TSAB NTAWV CEEB TOOM TXOG LUB ROOJ SIB HAIS RAU PEJ XEEM THIAB NCUA SIJ HAWM MUAB LUS TAWM TSWV YIM RAU PEJ XEEM HAUV 30-HNUB HAIS TXOG QHOV KEV TXAIS YUAV NTAWM
TXOJ PHIAJ XWM MUAB LOS UA KE THIAB TXOJ PHIAJ XWM KEV NQIS TES UA HAUV TXHUA XYOO NTAWM CDBG XYOO 2026-2030
4/3/2026
THOV CEEB TOOM QHIA RAU SAWV DAWS PAUB tias Nroog Clovis yuav ua kev tshuaj xyuas thiab muab ncua sij hawm muab lus tawm tswv yim txog ntawm Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke Xyoo 2026-2030 (thiab Txoj Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua Txhua Xyoo) rau pej xeem li 30-hnub uas pib nyob rau Lub Plaub Hlis Ntuj Tim 3, 2026, thiab xaus hauv Lub Tsib Hlis Ntuj Tim 3, 2026, los muab lub hwv tsam rau cov pej xeem thiab cov koom haum uas xav koom nrog los qhia txog lawv cov kev xav txog Lub Nroog qhov kev txhim kho Txoj Phiaj Xwm.Cov ntawv theej ntawm Txoj Phiaj Xwm yuav muaj nyob rau ntawm cov chaw hauv qab no:
• Tuam Ceeb Nroog Clovis: 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 • Lub Chaw Pab Cuam Neeg Laus Hauv Clovis: 735 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 • Lub Chaw Thauj Neeg Hauv Clovis: 785 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 • Lub Chaw Nyeem Ntawv Rau Sawv Daws Hauv Cheeb Nroog Fresno hauv Clovis: 1155 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612
• Lub Chaw Ua Si Hauv Clovis: 3495 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 • Nroog Clovis lub Vevxais: www.clovisca.gov
• Nroog Clovis cov chaw tshaj xov xwm zej tsoom, xws li: Facebook, Instagram, thiab NextDoor ** Txhua qhov chaw saum toj no muaj hauv kev nkag tau yooj yim uas npaj txhij rau cov neeg uas muaj teeb meem kev txav mus los.
Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke
Yuav tsum tau muaj Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke txhawm rau kom Lub Nroog tau txais Lub Khoos Kas Pab Cuam Nyiaj Pab Uas Cuam Tshuam Txog Kev Txhim Kho Zej Zos (Community Development Block Grant, CDBG) uas pab nyiaj los ntawm Teb Chaws Mes Kas Lub Thawj Fab Saib Xyuas Hauj Lwm Kev Txhim Kho Vaj Tse Nyob thiab Hauv Nroog (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD).Yuav tsum tau siv CDBG cov nyiaj pab rau cov dej num uas ua tau raws li ib qho ntawm peb lub hom phiaj hauv teb chaws, uas yog: kev ceev tej vaj tse nyob uas zoo tsim nyog, kev muab huab cua ib puag ncig kev ua neej nyob kom phim thiab/los sis kev nthuav dav cov hwv tsam fab kev khwv noj khwv haus.Tsim Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke los txiav txim siab seb yuav ua tau raws li cov hom phiaj no li cas hauv ncua sij hawm tsib-lub xyoo hauv Nroog Clovis.Kev npaj tej peev nyiaj yuav tsum muab saib ua qhov tseem ceeb tshaj plaws rau cov dej num uas ua kom tau txais txiaj ntsig rau cov neeg muaj nyiaj khwv tau los qis-pes nrab, pab tiv thaiv los sis tshem tawm cov koog zej zog uas neeg coob dhau los sis cov chaw puas tsuaj uas nyob tsis tau lawm, thiab/los sis ua kom tau raws li lwm cov kev xav tau txog kev txhim kho lub zej zog yam maj rawm.
Txoj Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua Hauv Txhua Xyoo
Lub hom phiaj ntawm Txoj Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua Hauv Txhua Xyoo yog muaj los qhia kom pom tias seb kev pab nyiaj ntawm Lub Nroog Lub Khoos Kas Pab Cuam CDBG yuav tau txais kev nthuav dav hauv lub xyoo khoos kas 2026-2027 li cas hauv txoj hau kev uas hais daws tau cov kev xav tau, kev muab saib ua qhov tseem ceeb tshaj plaws thiab cov hom phiaj uas tau muaj nyob hauv Lub Nroog Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke xyoo 2026-2030 uas tau thov tuaj.
Cov kev faib nyiaj CDBG xyoo 2026-2027 los ntawm Teb Chaws Mes Kas Lub Thawj Fab Saib Xyuas Hauj Lwm Kev Txhim Kho Vaj Tse Nyob thiab Hauv Nroog (Housing and Urban Development, HUD) tseem tsis tau raug muab tshaj tawm, tab sis Clovis khwv yees hais tias yuav tau txais kev faib nyiaj txiag txog $710,000.Cov nyiaj uas tau txais, ua ke nrog $87,951 ntxiv hauv cov nyiaj pab tag nrho yuav ua rau muaj nyiaj tag nrho yog
$797,951 hauv cov nyiaj CDBG uas yuav raug muab faib rau xyoo khoos kas 2026-2027.Qhov kev siv cov nyiaj uas tau hais qhia nyob rau xyoo lub khoos kas pab cuam 2026-2027 yog muaj raws li nram qab no:
• Kev Kho Vaj Tsev - $130,000
• Lag Luam Chav Ua Noj Qib Me - $87,000.00
• Cov Dej Num Tsim Kev Paub Rau Cov Neeg Laus Hauv Clovis - $40,000.00 • Lub Chaw Pab Cuam Marjaree Mason Cov Kev Pab Cuam Txog Kev Kub Ntxhov Hauv Tsev Uas Tseem Ceeb - $61,491.00
• Kev Txhim Kho Cole/Elm Alley - $ 193,000.00
• ADA/Kev Txhim Kho Kev Nkag Cuag Tau Rau Kev Taug Kev Taw (Estabrook/Music/Acacia) - $144,460.00
• Kev Khiav Haujlwm - $142,000.00
Kev nce siab los sis poob qis hauv theem kev pab nyiaj ntawm CDBG uas khwv yees cia yuav muab los siv rau ADA/Lub Khoos Kas Kev Txhim Kho Kev Nkag Cuag Tau Txoj Kev Taug Taw (Estabrook/Music/Acacia), thiab Kev Tuav Tswj (siab kawg nkaus 20%).
Los ntawm daim ntawv ceeb toom no, lub Nroog Clovis caw cov neeg uas muaj kev txaus siab rau, los sis tej zaum yuav raug cuam tshuam los ntawm, cov haujlwm uas tau muab sib tham nyob rau hauv Txoj Phiaj Xwm Muab Los Ua Ke thiab/los sis Txoj Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua Txhua Xyoo, txhawm rau xa cov lus xam pom ua ntaub ntawv ntawm tus kheej kiag, xa raws xov tooj, xa raws kev xa ntawv los sis raws e-mail (saib cov ntaub ntawv tiv tauj hauv qab no) thiab/los sis mus koom lub Rooj Txiav Txim Rau Sawv Daws txhawm rau muab lawv cov kev xav thiab cov lus xam pom rau.Kev koom tes ntawm pej xeem raug muab xam tias yog ib yam tseem ceeb ntawm tus txheej txheem kev txhim kho Txoj Phiaj Xwm thiab HUD xav kom Cov Nroog tau txais thiab koom tes muab cov lus tawm tswv yim los ntawm pej xeem mus rau hauv nws tus txheej txheem kev npaj phiaj xwm thiab kev tshuaj xyuas.Txhua yam lus xam pom uas tau txais ua ntej thaum 4:30 teev tsaus ntuj nyob rau lub Tsib Hlis Tim 3, 2026, ntawm qhov chaw nyob hauv qab no, thiab cov uas tau tsim nyob rau hauv lub rooj txiav txim rau sawv daws, yuav raug muab xam tias yog thiab suav nrog ua cov ntaub ntawv txuas nrog nyob rau hauv cov ntaub ntawv hais txog Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua Txhua Xyoo.
Tom qab ntawd yuav teeb tsa lub rooj txiav txim rau sawv daws ntawm Pawg Xab Phas Hauv Nroog nyob rau Lub Tsib Hlis tim 4, 2026, thaum 6:00 teev tsaus ntuj hauv nroog Clovis cov Chaw Saib Xyuas Lag Luam uas nyob rau ntawm txoj Kev Thib Tsib 1033 hauv Clovis txhawm rau tshuaj xyuas thiab sib tham txog kev pom zoo ntawm Txoj Phiaj Xwm Kev Nqis Tes Ua.Lub chaw no muaj kev nkag tau yooj yim rau cov neeg uas muaj kev xiam oob qhab.
Lus Xam Pom Ntawm Sawv Daws
Xav txhawb kom cov pej xeem thiab cov pab pawg xa cov lus xam pom sau ua ntawv los sis ua lus hais txog ntawm cov tes haujlwm uas tau hais tawm thiab lub Khoos Kas CDBG los ntawm kev tiv tauj rau:
Claudia Cazares, Thawj Tswj Hwm Khoos Kas Vaj Tsev
1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612
Dhau li no lawm kuj tseem tuaj yeem tiv tauj tau rau Ms. Cázares ntawm (559) 324-2094, los sis raws email ntawm [email protected], Hnub Monday txog Friday, txij thaum 8:00 teev sawv ntxov txog 4:30 teev tsaus ntuj
Hauv Kev Nkag thiab Cov Kev Pab Cuam Txhais Lus
Yog tias koj yuav tsum tau muaj kev pab ua kom yooj yim raws qhov tsim nyog los sis tsim nyog muaj kev pab txhais lus, kev pab cuam txhais ntaub ntawv los sis kev pab cuam txhais lus kom tau koom rau hauv lub rooj sib tham no, los sis xa cov lus xam pom ntawm sawv daws, ces thov hu rau Claudia Cazares ntawm tus xov
tooj (559) 324-2094.Kev ceeb toom 48 teev ua ntej yuav txog thaum muaj lub rooj sib tham yuav ua rau lub Nroog muaj peev xwm tsim tau cov kev npaj raws qhov tsim nyog kom ntseeg tau tias muaj txoj hauv kev nkag.
CEEB TOOM TXOG KEV TSIS MUAJ KEV CIAV CAIS:
Nws yog txoj cai txhawb ntawm lub Nroog Clovis kom tsis txhob ciav cais raws haiv neeg, xim nqaij, chiv keeb haiv neeg, kab lis kev cai, poj niam txiv neej, thiab kev nyiam rau sab poj niam los sis txiv neej.Yog tias koj muaj ib qhov kev tsis txaus siab los sis kev txhawj xeeb dab tsi, ces thov tiv tauj rau lub Nroog Clovis 504 tus Neeg Cev Ncauj Cev Lus Hauv Lub Khoos Kas ntawm (559) 324-2060.
Puas Yog Xav Tau Kev Pab Txog Kev Tiv Tauj Rau Lub Nroog Clovis? Qhov Chaw Pab Cuam Rau Cov Neeg Tsis Taus Hauv California muab Cov Neeg Pab Cuam Txog Kev Txuas Lus uas tau txais kev cob qhia tshwj xeeb rau cov kev sib tham nrog cov neeg tsis taus li ntawm cov neeg lag ntseg, tsis hnov lus zoo, los sis hais tsis tau lus thiab cov neeg uas siv cov xov tooj raws li tus qauv cai.Koj tuaj yeem siv qhov kev pab cuam no los mus tiv tauj rau lub Nroog Clovis los ntawm kev ntaus rau 711.
Tsab ntawv ceeb toom no muaj ua lus Spanish thiab/los sis lus Hmoob los ntawm kev tiv tauj rau peb cov chaw ua haujlwm ntawm (559) 324-2060.Esta notificación está disponible en español llamando al (559) 324- 2060.Si usted requiere servicios de interpretación o traducción favor de llamar a Claudia Cázares al (559) 324- 2094.Yog xav tau daim ntawv Hmoob hu rau peb qhov chaw ua hauj lwm ntawm (559) 324-2060.Yog koj xav tau kev pab txhais lus thov hu rau (559) 324-2060.
FMCOC AGENDA
PROOF OF PUBLICATIONS
EMAILED NOTICES
CITIZEN COMMENT(S)
WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS
WEBSITE 12-12-25
FACEBOOK 12-12-2025
INSTAGRAM 12-12-2025
NEXTDOOR 12-12-2025
WEBSITE 1-8-2026
FACEBOOK 1-9-2026
INSTAGRAM 1-9-2026
NEXTDOOR 1-9-2026
REMINDER SOCIAL MEDIA 1-26-26
FACEBOOK 4-3-26
INSTAGRAM 4-3-26
NEXTDOOR 4-3-26
CONSOLIDATED PLAN
COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY
RESULTS
MAPS
LIST OF ASSISTED HOUSING IN CLOVIS
Development Name Number of RentRestricted and/or
Assisted Units
Funding Source(s) and/or
Land Use Restriction(s)
and/or Rental
Assistance/Subsidy
Contract(s) and/or
Recorded Covenant(s)
End Date of Regulatory
Agreement or Covenant
Butterfly Gardens 73 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
10/4/2078
Silver Ridge 101 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
12/31/2028
Cottonwood Grove 30 CalHFA Permanent Loan 5/1/2033
Coventry Place
Apartments
28 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
12/31/2059 and 2060
Hotchkiss Terrace 74 HUD Capital Advance 1/31/2046
Lexington 128 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
12/31/2028
Rose View Terrace 59 HUD Capital Advance 1/31/2052
The Willows 76 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
12/31/2059
Solivita Commons 59 Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
12/31/2077
Appendix - Alternate/Local Data Sources
1 Data Source Name
Clovis Consolidated Plan Community Needs Survey
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
City of Clovis
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
The Community Needs Survey included a series of over forty (40) questions to gauge community feedback regarding their priorities in the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
The City of Clovis developed the Community Needs Survey to appropriately take into account recommendations of area residents and stakeholders.
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected.
September 2025 through December 2025
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Data collection was completed online through an anonymous community survey. Data was aggregated.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
Total population included residents of City of Clovis, workers of community based agencies serving low-income individuals and families, and city staff.
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
A total of thirty-six (36) responses were received. Twenty-nine respondents live in the City of Clovis. Ninety-seven percent (97%) are primarily English-speaking households. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the respondents are White, and thirty-one percent (31%) are Latino. Forty-four percent (44%) of the respondents were male. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents are over fifty-one years old or older. All respondents have at least a high school graduation, with fifty-three percent (53%) having a college degree. 2 Data Source Name
2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
U.S. Census Bureau
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
Provides yearly data on population and housing.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
See above.
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected. 2024 5-Year Estimates
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Data collection was completed by mail, internet, telephone, or in-person. It is a legally mandated survey.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
N/A
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
N/A
3 Data Source Name
2024 American Com Survey 5-Yr Estimates Pop by Age
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected.
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
4 Data Source Name
2018-2022 CHAS
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
The CHAS data are used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected. 2018-2022
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
HUD receives custom tabulations of the American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau to calculate the CHAS data.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
N/A
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
N/A
5 Data Source Name
Fresno Housing
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
Fresno Housing
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
Data provided the local housing authority for residents who live in zip codes 93611, 93612, 93613, and 93619.
These zip codes align with the Clovis jurisdiction and a few additional County-only areas. Tables 25 and 26 contain data for all Fresno Housing residents.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
How comprehensive is the coverage of this administrative data? Is data collection concentrated in one geographic area or among a certain population?
What time period (provide the year, and optionally month, or month and day) is covered by this data set? What is the status of the data set (complete, in progress, or planned)?
6 Data Source Name
2026 FMR, Fresno, CA HUD Metro FMR Area, 2025 HOME
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected.
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
7 Data Source Name
Fresno Housing HMIS Data, Fresno County
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected.
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
8 Data Source Name
2025 Clovis Community Survey
List the name of the organization or individual who originated the data set.
City of Clovis
Provide a brief summary of the data set.
The City of Clovis administers a bi-annual Community Survey through the National Community Survey (NCS) to get public input on various topics including safety, economic health and other quality of life questions.
What was the purpose for developing this data set?
The survey helps the City better understand the views and needs of residents to help shape the future of Clovis.
Provide the year (and optionally month, or month and day) for when the data was collected.
September 5, 2025 to October 17, 2025
Briefly describe the methodology for the data collection.
Surveys were mailed to 3,000 randomly selected households. Additionally, in October 2025, the survey was open for all to participate via the City's website.
Describe the total population from which the sample was taken.
Surveys were initially mailed to 3,000 randomly selected households in Clovis. In October 2025 the survey was open to all residents.
Describe the demographics of the respondents or characteristics of the unit of measure, and the number of respondents or units surveyed.
A total of 333 responses were received. Of the total survey respondents, 28% were between 18 and 34, 37% between 35 to 54, and 34% are 55 years or older. Two thirds (66%) were homeowners while 28% were renters.
The survey respondents were the following race and/or ethnicity: 72% is not Hispanic or Latino, 28% Hispanic or Latino, 52% White, and 48% non-White.
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: May 4, 2026
Staff: McKencie Perez, Deputy City Planner, Sean Smith, Deputy City Engineer Subject: Consider various items associated with fees under the Planning and Development Services Department and find that the project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. City of Clovis, applicant. a. Consider Approval - Res. 26-___, A request to approve a resolution amending Plan Check, Inspection Services, Encroachment Permits, and Community Investment Program Rates.
b. Consider Approval - Res. 26-___, A request to approve the 2026 City of Clovis Planning Division fee schedule.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: 1. Fees and Hourly Rate Update ATT 1 Res. 26-___ Engineering
2. Fees and Hourly Rate Update ATT 2 Res. 26-___ Planning Fee Schedule Recommendation:
For the City Council to:
1. Approve a Resolution amending Plan Check, Inspection Services, Encroachment Permits, and Community Investment Program (CIP) Rates; and
2. Approve a Resolution approving the 2026 City of Clovis Planning Division fee schedule.
Executive Summary:
Staff is recommending updates to the following fee programs:
1. Engineering Division hourly rates and inspection fees
2. Planning Division fees
Engineering Division Hourly Rates
The Engineering Division hourly rates were last updated in 2024 by Resolution 24-78. The operation costs have increased for the Engineering Division and an increase of 4% is recommended, based on
the consumer price index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers. The CPI has been identified as the most applicable index for an adjustment to the Engineering hourly rate, which is based primarily on personnel costs. Staff is recommending the increase from $150 to $156 per hour to follow the increasing costs of employee benefits that are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
In accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code, the City Council establishes, by resolution, a schedule of fees for inspection, staking, and other services to be rendered by the City in connection with work performed by Engineering staff. Going forward, staff will review the hourly rate and adjust according to the CPI as part of the annual, or biannual review of the Development Impact Fees. The revised rate will take effect beginning July 6, 2026, 60 days after approval.
Planning Division Fee Schedule
The Planning Division fee schedule was last updated by Resolution 25-44, which took effect July 7, 2025. The operational costs have increased for the Planning Division and a 4.48% across-the-board increase is recommended, based on the five-year average change in the CPI. This methodology is consistent with the strategy used in conjunction with the 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 annual fee updates, following a comprehensive update in 2021. The five-year average was used because it accounts for the changes in costs that have occurred while softening the effects of single-year CPI changes that have occurred over the last few years. The updated fee schedule will provide the funding necessary for the City to recover the costs of Planning Division staff time and other expenses related to the review and processing of various applications to maintain a functional level of service to the public. The updated fees will take effect beginning July 6, 2026, 60 days after approval.
Background:
Plan Check, Inspection Services, Encroachment Permits, and Community Investment Program Rates The Engineering Division last updated the hourly rates in 2024 by Resolution 24-78. The cost of employee benefits has been increasing and is expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
Staff is recommending an hourly rate of $156 to follow the overhead increases. In accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code, the City Council establishes, by resolution, a schedule of fees for inspection, staking, and other services to be rendered by the City in connection with work performed by Engineering staff. The $150 per hour billing rate was last updated in July 2024. Going forward, staff will review the hourly rate and adjust according to the CPI as part of the annual, or biannual review of the Development Impact Fees.
