Clovis City Council
April 13, 2026

April 13, 2026 - 1 - 6:00 PM

Agenda • City Council Meeting

Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 324-2060 www.clovisca.gov

April 13, 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.

April 13, 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 Ashbeck
Roll Call
Presentations/Proclamations

1. Presentation of Proclamation declaring April 2026 as Autism Acceptance Month.

2. Presentation by Police Chief Fleming on the annual Baker to Vegas Race.

3. Presentation by the California Department of Insurance regarding Legislative Action Alert:

AB 1795 (Smoke Damage Recovery Act), AB 1680 (Make It FAIR Act), and SB 876 (Disaster Recovery Reform Act) – Strengthening Prevention, Protection, and Recovery for Californians.

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.

4. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the March 16, 2026 City Council Meeting.

5. Administration — Approval — Award the Request for Proposals and approve the purchase of Cisco Networking Equipment from AMS.NET, LLC, in the amount of $156,504.39.

6. General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans by Revising the City Surveyor Classification in the Planning and Development Services Department with a Salary Range of $10,947 to $13,308 per month and re-assigning the classification from the Clovis Professional Technical Association (CPTA) to the Management Group.

April 13, 2026 - 3 - 6:00 PM

7. General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Amending the City’s FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan by adding one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

8. General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Amending the City’s FY 2026-2027 Position Allocation Plan by deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

9. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for CIP 25-06 Antonio & Ashlan Alley Improvements, for a final contract cost of $135,063.66.

10. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 24-26 Clovis Senior Activity Center Tenant Improvements to Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $1,340,000.00 and Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

11. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 24-27 Peach Avenue Street Improvements to Dave Christian Construction Co, Inc., in the amount of $958,816.95 and Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

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.

12. Consider Approval – Res. 26-_____, GPA2026-002, A Resolution adopting a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from further environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines and approving a text amendment to the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan permitting storage facility uses with an approved conditional use permit for Area 6. Little Angels Day Care, LLC, property owner; Hawkins Companies, LLC, applicant; and Eric Tange, representative.

Staff: Marissa Parker, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approve

13. Consider approval of various actions related to Ordinance Amendment 2026-001 for the Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for residential development projects.

a. Consider Introduction and Adoption — Ord. 26-___, an Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis finding that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, Subdivision (b)(3); and amending the City's Development Code by adding Chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for Residential Development Projects.

b. Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-____, an Ordinance of the City of Council of the City of Clovis finding that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, Subdivision (b)(3); and amending the City's Development Code by adding Chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for Residential Development Projects.

Staff: Claudia Cázares, Housing Program Manager, Chad McCollum, Economic Development, Housing and Communications Director
Recommendation: Adopt and Approve

April 13, 2026 - 4 - 6:00 PM
Administrative Items
Administrative Items are matters on the regular City Council Agenda other than Public Hearings.

14. Provide Direction - Timing of Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements for Entitlements to Maintain Public Safety.

Staff: Thad Avery, City Engineer
Recommendation: Provide Direction

15. Consider Approval — Res. 26-___, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Clovis Confirming Assessment for Costs for Abatement of Nuisance, 2075 Swift Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611, APN No.: 552-200-47S.

Staff: Paul Armendariz, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation: Approve
City Manager Comments
Council Comments
Closed Session
A “closed door” (not public) City Council meeting, allowed by State law, for consideration of pending legal matters and certain matters related to personnel and real estate transactions.

16. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Case Name: In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, U.S. District Court, No. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div.; MDL No. 2804

17. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Case Name: Matthew Maciel v. City of Clovis, et al.; Case No. 25CECG02450 Reconvene into Open Session and Report from Closed Session Adjournment
Future Meetings
Regular City Council Meetings are held at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber. The following are future meeting dates:

Apr. 20, 2026 (Mon.)
May 4, 2026 (Mon.)
May 11, 2026 (Mon.)

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING

March 16, 2026 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber

Meeting called to order by Mayor Mouanoutoua at 6:00
Flag Salute led by Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Pearce

Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Ashbeck, Basgall, Bessinger, Mayor Pro Tem Pearce Mayor Mouanoutoua

PUBLIC COMMENTS – 6:01

Brian Wilson, resident, requested the city formally update and adopt its flag policy through Council resolution and public process.

Bill Scott, resident, offered to work with Brian Wilson to create a clear procedure to resolve the flag policy issue.

CONSENT CALENDAR – 6:04

Dez Martinez spoke regarding consent calendar item 3.

Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved, including the waiver of the reading of the ordinance, with the exception of item 10. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

1. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the March 9, 2026, City Council Meeting.

2. Administration - Adopt - Ord. 26-01, 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. (Vote: 5-0)

3. Administration – Approval – Authorize City Manager, or designee, to commit additional affordable housing funds in the amount of $1,310,988 to the 135 Osmun Senior Apartments project to support the project’s application to the State of California and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.

4. General Services - Approval - Res. 26-28, Approving a Side Letter Agreement with the Clovis Professional and Technical Association (CPTA) Establishing a Unit Structure.

5. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Pre-Award for CIP 26-01 Rubberized Cape Seal 2026; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract on behalf of the City.

6. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for CIP 14-30 Shaw Avenue Widening – Phase 1 from Leonard to McCall Avenues, for a final contract cost of $12,495,196.95.

7. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Waive the normal purchasing process and authorize the City Manager to purchase new cubicle furniture from Core Business Interiors in the amount of $68,777.53.

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

8. Public Utilities - Approval - Res. 26-29, a Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annual Levy of Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.

9. Public Utilities – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 25-12, Big Dry Creek Canal Trail Improvements at Letterman Park, to Ares Eng, LLC, in the Amount of $185,718; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract on Behalf of the City.

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION:

6:09 ITEM 10. Public Utilities Department – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 25-15, Reservoir 4 Tank Liner, to Polytech Industrial, Inc., in the Amount of $817,455; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Contract on Behalf of the City.

The following members of the public spoke on the above item: Matt Hoose representing SoCal Pacific Construction Corporation.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Basgall, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger. Motion carried by 2-3, with Councilmember Ashbeck, Councilmember Bessinger, and Mayor Pro Tem Pearce voting no.

Motion to reject all bids and re-advertise the project by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pearce. Motion withdrawn by Councilmember Ashbeck.

Motion to continue the item and allow the rejected bid additional time for review and bring it back at the next available meeting or a special meeting if needed by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger. Motion carried by 2-3, with Councilmember Basgall, Mayor Pro Tem Pearce and Mayor Mouanoutoua voting no.

Motion to reject all bids and re-advertise the project by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pearce. Motion carried by 3-2, with Councilmember Basgall and Mayor Mouanoutoua voting no.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – 6:35

6:35 ITEM 11 - Consider Approval – Res. 26-30, A resolution approving the annual review and update to the Regional Housing Needs Zoning (RHN) Overlay Zone District, including approval of a map of parcels and associated list reflecting those parcels that qualify for development as a RHN Overlay project.

The following members of the public address Council on the above item: Dez Martinez.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Basgall. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – 6:41

6:41 ITEM 12 - Consider Approval - Res. 26-31, A resolution accepting and authorizing the submission of the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report, including the 2025 Housing

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

Element Annual Progress Report (APR) to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The following members of the public address Council on the above item: Dez Martinez and Steven Trevino.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

8:21 ITEM 13 - Provide Direction – 2026/27 Budget Priorities.

The following members of the public address Council on the above item: Eric Rollins and Neil Mallory.

During the budget presentation, Council provided direction to staff to prioritize increasing reserve levels to at least 25% in the near term, with a longer-term goal of about 35% based on best practices, continue emphasizing public safety staffing and support, invest in recreation and youth programs, maintain facility funding, and explore opportunities to support housing and economic development.

COUNCIL ITEMS – 7:10

7:10 ITEM 14 - Consider Approval — Res. 26-32, Acknowledging the upcoming expiration of Measure C in 2027, Recognizing the City’s Benefit from Measure C Funds since 1986, and Expressing Support for a Citizen-Led Transportation Funding Measure for Fresno County.

The following members of the public address Council on the above item: James Kus, Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voter, Eric Rollins, Steven Trevino, Neil Mallory, Crystal Dumas, Dr.

Jeni-Ann Kren, and Brian Wilson.

Mayor Mouanoutoua noted for the record that three written comments were received in support of the “Better Roads, Safe Streets” measure from Rachel Youdelman, Lawrence Howard, and Evelyn Howard.

Motion for approval for “Better Roads, Safe Streets” Fresno County Transportation Improvement Act Measure by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger. Motion carried by 4-1-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Pearce voting no.

8:41 ITEM 15- Consider Approval - Change of Council Meeting Schedule.

Upon call, there was no public comment.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – 8:42

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL

City Manager Haussler announced the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 2026, and invited the community to attend the Easter luncheon on April 5, 2026, noting that volunteers are needed and encouraging participation.

COUNCIL COMMENTS – 8:43

There was no formal Council direction for staff.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Mouanoutoua adjourned the meeting of the Council to April 13, 2026.

Meeting adjourned: 8:53 p.m.

______________________________ ________________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Administration
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Patrick Linares, Information Technology Manager
Subject: Administration — Approval — Award the Request for Proposals and approve the purchase of Cisco Networking Equipment from AMS.NET, LLC, in the amount of $156,504.39.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: None

Recommendation:

For the City Council to approve the purchase of Cisco Network Equipment and award the Request for Proposal to AMS.NET, LLC for $156,504.39.

Executive Summary:

Included in the 2025-2026 Budget are funds to replace Cisco Network Switches, Access Points and other network devices that run most of the City's networks and telecommunications services. This network equipment has been in operation for several years and has met its life expectancy.

Staff requested proposals and received fourteen (14) responses with AMS.NET, LLC, submitting the lowest-cost, responsible proposal.

Background:

The City's existing network infrastructure consists of routers, switches, and various other components designed to ensure robust resilience and reliable connectivity across all city sites. Each location is supported by access to critical services such as email, internet, telecommunications, interagency connectivity, and management functions. Generally, this network equipment has an anticipated lifespan of six to ten years.

To maintain a stable and reliable network, staff perform yearly assessments to identify devices that meet certain criteria:
• Devices that are no longer supported or have reached their end-of-life • Devices expected to have limited support within 18-24 months

• Devices that can no longer handle current operational demands

Staff select devices for replacement based on which ones most affect operations, choosing new network equipment that will support city services for over six years and accommodate future expansion.

In February 2026, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) through the City's online bidding system to acquire replacement Cisco network equipment. Fourteen (14) proposals were submitted in total. The pricing, which included tax and shipping, was compared among all submissions.

Vendor Name Proposal Total
AMS.NET, LLC $156,504.39
Questivity, Inc. $161,076.38
Axelliant, LLC $163,470.82
Saitech, Inc. $166,829.16
Accel Bi $170,567.32
Blue Source Group $171,966.23
Secure Techies, LLC $171,992.25
New Tech Solutions $172,207.74
Arif International Corp $172,838.89
Cyber World Solutions, LLC $173,147.32
EIDIM Group, Inc. $180,726.20
KNZ Solutions, Inc. $186,102.12
Quantum Byte Global $207,694.94
Wexus Win Works, LLC $231,624.64

Staff is recommending AMS.NET, LLC, because they submitted the lowest-cost and responsible proposal.

Fiscal Impact:

The total cost for the Cisco Networking Equipment is $156,504.39. Funds have been allocated in the Information Technology (IT) Division budget.

Reason for Recommendation:

The current networking switches and access points have met their normal life expectancy and will no longer be supported by the vendor. Staff went out with an RFP for replacement Cisco equipment and AMS.NET, LLC, submitted the lowest-cost, responsible proposal.

Actions Following Approval:

Staff will order the networking equipment; upon receipt, it will be installed and configured to run the City's networks and telecommunications systems and services.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Lori Shively, Deputy General Services Director
Subject: General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans by Revising the City Surveyor Classification in the Planning and Development Services Department with a Salary Range of $10,947 to $13,308 per month and re-assigning the classification from the Clovis Professional Technical Association (CPTA) to the Management Group.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. City Surveyor Classification Revision ATT 1 Res 26-

Recommendation:

For City Council to approve a resolution authorizing amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans by revising the City Surveyor classification in the Planning and Development Services Department with an updated salary range of $10,947 to $13,308 per month and re-assigning the classification from the Clovis Professional Technical Association (CPTA) to the Management Group.

Executive Summary:

Planning and Development Services staff have determined that the City Surveyor classification now has a need to include supervision of assigned staff. Amending the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans to revise the City Surveyor classification to include supervisory duties with a revised salary range of $10,947 to $13,308 per month, along with reassigning the position from the Clovis Professional Technical Association (CPTA) bargaining unit to the Management Group, is deemed appropriate by staff and the City Manager. The proposed changes align the classification’s responsibilities, organizational placement, and compensation with its expanded scope of authority. It is recommended that the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans be amended to add the City Surveyor job description to the Management Group. Council approval is required for changes to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans.

Background:

The City Surveyor classification is currently assigned to the Clovis Professional Technical Association

(CPTA) bargaining unit within the Planning and Development Services Department. Over time, the scope and complexity of work performed by this position have evolved in response to organizational needs and continued City growth.The department has identified a need to formally incorporate supervisory responsibilities into the classification. The updated job description will reflect these expanded duties, including the direct supervision of assigned staff, oversight of professional surveying activities, coordination of project workflows, review of technical work products, and participation in personnel-related functions such as performance evaluations, training, and discipline, as appropriate.

Given the addition of ongoing supervisory responsibilities and the higher level of accountability associated with these duties, staff is recommending that the classification be reassigned to the Management Group. The proposed amendments to the Classification and Compensation Plans will align the position’s organizational placement and compensation structure with its revised scope of responsibility.

The re-assignment of City Surveyor classification to the Management Group has been reviewed and approved by the Clovis Professional and Technical Association (CPTA) bargaining unit.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact of salary and benefits for the remainder of FY 2025-2026 is approximately an additional $6,000. There are adequate funds in the Planning and Development Services Department budget to cover the costs of this position for this fiscal year.

Reason for Recommendation:

The reassignment of the City Surveyor job description from the Clovis Professional Technical Association (CPTA) to the Management group reflects the expanded duties of the City Surveyor job classification in the Planning and Development Services Department. The revised classification and additional compensation require Council approval.

Actions Following Approval:

The City’s Classification Plan will be updated to include the revised classification, and the incumbent would be reclassified to the Management Group.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

RESOLUTION 26-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANS

FOR THE CITY SURVEYOR CLASSIFICATION IN THE PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is necessary to update the City Surveyor classification to support the needs of the Planning and Development Department; and

WHEREAS, amendments to the classifications’ supervisory verbiage are necessary in order to accurately depict the current job requirements; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the appropriate salary range for the City Surveyor classification is $10,947 to $13,308 per month; and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is appropriate to re-assign the City Surveyor classification from the Clovis Professional Technical Association to the Management Group.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Clovis will modify the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans to re-assign the City Surveyor classification (Attachment A) with a monthly salary range of $10,947 to $13,308 per month, from the Clovis Professional Technical Association to the Management Group.

* * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on April 13, 2026, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: April 13, 2026

___________________________ __________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Attachment 1

City of Clovis

CITY SURVEYOR
$10,947 to $13,308 Monthly Salary

DEFINITION
Under supervision general direction, perform difficult and complex land surveying, drafting and mapping services; provide administrative and technical leadership to survey staff; assign and supervise the work of survey staff; and perform related work as required.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS:

The City Surveyor class Reporting to the City Engineer, incumbent performs advanced professional journey-level land surveying and engineering work; provides project planning, and coordination and supervision for of survey staff and paraprofessionals; and provides technical staff training. Incumbents performs work which has some variation and allows or requires a moderate range of choice in the application of defined methods or procedures. Incumbents receives minimal instructions when tasks are assigned and have some latitude in selecting work methods. Work is generally reviewed upon completion and incumbents are expected to refer to their supervisor for instruction on matters that do not fit a clear pattern.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:

Prepare maps, legal descriptions, field surveys, construction surveying, engineering plans and specifications for a variety of projects; review project plans and inspect construction sites to determine the scope and complexity of required survey work; coordinate and supervise the work of survey crews to ensure schedules are met; review parcel maps, tentative and final maps, lot line adjustment/lot mergers, certificates of correction, acquisitions, dedication of easements, rights-of-way and parcels; resolve difficult survey issues; certify final subdivision maps and related documents; sign and seal all documents in accordance with state law; statistically analyze data, prepare exhibits and write reports; compose agreements and staff reports; communicate with the public at the counter and over the telephone; consult with contractors, developers, engineering consultants and the public on public works standards, fees, civil engineering design problems and other related items; review, investigate and make recommendations regarding complaints from citizens; calculate project cost estimates, curb, gutter and street grades and traverses; copy, file and update maps and plans; check plans; check bids and billings for accuracy; participate fully in the work of the engineering staff; train and assign the work of subordinate staff on engineering projects; instruct assigned staff in work methods; check and correct work in progress and upon completion; check, establish and maintain a system of horizontal and vertical control monumentation; operate City vehicles; operate a personal computer; and perform related work as required.

Attachment A

TYPICAL QUALIFICATIONS:

LICENSE REQUIRED
• Possession of a valid California Driver's License and a good driving record; • Possession of a valid Land Surveyor license issued by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists.

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Education:
• Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor's Degree in Geodetic Engineering, Civil Engineering or a closely related field.

Experience:
• A minimum of fFive (5) years of progressive responsible work experience in land surveying such as roads, construction surveying, rights-of-way and preparing legal descriptions; a minimum of 2 (two) years in a supervisory capacity.

QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
• Professional Surveyor Act and the Subdivision Map Act; • Principles and practices of land surveying including boundary establishment and property description;
• Principles and practices of land surveying as applied to the design and construction of public works facilities, technical inspection services, design review and other areas;
• Principles of subdivision design and standards;
• Pertinent laws and regulatory codes dealing with development, construction, surveying and real estate;
• Applicable principles and practices of engineering as related to survey work; • Prepare and review preliminary studies, final maps and plans, detailed calculations, cost estimates and specifications;
• Operation and use of mapping equipment relating to land and photogrammetric surveying;
• Construction plans, specifications, parcel maps, subdivision maps and construction drawings;
• General operation of automated equipment and standard application software related to surveying functions;
• Principles of algebra, geometry and trigonometry as applied to technical engineering and surveying calculations;
• Engineer maps and records;
• Proper inspection methods and procedures;
• Record keeping and survey data collection methods;
• Techniques and general principles of training and lead supervision; • Appropriate safety precautions and procedures.

Ability to:
• Organize, implement and direct survey related operations and activities; • Perform a wide scope of professional surveying work in the preparation of maps, plans, designs and specification for public works and City facility development, construction and maintenance;
• Prepare and review preliminary studies, final maps and plans, detailed calculations, cost estimates and specifications;
• Understand and interpret legal descriptions, record survey maps and engineering plans, diagram and notes;
• Gather, organize, analyze and present a variety of technical engineering, land surveying and statistical data;
• Perform construction project administration, ensuring compliance with plans, specifications and contracts;
• Use and care of surveying instruments and equipment;
• Prepare and maintain accurate survey records;
• Establish and maintain effective relationships with those contacted in the course of work;
• Prepare accurate and concise reports;
• Utilize Computer Assisted Drafting (CAD) software;
• Communicate clearly orally and in writing;
• Read, understand and apply moderately difficult materials; • Understand and carry out oral and written instructions; • Operate a vehicle observing legal and defensive driving practices; • Operate a personal computer accurately and efficiently.; • Plan, schedule, and make work assignments for subordinates; • Supervise the work of others.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
• Strength: Ability to perform moderately heavy work with frequent lifting, carrying and/or pushing of objects weighing twenty-five (25) pounds and occasionally objects weighing up to fifty (50) pounds;
• Environment: Perform job functions in an office or outdoor site and may be required to work in all weather conditions;
• Other: May be Is required to attend occasional evening meetings; • Incumbent is required to travel within and out of the City to attend meetings.

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: April 13, 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 Systems Specialist position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. PDS Position Allocation Amendment ATT 1 Res 26-

Recommendation:

For Council to approve a Resolution amending the City’s FY 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan adding one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

Executive Summary:

Currently, the Planning and Development Services Department is authorized for one (1) Geographic Information Systems Technician position and fifty-five percent (0.55) of a Geographic Information Systems Analyst position. It is recommended that the City’s Position Allocation Plan be amended to include one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist position. This position was not included during the regular budget process.

Background:

The Planning and Development Services Department has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of its current workload and operational needs and has determined that the addition of one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist position would significantly enhance the Department’s ability to effectively support both existing and anticipated demands. This position will provide critical technical expertise and improve overall efficiency in delivering Geographic Information Systems services across multiple functional areas. Furthermore, this assessment considered the Department’s long-term operational requirements and the increasing reliance on Geographic Information Systems to support planning, engineering, and development activities. In light of the sustained growth in demand for these services, the Geographic Information Systems Specialist classification is deemed the most appropriate to ensure continued responsiveness, accuracy, and efficiency in service

delivery.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact of salary and benefits for the remainder for FY 2025-2026 would be approximately $8,800. There are adequate funds in the Planning and Development Services Department budget to cover the costs of the position.

Reason for Recommendation:

By adding one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist position this will provide the support needed within the Department. The change must be reflected in the authorized FY 2025-2026 Planning and Development Services Department position allocation. Modification of the Position Allocation Plan requires Council Approval.

Actions Following Approval:

The position allocation for the Planning and Development Services Department will be modified as noted in Attachment A of Attachment 1. The position vacancy will be filled through a recruitment.

