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720
AND
400 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2550
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
M A I L I N G A D D R E S S
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 2 8 3 4 0
F R E S N O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 7 2 9
T E L E P H O N E
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 4800
F A X
( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 3- 9330
W e b s i t e :
w w w . w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
W r i t e r ’ s E- M a i l A d d r e s s :
h c a s t r o@ w j h a t t o r n e y s . c o m
S H A W N D A M . G R A D Y†
E T H A N E . M O R A†
B E N J A M I N C . W E S T
H U N T E R C . C A S T R O
S T E P H A N I E M . H O S M A N
I A N J . Q U I N N††
K E V I N W . B U R S E Y
R A C H E L L . P O M B O
D A N I E L J . F R E A
C O L L E E N E . L I T T L E
D A N I K A E . J O N E S
J E S S I C A L . V I V E D
J O S H U A P . J E N D I A N
R A C H E L L . A L S T R O M
H A N N A H L . R A V I Z Z A
P A Y T O N D . D O L E N A R
N I N A M . A L V A R A D O
O L I V E R W . W A N G E R * * *
L E G A L A D M I N I S T R A T O R
L Y N N M . H O F F M A N
January 21, 2026
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL & EMAIL
Planning Commission
CITY OF CLOVIS
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
[email protected]
[email protected], Renee Mathis, Planning and Development Services Director [email protected], Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner Re: Comments and Objections to Public Hearing Item No. 2:
Proposed Adoption of Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing to the Planning Commission (“ Commission”) of the City of Clovis (“City”) on behalf of Mountain View Investment Properties, LLC (“Mountain View”), the owner of a commercial office building located at 311 Bullard Avenue in Clovis, California (the “Mountain View Property”), and its Manager, Paul J. Woodworth. The Mountain View Property is adjacent to vacant real property at 319 Bullard Avenue, Clovis, California (the “ Subject Property”), which is the subject of proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2025-006 (the “CUP”).
The CUP is required as a condition of the Subject Property’s proposed development into a three - story, mixed-use structure (the “Project”).
On behalf of Mountain View, I am writing to express my clients’ concerns regarding the CUP and the severe, unaddressed environmental and economic impacts on my clients and their tenants, likely leading to pervasive public nuisance conditions affecting all neighboring properties. Both my client and neighboring property owners have met with the applicant, Rick Sassano (“Applicant”), and their representatives; however, the Applicant has not agreed to a single
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
concession to help avoid the significant issues the Project will create for the adjoining landowners.
Nor has City staff performed any outreach regarding the Project. As a result, and due to the lack of constructive engagement, the Commission should deny the Project.
I. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
The Project, as proposed, would result in actionable nuisance conditions resulting in damages to Mountain View and its tenants. The Project would unreasonably obstruct the free use of the Mountain View Property and other neighboring properties, “so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” (Civil Code, § 3479.) Based on prior activities that have occurred on the Subject Property, the interference would be “substantial” and r esult in significant damages to Mountain View and its tenants. (Rest.2d Torts, § 821F.) Further, based on these prior activities, Mountain View and its tenants, as well as neighboring property owners and businesses, have a reasonable fear these nuisance conditions will continue. (See, e.g., Wilson v.
Southern Calif. Edison Co. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 786, 804 -05.) Moreover, because the activity will affect many people, and the harm to Mountain View and its property will be “specially injurious,” the proposed activities will also constitute a public nuisance. (See Civ. Code, § 3493; see also Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1547-48.) These nuisance conditions would be severe and pervasive. As an initial matter, construction activities will directly interfere with my client’s business. For example, when mere soil testing occurred on the Subject Property, the activities created noise and vibration impacts on the Mountain View Property that made it impossible for Mountain View’s tenants to conduct business by phone or in person . The noise was so loud it was simply not possible to conduct a conversation inside the structure. In addition, during the limited number of activities that have already occurred on the Subject Property, there have been numerous vehicles obstructing the single-lane alleyway which is the only means for Mountain View, its tenants, and the tenants’ clients to access the Mountain View Property.
Mountain View is rightly concerned that these conditions will continue if the Project is approved . Indeed, the staff report for the Project contains no information about how access to the Mountain View Property will remain available during construction. Because of the space needed to construct a three -story property, and the amount of time necessary for such construction, my clients are rightly concerned that access to the Mountain View Property will be impeded for a year or more. This is particularly di sconcerting because the proposed structure contemplates a zero-lot line, and the only way to access the western and northern portions of the site with construction equipment would be to block the access route used by Mountain View, its tenants, and the clients of its tenants. Neither the staff report nor any proposed conditions of approval contain any assurances that Mountain View and its tenants will be free from noise and related impacts that will undermine their businesses.