Planning Division Fee Schedule
Based on the evaluation completed in April 2026, staff is recommending an update to the 2025 Planning Division Fee Schedule utilizing the CPI for All Urban Consumers. The CPI has been identified as the most applicable index for an adjustment to the Planning fees, which are based primarily on personnel costs. The recommended methodology utilizes the average of the last five (5) years of the CPI percentage changes to arrive at a total increase of 4.48%. While it is relatively common to use the single-year change in CPI to make these routine annual adjustments, a five-year average is recommended for the 2026 update. The five-year average of the CPI percentage change has been consistently recommended by staff since the comprehensive fee analysis was completed in 2021. Generally speaking, recommending the five-year average helps avoid the "spiking effect" that may occur if only the most recent year's CPI was utilized. The following entitlement types are excepted from the recommended CPI increase:
• Small Home Occupation Permits, Staff Research & Document Preparation, and the Redistribution Fee for applications during the commenting period are proposed to be increased from the current hourly rate of $150 per hour to $156 per hour as proposed by the Engineering Division.
• The "per acre, per building permit, per sign, per unit, and per lot" fees are not being proposed to change.
The new rates within the Planning Division Fee schedule will take effect July 6, 2026, 60 days following the approval of the resolution by City Council.
Public Outreach
Stakeholder Outreach
An email was sent on April 13, 2026, to a group of over 5,000 stakeholders, including the local Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties describing the proposed fee updates. No comments have been received as of the completion of this staff report.
Public Notification
A public notice for the upcoming City Council public hearing was published in The Business Journal on April 15, 2026. No comments have been received as of the completion of this staff report.
California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed adjustments have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) and determined there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, is exempt from CEQA. Staff will file the notice of exemption with the County Clerk if the fee updates are approved.
Fiscal Impact:
Engineering Division revenue increases will offset increased staff costs and allow City staff to maintain the current level of plan check and inspection services. The increase in the hourly rate will cover the increased costs of CIP staff and will not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the applicable fee is charged.
Planning Division fee updates are needed to cover the increased cost of providing the services to applicants and allow City staff to maintain the current level of service for entitlement applications without reliance on the General Fund to cover the increased costs. The fee increases will not exceed the estimated cost to the City to provide the service for which the applicable fee is charged.
Reason for Recommendation:
Staff is recommending an increase in the hourly billing rate to $156 per hour to cover the cost of staff services provided on Plan Checks, Inspection Services, Encroachment Permits, and CIP projects.
Staff is recommending an update to the Planning Division fee schedule to cover the cost of staff services provided on entitlement applications. The recommended fee updates are consistent with the discussion presented to stakeholders, during which staff outlined the recommendation to proceed with routine or annual adjustments to the fees.
Actions Following Approval:
1. Engineering staff will notify the development community and implement the new rates for Plan Check, Inspection Services, Encroachment Permits, and the CIP 60 days after approval of the resolution.
2. Planning staff will notify the development community and implement the new rates for the
Planning Fee Schedule 60 days after approval of the resolution.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS AMENDING PLAN
CHECK, INSPECTION SERVICES, ENCROACHMENT PERMITS AND COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT PROGRAM RATES AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, Chapter 2 of Title 7 of the Clovis Municipal Code provides rules and regulations for excavations and other work in City streets, for issuance of permits and fees therefore, and provides for a schedule of fees for engineering, inspection, staking and other services rendered by the City in connection with such work performed thereunder; and WHEREAS, the Clovis Municipal Code provides that fees be fixed by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Clovis desires to revise fees associated with services rendered by the City; and
WHEREAS, the data supporting the proposed fee increase was made available to the public in accordance with applicable law, including Government Code section 66016, and the City duly published a notice of the City Council Public Hearing for May 4, 2026, to consider the fee update in The Business Journal more than 10 days prior to said hearing in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2026, the City Council duly conducted the public hearing and considered testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings (“Administrative Record”) relating to the fee update, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Clovis Department of Planning and Development Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider the entire Administrative Record relating to the proposed fees, which is on file with the City of Clovis Department of Planning and Development Services (“Department”), and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, based upon the Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there is no substantial evidence that the project or approval of the updated fee schedule will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis will proceed as follows:
That the City Council of the City of Clovis hereby adopts the following revisions to the fee schedule for services hereinafter set forth and referenced in Attachment A:
Hourly Rate
The hourly rate for Engineering services rendered shall be set at $156 per hour.
With Respect to Initial Submittal Fees:
Initial plan review fees shall include four (4) submittals of the plans and preparation of all standard agreements (as indicated below). All additional submittals and preparation of nonstandard agreements shall be subject to additional review fees per hour or fractions thereof at the Hourly Rate. Overtime fees will be 1.5 times the Hourly Rate per hour or fractions thereof with a two-hour minimum.
Encroachment Permit Fees:
The administrative charge for processing an application for an encroachment permit shall be based on 1 hour.
1. A minimum inspection fee of 3 hours at the hourly rate, or a fee calculated using the following inspection fees, whichever is greater, shall be applied to the proposed facilities to be installed within the City right-of-way. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a permit for the installation or construction of any of the items installed in the City right-ofway.
Inspection Fees:
See Attachment A.
Hourly Charges for Reinspection/Retest and Overtime:
Inspector Based on the Hourly Rate
Inspector (overtime) 1.5 times the Hourly Rate, two hour minimum Other City Staff Based on the Hourly Rate
Community Investment Program Fees:
Staff charges to the Community Investment Program will be billed at the established Hourly Rate.
Subdivision Plan Checking, Testing, and Inspection Fees:
Each person submitting a parcel map or a subdivision map to the City shall pay to the City, prior to submission of final subdivision or parcel map for approval, a fee for the checking of
improvement plans associated with conditions of approval, testing, and inspecting all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way as follows:
• On the first $10,000.00 of the estimated cost of improvements: 7% • On the next $490,000.00 of the estimated cost of improvements: 3.75% • On the estimated cost of improvements in excess of the $500,000: 2% Said fees established by Section shall be based upon final cost estimates approved by the City Engineer and shall include all improvements as required under the conditions of approval for the entitlement, adjustment in or refund of such fees shall be made once fees have been paid; except when an entitlement is withdrawn or a reversion to acreage map is recorded, the unexpended portion of the required fee may be refunded upon written request made by the payer of said fees to the City Engineer.
Other Entitlement Plan Check Fees:
Each person submitting an entitlement other than a parcel map or a subdivision map to the City shall pay to the City, prior to submission of improvement plans for approval, a fee at the Hourly Rate based on 10 hours plus 11 hours per gross acre of development for the checking of all proposed improvement plans associated with conditions of approval within the public right-ofway. For entitlements with minimal conditioned work, the fee shall be based on 4 hours at the Hourly Rate.
Initial Submittal Fees:
The initial submittal of all tract map and parcel map reviews shall include a non-refundable payment for services to be rendered as follows:
• For each initial submittal of parcel maps with minimal off-site improvements: 1.5 hours • For each initial submittal of parcel maps with significant off-site improvements: 12 hours • For each initial submittal of tract maps: 30 hours
The initial submittal of all entitlements other than tract map and parcel map reviews shall include a non-refundable payment for services to be rendered as follows:
• For each initial submittal: either 20 hours or 10 hours plus 11 hours per gross acres, whichever is less.
• For each initial submittal of entitlements with minimal conditioned work: 4 hours Said fees for this section shall be considered part of the fees calculated in Paragraphs 2 or 3 above. This initial payment shall be credited against the total plan check and/or inspection fee for the project with the balance due paid prior to final map or improvement plan approval.
The above said plan review fee shall include four (4) submittals of the plans and preparation of all standard agreements (as indicated below). All additional submittals and preparation of nonstandard agreements shall be subject to additional review fees of the per-hour or fractions thereof based on the Hourly Rate. Overtime fees will be 1.5 times the Hourly Rate per hour or fractions thereof with a two-hour minimum.
Standard Agreements shall consist of the following:
• Subdivision and Parcel Map Agreement (a draft and one revision) • Landscape Maintenance District Covenants
Non-Standard Agreements consist of the following:
• Deferment Agreements (includes fees and improvements) • Perpetual Maintenance Agreements
• Escrow Instructions
• Special Research Requests
• Reciprocal Access/Maintenance Agreements
• Solid Waste and/or Temporary Turnaround Covenants
• Deeds, Easements and Irrevocable Offers of Dedication • Right of Entry
• Partial Reconveyances
• Temporary Basin Maintenance Covenants
• Legal Descriptions for Street and Utility
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provisions of this Resolution shall not in any way affect provisions for fees or charges in any other Resolution or Ordinance of the City of Clovis. * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on May 4, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: May 4, 2026
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
Unit
LS
DEVELOPER APPLICATION FEE LS
EA
EA
DAY
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
SY
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
WATER TIE-IN, 1"-3" EA
WATER TIE-IN, 4"-6" EA
WATER TIE-IN, 8" AND LARGER EA
EA
LF
WATER METER EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
SF
EA
WELO INSPECTION EA
HR
NOTE:
* includes a $20 Energov Fee
TOTAL FEES $156.00
Credit 1 $0.00 $0.00
Processing Fee Waver 0 $192.00 $0.00
SUB TOTAL OF FEES $0.00
FIBER UTILITY PROCESSING FEE (1-3 hrs.) 1 $156.00 $156.00 PUBLIC IRRIGATION (per each component) 0 $78.00 $0.00
0 $156.00 $0.00
DRAIN INLETS 0 $104.00 $0.00
LANDSCAPE FACILITIES
PUBLIC LANDSCAPE 0 $0.13 $0.00
MANHOLE 0 $104.00 $0.00
SIDEWALK DRAINS 0 $104.00 $0.00
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
STORM DRAIN MAIN 0 $3.10 $0.00
FIRE HYDRANT 0 $104.00 $0.00
BLOW-OFF 0 $104.00 $0.00
WATER MAIN / SERVICE LINE 0 $3.10 $0.00
0 $104.00 $0.00
0 $690.00 $0.00
WATER SERVICE HOT TAP 0 $104.00 $0.00
0 $172.50 $0.00
0 $345.00 $0.00
MANHOLE 0 $104.00 $0.00
WATER FACILITIES
SEWER FACILITIES
SEWER LATERAL 0 $49.40 $0.00
SEWER MAIN 0 $3.10 $0.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL / LANE CLOSURE 0 $312.00 $0.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL / DETOUR 0 $780.00 $0.00
TRAFFIC MARKING / SIGNING 0 $156.00 $0.00
STREET LIGHTS 0 $39.00 $0.00
DRIVE APPROACH 0 $0.80 $0.00
A/C PAVEMENT / TRENCH REPAIR 0 $2.35 $0.00
SIDEWALK 0 $0.80 $0.00
MISC CONCRETE 0 $0.80 $0.00
VALLEY GUTTER 0 $3.10 $0.00
CURB / CURB AND GUTTER 0 $1.55 $0.00
RE-INSPECTION FEE (per occurrence) 0 $234.00 $0.00
WORKING IN R-O-W WITHOUT PERMIT 0 $500.00 $0.00
0 $156.00 $0.00
MINIMUM INSPECTION FEE 0 $468.00 $0.00
STREET WORK
PERMIT PROCESSING FEE * 0 $254.00 $0.00
INSPECTION FEES 2026-2027
Fee description Quantity Unit Price Total Fee
Attachment A
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING THE 2026
CITY OF CLOVIS PLANNING DIVISION FEE SCHEDULE AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3)
OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (City) Planning Division is proposing an update to the 2026 Planning Division Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the update to the Fee Schedule is based primarily on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers, including utilizing the average of the last five (5) years of the CPI percentage changes to arrive at a total increase of 4.48% to cover the increased costs to the City of providing the applicable services; and
WHEREAS, certain exceptions to the 4.48% increase are included where the fee is based on the hourly rate; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate is proposed to increase from the current rate of $150 to a proposed rate of $156 to cover the costs to the City of providing the applicable services; and WHEREAS, the “per acre, per building permit, per sign, per unit, and per lot” fees are not being proposed to change; and
WHEREAS, the data supporting the proposed fee increases in the updated Fee Schedule was made available to the public in accordance with applicable law, including Government Code section 66016, and the City duly published a notice of the City Council Public Hearing for May 4, 2026, to consider the 2026 City of Clovis Planning Division fee schedule in The Business Journal more than 10 days prior to said hearing in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2026, the City Council duly conducted the public hearing and considered testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings (Administrative Record) relating to the 2026 City of Clovis Planning Division fee schedule, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Clovis Department of Planning and Development Services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider the entire Administrative Record relating to the proposed fees, which is on file with the City of Clovis Department of Planning and Development Services (“Department”), and reviewed and
considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written testimony and other evidence presented during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, based upon the Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there is no substantial evidence that the project or approval of the updated fee schedule will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis finds and determines as follows:
1. The City of Clovis Council approves the 2026 City of Clovis Planning Division fee schedule attached as Attachment A hereto and finds the fees set forth therein to be necessary to cover the increased costs to the City of providing the applicable services and the fess set forth do not exceed the estimated cost to the City of providing the services for which the fees are charged.
2. The City of Clovis Council finds that the request is in compliance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and there is no substantial evidence that the project or this approval will have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA.
3. The basis for the findings is detailed in the May 4, 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 May 4, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: May 4, 2026
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
$15,371
$26,789
$26,789
$8,497
$5,428
$368
$766
General Plan Amendment
Ordinance Amendment $7,080
Appeal requiring a City Council Hearing $1,916
Appeal requiring a Planning Commission Hearing $3,629
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EIR or EA by Consultant hired by the City Cost + 15% ($10,000 Initial Deposit) ANNEXATION/ REORGANIZATION Does not include LAFCo Fees
Annexation/ Reorganization
Agricultural Preserve Annexation (In addition to Annexation Fee)
APPEALS
Sphere of Influence Expansion + $119/Acre
+ $55/Acre
City of Clovis Planning Division
FEE SCHEDULE
Effective Date: July 6, 2026 (Adopted on May 4, 2026 by City Council Resolution 26-XX )
ENTITLEMENT FEE
AMENDMENTS
ABANDONMENT
Abandonment (Summary) $1,209
Abandonment of Right-of-Way $1,916
+ $119/Acre
+ $119/Acre
NEPA Compliance Actual Cost
HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
Small Home Occupation Permit $156
Large Home Occupation Permit $283
Categorical Exemption $1,425
Negative Declaration $5,218
Mitigated Negative Declaration $6,056
Willow Corridor Annexation Fair Share Cost Recovery- Site Specific Development $174 Per Acre Rear Yard Encroachment Permit $258
Staff Research & Document Preparation (Deferment Agreements, Zoning Confirmations, etc) $156/hr (1 Hr. Min.)
MISCELANEOUS
Adult Oriented Business Permit $9,145
SIGN REVIEW
Sign Review
Determination of Use $5,339
Redistribution Fee (Within the commenting period) $156
Redistribution Fee (After the commenting period) $413
Sign Review (Subdivision)
Sign Review Amendment 1/2 Base Fee
Sidewalk Permit (Contact the Economic Development Department for more information) $79
RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
Residential Site Plan Review, Single Family Residential, Subdivision Residential Site Plan Review, Single Family Residential Amendments, Individual Lot $1,031 + 60/ Building Permit
+ $20/Sign
+ $20/Sign
The following are the fees to be paid when filing an application with the City of Clovis Planning Division. The fee must accompany the application. Once an application is accepted, refunds and/or withdrawals shall be processed in accordance with Development Code Section 9.50.070.
Attachment A
$6,755
$11,417
$4,868
$6,756
$11,417
$4,868
$6,755
$2,537
$2,448
$13,069
$15,902
$3,658
$11,948
$11,948
$15,400
$15,400
$17,466
$17,466
$21,124
MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW (Objective Standards)
Multifamily Residential Design Review (1-4 Multifamily Units) Multifamily Residential Design Review (5+ Multifamily Units) Multifamily Design Review Amendment
+ $55/Unit
+ $55/Unit
1/2 Established Fee
Site Plan Review, Multifamily Residential (Requiring Planning Commission hearing) Site Plan Review, Amendment 1/2 Established Fee
Site Plan Review, Exterior Amendment/ Amendments to Conditions $1,592
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Site Plan Review, Non-Residential
Site Plan Review, Non-Residential (Requiring Planning Commission hearing) Site Plan Review, 1-4 Multifamily Units
+ $119/Acre
+ $119/Acre
+ $55/Unit
+ $55/Unit
Site Plan Review, Multifamily Residential 5+ Units + $55/Unit Final Parcel Maps
Tentative Tract Map, Planning Commission
Tentative Tract Map, Planning Commission & City Council
SUBDIVISIONS
Lot Line Adjustment- Minor (Involves one lot line) $1,297 Lot Line Adjustment- Major (Involves multiple lot lines) $1,828 Tentative Parcel Maps $8,084
+ $55/Lot or Unit
+ $55/Lot or Unit
+ $55/Lot or Unit
SB9 - Tentative Parcel Maps $7,198
SB9 - Final Parcel Maps + $55/Lot or Unit
USE PERMITS
Administrative Use Permit $1,946
Conditional Use Permit $9,057
Conditional Use Permit, requiring City Council Hearing $11,063 Final Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map- Amendment/ Amendment to Conditions 1/2 Base Fee Refiling of an Expired Tentative Tract Map (Request can incorporate no changes to the approved map and must be filed within 6 months of expiration) 1/2 Established Fee + $30/Lot or Unit
Conditional Use Permit, Major Amendment $6,992
Temporary Use Permit $560
VARIANCE
Single Family Residential $5,841
Office & Business Campus PUD
Planned Development Permit (Residential and Non-Residential) + $35/Lot or Unit
+ $35/Lot or Unit
Conditional Use Permit, Minor Amendment/ Extension $3,642 ZONING
Single Family Rezone/ Prezone
Rezone/ Prezone other than Single Family & PCC
Planned Commercial Center (PCC) Rezone/ Prezone
All Other Variances $8,910
Minor Deviation $5,104
Minor Adjustment- Signs $1,179
+ $55/Acre
+ $55/Acre
+ $55/Acre
Master Plan Community Overlay District Amendments- Minor Amendment $1,592 Master Plan Community Overlay District Amendments- Major Amendment 1/2 Base Fee Planned Commercial Center (PCC) Rezone, Amendments/ Amendments to Conditions 1/2 Base Fee Mixed Use Zone
Master Plan Community Overlay District
+ $55/Acre
+ $55/Acre
Planning and Development Services - Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street, Clovis CA
559-324-2340
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/applications_fees.php
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: May 4, 2026
Staff: Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner
Subject: Consider various items associated with approximately 17.41 acres of land located at the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. Frances Ricchiuti and Patrick V. Ricchiuti, owners; Lennar Homes, applicant; Yamabe & Horn Engineering, Inc., representative:
a. Consider Approval — Res. 26-__, A resolution recommending that the City Council approve an addendum to the previously adopted environmental finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6543 and Planned Development Permit 2025-001.
b. Consider Approval — Res. 26-__, TM6543, A resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 137-lot single-family planned residential development on approximately 17.41 acres of land.
c. Consider Approval — Res. 26-__, PDP2025-001, A resolution recommending that the City Council approve a planned development permit for a 137-lot single-family planned residential development.
Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: 1. Lennar Homes ATT 1 Res. 26-__ CEQA
2. Lennar Homes ATT 2 Res. 26-__ TM6543
3. Lennar Homes ATT 3 Res. 26-__ PDP2025-001
4. Lennar Homes ATT 4 Modifications
5. Lennar Homes ATT 5 Proposed Development Standards for PDP2025- 001
6. Lennar Homes ATT 6 Proposed PDP2025-001 Amenities
7. Lennar Homes ATT 7 Elevations and Floor Plans
8. Lennar Homes ATT 8 Addendum to ISMND
9. Lennar Homes ATT 9 ISMND with Appendices
10. Lennar Homes ATT 10 Correspondence from Commenting Agencies
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the resolutions approving each component of the Project as identified below:
a. A resolution recommending Council approve an addendum to the previously adopted environmental finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6543 and Planned Development Permit 2025-001.
b. A resolution recommending Council approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 137-lot single-family planned residential development on approximately 17.41 acres of land. c. A resolution recommending Council approve a planned development permit for a 137-lot single-family planned residential development.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolutions approving each component of the Project as identified above.
Executive Summary:
On March 26, 2026, the Planning Commission considered Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6543 and Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2025-001 and recommended denial to the City Council.
The project site was previously considered on October 24, 2024, when the Planning Commission considered Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6452 and Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2023- 001 and recommended denial to the City Council. On November 18, 2024, the City Council approved TM6452 and all associated project components. TM6452 proposed a 153-lot, non-gated single-family planned residential development and was included within the boundaries of Reorganization (RO) 305 and associated Rezone (R) 2021-006, which established the site’s R-1-PRD zoning.