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 in the Planning and Development Services Department was approved as part of the FY 2025-2026 City Budget adoption process; and

WHEREAS, a review of the staffing needs for the Planning and Development Services Department indicates that adding one (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist Position is needed in order to provide the necessary support for the Planning and Development Services Department; 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 April 13, 2026, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: April 13, 2026

___________________________ __________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Attachment A

POSITION ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT BY DEPARTMENT FY 2025-2026

DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF POSITIONS

Planning and Development Services Department

Add: Geographic Information Systems Specialist 1.0

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Lori Shively, Deputy General Services Director
Subject: General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Amending the City’s FY 2026- 2027 Position Allocation Plan by deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. Position Allocation Amendment ATT 1 Res. 26-____

Recommendation:

For Council to approve a Resolution amending the City’s FY 2026-2027 Position Allocation Plan by deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position within the Planning and Development Services Department.

Executive Summary:

Currently, the Engineering Division within the Planning and Development Services Department is authorized one (1) Construction Manager position. It is recommended that the City’s Position Allocation Plan be amended to convert this position to one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position.

Background:

The Planning and Development Services Department has evaluated its work assignments and operational needs. Based on this assessment, the Department has determined that deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position will more efficiently support the current needs of the Engineering Division. With the resignation of the current Construction Manager and an existing shortage of staff within the Construction Management team, the Department believes it is prudent to fill the management role as soon as possible to ensure stability. After evaluating all available options, the Department has concluded that modifying the Construction Manager position to a Supervising Civil Engineer position provides the greatest opportunity for success.

This modification aligns Construction Management with the Capital Improvement Projects, Development Review Unit, and Traffic sections, each of which is overseen by a professional Civil

Engineer. This approach creates a more consistent management structure across the Engineering Division. The proposed position allocation change requires an amendment to the City’s Position Allocation Plan, which is subject to Council approval.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact of salary and benefits for this conversion would be an increase of approximately $2,200. There are adequate funds in the Planning and Development Services Department budget to cover the costs of the position.

Reason for Recommendation:

By deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position this will provide more efficient administrative and technical support. The change must be reflected in the authorized FY 2026-2027 Planning and Development Services Department position allocation. Modification of the Position Allocation Plan requires Council Approval.

Actions Following Approval:

The position allocation for the Planning and Development Services Department will be modified as noted in Attachment A of Attachment 1. The position vacancy will be filled through a current eligibility list.

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 2026-2027 POSITION ALLOCATION PLAN

WHEREAS, the FY 2026-2027 Position Allocation Plan in the Planning and Development Services Department was approved as part of the FY 2026-2027 City budget adoption process; and

WHEREAS, a review of the staffing needs of the City indicates that deleting one (1) Construction Manager position and adding one (1) Supervising Civil Engineer position is necessary in order to provide more efficient support within the Planning and Development Services Department; and

WHEREAS, amending the City’s adopted FY 2026-2027 Position Allocation Plan requires City Council authorization.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis amends the City’s FY 2026-2027 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 April 13, 2026, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: April 13, 2026

___________________________ __________________________ Mayor City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A

POSITION ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT BY DEPARTMENT FY 2026-2027

DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF POSITIONS

Planning and Development Services Department

Add: Supervising Civil Engineer 1.0

Delete: Construction Manager 1.0

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Thad Avery, City Engineer
Subject: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for CIP 25- 06 Antonio & Ashlan Alley Improvements, for a final contract cost of $135,063.66.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. CIP 25-06 Final Acceptance ATT 1 Vicinity Map

Recommendation:

For the City Council to accept the work performed as complete and authorize the recording of the notice of completion for this project.

Executive Summary:

This project involved ±0.20 miles of alley improvements. Improvements included clearing & grubbing, grinding existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement and replacing with new 2" AC section, installation of concrete drive approaches, AC speed humps & traffic striping and signage.

Background:

Bids were received on December 16, 2025, and the project was awarded by the City Council to the lowest responsible bidder, Asphalt Design by Juan Gomez, on January 5, 2026. The project was completed in accordance with the construction documents and the contractor has submitted a request for acceptance of the project.

Fiscal Impact:

Award $126,100.00
Cost increases/decreases resulting from
differences between estimated quantities used for
award and actual quantities installed.
$7,149.66
Contract Change Orders $1,814.00
Liquidated Damages Assessed $0.00
Final Contract Cost $135,063.66

This project was approved in the Community Investment Program 2025-2026 fiscal year budget and is funded by Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) program.

Reason for Recommendation:

The Public Utilities Department, the City Engineer, the Engineering Inspector and the Project Engineer agree that the work performed by the contractor is in accordance with the project plans and specifications and has been deemed acceptable. The contractor, Asphalt Design by Juan Gomez, has requested final acceptance from the City Council.

Actions Following Approval:

1. The Notice of Completion will be recorded; and

2. All remaining retention funds will be released no later than 35 calendar days following recordation of the notice of completion, provided no liens have been filed. Retention funds may be released within 60 days after the date of completion, provided no liens have been filed, with “completion” defined as the earlier of either (a) beneficial use and occupancy and cessation of labor, or (b) acceptance by the City Council per Public Contract Code Section 7107(c)(2).

Conflict of Interest:

None.

0 1 20.5
Miles
International
Shaw
Gettysburg
Copper
Dakota
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
T eague
Nees
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Ashlan
DockeryThompsonHighlandLeonardDeWolfLocanT emperanceArmstrongFowlerSunnysideClovisMinnewawaPeachWillow Shields
Alluvial
Herndon
McCall

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Nathaniel Stava
Print Date: February 27, 2024
CIP 25-06 Antonio & Ashlan Alley Improvements

PROJECT LOCATION
Attachment 1

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Thad Avery, City Engineer
Subject: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 24-26 Clovis Senior Activity Center Tenant Improvements to Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $1,340,000.00 and Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. CIP 24-26 Bid Award ATT 1 Vicinity Map

Recommendation:

1. For the City Council to award a contract for CIP 24-26 Clovis Senior Activity Center Tenant Improvements to Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $1,340,000.00; and

2. For the City Council to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Executive Summary:

Staff is recommending that City Council award the contract to Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc., who was the lowest responsible bidder from the bid opening that took place on March 17, 2026, and authorize the City Manager to execute the project contract on behalf of the City.

The project involves furnishing all labor, materials, services and equipment, and performing all work necessary as specified for, but not limited to, tenant improvements on the Northwest Area of the Clovis Senior Activity Center building, which was originally not finished for use.

Background:

The following is a summary of the bids received on March 17, 2026:

BIDDERS BASE BID
Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc. $1,340,000.00 Ardent General, Inc. $1,388,000.00
BMY Construction Group, Inc. $1,419,000.00

Rakkar Development & Construction $1,480,000.00
AMG & Associates, Inc. $1,564,000.00
Go JRM Construction, Inc. $1,646,532.00
Katch General $1,680,213.00
Pure Diamond Construction $1,795,000.00
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $1,848,000.00

All bids were examined, and the bidder’s submittals were found to be in order. Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. Staff has validated the lowest bidder contractor’s license status and bid bond.

Fiscal Impact:

This project was budgeted in the 2025-2026 Community Investment Program. The project is supported by General Government Services Funds through the City Community Investment Program.

Reason for Recommendation:

Fortune-Ratliff General Contractors, Inc., is the lowest responsible bidder. There are sufficient funds available for the anticipated cost of this project.

Actions Following Approval:

1. The contract will be prepared and executed, subject to the Contractor providing performance security that is satisfactory to the City.

2. Construction will begin approximately two (2) weeks after the contract execution and be completed in Two Hundred Forty (240) working days thereafter.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

0 1 20.5
Miles
International
Shaw
Gettysburg
Copper
Dakota
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
T eague
Nees
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Ashlan
DockeryThompsonHighlandLeonardDeWolfLocanT emperanceArmstrongFowlerSunnysideClovisMinnewawaPeachWillow Shields
Alluvial
Herndon
McCall

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Benjamin Little
Print Date: March 19, 2026
CIP 24-26 Clovis Senior Activity Center Tenant Improvements

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment 1

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Thad Avery, City Engineer
Subject: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Bid Award for CIP 24-27 Peach Avenue Street Improvements to Dave Christian Construction Co, Inc., in the amount of $958,816.95 and Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. CIP 24-27 Bid Award ATT 1 Vicinity Map

Recommendation:

1. For the City Council to award a contract for CIP 24-27 Peach Avenue Street Improvements to Dave Christian Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $958,816.95; and

2. For the City Council to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Executive Summary:

Staff is recommending that City Council award the contract to Dave Christian Construction Co., Inc. who was the lowest responsible bidder from a bid opening that took place on March 31, 2026, and authorize the City Manager to execute the project contract on behalf of the City.

The project involves ±0.50-mile of street rehabilitation on Peach Avenue from Ashlan Avenue to Gettysburg Avenue. Project improvements include removing and replacing existing asphalt concrete pavement; reconstructing concrete curb ramps, concrete curb and gutter, and concrete sidewalk; adjustment of existing utility manholes and utility valve boxes to finish grades; replacement of traffic striping, markings and signage, and traffic loop detectors.

Background:

The following is a summary of the bids received on March 31, 2026:

Bidders Base Bid
Dave Christian Construction Co, Inc. $ 958,816.95
Juarez Brothers General Engineering, Inc. $ 977,689.17

Terra West Construction, Inc. $ 985,433.64
Cal Valley Construction, Inc. $ 1,069,600.00
Walsh Montgomery Construction, Inc. $ 1,095,768.35 Avison Construction, Inc. $ 1,103,312.00
Asphalt Design by Juan Gomez $ 1,130,000.00

Engineer's Estimate $ 1,041,774.00

All bids were examined, and the bidder’s submittals were found to be in order, except for a few arithmetic and clerical errors that did not affect the order of the bid results. Dave Christian Construction Co, Inc., is the lowest responsible bidder. Staff has validated the lowest bidder contractor’s license status and bid bond.

Fiscal Impact:

This project was approved in the Community Investment Program 2025-2026 fiscal year budget and is funded by SB1 funding through the City Community Investment Program.

Reason for Recommendation:

Dave Christian Construction Co, Inc., is the lowest responsible bidder. There are sufficient funds available for the anticipated cost of this project.

Actions Following Approval:

1. The contract will be prepared and executed, subject to the Contractor providing performance security that is satisfactory to the City.

2. Construction will begin approximately two (2) weeks after the contract execution and be completed in twenty-five (25) working days thereafter.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

0 1 20.5
Miles
International
Shaw
Gettysburg
Copper
Dakota
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
T eague
Nees
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Ashlan
DockeryThompsonHighlandLeonardDeWolfLocanT emperanceArmstrongFowlerSunnysideClovisMinnewawaPeachWillow Shields
Alluvial
Herndon
McCall

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Project Location
Attachment 1

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Marissa Parker, Associate Planner
Subject: Consider Approval – Res. 26-_____, GPA2026-002, A Resolution adopting a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from further environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines and approving a text amendment to the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan permitting storage facility uses with an approved conditional use permit for Area 6. Little Angels Day Care, LLC, property owner; Hawkins Companies, LLC, applicant; and Eric Tange, representative.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments:

1. GPA2026-002 (Self Storage) ATT 1 Res. 26-____ GPA

2. GPA2026-002 (Self Storage) ATT 2 Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations

3. GPA2026-002 (Self Storage) ATT 3 Justification Letter

4. GPA2026-002 (Self Storage) ATT 4 Correspondence

5. GPA2026-002 (Self Storage) ATT 5 Opposition Letter - April 3, 2026

Recommendation:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve GPA2026-002 and adopt a finding that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332.

Executive Summary:

Hawkins Companies, LLC (“Applicant”), is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2026-002, approving a text amendment to the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to allow storage facilities with an approved conditional use permit (CUP) in Area 6 as shown in Figure 1 below, located north of Shaw Avenue, west of Laverne Avenue.

On March 26, 2026, the Planning Commission approved PC Resolution 26-07, recommending the Council adopt the proposed CEQA exemption and approve GPA2026-002. The Planning Commission also approved CUP2026-001, allowing a storage facility on the Project site as shown below in Figure 1. However, the CUP approval is contingent upon Council’s approval of GPA2026- 002. Approval of this request would allow the Applicant to proceed with a site plan review (SPR).

Although the SPR process is reviewed administratively at the staff level, a conceptual site plan and

building elevations are provided in Attachment 2 for informational purposes.

Background:
• General Plan Designation: O (Office)
• Specific Plan Designation: Shaw Avenue Specific Plan • Existing Zoning: C-P (Administrative and Professional Office) • Parcel Size: 4.45-acres
• Project Size: ±2.45 acres
• Current Land Use: Vacant
• Adjacent Land Uses:
o North: Single-Family Residential o South: Commercial Center
o East: Basin
o West: Commercial / Office The Specific Plan was adopted in 1978, with subsequent updates adopted in 1994, 1999, and 2020.

The intent of the plan is to provide a well-designed boulevard and to prevent Shaw Avenue from

being developed as a continuation of the lineal commercial pattern which had become prevalent west of Clovis Avenue. To ensure that a pattern of lineal commercial development was prevented, commercial uses in this area were generally limited to development at a specific commercial center, along with the prohibition of other typical commercial uses such as drive-throughs and retail. Each of the nine (9) planning areas has specific land uses with the goal of achieving a superior experience along the Shaw Avenue corridor. The boundary of the Specific Plan is shown below in Figure 2.

The Project is located within Area 6, which consists of approximately 22 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Shaw and Fowler Avenues. Currently, the primary use allowed in Area 6 is office and the secondary use is 25% residential. With the addition of storage facility uses, the requirement of a CUP would allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to determine if the proposed use is appropriate for a particular site and to condition such uses as appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area including safe circulation, and adequate separation from neighboring residential uses. In this instance, the Planning Commission has already considered and approved CUP2026-001, contingent upon Council’s approval of GPA2026-002. If the Specific Plan amendment is approved, the Project would be subject to the storage facility standards per Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) section 9.40.121, for mini-storage facilities and project specific conditions of approval.

As the market demands change, it is appropriate to consider allowing land uses that reflect the current demand. For example, in 2018, the City Council approved GPA2018-14, which modified a portion of land within Area 6, located at the corner of Fowler and Shaw Avenues, to a commercial designation to allow development of a car wash facility. Additionally, in 2020, the City Council approved GPA2020-004, a text amendment to the Specific Plan, which allows drive-through uses with an approved CUP within its boundary. Therefore, this request to modify the allowed uses within Area 6 of the Specific Plan is consistent with previous actions taken by Council.

PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting approval of GPA2026-002 to amend the language in the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan to allow storage facilities in Area 6 with an approved CUP. Approval of GPA2026-002 will facilitate the operation of a ±113,576 square foot storage facility with associated site

improvements on ±2.45 acres located north of Shaw Avenue between Fowler and Laverne Avenues.

General Plan Amendment 2026-002
In addition to being within the Specific Plan, the subject property is zoned C-P (Administrative and Professional Office). Per section 9.12.020 of the CMC, storage facilities are allowed with an approved CUP in the C-P Zone District. Although the property is zoned C-P, the Specific Plan limits the permitted uses within Area 6 to office, residential, banks and restaurants. Storage facilities are not considered office type uses and therefore do not meet the intent of the Specific Plan for Area 6.

Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting this GPA to modify the Specific Plan to allow for storage facilities on this site. The text amendment proposed will be specific to this site.

Since the adoption of the Specific Plan, the subject property has remained undeveloped. This is likely caused by the development limitations imposed by the Specific Plan and a lack of market demand for office uses. The proposed storage facility has been evaluated to ensure it will fit on the site and complement the surrounding uses. Storage facilities are allowed with approval of a CUP in all zone districts throughout the City. Approving this request would therefore not introduce a new or unusual use. Storage facilities are also commonly located near residential areas because they typically generate low traffic and limited daily activity. Additionally, the storage use is compatible with the existing commercial developments within its vicinity and will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the nearby commercial and residential uses. To the west, a variety of office uses; Bank of the Sierra and a Ride & Shine Car Wash may be found. The Mountain View Commercial Center is located just south of Shaw Avenue, with major stores such as Walmart Neighborhood Market, Chase Bank, and American Tire Depot. Therefore, the storage facility use would not be out of character and would fit within the surrounding environment.

Findings for General Plan Amendments
The process for amending a Specific Plan is consistent with the process for a GPA. (CMC §

9.86.010, subd. (A).) The findings necessary to approve a GPA application pursuant to CMC section

9.86.060, and staff’s response to each of those findings are listed below.

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

This amendment to the Specific Plan does not modify the City’s General Plan and therefore does not impact the General Plan. Although the request will modify the allowed uses within Area 6 of the Specific Plan to allow storage facilities, as described in the section above, the existing land use remains consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed text amendment is consistent with several goals and policies of the General Plan, including the development of a mix of different land uses to support a fiscally balanced City.

Additionally, the Project was reviewed to ensure consistency with 2014 Clovis General Plan Goals and Policies. Further analysis is provided below; however, it has been determined that the amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The proposed text amendment was determined not to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and convenience, or general welfare of the City. As mentioned above, storage facilities are allowed throughout the City, in all zone districts, with an approved CUP. The use

would typically require a CUP and SPR if it were not located in the Specific Plan area. This Project is not out of the ordinary as it relates to the use and specific requirements and no concerns were expressed by the Department of Public Health, Police, or Fire. Additionally, the Planning Commission has approved CUP2026-001 for the storage facility on the site.

3. If applicable, the parcel is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested/anticipated project.

The Project has been reviewed twice, once preliminarily through the Development Review Committee, and again through the formal routing and review of the Project, which confirmed that there are adequate provisions in place to serve the property that would not be detrimental to public health or safety. Attachment 2 presents a conceptual depiction of the proposed development, which has been considered and approved with the Planning Commission through CUP2026-001. Further evaluation will occur through the SPR process to ensure compliance with all development standards. While minor adjustments to the site plan and elevations may be necessary during this review, they are not anticipated to impede the developability of the site itself.

4. There is a compelling reason for the amendment.

This amendment to the Specific Plan does not modify the City’s General Plan and therefore does not impact the General Plan. Since the adoption of the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan, the subject property as well as other parcels within this area remain undeveloped. As mentioned above, as the market demands change, it is appropriate to consider amending the land uses to evolve with such demands. The proposed Project is consistent with existing surrounding commercial properties and the C-P Zone District. The Project fits in character with the existing commercial developments within its vicinity.

CUP2026-001
In addition to GPA2026-002, the Applicant concurrently applied for CUP2026-001. As shown below in Figure 3, CUP2026-001 is a request for the operation of a ±113,576 square foot storage facility with associated site improvements on ±2.45 acres of a larger ±4.45-acre parcel. The site is undeveloped, but is located near a variety of commercial and office uses to the west and south, and single-family residences to the north. The CUP process enabled the Planning Commission to make findings that the proposed development is in compliance with the intent and purpose of CMC section

9.64.050. Further information regarding the Planning Commission’s decision is provided below.

The proposed storage facility will include a two-story, climate-controlled facility including a sales office, interior-access units, and exterior-access/drive-up units. The drive-up units and loading area will be secured behind wrought iron gates and accessible through the northern driveway from Laverne Avenue. These units are facing away from the public right-of way and screened from view with landscaping. Section 9.40.121 of the CMC provides specific standards for storage facilities; therefore, the conditions of approval reflect adherence to CMC section 9.40.121 to ensure operations are consistent with City standards. The Planning Commission approved additional conditions of approval as part of CUP2026-001. The CUP included specific conditions, including increased setback and a landscaping screening buffer to soften the transition between the storage facility and the residential properties to the north. If GPA2026-002 is approved, site features will be evaluated thoroughly to ensure all requirements are met through the SPR process.

Planning Commission
The Planning Commission considered GPA2026-002 and CUP2026-001 at its regular meeting on March 26, 2026. No public testimony was offered regarding the Project. After considering the Project, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of GPA2026-002 and conditionally approving CUP2026-001 with a 5-0 vote. CUP2026-001 was approved with a condition that the CUP shall only be effective following the City Council’s approval of GPA2026-002, adopting an exemption from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and approving a text amendment to the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan to allow storage facilities in Area 6 to allow for storage facilities as a permitted use.

Review and Comments by 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, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

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
A public notice was mailed to property owners within 800 feet of the Project site boundary. Prior to the finalization of the staff report, one response has been received regarding the Project (Attachment 5). The letter addresses concerns regarding privacy, a potential increase in traffic congestion, lighting, and noise. Staff analyzed each of these areas through the CUP process and included specific conditions from various City departments and outside agencies to ensure that the construction and operation of the facility is compliant with the CMC and all applicable requirements of outside agencies. The Fresno County Department of Public Health, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District provided conditions (Attachment 4) that the Project must comply with. Additionally, further evaluation will occur during the SPR process to ensure the Project meets all required development standards and conditions.

California Environmental Quality Act
The City has determined that this Project is exempt from CEQA 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’s review of the Project, the Project meets the parameters for a Class 32 categorical exemption. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15332.)

As noted above, the Project site is ±4.45 acres in total, with only 2.45 acres being used for the Project. Further, the Project site is located on Shaw and Laverne Avenues, which is within the Clovis city limits and is surrounded by other urban uses. The Project site poses no value as habitat for endangered or threatened species. Lastly, 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 CEQA Guidelines 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. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption has been prepared, and Staff will file the notice with the County Clerk if the Project is approved.

Consistency with 2014 Clovis General Plan Goals and Policies Staff has evaluated the Project in light of the General Plan Land Use goals and policies. The following goals and policies reflect Clovis' desire to maintain Clovis’ tradition of responsible planning and well-managed growth to preserve the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and ensure the development and redevelopment in a responsible manner. The goals and policies seek to encourage and foster economic opportunities that support jobs for the area.

Land Use Element

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

Policy 5.5 Jobs for residents. Encourage development that provides job opportunities in industries and occupations currently underserved in Clovis.