Mountain View is also concerned about the operational impacts of the Project.
Because the structure includes a commercial component, and parking in the surrounding area is severely constrained, nuisance conditions associated with unauthorized parking on the Mountain View Property (and other nearby properties) will be exacerbated. There are likewise no conditions
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
of approval or other assurances to ensure traffic and/or access will not be impeded, to ensure parking for Mountain View, its tenants, and their clients will not be impeded, or that noise associated with the commercial operation will not interfere with tenants and existing operations at the Mountain View Property. Instead, the Project’s staff report asserts parking issues at the Subject Property and Mountain View Property are a private concern, and, although Applicant does not anticipate its customers affe cting adjacent properties, “individual parking behavior cannot be guaranteed.”
Based on these significant concerns, and due to the lack of any outreach by the Applicant or City to resolve Mountain View’s concerns, Mountain View requests the Commission deny the Project . The Project cannot meet the minimum standards required for the CUP. The Project would impair the integrity and character of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a zero-lot line, three-story structure adjacent to single-story structures. Second, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing land uses, and would create significant noise, traffic, and other conditions that are objectionable to nearby uses, including the businesses on the Mountain View Property, as explained above. The Applicant is seeking to overbuild on an exceedingly small lot; it is not physically suitable in size and shape for a three-story mixed-use project with an anticipated high-volume commercial component.
II. THE PROJECT REQUIRES CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed CUP is a discretionary approval. As a result, the Project requires full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”; Pub. Res. Code, § 21000, et seq.) before any affirmative vote can be issued . (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.) That has not occurred.
A. The Project Description is Insufficient
CEQA requires a project’s description include reasonably foreseeable future activities that are consequences of the project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d. 376, 396; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263.) The description must be clear and consistent throughout any analysis documents. (See, e.g. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-93; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 738; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730; Santiago Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 830; Christward Ministry v. County of San Diego (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 31, 45; Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1986) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1040.) As outlined above, the application materials and staff report fail to fully describe the Project such that an environmental analysis can be completed. Such information is necessary to evaluate whether the Project would have significant environmental impacts. Ultimately, any determination issued by the Commission in favor of the Project would be invalid without a meaningful and thorough environmental review.
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that an environmental impact report is necessary because the Project will produce, at a minimum, the following impacts: (1) aesthetics and scenic resources1; (2) light and glare; (3) construction -related noise; (4) potential health impacts; (5) land use impacts; (6) traffic and parking impacts; (7) water resource impacts; and (8) cumulative impacts2. Nothing demonstrates any CEQA analysis has occurred to evaluate the Project’s many foreseeable impacts on the environment and neighboring properties.
Converting the Subject Property from a small, vacant parcel to a large-scale mixed-use commercial operation does not align with existing uses in the area and requires an environmental analysis to proceed. Instead, the Project’s staff report summarily disposes of these areas of concern as outside of staff’s expectations, issues of private concern staff would not contemplate, or even desirable outcomes for visual interest in staff’s opinion.
Further, Mountain View understands that the Applicant has been vocal about wanting to open a bar on the Subject Property. This proposed use is not reflected in the CUP application materials or staff report explaining the Project. Operation of a bar on th e Subject Property would require additional discretionary approvals beyond those contemplated in the instant CUP application, and the failure to analyze that approval at this stage constitutes unlawful piecemealing of environmental review that constitutes another violation of CEQA’s requirements.
Mountain View respectfully requests that the Commission exercise its discretion to deny the CUP application as a result.
B. The Proposed Class 32 Exemption is Defective
According to the Staff Report, the City intends to rely upon a Class 32 exemption from CEQA for infill projects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15332.) To rely on the Class 32 exemption, substantial evidence must support each of the following conditions:
1 CEQA requires analysis of a project’s impacts on “view and other features of beauty.” ( Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 401.) On this topic, “the opinions of area residents, if based on direct observation, may be relevant as to aesthetic impact and may constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument; no special expertise is required on this topic.” ( The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 908, 937 [requiring EIR, rather than Initial Study, in part to address neighbors' concerns regarding aesthetic impacts of project].) 2 CEQA “require[s] a finding that a project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if . . . [t]he possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21083.) A project’s cumulative impacts are significant if the project’s incremental contribution to the impact is “cumulative considerable.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130, subd. (a).) A project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable if the incremental effects of the project are significant “when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).) The fact that a particular project’s incremental impact is not alone significant, or is relatively small when compared to the greater overall problem, does not mean the project does not have significant cumulative impacts. (Kings County Farm Bureau , supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720 -21.) The proper standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is whether the impacts are “collectively significant.” (Id. at 721, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15355.)