Lennar Homes (“Applicant”) has since revised TM6452 and is requesting approval of TM6543 and PDP2025-001 hereinafter referred to as the “Project” to replace the previously approved map due to changes in housing product type and lot configuration. The proposed Project would reduce the number of previously approved single-family lots from 153 to 137 on approximately 17.41 acres of land within the City’s Heritage Grove planned growth area. The Project is also proposing to eliminate alley-loaded lots and offer standard single-family lots, as well as modify the previously approved property development standards. The proposed modifications are outlined in Attachment 4.
Background:
The Project site contains two (2) existing General Plan Land Use designations: Very Low Density Residential (0.6 - 2.0 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (4.1 - 7.0 dwelling units per acre). The site consists of approximately ±7.13 acres of Very Low Density Residential and ±10.28 acres of Medium Density Residential. Based solely on these designations, the property would allow a minimum of 46 dwelling units and a maximum of 86 dwelling units.
The Project proposes 137 lots, which exceeds the 86-unit maximum permitted on the subject property. Prior to formal submittal, the Applicant met with staff to discuss the application of a blended density calculation in conjunction with the adjacent tract map, the previously approved TM6200. Both properties are contiguous and under common ownership. Based on these very limited circumstances, staff determined that a blended density calculation was reasonable. The resulting calculation is as follows:
Under a blended density approach, the maximum allowable yield across both properties is 957 lots.
TM6200 was approved for 588 lots, which is below its maximum allowable density. As a result, 369 lots remain available within the combined density allocation. The 137 lots proposed under TM6543 would utilize a portion of this remaining balance within the overall maximum density permitted under the General Plan.
In summary, the proposed lot count does not exceed the combined maximum density allowed across the contiguous properties and is consistent with the General Plan’s provisions encouraging a mix of housing types and efficient land utilization.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The Project proposes a 137-lot, non-gated, single-family planned residential development on a ±17.41-acre parcel. As depicted in Figure 1 below, the Project site is located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Project would include construction of public streets, sidewalks, landscaped areas, an interior park, and a connected layout to existing and developing surrounding subdivisions, which expand on the greater trail system.
Planned Development Permit
The Project site was included in the previously approved RO305 and pre-zoning applications and designated as R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development). The R-1-PRD Zone District is appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached single-family structures on small lots. In accordance with Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) section 9.10.010, subdivision (B)(6), PDPs are required for all planned residential developments, including the proposed Project. PDPs facilitate design flexibility and encourage innovative and superior site planning, culminating in a comprehensive development of high quality. Further details regarding the PDP are outlined below.
Development Standards
The PDP has the authority to adjust or modify development standards, such as building coverage,
height, setbacks, fence and wall heights, landscaping, open space, and street layout, where necessary and justifiable. The Applicant is requesting approval of a non-gated, detached singlefamily PDP with reduced parcel width and depth, lot size, and required setbacks, as well as an increase in lot coverage. Table 1 below outlines the proposed development standards for the Project.
There are three housing product types that are distinguishable by their elevation and floor plans.
While the Applicant has provided models for each of their products, they will be assessed against the established development standards and formalized through the RSPR process, which has been included as a condition of approval for the Project.
Table 1 above delineates alterations to the customary development criteria associated with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zone District. The requested deviations specifically include a reduction in lot size, parcel width and depth, setbacks, height, and an increase in lot coverage. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards mentioned above and found them to be compatible with similar projects recently approved through the PDP process. Compared to the previously approved map, these deviations are less than those previously approved. The Project increases the minimum lot size from 2,184 square feet to 2,800 square feet, modifies setback requirements, slightly reduces the allowable lot coverage, reduces parcel width, and increases the parcel depth.
It is important to note that, to ensure adequate side yard access and proper storage for trash toters, the Project proposes a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet for all garage-side setbacks.
Additionally, the Project is conditioned to provide an all-weather surface for the placement and storage of trash receptacles, extending from the five-foot side yard (garage side) to the front of the property. These proposed development standards are in line with recent projects approved under the PDP process.
Homeowners Association
Upon Final Map approval, the Project’s open spaces and common areas are proposed to be dedicated to and owned by the city, with maintenance to be assumed by the Homeowners’ Association (HOA), ensuring they remain well-kept and functional. This setup is designed to uphold community standards and elevate the quality of life for residents within the Project's jurisdiction.
Residential Site Plan Review
The Applicant will be required to submit an RSPR in order to allow staff to review lot-specific development standards. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans.
Parking and Driveways
Per the CMC, the minimum parking requirement is two (2) covered spaces, plus one (1) covered or uncovered guest space for each dwelling unit; therefore, the Project shall provide a minimum of 274 covered spaces and 137 guest spaces. The Applicant is proposing a two-car garage for each unit and 137 uncovered parking spaces on the driveways, thus meeting the minimum parking requirements. Each two-car garage shall provide a minimum twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet interior dimension, which will be reviewed with the RSPR. The Applicant is requesting a deviation to allow an eighteen (18 ½) foot driveway depth in lieu of the required twenty (20) feet. However, due to the requirement for guest parking, the driveways shall be twenty (20) feet total. An eighteen (18 ½) foot driveway may only be permitted with a two (2) foot landscaped area. Each garage driveway shall provide a minimum of twenty-six (26) foot back-up distance from the back of the garage to the curb.
Proposed Amenities
Chapter 9.66 of the CMC (Planned Development Permits) provides for flexibility in development standards to accommodate various development types that may not conform to standard regulations.
Within this context, planned residential developments are mandated to provide a program of amenities proportional to the deviations being sought.
In exchange for the requested development standard deviations described in Table 1 of the report, the Applicant is proposing a range of on-site amenities aimed at benefiting both homeowners and the general public. These amenities include a 16,060 square foot interior park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, shade pavilions, and a shaded children’s play structure and a 7,669 square foot paseo connecting TM6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of TM6344. A conceptual illustration of the proposed park and paseo is shown in Figure 2 below.
It is important to highlight that, in addition to the requirement for proportional amenities, approval of a PDP necessitates the demonstration of superior development quality compared to what could be achieved through conventional development practices on the site. The Project proposes two (2) landscaped direct pedestrian connections from the subdivision to Perrin Avenue. The Project also proposes that each home have a paved pedestrian walkway connecting to a sidewalk. Additional enhanced architectural and landscaping features are subject to review and approval during the RSPR process for individual lots and the civil plan review.
Findings for Planned Development Permits
The required findings for the approval of a PDP application, and staff’s response to each of those findings are listed below. (CMC § 9.66.060.)
1. The PDP would:
a. Be allowed within the subject base zoning district.
The proposed PDP is permissible within the R-1-PRD Zone District, which was zoned with the approval of R2021-006.
b. Be consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
The Project proposes a single-family residential development that is consistent with the established land uses of the General Plan. The site contains Very Low Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential designations. While the proposed lot count exceeds the standalone maximum density of the subject parcel, the applicant proposes a blended density calculation in conjunction with the adjacent, previously approved TM6200.
TM6200, which is contiguous to the subject property and under common ownership, was approved by the City Council at a density substantially below the maximum permitted by the applicable General Plan Land Use designations. The General Plan regulates residential intensity through maximum dwelling unit ranges expressed on a per-acre basis.
In this case, the Applicant proposes to apply a blended density calculation across the combined acreage of TM6200 and the subject property. The total number of approved and proposed lots remains below the maximum density permitted for the aggregated acreage under the Very Low Density and Medium Density Residential designations. Accordingly, the proposal does not result in an overconcentration of units beyond what the General Plan allows for the combined project area.
Policy 3.6 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities to promote housing variety throughout the City. The proposed development supports this objective by providing a housing product that differs from larger-lot rural residential development to the east while remaining comparable in scale and density to approved and developing neighborhoods to the south and west.
Therefore, as evaluated on a combined basis, the Project does not modify or intensify TM6200 beyond its approved entitlement. Rather, it allocates unused density capacity within the overall General Plan envelope across contiguous properties under common ownership. Because the cumulative development remains within the established density framework and does not require a general plan amendment, the blended density approach is consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan.
In addition, efficient utilization of allowable residential density advances both local and State housing objectives. California continues to face a documented housing shortage, and the General Plan’s density ranges are intended to accommodate residential growth within the City’s urban footprint. By utilizing available density capacity within the established land use designations, without exceeding the maximum dwelling unit yield, the Project supports the General Plan’s housing production goals and contributes to the City’s broader efforts to address regional housing needs.
c. Be generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code relating to both on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to accommodate flexibility in site planning and property development and to carry out the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and the subject base zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines.
The Project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable provisions of the City’s Development Code. While the PDP requests modifications to certain zoning development standards, those modifications are evaluated through the PDP process, which is intended to provide flexibility in site design while ensuring that the overall development remains consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district and applicable design guidelines.
As conditioned, the Project will comply with the prescribed development standards contained in
Attachment 5 and all applicable City requirements. The Project proposes to construct all required on-site and off-site improvements, including public infrastructure and utilities, as directed by the City Engineer and in accordance with the Development Code. Therefore, the Project is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code. d. Ensure compatibility of property uses within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed development.
The Project shares a comparable density and development type with the existing surrounding development to the south and west, thus ensuring compatibility within the area.
2. The proposed Project would produce a comprehensive development of superior quality (e.g., appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high-quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, incorporation of a program of enhanced amenities, etc.) than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development applications.
The Project will provide an amenity program associated with the PDP as described in the Proposed Amenities section of this report. The architectural design of the homes will undergo thorough evaluation during the RSPR process to ensure high quality. Furthermore, enhanced landscaping will be required within the North Marion Avenue entrance as part of the Project's aesthetic improvements.
3. Proper standards and conditions have been imposed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
The proposed PDP will comply with the Development Code, Fire Department standards, and Building Code regulations to ensure adherence to public health and safety requirements.
4. Proper on-site traffic circulation and control is designed into the development to ensure protection for fire suppression and police surveillance equal to or better than what would normally be created by compliance with the minimum setback and parcel width standards identified in Division 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).
The proposed PDP will adhere to the standards set by the Fire Department and the requirements of the City Engineer concerning fire suppression measures and enhancements to traffic flow related to TM6543, respectively.
5. The subject parcel is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development.
The proposed TM6543 encompasses ±17.41 acres of land and is of sufficient size and configuration to accommodate the proposed 137-lot subdivision and open space areas. The sites configuration allows for an efficient internal circulation pattern and compliance with applicable development standards as modified through the PDP.
The property is relatively level and does not contain significant physical constraints that would preclude residential development. Access, utilities, and public services can be provided to the site, and the Project will construct all required on-site and off-site improvements. Accordingly, the site is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed development.
6. The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the proposed development would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values, character, scale, and view protection.
As indicated above, the proposed PDP is compatible with the existing and planned adjacent land uses. In regard to view protection, the PDP proposes a reduced maximum height limit than that prescribed under the comparable R-1 Zone District. The proposed development will process an RSPR application where aesthetics and design will be evaluated in compliance with the Development Code.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
As shown in Attachment 2A, the Applicant is requesting approval of TM6543 to subdivide the property into a 137-lot single-family planned residential subdivision. The map proposes the creation of residential lots, landscaped parkway strips, open space, sidewalks, and associated public improvements. Further specifics regarding TM6543 are detailed below.
Circulation
The Project proposes two (2) vehicular access points, one from N. Baron Avenue and one from Perrin Avenue, providing adequate ingress and egress while distributing site traffic. The internal circulation system consists of a looped internal street network with a central north-south connection, allowing for continuous on-site circulation. The layout provides adequate turning radii and connectivity to serve all residential lots and accommodates emergency vehicle access throughout the site. Perrin Avenue terminates within the Project boundary and does not extend eastward. The overall circulation pattern is consistent with residential subdivision design standards and the applicable Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.
Pedestrian circulation is provided via sidewalks along N. Baron and Perrin Avenues, sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets, and internal walkways serving residential blocks. The proposed circulation system supports both vehicular and pedestrian mobility in a manner compatible with surrounding development.
Heritage Grove Thematic Elements
The City’s 2014 General Plan directed the preparation and adoption of a comprehensive design document for the Heritage Grove area. As a result, the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines were developed and adopted on December 5, 2016, to guide development in a manner that is of high quality, fiscally sustainable, and balanced. The Guidelines establish an overall agricultural theme and provide direction for architectural, landscape, and site design elements to ensure consistency throughout the area. The proposed Project is located within the Heritage Grove Urban Center and is required to comply with these adopted design standards as outlined in the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.
The Heritage Grove Urban Center is one (1) of three (3) urban centers identified in the General Plan to accommodate growth within the City of Clovis. Each urban center is planned to accommodate approximately 30,000 residents and is intended to support a mix of land uses that foster a cohesive, community-oriented environment.
The Project includes roadway improvements and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and is consistent with the overall growth that is planned within the Heritage Grove Urban Center. The Project will develop N. Baron and Perrin Avenues as neighborhood boulevards in accordance with the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines, incorporating a twenty (20) foot parkway between the right-ofPage 475 of 1024
way and private parcels. In addition, the Project will design the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues with a community corner paseo, incorporating a stone wall, a corner paseo tree, and a pedestrian pathway link into the subdivision. As proposed, the project contributes to the City’s broader strategy to accommodate planned growth in a cohesive and efficient manner, and staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the final design is consistent with the intent of the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.
Findings for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The following are findings required to approve a vesting tentative tract map (CMC §§ 9.102.060, subd. (A) and 9.102.110, subd. (C)). It is essential to note that some of these findings overlap with those detailed in the previous Findings for Planned Development Permit section of this report and will reference the information provided therein.
1. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
The proposed TM6543 is consistent with the City’s 2014 General Plan and the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. The Project’s density, land use, and subdivision layout conform to the site’s General Plan designation and approved R-1-PRD Zone District. As discussed in the General Plan Consistency section of this report, the Project advances applicable goals and policies related to residential development, neighborhood design, and orderly growth. All required improvements will be constructed in accordance with City standards and subject to review and approval through the City’s engineering and civil plan review process.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.
Refer to number 5 of the Findings for Planned Development Permit section.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
As analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) adopted for the original Project in November 18, 2024, environmental impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
The revised Project involves modifications to the site layout, housing product types, lot count, and development standards; however, these changes do not alter the overall land use or intensity of development previously analyzed. The modifications would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts in combination with other planned projects in the vicinity.
Accordingly, the revised Project would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat beyond what was previously evaluated in the IS/MND, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.
The design of the Project will comply with the Development Code, Fire Department standards, and Building Code regulations to ensure adherence to public health and safety requirements.
Furthermore, during review of the Project, agencies and City departments had the opportunity to review the Project to ensure consistency with City codes and regulations and no serious public health or safety concerns were identified. Therefore, the Project was determined not to be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or general welfare of the City.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding may also be made if the review authority finds that alternate easements for access or use will be provided, and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
This finding shall apply only to easements of record, or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the review authority to determine that the public at large has acquired easements of access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
During the final map review process conducted by the City's Engineering Division, all easements will be identified. Additionally, during the final map review, the City Engineer and other outside agencies will ensure that no conflicts with easements would occur as a result of the Project. As needed, alternate easements will be found that will be substantially equivalent to those previously required in TM6543.
6. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The City Engineer has determined that the City has the capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. Installation of sewer lines within the proposed subdivision and beyond its borders will adhere to the regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
7. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
The proposed subdivision will comply with the Development Code and California Building Code requirements as it relates to heating and cooling opportunities within TM6543.
8. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of this Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
The proposed subdivision comprises single-family housing, consistent with the prescribed land uses outlined in the General Plan. The existing R-1-PRD Zone District allows for the proposed use and PDP development standards. The proposed development will process an RSPR application, where aesthetics and design will be evaluated in compliance with the Development Code and established PDP development standards.
Annexation
The Project site, as shown in Figure 3, is located within a larger 246-acre annexation area (RO305, Behymer-Sunnyside Southwest Reorganization). At the time the annexation was processed, the area was proposed in conjunction with TM6452. The annexation was approved by the City Council on May 20, 2024, and by the Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission on September 11, 2024.
The annexation has since been recorded, and the Project site is officially within the City of Clovis.
TM6543 represents the current subdivision proposal for the site. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with the approved and recorded annexation and associated land use designations.
Planning Commission Hearing – March 26, 2026
On March 26, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project. Staff presented the Project, recommendations, and analysis as outlined in the staff report. No public comments were received in favor of or in opposition to the Project, during the public hearing.
Commissioners voiced concerns to the proposed Project, expressing the following key concerns:
• Opposition to higher density projects and compatibility to the neighborhood. • Desire to have a mix of housing with more larger lot developments. • Interest in incorporating single-story units that are more suitable for the aging population. • Did not support the blended density approach that utilizes unused density capacity from the adjacent previously approved project TM6200.
Following discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the entitlements associated with the proposed Project. The recommendation to deny all components of the Project was approved by a 3-2 vote.
Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance
The Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance (MIZO) adopted on April 13, 2026, requires new residential developments with 11 units or more to allocate a set percentage of units as affordable housing. While the proposed project exceeds 11 units, it is not subject to MIZO requirements because the application was deemed complete prior to the ordinance taking effect.
Public Comments
The City published a notice of this public hearing in The Business Journal on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, and a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the property boundaries for the May 4, 2026, City Council hearing. As of the completion of this staff report, staff has not received any comments from the public.
Review and Comments from Agencies
The Project was distributed to all City divisions as well as outside agencies, including Caltrans, Clovis Unified School District, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, AT&T, PG&E, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the County of Fresno.
Comments received are attached (Attachment 10) 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.
General Plan Consistency
Staff has evaluated the Project in light of the goals and policies of the General Plan. The following goals and policies reflect Clovis' desire to maintain Clovis’ tradition of responsible planning and wellmanaged growth to preserve the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and ensure the development of new neighborhoods with an equal quality of life. These goals and polices seek to foster more compact development patterns that can reduce the number, length, and duration of auto trips.
Goal 3: Orderly and sustainable outward growth into three Urban Centers with neighborhoods that provide a balanced mix of land uses and development types to support a community lifestyle and small-town character.
Policy 3.5 Fiscal sustainability. The City shall require establishment of community facility districts, lighting and landscaping maintenance districts, special districts, and other special funding or financing tools in conjunction with or as a condition of development, building or permit approval, or annexation or sphere of influence amendments when necessary to ensure that new development is fiscally neutral or beneficial.
Policy 3.6 Mix of housing types and sizes. Development is encouraged to provide a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities at the block level. To accomplish this, individual projects five acres or larger may be developed at densities equivalent to one designation higher or lower than the assigned designation, provided that the density across an individual project remains consistent with the General Plan.
Goal 5: A city with housing, employment, and lifestyle opportunities for all ages and incomes of residents.
Policy 5.1: Housing variety in developments. The Clovis General Plan has been planned to provide a variety of housing product types suitable to each stage of a person’s life. Each development should contribute to a diversity of housing sizes and types within the standards appropriate to the land use designation. This policy does not apply to projects smaller than five acres.
Policy 5.2 Ownership and rental. Encourage a mixture of both ownership and rental options to meet varied preferences and income affordability needs.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
An IS/MND for TM6452 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100057) was previously prepared and adopted by City Council on November 18, 2024 (Res. No. 24-129). The IS/MND evaluated the environmental impacts associated with development of the site and identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The applicant has since submitted a revised TM6543 reflecting modifications to the subdivision layout, including changes to lot configuration, street design, and related development standards.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND has been prepared to evaluate whether the proposed revisions would result in new or significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts.
The Addendum concludes that TM6543 would not result in any new significant impacts, would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, and would not require new or additional mitigation measures beyond those previously adopted. The environmental circumstances surrounding the site remain substantially unchanged, and the Project continues to be consistent with the analysis contained in the adopted IS/MND.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (d), the Addendum does not require circulation for public review, but must be considered by the decision-making body prior to approval of the project. The City Council’s consideration of this item includes review of the Addendum (Attachment 8) together with the previously adopted IS/MND (Attachment 9). Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Reason for Recommendation:
Given that the proposed Project will reduce the number of lots previously approved by City Council from 153 to 137 lots, it will reduce impacts to the area. The recommended project eliminates alleyloaded lots in favor of standard single-family lot configurations, which are more consistent with surrounding development patterns. The Project will provide a diversity in housing types, contribute a quality residential product, and further advance growth within the Heritage Grove growth area as envisioned by the General Plan. The proposed Project does not substantially impact sewer, water and other public services, and will contribute to their proportionate share of infrastructure and open space. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code and each component of the Project meets the findings that must be considered when making a decision on a project, as outlined in sections above. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the previously approved IS/MND in accordance with CEQA, and approve TM6543 and PDP2025-001, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachments 2B and 3A.