Economic Development Element

Goal 5: A mix of land uses and types of development sufficient to support a fiscally balanced city able to invest in and pay for maintaining and improving public facilities and services and enhancing the quality of life.

Policy 5.1 Decision-making. Incorporate the full short-term and long-term economic and fiscal implications of proposed actions into decision-making.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Reason for Recommendation:

The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the CMC. Based on the findings above, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving GPA2026-002 and adopt a finding that the Project is exempt from further environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines.

Actions Following Approval:

If approved, the project will continue with the SPR process.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-_____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS ADOPTING A CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CEQA GUIDELINES AND APPROVING GPA2026-002, A GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT ALLOWING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SHAW AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN

PERMITTING A STORAGE FACILITY USE WITH AN APPROVED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN AREA 6

WHEREAS, Angeline Ji Ling of Hawkins Companies LLC, (“Applicant”), 855 West Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho, applied for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2026-002 to allow a text amendment to the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan permitting storage facility uses with an approved conditional use permit in Area 6 (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2026, the Planning Commission considered and adopted Resolution 26-07, recommending approval of GPA2026-002; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also considered and adopted Resolution 26-07, approving a conditional use permit for the Project contingent upon the City Council’s approval of GPA2026-002; and

WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing in The Business Journal on Friday, March 6, 2026, mailed public notices to property owners within 800 feet of the Project site more than ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the public hearing according to applicable law; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on April 13, 2026; and at which time the City Council considered GPA2026-002; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record, which determined the Project meets the requirements of a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, and would not trigger any of the exceptions listed under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2; 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, which are incorporated herein by this reference (“Administrative Record”).

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

1. The City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 and hereby adopts a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical Exemption.

2. The Project satisfies the required findings for approval of a general plan amendment, pursuant to Clovis Municipal Code section 9.86.060, as follows:

a. GPA2026-002 is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

b. GPA2026-002 would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

c. The Property is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the development of the Project.

d. There is a compelling reason for the amendment, namely, the site has several development limitations, including lot size limitations under the current zoning designation, limited access and dedication obligations for the parcel.

3. The bases for the findings are detailed in the April 13, 2026, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing.

* * * * * *

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on April 13, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED: April 13, 2026

______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

10x3010x20
10x25
10x3010x3010x3010x3010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2010x2510x2510x2510x2510x2510x2510x25 10x25
10x2510x2510x2510x2510x2510x2510x25
10x3010x3010x30
WVWM
R
ONE-CALL SYSTEM SEVEN(7) DAYS PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION
Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 R
ONE-CALL SYSTEM SEVEN(7) DAYS PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION
Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 Attachment 2

R
ONE-CALL SYSTEM SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION
GallowayUS.com
575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93720 559.721.5030 Init. Issue / Description Date #PROJECT TITLE: HAWKINS COMPANIES - CLOVIS STORAGE SHAW AVENUE & LAVERNE AVENUE, CLOVIS, CA 93611

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNER DEPARTMENT
SHEET DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT NO.

SPR 2025-XXX
SHEET NO.

DRAWN BY: MRM
CHECKED BY:MMK
DATE: 10/03/25

CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVALS REVISIONS
-
-
-
-
---
UP
2P02
1P02
24 24
23 23
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
CC
EE
FF
GG
HH
II
JJ
KK
LL
MM
NN
OO
PP
QQ
RR
SS
TT
UU
VV
WW
XX
BB
DD
YY
1P03
2P03
25 25
AA
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
5' - 0"
10x30 10x20
10x25
10x30 10x30 10x30 10x30 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x20 10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25
10x25

PRIMARY LOBBY

SECONDARY LOBBY
OFFICE

BREAKROOM

PS STORAGE
5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
ELEC
F.R.

PATH OF TRAVEL 333' -1"

INDOOR LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE
6' - 0"
9' - 1"
10x25
10x30 10x30 10x30
5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
ELEV. MACH RM
ELEV. MACH RM
PATH OF TRAVEL 208' -10"
PATH OF TRAVEL 183' -5"
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1
10/29/2025

R
ONE-CALL SYSTEM SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION
GallowayUS.com
575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93720 559.721.5030 Init. Issue / Description Date #PROJECT TITLE: HAWKINS COMPANIES - CLOVIS STORAGE SHAW AVENUE & LAVERNE AVENUE, CLOVIS, CA 93611

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNER DEPARTMENT
SHEET DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT NO.

SPR 2025-XXX
SHEET NO.

DRAWN BY: MRM
CHECKED BY:MMK
DATE: 10/03/25

CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVALS REVISIONS
-
-
-
-
---
UP
2P02
1P02
24 24
23 23
22 22
21 21
20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 15
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
CC
EE
FF
GG
HH
II
JJ
KK
LL
MM
NN
OO
PP
QQ
RR
SS
TT
UU
VV
WW
XX
BB
DD
YY
1P03
2P03
25 25
AA
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0"
5' - 0" 5' - 0" 5' - 0"
PATH OF TRAVEL 261' -8"
PATH OF TRAVEL 219' -6"
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2
10/29/2025

LEVEL 1 0' -0"
LEVEL 2 10' -8"
B.O. ROOF 21' -4"
T.O. ROOF 24' -0"
TOP OF PARAPET 24' -10"
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 987654321
TOP OF CMU 18' -0"
25 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 1 0' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0" CMU -5FC -2
ST -1
CMU -5CMU -5FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2
MA -1
18' - 0"
8' - 0"
18' - 0"
FC -2 MA -1
3' - 6" 10' - 8" 10' - 8"
GL -1GL -1
GL -2GL -2GL -2 GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2 10' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 8"
ST -2
ST -1
ST -3 ST -4ST -3ST -3ST -3 ST -4ST -4ST -4
ST -5ST -5ST -5
ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -2ST -1ST -2 ST -1ST -1ST -1ST -3ST -3ST -2ST -1ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4 EP -4 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 MA -1 FC -2
EP -3
LEVEL 1 0' -0"
LEVEL 2 10' -8"
B.O. ROOF 21' -4"
T.O. ROOF 24' -0"
TOP OF PARAPET 24' -10"

C E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XB D Y
TOP OF CMU 18' -0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 1 0' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" MA -1GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2
FC -2FC -2CMU -5
GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2
FC -2FC -2FC -2CMU -5FC -2 FC -2
GL -2GL -2GL -2GL -2
CMU -5FC -2
GL -2GL -2
GL -1GL -1MA -1
18' - 0"
8' - 0"
2' - 8" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 10' - 0"
3' - 6" 10' - 8" 10' - 8"
A
ST -2EP -4 ST -2 ST -1ST -1 ST -3ST -3ST -1 ST -1 ST -1 ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3 ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -2 ST -1ST -1ST -1 ST -3ST -3ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -5 ST -5ST -5
EP -3 EP -3ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3
ST -1 FC -2FC -2FC -2 FC -2 FC -2FC -2FC -2FC -2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2CONCEPT ELEVATION - SOUTH FACADE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1CONCEPT ELEVATION - EAST FACADE
SCALE: 3FRONT ENTRY 3D VIEW
EP-4 MAN DOORS LIGHT TAN EP-3 MAN DOORS LIGHT GRAY EP-2 OVERHEAD DOORS LIGHT TAN EP-1 OVERHEAD DOORS LIGHT GRAY AL-1 ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND ENTRY SYSTEMS ANODIZED ALUMINUM FC-2 DARK GRAY GL-2 1" INSULATED VISION GLAZING - SPANDREL GL-1 1" INSULATED VISION GLAZING CLEAR LOW-E MA-1 METAL AWNING BLACK ST-5 STUCCO MEDIUM GRAY - SMOOTH ST-4 STUCCO LIGHT TAN - SMOOTH ST-3 STUCCO LIGHT GRAY - SMOOTH ST-2 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN GRAY ST-1 STUCCO DARK GRAY CMU-5 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK MEDIUM GRAY - SMOOTH CMU-4 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK LIGHT TAN - SMOOTH CMU-3 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK LIGHT GRAY - SMOOTH CMU-2 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK DARK BROWN - TEXTURED CMU-1 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK FIELD COLOR - SMOOTH LABEL MATERIAL COLOR EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND 10/29/2025
Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

11.12.2025

LEVEL 1 0' -0"
LEVEL 2 10' -8"
B.O. ROOF 21' -4"
T.O. ROOF 24' -0"
TOP OF PARAPET 24' -10"
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 TOP OF CMU 18' -0"
25 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0" 237' - 0 3/4" CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3 CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4EP -1EP -2EP -2 CMU -2EP -2EP -1EP -1 CMU -5EP -2EP -2EP -2 CMU -2 GL -2GL -2 CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 CMU -3CMU -3GL -2GL -2 MA -1 CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4
MA -1
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
10' - 8" 10' - 0"
8' - 0" TYP
10' - 8" 10' - 8" 3' - 6"
ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3 ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4 ST -2
ST -1
EP -1EP -1EP -1EP -2CMU -2EP -2EP -2EP -1EP -1
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1CMU -3CMU -3CMU -4
CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3
CMU -4CMU -4 GL -2 GL -2FC -2 FC -2 FC -2FC -2 FC -2 FC -2 LEVEL 1 0' -0"
LEVEL 2 10' -8"
B.O. ROOF 21' -4"
T.O. ROOF 24' -0"
TOP OF PARAPET 24' -10"

CEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX BDY
TOP OF CMU 18' -0"
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 1 0' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" FC -2 FC -2
GL -2GL -2 GL -2GL -2 MA -1
EP -1EP -1 EP -1EP -2EP -2
GL -2
EP -1EP -1 CMU -5EP -2EP -2EP -2EP -2EP -2 CMU -2
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 CMU -3CMU -3 MA -1
EP -1EP -1 CMU -5EP -2EP -2 CMU -2
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 CMU -3CMU -3GL -2
CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3 CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4
MA -1
18' - 0"
10' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 8"
18' - 0"
8' - 0" TYP
10' - 0" 10' - 8"
18' - 0"
3' - 6" 10' - 8" 10' - 8"
A
ST -3ST -3ST -3ST -3 ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -4ST -2ST -1
10' - 0"
FC -2
CMU -2CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1CMU -3CMU -3
CMU -5 FC -2 FC -2FC -2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1CONCEPT ELEVATION - NORTH FACADE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2CONCEPT ELEVATION - WEST FACADE
EP-4 MAN DOORS LIGHT TAN EP-3 MAN DOORS LIGHT GRAY EP-2 OVERHEAD DOORS LIGHT TAN EP-1 OVERHEAD DOORS LIGHT GRAY AL-1 ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND ENTRY SYSTEMS ANODIZED ALUMINUM FC-2 DARK GRAY GL-2 1" INSULATED VISION GLAZING - SPANDREL GL-1 1" INSULATED VISION GLAZING CLEAR LOW-E MA-1 METAL AWNING BLACK ST-5 STUCCO MEDIUM GRAY - SMOOTH ST-4 STUCCO LIGHT TAN - SMOOTH ST-3 STUCCO LIGHT GRAY - SMOOTH ST-2 STUCCO MEDIUM BROWN GRAY ST-1 STUCCO DARK GRAY CMU-5 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK MEDIUM GRAY - SMOOTH CMU-4 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK LIGHT TAN - SMOOTH CMU-3 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK LIGHT GRAY - SMOOTH CMU-2 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK DARK BROWN - TEXTURED CMU-1 SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK FIELD COLOR - SMOOTH LABEL MATERIAL COLOR EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

11.12.2025

R
ONE-CALL SYSTEM SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION
GallowayUS.com
575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93720 559.721.5030 Init. Issue / Description Date #PROJECT TITLE: HAWKINS COMPANIES - CLOVIS STORAGE SHAW AVENUE & LAVERNE AVENUE, CLOVIS, CA 93611

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNER DEPARTMENT
SHEET DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT NO.

SPR 2025-XXX
SHEET NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVALS REVISIONS
-
-
-
-
---
Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 Init.Issue / DescriptionDate#
GallowayUS.com575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 103Fresno, CA 93720559.721.5030 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 25
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0" 237' - 0 3/4"

KLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 1 EP EP -2 CMU -2
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 GL -2
EP -1EP -1 CMU -5EP -2EP -2EP -2EP -2EP -2 CMU -2
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 CMU -3CMU -3 MA -1
EP -1EP -1 CMU -5EP -2EP -2 CMU -2
CMU -1CMU -1CMU -1 CMU -3CMU -3GL -2
CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3CMU -3 CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4CMU -4
MA -1
18' - 0"
8' - 0" TYP
18' - 0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 CONCEPT ELEVATION - WEST FACADE
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK - TEXTURED (CMU-3)

LIGHT GRAY
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK - SMOOTH (CMU-1)

FIELD COLOR
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK - TEXTURED (CMU-2)

DARK BROWN
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK - SMOOTH (CMU-4)

LIGHT TAN
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK - SMOOTH (CMU-5)

MEDIUM GRAY
STUCCO (ST-1)

DARK GRAY
STUCCO (ST-2)

MEDIUM BROWN/GRAY
STUCCO (ST-3)

LIGHT GRAY
STUCCO (ST-4)

LIGHT TAN
STUCCO (ST-5)

MEDIUM GRAY

EXTERIOR MATERIALS SCHEDULE

11.12.2025

This information is copyrighted by Galloway & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

HAWKINS - CLOVIS, CA CONCEPT SITE PLAN CLOVIS CALIFORNIA 08/27/2025

ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING
10/07/2025

1 Hawkins
Self Storage
Shaw & Laverne, Clovis, CA
November 12, 2025

Justification for Shaw Avenue Specific Plan Amendment

Project Address: Shaw Ave & Laverne Ave, Clovis, CA 93611

APN: 551-280-05

Proposed Building Area: +/- 113,576 SF

Existing Site Area: 4.45-acres (Gross Existing Parcel)

Proposed Site Area: 2.45-acres (per proposed parcel boundary)

Zoning & Land Use:
• Existing zone: Administrative & Professional Office (C-P) • Proposed zone: No change
• Mini-Storage is not a permitted use, Shaw Avenue Specific Plan Amendment required for this use.

General:

Self-storage plays a vital role in supporting a wide variety of zone districts by providing a necessary service that enhances the livability and functionality of complete neighborhoods. These storage units are accommodating the needs of local businesses and residents alike. Self-storage facilities address space challenges for residential communities by offering secure, accessible solutions for storing seasonal items, recreational equipment, and household belongings, allowing residents to maximize their living spaces. For businesses, it provides an off-site solution for inventory and equipment storage, helping maintain the vibrancy of the area without sacrificing functionality.

The proposed self-storage facility surpasses expectations set by other facilities in the region through thoughtful design and aesthetics of the site, landscape features, building elevations, and materials further described in sections below.

Landscape:

The project thoughtfully integrates a 43-foot enhanced landscape buffer, exceeding the required 20-foot buffer, along the Laverne Avenue street-facing frontage. This enhanced landscape buffer including canopy trees above shrubs of varying heights creates a softened and visually appealing transition to the primary building elevation.

Along the north and west property boundaries, a 10-foot landscape setback is provided, consistent with neighboring developments. The south property line, adjacent to the parking area, incorporates a 5-foot landscaped edge that aligns with the transitions between the existing developments and surrounding undeveloped parcels.

Attachment 3

Hawkins Companies – Self Storage
Justification for Shaw Ave Specific Plan Amendment
2 Elevations:

The project team understands the desire for City of Clovis’ to create a unified aesthetic within the community, in terms of materials, massing and color palette. In efforts to honor this unified aesthetic, we are proposing updated massing at the southeast corner of the building most visible to the street frontage to incorporate shade overhangs similar to the building at 1900 Shaw Ave. We believe this will be more in keeping with the established building massing.
• The building color scheme was modified to a lighter color palette with softer contrast at the recommendation of the Planning Division. • The tops of parapets feature a coping cap for a more refined and finished look. • With regard to the building within the site overall, the project team proposes site design features in the form of an augmented landscape buffer along Laverne Avenue. We suggest that these landscaped improvements will further soften the appearance of the building and significantly improve the frontage.

• Exterior materials square footage comparison is as follows:
o East: Total material Area = approx. 5,961SF
▪ Total Stucco & Non-CMU Materials = 4,545 SF = 76%
▪ Total CMU = 1,416 SF = 24%
o South: Total material Area = approx. 6,343 SF
▪ Total Stucco & Non-CMU Materials = 4,927 SF = 78%
▪ Total CMU = 1,416 SF = 22%
• High-grade and aesthetically pleasing split-faced CMU was used in lieu of standard CMU blocks. The CMU is used as an accent material on the main frontage facades. It is used to a greater degree on the loading facades facing away from the street frontage for durability and functionality.

Conclusion:

Overall, the project positively contributes to the enhancement of the neighborhood character and to the built and natural environment providing for self-storage options for the mixed-use corridor. It supports the residences and multi-family developments in the area by providing a variety of self-storage options; while activating and enhancing a currently underutilized vacant infill parcel.

Self-storage facilities generate significantly less traffic than retail or office spaces, making them a quiet and low-impact neighbor in residential and commercial areas. With most visits being short and spread out, self-storage facilities do not contribute to peak- hour traffic congestion.

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
August 26, 2024
LU0022760
2604
Lily Cha-Haydostian, Assistant Planner
City of Clovis
Planning and Development Services Department
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Dear Ms. Cha-Haydostian:

PROJECT NUMBER: DRC2024-050
DRC2024-050; 3 story self-storage facility 120,000 SF, with RV/Boat parking located north of the subject building, an office facing Laverne Ave, 2 loading stalls at the west of the building. We will need to subdivide the master parcel and create a new parcel of 2.45 acres.

APN: 551-280-05 ZONING: C-P ADDRESS: 1859 Shaw Avenue Recommended Conditions of Approval:
 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 has the potential to expose nearby residents to elevated noise levels.

Consideration should be given to 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.

Attachment 4

Lily Cha-Haydostian
DRC2024-050
August 26, 2024

2 REVIEWED BY:

Kevin Tsuda, R.E.H.S.

Environmental Health Specialist II (559) 600-33271
KT
cc: Rogers, Moreno, C. Her & Jackson- Environmental Health Division (CT. 57.03) Angeline Ling- Applicant ([email protected])

PROJECT NO:

APN:

ADDRESS:

SENT:
2026-001
1859 SHAW AVE.
551-280-05
March 03, 2026

PUBLIC AGENCY

MARISSA PARKER

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

CITY OF CLOVIS
1033

FIFTH STREET

CLOVIS, CA
93612

DEVELOPER

ANGELINE JI LING, HAWKINS COMPANIES LLC
855
W. BROAD STREET
#300

BOISE, ID
83702
* The Development Review Service Charge shown above is associated with CL SPR 2026-001 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)
3F
$0.00
Development Review
Service Charge(s)
Fee(s)
NOR Review *
$89.00
To be paid prior to release of District comments to Public Agency and Developer.

Grading Plan Review *
$454.00
Amount to be submitted with first grading plan submittal.

Total Drainage Fee: $0.00
Total Service Charge: $543.00
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 3/01/27
based on the site plan
submitted to the District on
2/11/26
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

Approval of this development shall be conditioned upon compliance with these District Requirements.

1. a.

Drainage from the site shall
X
b.

Grading and drainage patterns shall be as identified on Exhibit No. 2.

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
Antonio Tolentino
Design Engineer, RCE
Engineer I
Digitally signed by Debbie Campbell Date: 3/3/2026 12:27:36 PM Digitally signed by Antonio Tolentino Date: 2/20/2026 3:20:02 PM 5469 E. OLIVE - FRESNO, CA 93727 - (559) 456-3292 - FAX (559) 456-3194

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS

Runoff from the site shall be directed to Laverne Avenue and/or Fowler Avenue. The City of Clovis shall verify that drainage covenants are in place to allow runoff from CL CUP 2026-001
to
drain to Fowler Avenue as required.

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. 2026-001

OTHER REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT NO. 2

February 25, 2026

Marissa Parker
City of Clovis
Planning & Development Services
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612

Project: General Plan Amendment 2026-02, Conditional Use Permit 2026-001, Site Plan Review 2026-001

District CEQA Reference No: 20260141

Dear Ms. Parker:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the General Plan Amendment (GPA), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Site Plan Review (SPR) from the City of Clovis (City). Per the GPA/CUP/SPR, the project consists of a 113,576 square foot self-storage development on 2.45 acres (Project). The Project is located at 1859 Shaw Avenue, in Clovis, CA.

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

Project Related Emissions

At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

Construction Emissions

The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment

The City should evaluate the risk associated with the Project for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for the Project. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. Please contact the District for assistance with performing a Prioritization analysis.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the health impacts would exceed the District’s established risk thresholds, which can be found here:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/ceqa/.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:

• HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
• HARP2 files
• Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:

• E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
• Calling (559) 230-5900

Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors to prevent the creation of a significant health risk in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategy- development/land-use-resources.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis

An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambien Air Quality Standards. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project- specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/ceqa/.

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening

There are residential units located near the Project and an elementary (Jefferson Elementary School) located west of the Project. The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units and schools).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community

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

On-Site Solar Deployment

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

Electric Infrastructure

To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/charge-up for more information.

District Rules and Regulations

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

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

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

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

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)

The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a project- level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 2,000 square feet of commercial space.

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

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

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview

The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/forms- and-applications/

District staff is available to provide assistance and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)

The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

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

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)

The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx

Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol

Other District Rules and Regulations

The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

District Comment Letter

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 8 District Reference No: 20260141
February 25, 2026

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Ryan Grossman by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-6569.