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
January 21, 2026
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.)
Substantial evidence does not support those findings, so t he proposed Class 32 exemption is not available for this Project. As a threshold matter, contrary to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines or the City’s zoning ordinance , the Project does not comply with the parking guidelines of the Central Clovis Specific Plan (“ CCSP”), since it is outside the Parking Business Improvement Area, includes a commercial component, and does not comply with the Parking Standards of the C-3 Zoning District.3
Similarly, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the Project would could be “adequately served by all required utilities and public services,” as the City has merely conducted a “preliminary review” of this issue, and has found only tha t existing infrastructure “appears” at first blush to have adequate capacity; there is no evidence that there is actually adequate capacity.
Finally, the staff report and CUP application materials do not provide substantial evidence necessary for the City to determine the Project would not result in significant noise impacts. Both the protracted construction activity anticipated on the site an d the increased intensity of noise caused by the Project’s uses support the opposite conclusion.
Even if facially applicable, categorical exemptions like the proposed Class 32 Categorical E xemption are not absolute. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2.) The Project’s staff report agrees Class 32 exemption s are limited where there are potential cumulative impacts, significant environmental effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste, or historical resources at
3 For this reason, the Project would also violate State Planning and Zoning Law due to the vertical inconsistency with the CCSP.
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Jay Schengel, Finance Director
Subject: Workshop: Finance Department Update.
Recommendation: Receive and File
Finance Director Jay Schengel will give a verbal presentation on this item.
Please direct questions to City Manager’s office at 559-324-2060.
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Date: March 9, 2026
Staff: Jay Schengel, Finance Director
Subject: Receive and File - 2026 Five-Year Financial Forecast for the City of Clovis through Fiscal Year 2030/31 and discuss options for budget preparation for 2026-2027.
Recommendation: Receive and File
Attachments:
1. Five-Year Financial Forecast through 2030/31 ATT 1 - Forecast
Recommendation:
That the City Council receives, provides comment, and files the Five-Year Financial Forecast.
Executive Summary:
The Five-Year Financial Forecast is a valuable management tool prepared and updated annually to provide the City Council and City management with a comprehensive assessment of the City’s long- term financial outlook. The forecast evaluates projected revenues, expenditures, and financial trends based on a reasonable set of economic and operational assumptions. This ongoing analytical process supports informed decision-making by identifying emerging fiscal trends, structural imbalances, and potential risks at an early stage. By proactively addressing these issues, the City can maintain fiscal stability, preserve long-term financial health, and prioritize service investments. This report provides City Council with the opportunity to review the City’s projected financial position over the next five years and to establish policy direction that ensures the sustainable delivery of core municipal services to the community and maintaining the “Clovis Way of Life."
Background:
The Five-Year Financial Forecast is developed to provide a strategic look at the City’s financial condition and identify financial issues confronting the City. The Forecast is a managerial tool to analyze the City’s long-term fiscal health and projected growth based upon a reasonable set of economic and operational assumptions. As such, any change in any one of the assumptions can impact the forecasted projections. The first few years of the forecast have more reliability with the assumptions being realized whereas in the latter years, there is less certainty on what economic conditions can have impact on the fiscal projections. In addition, many financial and regulatory changes by the Federal and State governments requiring new programs and unanticipated expenses
can have a dramatic financial impact to the City’s revenues and expenditures. The Forecast does not project economic or housing downturns which most certainly would paint a different fiscal picture for the City. Staff are committed to staying abreast of local, state, and national economic conditions and policies that may have a fiscal impact on the City’s financial health. The report is presented to initiate discussion that will ultimately result in policy guidelines for the development of the 2026/27 Annual City Budget and the Five-Year Community Investment Program.
The document is presented in several sections that include Introduction, Executive Summary, Analysis of Funds, Narratives, and Exhibits. The exhibits are the financial forecast spreadsheets and assumptions. They show three years of actual financial performance, an estimated financial performance for the current year, and projects financial performance for the next five years. This provides a quick review of the revenues, expenditures, and fund balances for operations of the General Fund as well as operations of the Public Utilities Enterprise Funds, Planning and Development Services, and Transit.