Actions Following Approval:
If the Project is approved, it will continue through the RSPR process.
Conflict of Interest:
None.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS ADOPTING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6543 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-001,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15164
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC, 8080 North Palm Avenue Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93711 (“Applicant”), has submitted Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6543 and Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2025-001 (“Project”) for property located on the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant previously submitted TM6452 and associated PDP2023-001 for the same Property; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the Planning Commission considered TM6452 and recommended denial to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, the City Council approved TM6452 and all associated project components; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, the City Council also adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), incorporated herein by reference, for TM6452 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et. Seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified potentially significant environmental impacts and incorporated mitigation measures that reduced those impacts to less-than-significant levels, and a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted in conjunction therewith; and WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently submitted TM6543, a revised vesting tentative tract map and associated PDP2025-001 for a 137-lot subdivision with modified development standards; and
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed and evaluated TM6543, a 137-lot subdivision, and determined that it contains only minor changes to the previously approved TM6452, a 153-lot subdivision, and it does not expand the project footprint, therefore it does not constitute a significant change from TM6452; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that the modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts, would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, and would not trigger any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document; and
WHEREAS, TM6543 will supersede the previously approved TM6452 on the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and voted 3-2 to deny TM6543, PDP2025-001, and the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report provided for its March 26, 2026, meeting.
WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to the TM6543, and considered the Addendum, the previously adopted IS/MND and MMRP, the staff report dated May 4, 2026, the entire Administrative Record, and all public testimony presented at the public hearing which supports the finding that this project is in substantial conformance with the environmental analysis (“Administrative Record”). This Project will be subject to the mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the aforementioned environmental documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis resolves and finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals as true and correct.
2. That the Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND for the Project is adequate, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
3. That none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document have occurred.
4. On the basis of the entire Administrative Record, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified effects, with continued implementation of adopted mitigation measures identified in Attachment A.
5. The City Council hereby adopts the addendum to the IS/MND and the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Attachment A.
6. The City Council hereby directs that the record of these proceedings shall be contained in the Department of Planning and Development Services located at 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612, and the custodian of the record shall be the City Planner or other person designated by the Planning and Development Services Director.
7. The basis for the findings are detailed in the May 4, 2026, staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, the entire Administrative Record, as well as evidence and comments presented in connection with the Addendum to the IS/MND.
* * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on May 4, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Date: May 4, 2026
___________________________________ ________________________________ Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TM6452 and PDP2023-001
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Swainson’s Hawk. If possible, construction
activities should occur outside of the avian nesting
season, typically defined as February 1 – August
31. If that is not feasible, pre-construction surveys
shall occur if construction must occur between
February 1 – August 31. A qualified biologist shall
conduct surveys for active bird nests within seven
(7) days prior to the start of work during this period.
The survey area shall encompass the Project site
and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for
nesting Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting
raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds. Should any
active nests be discovered in or near proposed
construction zones, the biologist will identify a
suitable construction free buffer around the nest.
This buffer will be identified on the ground with
flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the
biologist has determined that the young have
fledged are capable of foraging independently.
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Cultural Resources
CULT-1
If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate
the significance of the find and make
recommendations. Cultural resource materials may
include prehistoric resources such as flaked and
ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone,
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic
resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or
structural remnants.
If the qualified professional archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a
potentially significant cultural resource, additional
investigations may be required to mitigate adverse
impacts from project implementation. These
additional studies may include avoidance, testing,
and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist, the
Lead Agency, and the project proponent shall
arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource
or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if
eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall
be formally documented in writing and submitted to
the Lead Agency as verification that the provisions
for managing unanticipated discoveries have been
met.
CULT-2 If human remains are discovered during
construction or operational activities, further
excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Project shall follow the
procedures and protocols set for un CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains
are identified to be those of Native American,
California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires
the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours
of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and
determinations regarding the discovery of human
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
remains on the project site shall be submitted to the
Lead Agency.
Geological Resources
GEO-1
If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist and/or
paleontologist, can evaluate the significance of the
find and make recommendations. Cultural resource
materials may include prehistoric resources such as
flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell,
bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as
historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick,
or structural remnants.
If the qualified professional determines that the
discovery represents a potentially significant
cultural resource, additional investigations may be
required to mitigate adverse impacts from project
implementation. These additional studies may
include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data
recovery excavation.
If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist and/or
paleontologist, the Lead Agency, and the project
proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance
of the resource or 2) test excavations to evaluate
eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The
determination shall be formally documented in
writing and submitted to the Lead Agency as
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
verification that the provisions for managing
unanticipated discoveries have been met.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG
requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction
and equity prioritization goals, each residential unit
shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities
as part of the final project designs.
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Noise
NOISE-1 Interior Noise. Mechanical ventilation or air
conditioning shall be provided for all homes to
enable windows and doors to remain closed for
sound insulation purposes.
City of Clovis Planning During
Construction and
Prior to
Occupancy
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1
If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are
encountered during construction activities, all work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate
the significance of the find and make
recommendations. Cultural resource materials may
include prehistoric resources such as flaked and
ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone,
ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic
resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or
structural remnants.
If the qualified professional archaeologist
determines that the discovery represents a
potentially significant cultural resource, additional
investigations may be required to mitigate adverse
impacts from project implementation. These
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Proposed
Mitigation Summary of Measure Monitoring Responsibility Timing Verification
(Date and
Initials)
additional studies may include avoidance, testing,
and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered,
then the qualified professional archaeologist, the
Lead Agency, and the project proponent shall
arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource
or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if
eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall
be formally documented in writing and submitted to
the Lead Agency as verification that the provisions
for managing unanticipated discoveries have been
met.
TCR-2 If human remains are discovered during
construction or operational activities, further
excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code and Project shall follow the
procedures and protocols set for un CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains
are identified to be those of Native American,
California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires
the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours
of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and
determinations regarding the discovery of human
remains on the project site shall be submitted to the
Lead Agency.
City of Clovis Planning Prior to Permits
and During
Construction
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6543 FOR A 137-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 17.41 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BARON AND PERRIN AVENUES
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (“Applicant”), 8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93711, has submitted Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6543 for a 137-lot single-family subdivision on approximately 17.41 acres of property (“Project”) located on the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, TM6543 is a modified version of TM6452, a 153-lot subdivision that was previously approved by City Council on November 18, 2024; and WHEREAS, TM6543 will supersede the previously approved TM6452 on the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered TM6543 on March 26, 2026, recommending denial of said map; and
WHEREAS, TM6543 was filed on September 23, 2025, and was presented to the Clovis City Council for approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and Title 9, Chapter 2, of the Clovis Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (“City”) published notice of the public hearing in the Fresno Business Journal on April 15, 2026, mailed public notices to property owners within 600 feet of the Property, a minimum of ten (10) days prior to said City Council hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the Public Hearing according to applicable law; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on May 4, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to TM6543 (attached and labeled Attachment A) on May 4, 2026, and considered the CEQA analysis outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record which supports the finding that this project is in substantial conformance with the environmental analysis previously performed for TM6452. This Project will be subject to the mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the aforesaid environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the staff report and all written materials submitted in connection with the application and hearing and considered the testimony presented during the public hearing (“Administrative Record”); and WHEREAS, this City Council finds and determines that approval of TM6543 should be conditioned on all conditions recommended by the City staff, as set forth in Attachment B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis resolves and finds as follows:
1. TM6543 satisfies the required findings for approval of a vesting tentative tract map, pursuant to Clovis Municipal Code section 9.102.060, as follows:
a. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
b. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development;
c. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
d. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems;
e. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;
f. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board;
g. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities; and
h. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of the Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
2. The City Council could not make the findings necessary for approval of TM6543 without the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment B to this Resolution.
3. The City Council hereby approves TM6543 as depicted in Attachment A, and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment B to this Resolution.
4. The basis for the findings are detailed in the May 4, 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 May 4, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: May 4, 2026
______________________________ _____________________________ Mayor City Clerk
Attachment A
Attachment B
Conditions of Approval – TM6543
(Text modifications are in Bold & underline)
(Text deletions are in Strikethrough)
Planning Division Comments
(Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner – 559-324-2328)
1. The developer shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, included as Attachment 8 to the staff report.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6543 is approved per Attachment A.
3. This Project is subject to the development standards of the Heritage Grove Master Plan.
4. The proposed project shall produce a comprehensive development of superior quality than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development on the site which will be reviewed and approved through the civil plan review process and residential site plan review (RSPR).
5. The developer shall enter into a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) covenant regarding the maintenance of open space, common areas, and private drive aisles. Such agreements shall be disclosed to all future home buyers. The HOA shall be formed and functioning prior to tract map acceptance.
6. The developer shall obtain City approval in advance of temporary and permanent subdivision signs through separate sign review, consistent with the development criteria of the Development Code Sign Ordinance.
7. No more than two of the same unit type (floor layout and exterior materials package) shall be repeated side by side. When two of the same units are repeated side by side, they shall be different colors. These identical provisions may be waived by the City Planner on a specific lot basis within the project when the size or configuration of a lot would otherwise prevent compliance with the above requirements of any other siting or setback/yard requirements established under this application. If such a waiver is requested, the developer and City Planner shall work together to ensure that any sitings of units not in compliance with the above requirements shall be of different materials and elevations in order to minimize any adverse visual impacts that may result.
8. TM6543 is subject to the development standards of Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2025-001 and any amendments thereafter. Any development standards not expressed within PDP2025-001 and TM6543 shall be subject to the underlying Zone District R-1-PRD Standards and Guidelines, and the Development Code.
9. A RSPR is required to memorialize building plans and elevations for the different product types of TM6543. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans.
10.Setbacks shall be measured to the exterior face of the framing of the structure.
Exceptions to the setbacks are identified in Section 9.24.100 of the Development Code.
11.Development standards for the lots of TM6543 shall be as follows:
Development Feature TM6543 PRD Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size 2,800 sq. ft.
Front Setback (garage side) 18 ft.
Front Setback 10 ft.
Corner Street Side Setbacks 10 ft.
Interior Side Yard Setbacks 5 ft.
Rear Setback 8 ft.
Lot Coverage 60%
Maximum Height 26 ft. 7 in.
Minimum Parcel Width 35 ft.
Minimum Corner Parcel Width 40 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth 80 ft.
Garages 20’x20’ interior dimension (2-car)
Driveway Depth 18 ½ ft. (2 ft. landscape strip shall be required to equal 20’ driveway depth)
12. North Baron and Perrin Avenues are designated as Neighborhood Boulevards and shall have a 20-foot landscape/pedestrian setback., with a 10-foot landscaped area, 6-foot walk, and 4-foot landscape buffer. Perrin Avenue may combine the 6-foot walk and 4-foot landscape buffer to form a 10-foot-wide sidewalk serving as a continuation of the trail along Perrin Avenue to the west. Along North Baron Avenue, the setback shall consist of a 10-foot landscaped area, a 6-foot sidewalk, and a 4-foot landscape buffer. Along Perrin Avenue, the setback shall consist of a 10-foot landscaped area and a 10-foot sidewalk, which may serve as a continuation of the trail along Perrin Avenue to the west.
13.The developer shall construct a minimum six-foot high solid split face masonry wall along the eastern limits of TM6543 and a wrought iron fence along the northern limits of TM6543.
14.To ensure consistency with the conditions of approval for TM6543, the developer shall provide, for the Planning Department’s review and approval, a copy of the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions prior to start of construction of homes on any lots.
15.The developer shall utilize streetlights along local and private streets within the development area that are of the same design and luminosity as surrounding developments within Heritage Grove.
16.The developer shall contribute a proportionate share towards the acquisition and development of future parks in order for the City to maintain its adopted ratio of providing four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, as stated in Policy 1.1 in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the 2014 General Plan. The proportionate fair share will be accessed by the Engineering Division.
17.All lighting shall be screened from direct view from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential properties.
18.All landscaping (open space and private yards) shall conform to the City of Clovis Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
19.Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved separately by the landscape review committee with the civil set for tree and landscape type and location.
20.All lots shall provide an all-weather surface and path for the placement and storage of trash toters. The paved path shall lead from the street to the fenced noncovered patio areas within the five (5) foot side yard to the street. The fenced noncovered patio area shall provide gate access.
21.A minimum of 137 guest parking shall be maintained.
22.Landscape features and forms within amenity areas shall be consistent with Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. Details shall be provided in the construction plan.
23.A 16,060 square foot interior park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, shade pavilions, and a shaded children’s play structure and a 7,669 square foot paseo connecting TM6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of TM6344 shall be constructed as the private amenities.
24.The developer shall design and install the Community Gateway (Community Corner Paseo) at the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Corner Paseo shall be designed to meet the intent outlined in the Heritage Grove Guidelines. Final approval of the design shall be made by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
25.The developer shall record a covenant regarding a “right to farm,” for adjacent property owners. Such agreement shall be disclosed to all future home buyers.
26.The applicant shall record a Notice of Nonconformance dealing with any structure used for model homes where the garage is converted for the use as a sales office.
27.Upon final recordation of this vesting tentative tract map, it shall be the applicant’s responsibility to furnish to the Planning and Development Services Department with an electronic (PDF) copy of the original map obtained from the Fresno County Recorder’s Office.
28.The applicant shall relay all conditions of approval for TM6543 to all subsequent purchasers of individual lots, if applicable, and/or to subsequent purchasers of this entire tract map development.
Fire Department Conditions
(Rick Fultz, Fire Department Representative – 559-324-2224) Roads/ Access
29.Street Width: Fire apparatus access width shall be determined by measuring from “base of curb” to “base of curb” for roadways that have curbs. When roadways do not have curbs, the measurements shall be from the edge of the roadway surface (approved all weather surface).
30.Street Width for Single Family Residences: Shall comply with Clovis Fire Standard #1.1. Streets highlighted on the plan in blue do not require fire department access. All other streets shall have a minimum of 36’ measured base of curb to base of curb.
31.Turning Radius: All access way roads constructed shall be designed with a minimum outside turning radius of forty-five feet (45’).
32.Temporary Street Signs: The applicant shall install temporary street signs that meet City Temporary Street Sign Standard #1.9 prior to issuance of building permits within a subdivision.
33.All Weather Access &Water Supply : The applicant shall provide all weather access to the site during all phases of construction to the satisfaction of the approved Clovis Fire Department Standard #1.2.
34.Two Points of Access: Any development to this parcel will require a minimum of two (2) points of access to be reviewed and approved by the Clovis Fire Department. All required access drives shall remain accessible during all phases of construction which includes paving, concrete work, underground work, landscaping, perimeter walls.
Water Systems
35.Residential Fire Hydrant: The applicant shall install ___11____ 4 ½” x 2 ½” approved Residential Type fire hydrant(s) and “Blue Dot” hydrant locators, paint fire hydrant(s) yellow with blue top and caps, and paint the curb red as specified by the adopted Clovis Fire Department Standard #1.4. Plans shall be submitted to the Clovis Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. The hydrant(s) shall be
charged and in operation prior to any framing or combustible material being brought onto the site. See marked up plans as follows: hydrants with a red circle around them are acceptable as shown, hydrants with a red X through them need to be removed and relocated, and a red solid circle is the location of additional or relocated hydrants.
36.Looped Water Main: The applicant shall install approved looped water main capable of the necessary flow of water for adequate fire protection and approved by the Clovis Fire Department.
Engineering / Utilities / Solid Waste Division Conditions (Christopher Kelly, Engineering Division Representative – 559-324-2378) (Paul Armendariz, Department Representative – 559-324-2649) Maps and Plans
37.The conditions of this tract map are written under the assumption that all dedications and improvements have been completed by the adjacent TM6292 and TM6344 development, and that these dedications and improvements have been accepted by the City. Additional conditions shall be required at the discretion of the City Engineer, if the improvements and dedications by TM6292 and TM6344 have not been accepted by the City.
38.The applicant shall have a final tract map prepared, in the form prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act and City of Clovis Municipal Code. The final tract map shall be submitted to the City of Clovis Engineering Division, and should include, but not be limited to, final tract map, the current filing fee, closure calculations, current preliminary title report, legal descriptions and drawings of required dedications.
39.The applicant shall submit separately to the City of Clovis Engineering Division, a set of construction plans on 24" x 36" sheets with City standard title block for all required improvements and a current preliminary title report. These plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall include a grading plan, landscape plan, a site plan showing trash enclosure locations and an overall site utility plan showing locations and sizes of sewer, water, storm drain, and irrigation mains, laterals, manholes, meters, valves, hydrants, fire sprinkler services, other facilities, etc. Plan check and inspection fees per City of Clovis Resolution No. 23-34 shall be paid with the first submittal of said plans. All plans shall be submitted at or before the time the building plans are submitted to the Building Division and shall be approved by the City and all other involved agencies prior to the release of any development permits.
40.Prior to the initial submittal of the improvement plans, the applicant shall contact Christopher Kelly at (559) 324-2378 to setup a coordination meeting (Pre-submittal Meeting).
41.Upon approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall provide the City with the appropriate number of copies. After all improvements have been constructed and
accepted by the City, the applicant shall submit to the City of Clovis Engineering Division (1) digital copy to the City in PDF format of the approved set of construction plans revised to accurately reflect all field conditions and revisions and marked "ASBUILT" for review and approval. Upon approval of the AS-BUILTs by the City, and prior to granting of final occupancy or final acceptance, the applicant shall provide to the City (1) digital copy in PDF format and two (2) bond copies.
42.The applicant shall comply with reporting requirements in accordance with Government Code 65940.1, which requires the City to, “request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued. The City shall post this information on its internet website, and update it at least twice per year.” General Provisions
43.The applicant shall pay all applicable development fees at the rate in effect at the time of payment and prior to final map approval by Council or have the fees payable directly to the City through a separate escrow account at the time of recordation of the map.
44.The applicant is advised that, pursuant to California Government Code, Section 66020, any party may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency. Protests shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code and shall be filed within 90 days after conditional approval of this application is granted. The 90 day protest period for this project shall begin on the “date of approval” as indicated on the “Acknowledgment of Acceptance of Conditions” form. All reimbursement requests shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of the current version of the “Developer Reimbursement Procedures” a copy of which may be obtained at the City Engineer’s Office.
45.The applicant shall install all improvements within public right-of-way and easements in accordance with the City of Clovis standards, specifications, master plans, and record drawings in effect at the time of improvement plan approval.
46.The applicant shall address all conditions, and be responsible for obtaining encroachment permits from the City of Clovis for all work performed within the City's right-of-way and easements.
47.The applicant shall submit a soils report or a waiver of soils report to the City of Clovis Engineering Division for approval by the City Engineer.
48.The applicant shall provide and pay for all geotechnical services per City policy.
49.The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the local utility, telephone, and cable companies. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to notify the local utility,
telephone, and cable companies for the removal or relocation of utility poles where necessary. The City shall not accept first submittals without proof that the applicant has provided the improvement plans and documents showing all proposed work to the utility, telephone, and cable companies. All utility vaults in which lids cannot be sloped to match proposed finished grading, local utilities have 5% max slope, shall be located in sidewalk areas with pedestrian lids so the lid slope matches sidewalk cross slope.
50.All existing overhead and new utility facilities located on-site, within alleys, or within the street right-of-way along the streets adjacent to this tract shall be undergrounded unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
51.The applicant shall contact and address all requirements of the United States Postal Service Clovis Office for the location and type of mailboxes to be installed. The location of the facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of improvement plans or any construction.
52.The applicant shall contact and address Caltrans requirements, and be responsible for obtaining encroachment permits from Caltrans for all work performed within the State right-of-way. The applicant shall be required to mitigate impacts to State Highway facilities as determined by the City Engineer.
Community Facilities District No. 2004-1 (Police and Fire Services)
53.The owner/developer shall notify all potential lot buyers prior to sale that this project is a part of a Community Facilities District 2004-01 and shall inform potential buyers of the special tax amount. Said notification shall be in a manner approved by the City.
Community Facilities District (Maintenance and Operations)
54.Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall establish a funding mechanism to cover the ongoing financial impact the Project will have on ongoing maintenance and operations of public landscaping, hardscape, parks, streets, and streetlighting.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through the formation of a new Community Facilities District that is established to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or annexation into an existing Community Facilities District or payment of an equivalent upfront amount to the City (to the satisfaction of the City Engineer). All costs associated with meeting this condition of approval shall be paid for by the applicant.