Sincerely,

Mark Montelongo
Director of Policy and Government Affairs

Daniel Martinez
Program Manager

Attachment 5

Report to the City Council

To: City Council
From: Administration
Date: April 13, 2026
Staff: Claudia Cázares, Housing Program Manager, Chad McCollum, Economic Development, Housing and Communications Director
Subject: Consider approval of various actions related to Ordinance Amendment 2026- 001 for the Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for residential development projects.

a. Consider Introduction and Adoption — Ord. 26-___, an Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis finding that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, Subdivision (b)(3); and amending the City's Development Code by adding Chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for Residential Development Projects.

b. Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-____, an Ordinance of the City of Council of the City of Clovis finding that the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, Subdivision (b)(3); and amending the City's Development Code by adding Chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for Residential Development Projects.

Recommendation: Adopt and Approve
Attachments:

1. MIZO ATT 1 Urgency Ord. 26 -

2. MIZO ATT 2 Ord. 26 -

3. MIZO ATT 3 Judgment

4. MIZO ATT 4 Feasibility Study

Recommendation:

For the City Council to adopt a finding that Ordinance Amendment 2026-001 is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061, subdivision (b)(3), and to introduce and adopt, by four-fifths vote, an urgency ordinance, and introduce a regular ordinance, amending the City’s Development Code by adding Chapter 9.27 to the Clovis Municipal Code to establish a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance for

residential development projects.

Executive Summary:

In accordance with the terms of the Judgment (Attachment 3) entered in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case (“Judgment”), the City of Clovis (“City”) is required to establish the Ordinance to help address the availability of affordable housing to individuals and families at lower income levels within the City.

The Ordinance is also a required program in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element that will help the City meet its current and future regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) obligations, while increasing the availability of affordable housing units. The Ordinance will require any new residential development project consisting of eleven (11) or more units to set aside five percent (5%) of the units as affordable housing units, or to otherwise meet the requirements of the Ordinance through an alternate compliance measure.

Background:

The City is required to establish the Ordinance to assist in increasing the number of housing units available to lower-income households. Over the past year, City staff has been diligently working on drafting the Ordinance. Staff met with housing industry representatives in March 2025 to discuss the development of the Ordinance, and to identify requirements for the applicability of the Ordinance. In March 2025, the City provided a Frequently Asked Questions handout to the housing development community that outlined the applicability timeline of the future Ordinance. Additionally, to assist in the development of the Ordinance, the City contracted with Keyser Marsten Associates, Inc. (KMA) to conduct a study of the financial feasibility of a proposed ordinance for residential development projects in the City. The feasibility study was completed in October 2025 (Attachment 4). Since completion of the feasibility study, staff have incorporated those findings in drafting the Ordinance.

The recommendations of the feasibility study, in accordance with the Judgment, are as follows:

1. The Ordinance should apply to projects with eleven (11) or more units.

2. The Ordinance should require five percent (5%) of units in new developments to be set aside as affordable or mixed-income units.

3. At least fifty percent (50%) of mixed-income rental units shall be affordable for very low-income households (earning up to 50% or below the area median income (AMI)); and the balance (the remaining 50%) shall be affordable for low-income households (earning up to 80% of the AMI).

4. The Ordinance should provide for multiple alternative compliance options, such as land dedication, or off-site construction of affordable units.

5. Amongst these alternative compliance options, the Ordinance should include an in-lieu fee option to provide a feasible pathway for compliance. The in-lieu fee should be set at $2.80 per square foot of the net livable residential floor area of all the market-rate units for the applicable project.

6. The Ordinance should provide flexibility in development and design requirements.

City staff then prepared the Ordinance taking into consideration these recommendations, along with additional requirements set forth in the Judgment, and codified them for implementation. The Ordinance will apply to any new residential projects consisting of eleven (11) or more units, as may be approved by the City, to be built anywhere in the City, and in any area that may be annexed to the City in the future.

The requirements of the Ordinance are as follows:

Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance Requirements: For projects that trigger the requirements of the

Ordinance, no less than five percent (5%) of all proposed market rate units shall be Mixed-Income Units (affordable units). For rental residential projects, at least fifty percent (50%) of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to very low-income households (up to 50% AMI), and the balance of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households (up to 80% AMI). In for-sale residential development projects, all of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households (up to 80% AMI).

The Ordinance includes five (5) additional alternative compliance measures, as follows:

1. Payment of an in-lieu fee of $2.80 per square foot of net livable space of market-rate units.

Fees will be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund and be set aside to be used for future affordable housing projects or activity(ies).

2. Dedication of Land Off-Site. Developers shall have the option to dedicate vacant land sufficient for constructing the required number of Mixed-Income Units to the City for future affordable housing use. The fair market value of the land proposed to be dedicated/conveyed shall be of equal or greater value than the estimated amount of the in-lieu fees that would otherwise be required under the Ordinance. Acceptance of land and location is at the discretion of the City.

3. Construction of required Mixed-Income Units at an off-site location. Location to be approved at the discretion of the City.

4. Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Existing Dwelling Units. Developers may acquire and rehabilitate (as needed) existing market rate units elsewhere in the City. Location/Rehabilitation to be approved at the discretion of the City.

5. City Discretion/Other Option(s): Developers may propose an alternative compliance measure, not addressed above, to fulfill the requirements of the Ordinance. Acceptance of the alternative measures is at the discretion of the City.

The draft Ordinance was provided to housing industry partners on December 10, 2025, and presented in a meeting on December 18, 2025. The Ordinance will be jointly implemented and administered by the Planning and Development Services Department and the Economic Development, Housing and Communications Department. The City Manager will have final authority for approval regarding implementation of the Ordinance. Any project-specific development or affordability agreement(s) will be brought before the City Council for approval as applicable residential projects are approved.

California Environmental Quality Act
The project qualifies for the “common sense” exemption under CEQA Guidelines, section 15061, subdivision (b)(3), which applies to activities for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. There is no reasonable possibility that the project would result in a significant environmental effect, and no unusual circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility of such effects. Adoption of the Ordinance only creates new requirements under the City’s Development Code, but these requirements do not create any foreseeable changes in the environment. There is no requirement to increase or decrease the number of units created in a project or change the development standards of future residential projects. Rather, this Ordinance merely sets forth affordability requirements for a certain number of units for development projects that the Ordinance is applicable to.

Public Notice
The City published notice of this public hearing in The Business Journal on Friday, March 27, 2026.

Planning Commission

The Planning Commission considered Ordinance Amendment 2026-001 and its related environmental finding at its regular meeting on February 26, 2026. No written public comments were received; one member of the public provided comment at the meeting. The Planning Commission approved the project with a 4–0-1 vote, with Commissioner Hebert absent.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost of the program will primarily be carried by residential housing developers. There will be a yet-to-be determined staff cost associated with administering the program, which may be offset through the use of future application fees.

Reason for Recommendation:

The proposed Ordinance was initiated to satisfy one of the requirements of the Judgment. This action is also required as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and is a result of the findings of the feasibility study.

Staff is requesting Council to adopt the Urgency Ordinance and approve the Regular Ordinance together because: (1) the provisions of the judgment require that the City adopt the MIZO as an urgency ordinance; and (2) the Urgency Ordinance has a 45-day sunset period which requires the City to then adopt the Regular Ordinance to make it a permanent part of the City’s Development Code. The Regular Ordinance will be provided to Council for adoption at the April 20, 2026, Council meeting.

Findings of Approval
The findings to consider when making a decision on an ordinance amendment include.

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with existing General Plan policies that emphasize the provision of a diverse mix of housing types and sizes to meet the needs of the community. The amendment supports a range of housing product types, including both ownership and rental opportunities, which helps accommodate households at different life stages, income levels, and housing preferences. By encouraging a balanced mix of housing options, the proposed amendment advances the General Plan’s objectives for housing diversity, choice, and long-term community sustainability.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The Project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. Rather, it would provide a public benefit by increasing the availability of affordable housing for individuals and families at lower income levels. By helping to address documented housing needs within the community, the Project would support the City’s housing goals, promote stability for lower- income households, and contribute to a balanced and inclusive community without resulting in adverse effects to surrounding properties or public services.

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

The proposed amendment would enable the City to meet the requirements of the Judgment entered in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case by implementing the necessary regulatory changes. Adoption of

the amendment would bring the City’s regulations into compliance with the terms of the Judgment and support timely implementation of the required actions. In addition, a review of the proposed amendment has not identified any conflicts with existing provisions of the Development Code, and the amendment would function consistently within the City’s overall regulatory framework.

Actions Following Approval:

Staff will develop necessary documents to implement and administer the Ordinance(s) consistent with the Judgment.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

1 Attachment 1
URGENCY ORDINANCE 26-____

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2026-001 IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061, SUBDIVISION (B)(3); AND AMENDING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER

9.27 TO THE CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A MIXED-INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

WHEREAS, in October 2019, an individual (“Petitioner”) filed a lawsuit that included causes of action challenging the validity of the City of Clovis’s (“City”) General Plan and Housing Element (Martinez v. City of Clovis); and

WHEREAS, in April 2021, the Fresno County Superior Court granted Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate, ordering the City to adopt a compliant Housing Element and to implement a rezoning program to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) for the 2008-2015 planning period; and

WHEREAS, in April 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the City’s appeal to the April 2021 order granting the writ of mandate. In July 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the City’s request for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision; and

WHEREAS, following a settlement agreement between the parties, the Fresno County Superior Court entered a Judgment in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024 (“Judgment”); and

WHEREAS, the terms of the Judgment require the City to adopt a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance as a program within the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and conduct a financial feasibility analysis for such an ordinance; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Judgment, the City contracted with Keyser Marsten Associates, Inc. (“KMA”) in May 2024 to conduct a study of the financial feasibility of a mixed income zoning ordinance on residential development projects in Clovis, and the KMA feasibility report was issued in October 2025; and

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, the City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element covering the eight (8) year period of 2024-2031, which includes adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance as one of the required programs the City will implement (Program H12); and

WHEREAS, California is facing a severe shortage of housing options for individuals and families at lower income levels, and many municipalities throughout the State have adopted Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinances to help address the availability of affordable housing to individuals and families at lower income levels; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance is intended to increase the number of housing units available to lower income households; and

2 WHEREAS, adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance is a required program in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element that will help the City meet its current and future RHNA obligations of facilitating lower-income housing availability; and

WHEREAS, increasing the availability of affordable housing is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and Housing Element Program H12 “Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance” includes an objective to facilitate the construction of at least 320 low- and very low-income units, depending on overall housing production during the 6th Cycle (2024-2031); and

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission considered the proposed Ordinance and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-04, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the consideration of this Ordinance was published in the Business Journal on March 27, 2026, and the notice of the Public Hearing was also posted in accordance with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis for this proposed ordinance as described and summarized in the staff report and elsewhere in the record of proceedings for this matter, which analysis includes a determination that the Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance will not result in any significant effect on the environment, and is therefore exempt from further environmental under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061, subdivision (b)(3); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Judgment, the KMA feasibility report, the CEQA analysis, staff report, and all written materials submitted in connection with this proposed Ordinance and public hearing, and considered all written and oral presentations presented to the City Council for this item during the public hearing (“Administrative Record”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the Administrative Record, the City Council finds that the Mixed- Income Zoning Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15601, subdivision (b)(3).

Section 2. The City Council makes the following findings in accordance with Clovis Municipal Code section 9.86.060:

(A) The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

(B) The proposed ordinance amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

3 (C) The proposed ordinance amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the City’s Development Code.

Section 3. The bases for these findings are detailed in the April 13, 2026, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing.

Section 4. The City Council finds that the State of California and the City of Clovis is experiencing a housing shortage, especially for affordable housing. A goal of the City is to achieve a balanced community with housing available for households at different income levels. Increasingly, affordable housing opportunities in the City are diminishing for households with lower incomes who may work or desire to work in and/or live within the City.

The City further finds that the housing shortage for affordable housing is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and it is a public purpose of the City, and a public policy of the State of California, as mandated by the requirements for adoption of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, to implement policies and programs intended to help provide opportunities so that an adequate supply of housing is available for persons of all economic segments of the community. Accordingly, the City Council further finds that there is an urgent need to adopt this Ordinance on an interim basis as an urgency measure to comply with the Judgment and to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, to be effective immediately and without delay. (Gov. Code § 65858.) Section 5. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance Amendment 2026-001, which amends Title 9 of the Clovis Municipal Code to add Chapter 9.27 (Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance) as outlined in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein.

Section 6. This Ordinance is an urgency Ordinance and shall be effective immediately upon its final passage and adoption. It shall have no further force and effect forty-five (45) days from the date of its adoption, unless extended by the City Council.

APPROVED: ____________, 2026

____________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

* * * * * * * * * *

The foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Council held on __________, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

4 DATED: _________, 2026

________________________________
City Clerk

5 ATTACHMENT A

Chapter 9.27

MIXED-INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE
Sections:

9.27.010 Purpose

9.27.020 Definitions

9.27.030 Applicability of Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

9.27.040 Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

9.27.050 In-Lieu Fees and Alternatives to Compliance

9.27.060 Mixed-Income Unit Standards

9.27.070 Development Project Approval

9.27.080 Occupancy and Continuing Availability of Mixed-Income Units

9.27.090 Collection and Use of In-Lieu Fees

9.27.100 Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement

Section 9.27.010 – Purpose

The purpose of this Chapter is to enhance the public welfare by facilitating mixed-income housing opportunities and contributing toward the City’s share of the region’s housing needs, assisting in the implementation of the City’s Housing Element goals, policies, and programs, and ensuring compatibility of future housing development by requiring that land in the City developed for future residential housing is utilized in a manner consistent with State and local land use and housing policies.

Section 9.27.020 – Definitions

For the purposes of this Chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and terms used herein are defined as follows:

Administrator shall mean the housing program administrator, which shall either be the City itself or a third-party administrator acting as an agent for the City pursuant to an agreement entered into between the City and the administrator, as such agreement may be amended or replaced from time to time.

Affordable shall mean that the cost of a housing unit (rent or sale price) does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the state maximum household income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. The term “adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit” shall have the same meaning as provided in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5, subdivision (c) as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a plan submitted as part of a residential development project application that contains information specifying the manner in which the applicant proposes to comply with the requirements of this Chapter.

Applicant shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, who either (i) submits an application to the City

6 for approval of a residential development project subject to this Chapter, or (ii) submits an application for a building permit for construction in any approved residential development project subject to this Chapter.

Area Median Income shall mean the area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50093 as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Attached single-family dwelling unit shall mean a single-family dwelling unit having one (1) or more walls attached to and in common with one (1) or more single-family dwellings.

Density bonus shall mean a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable density on a site pursuant to Government Code section 65915 and Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

Detached single-family dwelling unit shall mean a dwelling unit intended for use by a single household and not attached to any other building.

Director shall mean the City’s Planning and Development Services Director or designee.

Dwelling unit shall mean a residential unit, either for sale or rent.

For-sale residential development project shall mean a residential development project that includes the creation of one (1) or more new dwelling units that may be sold individually. A for-sale residential development project also includes the conversion of a residential rental development to a residential ownership development.

Gap Financing means the amount of funding necessary to fill the gap between the estimated funding required to develop and make available the Mixed-Income Units and the resources commonly available to residential development applicants as described in the October 2025 Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance feasibility report on file with the City.

In-lieu fee shall mean a monetary payment made by an applicant for a residential development project subject to this Chapter to the City in lieu of constructing the number of Mixed-Income Units that would otherwise be required under this Chapter. The in-lieu fee is intended to provide funds needed to cover the Gap Financing necessary to facilitate the construction of required Mixed-Income Units as described in the October 2025 Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance feasibility report on file with the City.

Lower/Low-income household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Market rate unit shall mean a new dwelling unit for sale or rent in a residential development project that is not a Mixed-Income Unit.

7 Mixed-Income Unit or Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance (MIZO) Unit shall mean a dwelling unit available at an Affordable rent or sold at an Affordable price to very low-, or low-income households in accordance with Section 9.27.050 of this Chapter. A dwelling unit designated as a Mixed-Income Unit or MIZO Unit shall remain affordable for the longest feasible duration (but not less than fifty-five (55) years for rental units and forty-five (45) years for for-sale units) from the date of recordation of a covenant or regulatory agreement or similar document recorded with the Fresno County Recorder’s office. The recording must occur prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

Multi-family unit shall mean a residential unit intended for the use of a single household that is part of a larger building having one (1) or more walls attached to and in common with other residential units.

Qualified buyer shall refer to the eligible member(s) of a low-income household that are qualified to purchase a for-sale Mixed-Income unit.

Rental residential development project shall mean a residential development project that creates one (1) or more dwelling units that cannot be lawfully sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Residential development project shall mean a development for which a discretionary approval is required for a development that includes the creation of one (1) or more new dwelling units, conversion of nonresidential uses to dwelling units, or the conversion of a use from a rental residential development project to a for-sale residential development project, and includes any for-sale residential development project and any rental residential development project.

Unit type shall mean the type of dwelling unit, either attached single-family dwelling unit, detached single-family dwelling unit, or multi-family unit.

Very low-income household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50105, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Vesting tentative map shall mean a map which confers certain vested rights to proceed with development for a specified period of time after recordation in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. (Gov. Code § 66452, subd. (b).)

Section 9.27.030 – Applicability of Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

Applicability. Any new residential development project consisting of eleven (11) or more market rate units as approved by the City to be built anywhere within the City, and in any area within the City’s sphere of influence to be annexed to the City in the future, shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter.

8 Section 9.27.040 – Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

Any residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall include Mixed- Income Units as determined herein. The number of Mixed-Income Units to be included in the residential development project and constructed on the project site shall be based on the total number of units proposed in the residential development project without regard to any density bonus units provided pursuant to Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

A. Mixed-Income Unit Requirement. No less than five percent (5%) of all proposed units for a residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall be Mixed- Income Units. The minimum five percent (5%) total shall be achieved using the following allowable ranges of affordability:

1. Rental residential development projects:

i. At least fifty percent (50%) of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to very low-income households, and the balance of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households. For purposes of this provision, the minimum fifty percent (50%) affordable to very low-income households shall be calculated as no less than one (1) very-low income unit for every one (1) low-income unit.

2. For-sale residential development projects:

i. One hundred percent (100%) of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households.

B. Fractional units. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or this Chapter, when the application of the percentage specified in Section 9.27.040, subdivision (A) results in a number that includes a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number to determine the Mixed-Income Unit requirement for the project.

Examples: For-sale residential development project proposing 11 market rate units (x.05) = 0.55 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit.

For-sale residential development project proposing 29 market rate units (x.05) = 1.45 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit.

Rental residential development project proposing 40 market rate units (x.05) = 2 Mixed-Income Units = 1 unit affordable to very low-income households and 1 unit affordable to low-income households.

9 Rental residential development project proposing 24 market rate units (x.05) =

1.2 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit = 1 unit affordable to low-income households.

C. Density Bonus. Any Mixed-Income Units provided on site in compliance with this Chapter may be used to qualify for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

D. Affordable Housing Agreement. The applicant for a residential development project subject to this Chapter shall execute a written agreement with the City at the time the project is approved, indicating the number, type, location, approximate size, and construction schedule of all dwelling units for the project as required to determine the project’s compliance with this Chapter, and duly execute any applicable affordability restriction to be recorded and run with the land for the required Mixed-Income Units.

E. Construction Timing. All Mixed-Income Units constructed on the project site, or constructed off-site as authorized by Section 9.27.050, subdivision (C), shall be completed no later than the completion of all market rate units for the applicable residential development project. For phased developments, Mixed-Income Units shall be completed in reasonably approximate proportion to the number of market rate units completed in each phase. The City may approve guidelines to assist in implementing this Chapter.

Section 9.27.050 – In-Lieu Fees and Alternatives for Compliance

Notwithstanding any provision in this Chapter addressing constructing Mixed-Income Units on the project site as provided in Section 9.27.040, any applicant of a residential development project subject to this Chapter may fulfill the requirements of this Chapter by any of the following alternatives, rather than constructing Mixed-Income Units on the project site:

A. In-Lieu Fee. Payment of an in-lieu fee as provided herein. The fee amount shall be $2.80 per square foot of residential floor area for each market rate unit. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated based on the net livable residential floor area (in square feet) of all market rate units for the applicable residential development project.

Example: In-Lieu Fee = [Net livable residential floor area of the market rate units] x [$2.80/sq.ft.])

1. Payment of In-Lieu Fee. Such in-lieu fee for an applicable project shall be paid no later than upon issuance of a building permit for each market rate units in the residential development project but may be deferred to occupancy as approved by the Director.

2. The City Council may, by resolution, adjust the in-lieu fee rate by any reasonable means, including, without limitation, for inflation in accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.10.02, as necessary to reflect changes in land costs,

10 construction costs, and needed subsidy levels — provided that the revised fee continues to reasonably approximate the City’s estimated per-square-foot cost of providing Gap Financing.

B. Land Dedication/Conveyance. Land sufficient for constructing the required number of Mixed-Income Units for a residential development project may be dedicated or conveyed to the City, as provided herein, in lieu of constructing Mixed-Income Units.

The City shall evaluate any proposed land based on the following criteria and any guidelines approved as provided in Section 9.27.100:

1. The fair market value of the land proposed to be dedicated/conveyed shall be of equal or greater value than the estimated amount of the in-lieu fees that would otherwise be required under this section. A recent appraisal of the land shall be submitted as prepared by an MAI appraiser approved by the City.

Costs associated with the appraisal, title insurance, property transfer, document recordation and related costs shall be borne by the applicant.

2. The Director shall review the proposed land to be dedicated/conveyed to determine if the land is economically feasible to develop or be used to facilitate development of Mixed-Income Units. The Director’s review and determination may include, without limitation, determining whether adequate infrastructure exists to serve the site, whether the site is a sufficient size, physically suitable, and includes an appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning to accommodate or facilitate the development of the required number of Mixed- Income Units. The Director shall also determine that development of the land would not be significantly restricted by environmental constraints, hazardous materials, public service constraints, or public health and safety concerns before the City accepts the dedication or conveyance. The City Manager or designee shall make the final determination as to whether the City will accept any land proposed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter.

3. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, the applicant must complete the dedication/conveyance of the land to the City within ninety (90) days of the City’s final determination that the land proposed for dedication/conveyance is acceptable to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter.

Example: Residential development project proposing 100 market rate units (x.05) = 5 Mixed-Income Units. Applicant may propose land suitable to develop or facilitate development of the 5 Mixed-Income Units.

C. Off-Site Construction of Mixed-Income Units. Any applicant may build Mixed-Income Units not located within the residential development project or physically contiguous to the market rate units of the applicable residential development project, provided they are built in the city limits and equal to or more than the number of Mixed-Income Units required under Section 9.27.040 of this Chapter. Off-site construction of Mixed- Income Units shall be subject to appropriate application by the applicant and approval by the City.

11 D. Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Dwelling Units. Any applicant may fulfill the requirements of this Chapter for any applicable residential development project by acquiring and rehabilitating existing market rate units elsewhere in the City to become Mixed-Income Units. Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units in-lieu of constructing Mixed-Income Units shall be allowed only if the applicant’s rehabilitation plan is approved by the City Manager or designee, and only if the rehabilitated units meet each of the standards provided in Section 9.27.060 below.

E. Discretion. An applicant may propose an alternative not specifically addressed above to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter. The City Manager or designee may approve, conditionally approve, or reject any alternative proposed by the applicant.

The City Manager’s determination shall be final, subject to appeal to the City Council.

Section 9.27.060 – Mixed-Income Unit Standards

The following standards shall apply to Mixed-Income Units constructed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter, whether constructed on the residential development project site or elsewhere within the City.

A. Recipient Requirements. All Mixed-Income Units shall be sold or rented to low- income, or very low-income households.

1. Qualified buyers of for-sale Mixed-Income Units shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City and execute appropriate implementation documents as required by the City.

2. Renters shall be subject to the applicant’s affordable housing agreement and must be selected by means of an open and public process.

B. Unit Type and Physical Quality. The unit type(s) of the Mixed-Income Units constructed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter shall comply with the following:

1. Except as otherwise provided in Section 9.27.050, subdivision (C), Mixed- Income Units constructed on the same site as the applicable residential development project subject to this Chapter shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project to prevent a concentration of Mixed-Income Units.

2. Detached single-family affordable dwelling units constructed to fulfill the Mixed-Income Unit requirements of this Chapter shall comply with comparable design requirements as market-rate units in the same residential development project as approved by the City in accordance with any applicable guidelines approved as provided in Section 9.27.100.

12 Section 9.27.070 – Development Project Approval

A. From and after the effective date of this Chapter, a residential development application will not be deemed complete until the applicant has provided the City with an Affordable Housing Plan that demonstrates the manner in which the applicant proposes to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter, if applicable, including, without limitation, any plans indicating the location of on-site/off-site Mixed-Income Units, land dedication, or intent to pay in-lieu fees, or some other alternative as authorized by Section 9.27.050, subdivision (E).

B. Fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter shall be a condition of approval for any residential development project subject to this Chapter. Condition(s) for fulfilling the requirements of this Chapter shall be imposed by the City on the first approval of an entitlement for an applicable residential development project.

The imposition of any condition(s) on the first approval of an entitlement does not preclude the appropriate authority from imposing such other conditions as may be required by this Chapter when acting on a subsequent application for a subsequent approval for all or part of the same residential development project to which this Chapter applies.

C. Any determination made by the approval authority to implement this Chapter in connection with granting a first approval of an entitlement for an applicable project may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.90 of this Code.

Section 9.27.080 – Occupancy and Continuing Availability of Mixed-Income Units

A. Ongoing Affordability of For-Sale Mixed-Income Units. In order to maintain the availability of for-sale Mixed-Income Units constructed pursuant to this Chapter, the following requirements apply to such Mixed-Income Units, which shall remain affordable for forty-five (45) years, and shall be documented in an affordable housing agreement and affordability restriction(s) as described in section 9.27.040, subdivision (D) and recorded against the property upon which the Mixed-Income Unit is constructed:

1. The monthly housing costs (including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and any mandatory association dues) of a for-sale Mixed-Income Unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the State maximum household income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.

2. The qualified buyer shall occupy the Mixed-Income Unit as the buyer's principal place of residence.

3. The qualified buyer shall not lease or rent the Mixed-Income Unit, or any portion of the Mixed-Income Unit, to another party, including listing the Mixed- Income Unit as a short-term rental. Any such lease or rental of the Mixed- Income Unit or a portion of the Mixed-Income Unit, or any use other than as

13 the buyer’s principal place of residence shall constitute a default under the requirements of this Chapter and the affordable housing agreement between the City and the qualified buyer.

B. Ongoing Affordability of Rental Mixed-Income Units. In order to maintain the availability of rental Mixed-Income Units constructed pursuant to this Chapter, such rental Mixed-Income Units shall remain affordable for fifty-five (55) years, as documented in an affordable housing agreement as described in Section 9.27.040, subdivision (D) and recorded against the property upon which the Mixed-Income Unit is constructed.

Section 9.27.090 – Collection and Use of In-Lieu Fees

Any in-lieu fees received by the City pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used for authorized purposes and expenditures.

Section 9.27.100 – Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement

A. Establishment of Guidelines. The City Council may approve Mixed-Income Zoning guidelines to assist in the implementation of this Chapter.

B. Establishment of Administrative Fees. The City Council, by resolution, may establish fees to recover the costs to the City for ongoing administration and monitoring of Mixed-Income Units in the City, which fees may be adjusted by City Council resolution.

C. Enforcement. The City may pursue and undertake enforcement action as authorized under this Code and/or any other action authorized by law or by any regulatory document, restriction, or agreement executed under this Chapter.

D. Project Approval Restrictions. No permit, license, map, or other approval or entitlement for a residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall be issued, including without limitation a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements of this Chapter have been satisfied.

E. Annual Monitoring.

1. Homeowners may receive an annual monitoring notice from the City to confirm the owner occupancy requirement and prohibition of renting the dwelling unit.

For rental units, an annual monitoring notice from the City may be sent to any management company of rental units to confirm residents are eligible to reside in the Mixed-Income Units.

2. The City shall prepare and present at a regular City Council meeting an annual report on the status of this Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance, including how many market-rate residential development projects are subject to this Chapter,

14 how each of the projects has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter, and a record of funds deposited in the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

1 Attachment 2
ORDINANCE 26-____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2026-001 IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061, SUBDIVISION (B)(3); AND AMENDING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 9.27 TO THE

CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A MIXED-INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

WHEREAS, in October 2019, an individual (“Petitioner”) filed a lawsuit that included causes of action challenging the validity of the City of Clovis’s (“City”) General Plan and Housing Element (Martinez v. City of Clovis); and

WHEREAS, in April 2021, the Fresno County Superior Court granted Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate, ordering the City to adopt a compliant Housing Element and to implement a rezoning program to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) for the 2008-2015 planning period; and

WHEREAS, in April 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the City’s appeal to the April 2021 order granting the writ of mandate. In July 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the City’s request for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision; and

WHEREAS, following a settlement agreement between the parties, the Fresno County Superior Court entered a Judgment in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024 (“Judgment”); and

WHEREAS, the terms of the Judgment require the City to adopt a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance as a program within the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and conduct a financial feasibility analysis for such an ordinance; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Judgment, the City contracted with Keyser Marsten Associates, Inc. (“KMA”) in May 2024 to conduct a study of the financial feasibility of a mixed income zoning ordinance on residential development projects in Clovis, and the KMA feasibility report was issued in October 2025; and

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, the City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element covering the eight (8) year period of 2024-2031, which includes adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance as one of the required programs the City will implement (Program H12); and

WHEREAS, California is facing a severe shortage of housing options for individuals and families at lower income levels, and many municipalities throughout the State have adopted Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinances to help address the availability of affordable housing to individuals and families at lower income levels; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance is intended to increase the number of housing units available to lower income households; and

2 WHEREAS, adoption of a Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance is a required program in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element that will help the City meet its current and future RHNA obligations of facilitating lower-income housing availability; and

WHEREAS, increasing the availability of affordable housing is consistent with the City’s General Plan; and Housing Element Program H12 “Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance” includes an objective to facilitate the construction of at least 320 low- and very low-income units, depending on overall housing production during the 6th Cycle (2024-2031); and

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission considered the proposed Ordinance and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-04, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the consideration of this Ordinance was published in the Business Journal on March 27, 2026, and the notice of the Public Hearing was also posted in accordance with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis for this proposed ordinance as described and summarized in the staff report and elsewhere in the record of proceedings for this matter, which analysis includes a determination that the Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance will not result in any significant effect on the environment, and is therefore exempt from further environmental under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061, subdivision (b)(3); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Judgment, the KMA feasibility report, the CEQA analysis, staff report, and all written materials submitted in connection with this proposed Ordinance and public hearing, and considered all written and oral presentations presented to the City Council for this item during the public hearing (“Administrative Record”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the Administrative Record, the City Council finds that the Mixed- Income Zoning Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15601, subdivision (b)(3).

Section 2. The City Council makes the following findings in accordance with Clovis Municipal Code section 9.86.060:

(A) The proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

(B) The proposed ordinance amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

3 (C) The proposed ordinance amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the City’s Development Code.

Section 3. The bases for these findings are detailed in the April 13, 2026, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the public hearing.

Section 4. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance Amendment 2026-001, which amends Title 9 of the Clovis Municipal Code to add Chapter 9.27 (Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance) as outlined in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein.

Section 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force after thirty (30) days from its final passage and adoption. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, that certain Urgency Ordinance No. ___, adopted on April 13, 2026, is hereby repealed in its entirety and shall be of no further force or effect.

It is the intent of the City Council that this Ordinance shall supersede and replace the provisions of said Urgency Ordinance as of the effective date of this Ordinance.

APPROVED: ____________, 2026

____________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

* * * * * * * * * *

The foregoing Ordinance was passed and 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

4 ATTACHMENT A

Chapter 9.27

MIXED-INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE
Sections:

9.27.010 Purpose

9.27.020 Definitions

9.27.030 Applicability of Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

9.27.040 Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

9.27.050 In-Lieu Fees and Alternatives to Compliance

9.27.060 Mixed-Income Unit Standards

9.27.070 Development Project Approval

9.27.080 Occupancy and Continuing Availability of Mixed-Income Units

9.27.090 Collection and Use of In-Lieu Fees

9.27.100 Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement

Section 9.27.010 – Purpose

The purpose of this Chapter is to enhance the public welfare by facilitating mixed-income housing opportunities and contributing toward the City’s share of the region’s housing needs, assisting in the implementation of the City’s Housing Element goals, policies, and programs, and ensuring compatibility of future housing development by requiring that land in the City developed for future residential housing is utilized in a manner consistent with State and local land use and housing policies.

Section 9.27.020 – Definitions

For the purposes of this Chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and terms used herein are defined as follows:

Administrator shall mean the housing program administrator, which shall either be the City itself or a third-party administrator acting as an agent for the City pursuant to an agreement entered into between the City and the administrator, as such agreement may be amended or replaced from time to time.

Affordable shall mean that the cost of a housing unit (rent or sale price) does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the state maximum household income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. The term “adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit” shall have the same meaning as provided in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5, subdivision (c) as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a plan submitted as part of a residential development project application that contains information specifying the manner in which the applicant proposes to comply with the requirements of this Chapter.

Applicant shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, who either (i) submits an application to the City

5 for approval of a residential development project subject to this Chapter, or (ii) submits an application for a building permit for construction in any approved residential development project subject to this Chapter.

Area Median Income shall mean the area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50093 as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Attached single-family dwelling unit shall mean a single-family dwelling unit having one (1) or more walls attached to and in common with one (1) or more single-family dwellings.

Density bonus shall mean a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable density on a site pursuant to Government Code section 65915 and Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

Detached single-family dwelling unit shall mean a dwelling unit intended for use by a single household and not attached to any other building.

Director shall mean the City’s Planning and Development Services Director or designee.

Dwelling unit shall mean a residential unit, either for sale or rent.

For-sale residential development project shall mean a residential development project that includes the creation of one (1) or more new dwelling units that may be sold individually. A for-sale residential development project also includes the conversion of a residential rental development to a residential ownership development.

Gap Financing means the amount of funding necessary to fill the gap between the estimated funding required to develop and make available the Mixed-Income Units and the resources commonly available to residential development applicants as described in the October 2025 Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance feasibility report on file with the City.

In-lieu fee shall mean a monetary payment made by an applicant for a residential development project subject to this Chapter to the City in lieu of constructing the number of Mixed-Income Units that would otherwise be required under this Chapter. The in-lieu fee is intended to provide funds needed to cover the Gap Financing necessary to facilitate the construction of required Mixed-Income Units as described in the October 2025 Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance feasibility report on file with the City.

Lower/Low-income household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Market rate unit shall mean a new dwelling unit for sale or rent in a residential development project that is not a Mixed-Income Unit.

6 Mixed-Income Unit or Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance (MIZO) Unit shall mean a dwelling unit available at an Affordable rent or sold at an Affordable price to very low-, or low-income households in accordance with Section 9.27.050 of this Chapter. A dwelling unit designated as a Mixed-Income Unit or MIZO Unit shall remain affordable for the longest feasible duration (but not less than fifty-five (55) years for rental units and forty-five (45) years for for-sale units) from the date of recordation of a covenant or regulatory agreement or similar document recorded with the Fresno County Recorder’s office. The recording must occur prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

Multi-family unit shall mean a residential unit intended for the use of a single household that is part of a larger building having one (1) or more walls attached to and in common with other residential units.

Qualified buyer shall refer to the eligible member(s) of a low-income household that are qualified to purchase a for-sale Mixed-Income unit.

Rental residential development project shall mean a residential development project that creates one (1) or more dwelling units that cannot be lawfully sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Residential development project shall mean a development for which a discretionary approval is required for a development that includes the creation of one (1) or more new dwelling units, conversion of nonresidential uses to dwelling units, or the conversion of a use from a rental residential development project to a for-sale residential development project, and includes any for-sale residential development project and any rental residential development project.

Unit type shall mean the type of dwelling unit, either attached single-family dwelling unit, detached single-family dwelling unit, or multi-family unit.

Very low-income household shall mean a household whose income does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50105, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

Vesting tentative map shall mean a map which confers certain vested rights to proceed with development for a specified period of time after recordation in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. (Gov. Code § 66452, subd. (b).)

Section 9.27.030 – Applicability of Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

Applicability. Any new residential development project consisting of eleven (11) or more market rate units as approved by the City to be built anywhere within the City, and in any area within the City’s sphere of influence to be annexed to the City in the future, shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter.

7 Section 9.27.040 – Mixed-Income Unit Requirements

Any residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall include Mixed- Income Units as determined herein. The number of Mixed-Income Units to be included in the residential development project and constructed on the project site shall be based on the total number of units proposed in the residential development project without regard to any density bonus units provided pursuant to Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

A. Mixed-Income Unit Requirement. No less than five percent (5%) of all proposed units for a residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall be Mixed- Income Units. The minimum five percent (5%) total shall be achieved using the following allowable ranges of affordability:

1. Rental residential development projects:

i. At least fifty percent (50%) of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to very low-income households, and the balance of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households. For purposes of this provision, the minimum fifty percent (50%) affordable to very low-income households shall be calculated as no less than one (1) very-low income unit for every one (1) low-income unit.

2. For-sale residential development projects:

i. One hundred percent (100%) of the required Mixed-Income Units shall be affordable to low-income households.

B. Fractional units. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or this Chapter, when the application of the percentage specified in Section 9.27.040, subdivision (A) results in a number that includes a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number to determine the Mixed-Income Unit requirement for the project.

Examples: For-sale residential development project proposing 11 market rate units (x.05) = 0.55 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit.

For-sale residential development project proposing 29 market rate units (x.05) = 1.45 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit.

Rental residential development project proposing 40 market rate units (x.05) = 2 Mixed-Income Units = 1 unit affordable to very low-income households and 1 unit affordable to low-income households.

8 Rental residential development project proposing 24 market rate units (x.05) =

1.2 (rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 Mixed-Income Unit = 1 unit affordable to low-income households.

C. Density Bonus. Any Mixed-Income Units provided on site in compliance with this Chapter may be used to qualify for a density bonus in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.26 of this Title (Affordable Housing Incentives: Density Bonus).

D. Affordable Housing Agreement. The applicant for a residential development project subject to this Chapter shall execute a written agreement with the City at the time the project is approved, indicating the number, type, location, approximate size, and construction schedule of all dwelling units for the project as required to determine the project’s compliance with this Chapter, and duly execute any applicable affordability restriction to be recorded and run with the land for the required Mixed-Income Units.

E. Construction Timing. All Mixed-Income Units constructed on the project site, or constructed off-site as authorized by Section 9.27.050, subdivision (C), shall be completed no later than the completion of all market rate units for the applicable residential development project. For phased developments, Mixed-Income Units shall be completed in reasonably approximate proportion to the number of market rate units completed in each phase. The City may approve guidelines to assist in implementing this Chapter.

Section 9.27.050 – In-Lieu Fees and Alternatives for Compliance

Notwithstanding any provision in this Chapter addressing constructing Mixed-Income Units on the project site as provided in Section 9.27.040, any applicant of a residential development project subject to this Chapter may fulfill the requirements of this Chapter by any of the following alternatives, rather than constructing Mixed-Income Units on the project site:

A. In-Lieu Fee. Payment of an in-lieu fee as provided herein. The fee amount shall be $2.80 per square foot of residential floor area for each market rate unit. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated based on the net livable residential floor area (in square feet) of all market rate units for the applicable residential development project.

Example: In-Lieu Fee = [Net livable residential floor area of the market rate units] x [$2.80/sq.ft.])

1. Payment of In-Lieu Fee. Such in-lieu fee for an applicable project shall be paid no later than upon issuance of a building permit for each market rate units in the residential development project but may be deferred to occupancy as approved by the Director.

2. The City Council may, by resolution, adjust the in-lieu fee rate by any reasonable means, including, without limitation, for inflation in accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.10.02, as necessary to reflect changes in land costs,

9 construction costs, and needed subsidy levels — provided that the revised fee continues to reasonably approximate the City’s estimated per-square-foot cost of providing Gap Financing.

B. Land Dedication/Conveyance. Land sufficient for constructing the required number of Mixed-Income Units for a residential development project may be dedicated or conveyed to the City, as provided herein, in lieu of constructing Mixed-Income Units.

The City shall evaluate any proposed land based on the following criteria and any guidelines approved as provided in Section 9.27.100:

1. The fair market value of the land proposed to be dedicated/conveyed shall be of equal or greater value than the estimated amount of the in-lieu fees that would otherwise be required under this section. A recent appraisal of the land shall be submitted as prepared by an MAI appraiser approved by the City.

Costs associated with the appraisal, title insurance, property transfer, document recordation and related costs shall be borne by the applicant.

2. The Director shall review the proposed land to be dedicated/conveyed to determine if the land is economically feasible to develop or be used to facilitate development of Mixed-Income Units. The Director’s review and determination may include, without limitation, determining whether adequate infrastructure exists to serve the site, whether the site is a sufficient size, physically suitable, and includes an appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning to accommodate or facilitate the development of the required number of Mixed- Income Units. The Director shall also determine that development of the land would not be significantly restricted by environmental constraints, hazardous materials, public service constraints, or public health and safety concerns before the City accepts the dedication or conveyance. The City Manager or designee shall make the final determination as to whether the City will accept any land proposed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter.

3. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, the applicant must complete the dedication/conveyance of the land to the City within ninety (90) days of the City’s final determination that the land proposed for dedication/conveyance is acceptable to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter.

Example: Residential development project proposing 100 market rate units (x.05) = 5 Mixed-Income Units. Applicant may propose land suitable to develop or facilitate development of the 5 Mixed-Income Units.

C. Off-Site Construction of Mixed-Income Units. Any applicant may build Mixed-Income Units not located within the residential development project or physically contiguous to the market rate units of the applicable residential development project, provided they are built in the city limits and equal to or more than the number of Mixed-Income Units required under Section 9.27.040 of this Chapter. Off-site construction of Mixed- Income Units shall be subject to appropriate application by the applicant and approval by the City.

10 D. Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Existing Dwelling Units. Any applicant may fulfill the requirements of this Chapter for any applicable residential development project by acquiring and rehabilitating existing market rate units elsewhere in the City to become Mixed-Income Units. Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units in-lieu of constructing Mixed-Income Units shall be allowed only if the applicant’s rehabilitation plan is approved by the City Manager or designee, and only if the rehabilitated units meet each of the standards provided in Section 9.27.060 below.

E. Discretion. An applicant may propose an alternative not specifically addressed above to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter. The City Manager or designee may approve, conditionally approve, or reject any alternative proposed by the applicant.

The City Manager’s determination shall be final, subject to appeal to the City Council.

Section 9.27.060 – Mixed-Income Unit Standards

The following standards shall apply to Mixed-Income Units constructed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter, whether constructed on the residential development project site or elsewhere within the City.

A. Recipient Requirements. All Mixed-Income Units shall be sold or rented to low- income, or very low-income households.

1. Qualified buyers of for-sale Mixed-Income Units shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City and execute appropriate implementation documents as required by the City.

2. Renters shall be subject to the applicant’s affordable housing agreement and must be selected by means of an open and public process.