Based on current growth figures, the City of Clovis is expected to reach about 141,000 in population over the next five years. The City pays very close attention to growth in our analysis of the General Fund to estimate revenues and expenditures for the day-to-day operations and servicing of the City’s population including police, fire, parks, recreation, senior services, and street maintenance.
General Fund Status
The Five-Year Financial Forecast’s General Fund shows a historic shift from recent years, where deficits were projected and the City faced certain service cuts. Forecast projections indicated that there would not be sufficient resources to maintain operations or increase staffing to meet the growing demand for services at established levels, even if revenues meet expectations. With the passage of Measure Y on November 5, 2024, this additional local 1¢ sales tax has provided a transformative fiscal impact to the City from our citizens, to ensure that we not only remain financially stable, but provide additional services to meet the community’s growing needs and key priorities.
Measure Y has shifted the General Fund from a “precarious fiscal condition” to a stable path where revenues are growing faster than expenditures over the projected five-year period. Fiscal year 2025/26 is projected to have a $14.3 million surplus largely due to Measure Y. Measure Y is estimated to generate $30.0 - $32.0 million per fiscal year in addition to the City’s Bradley Burns sales tax. As a result of this new revenue source, each forecast year ends with a positive fund balance.
The General Fund has a newfound stability that allows for enhancing Public Safety services and other key priorities. Additional items that were not able to be funded for many years are receiving transfers such as Government Capital Facilities, Fleet and Housing, along with building the Emergency Reserve to 20% of expenditures. This is a significant reversal from what the City was faced with in year’s past when the potential for cutting services was a reality in the near future due to expenditures exceeding revenues. The Forecast provided the strategic analysis to see the financial cliff the City was facing and to reverse course by seeking a local sales tax in the form of Measure Y. General Fund total revenues are projected to exceed the current fiscal year’s working budget by $2.2 million.
This increase is primarily Measure Y, which came in higher than what was budgeted based on projections from the City’s sales tax consultant, HdL. HdL projects Measure Y sales tax for 2025/26 at $30.6 million. HdL also projects Bradley Burns sales tax for 2025/26 to be $29.1 million. They anticipate constrained growth for both Measure Y and Bradley Burns at an average of 2–3% for the projected fiscal years. This is a turnaround from the prior three fiscal years, where the City experienced annual declines averaging 2% each year.
Although sales tax revenues are anticipated to grow, other discretionary revenue is anticipated to decline. A new cardroom agreement effective November 2025, will reduce cardroom fees by approximately $0.3 million. Franchise fees are steadily declining due to an increase in consumer use of streaming services for television entertainment, but this decline was already accounted for in the working budget. Transient Occupancy Taxes are expected to experience the largest decline to discretionary revenues from the working budget by $1.3 million, based on regional analysis from the Visit California website and trend analysis of the City’s historical occupancy data. Business licenses show an unanticipated decline in revenues to date and are projected to close the fiscal year $0.5 million under the working budget. Property taxes are holding steady at a three-year average growth of 6–7%.
General Fund expenditures are projected to exceed the current fiscal year’s council approved budget by approximately $4.7 million. Most of this increase is due to contractual increases with the City’s eight bargaining units. The costs to salary and benefits totaled $3.7 million, along with several other increases in services, materials, and supplies. Pension costs are projected to increase by $5 million over the next five years, requiring careful financial management. With the infusion of resources provided by Measure Y, the City has aggressively restored service levels in Police and Fire with 50 new positions. This reflects the City’s ongoing commitment to Public Safety.
The Forecast shows that the General Fund is on a stable financial path thanks to the citizens of Clovis and the passage of Measure Y. The additional sales tax revenue provides the City with an ability to maintain current operations while allowing for sustainable growth in the services and needs the citizens have outlined as their key priorities. These key priorities are to maintain:
• 9-1-1 emergency medical, police, fire and paramedic response, fire protection, police patrols; • Keep public areas safe and clean;
• Retain local small businesses and jobs;
• Protect local drinking water sources;
• Accelerate repairs to streets and roads;
• Address homelessness;
• Maintain youth, parks and other general services.
With the addition of Measure Y, sales tax has increased from 25% of discretionary revenues to 52%; however, these funding estimates are approximate and subject to change should inflationary pressures continue to make residents’ discretionary spending more restricted, creating major fluctuations in this revenue. The City will continually monitor these funds and make changes to our spending plan, as the need arises.