55.If applicable, the owner/developer shall notify all potential lot buyers prior to sale that this Project is a part of a Community Facilities District and shall inform potential buyers of the maximum special tax amount. Said notification shall be in a manner approved by the City and in compliance with state law. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the City Council if, at the time of the approval, recordation, or filing of the Project, the City Council has determined that it is not necessary that the Project be included in a Community Facilities District.
Dedications and Street Improvements
56.The applicant shall provide right-of-way acquisition or dedicate free and clear of all encumbrances and/or improve the following streets to City standards. The street improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s specific plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the type, location, and grades of existing improvements.
a. Perrin Avenue – Along frontage, dedicate to provide right-of-way acquisition for 94' (exist 47') 47’ north of centerline and improve with sidewalk, curb return ramps, street lights, and a landscape strip.
b. North Baron Avenue – Along frontage, dedicate to provide right-of-way acquisition for 89’ (exist 47’) 44.5’ east of centerline and 44.5’ west of centerline, and improve with curb, gutter, 6’ sidewalk, drive approaches, curb return ramps, street lights, fiber optic conduit, landscape strip, 45’ (22.5’ east + 22.5 west) permanent paving, permanent paving and overlay as necessary to match the existing permanent pavement, 3’ paved swale, and transitional paving as needed.
c. Interior Streets – Dedicate to provide for 50’ or 54’ of right-of-way in conformance with the City policy on street widths, and improve with curb, gutter, 5’ sidewalk adjacent to the curb, drive approaches, curb return ramps, streetlights, permanent paving, and all transitional paving as needed.
d. Street ‘C’ – Improve with a drive approach in Outlot “D” at the east end of the street and gated access to the parcel on the eastern property line. Along the south side, improve with a connection to the adjacent trail within Tract No. 6344.
e. Entry feature streets with median islands shall have a minimum of 22’ wide travel lanes in each direction with parking or without parking. f. The applicant shall relinquish all vehicular access to North Baron Avenue and Perrin Avenue for lots that back or side on these streets. g. Traffic signal improvements are required for the following intersections as identified within the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis. The City Engineer shall determine the timing for the installation of the traffic signal improvements.
a. Behymer and N. Minnewawa Avenues
b. Behymer and N. Baron Avenues
c. N. Clovis and N. Baron Avenues
57.The applicant shall provide a dedication for a 10' public utility easement, where applicable, along all public frontages. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining approval by the utilities companies where alternate widths are provided. The applicant shall provide to the City copies of all final easements prior to final map acceptance.
58.For new onsite ADA paths of travel that connect to the City sidewalk, the applicant shall replace enough sidewalk to provide a compliant landing with appropriate transitions to existing sidewalk grades.
59.The applicant shall remove and repair all damaged or broken concrete improvements.
The City Engineer may require the repair of additional improvements if they are damaged prior to occupancy.
60.The applicant shall not install any fences, temporary or permanent in public right-ofway.
61.The applicant shall provide preliminary title report, legal description and drawings for all dedications required which are not on the site. All contact with owners, appraisers, etc. of the adjacent properties where dedication is needed shall be made only by the City. The City will prepare an estimate of acquisition costs including but not limited to appraised value, appraisal costs, negotiation costs, and administrative costs. The applicant shall pay such estimated costs as soon as they are determined by the City.
62.The sideyard side of all corner lots shall have full width sidewalk except where planter strips or meandering sidewalk is proposed.
63.The applicant shall obtain "R Value" tests in quantity sufficient to represent all street areas, and have street structural sections designed by a registered civil engineer based on these "R Value" tests.
64.The applicant shall, at the ends of any permanent pavement abutting undeveloped property, install 2" x 6" redwood header boards that shall be placed prior to the street surfacing.
65.Standard barricades with reflectors shall be installed at ends of streets abutting undeveloped property and any other locations to be specified by the City Engineer.
Sewer
66.The applicant shall identify and abandon all septic systems to City standards.
67.The applicant shall install sanitary sewer mains of the size and in the locations indicated below, prior to occupancy. The sewer improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing
improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and shall be supported by appropriate calculations. a. North Baron Avenue – install 10" main along frontage. b. Interior Streets – install 8" mains.
68.The applicant shall install one (1) 4" sewer service house branch to each lot within the tentative tract.
69.All existing sewer services that will not be used with this development shall be abandoned by cutting and capping the service at the right-of-way line.
70.The applicant shall notify all property owners annexed to the City and along streets where a new sewer main will be constructed to determine if they wish to be connected to City sewer. Property owners shall work directly with the applicant regarding costs and location. The applicant shall notify property owners that sewer connection fees are required if they choose to connect.
71.The City cannot guarantee at this time that sewer capacity will be available for this development when site construction occurs. The applicant, therefore, waives any claim or demand against the City for any delay in availability of sewer capacity for this subdivision.
72.Applicant acknowledges that sewage collection and treatment capacity for the area within which the proposed subdivision is located is extremely limited, and that capacity may not be available to provide service for the proposed subdivision at such time as applicant is ready to seek approval of a final map. Applicant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that if such sewage collection and treatment capacity is not available to serve the proposed subdivision, as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis, the final map may not be approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant has freely and voluntarily chosen to proceed with the submittal and processing of the tentative map, intends to expend money, time and effort in connection therewith, and accepts the risks that the final map approval may be delayed until sufficient capacity is available as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis. Applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Clovis from any and all claims, costs, expenses, and damages incurred or suffered by applicant, its principals, officers, employees, agents, or contractors, caused by, in connection with, or arising out of the unavailability of sewage collection or treatment capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, or the City’s refusal or failure to approve a final map for the proposed subdivision because of the unavailability of sewage collection or treatment.
Water
73.The applicant shall identify and abandon all water wells to City standards.
74.The applicant shall install water mains of the sizes and in the locations indicated below, and provide an adequately looped water system prior to occupancy. The water improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and shall be supported by appropriate calculations.
a. North Baron Avenue – install 24" main along frontage. b. Install 24” main between the Perrin Avenue & North Marion Avenue intersection and Sunnyside Avenue.
c. Interior Streets – install 8" mains.
75.The applicant shall provide dedication of 15-foot wide utility easements for all on-site water mains, hydrants, blow-offs, and water meters not located in otherwise dedicated rights-of-way.
76.The applicant shall install a City standard water service to each lot of the proposed subdivision. Water services shall be grouped at property lines to accommodate automatic meter reading system, including installation of connecting conduit. The water meter shall be placed in the sidewalk and not in planters or driveways.
77.All existing water services that will not be used with this development shall be abandoned by closing the service’s corporation stop and creating a physical separation between the corporation stop and the service.
78.The applicant shall notify all property owners’ annexed to the City and along streets where a new water main will be constructed to determine if they wish to be connected to City water. Property owners shall work directly with the applicant regarding costs and location. The applicant shall notify property owners that water connection fees are required if they choose to connect.
79.Prior to recording a final map of any phase, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Engineer that there is adequate water pressure to serve the units to be constructed. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to determine the adequacy of water supply/pressure for the proposed development.
80.Applicant acknowledges that water distribution and treatment capacity for the area within which the proposed subdivision is located is extremely limited, and that distribution may not be available to provide service for the proposed subdivision at such time as applicant is ready to seek approval of a final map. Applicant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that if such water distribution and treatment capacity is not available to serve the proposed subdivision, as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis, the final map may not be approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applicant has freely and voluntarily chosen to proceed with the submittal and processing of the tentative map, intends to expend
money, time and effort in connection therewith, and accepts the risks that the final map approval may be delayed until sufficient distribution is available as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Clovis. Applicant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Clovis from any and all claims, costs, expenses, and damages incurred or suffered by applicant, its principals, officers, employees, agents, or contractors, caused by, in connection with, or arising out of the unavailability of water distribution or treatment capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, or the City’s refusal or failure to approve a final map for the proposed subdivision because of the unavailability of water distribution or treatment capacity. a. The City Engineer shall determine the timing for the installation of a. T-6 by a future City CIP project.
b. North Sunnyside Avenue – 16” main between Shepherd and Teague Avenues.
c. North Sunnyside Avenue – 12” main between Teague and Omaha Avenues.
Recycled Water
81.The applicant shall install recycled water mains of the sizes and in the locations indicated below. The recycled water improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. All areas utilizing recycle water for irrigation shall be clearly marked on the improvement plans. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Any alternative routing of the mains shall require approval of the City Engineer and may require appropriate calculations.
a. North Baron Avenue – install 8” main along the property frontage.
Grading and Drainage
82.The applicant shall contact the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and address all requirements, pay all applicable fees required, obtain any required NPDES permit, and implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution. Plans for these requirements shall be included in the previously required set of construction plans, and shall be submitted to and approved by FMFCD prior to the release of any development permits.
83.Portions of the project appear to lie within a flood zone. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code.
84.In the event permanent storm drainage facilities are not available, the applicant shall provide temporary on-site retention basins for storm water disposal and provide a cash deposit for each basin to offset the City’s cost of maintaining the basins. The size and design shall be in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and may change based on design calculations and access requirements for maintenance. The temporary pond maintenance deposit shall be based on size, depth, expected
maintenance schedule, etc. However, the property owner shall be responsible for periodic cleaning of toxic material. The temporary basin is solely for the convenience of the subdivision.
85.The owner of the property on which the temporary basin(s) are located shall backfilled said basin(s) within ninety (90) days after notice is given by the City that the basin(s) are no longer needed. In the event the owner fails to backfill said basin(s) within said 90 days, the City may cause the basin to be backfilled. A lien to cover the cost of the work will be placed on the property, including the costs to prepare and enforce the lien. A covenant shall be prepared and recorded on the lot on which the basin(s) is/are located.
86.Grade differentials between lots and adjacent properties shall be adequately shown on the grading plan and shall be treated in a manner in conformance with City of Clovis Standard Drawing No. M-4 as modified by the City Council. Any retaining walls required on-site or in public right of way shall be masonry construction. All retaining walls shall be designed by a registered civil engineer.
Irrigation and Landscaping Facilities
87.The applicant, as a portion of the required tract improvements, shall provide landscaping and irrigation as required herein. The landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in public right-of-way and the area reserved for landscaping. The irrigation and landscape improvements shall be in accordance with the City’s master plans and shall match existing improvements. The applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for verifying the size, location, and elevations of existing improvements. Plans for the required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be prepared by an appropriately registered professional at the applicant's expense and shall be approved by the City of Clovis Planning and Development Services Department and Public Utilities Department prior to the beginning of construction or the recording of the final tract map, whichever occurs first. Landscape and irrigation facilities that the City Landscape Maintenance District shall maintain: the mini-park, paseos, paseo lights, interior street lights, entry features, landscape strips along Perrin and North Baron Avenues. The landscape strip around the planned unit development may be maintained by a perpetual maintenance covenant.
88.The owner shall request annexation to and provide a covenant for the Landscape Maintenance District. The property owner acknowledges and agrees that such request serves as a petition pursuant to California State Proposition 218 and no further election shall be required for the establishment of the initial assessment. The assessment for each lot shall be obtained from the City for the tax year following the recordation of the final map. The estimated annual assessment per average sized lot is $563.33, which is subject to change prior to issuance of building permit or final tract map approval and is subject to an annual change in the range of the assessment in the amount of the Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average, All Urban Consumers (CPI Index), plus two percent (2%). The additional landscaping enhancements that
exceed the City norms and are specific benefit to the property, such as the entry feature, columns, monuments, interior median islands, round-a-bouts, special street lights, etc, if determined to be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District, shall be maintained by an additional landscape maintenance assessment. The applicant shall provide construction costs and deposit with the City an amount equal to 50% of the value of the enhanced landscaping hardscape features, or an alternate amount approved by the City Engineer, such as columns, monuments, and special street lights, that exceeds the City norms. The applicant shall provide the City with an estimate of the annual maintenance for the special lighting and landscaping enhancements that exceeds the City norms. The owner/developer shall notify all potential lot buyers before they actually purchase a lot that this tract is a part of a Landscape Maintenance District and shall inform potential buyers of the assessment amount. Said notification shall be in a manner approved by the City. The owner/developer shall supply all pertinent materials for the Landscape Maintenance District.
a. Enhanced landscape areas along the sideyards of Lots 2, 3, 105 and 116, together with Outlots B, C and D, will be maintained by the HOA and established by a recorded covenant.
89.The applicant shall comply with the City of Clovis Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance.
90.The applicant shall contact and address all requirements of the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). This may include dedicating easements, piping or relocating any existing FID canals and ditches, replacing any existing irrigation piping, concrete lining or improving any existing canals, construction or reconstruction of any canals, culverts, and bridge crossings. Plans for these requirements and improvements shall be included as in the previously required set of construction plans, and shall be submitted to and approved by FID prior to the release of any development permits or recording of the final tract map. If a FID or private irrigation line is to be abandoned, the applicant shall provide waivers from all downstream users.
91.The applicant shall indicate on construction drawings the depth, location and type of material of any existing Fresno Irrigation District's irrigation line along the proposed or existing street rights-of-way or onsite. Any existing canals shall be piped. The material of the existing pipe shall be upgraded to the proper class of rubber gasket pipe at all locations unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
92.All existing agricultural irrigation systems either on-site or in public right of way, whether FID or privately owned, shall be identified prior to any construction activity on the site. Service to all downstream users of irrigation water shall be maintained at all times through preservation of existing facilities or, if the existing facilities are required to be relocated, the relocation and replacement of the existing facilities. It is the intent that downstream users not bear any burden as a result of development of the site.
Therefore, the applicant shall pay all costs related to modification, relocation, or repair of any existing irrigation facilities resulting from or necessitated by the development of
the site. The applicant shall identify on site plans and construction plans, all existing irrigation systems and their disposition (abandonment, repair, relocation, and/or piping). The applicant shall consult with the Fresno Irrigation District for any additional requirements for lines to be abandoned, relocated, or piped. The applicant shall provide waivers from all users in order to abandon or modify any irrigation pipelines or for any service interruptions resulting from development activities.
93.The applicant shall provide a landscape and irrigation perpetual maintenance covenant recorded for landscaping installed in the public right-of-way behind the curb including easements that will not be maintained by the Clovis Landscape Maintenance District. A recordable covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Clovis City Engineer prior to final map approval.
a. The recorded covenant shall require maintenance by the HOA and shall include the sideyards of Lots 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 36, 40, 41, 73, 79, 80, 86, 87, 93, 94, 100, 101, 106, and 114.
94.The applicant shall provide a perimeter wall perpetual maintenance covenant on all properties that have a perimeter wall that is installed on private property. A recordable covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Clovis City Engineer prior to final map approval.
Miscellaneous
95.The applicant shall install thirty-three (33) street lights per the attached street light exhibit. Street lights along the major streets shall be installed on metal poles to local utility provider’s standards at the locations designated by the City Engineer. Street light locations shall be shown on the utility plans submitted with the final map for approval. Street lights at future traffic signal locations shall be installed on approved traffic signal poles, including all conduits and pull boxes. Street lights along the major streets shall be owned and maintained by local utility providers. Proof of local utility provider’s approval shall be provided. The applicant may install thematic lighting, as approved by the City Engineer. If the applicant chooses to install thematic lighting, the applicant shall provide a conceptual lighting plan identifying adjacent properties that may be incorporated with thematic lights to create a neighborhood effect.
Thematic lighting owned by the City shall be maintained by an additional landscape maintenance assessment.
96.Prior to approval, recordation or filing of an annexation, final map, or site plan, the property covered by the Project shall be included within or annexed to a Community Facilities District (CFD), established by the City for the provision of public facilities and services, for which proceedings have been consummated, and shall be subject to the special tax approved with the formation or annexation to the CFD. The CFD applies only to residential projects.
97.The applicant shall install all major street monumentation and section corner monumentation within the limits of the project work in accordance with City Standard
ST-32 prior to final acceptance of the project. Monumentation shall include all section corners, all street centerline intersection points, angle points and beginning and end of curves (E.C.'s & B.C.'s). The applicant/contractor shall furnish brass caps. Any existing section corner or property corner monuments damaged by this development shall be reset to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer licensed to perform land surveying shall certify the placement of all required monumentation prior to final acceptance. Brass caps required for installation of new monuments or replacement of existing monuments shall be provided by the contractor/the applicant and approved by City prior to installation. Within five days after the final setting of all monuments has been completed, the engineer or surveyor shall give written notice to the City Engineer that the final monuments have been set.
Upon payment to the engineer or surveyor for setting the final monuments, the applicant shall present to the City Engineer evidence of the payment and receipt thereof by the engineer or surveyor.
98.A deferment, modification, or waiver of any engineering conditions shall require the express written approval of the City Engineer.
99.The conditions given herein are for the entire development. Additional requirements for individual phases may be necessary pending review by the City Engineer.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Comments (Amjad M. Qader, FMFCD Representative – 559-456-3292)
100. The applicant shall refer to the attached FMFCD correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the FMFCD for the requirements.
Fresno Irrigation District (FID) Comments
(Jeremy Landrith, Department Representative – 559-233-7161 ext. 7407) 101. The applicant shall refer to the attached FID correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the FID for the list of requirements.
County of Fresno Health Department Comments
(Kevin Tsuda, County of Fresno Health Department Representative – 559-600-3271) 102. The applicant shall refer to the attached Fresno County Health Department correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the Health Department for the list of requirements.
California Department of Transportation
(Kaylie Schreihans, Caltrans Representative – 559-383-5944) 103. The applicant shall refer to the attached Caltrans correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the Caltrans for the list of requirements.
County of Fresno Transportation Planning
(Brody Hines, Department Representative – 559-600-2184) 104. The applicant shall refer to the attached County of Fresno Transportation Planning correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the County of Fresno for the list of requirements.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (Ryan Grossman, District Representative – 559-230-6569) 105. The applicant shall refer to the attached SJVAPCD correspondence. If the list is not attached, please contact the SJVSPCD for the list of requirements.
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 26-__
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-001 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6543 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH BARON AND
PERRIN AVENUES
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC (“Applicant”), 8080 North Palm Avenue Suite, 110, Fresno, CA 93711, submitted an application for Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2025-001 to deviate from the R-1 Zone District development standards associated with Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6543 for a 137-lot single-family subdivision (“Project”) on approximately 17.41 acres of property located on the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, PDP2025-001 is modifying PDP2023-001 that was previously approved by City Council on November 18, 2024; and
WHEREAS, PDP2025-001 will supersede the previously approved PDP2023-001 on the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PDP is in keeping with the intent and purpose of Chapter 66 of Title 9 of the Clovis Municipal Code (Development Code); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered PDP2025-001 on March 26, 2026, recommending denial of said PDP; and
WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing in The Business Journal on April 15, 2026, mailed public notices to property owners within 600 feet of the Property ten (10) days prior to said City Council hearing, and otherwise posted notice of the Public Hearing according to applicable law; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on May 4, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) addendum outlined in the staff report and elsewhere in the Administrative Record which determines that the Project meets the requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and adopts an Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 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 (“Administrative Record”).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis resolves and finds as follows:
1. The Project satisfies each of the required findings for approval of a PDP pursuant to Clovis Municipal Code section 9.66.060, as follows:
a. The Project is allowed within the subject base zoning district; b. The Project is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; c. The Project is generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code relating to both on- and off-site improvements that are necessary to accommodate flexibility in site planning and property development and to carry out the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and the subject base zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines; d. The Project ensures compatibility of property uses within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed development;
e. The Project would produce a comprehensive development of superior quality (e.g., appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, incorporation of a program of enhanced amenities, etc.) than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development applications;
f. Proper standards and conditions have been imposed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare;
g. Proper on-site traffic circulation and control is designed into the development to ensure protection for fire suppression and police surveillance equal to or better
than what would normally be created by compliance with the minimum setback and parcel width standards identified in Division 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards);
h. The Property is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and i. The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the proposed development would be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values, character, scale, and view protection.
2. The City Council could not make the findings necessary for approval of PDP2025- 001 without the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A to this Resolution.
3. That the City Council hereby approves PDP2025-001, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution.
4. The basis for the findings are detailed in the May 4, 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 May 4, 2026, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED: May 4, 2026
______________________________ _____________________________ Mayor City Clerk
Attachment A
Conditions of Approval – PDP2025-001
Planning Division Comments
(Tiffany Williams, Associate Planner – 559-324-2328)
1. The Project must produce a comprehensive development of superior quality than which might otherwise occur from more traditional development on the site. This will be reviewed and approved through the civil plan review process and residential site plan review.
2. A 16,060 square foot interior park with a BBQ station, picnic tables, seat walls, grass area, shade pavilions, and a shaded children’s play structure and a 7,669 square foot paseo connecting TM6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of TM6344 shall be constructed as the private amenities.