B. Unit Type and Physical Quality. The unit type(s) of the Mixed-Income Units constructed to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter shall comply with the following:

1. Except as otherwise provided in Section 9.27.050, subdivision (C), Mixed- Income Units constructed on the same site as the applicable residential development project subject to this Chapter shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project to prevent a concentration of Mixed-Income Units.

2. Detached single-family affordable dwelling units constructed to fulfill the Mixed-Income Unit requirements of this Chapter shall comply with comparable design requirements as market-rate units in the same residential development project as approved by the City in accordance with any applicable guidelines approved as provided in Section 9.27.100.

11 Section 9.27.070 – Development Project Approval

A. From and after the effective date of this Chapter, a residential development application will not be deemed complete until the applicant has provided the City with an Affordable Housing Plan that demonstrates the manner in which the applicant proposes to fulfill the requirements of this Chapter, if applicable, including, without limitation, any plans indicating the location of on-site/off-site Mixed-Income Units, land dedication, or intent to pay in-lieu fees, or some other alternative as authorized by Section 9.27.050, subdivision (E).

B. Fulfillment of the requirements of this Chapter shall be a condition of approval for any residential development project subject to this Chapter. Condition(s) for fulfilling the requirements of this Chapter shall be imposed by the City on the first approval of an entitlement for an applicable residential development project.

The imposition of any condition(s) on the first approval of an entitlement does not preclude the appropriate authority from imposing such other conditions as may be required by this Chapter when acting on a subsequent application for a subsequent approval for all or part of the same residential development project to which this Chapter applies.

C. Any determination made by the approval authority to implement this Chapter in connection with granting a first approval of an entitlement for an applicable project may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.90 of this Code.

Section 9.27.080 – Occupancy and Continuing Availability of Mixed-Income Units

A. Ongoing Affordability of For-Sale Mixed-Income Units. In order to maintain the availability of for-sale Mixed-Income Units constructed pursuant to this Chapter, the following requirements apply to such Mixed-Income Units, which shall remain affordable for forty-five (45) years, and shall be documented in an affordable housing agreement and affordability restriction(s) as described in section 9.27.040, subdivision (D) and recorded against the property upon which the Mixed-Income Unit is constructed:

1. The monthly housing costs (including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and any mandatory association dues) of a for-sale Mixed-Income Unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the State maximum household income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.

2. The qualified buyer shall occupy the Mixed-Income Unit as the buyer's principal place of residence.

3. The qualified buyer shall not lease or rent the Mixed-Income Unit, or any portion of the Mixed-Income Unit, to another party, including listing the Mixed- Income Unit as a short-term rental. Any such lease or rental of the Mixed- Income Unit or a portion of the Mixed-Income Unit, or any use other than as

12 the buyer’s principal place of residence shall constitute a default under the requirements of this Chapter and the affordable housing agreement between the City and the qualified buyer.

B. Ongoing Affordability of Rental Mixed-Income Units. In order to maintain the availability of rental Mixed-Income Units constructed pursuant to this Chapter, such rental Mixed-Income Units shall remain affordable for fifty-five (55) years, as documented in an affordable housing agreement as described in Section 9.27.040, subdivision (D) and recorded against the property upon which the Mixed-Income Unit is constructed.

Section 9.27.090 – Collection and Use of In-Lieu Fees

Any in-lieu fees received by the City pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund, to be used for authorized purposes and expenditures.

Section 9.27.100 – Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement

A. Establishment of Guidelines. The City Council may approve Mixed-Income Zoning guidelines to assist in the implementation of this Chapter.

B. Establishment of Administrative Fees. The City Council, by resolution, may establish fees to recover the costs to the City for ongoing administration and monitoring of Mixed-Income Units in the City, which fees may be adjusted by City Council resolution.

C. Enforcement. The City may pursue and undertake enforcement action as authorized under this Code and/or any other action authorized by law or by any regulatory document, restriction, or agreement executed under this Chapter.

D. Project Approval Restrictions. No permit, license, map, or other approval or entitlement for a residential development project to which this Chapter applies shall be issued, including without limitation a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements of this Chapter have been satisfied.

E. Annual Monitoring.

1. Homeowners may receive an annual monitoring notice from the City to confirm the owner occupancy requirement and prohibition of renting the dwelling unit.

For rental units, an annual monitoring notice from the City may be sent to any management company of rental units to confirm residents are eligible to reside in the Mixed-Income Units.

2. The City shall prepare and present at a regular City Council meeting an annual report on the status of this Mixed-Income Zoning Ordinance, including how many market-rate residential development projects are subject to this Chapter,

13 how each of the projects has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter, and a record of funds deposited in the City’s Housing Trust Fund.

Attachment 2

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

of a Proposed New

MIXED INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE

Prepared for
City of Clovis

Prepared by
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

October 2025

Attachment 3

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Feasibility Study Findings 1

1.2 Recommendations 2

1.3 In-Lieu Fees Compared to Cost of Providing Units On-Site 4

1.4 Influence on Total Fees and Permits Cost 5

2.0 INTRODUCTION 6

2.1 Settlement Agreement Criteria for Proposed MIZO 6

2.2 Household Income Categories 7

2.3 Prototypes and Geographic Areas Addressed 7

3.0 HOUSING MARKET CONTEXT 10

4.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 13

4.1 Analysis Limitations 13

4.2 Project Types Evaluated 13

4.3 Estimated Home Prices and Rents 14

4.4 Developer Investment Supported, Rental Projects 17

4.5 Development Cost Estimates 18

4.6 Residential Land Costs 20

4.7 Feasibility Criteria 21

4.8 Base Case Feasibility Analysis Findings 22

4.9 Feasibility Results with a New Inclusionary Requirement 23

4.10 Potential Ways Development May Respond to a New Inclusionary Requirement 25

5.0 OTHER MEASURES OF POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 28

5.1 Compliance Costs 28

5.2 Changes in Prices and Rents Sufficient to Offset Cost of Inclusionary 29

5.3 Total Fee Stack 31

6.0 AFFORDABILITY OF EXISTING UNITS AND GAP FINANCING 32

6.1 Income Required to Afford New and Existing Market Rate Units 32

6.2 Gap Financing Analysis 33

6.3 In-Lieu Fee Calculation 35

6.4 Analysis to Support Potential Option to Restrict Existing Units 36

7.0 DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CONTACTS 37

List of Charts
Chart 1-1. Estimated Per Square Foot Costs to Comply with Inclusionary Requirements ........................... 4 Chart 1-2. Potential New In-Lieu Fees Relative to Total Existing Fee Stack ................................................ 5 Chart 3-1. Housing Units Permitted by Year, City of Clovis ........................................................................ 10 Chart 3-2. Median Home Price, City of Clovis ............................................................................................ 11 Chart 3-3. Rents and Vacancy Rate Trends, City of Clovis ........................................................................ 12 Chart 4-1. Pricing for New Homes North of Herndon and Estimated Prototype Pricing ............................. 15 Chart 4-2. Pricing for New Homes South of Herndon and Estimated Prototype Pricing ............................ 16 Chart 4-3. Asking Rents, Recently Built Apartments and Estimated Prototype Rents ............................... 17 Chart 5-1. Estimated Per Square Foot Costs to Comply with Inclusionary Requirements ......................... 29 Chart 5-2. Percent Increase in Market Price or Rent Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirement ................................................................................................................................. 30 Chart 5-3. Potential New In-Lieu Fees Relative to Total Existing Fee Stack .............................................. 31

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Feasibility Analysis Findings ........................................................................................................ 1 Table 2-1. Income Limits and Affordable Prices and Rents .......................................................................... 7 Table 4-1. Prototype Residential Projects Evaluated ................................................................................. 14 Table 4-2. Estimated Home Prices and Rents ............................................................................................ 14 Table 4-3. Net Operating Income and Investment Supported, Rentals ...................................................... 18 Table 4-4. Development Costs and Builder Margin .................................................................................... 19 Table 4-5. Land Sale Transactions Since 2019 .......................................................................................... 20 Table 4-6. Base Case Pro Forma Summary ............................................................................................... 22 Table 4-7. For-Sale Project Feasibility Findings ......................................................................................... 24 Table 4-8. Rental Project Feasibility Findings............................................................................................. 25 Table 6-1. Estimated Household Income (% of AMI) Required to Afford For-Sale Unit Market Prices ...... 32 Table 6-2. Percent of AMI Required to Afford Market Rate Rental Units ................................................... 33 Table 6-3. Estimated Per Affordable Unit Gap Financing Need after 4% Tax Credits ............................... 34 Table 6-4. Estimated Gap Financing Need with Non-Tax Credit Affordable Unit ....................................... 35 Table 6-5. Calculated In-Lieu Fee ($/SF), Depending on Inclusionary Percentage ................................... 36 Table 6-6. Gap Comparison: New vs. Existing Units .................................................................................. 36

Appendices
Appendix A. Summary Tables
Appendix B For-Sale Pro Forma Tables
Appendix C Rental Pro Forma Tables
Appendix D Supporting Data and Analysis
Appendix E Prototype Definitions and Precedent Project Summaries Appendix F Gap Financing Requirement
Appendix G Affordability of Existing Units

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Clovis (“City”) committed to establishing a new Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance (“MIZO”) as part of a settlement agreement and stipulated judgement in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case (“Settlement Agreement”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the new MIZO will require residential developments with more than ten units to include affordable housing. The commitment is to require no less than 5% and no more than 10% of units to be affordable, with the specific affordable unit percentage to be set within this 5% to 10% range based on a feasibility study. This Feasibility Analysis of a Proposed New Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance (“Feasibility Study”) was prepared pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to evaluate the ability of market rate residential developments to sustain a new inclusionary requirement and to inform determination of the inclusionary percentage under a new MIZO.

1.1 Feasibility Study Findings

The Feasibility Study evaluates the ability of five prototype residential development projects in three geographic areas of Clovis to sustain inclusionary and in-lieu fee requirements. Findings are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Feasibility Analysis Findings
North of Herndon
East of Fowler / South
of Herndon
West of Fowler /
South of Herndon
Maximum Feasibility in
All Areas and for All
Development Types
For-Sale Housing
No Inclusionary Feasible in all areas On-site Inclusionary if
affordable units must be the
same size as market rate
Large lot homes: 5%
infeasible; Other single
family: 6-8% feasible
Infeasible at 5% Infeasible at 5% Infeasible at 5%
On-site Inclusionary if
affordable units allowed to
be smaller units (max of
1,500 sf) on smaller lots
7% feasible
Smaller homes:

Infeasible at 5%
Larger homes: 7%
feasible
Infeasible at 5% Infeasible at 5%
In-Lieu Fee Feasible at $5.60/SF
Smaller homes:
infeasible at $2.80/SF;
Larger homes: feasible
up to $3.40/SF
Infeasible at
$2.80/SF Infeasible at $2.80/SF
Rental Housing
Infeasible in all areas and in all scenarios tested
Note: Findings are based on current rents, sales, prices, development costs and can be expected to change over time. The economics of individual projects will vary based on project-specific circumstances. See Tables 4-7 and 4-8 for more detailed results.

 For-Sale Projects - Up to 7% affordable units is feasible if affordable units are allowed to be smaller than the market rate units (avg size <=1,500 sf). Smaller homes South of Herndon are an exception where 5% on-site inclusionary was found to be infeasible. If affordable

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
units are required to be comparable in size to the market rate units, 5% inclusionary is infeasible for all but two of the three North of Herndon prototypes.

 Rental Projects – rental projects are infeasible without any inclusionary requirement and are unable to support a new inclusionary or in-lieu fee requirement under current market conditions. Rentals were previously feasible, as evidenced by recent built projects in Clovis; however, feasibility has eroded due to higher development and financing costs, slower rent growth, and a downward trend in the value of completed projects driven by higher interest rates.

 In-Lieu Fees – Feasibility testing of in-lieu fees was focused on rates between $2.80, calculated based on a 5% inclusionary requirement, and $5.60 per square foot, calculated based on a 10% inclusionary requirement. In-lieu fee amounts are calculated in Section 6.3 based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement. For-sale projects North of Herndon are feasible at the $5.60 per square foot maximum in-lieu fee level tested. Larger homes South of Herndon are feasible with an in-lieu fee up to $3.40 per square foot and smaller homes are infeasible with the minimum in-lieu fee tested of $2.80 per square foot. Rental projects are infeasible with or without an in-lieu fee.

1.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this Feasibility Study and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, KMA recommends the City of Clovis adopt a new MIZO that includes the following provisions.

a. Projects Subject to a MIZO – The MIZO should apply to projects with 11 or more units in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

b. Inclusionary Percentage – The MIZO should require 5% of units in new developments be set aside as affordable. This is based on the Feasibility Study finding that even a 5% requirement is infeasible citywide and thus the 5% minimum inclusionary percentage under the Settlement Agreement applies. While support for up to a 7% inclusionary requirement was identified for some geographic areas and project types, KMA recommends a uniform citywide inclusionary percentage for simplicity.

c. Affordable Rents and Prices – Set affordable rents for inclusionary units at a mix of Very Low Income (50% of Area Median Income, or AMI ) and Low Income (80% of AMI) rents, with at least half of required units at Very Low Income. Set affordable prices at Low Income (80% of AMI). These recommended affordability levels are based on the Settlement Agreement.

d. In-lieu Fees – Include an in-lieu fee option as part of the MIZO to provide a feasible pathway for compliance. Apply fees based on net livable square feet (excluding garages, common hallways) so that the fee burden is proportionate to market rate unit size. Set the in-lieu fee at $2.80 per

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
square foot, an amount determined based on the 5% recommended inclusionary requirement and the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

e. Alternatives – Provide multiple alternative compliance options to allow flexibility and creativity in meeting the MIZO requirement, such as:

i. Land Dedication – provide a land dedication option, subject to requirements that dedicated sites are served by adequate infrastructure and have a parcel size and allowable density adequate to accommodate an affordable housing development.

Appraised value should at least equal the in-lieu fee that would otherwise be due, or if not, should be credited toward the in-lieu fee to the extent of appraised value.

ii. Off-site Construction of Affordable Units – Allow inclusionary units to be built on an alternative site within the City of Clovis.

f. Affordable Unit Size and Features - Allow affordable units to have different square footage sizes, unit types, and interior features and finishes than market rate units, so long as units are comparable in overall quality of construction and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. Providing flexibility in this regard can be helpful in encouraging projects to provide units on-site rather than paying the in-lieu fee. Standards for affordable units are expected to be established as part of implementation guidelines.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

1.3 In-Lieu Fees Compared to Cost of Providing Units On-Site

The cost of providing inclusionary units on-site was expressed as a cost per square foot to enable a simple comparison to in-lieu fee rates. As shown in Chart 1-1, in-lieu fees set at either $2.80 or $5.60 per square foot would be substantially less costly than constructing affordable units on-site. If in-lieu fees are set at these rates and allowed by right, the City should anticipate that most projects will choose the fee option.

Chart 1-1. Estimated Per Square Foot Costs to Comply with Inclusionary Requirements

Note: figures are based on averages for multiple prototype projects.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

1.4 Influence on Total Fees and Permits Cost

If in-lieu fees are allowed by right and set at $2.80 to $5.60 per square foot, the effective cost of the inclusionary requirement for a 2,400 square foot home will be $6,700 to $13,400 per unit. This would represent an increase of 10% to 20% over the aggregate cost of existing impact, connection, and processing charges, which total an estimated $67,000 per unit, as shown in Chart 1-2. Existing fee amounts represent estimates that blend differing rates by geographic location (See Appendix D Table 1 for detailed fee estimates).

Chart 1-2. Potential New In-Lieu Fees Relative to Total Existing Fee Stack

Note: based on a 2,400 square foot home and an average of rates for North of Herndon and East of Fowler prototypes.

Prices are set by the market; therefore, developers may be unable to pass on the $6,700 to $13,400 per home cost to homebuyers. To the extent the cost is passed on to homebuyers, it would translate to an estimated monthly mortgage payment increase of approximately $35 to $69 per month

1. See Section 4.10 for a discussion of other potential market responses to a new MIZO requirement.

1 Illustrative monthly mortgage payment amounts reflect a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with 6.7% interest and 20% down.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The City has committed to adoption of a new MIZO requiring residential developments with more than ten units to set aside a percentage of units as affordable. This Feasibility Study was prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to evaluate the financial feasibility of residential developments in Clovis that are subject to a new MIZO requirement of between 5% and 10% affordable units. The following components are included:

 Housing Market Context (Section 3) – Provides data on home price trends, vacancy rates and permitting activity.

 Financial Feasibility Analysis (Section 4) – Evaluates the ability of residential developments to sustain inclusionary and in-lieu fee requirements.

 Other Metrics (Section 5) – Identifies the dollar per square foot cost associated with complying with inclusionary requirements, the change in prices or rents sufficient to offset the cost of a new requirement and the effect of a new in-lieu fee on the City’s total fee stack.

 Affordability of Existing Units and Gap Financing Analysis (Section 6) – Evaluates the income needed to afford market rate units, the gap financing required to create a new affordable unit, provides a calculation of potential in-lieu fees, and provides analysis to support a possible compliance alternative to place affordability restrictions on existing units.

 Developer Interviews (Section 7) – Summarizes feedback from a series of interviews with local development professionals.

The feasibility analysis represents a snapshot of real estate market conditions as of the time this analysis was prepared in summer / fall 2024. Median incomes, affordable rents and prices, and certain housing market data provided in Section 3 have been updated through 2025.

2.1 Settlement Agreement Criteria for Proposed MIZO

As part of the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed to certain criteria for the new MIZO, including the following:

(1) The percentage of affordable units to be required will be set at the maximum percentage that is feasible, but in no case less than 5% or more than 10%.

(2) The MIZO will apply to residential projects with more than ten units.

(3) Affordable rental units must be affordable to Very Low Income and Low Income households, with at least 50% of the affordable units for Very Low Income.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

(4) Affordable for-sale units must be affordable to Low Income households.

(5) Alternatives to on-site affordable units may include, but are not limited to, in-lieu fee payment, land donation and construction of affordable units on alternative sites.

(6) In-lieu fees may be structured on a per unit or per square foot basis and should generate sufficient revenue to fund the inclusionary units not provided within the project.

2.2 Household Income Categories

The analysis addresses income categories as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI):
 Very Low Income: households earning up to 50% of AMI; and  Low Income: households earning over 50% of AMI, up to 80% of AMI.

The focus on Very Low and Low Income units is based on the Settlement Agreement terms described in Section 2.1.

The 2025 median income for a family of four in Fresno County is $93,900. Table 2-1 identifies income limits, affordable sales prices, and affordable rents by bedroom size.

Table 2-1. Income Limits and Affordable Prices and Rents Number of Bedrooms Studio One BR Two BR Three BR Four BR Five BR

Household Income Limits
Very Low Income $32,900 $37,600 $42,300 $46,950 $50,750 $54,500 Low Income $52,600 $60,100 $67,600 $75,100 $81,150 $87,150

Affordable Sales Prices
Low Income $160,900 $175,200 $181,600 $191,200

Affordable Rents
Very Low Income $742/mo $844/mo $924/mo $1,005/mo
Low Income $1,234/mo $1,407/mo $1,556/mo $1,709/mo
See supporting calculations in Appendix D Tables 10 and 11. Affordable rents are net of a utility allowance.

2.3 Prototypes and Geographic Areas Addressed

The feasibility analysis addresses three “prototypical” or representative for-sale residential project types and two rental project types, listed below:
 Large Lot Single Family
 Single Family
 Smaller Single Family

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
 Rental Apartments, Lower Density
 Rental Apartments, Higher Density

The lower density rental prototype is more representative of recent developments in Clovis. The higher density example was included to explore whether findings would be materially different for projects at a higher density than Clovis has historically seen.

The prototypes are evaluated within three geographic “subareas” or “submarkets,” depicted on Map 1 below, including:

 North of Herndon, encompassing the Northeast and Northwest growth areas.

 East of Fowler and South of Herndon, encompassing the Loma Vista growth area.

 West of Fowler and South of Herndon, also referred to as City Center, where development opportunities are primarily infill.

The intent of the geographic subareas is to capture differences in market prices, rents, land costs, and permits and fees, which contribute to differences in feasibility by location.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Map 1. Geographic Areas Addressed (Submarkets)

North of Herndon
East of Fowler,
South of Herndon
West of Fowler,
South of Herndon
(“City Center”)

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

3.0 HOUSING MARKET CONTEXT

This section provides background on housing production, home price and rental rate trends in Clovis.

Approximately 900 housing units were permitted per year on average during the twelve-year period from 2013 to 2024, not including the 2010 to 2012 period shown on the graph, which overlaps with the Great Recession and foreclosure crises, a period of low housing production both locally and nationally. Over 85% of the units produced were single family. Chart 3-1 shows housing units permitted by year.

Chart 3-1. Housing Units Permitted by Year, City of Clovis

Sources: City annual housing element progress reports (2018 to 2024) and Construction Industry Research Board (2010 to 2017)

Home prices escalated rapidly during the pandemic and by April 2022 were approximately 44% higher than just prior to the start of the pandemic in February 2020. The rapid price escalation of the initial pandemic years has now abated, and prices have become less stable. Prices are under competing influences of higher mortgage rates, which negatively impacts the ability of buyers to afford homes, limited supply of existing homes as existing homeowners protect historically low mortgage rates they locked in several years ago, pent up housing demand, and the effects of inflation on household budgets. Chart 3-2 shows trends in median home prices since 2015.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 3-2. Median Home Price, City of Clovis

Source: Redfin

Chart 3-3 shows trends in rents and vacancy rates since 2015. Overall vacancy increased from a low of 1.3% in 2020 to 3.7% in 2025. Vacancy rates for newer units built since 2000 increased from a low of 2.3% in 2020 to 10.6% in 2023, driven by recent construction completions undergoing initial lease up, and have since declined to 3.8% as the new units have been absorbed.