Enterprise Funds Status
The Water Enterprise Fund forecast shows declining reserves, even with the annual 3% rate increases that have been adopted and included in each year of the forecast. The forecast includes continued contributions to the reserves for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) through 2030/31. It also includes an interfund loan of $7.5 million in 2021/22 from the Trichloropropane (TCP) reserves to General Services to fund the construction of Fire Station 6, with annual loan repayments for ten years that began in 2022/23. This loan will not affect the City’s ability to treat for TCP during the term of the loan. A water rate study conducted in 2025 and finalized in 2026 confirmed that operational and maintenance expenses were increasing faster than revenues, indicating that additional revenues were needed beyond the current 3% rate escalator to compensate
for these costs. Based on the projected revenue shortfall, a water rate increase was proposed to Council, which authorized proceeding with a Proposition 218 majority protest process to adjust rates to cover the costs of operating and maintaining the water system in future years. Council is scheduled to conduct a Public Hearing for a Proposition 218 proceeding in April 2026, at which time it will be determined if rates will be adjusted per staff’s recommendation. If the Proposition 218 election process is successful, staff will recommend that Council waive the 3% escalator for July 1, 2026.
The Sewer Enterprise Fund forecast maintains stable reserves throughout the forecast period. A 3% rate increase is included in each year to keep pace with rising operating, maintenance, and capital costs, and to maintain a sufficient fund balance for future bonding capacity. The interfund loan is shown resuming in 2025/26 of the forecast because it is projected that the collection of development impact fees for Sewer Major Facilities will be insufficient to cover the debt service payments. Due to insufficient funds in the bond charge fund balance collected in prior years, the rebate to customers will be reduced by half to $3.65 per month starting in fiscal year 2026/27. The ability to continue rebating funds back to ratepayers will be monitored closely throughout the forecast period.
The Community Sanitation Fund will experience a small decline in reserves in this forecast due to increased personnel costs, design and construction costs for landfill expansion, fleet renewal charges, and ongoing costs for recycling and organics contracts. A 4% annual increase, or portion thereof, was approved by City Council in November 2004 to be implemented as necessary. A 4% rate increase is projected annually for the forecast period for Refuse. To keep pace with recycling and green waste contract increases, the approved 4% annual increase is also projected for these operations. Additionally, a 4% annual rate increase is projected for street cleaning.
The Transit Fund reflects enough revenue throughout the forecast period to support its operational and capital needs, driven by increased revenues from the Transportation Development Act, which includes Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds allocated based on population, taxable sales, and transit performance. Project-specific funding, including SB1 and various cap-and-trade grants, is used for capital expenses to enhance rider amenities. The State’s Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) will assist in funding a land purchase to build a Transit Operations Center, which will include infrastructure to support zero-emissions mandates.
Transit began receiving federal funding in 2024/25, providing further support for operations. Because funding for Transit is constantly in flux, and the Measure C sales tax is due to expire after 2027, the types and levels of funding will be closely monitored to make any necessary adjustments to current service levels should the need arise. Beginning with the 2017/18 fiscal year, the Transit Fund was required to defer revenue that it had received but not yet spent. Any working capital that is required to be deferred can be seen on the Transit Fund forecast on the line labeled “Deferred Revenue.”
The Planning and Development Services Enterprise Fund forecast maintains stable reserves throughout the forecast period. Reserves are included in case of a slowdown, and prudent funding is maintained to absorb declines in development. The years preceding fiscal year 2021/22 experienced relatively high residential unit counts; however, those numbers declined in 2021/22, and as a result, fiscal years 2022/23 and 2023/24 drew from the fund’s working capital. In fiscal year 2024/25, residential units began to increase again, resulting in a positive net working capital balance for the year. We anticipate this growth will continue this fiscal year at an estimated 700 units, rise next year to 750 units, and continue at that level. Consequently, working capital is expected to increase in the current fiscal year, and the projected years are also expected to maintain a positive net working capital balance. The fund maintains a healthy working capital balance annually through 2030/31.
Fiscal Impact:
The forecast provides an opportunity to review the historical trends for actual results and consider current economic factors for future decisions. It provides guidance for the City to maintain fiscally sustainable operations into the future and initiates discussion that will ultimately result in policy guidelines for the development of the 2026/27 Annual City Budget and the Five-Year Community Investment Program.
Reason for Recommendation:
The financial forecast provides an assessment of the impacts of past budgetary policy and possible future outcomes based on current budget strategies. Enhancing services while maintaining financial sustainability is shown to be critical to the City’s future success. The forecast is a strategic tool to be used for prudent management of the City’s resources.