3. The developer shall design and install the Community Gateway (Community Corner Paseo) at the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues. The Corner Paseo shall be designed to meet the intent outlined in the Heritage Grove Guidelines. Final approval of the design shall be made by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
4. The developer shall construct a minimum six-foot high solid split face masonry wall along the eastern limits of TM6543 and a wrought iron fence along the northern limits of TM6543.
5. The developer shall screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment from public view from abutting public streets and rights-of-way and open space uses. Screening material shall be constructed of materials consistent with the superior quality of the PDP and Heritage Grove Design Guidelines.
6. Landscape features and forms within amenity areas shall be consistent with Heritage Grove Design Guidelines. Details shall be provided in the construction plan.
7. No more than two (2) of the same unit type (floor layout and exterior materials package) shall be repeated side by side. When two (2) of the same units are repeated side by side, they shall be different colors. These identical provisions may be waived by the City Planner on a specific lot basis within the project when the size or configuration of a lot would otherwise prevent compliance with the above requirements of any other siting or setback/yard requirements established under this application. If such a waiver is requested, the developer and City Planner shall work together to ensure that any sitings of units not in compliance with the above requirements shall be of different materials and elevations in order to minimize any adverse visual impacts that may result.
8. Setbacks shall be measured to the exterior face of the framing of the structure.
Exceptions to the setbacks are identified in Section 9.24.100, of the Clovis Municipal Code.
9. Development standards for the lots of TM6543 shall be as follows:
Development Feature TM6543 PRD Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size 2,800 sq. ft.
Front Setback (garage side) 18 ft.
Front Setback 10 ft.
Corner Street Side Setbacks 10 ft.
Interior Side Yard Setbacks 5 ft.
Rear Setback 8 ft.
Lot Coverage 60%
Maximum Height 26 ft. 7 in.
Minimum Parcel Width 35 ft.
Minimum Corner Parcel Width 40 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth 80 ft.
Garages 20’x20’ interior dimension (2-car)
Driveway Depth 18 ½ ft. (2 ft. landscape strip shall be required to equal 20’ driveway depth)
10.All lighting shall be screened from direct view from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential properties.
11.The developer shall utilize streetlights along local and private streets within the development area that are of the same design and luminosity as surrounding developments within Heritage Grove.
12.A residential site plan review is required to memorialize building plans and elevations for the different product types of TM6543. Specific color and materials of the models, walls, amenities, landscaping, and fencing will be evaluated through the civil plans.
OUTLOT I 51273SF OUTLOT H 38992SF OUTLOT D
2328SF
OUTLOT A
2328SF OUTLOT B
2328SF
OUTLOT E
2328SF OUTLOT F 8990SF REMAINDER 154102SF OUTLOT J 74991SF 67 4,783 S.F. 4 2,879 S.F. 1 2,915 S.F. 2 2,827 S.F. 3 2,844 S.F. 6 2,844 S.F. 5 2,879 S.F. 7 2,867 S.F. 10 2,832 S.F. 9 2,891 S.F. 8 2,856 S.F. 11 2,832 S.F. 14 2,832 S.F. 13 2,891 S.F. 12 2,891 S.F. 15 2,785 S.F. 18 2,825 S.F. 17 2,981 S.F. 16 2,938 S.F. 19 2,754 S.F. 20 2,969 S.F. 21 2,464 S.F. 22 2,363 S.F. 23 2,556 S.F. 24 2,327 S.F. 25 2,341 S.F. 26 2,521 S.F. 27 2,548 S.F. 36 2,548 S.F. 28 2,352 S.F. 35 2,352 S.F. 29 2,316 S.F. 30 2,316 S.F. 33 2,316 S.F. 31 2,422 S.F. 32 2,422 S.F. 42 2,464 S.F. 43 2,290 S.F. 41 2,349 S.F. 44 2,185 S.F. 40 2,310 S.F. 45 2,184 S.F. 46 39 2,184 S.F. 2,310 S.F. 47 2,359 S.F. 48 37 2,696 S.F. 2,532 S.F. 51 2,364 S.F. 50 2,450 S.F. 49 3,032 S.F. 52 2,825 S.F. 54 2,853 S.F. 57 2,674 S.F. 58 2,675 S.F. 56 2,352 S.F. 59 2,352 S.F. 55 2,566 S.F. 60 2,565 S.F. 63 2,689 S.F. 64 2,660 S.F. 62 2,365 S.F. 65 2,339 S.F. 66 2,551 S.F. 61 2,579 S.F. 68 3,627 S.F. 69 5,406 S.F. 70 4,886 S.F. 71 3,830 S.F. 72 3,586 S.F. 73 4,961 S.F. 77 2,753 S.F. 76 2,752 S.F. 75 2,352 S.F. 78 2,352 S.F. 79 2,520 S.F. 74 2,520 S.F. 84 2,752 S.F. 83 2,753 S.F. 85 2,352 S.F. 82 2,352 S.F. 86 2,352 S.F. 87 2,593 S.F. 80 2,593 S.F. 88 2,352 S.F. 92 2,520 S.F. 91 4,021 S.F. 90 3,226 S.F. 96 2,784 S.F. 95 2,568 S.F. 94 2,594 S.F. 93 3,263 S.F. 100 2,813 S.F. 99 2,568 S.F. 98 2,568 S.F. 97 2,926 S.F. 101 2,189 S.F. 102 2,186 S.F. 103 2,182 S.F. 104 2,184 S.F. 105 2,184 S.F. 106 2,184 S.F. 107 2,184 S.F. 114 2,184 S.F. 115 2,352 S.F. 116 2,184 S.F. 110 2,352 S.F. 124 2,642 S.F. 125 2,361 S.F. 126 2,479 S.F. 129 2,642 S.F. 128 2,361 S.F. 127 2,479 S.F. 130 2,642 S.F. 135 2,642 S.F. 131 2,340 S.F. 134 2,354 S.F. 132 2,500 S.F. 133 2,486 S.F. 136 2,642 S.F. 137 2,361 S.F. 138 2,361 S.F. 139 2,737 S.F. 140 2,736 S.F. 141 2,361 S.F. 142 2,361 S.F. 143 2,642 S.F. 144 2,642 S.F. 145 2,361 S.F. 146 2,479 S.F. 149 2,642 S.F. 148 2,361 S.F. 147 2,479 S.F. 153 2,632 S.F. 151 2,700 S.F. 150 2,966 S.F. 123 2,705 S.F. 122 2,414 S.F. 121 2,387 S.F. 117 2,184 S.F. 118 2,184 S.F. 119 2,184 S.F. 120 2,383 S.F. 152 2,727 S.F. 34 2,316 S.F. 38 2,352 S.F. 53 2,352 S.F. 89 2,352 S.F. 81 2,352 S.F. 109 2,352 S.F. 108 2,352 S.F. 111 2,184 S.F. 112 2,184 S.F. 113 2,189 S.F. CITY OF CLOVIS WELL SITE
OUTLOT C
2328SF Ref. & Rev.
PROJECT TITLE
SHEET DESCRIPTION Dr. By: Ch. By: Date: Scale: As Noted YH Job No. Sheet No. of Sheets Plot By: Jared Jones Plot Date: 8/15/2024 File Location: F:\2023\23-196\dwg\Maps\Tentative Map\23-196_TTM_Sheet 1.dwg 2985 N. BURL AVENUE SUITE 101 FRESNO, CA 93727 TEL: (559) 244-3123 WEBSITE: YANDHENGR.COM JPAL 8/7/2024 23-196 1 5
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PERRIN ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE AVENUE
TRACT 6452 EXISTING TREES EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING USE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED USE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PROPOSED ZONING SOURCE OF WATER SOURCE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY SOURCE OF GAS SOURCE OF CABLE T.V. SOURCE OF TELEPHONE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER SITE AREA SITE ADDRESS PREPARED BY: SUBDIVIDER:
“
”
”
”
” LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER: NOTES: NOTES: VICINITY MAP: SITE LOCATION PARKING LOT INFO: APN: 556-050-07S TTM 6343 FMFCD APN: 556-040-22T APN: 557-011-09 T6292 BK 92 AT PAGES 89-94 F.C.R. T6344 BK 92 AT PAGES 100-103 F.C.R. PERRIN AVE BARON AVE FMFCD BASIN BY2 Attachment A Structure placement is not approved through this exhibit. A RSPR is required to assess the established development standards. Previously Approved TM6542 4
Tract 6543
Planned Development Permit
Proposed Development Standards
Development Standard R-1 Standards Prior T6452 PRD
Standards
New T6543 PRD
Standard
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 2,184 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft.
Front Setback (garage
side)
20 ft. 4 ft. 18.5 ft.
Front Setback 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Corner Street Sides
Setbacks
10 ft. 3 ft. 10 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (uncovered
patio side)
5 ft. 7 ft. 5 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (garage side)
5 ft. 0 ft. (Lots 44-48,
101-107, 111-114,
116-119) 3 ft. (all
other lots)
5 ft.
Rear Setback (opposite
of garage)
20 ft. 10 ft. 8 ft.
Rear Setback 20 ft. 4 ft. 8 ft.
Lot Coverage 40% 62% 60%
Maximum Height 35 ft. 26 ft. 7 in. 26 ft. 7 in.
Minimum Parcel Width 60 ft. 39 ft. 35 ft.
Minimum Corner Parcel
Width
65 ft. 45 ft. 40 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth 100 ft. 56 ft. 80 ft.
*NOTE: Developer is proposing to utilize the driveway as the additional uncovered guest parking space to meet the city requirements.
Amenities
Tract 6543 provides a connected layout to existing and planned surrounding subdivisions which expands on the greater trail system. Outlot B is a 16,060-sf interior park within the subdivision to provide open space/recreation area for residents of Tract 6543. Outlot C is a 7,669-sf is a paseo connecting Tract 6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of adjacent Tract 6344. Each of these open space amenities will provide for landscaping in accordance with the Heritage Grove Master plan and species list for the planned area.
Tract 6543
Planned Development Permit
Proposed Development Standards
Development Standard R-1 Standards Prior T6452 PRD
Standards
New T6543 PRD
Standard
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 2,184 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft.
Front Setback (garage
side)
20 ft. 4 ft. 18.5 ft.
Front Setback 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Corner Street Sides
Setbacks
10 ft. 3 ft. 10 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (uncovered
patio side)
5 ft. 7 ft. 5 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (garage side)
5 ft. 0 ft. (Lots 44-48,
101-107, 111-114,
116-119) 3 ft. (all
other lots)
5 ft.
Rear Setback (opposite
of garage)
20 ft. 10 ft. 8 ft.
Rear Setback 20 ft. 4 ft. 8 ft.
Lot Coverage 40% 62% 60%
Maximum Height 35 ft. 26 ft. 7 in. 26 ft. 7 in.
Minimum Parcel Width 60 ft. 39 ft. 35 ft.
Minimum Corner Parcel
Width
65 ft. 45 ft. 40 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth 100 ft. 56 ft. 80 ft.
*NOTE: Developer is proposing to utilize the driveway as the additional uncovered guest parking space to meet the city requirements.
Amenities
Tract 6543 provides a connected layout to existing and planned surrounding subdivisions which expands on the greater trail system. Outlot B is a 16,060-sf interior park within the subdivision to provide open space/recreation area for residents of Tract 6543. Outlot C is a 7,669-sf is a paseo connecting Tract 6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of adjacent Tract 6344. Each of these open space amenities will provide for landscaping in accordance with the Heritage Grove Master plan and species list for the planned area.
Attachment 5 Page 521 of 1024
Tract 6543
Planned Development Permit
Proposed Development Standards
Development Standard R-1 Standards Prior T6452 PRD
Standards
New T6543 PRD
Standard
Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 2,184 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft.
Front Setback (garage
side)
20 ft. 4 ft. 18 ft.
Front Setback 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Corner Street Sides
Setbacks
10 ft. 3 ft. 10 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (uncovered
patio side)
5 ft. 7 ft. 5 ft.
Interior Side Yard
Setback (garage side)
20 ft. 0 ft. (Lots 44-48,
101-107, 111-114,
116-119) 3 ft. (all
other lots)
5 ft.
Rear Setback (opposite
of garage)
20 ft. 10 ft. 8 ft.
Rear Setback 20 ft. 4 ft. 8 ft.
Lot Coverage 40% 62% 60%
Maximum Height 35 ft. 26 ft. 7 in. 26 ft. 7 in.
Minimum Parcel Width 60 ft. 39 ft. 35 ft.
Minimum Corner Parcel
Width
65 ft. 45 ft. 40 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth 100 ft. 56 ft. 80 ft.
Amenities
Tract 6543 provides a connected layout to existing and planned surrounding subdivisions.
Outlot A of Tract 6543 is a 3,863-sf corner paseo, providing subdivision pedestrian access to Perrin and Baron Avenues and the existing/planned trails and sidewalks as outlined in the Heritage Grove Master Plan (page 2.19). Outlot B is a 16,060-sf interior park within the subdivision to provide open space/recreation area for residents of Tract 6543. Outlot C is a 7,669-sf paseo connecting Tract 6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of adjacent Tract 6344. Each of these open space amenities will provide for landscaping in accordance with the Heritage Grove Master plan and species list for the planned area.
Attachment 5
Amenities
Tract 6543 provides a connected layout to existing and planned surrounding subdivisions.
Outlot A of Tract 6543 is a 3,863-sf corner paseo, providing subdivision pedestrian access to Perrin and Baron Avenues and the existing/planned trails and sidewalks as outlined in the Heritage Grove Master Plan (page 2.19). Outlot B is a 16,060-sf interior park within the subdivision to provide open space/recreation area for residents of Tract 6543. Outlot C is a 7,669-sf paseo connecting Tract 6543 to the existing pedestrian trail system of adjacent Tract 6344. Each of these open space amenities will provide for landscaping in accordance with the Heritage Grove Master plan and species list for the planned area.
Attachment 6
6543
Lyra –Floorplan
Celestial Series
First Floor Second Floor
Attachment 7
Attachment 6
Celestial Series
2501 Lyra –Elevation A
Celestial Series
2501 Lyra –Elevation B
Celestial Series
2501 Lyra –Elevation C
Celestial Series
2501 Lyra –Elevation D
Celestial Series
2501 Lyra –Elevation E
Celestial Series
Draco –Floorplan
First Floor Second Floor
Celestial Series
2502 Draco –Elevation A
Celestial Series
2502 Draco –Elevation B
Celestial Series
2502 Draco –Elevation C
Celestial Series
2502 Draco –Elevation D
Celestial Series
2502 Draco –Elevation E
Celestial Series
Venus –Floorplan
First Floor Second Floor
Celestial Series
2503 Venus –Elevation A
Celestial Series
2503 Venus –Elevation B
Celestial Series
2503 Venus –Elevation C
Celestial Series
2503 Venus –Elevation D
Celestial Series
2503 Venus –Elevation E
LENNAR HOMES (TM6543)
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
1 Lennar Homes
TM6543
Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026
PREPARED BY:
Tiffany Williams
Associate Planner
Planning & Development Services
(559) 324-2328
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 8
LENNAR HOMES (TM6543)
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
2 INTRODUCTION
This document comprises an Addendum to the Lennar Homes Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) adopted on November 18, 2024, by City Council. The IS/MND evaluated Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6452 and Planned Development Permit (PDP) 2023-001 for the construction of 153 single-family homes with modified development standards and associated site improvements (i.e., landscape, parking, sidewalks, and utilities infrastructure) on approximately 18 acres of vacant and undeveloped land on the northeast corner of North Baron and Perrin Avenues in the City of Clovis, California. Since the adoption of the IS/MND, a new vesting tentative tract map (TM6543) has been received for a 137-lot single-family subdivision with modified development standards (“Project”), prompting preparation of this Addendum. This Addendum addresses the modifications to the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Following the certification and adoption of a CEQA document, when a project is changed or there are changes in the environmental setting, a determination must be made by the lead agency as to whether an addendum or subsequent MND should be prepared. CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15164, set forth criteria to assess which environmental document is appropriate. An addendum is appropriate if the following are true:
• No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures. • No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impact will occur. • No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible.
This Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines §15164[c]); however, an addendum is considered by the decision-making body prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines §15164[d]).
This Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the IS/MND for previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TM) 6452 (adopted on November 18, 2024 by City Council) remain substantively unchanged despite the amendments described herein, and supports the finding that the proposed project does not raise any new issues and does not exceed the level of impacts identified in the previous IS/MND.
SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The original project for Lennar Homes consisted of 153 alley-loaded, single-family residential units on a site designated as County of Fresno AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural) Zone District. The project was included in a separate annexation (Reorganization 305) and prezoning (Rezone 2021-006) to the R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District.
Development involved the conversion of vacant, undeveloped land characterized by flat topography and some vegetation into a structured residential community featuring lots ranging in sizes from approximately 2,184 square feet to 5,818 square feet. Infrastructure improvements included a network of public and private streets providing ingress/egress via North Baron Avenue and Perrin Avenue, as well as the dedication of an 8,990 square foot pocket park.
The Project utilizes the Planned Residential Development (PRD) provisions of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) to allow for modified development standards, including adjusted setbacks, lot size, lot coverage, parcel width, and depth, intended to facilitate a more efficient and cohesive land use pattern. Additional details regarding proposed improvements are provided in the IS/MND for the original project (TM6452).
LENNAR HOMES (TM6543)
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
3 PROJECT REVISIONS
As noted above, the IS/MND for Lennar Homes was adopted by City Council on November 18, 2024. Since adoption of the IS/MND, Lennar Homes has proposed a new vesting tentative tract map (TM6543) (herein referenced as the “revised project”).
The housing product proposed under the original project represented a new concept that was being tested in a different area and did not demonstrate strong sales performance. As a result, the applicant has elected to pivot to a more conventional housing product that is better suited to current market conditions and is anticipated to perform more successfully in this market. The revised project house designs require modifications to the previously approved development standards. As part of the redesign, alley access and private streets have been eliminated, resulting in a revised site layout with increased street widths and reductions in the number of lots.
Since adoption of the IS/MND in November 2024, existing conditions and environmental circumstances at and surrounding the project site have not substantially changed. The project site remains vacant, and the surrounding area remains similar to what was described in the IS/MND. As such, no new or increased impacts would occur as a result of changes in environmental circumstances, and no new mitigation measures are required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the revised project would result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts in comparison to the analysis in the 2024 IS/MND. The following identifies how the correction to the environmental setting would affect the resource analyses presented in the adopted IS/MND. As shown below, no changes to the impact analyses presented in the IS/MND for any of these resource topics are required:
• Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The following impact analyses were analyzed further in the IS/MND; however, the revised project does not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts for the following:
• Biological Resources: According to the IS/MND, the Project site has the potential to be used by various wildlife including special status tricolored blackbird Swainson’s hawk (California threated species), golden eagle, pallid bat, spotted bot, and western mastiff bat. While none of these species have the potential to nest or roost on the Project site, the Swainson’s hawk could potentially nest close enough to the site that individuals could be disturbed by construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would ensure that a less-than-significant impact occurs (see 2024 IS/MND).
There were 19 special status plants documented in the general vicinity of the Project site; however, all 19 species are considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat and or soils. Aquatic features, including any potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands, are absent from the Project site. The Project site does not contain or adjoin any features likely to function as wildlife movement corridors. The Project site does not indicate the presence of any sensitive habitat or wildlife features that would be impacted and will be consistent with the CMC and 2014 General Plan polices. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans for the Project vicinity.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6543)
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
4 The current condition of the Project site and the surrounding area is similar to what was analyzed in the IS/MND. The Project site is vacant and the surrounding land uses remain unchanged. The revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse biological impacts not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND.
• Cultural Resources: As part of the IS/MND, a Cultural Resource Study (Cultural Study) was prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. dated November 2023 (see 2024 IS/MND). According to the IS/MND, no cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area. There is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of archaeological resources during construction, MM CULT-1 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found artifacts can be properly removed and inventoried by a qualified archaeologist. Additionally, because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of human remains during construction, MM CULT2 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found human remains can be properly removed by the County coroner and/or tribes. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated.
The revised project proposes changes to the site layout, house designs, number of lots, and development standards. This project refinement would not result in any substantial change as the proposed revisions would not expand the project footprint or introduce new ground-disturbing activities beyond those previously evaluated. The project would remain subject to compliance with MMs CULT-1 through CULT-3. As such, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse cultural resource impacts not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND. • Geological Resources: The IS/MND concluded that there are no unique paleontological resources or geological features identified in the Project area. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the inadvertent or accidental discovery could occur during ground disturbing construction activities. MM GEO-1 (see 2024 IS/MND) would serve to protect the accidental discovery of paleontological resources.