Average rents in Clovis increased approximately 56% over the 2015 to 2025 period to approximately $1,566 per month. Rents for newer apartments reflect an approximately 33% premium over overall average rents. After reaching a peak of 12% in 2021, rent growth in 2025 has been at a more modest 1.6% rate overall and 2.7% for newer units built since 2000.

Approximately 1,100 new multifamily units have been completed in Clovis since 2019; however, in 2024, just 15 multifamily units pulled permits and there are multiple entitled projects on hold.

A multifamily market report published by Colliers International for the Fresno market notes that new groundbreakings for multifamily projects in the Fresno region have stalled due to financing constraints, rising interest rates, and escalating costs. Inflation has strained household budgets, increasing price sensitivity for many renters, which can limit the ability for newly built rentals to achieve premium rents and can slow the pace of initial lease up.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 3-3. Rents and Vacancy Rate Trends, City of Clovis

Source: CoStar

Recent shifts in the market have altered the conditions that supported a period of feasibility for rentals, including the following:

 The supply of completed new rental units, combined with increased price sensitivity among renters driven by inflation, has resulted in slower rent growth for newer units.

 Development costs increased rapidly during the pandemic and continue to increase, which means higher rents are needed today for projects to “pencil” financially.

 Higher interest rates have adversely affected rental projects for several reasons:
o Rising interest rates increase the cost of construction financing. o Lender debt service coverage requirements combined with higher interest rates increase the share of project costs that must be financed with equity. o Higher interest rates put downward pressure on building valuations and upward pressure on the return on cost a project needs to attract investment and justify development risk relative to safer investment alternatives like government bonds.

These factors have contributed to a slowdown in new rental construction starts that may persist for some time.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

4.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

This section presents a financial feasibility analysis addressing a range of residential development types in Clovis and their ability to sustain potential on-site inclusionary and in-lieu fee requirements.

The financial feasibility analysis estimates the cost to develop a new market rate residential project and the sales revenues or rental income it will generate upon completion. If sales revenues or rental income are sufficient to support the development costs and generate a risk-adjusted return adequate to justify the investment, the prototype is considered feasible. This approach to evaluating financial feasibility is standard practice in the real estate industry and is utilized in one form or another by all developers when analyzing new construction projects.

4.1 Analysis Limitations

This feasibility analysis, by its nature, can only provide an overview-level assessment of development economics because it is based on prototypical projects rather than specific projects.

Every project has unique characteristics that will dictate rents or sale prices supported by the market as well as development costs and developer return requirements. Each developer will assess the project’s risk and return and assemble project financing differently. This feasibility analysis is intended to reflect prototypical projects in Clovis, but it is recognized that the economics of some projects may look better, and some may look worse than those of the prototypes analyzed.

The feasibility analysis represents a snapshot of real estate market conditions as of the time this analysis was prepared in summer / fall 2024. Real estate development economics are fluid and impacted by constantly changing conditions with regard to achievable rents and sales prices, construction costs, land costs, and financing. Conditions will undoubtedly be different in a year or two.

4.2 Project Types Evaluated

The feasibility analysis addresses three for-sale and two rental project types across three submarkets, as summarized in Table 4-1. The project types are reflective of recently built and proposed projects in the City’s development pipeline. Select projects in Fresno were also reviewed with a goal of exploring if there are higher density project types being developed elsewhere in the region that could potentially occur in Clovis in the future. Appendix E provides a summary of the pipeline projects reviewed in identifying programmatic assumptions for the prototypes.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Table 4-1. Prototype Residential Projects Evaluated
For-Sale Rental

Large Lot
Single Family
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Single
Family
Lower
Density
Higher
Density
Density (units per acre) 3 dua 7 dua 10 to 13 dua 20 dua 30 dua Average Unit Size 4,000 sf 2,400 sf 1,500 sf 1,200 sf 1,000 sf Average Lot Size 10,000 sf 4,000 sf 2,000 to 2,600 sf N/A N/A

Geographic Areas Evaluated
North of Herndon x x x x x
East of Fowler / South of Herndon x x x x
West of Fowler / South of Herndon x x x

4.3 Estimated Home Prices and Rents

Market home prices were estimated based upon a review of prices for new homes currently being marketed for sale in Clovis. Market rents are based on rental data for recently built market rate apartments in Clovis. Estimates are summarized in Table 4-2. The pricing and rent data that supports these estimates is presented in Charts 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 on the following pages. Appendix D provides additional supporting data. Due to limited data, price and rent estimates for the area South of Herndon, West of Fowler are based on data for projects East of Fowler combined with data on resales of existing homes indicating slightly lower pricing West of Fowler.

Table 4-2. Estimated Home Prices and Rents
For-Sale Rental

Large Lot
Single
Family
Single
Family
Detached
Smaller
Single
Family Lower Density Higher Density
Prices / Rents

North of Herndon $1,000,000 $620,000 $480,000 $2,220/mo $2,050/mo East of Fowler / South of Herndon N/A $535,000 $430,000 $2,300/mo $2,150/mo West of Fowler / South of Herndon N/A N/A $410,000 $2,280/mo $2,120/mo

Prices / Rents Per Square Foot

North of Herndon $250/sf $258/sf $320/sf $1.85/sf/mo $2.05/sf/mo East of Fowler / South of Herndon N/A $223/sf $287/sf $1.92/sf/mo $2.15/sf/mo West of Fowler / South of Herndon N/A N/A $273/sf $1.90/sf/mo $2.12/sf/mo

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 4-1. Pricing for New Homes North of Herndon and Estimated Prototype Pricing

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 4-2. Pricing for New Homes South of Herndon and Estimated Prototype Pricing

Rental income for the apartment prototypes is estimated based on rental data for recently built apartments in Clovis. Estimated rents are summarized in Table 4-2. Chart 4-3 illustrates the rent data along with the estimated rents for each apartment prototype. Supporting rental market data is provided in Appendix D.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 4-3. Asking Rents, Recently Built Apartments and Estimated Prototype Rents

4.4 Developer Investment Supported, Rental Projects

The first step in estimating the amount of developer investment that can be supported in a new rental development is to estimate Net Operating Income (NOI). NOI is equal to the annual rental income, minus operating expenses and a 5% allowance for credit loss and vacancy. As shown in Table 4-3, the NOI for market rate units is estimated to range from $14,900 to $16,800/unit/year depending on the submarket and average unit size.

NOI is divided by a return on cost (ROC)
2 to estimate the amount of developer investment (debt and equity) that can be supported by the rental income from the project. A 7% threshold developer return on cost is used. This 7% figure reflects a 1% spread over an estimated 6% market capitalization rate
3 for a new multifamily project in Clovis. This 1% spread provides a return to the developer for undertaking a ground up development rather than purchasing an existing rental property. The estimated market capitalization rate is based on cap rates reflected in recent multifamily building sales in Clovis and Fresno, summarized in Appendix D Table 13, which average

5.96% and the published cap rate surveys summarized in Appendix D Table 14.

2 Return on Cost (ROC) represents the ratio between net operating income and development cost of the project. 3 A capitalization rate or “cap rate” represents the ratio between net operating income and the market value of the completed project.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

Increases in interest rates since 2022 have placed upward pressure on cap rates, which in turn place upward pressure on the ROC developers need to finance projects. On this basis, the supported investment for a 100% market rate project is estimated to range from $213,000 to $239,000 depending on the prototype and estimated rents by area, as shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Net Operating Income and Investment Supported, Rentals

Effective Gross
Income Per Year
Annual
Operating
Expense
Net Operating
Income (NOI)
Threshold
Return on
Cost
(ROC)
Developer
Investment
Supported
(=NOI/ ROC)

North of Herndon
Lower Density (1,200 sf avg size) $26,400 ($10,600) $15,800 7% $226,400 Higher Density (1,000 sf avg size) $24,500 ($9,600) $14,900 7% $213,000

East of Fowler / South of Herndon

Lower Density (1,200 sf avg size) $27,400 ($10,600) $16,800 7% $239,400 Higher Density (1,000 sf avg size) $25,700 ($9,600) $16,100 7% $229,300

West of Fowler / South of Herndon

Lower Density (1,200 sf avg size) $27,100 ($10,600) $16,500 7% $236,200 Higher Density (1,000 sf avg size) $25,300 ($9,600) $15,700 7% $224,400 See Appendix C Table 1 for additional information.

4.5 Development Cost Estimates

Development costs for the prototype units are summarized in Table 4-4. As shown, costs range from approximately $310,000 to just over $1 million, depending on the unit type and size. With for- sale projects a threshold builder net profit margin of 8% is included as part of the total. KMA prepared initial cost estimates drawing on third party sources such as RS Means and the Marshall and Swift Valuation Service and then refined these estimates based on information provided by the local development professionals interviewed for this assignment, summarized in Section 7, in which we sought cost data for active local projects and specific feedback on individual cost line items in the pro forma.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Table 4-4. Development Costs and Builder Margin
Unit
Size
Land /
Lot Cost
Home
Construction
Fees and
Permits
Indirects /
financing
Sales &
Marketing
Builder
Margin(1)
Total Cost
and Builder
Margin
For-Sale Projects
North of Herndon

Large Lot Single Family 4,000 sf $261,700 $380,000 $96,100 $135,400 $50,000 $80,000 $1,003,200 Single Family 2,400 sf $137,000 $240,000 $70,100 $83,900 $31,000 $49,600 $611,600 Smaller Single Family 1,500 sf $109,200 $180,000 $56,400 $64,400 $24,000 $38,400 $472,400

East of Fowler / S of Herndon

Single Family 2,400 sf $118,300 $216,000 $64,200 $73,800 $26,800 $42,800 $541,900 Smaller Single Family 1,500 sf $96,100 $180,000 $49,900 $60,100 $21,500 $34,400 $442,000

West of Fowler / S of Herndon

Small Lot Single Family 1,500 sf $87,100 $180,000 $42,800 $58,000 $20,500 $32,800 $421,200

Rentals
North of Herndon

Lower Density 1,200 sf $19,600 $249,700 $47,900 $48,100 n/a n/a $365,300 Higher Density 1,000 sf $13,100 $225,200 $46,300 $43,400 n/a n/a $328,000

East of Fowler / S of Herndon
Lower Density 1,200 sf $13,100 $249,700 $43,900 $47,600 n/a n/a $354,300 Higher Density 1,000 sf $8,700 $225,200 $41,400 $42,900 n/a n/a $318,200

West of Fowler / S of Herndon
Lower Density 1,200 sf $13,100 $249,700 $37,000 $47,300 n/a n/a $347,100 Higher Density 1,000 sf $8,700 $225,200 $34,700 $42,600 n/a n/a $311,200 (1) Threshold net builder profit margin estimated at 8% of sales. For rentals, developer returns are reflected as part of the return on cost used to identify supported investment, described in Section 4-4.

See Appendix B Table 1 and Appendix C Table 1 for additional information.

The direct costs of development include all contractor labor and material costs to construct the project, including general requirements, contractor fees, and contingencies. As shown in Table 4-4, the direct construction costs are estimated to range from $180,000 to $380,000/unit depending upon the unit type and size. Key variables with respect to direct costs include the size of the unit, the type of unit and density. In general, higher density prototypes are more costly on a per square foot basis than lower density prototypes and smaller units are more costly on a per square foot basis than larger units. Costs also depend on factors such as materials and finishes (e.g. type of siding, appliances, flooring) and complexity of the design.

The cost of land, grading, and internal streets, and utilities needed to create a buildable lot are based on land sales data presented in Section 4-6 plus estimated in-tract costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

Indirect costs of development include architecture and engineering (A&E), municipal fees and permits costs, taxes, insurance, overhead, debt financing costs, etc. Estimated fees and permit costs reflect published FY 2024-25 fee schedules. The City provided estimates of fees and permit costs for each prototype for fees administered by the City, which in some instances were modified by KMA to incorporate multiple street or utility undergrounding areas, which affect applicable rates.

School impact fees and regional traffic management fees were calculated by KMA using published rate schedules. See Appendix D Table 1 for details.

The for-sale pro forma analysis reflects a threshold builder net profit margin of 8% of sales revenue.

This reflects specific feedback from developer interviews and is generally in line with the National Association of Homebuilders reported average net profit margin of 7% from its 2022 Builders Cost of Doing Business study. KB Homes 2023 annual report identifies a net profit margin of 11.5% for the company’s West Coast homebuilding operations.
4 Lennar reports a 13.9% net profit margin for
its Western U.S. operations, as of 2023. For rental projects, profit to the developer is captured in the 7% return on cost, discussed in the prior section.

Land

4.6 Residential Land Costs

Data on residential land sales was accessed from sources including CoStar, a third-party vendor of market data, and comparable sales identified in recent appraisals. Table 4-5 provides a summary of the residential land sale transactions since 2019. Based on the data in Table 4-5, KMA estimated the cost of unimproved land at approximately $260,000 per acre ($6 psf of land) South of Herndon and $490,000 per acre ($9 psf of land) North of Herndon.

Table 4-5. Land Sale Transactions Since 2019
No. of Sale Price ($/acre)
Sales Min. Max. Average
Apartment Sites
South of Herndon 5 $165,000 $288,000 $204,000
North of Herndon 2 $181,000 $384,000 $301,000
All sales 7 $165,000 $384,000 $238,000

Single Family Land Sales
South of Herndon 7 $114,000 $302,000 $171,000
North of Herndon 4 $113,000 $492,000 $278,000
All sales 11 $113,000 $492,000 $202,000

See Appendix D, Table 12 for details.

4 As reported in the Company’s 10k filing the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

4.7 Feasibility Criteria

The financial feasibility analysis is based on the relationship between the project’s estimated revenue, development costs, and a threshold developer return commensurate with the cost of funds and development risk. Each prototype project is placed into one of the following two categories based on pro forma results for each scenario:

Feasible – includes projects that are generally feasible and expected to develop under current market conditions. For-sale projects are classified as feasible if sales revenues are in balance with development costs plus an 8% profit to the developer. Rental projects are classified as feasible if the developer investment supported by the project’s rental income, based on a threshold return on cost of 7%, is in balance with the cost to develop the project.

Revenues are deemed to be in balance if they are within 3% of costs. This 3% tolerance is in recognition of the preliminary nature of the estimates and the fact slightly more bullish revenue assumptions or minor changes in cost estimates would show the project fully in balance. Some developers may be willing to move forward with slightly lower returns, may operate at a lower overhead, or may be able to achieve concessions on land costs.

Depending on the market cycle, access to capital, or other factors, developers are sometimes willing to invest in projects when estimated returns fall below targeted thresholds, or that require optimism about achievable prices / rents to show feasibility, particularly at the predevelopment stage.

Infeasible / Marginal – This category includes project types that do not pencil based on current market prices or rents. Projects classified as infeasible / marginal have development costs plus builder profit that are out of balance with the achievable revenues. Projects within this category require some combination of increased market prices and rents or lower costs to move forward. This category encompasses projects anywhere from those falling just slightly below the threshold for feasibility, described above, to projects with far deeper feasibility challenges.

The above categories allow characterization of results in a systematic fashion to facilitate simple comparisons across scenarios. A limitation is that projects with economics that are narrowly separated might be placed in different feasibility categories, without capturing that nuance. A series of additional metrics are reported for each scenario in Section 5 and Appendix A to enable a quantitative understanding of differences between scenarios.

Factors that can improve project feasibility over time include increases in prices or rents, more competitive construction pricing, decreases in fees or other requirements, adjustments to land costs, more favorable investment conditions that reduce the cost of capital, or a combination of these factors. Future changes may also move in the opposite direction and adversely affect feasibility.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

4.8 Base Case Feasibility Analysis Findings

Table 4-6 summarizes the base case pro forma analysis under existing requirements without a proposed new inclusionary program.

Table 4-6. Base Case Pro Forma Summary
For-Sale Rental

Large Lot
Single Family
Single Family
Detached
Smaller Single
Family
Lower
Density
Higher
Density
North of Herndon
Prices / Investment Supported $1,000,000 $620,000 $480,000 $226,400 $213,000

Development Cost $923,200 $562,000 $434,000 $365,300 $328,000 Builder Margin $80,000 $49,600 $38,400 n/a (1) n/a (1) Total Cost Plus Margin $1,003,200 $611,600 $472,400 $365,300 $328,000 %Development Costs Supported 100% 101% 102% 62% 65%

Feasibility Conclusion F F F I I
East of Fowler / South of Herndon
Prices / Investment Supported $535,000 $430,000 $239,400 $229,300

Development Cost $499,100 $407,600 $354,300 $318,200 Builder Margin $42,800 $34,400 n/a (1) n/a (1)
Total Cost Plus Margin $541,900 $442,000 $354,300 $318,200 %Development Costs Supported 99% 97% 68% 72%
Feasibility Conclusion F F I I
West of Fowler / South of Herndon
Prices / Investment Supported $410,000 $236,200 $224,400

Development Cost $388,400 $347,100 $311,200
Builder Margin $32,800 n/a (1) n/a (1)
Total Cost Plus Margin $421,200 $347,100 $311,200
%Development Costs Supported 97% 68% 72%
Feasibility Conclusion F I I
F= Feasible
I= Infeasible / Marginal
(1) For rental projects, profit is taken into account in the identified investment supported, which is the amount of investment that can be made in the project while achieving a threshold return on cost of 7%.

The for-sale projects have revenues that approximately balance with development costs and thus are identified as feasible in all submarkets.

Rental projects have estimated development costs that significantly exceed the investment supported by the rent revenue, with only 62% to 72% of costs supported. For this reason, all rental projects are classified as infeasible. Deceleration in rent growth, reduced valuations for completed

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
projects, higher financing costs, and development cost and operating expenses increases have contributed to a deterioration in the economics of rental projects. Although rentals were previously feasible as evidenced by recently built projects, it may take time before Clovis experiences another favorable market cycle for development of rentals.

4.9 Feasibility Results with a New Inclusionary Requirement

The base case pro forma summarized above was used to evaluate the ability of new residential development projects in Clovis to sustain alternative inclusionary requirements. The scenarios tested are based on the criteria for a new MIZO established in the Settlement Agreement and include the following:
 On-Site Inclusionary Units were evaluated from 5% to 10% of total units in the project, in 1% increments.
 In-lieu fees were evaluated at rates ranging from $2.80 to $5.60 per square foot. See Section 6 for the basis of these amounts.

Results of the scenario testing for for-sale projects are summarized in Table 4-7. Large lot single family projects North of Herndon are not able to support a 5% inclusionary requirement, while single family and smaller single family projects support a 6% and 8% inclusionary requirement, respectively. Projects South of Herndon were found to be infeasible with the minimum 5% inclusionary requirement, due to somewhat lower market pricing. These results assume affordable units are similar in size and on comparable-sized lots to the market rate units.

If affordable units in for-sale projects are permitted to be provided as smaller single family for-sale units, consistent with the small single family prototype (~1,500 sf), a 7% inclusionary requirement is feasible for all prototypes North of Herndon and for the larger single family prototype East of Fowler.

Results are sensitive to small changes in factors such as market prices, construction costs, fees and permits, and land costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Table 4-7. For-Sale Project Feasibility Findings
North of Herndon
East of Fowler,
South of Herndon
West of Fowler,
South of Herndon
Scenario
Large Lot
Single Family
Single
Family
Smaller
Single
Family
Single
Family
Smaller
Single
Family
Small Lot Single
Family
Existing Baseline (no IH Requirement) F F F F F F

5% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I F F I I I
6% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I F F I I I
7% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I I F I I I
8% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I I F I I I
9% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I I I I I I
10% On-Site For-Sale Affordable Units I I I I I I

7% On-Site; 1,500sf max affordable size F F F F I I

In-Lieu Fee @5% affordable ($2.80/SF) F F F F I I
In-Lieu Fee @6% affordable ($3.40/SF) F F F F I I
In-Lieu Fee @7% affordable ($3.90/SF) F F F I I I
In-Lieu Fee @8% affordable ($4.50/SF) F F F I I I
In-Lieu Fee @9% affordable ($5.10/SF) F F F I I I
In-Lieu Fee @10% affordable ($5.60/SF) F F F I I I
F= Feasible
I= Infeasible / Marginal

Table 4-8 summarizes scenario testing for rentals. The base case rental project without an inclusionary requirement was found to be infeasible and this finding also holds for any scenario with an inclusionary requirement.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Table 4-8. Rental Project Feasibility Findings
North of Herndon
East of Fowler /
South of Herndon
West of Fowler,
South of Herndon
Scenario
Lower
Density
Rental
Higher
Density
Rental
Lower
Density
Rental
Higher
Density
Rental
Lower
Density
Rental
Higher
Density
Rental
Existing Baseline (no IH Requirement) I I I I I I

5% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I
6% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I
7% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I
8% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I
9% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I
10% On-Site Rental Affordable Units I I I I I I

In-Lieu Fee @5% affordable ($2.80/SF) I I I I I I
In-Lieu Fee @6% affordable ($3.40/SF) I I I I I I
In-Lieu Fee @7% affordable ($3.90/SF) I I I I I I
In-Lieu Fee @8% affordable ($4.50/SF) I I I I I I
In-Lieu Fee @9% affordable ($5.10/SF) I I I I I I
In-Lieu Fee @10% affordable ($5.60/SF) I I I I I I
F= Feasible
I= Infeasible / Marginal

Outside subsidy sources are not assumed to offset the cost of providing on-site inclusionary units.

Projects may be able to leverage outside subsidy sources if they partner with an affordable developer and cluster affordable units on a portion of the site in a stand-alone affordable project.