Actions Following Approval:
The staff will receive comments from the Council to assist with the preparation of the 2026/27 Annual Budget and the Five-Year Community Investment Program.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Five-Year
Financial Forecast
Through Fiscal Year 2030/31
Prepared March 2026
City of Clovis
Attachment 1
CITY OF CLOVIS
Five-Year Financial Forecast
Through Fiscal Year 2030/31
PREPARED BY:
Andrew Haussler, City Manager
Paul Armendariz, Assistant City Manager
Jay Schengel, Finance Director
Susan Evans, Deputy Finance Director
Angela Papazian, Deputy Finance Director
Jose Cortez, Accounting Supervisor
Jose Reynoso, Senior Accountant
Ran Chan, Accountant
Quinn Ringgold, Accountant
Nathaniel Lopez, Accountant
CITY OF CLOVIS
FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Introduction, Executive Summa ry & Analysis of Funds ............. 1-6
II. GENERAL FUND
A. Summary ................................................................................. 7-12
B. Financial Summary Spreadsheet ............................................... 13
C. Revenue Sp readsheets ......................................................... 14-15
D. Expenditure Sp readsheets .................................................... 16-17
III. ENTERPRISE, INTERNAL SERVICE & DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
A. Water Ente rprise.................................................................... 21-23
B. Sewer Ente rprise ................................................................... 25-27
C. Community Sanitati on Enterprise .......................................... 29-31
D. Transit Ente rprise .................................................................. 33-35
E. Planning and Development Services Enterprise ................... 37-39
F. Internal Service & Debt Service ................................................. 40
I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
INTRODUCTION
The Five-Year Financial Forecast through 2030/31 represents a continuing effort to analyze the City’s long-term fiscal condition based upon a reasonable set of economic and operational assumptions. It is an import ant management tool used by both the City Council and senior management to identify fiscal trends and issues which must be addressed to assure continued financial stability. The set of forecasts contained in this report is not a prediction of what will occur. Rather, this forecast is a snapshot in time and an approximate view of what could occur in the future if all the assumptions are realized. As with any foreca st or prediction, the assump tions and projections for the nearer years carry more certainty and confidence than for the years further into the future.
While the forecast has become a valuable management tool to examine the ever- changing fiscal conditions the City is faced with, we have also learned of its limitations.
The first few years of the forecast are a fa irly good indicator of coming events while the later years are subject to less certainty as actual economic conditions become known.
Also, the many financial and regulatory changes by the Federal and State governments, which require new program s and other unanticipated expenses and adjustments can have a dramatic financial impact to the City’s revenues and expenditures. Despite these challenges, staff are committed to providing the best projections for these years based upon what is known at the time in order to reveal trends in both revenue and expenditure growth or decline, while staying abreast of local, state and national economic conditions and policies that may have an impact on the City’s financial health.
The report reviews actual financial performanc e over the past three years, determines estimated financial performance for the current year, and projects financial performance for the next five years. All the forecasts are based upon a specific set of assumptions that are utilized throughout t he report and identified with each forecast. In addition, the report contains a mid-year review for the current fiscal year.
The report is presented to initiate discussion that will ultimately result in policy guidelines for the development of the 2026/27 Annual City Budget and the Five-Year Community Investment Program and budgetary planning for future years. This forecasting tool has proven useful for examining spending policies which have resulted in the City’s ability to live within its means, provide for important programs and adequate service levels for the growing community, and begin to set aside re serve funding for fleet and major capital investment in public facilities.
On November 5, 2024, the voters of Clovis approved Measure Y, a 1¢ sales and use tax to be implemented on April 1, 20 25. The City received $7.2 million in Measure Y sales tax in its first quarter. It is estimated that the measure will provide $30.6 million in revenue to the General Fund in 2025/26 based on the projections provided by the City’s sales tax consultant, with anticipated growth of 2-3% in the projection years. 1
Revenues from the measure are dedicated to the following priorities:
Maintaining 9-1-1 emergency medical, pol ice, fire, and paramedic response, as well as fire protection and police patrols
Keeping public areas safe and clean
Retaining local small businesses and jobs
Protecting local drinking water sources
Accelerating repairs to streets and roads
Addressing homelessness
Maintaining youth programs, parks, and other general services Staff are continuously working on investment plans that will meet these needs, ensuring accountability and transparency are maintained for the citizens and the Measure Y oversight committee, formally established in April 2025. The forecast includes estimated revenues and expenditures to begin the initial investments in meet ing the top funding priorities set out by several community input surveys.