As such, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated would occur.
The modifications associated with the revised project would not increase density or intensity of use. It would reduce impacts given that fewer lots are proposed and there will be removal of private streets and alleys and remain within the previously analyzed footprint. Compliance with MM GEO-1 would remain applicable to the revised project and would continue to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
As such, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse impacts related to geology and soils not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The IS/MND concluded that in order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, each residential unit shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities as part of the final project designs. MM GHG-1 (see 2024 IS/MND) would be required to ensure the proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging.
With implementation of MM GHG-1 the Project would result in a less-than-significant. Further, the original project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs.
The revised projects modifications would not increase GHG impacts beyond what was analyzed in the IS/MND. The revised projects’ reduction in lots, change in house design, and revised development standards, would not result in any substantial change. No operational characteristics of the project would change as a result of the amendments. The revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse greenhouse gases impacts not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND. • Noise: The IS/MND determined that construction noise associated with the original project would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the neighborhood. Further, the Project would be required
LENNAR HOMES (TM6543)
ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
5 to comply with the provisions of Sections 9.22.080 and 9.22.090 of the CMC which require that construction be permitted during certain hours of the day, vibration not be perceptible along property lines, and that it shall not interfere with operations or facilities on adjoining parcels.
According to the IS/MND, the type of equipment likely to be used is not considered to be the type and intensity to result in substantial vibration or ground-borne noise. Therefore, the impact would be lessthan-significant and no mitigation measures are required. Additionally, the Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.
The proposed amendments under the revised project would not change the location of the project site or affected area, alter land uses, change construction practices/methodology, or affect long-term operations of the facility. The change in house design and reduction in lots would not generate additional traffic that could increase noise. The revised project would continue to be subject to MM NOISE-1 as well as the noise standards of the CMC to ensure less-than-significant impacts. As such, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse impacts related to noise not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND.
• Tribal Cultural Resources: The IS/MND concluded that there was no evidence of prehistoric archaeological sites, isolated artifacts, or other archaeological features. However, because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of tribal cultural resources during construction, MMs TCR-1 and TCR-2 (see 2024 IS/MND) would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found artifacts can be properly removed and inventoried by a qualified archaeologist. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated.
The revised project proposes changes to the site layout, house designs, number of lots, and development standards. This project refinement would not result in any substantial change as the proposed revisions would not expand the project footprint or introduce new ground-disturbing activities beyond those previously evaluated. The project would remain subject to compliance with MMs TCR-1 and TCR-2. As such, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse cultural resources impacts not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND. • Mandatory Findings of Significance: The IS/MND determined that, upon implementation of required mitigation measures, the original project would not have a significant potential to degrade the biological environment or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. In addition, the original project was determined to result in less-than-significant effects on a cumulative basis. The original project was also determined to result in less-than-significant impacts on human beings, on both a direct and indirect basis.
As noted previously within this Addendum, the revised project would result in changes to the site layout, house designs, number of lots, and development standards and would not result in new impacts related to biology, cultural resources, or adverse effects on human beings. The modifications would not have the potential to result in any new cumulative impacts in combination with other planned projects in the vicinity. As such, the revised project would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse impacts related to mandatory findings of significance not previously considered and addressed in the IS/MND.
CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided in this Addendum, the proposed modifications to the approved Project would not result in a measurable increase in environmental impacts over what was previously analyzed in November 18, 2024, IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures would be required.
September 2024
PREPARED BY:
& *
CITY «/CLOVIS fP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
FIFTH10 3 3 STREET 9 3 6 1 2
1 Hl
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Liz Salazar
Assistant Planner
Planning & Development Services
(559) 324-2305
[email protected]
Lennar Homes
TM6452
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 8 Attachment 79
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT TITLE:
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LAND USE DESIGNATION: See page 6 of this Initial Study
ZONING DESIGNATION: See page 7 of this Initial Study
See page 6 of this Initial Study
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See page 7 of this Initial Study
REQUIRED APPROVALS: See page 8 of this Initial Study
No
2 HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN
TRIBES REQUESTED CONSULTATION?
IF SO, HAS CONSULTATION BEGUN?
This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., CEQA Guidelines Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND
ADDRESS:
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE
NUMBER:
Jeff Callaway, Project Manger
Lennar Homes of California
8080 North Palm Ave., Suite 110
Clovis, CA 93711
Northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin
Avenues
County of Fresno, CA 93619
APN: 556-040-23S (portion)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
SURROUNDING CONDITIONS AND LAND
USES:
City of Clovis
Planning & Development Services
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Lennar Homes
(TM6452)
Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
(559) 324-2305
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 5
B. PROJECT OVERVIEW 6
C. PROJECT LOCATION 6
D. EXISTING SETTING 6
1. 6
2. 6
3. Land Use Designation 6
4. Zoning Designation 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONE. 7
1. 7
2. 7
3. Project Components 7
F. REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS 9
G. TECHNICAL STUDIES 9
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16
1. Aesthetics 17
2. 19
3. 21
4. 25
5. 28
6. Energy 30
7. 31
8. 33
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 37
10. Hydrology and Water Quality 39
11. Land Use and Planning 43
12. Mineral Resources 44
13. Noise 45
14. 47
15. 48
16. Recreation 50
17. 51
18. 56
5 Biological Resources
Cultural Resources...
Project Construction
Site Preparation......
Existing Conditions......
Surrounding Conditions
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality........................................
Transportation.................
Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils...............
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population and Housing
Public Services.............
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
19. Utilities and Service Systems 58
20. Wildfire 60
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance 61
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION 10
FIGURE 2: AERIAL OF PROJECT SITE 11
FIGURE 3: LAND USE DESIGNATION 12
FIGURE 4: ZONING DISTRICT 13
FIGURE 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 14
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 15
FIGURE 7: CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 16
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SURROUNDING LAND USES 6
TABLE 2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 22
4 LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
□ Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality □ □ X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy El □
X Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials El □ □ Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use/Planning □ □ Mineral Resources X Noise □ □ Population/Housing Public Services
□ Recreation Transportation El X Tribal Cultural Resources □ □ Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance □ □
X
□
□
□
Prepared By:
Date
5 I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
2024.09.30
13:36:28-07'00'
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion in this Initial Study.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environmental, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Liz Salazar, Assistant Planner
City of Clovis Planning & Development Services
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environmental, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) will be prepared.
Renee Mathis, Director
City of Clovis Planning & Development Services
I find that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponents. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
9/30/2024
Date
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Approved By:
(ou (ahis
1. 2.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
*
R-1-PRD
*Low Density Residential (2.1-4.0 Dwelling Units/Acre (DU/AC)), Medium Density Residential (4.1-7.0 DU/AC), Medium-High Density Residential (7.1-20 DU/AC) **|P-F (Public Facilities), AL20 (County of Fresno Zoning, Limited Agricultural), R-1 (Single-Family Residential), R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development)
3. 6
C. PROJECT LOCATION
As shown in Figure 1 below, the Project is located northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues and consists of approximately 18 acres of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 556-040-23S. A remainder portion of approximately 3.54 acres of the subject parcel is planned for a City of Clovis public facility site and is not a part of the Project. The Project site is bound by a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Basin to the north, Sunnyside Avenue approximately 338 feet to the east, Perrin Avenue to the south, and N. Baron Avenue to the west.
D. EXISTING SETTING
This section describes the existing conditions, surrounding conditions, as well as the General Plan land use and zoning designations.
SURROUNDING CONDITIONS
As referenced in Table 1 below, the Project site is partially surrounded by existing development consisting of single-family residential uses at varying densities to the south and east. To the west of the Project site, single-family homes are currently under entitlement processing, with these homes to the west, there will be residential uses surrounding the majority of the Project site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Figure 2 below, the existing site is vacant and undeveloped, consisting of portions of clear areas and portions of vegetation, grasses, sunflower, jimson weed, and lupine. The site is generally flat and includes a graded dirt access road along the southern border. The existing site does not include any pedestrian or other vehicle circulation infrastructure.
LAND USE DESIGNATION
As shown on Figure 3, the Project site has two existing General Plan Land Use designations of Very Low Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 0.6 to 2.0 DU/AC and Medium Density Residential, which allows for a density range of 4.1 to 7.0 DU/AC. According to the 2014 Clovis General Plan, the Very Low Residential designation is intended for large lot single family residences and the Medium Density Residential designation is intended for detached and attached single family homes, patio homes, or zero lot lines.
West
Notes:
North
East
South Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Public/Quasi Public Facilities
Medium-High Density Residential
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Lennar Homes proposes the construction of 153 single-family homes and associated site improvements (i.e., landscape, parking, sidewalks, and utilities infrastructure) on approximately 18 acres of vacant and undeveloped land on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues in the County of Fresno, California, herein referred to throughout the document as “proposed Project” and/or “Project.” Land Use Designation
Water
Rural Residential
Existing Land Use
Vacant
Rural Residential
Single-Family Residential (in
construction) & PG&E Substation
Vacant
Zoning**
P-F
AL20
R-1 & P-F
1. 2.
3. 1 2014 Clovis General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-1, Circulation Diagram. 7 E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section describes the components of the proposed Project in more detail, including site preparation, proposed structures, and on- and off-site improvements.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation would include typical grading activities to ensure a level surface. Part of the preparation would include removal of vegetation, such as grasses, shrubs, and weeds. Other site preparation activities would include minor excavation for the installation of utility infrastructure, for coneyance of water, sewer, stormwater, and irrigation.
PROJECT COMPONENTS
This section describes the overall components of the Project, such as the proposed buildings, landscape, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and utilities.
The Project includes a network of public and private streets throughout the neighborhood, which includes ingress/egress off of N. Baron Avenue to the west and Perrin Avenue to the South. There would be no direct access to Sunnyside Avenue further east. According to the Circulation Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan,1 the roadways bordering the Project along its western and southern frontages are designated as collectors.
Other features of the Project include pedestrian sidewalks that connect to the street network, as well as sidewalks along the frontage of the site along N. Baron and Perrin Avenues.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The Project is anticipated to begin construction April 2024, first occupancy June 2027, with full buildout by April 2029. This schedule is an estimation only and is contingent upon entitlements, and the market, among other factors.
4. ZONING DESIGNATION
The Project site is currently within the County of Fresno jurisdiction and zoned AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural). However, the Project site will be rezoned to the R-1-PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District through a separate entitlement application (Rezone 2021-006).
According to Section 9.10.010(B)(5) of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC), the R-1-PRD Zone District identifies areas appropriate for single-family small lot uses, including attached and detached single-family structures on small lots.
DEMOLITION
As described in existing conditions the site is vacant; therefore, no demolition is required.
SITE LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION
As shown in Figure 5, the Project proposes 153 individual single-family residential lots ranging in sizes from approximately 2,184 square-feet to 5,818 square-feet, with an average lot size of approximately 2,619 square-feet under Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6452 (TM6452). The Project also proposes an 8,990 square foot lot for a pocket park.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The Project site is included in a separate annexation (RO305) and prezoning (R2021-006) entitlement process for the change from the County of Fresno AE20 (Exclusive Agricultural) Zone District to the R-1- LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
8 2 City of Clovis Municipal Code, Chapter, 9.32, Parking and Loading, Section 9.32.040, Number of Parking Spaces Requires, Table 3-12, Parking Requirements by Land Use.
Utilities are provided by and managed from a combination of agencies, including Fresno Irrigation District (FID) which provides the City’s water supply, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) which has responsibility for storm water management, and the City’s Public Utilities Department which provides for solid waste collection, and sewer collection services. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas within the City of Clovis.
As part of the requirements for consideration of approval of a Planned Development Permit, the applicant has provided a draft of the proposed development standards, such as height limit, lot coverage, front, rear, and side setbacks that would apply to the proposed TM6452. These development standards are provided as Figure 6.
UTILITIES
Utilities for the site would consist of water, sewer, electric, cable, gas, and stormwater infrastructure.
Trenching and digging activities would be required for the installation of necessary pipelines typical of residential development. All utility plans would be required to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agency, and/or department to ensure that installation occurs to pertinent codes and regulations. Other infrastructure would include new fire hydrants as required by the City of Clovis Fire Department.
PARKING
The CMC requires that residential planned unit developments provide a minimum of two (2) covered spaces plus one (1) covered or uncovered guest space for each dwelling unit.2 Each garage would be required to have an interior dimension of 20 feet by 20 feet. Each single-family home would have a twocar garage and the Project proposes sufficient guest parking, thus meeting the minimum parking requirement.
PROJECT DESIGN
Conceptual design of the units are shown in Figure 7; however, it is important to note that at this stage of the process, these designs are conceptual only. The overall footprint, height limit, and placement of the structures, described above, would generally remain the same, however, the color palette and design details are subject to change throughout the Residential Site Plan Review Process (RSPR), which typically occurs later on in the entitlement process.
LANDSCAPE
The Project would include landscape throughout the site. Landscaped areas would generally be located along the perimeter of the site where a variety of ornamental shrubs, plants, and trees would be planted, as well as landscape in areas in the perceived front yard area of each home. Landscape plans are typically provided at a later date at which time the proposed landscape would be reviewed for compliance with the City’s water efficient landscape regulations and guidelines.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PRD (Single-Family Planned Residential Development) Zone District. Chapter 9.66, Planned Development Permits, of the CMC provides a method whereby land may be designed and developed taking advantage of modern site planning techniques resulting in a more efficient use of land and better living environment than otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards. In general, this section of the CMC provides a mechanism to afford some relief to typical development standards, subject to an approved rezone to the R-1-PRD Zone District.
F. REQUIRED PROJECT APPROVALS
9 • Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment dated January 2024 • Appendix B: Biological Evaluation Report dated November 2023 • Appendix C: Cultural Resource Study dated November 2023 • Appendix D: Acoustical Analysis dated March 2024
• Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis dated February 2024 The City of Clovis requires the following review, permits, and/or approvals for the proposed Project; however, other approvals not listed below may be required as identified throughout the entitlement process:
G. TECHNICAL STUDIES
The analysis of the Project throughout this Initial Study relied in part on the technical studies listed below prepared for the Project, as well as other sources, including, but not limited to, the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, departmental staff, California Department of Conservation, and the California Department of Toxic Control Substances.
• Annexation (processed separately through RO305)
• Prezone (processed separately through R2021-006)
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Planned Development Permit
• Residential Site Plan Review
• Grading Permit(s)
• Building Permit(s)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
O
JimIT
z— 1^1 '
Perrin Rd
— 1
o 09 — Fru Fruitwood Ave
E •
— in
■
—
S
Plum Tree Ave 5 — Springtime Ave
■
-
1 T7
s
Summerset Ave
5 F Lexington A
Windmill Ave (
r
□ T T
Heirloom Ave
I
= Project Site (approximate limits)
N
io
3 p
cs
2. o
8 a
M
Z
D
S
0 o
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 1: Project Location
2 z
o
C
5 3
4
Figure 2: Aerial of Project Site
----------------------
erdtam
es
6 ‘s
L
। r
?
4 -A.
rape =
4 w Y £h lam —Aid ers £ Fruitwood Ave, m ‘4 1
4; 1 hh Tee - a “l t
I •
i II ••. eth #
Ls . e
//. |
। Springtime Ave । ' 7 I
s 8
6 j
&
= Project Site (approximate limits)
N
11 i
J
t
he
u
hi
f.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
fo’t 3
3 Plum Tree Ave.
ih%
ai
nt
*
1 2
3 Water
I
I
A
V
L
1 = Project Site (approximate limits) N
12 in Rd
Z
i-OW Density
Resicentia!
(2.14.0 DDUiAc}
Io T ens ty
Residential
(2 CUtAc)
Public/Quasi-Public
Facilities
Public/Quasi-Public
Facilities
EXISTING DENSITY:
Medium Density and Very Low Density Residential
PROPOSED DENSITY:
No change
Rural
Residential
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 3: Land Use Designation
Very Low Density
Residential
(0.6-2.0 DU/Ac)
Medium Density H
Residential
(4.1 -7.0 DI/Ac)
it
th
ii
ig
•g•g
Figure 4: Zoning District
= Project Site (approximate limits)
O
□ :
R-1-PRD
Z ; WMH44M
Perrin Avenue
N
13 V
U.9F.M55 fshadaa
PROPOSED ZONING:
R-1-PRD (processed separately through R2021-006)
EXISTING ZONING:
AE20 - Exclusive Agricultural (Fresno County)
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
0)
3 C
O
>
<
o
O
g
C
C
3 0
C
9 4
C
o
tn
CITY OF CLOVIS
Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan
X
7e * nua I
10 19 Cori
u. I| • : "I 12 13 4
32 + +5. 2as/1 lzaxar. 57 58 63
51 1 J
- a 62 30 1
|
53 59 65
I | 26k
—- 1 46 A
T 2.1 55.1 | 60 54 1 66
150. — i
I 149 -
49 T 28 I 1 35 38 1
*5* P* 1
27 138
151=== i i* >—
F i 1,26,
=
145 + 1 148
|? 37 f 14. #
TT
t +76 I I
146 152 I 147 84 83 8 f 90 77 "l !
85 * I 82
4 ll 78 n “J hi 93
79 I "I
107 106 105 104 103 102 72 mlfiff 1
LI =FTE 80 =lala 1
—*
i I I4
100 — —OUor _ _ 73 .1485--
— ====== 291 mmmmmmn 338’* CL
Approximate layout
14 LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
101
I
.50..
240.7
f 74 unsr
—*)
.56, 1.2.
„8. _ 1
Figure 6: Proposed Development Standards
Standard Notes
1 Dwelling I
| None
15 Architectural treatment
applied to all elevations
of a building. At minimum,
all doors, windows and
other wall openings shall
be trimmed consistant
with architectural style.
Proposed development standards only. Actual standards may change during the Planned Development Permit and Residential Site Plan Review process. 20x20 min
curb-to curb
10'from propertyline
0 ft. Non Patio/7 ft. Patio
4 ft. min from property line
TRACT 6452
Residential Land Use Development Standards
Single Family Residential
Designation
Zone District
GP Density Range
2-car
24 ft. min
174 uncovered spaces
Dwelling Units
BUILDING INTENSITY
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth
Maximum Coverage
Maximum Height
Curved Cul-de-Sac or Corner Lot
Permitted Density
Residential Density
Set Backs (Minimum)
Front:
Side:
Rear:
Coverage (maximum)
Site Coverage
Garages/Street/Parking
Garages/Street/Parking
Street (Interior)
Parking
Accessory Uses
Walls/Fences
Trellises
Pools and Spas
Equiptment
Covered Structures
Accessory Buildings
Building Exterior
4' min.-8'
12' High max.
3' min
N/A
12' High max.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
R-IPRD
Meduim Densityand very
low density (8.39 DU/AC)
153
2184
39 56
62%
26'7"
N/A
Figure 7: Conceptual Elevations
' Bl 5
-
»
—
I
BE kJ
HIM
—
" r
i
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
16 ’ tmrveg
EX
This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For each issue area, one of four conclusions is made:
F . 7
ft H I
yl 5
O
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
IE
I
fill5
• No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project development.
1. AESTHETICS
X
X
X
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
DISCUSSION
17 Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
• Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project would result in an environmental impact or effect that is potentially significant, but the incorporation of mitigation measure(s) would reduce the project-related impact to a less than significant level.
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The City of Clovis is located within the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, much of the City and its surrounding areas are predominately flat. As a result, on clear days, the Sierra Nevada Mountains are visible to the east depending on your location. Aside from Sierra Nevada, there are no officially designated focal points or viewsheds within the City. Policy 2.3, Visual Resources, of the Open Space Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan, requires maintaining public views of open spaces, parks, and natural features and to preserve Clovis’ viewshed of the surrounding foothills.
• Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project would result in an environmental impact or effect that is potentially significant, and no mitigation can be identified that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
As mentioned above in the Project Description, the site is located on the northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. In general, the Project site is located in the fringes of Clovis and is situated adjacent to a mix of neighboring agricultural lands, rural residential, and low to medium density residential housing. a. Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?_______________
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?_____________
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
• Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
No impact. As stated in the 2014 Clovis General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), there are no Further, there are no existing historical
3 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, June 2014, Page 5 1-1.
18 Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project consists of 153 single-family homes. As a result of the existing site being vacant and undeveloped, the Project would result in new sources of light and glare. Light and glare from the Project would be typical of residential development, including but not limited to, sources such as exterior lighting for safety, light and glare from vehicles or from light reflecting off of surfaces such as windshields. Other sources of light would be the interior lighting of the units at night. These sources of light and glare are not Further, the Project would undergo the RSPR process which would ensure that the overall design and character is consistent and/or complements the surrounding areas. The RSPR process will ensure the Project complies with relevant design policies, such as in the Heritage Grove Master Plan, the CMC, and the General Plan. During the review, the height, color and materials are reviewed for consistency with these plans and guidelines.