Larger housing developments with a significant inclusionary obligation are typically best positioned to pursue this approach since 100% affordable projects typically need around 50 units or more on a dedicated site to make sense from an operational and/or service delivery standpoint. Self-help housing projects may be feasible with as few as ten units. Feasibility will be strengthened to the extent projects are able to partner with an affordable developer to deliver the affordable units at a lower net cost to the market rate project, with the extent of improvement in feasibility dependent on the specific business terms with any separate affordable developer.

4.10 Potential Ways Development May Respond to a New Inclusionary Requirement

There are a variety of ways development projects might respond to a new inclusionary requirement, just as projects adapt to fluctuations in home prices, rents, construction costs, or increases in impact fees or parks and open space requirements. A minor change in costs may not result in a substantive adjustment to the economics of projects and may not lead to material effects, while a more substantive change might elicit one or more of the following possible outcomes:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
 Improving Market Conditions Sustain Feasibility – When prices and rents are rising, it can help absorb the cost of a new requirement and allow projects to move forward despite an added cost.

 Adjustments to Land Costs – Developers purchase development sites at values that will allow for financially feasible projects. When a housing fee or inclusionary housing requirement is in place, developers “price in” the requirement when evaluating a project’s economics and negotiating the purchase price for development sites. When affordable housing fees or inclusionary requirements are increased, it is possible that downward pressure on land costs could result as developers adjust what they can afford to pay for land. This downward pressure on land prices can, to some degree, bring costs back into better balance with the overall economics supported by projects. While adjustments to land costs are possible, several factors limit the extent to which adjustments can occur. Existing uses on a site that generate income or alternative land uses that compete for a site will tend to dampen the potential for downward adjustments to land price. Landowners have expectations regarding the value of their property and may hold the property off the market rather than accept a less attractive price, especially if the property is generating income, or it may take time for pricing expectations to adjust. For larger master plan developments with substantial infrastructure requirements, a reduction in the value supported by the residential units affects the resources available to fund infrastructure and constrains the ability to absorb reduced land values while maintaining a viable financing plan for required infrastructure. As indicated in the analysis in Appendix A Table 5, adjustments to land values needed to absorb potential modified requirements can be quite substantial depending on the scenario and may not be realistic as a mechanism for absorbing a substantial share of the cost of a new requirement in many scenarios.

 Narrower Range of Market Conditions where Projects Pencil – If a new requirement makes projects significantly more challenging, projects may only move forward under a narrower range of market conditions, or in the extreme case, not at all. For example, following a downturn in the market, once conditions begin to improve again and new development projects start to move forward, a significant new requirement could increase the length of time for projects to begin moving again. In effect, projects may wait for market conditions to support somewhat higher market prices or rents before they move forward. In the extreme case, projects may not develop at all if requirements are too high for any market condition the jurisdiction is likely to see.

 Shift in Development to Other Communities – A new requirement that increases the cost to build in Clovis relative to other nearby communities may result in other communities absorbing a larger share of new residential development compared to Clovis. Of course, decisions about where to live often balance a complex set of considerations such as personnel preferences, school districts, connections to place and family, amenities, among others. These factors may mitigate, to some degree, the potential that development will shift elsewhere.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Changes that represent a tiny fraction of the overall development cost of a project may not have a material effect. For more substantive changes, a combination of all the above adjustments may occur, or changes may be weighted toward one type of adjustment or another, depending on conditions specific to the jurisdiction. A community or neighborhood where market conditions are very strong and supply is very limited may see new requirements absorbed mainly through adjustments to land values, while a community where market conditions are not as strong and potential purchasers of new units tend to be more cost sensitive may be more likely to see projects shift toward other jurisdictions or move forward under a narrower set of market conditions.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

5.0 OTHER MEASURES OF POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

This section provides a series of metrics to gauge the extent to which a new inclusionary requirement may affect development decisions in Clovis. The metrics also provide a means to compare the inclusionary and in-lieu fee scenarios evaluated in this report quantitatively. The following metrics are presented:

 Compliance costs, representing the net cost of inclusionary requirements expressed per net square foot of building area.

 Market rent or price increase that is sufficient to offset the cost of a new inclusionary requirement.

 Percentage change in the City’s total fee stack with a new in-lieu fee.

See also, Appendix A for two additional metrics:
 Change in land cost sufficient to offset the cost of the new requirement; and  Percentage of development costs supported by project revenues.

5.1 Compliance Costs

The cost of complying with alternative affordable housing requirements was expressed as a cost per net square foot of livable area within the project. The purpose is to assist in understanding the relative impact of various alternatives on the economics of residential development projects. Dollar per square foot costs are based on the net impact to the pro forma from setting aside a share of units at affordable prices and rents. The term “cost” is used, although technically the impact of an affordability restriction is forgone rent revenue or sales proceeds.

Compliance costs presented in Chart 5-1 are an average for all the prototypes. Appendix A Table 3 presents findings for each individual prototype project.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Chart 5-1. Estimated Per Square Foot Costs to Comply with Inclusionary Requirements

The analysis presented in Chart 5-1 indicates:

 Providing affordable units on-site would be approximately 3 to 6 times more costly than payment of in-lieu fees calculated using the $146,400 per affordable unit gap calculated in Section 6.

 With in-lieu fees at $2.80 or $5.60 per square foot level, fee payment is likely to be the default compliance option almost all projects select, since it is both simpler and much less costly for development projects than providing on-site units.

 Inclusionary requirements at income levels consistent with the Settlement Agreement are more costly for rental projects on a dollar per square foot basis than for-sale projects, in part due to the deeper affordability specified for rental projects.

The presentation above assumes that on-site affordable units are the same tenure and comparable size and quality as the market rate units. Cost of on-site units could be reduced if the MIZO provides flexibility regarding the square footage size of affordable units.

5.2 Changes in Prices and Rents Sufficient to Offset Cost of Inclusionary

To the extent market prices and rents increase, it can help absorb the cost of a new or increased requirement. Chart 5-2 illustrates the market price and rent increases that would be adequate on their

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
own to fully offset the incremental cost of a new affordable housing requirement. Development costs are held constant for this illustration and adjustments would have been larger if costs were assumed to move in the same direction as prices and rents. As shown:

 With for-sale units, a 3.6% to 7.8% increase in home prices would be adequate to absorb a 5% and 10% inclusionary requirement, respectively.

 With rental units, a 3.4% to 6.9% increase in rents would be adequate to absorb a 5% and 10% inclusionary requirement, respectively.

 For in-lieu fees, between a 0.7% and 2.7% increase in prices and rents is sufficient to absorb potential new fees at the $2.80 to $5.60 per square foot level.

Chart 5-2. Percent Increase in Market Price or Rent Sufficient to Offset Incremental Cost of Affordable Housing Requirement

Note: illustration is based on an average of multiple prototypes and excludes the large lot single family likely to represent a smaller share of overall housing production. See Appendix A Tables 4 and 6 for additional information.

The purpose of Chart 5-2 is to show how future market changes may contribute to absorbing a new requirement. Of course, prices and rents are set by the market, and developers already charge what the market will bear and so cannot pass on additional costs to renters or homebuyers, who might respond to price increases by choosing not to buy or rent a new unit or by looking at homes in another jurisdiction.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 31
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

5.3 Total Fee Stack

Chart 5-3 illustrates potential in-lieu fees relative to the City’s existing impact fees and processing charges. Existing fees, inclusive of those charged by other agencies, total approximately $67,000 for a 2,400 square foot single family home, which equates to approximately $28 per square foot. A new in-lieu fee of $2.80 per square foot would add $6,700 to existing fees. An in-lieu fee of $5.60 per square foot would add $13,400 per unit. This equates to a net increase of approximately 10% to 20% in existing fees. As discussed above, if in-lieu fees are established at between $2.80 and $5.60 per square foot, they would likely be the default option that most projects use to satisfy the new inclusionary requirement.

Chart 5-3. Potential New In-Lieu Fees Relative to Total Existing Fee Stack

Note: based on a 2,400 square foot home and an average of rates for North of Herndon and East of Fowler prototypes.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 32
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

6.0 AFFORDABILITY OF EXISTING UNITS AND GAP FINANCING

6.1 Income Required to Afford New and Existing Market Rate Units

The estimated household income needed to afford market rate units in Clovis, expressed as a percentage of area median income, is presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. As shown:
 Newly built for-sale units are estimated to require between 115% and 264% of AMI, depending on size, location, and whether the household has a 20% down payment

5.  Existing for-sale units (resales) are estimated to require between 97% and 233% of AMI.  New apartments are estimated to require 115% to 119% of AMI to afford while average rents that include older units require 81%, 80%, and 99% of AMI for one, two and three- bedroom units, respectively.

The analysis suggests the income levels specified by the Settlement Agreement, which requires affordable units below 80% of AMI, will provide an affordability benefit relative to new market rate units, but older existing market rate rental units may, in some cases, offer a comparable level of affordability to units restricted at Low Income.

Table 6-1. Estimated Household Income (% of AMI) Required to Afford For-Sale Unit Market Prices New Units

Large Lot Single
Family Single Family
Smaller Single
Family
With 20% Down
North of Herndon 223% 153% 131%
East of Fowler / South of Herndon 135% 120%
West of Fowler / South of Herndon 115%
With 10% Down
North of Herndon 264% 179% 152%
East of Fowler / South of Herndon 158% 139%
West of Fowler / South of Herndon 133%
Existing Unit Resales

Highest 25%
of prices
median
through 75th
percentile of pricing
25th percentile to
median price
Lowest 25% of
prices
With 20% Down 198% 138% 116% 97%
With 10% Down 233% 161% 136% 113%
See Appendix G for supporting analysis.

5 A 20% down payment reduces monthly mortgage payments and eliminates a need for mortgage insurance, this in turn reduces the income estimated to be needed to afford the unit, due to lower monthly housing costs.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 33
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Table 6-2. Percent of AMI Required to Afford Market Rate Rental Units New Units (based on lower density example)
North of Herndon 115%
East of Fowler / South of Herndon 119%
West of Fowler / South of Herndon 118%
Existing Units (averages by Bedroom size)
One Bedroom 81%
Two Bedroom 80%
Three Bedroom 99%
See Appendix G for supporting analysis

6.2 Gap Financing Analysis

KMA estimated the gap financing required to deliver affordable units using two approaches:

 Approach A assumes units are delivered in a 100% affordable project financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Development costs reflect an average of six local 100% affordable projects of which half are subject to payment of prevailing wages for construction work.

 Approach B assumes units are provided in a rental that does not receive LIHTC funding, but which has a non-profit general partner on title, enabling the project to qualify for a welfare property tax exemption. Construction costs do not assume prevailing wages.

Approach B yields a gap financing requirement per affordable unit of $146,400, which is less than the $203,000 per unit estimated with Approach A. The lower $146,400 figure is utilized for purposes of the in-lieu fee calculation in Section 6.3.

Approach A, Gap Financing Analysis with 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits

KMA estimated the gap financing required to deliver affordable units in a 100% affordable project financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), net of tax credit equity, debt supported by affordable rents, and a deferred developer fee. Affordable projects typically require significant additional funding, often from multiple sources, to be competitive for securing LIHTC funding and fully fund project costs. The analysis in Table 6-3 estimates that approximately $203,000 per unit in additional funding is needed based on recent affordable projects. The estimate is based on the following:

1. Estimated development costs of $520,000 per unit based on the following six local projects that applied for funding in 2024. Five are in Fresno and one is in Parlier:
 Dakota
 West Creek Village
 Avalon Commons Phase II

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 34
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
 Blackstone Senior Apartments
 Parlier Family Apartments
 Sarah's Court Apartments - Phase II

2. The supported permanent loan of $45,000 is estimated assuming an average affordability level of 50% AMI consistent with the average for six local projects that applied for funding in 2024. Affordable projects often target incomes below the 60% maximum average AMI to be competitive for financing. Operating expenses are estimated based on the same six local projects.

3. Tax credit equity and the deferred developer fee are estimated at $225,000 and $39,000 respectively, based on averages for eight 2024 round one 4% LIHTC awards for new construction projects in the Central Valley and Sacramento regions. Data on awarded projects is used to ensure estimates reflect projects that were competitive for funding, which typically have more additional financing sources secured than the projects that were not funded. 4% LIHTCs are assumed since 4% projects are more prevalent and the greater Fresno area may see only one 9% LIHTC project per year, if any.

4. The City of Clovis Impact Fee deferral program defers up to 50% of the City’s major sewer and water fees. Use of the fee deferral program is assumed, which provides approximately $8,000 per unit in funding, structured as a residual receipts loan.

Supporting analysis is provided in Appendix F.

Table 6-3. Estimated Per Affordable Unit Gap Financing Need after 4% Tax Credits Development Costs
Land $15,000
Direct Construction $340,000
Indirect Costs $70,000
Developer Fees $45,000
Financing $50,000
Estimated Costs $520,000

Financing
Permanent Loan $45,000
City Fee Deferral Program $8,000
Deferred Developer Fee $39,000
Tax Credit Equity (4% credits) $225,000
Estimated Sources $317,000

Gap Financing Need after 4% Tax Credits $203,000
Note: see supporting analysis in Appendix F.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 35
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Approach B, Gap Financing Analysis with Welfare Property Tax Exemption

KMA estimated the gap financing required to deliver affordable units in a rental that does not receive LIHTC funding, but which has a non-profit general partner on title, enabling the project to qualify for a welfare property tax exemption. Construction costs are assumed to be consistent with a market rate project (e.g. no prevailing wage or affordable developer fee). Affordable units are assumed to average 1.8 bedrooms and 650 square feet in size, which is smaller than typical market rate units in Clovis but is consistent with standards for affordable units published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The analysis yields a gap of $146,400 per unit with half Very Low and half Low income units, as shown in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4. Estimated Gap Financing Need with Non-Tax Credit Affordable Unit Low Income Very Low Income
Average Unit Size 1.8 bedrooms, 650 square feet (1)

A. Development Costs
Land $10,000 $10,000
Direct Construction $180,000 $180,000
Indirect Costs $77,300 $77,300
Financing $12,600 $12,600
Less: Fee Deferral Program ($6,000) ($8,000)
Estimated Costs $273,900 $271,900

B. Developer Investment Supported by Rental Income (2) $177,000 $76,000

Gap Financing Need (=A. - B.) $96,900 $195,900
With 50% Very Low and 50% Low $146,400
(1) Unit square footage based on TCAC standards for affordable units. (2) See supporting analysis in Appendix F.

6.3 In-Lieu Fee Calculation

The Settlement Agreement contemplates an in-lieu fee option will be provided for projects that wish to satisfy the inclusionary requirement through a cash payment instead of providing affordable units on-site. In-lieu fee funds would be dedicated to replacing affordable units that are not provided within the project. The Settlement Agreement specifies that the in-lieu fee be set so that the amount collected is sufficient to replace inclusionary units not provided within the project.

Table 6-5 calculates the in-lieu fee rate necessary to generate $146,400 in funding per required affordable unit, based on the gap analysis in Table 6-4. The calculation is provided for potential inclusionary percentages from 5% through 10%. The per unit funding amount is translated to a per square foot rate based upon the average market rate home size of 2,600 square feet for active housing developments in Clovis. The resulting in-lieu fees range from $2.80 per square foot, with a 5% inclusionary requirement, to $5.60 per square foot, with a 10% inclusionary requirement.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 36
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx
Feasibility testing was focused on in-lieu fee rates from $2.80 to $5.60 per square foot calculated in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5. Calculated In-Lieu Fee ($/SF), Depending on Inclusionary Percentage Affordable Unit
Percentage
Percent
Affordable
Average City
Subsidy Per
Affordable Unit (1)
Average New
Market Rate
Home Size (2)
In-Lieu Fee Per Square
Foot of Market Rate
Development
5% inclusionary 5% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $2.80 /SF
6% inclusionary 6% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $3.40 /SF
7% inclusionary 7% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $3.90 /SF
8% inclusionary 8% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $4.50 /SF
9% inclusionary 9% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $5.10 /SF
10% inclusionary 10% x $146,400 / 2,600 sf = $5.60 /SF (1) Per City of Clovis.
(2) Reflects average unit size for the new home developments currently marketing units in Clovis as summarized in Appendix D Table 5.

6.4 Analysis to Support Potential Option to Restrict Existing Units

Most inclusionary programs require production of new affordable units, but a few programs allow deed restrictions on existing units. Typically, more affordable units are required when the option to restrict existing units is used. KMA prepared an analysis comparing the gap associated with providing new inclusionary units with that of placing affordability restrictions on an existing market rate unit. This analysis is summarized in Table 6-6 with supporting analysis presented in Appendix G. As shown, the gap associated with providing new for-sale units is estimated to be approximately

1.1 times the gap associated with restricting existing for-sale units. The gap for rental units is wider, with new units estimated at approximately 3.5 times the cost of placing a restriction on older existing rental units that have lower market rate rents to begin with. Ratios in Table 6-6 could be used in determining an appropriate ratio between the option for providing a new affordable unit and placing a restriction on an existing unit.

Table 6-6. Gap Comparison: New vs. Existing Units

Affordability Restriction Placed on
Existing Market Rate Unit
New Inclusionary
Units
Ratio New
to Existing
For-Sale Units $232,000 $263,000 1.1
Rental Units $41,700 $145,700 3.5
See Appendix G for supporting analysis.

Gap figures in Table 6-6 differ from figures cited in the preceding sections due to the assumption of a for-sale unit in the case of the for-sale unit analysis. With the rental unit gap analysis, gaps reflect the difference between market rate and affordable rents and application of a 6% capitalization rate.

This approach yields a lower rental gap than cited in Section 6.2 due to the use of current market rents, which are below a level needed for feasibility. This approach is used to allow gaps for existing and new units to be calculated on an apples-to-apples basis for comparison purposes. Gaps will increase if market rents increase relative to affordable rents.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 37
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

7.0 DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CONTACTS

KMA reached out to developers active in the Clovis market to help inform the feasibility analysis and to supplement available market data. A total of eighteen developers were contacted by e-mail, of which ten responded and agreed to be interviewed. Interviewees represented a mix of market rate and affordable developers, and included development professionals with the following organizations:

Market Rate Developers
Affordable Developers
Bonadelle Neighborhoods
De Young Properties
KB Homes
Lennar Homes
Spencer Enterprises
Wathen Castanos/Trumark
Affordable Housing Development Corp
Fresno Housing Authority
Self-Help Enterprises
UpHoldings

The developers provided a wide range of insights on topics including market conditions, construction and development cost estimates, return expectations, how affordable housing obligations affect their pro forma, among other topics. The affordable developers shared feedback regarding gap financing needs for affordable projects. This feedback informed development of the pro forma analysis presented in Section 4 and the gap financing analysis presented in Section 6. In addition to a discussion of project finances, the following themes emerged from these interviews:

Market Rate Developer Themes

1. The Clovis housing market is among the strongest in the southern Central Valley. Clovis schools are seen as desirable and help drive higher pricing within the Clovis school district, which also encompasses parts of Fresno. Developers were generally positive regarding the market outlook for Clovis over the medium to longer term, citing pent up demand for housing as well as the desirability of the community and school district. Most expressed a desire to continue building in Clovis and indicated that the City of Clovis is great to work with. Some indicated an intent to be aggressive about building additional homes in Clovis to meet anticipated demand in the market, while others qualified statements regarding the desirability of building in Clovis for several reasons, as discussed below.

2. Development fees in Clovis are high and have in creased substantially in recent years. In some cases, developers have been able to vest fees at previous levels, which is part of how current projects are able to remain feasible in the current higher interest rate environment. Fees in Fresno are about half of what they are in Clovis. This can make it attractive to build in the portions of Fresno that are within the Clovis school district, allowing projects to pay lower fees while still providing access to Clovis schools, which buyers/renters view as desirable.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 38
\\SF-FS2\wp\18\18996\036\001-003.docx

3. The structure of Clovis’s fees was cited as an issue with respect to multifamily, which in some cases are applied at the same per unit rate as single family, which are larger and more able to support the cost of fees.

4. Feasibility has become more challenging in the near term due to increased infrastructure costs, development fees, interest rates, construction and land costs. The developers generally indicated that they would move forward with development of for-sale homes in Clovis today, if they were positioned to do so, despite these challenges. One developer indicated being bullish about what the market would look like in 18 to 24 months.

5. Home buyers are getting “squeezed” as a result of high interest rates and inflation. It reduces their ability to afford homes and makes buyers more cost sensitive. It also makes it harder to qualify buyers for financing. Due to higher interest rates, developers are having to offer significant incentives to home buyers, such as interest rate buy downs and payment of closing costs. Some home builders indicated they planned to shift toward comparatively smaller homes on smaller lots that a broader cross section of buyers can afford in the current interest rate environment to allow the homebuilder to achieve the desired sales pace.

6. The supply of available land in Clovis has been getting more constrained over time, with higher costs and more associated infrastructure challenges. Landowners have generally been inflexible on price and most proposed site acquisitions don’t come to fruition. As higher land costs and new fees and requirements make it more challenging to make projects work in the area, one builder reported broadening its focus to other Central Valley regions such as Bakersfield to sustain targeted homebuilding volume.

7. The housing market has been “choppy” over the past year or two, with some stronger and some weaker stretches in the market. As of late summer / early fall, the market has cooled.

8. Most market rate developers expressed concerns regarding the impact that a new inclusionary policy would have on the feasibility of projects in Clovis. The views offered included the following:
a. Inclusionary policies are well intended, but the cost is passed on to market rate home buyers or renters. It can also result in a reduction in what homebuilders pay for land in some cases, although landowners are reticent to make concessions and may prefer to wait rather than sell at a discount.
b. The program should be designed in a way to limit the cost impact, provide as many options for compliance as possible, and ensure requirements can be met in a cost effective way.
c. For-sale below market rate housing is a challenge due to the large gap between market and affordable prices. An equity share model was cited as beneficial with for-sale affordable housing.