In 1986, Fresno County voters passed Measure C, a half-cent sales tax that improves the overall quality of Fresno County’s transportation system, including the County and all its 15 cities. In November 2006, voters chose to extend Measure C for an additional 20 years through 2027. These funds help finance the des ign and construction of many streets, trails, pedestrian pathways, bicycles, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements throughout the City each year. Additionally, the funds are used to leverage grant funding, including grant match requirements, and sustain the operation of the City’s Transit program.
If the Measure C renewal effort is unsucce ssful, the City will face difficult decisions regarding current and planned pr ojects and services. While this loss of revenue would significantly impact Clovis, it has not been fa ctored into the Forecast for fiscal years 2027/28 and beyond, as there is still time for Fresno County voters to pass an extension or an alternative tax measure.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General Fund
The current Five-Year Financial Forecast is a shift from previous years in the General Fund. Two years ago, forecast projections showed the City would lack the funds required to maintain current operations or increas e staffing to meet the growing demand for services at established levels, even if re venues met expectations. With the passage of Measure Y on November 5, 2024, this additional 1¢ sales tax has provided an enormous opportunity from our citizens to ensure that we not only remain financially stable but also maintain services to meet the community’s needs and key priorities.
The City has been fortunate in recent years to receive grants to assist with staffing Public Safety. The federal grant Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) assisted in funding the hiring of nine additional firefighters in May 2021 for Fire Station 6, ending in March 2024. Another SAFER grant was recently awarded to hire six new 2
firefighters in March 2026, with the grant ending in March 2029. From that point forward, the General Fund will absorb the additional co st of the six firefi ghters—approximately $1.3 million annually. In December 2023, the City partnered with the City of Fresno to apply for the Organized Retail Theft Prevent ion grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). Clovis received approximately $6.0 million for a three- year period to cover five police office rs and one police service officer to address increasing retail theft. The BSCC grant will end in 2026/27, after which the General Fund will incur the additional cost of the six new police positions—approximately $1.5 million annually.
Overall, the Five-Year Foreca st for the General Fund shows that revenues are growing faster than expenditures. This is largely attributable to the Measure Y sales tax implemented on April 1, 2025, which generates an estima ted $30.0 - $32.0 million per fiscal year in addition to the City’s Bradley-Burns sales tax. As a result of this new revenue source, each forecasted year ends with a pos itive fund balance. Ad ditional items that could not be funded in previous years are now receiving transfers, such as Government Capital Facilities, Fleet and Housing, along with building the Emergency Reserve to 20% of expenditures by 2029/30. This is a significant reversal of what the City faced prior to Measure Y, when the potential for cutting services was a reality due to forecasted deficits.
The Budget Hearing process begins with a thorough review of the Departments and their needs to maintain the Clovis Way of Life. The process will continue with additional input hearings to continue to build the investment plan for the City. This is a critical process, as there is only one opportunity to set up the use of Measure Y Funds to reach the previously mentioned goals and ensure fiscal sustainability.
Water Enterprise Fund
The Water Enterprise Fund forecast shows declining reserves, even with the annual 3% rate increases that have been adopted and incl uded in each year of the forecast. The forecast includes continued contributions to the reserves for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) through 2030/31. It al so includes an interfund loan of $7.5 million in 2021/22 from the Trichloropropane (TCP) reserves to General Services to fund the construction of Fire Station 6, with annual loan repayments for ten years that began in 2022/23. This loan will not affect the City’s ability to treat for TCP during the term of the loan. A water rate study conducted in 2025 and finalized in 2026 confirmed that operational and maintenance expenses were increasing faster than revenues, indicating that additional revenues were needed beyond the current 3% rate escalator to compensate for these costs. Based on the pr ojected revenue shortfall, a water rate increase was proposed to Council, which authorized proceeding wit h a Proposition 218 majority protest process to adjust rates to cover the cost s of operating and maintaining the water system in future years. Council is scheduled to conduct a Public Hearing for a Proposition 218 proceeding in April 2026, at whic h time it will be determined if rates will be adjusted per staff’s recommendation. If the Proposition 218 election process is successful, staff will recommend that Council waive the 3% escalator for July 1, 2026. 3
Sewer Enterprise Fund
The Sewer Enterprise Fund forecast maintain s stable reserves throughout the forecast period. A 3% rate increase is included in ea ch year to keep pace with rising operating, maintenance, and capital costs, and to maintain a sufficient fund balance for future bonding capacity. The interfund loan is show n resuming in 2025/26 of the forecast because it is projected that the collection of development impact fees for Sewer Major Facilities will be insufficient to cover the debt service payments. Due to insufficient funds in the bond charge fund balance collected in pr ior years, the rebate to customers will be reduced by half to $3.65 per month starting in fiscal year 2026/27. The ability to continue rebating funds back to rat epayers will be monitored closely throughout the forecast period.
Community Sanitation Fund
The Community Sanitation Fund will experienc e a small decline in reserves in this forecast due to increased personnel costs, design and construction costs for landfill expansion, fleet renewal charges, and ongoing costs for recycling and organics contracts.
A 4% annual increase, or portion thereof, wa s approved by City Council in November 2004 to be implemented as necessary. A 4% ra te increase is projected annually for the forecast period for Refuse. To keep pac e with recycling and green waste contract increases, the approved 4% annual increase is also projected for these operations.
Additionally, a 4% annual rate increase is projected for street cleaning.
Transit Fund
The Transit Fund reflects enough revenue throughout the forecast period to support its operational and capital needs, driven by increased revenues from the Transportation Development Act, which includes Local Tr ansportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds allocated based on population, taxable sales, and transit performance. Project-specific funding, in cluding SB1 and various cap-and-trade grants, is used for capital expenses to enhance rider amenities. The State’s Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) will assist in funding a land purchase to build a Transit Operations Center, which will include infrastructure to support zero-emissions mandates.
Transit began receiving feder al funding in 2024/25, providing further support for operations. Because funding for Transit is constantly in flux, and the Measure C sales tax is due to expire after 2027, the types and leve ls of funding will be closely monitored to make any necessary adjustments to current service levels should the need arise.
Beginning with the 2017/18 fisca l year, the Transit Fund wa s required to defer revenue that it had received but not yet spent. Any work ing capital that is required to be deferred can be seen on the Transit Fund forecast on the line labeled “Deferred Revenue.” Planning and Development Enterprise Fund
The Planning and Development Services Ente rprise Fund forecast maintains stable reserves throughout the forecast period. Rese rves are included in case of a slowdown, and prudent funding is maintained to absorb declines in development. The years preceding fiscal year 2021/22 experienced re latively high residential unit counts; however, those numbers declined in 2021/22 , and as a result, fiscal years 2022/23 and 2023/24 drew from the fund’s work ing capital. In fiscal year 2024/25, residential units 4
began to increase again, resulting in a positiv e net working capital balance for the year.
We anticipate this growth will continue this fiscal year at an estimated 700 units, rise next year to 750 units, and continue at that level. Consequently, working capital is expected to increase in the current fiscal year, and the projected years are also expected to maintain a positive net working capital balance. Th e fund maintains a healthy working capital balance annually through 2030/31.
Other Funds
Internal Service Funds are projected to be self-balancing throughout the forecast period.
Each of the Internal Service Funds is co ntinually monitored, and more cost-effective programs are implemented wherever possible to reduce costs to all other City operations.
Debt Service Funds will be fully funded to make all debt payments and meet all legal obligations.
ANALYSIS OF FUNDS
The purpose of this forecast is to prov ide the City Council and senior management with an early identification of financial trends. With early detec tion, financial trends identified as possible problems can be dealt with in a reasonable manner rather than waiting for a crisis to occur.
The City’s Annual Budget represents a total financing plan for all City operations and must be analyzed by its component par ts to make any meaningful adjustments. Unlike a private holding company, the City cannot remove cash from any one enterprise operation to help support general tax funded operations. Although there is certainly some financial interdependence between the funds, such as inte rnal service fund charges to allocate common costs, each fund represented in the budget must stand alone.
When analyzing City operations, it is appropriat e to look at the budget department by department. However, when reviewing long range fina ncial policies, it is best to look at the fund structure rather than the department structure. The major fund groups reviewed in this forecast are the operating funds of the City, including:
General Fund - This fund includes the functions of general government, including elected officials, administration and finance, public safety, and some field maintenance activities, such as parks, street lighting, and street maintenance.
Enterprise Funds - These funds include operations for water, sewer, solid waste, street cleaning, transit, and planning and development services.
Internal Service Funds - These funds include property and liability insurance, employee benefits, fleet maintenance, and general services.
Debt Service Funds - These funds include all debt servic e activity for which the City is responsible.
5