Consequently, a less-than-significant impact would occur with regards to substantially degrading the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
structures or rock outcroppings located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site; therefore, the Project would result in no impact with regards to substantially damaging scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and no mitigation measures are required.
Policy 3.6 of the Land Use Element of the Clovis General Plan encourages a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities. The Project being of a similar scale as surrounding development to the south and west (in entitlement processing) and as a blended density, would serve as a transition from the rural residential neighborhood to the east, which would comply with Policy 3.6 by resulting in a housing product that adds to the variety of housing stock within the City.
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the existing site is currently surrounded by residential uses of varying densities including medium, low, and rural. Thus, as a proposed blend of medium and very lowdensity residential project, the homes would fit within the character of the surrounding area.
No impact. As mentioned above, there are no officially designated scenic vistas or focal points in the City of Clovis. While the Sierra Nevada Mountains can be viewed on clear days, the Project would allow structures to be constructed at a maximum height of 26 feet 7 inches. The Project site is not within the immediate vicinity of open space, parks, or other natural features. Therefore, because the Project would be constructed at a reduced maximum height in comparison to the standard single family residential zone districts and because there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the area, no impact would occur with regards to the project having a substantial effect on a scenic vista. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_______________________________________________________________ a) Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? Caltrans-designated scenic highways within the City of Clovis.3
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
X
X
X
X
forest land to non-forest
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
19 Although the Project would introduce new sources of light and glare, the RSPR process would ensure that the design and placement of lighting is appropriate to minimize potential light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Section 9.22.050, Exterior Light and Glare, of the CMC, which requires light sources to be shielded and that lighting does not spillover to adjacent properties.
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Project site is located on northeast corner of N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. The site is within the fringe of the City and is surrounded by existing residential at varying densities to the south and east with future residential to the west.
Overall, through the City’s design review process and compliance with Section 9.22.050 of the CMC, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to lighting adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation measures are required.
conversion of
use?
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?______________________
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220
(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?___
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?_________________________
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS typically associated with causing significant effects on the environment, especially given that the surrounding developed area already emits similar sources of light and glare and are part of the existing conditions present in the vicinity. Further, the site will be surrounded by residential uses soon to be occupied to the south resulting in similar sources and intensities of light and glare. The development to the south that is under construction will contribute to the urbanization of the area, therefore, lighting and glare will be emitted in the vicinity. Sources of future light and glare are comprised of streetlights, and light and glare from vehicles going to and from home.
DISCUSSION
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. See discussion under Section 2c.
4 Farmland Mapping, California Department of Conservation, Interactive mapping tool (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/). 20 No Impact. As shown on Figure 5.2-2 of the Agricultural Resources Chapter of the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Further, as mentioned above, the site is not currently zoned or designated for agricultural use. As a result, the Project would have no impact with regards to conflicting with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? The Project site does not appear to have previously been cultivated, other than possible dry farming, nor is it zoned or designated for farming-related activities under the 2014 Clovis General Plan. Although the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance it is not considered Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Project site is vacant and undeveloped, thus, does not contain forest land. Further, the site is not zoned for forestry or other forestry related uses. As a result, no impact would occur with regards to conflicts with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land. No mitigation measures are required.
No impact. According to the California Important Farmland finder interactive map from the California Department of Conservation,4 the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance (2020 data), which is defined by the Department of Conservation as farmable lands within Fresno County that do meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmlands. Generally, Farmland of Local Importance is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, livestock, dairy, and grazing land.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No impact. Although the Project site is considered Farmland of Local Importance according to the Department of Conservation, the site is not zoned for or designated for agricultural uses. Further, the existing site hasn’t been used for agricultural-related uses in recent years. The 2014 Clovis General Plan designates the site for residential uses. Additionally, see discussion under Section 2.C related to forest land. Overall, the project would have a no impact with regards to this topic and no mitigation measure are required.
3. AIR QUALITY
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to X
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography5
5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 18-20, January 2024. 21 Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (AQ/GHG Report) was prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. in January 2024 (see Appendix A). Information in this AQ/GHG Report is used for the analysis included in both the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of this Initial Study.
The City of Clovis (City) is in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.
The SJVAB is approximately 24,840 square miles and is the second largest air basin in California. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi mountains to the south.
The SJVAB is open to the north extending to the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. Wind patterns within the SJVAB generally flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta. The mountain ranges from the west hinder wind access into the SJVAB while the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range provides a barrier to the east. As mentioned above, these topographic features result in weak airflow that becomes restricted vertically by high barometric pressure over the SJVAB.
Would the project:__________________
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?__
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 14,22, January 2024. 22 The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone. Mediterranean climates are characterized by hot, dry summers with sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly in winter. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F while winter low temperatures range between 40-50 degrees and is not uncommon to drop below freezing.
In addition to the topographic conditions, the climate can contribute to air quality problems. Temperature inversions can trap air within the SJVAB, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants.
Ozone often afflicts aeras downwind of the original source and can be easily transported by winds. Peak ozone tends to be higher in the southern portion of the SJVAB. Other primary pollutants such as carbon monoxide may form in high concentrations when wind speed is low, during winder cooler temperatures and calm conditions increase the likelihood of carbon monoxide concentrations.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.
These National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors,” those most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As shown in Table 4, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants, these pollutants are ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Climate6
In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern.
TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants.
Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.
0.07 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
0.04 ppm
PMw
PM25
Lead
,3
Attainment Status7
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 14,22, January 2024. 23 20 ppm
9 ppm
0.18 ppm
0.030 ppm
0.25 ppm
Federal
Primary
Standard
35 ppm
9 ppm
100 ppb
0.053 ppm
75 ppb
Pollutant
Ozone
State
Standard
0.09 ppm
0.07 ppm
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within Fresno County and throughout SJVAB. The SJVAPCD prepares plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by FCAA and CCAA. The SJVAPCD adopted the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), in response to the requirements of the State CCAA.
Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 9, January 2024.
The SJVAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County to measure ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The SJVAB is nonattainment for ozone (1 hour and 8 hour) and PM. The EPA uses standard classifications to reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. The SJVAB was classified as extreme nonattainment for ozone by the EPA (2004). The federal 1 hour ozone standard was revoked on June 6, 2005.
Averaging
Time
1-Hour
8-Hour
1-Hour
8-Hour________
1-Hour
Annual
1-Hour
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
30-Day Avg.
Calendar Quarter
3-Month Avg.
24 Hour
1 Hour
24 Hour
Sulfates
Hydrogen Sulfide
Vinyl Chloride
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
0.15 ug/m
50 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
25 ug/m3
0.03 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.030 ppm
150 ug/m3
Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion under Section 3a above. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 52-53, January 2024. 9 Biological Evaluation Report for Tract 6263 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc , pages 8 to 21, May 2019. 24 Lastly, the SJVAPCD provided a comment letter, dated March 15, 2024 indicating that the Project would not exceed thresholds for criteria pollutants. However, the Project would be subject to compliance with District Rule 9510 which is intended to mitigate a project’s impact through project design elements or payment of off-site fees. The Project applicant would be required to submit to the SJVAPCD an Air Impact Assessment (AIA).
Further, the Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the SJVAPCD for review and approval. Consequently, a less-than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Additionally, results of the analysis show that emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project will be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are generally considered to include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, or people with illnesses. Examples of these receptors are considered to be hospitals, residences, schools and school facilities, daycare facilities, and convalescent facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would be the residences adjacent to the site to the south (in construction) and east (existing). Based the AQ/GHG Report, an evaluation of nearby land uses considering CARB’s Pollution Mapping Tool shows that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of exiting toxic sources and is located 2.5 miles from the State Route 168 freeway9; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
The primary way of determining consistency with the air quality plan’s assumptions is determining consistency with the General Plan to ensure that the Project’s density and land use are consistent with the growth assumption used in the air quality plan. The Project is consistent with the currently adopted 2014 General Plan; therefore, is consistent with the growth assumptions under the applicable air quality plan and per the AQ/GHG Report, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plans.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS____________
Less-Than-Significant Impact. In general, regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Thus, individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation or air quality standards alone.
Although the CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project were to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, the SJVAPCDs 2015 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) does not provide specific guidance on analyzing conformity with the plan. Thus, for purposes of analyzing this potential impact, the AQ/GHG Report considered impacts based on:
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase if any criteria pollutant for which the project region nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard: (3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and (4) Result in other emissions such as those lead to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.8
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
X
X
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
X
X
f.
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
X
25 No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
tree preservation policy or ordinance?_____
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Generally, sources considered to emit odors are associated with wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing, and other industrial/manufacturing related uses. The Project is a residential use, thus, the odors associated with such use would be similar to that of the surrounding area which include residential uses. Overall, because the Project is a residential use, similar to existing residential uses, the types of odor that could result from the Project would not be considered an objectionable odor source. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?_______
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
Would the project:______________________
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?_____
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?________
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF CLOVIS d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following analysis is based on information provided by the Biological Report prepared by LOA.
DISCUSSION
10 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., pages 10 to 16, September 2023. 26 As part of the Biological Report, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted to determine the possible presence of special-status species in the vicinity of the Project. According to the search and field survey the Project site has the potential to be used by various wildlife including special status tricolored blackbird Swainson’s hawk (CA threated species), golden eagle, pallid bat, spotted bot, and western mastiff bat.10 While none of these species have the potential to nest or roost on the Project site, the Swainson’s hawk could potentially nest close enough to the site that individuals could be disturbed by construction activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Swainson’s hawk. If possible, construction activities should occur outside of the avian nesting season, typically defined as February 1 - August 31. If that is not feasible, preconstruction surveys shall occur if construction must occur between February 1 - August 31. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for active bird nests within seven (7) days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area shall encompass the Project site and accessible surrounding lands within 14 mile for nesting Swainson’s hawk, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds.
Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. As described in the Biological Report, a reconnaissance-level field survey of the Project area was conducted on September 25, 2023 by LOA. The survey consisted of driving and walking throughout the site to identify habitats, plant, and animal species. During the field survey, the site was identified as ruderal grasslands; although presence of disturbance including disking and mowing, road construction, and localized grading was present.
The existing Project site is vacant and undeveloped with dirt roads containing several cleared and graded areas.
The Project site supported grasses and forbs typical of annual grasslands, best characterized as ruderal grassland habitat.
A Biological Evaluation Report (Biological Report) was prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) in November 2023 (see Appendix B). This Biological Report included an investigation of the biotic resources of the Project area and assessed potential project-related impacts pursuant to CEQA. As part of the Biological Report, the Project area was surveyed in September 2023 for habitat, plants, and animals.
There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the area; however, Swainson’s hawk, has occasionally been sighted in the Project vicinity and there is some chance for individuals of the species to forage on the site from time to time. Possible Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat is absent from the Project site but may be found on nearby rural residential along the Enterprise Canal.
Nevertheless, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 would ensure that a less-than-significant impact with mitigation occurs.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures
11 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 27, September 2023. 12 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 16, September 2023. 13 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 17, September 2023. 27 No Impact. Wildlife corridors are typically considered to be valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. According to the Biological Report, the Project site does not contain or adjoin any features No Impact. The Project site does not indicate the presence of any sensitive habitat or wildlife features that would be impacted and will be consistent with the CMC and 2014 General Plan polices. Although Policy 2.6 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan calls for the protection of biological resources, the Biological Evaluation did not identify any such resources at the site due to its location. Further, trees and shrubs are absent from the Project site; therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As mentioned previously, the Project site is characterized as vacant and undeveloped with ruderal grassland as the only habitat with the Project site. According to the Biological Report, 19 special status plants documented in the general vicinity of the project site; however, all 19 species are considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat and or soils.11 Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF CLOVIS a suitable construction free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged are capable of foraging independently.
likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.13
are required.
No impact. Aquatic features, including any potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands, are absent from the Project Site.12
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
X
X
c. Disturb any human remains,
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
DISCUSSION
14 Biological Evaluation Report for Lennar Homes Tract 6452 prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., page 29, September 2023. 15 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 14, November 2023. 28 No Impact. As part of the Cultural Study, the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at the California State University, Bakersfield preformed a records search on June 31,2023, to identify previously recorded resources and prior surveys within the Project area and surrounding 0.25 mile search radius.15 According to the results, there were four previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area and one previous investigation with the 0.25 mile radius Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Project site is located on a vacant undeveloped site. The site is surrounded by existing and future residential development at varying densities.
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
In addition to the Cultural Study, City staff conducted Native American Consultation in compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). In compliance with AB52, invitations for consultation were mailed on April 8, 2024 which affords Native tribes thirty (30) days to respond and to request consultation. During this timeframe, no requests for consultations were received.
A Cultural Resource Study (Cultural Study) was prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc. dated November 2023 (see Appendix C). This Cultural Study included a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), Native American Hertiage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, desktop archival research, as well as a pedestrian survey of the Project site.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ No Impact. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans for the Project vicinity14; thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?_______________
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 16 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 16, November 2023. 17 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 17, November 2023. 18 Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., page 21, November 2023. 29 Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. As mentioned in the discussion for Section 5a the site is undeveloped. The Cultural Study concluded no cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area.
Because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of archaeological resources during construction, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found artifacts can be properly removed and inventoried by a qualified archaeologist. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the qualified professional archaeologist, the Lead Agency, and the project proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.
If the qualified professional archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If archaeological or tribal resources or materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, can evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.
Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The site is undeveloped with the site’s grounds only have previously disturbed as a result of some light grading with dirt roads and the mowing of weeds. Further, the Cultural Study concluded that there were no cultural resources including potential historical resources were identified in the Project area.17
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS site, the previous studies date from 1991 to 2018.16 Additionally, as part of the Cultural Study historical topographic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed and a requested search of the Sacred Lands File was conducted by the NAHC on August 17, 2023.17 According to Cultural Study no cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area.18 Further, compliance with Policy 2.9 of the 2014 General Plan, which calls for the preservation of historical sites and buildings of state or national significance, would ensure that if there were historical resources present, they would be protected. Therefore, no impact would occur with regard to the Project causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and no mitigation measures are required.
6. ENERGY
inefficient, or unnecessary X
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
DISCUSSION
30 Would the project:_________________
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project proposes the construction of 153 single-family homes on ±18 acres, along with associated landscape, hardscape, and infrastructure (i.e., drive aisles, utilities, etc.). The Project would include construction activities typical of residential development, thus, is not generally considered the type of use or intensity that would result in the unnecessary consumption of energy. The units themselves would comply with Title 24 Green Building Standards for energy efficiency, as well as be required to comply with the latest water efficient landscape policy regulations, and California Building Code. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Clovis 2014 General Plan Policy 3.4, and 3.7 of the Open Space and Conservation, which call for the use of water conserving and drought tolerant landscape, as well as energy efficient buildings. Consequently, compliance with these measures would ensure that the Project does not result Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Because there is the slight possibility for the accidental or inadvertent uncovering of human remains during construction, Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would serve to reduce those potential impacts by requiring the stopping of any work until any found human remains can be properly removed by the County coroner and/or tribes. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
The Project site is located on a vacant undeveloped site. The site is surrounded by existing and future residential development at varying densities.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Project shall follow the procedures and protocols set for un CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If human remains are identified to be those of Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires the County coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery of human remains on the Project site shall be submitted to the Lead Agency. operation?___________________
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nevertheless, the potential remains that human remains could be inadvertently or accidentally uncovered during ground-disturbing activities such as trenching, digging, and the installation of utilities and other infrastructure.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion under Section 6a above.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
X
X
failure, X
X
X
X
X
X
or unique X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
31 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
paleontological resource
geologic feature?
iii) Seismic-related ground
including liguefaction?
iv) Landslides?
The 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR identified no geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions known to exist on the Project site.
Would the project:___________________
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault?____________________
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?_________________
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?_________
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?__
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?_________________
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________CITY OF CLOVIS in a significant impact due to the unnecessary consumption of energy and less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
DISCUSSION
Further, the site is generally flat and therefore landslides would not occur at the b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No impact. See discussion under Section 7a.
No Impact. The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks; therefore, no impact would occur. 19 California Department of Conservation, the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application mapping tool, https://maps.conservation.ca.qov/cqs/EQZApp/app/
20 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, Chapter 5: Geology and Soils, page 5.6-3. 32 No Impact. Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation, the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application mapping tool identifies the Project parcel as not within an Earthquake Fault Zone.19 Additionally, adherence to the most current California Building Codes would ensure that the structures are constructed safely and in compliance with the appropriate Building Codes. With regards to liquefaction, the 2014 General Plan EIR states that the soil types in the area are not considered conducive to liquefaction due to their high clay content Less-Than-Significant Impact. Although the site is relatively flat, grading activities would be required to ensure a flat and graded surface prior to construction, which may result in the soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, as part of the Project, grading plans are required to be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division to ensure appropriate grading of the site. Thus, this review and approval process would ensure that a less-thansignificant impact occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No impact. According to the 2014 Clovis General Plan EIR, expansive soils are mostly present in areas along the northern edge of the non-Sphere of Influence (SOI) and the easternmost part of the Clovis non-SOI plan area. Because the Project is within the City’s SOI; therefore, not within the vicinity of those areas, there would be no potential for creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property with regards to expansive soils.
As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Project site. Overall, due to the Project site not being located within an earthquake fault zone, adherence to the most recent California Building Codes, and the flat topography, no impact would occur with regards to potential impacts from seismic activity.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?; Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?; iv) Landslides?
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? or from being too coarse.20
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
greenhouse
either directly X
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33 gas
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate
emissions,
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG’s has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic activities which alter the composition of the global atmosphere.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist, can evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants.
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project site is vacant and undisturbed and the Cultural Study concluded that there are no cultural resources including potential historical resources identified in the Project area. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the inadvertent or accidental discovery could occur during ground disturbing construction activities. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-1, below, would serve to protect the accidental discovery of paleontological resources. As such, a less-than-significant with mitigation impact would occur.
If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the qualified professional archaeologist and/or paleontologist, the Lead Agency, and the project proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met. indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?___
b. Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
If the qualified professional determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Significance Criteria
34 Projects can reduce their GHG emission impacts to a less than significant level by implementing BPS. Projects can also demonstrate compliance with the requirements of AB 32 by demonstrating that their emissions achieve a 29% reduction below “business as usual” (BAU) levels. BAU is a projected GHG emissions inventory assuming no change in existing business practices and without considering implementation of any GHG emission reduction measures.
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires the CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
Individual Projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by emitting GHGs during construction and operational phases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change, meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures.
Emissions of carbon dioxide are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs, with much greater heat-absorption potential than carbon dioxide, include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes.
The effects of project-specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and therefore climate change impacts are addressed as a cumulative, rather than a direct, impact. The guidance for determining significance of impacts has been developed from the requirements of AB 32. The guideline addresses the potential cumulative impacts that a project’s GHG emissions could have on climate change. Since climate change is a global phenomenon, no direct impact would be identified for an individual land development project. The following criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant impact for climate change impacts:
In December 2009, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) adopted guidance for addressing GHG impacts in its Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. The guidance relies on performance-based standards, otherwise known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to assess significance of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process.
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming.
Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years.
Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
The SJVAPCDs Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA provides initial screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance.
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Does the project achieve AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with BAU? Projects that meet one of these guidelines would have less than significant impact on the global climate.
DISCUSSION
21 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 56, January 2024. 35 The 2022 Scoping Plan further recommends that a proposed project be located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). The proposed Project is located in close proximity to other single-family residential uses that are presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). The Project site and adjacent parcels The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that project attributes consistent with specific priority strategies would accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction. The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that a residential or mixed-use project provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.
CALGreen requires provision of infrastructure to accommodate EV chargers for new single family and attached dwelling units/town houses. It is not yet known whether the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would be required to ensure the proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging.
Does the project achieve 29% GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards? If no, then
Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Project would include the construction and operation of 153 single-family homes and associated infrastructure (i.e., sewer and water infrastructure, roadways, sidewalks, etc.). As such, GHG emissions would be produced through the construction and operational phases of the Project. As a result, an estimate of the Project’s operational emissions in 2005 were compared to the operational emission in 2020 in order to determine if the Project meets the 29% emission reduction. Results of the analysis show that the Project’s GHG emission in the year 2020 is 2179.68 MTCO2eq./year, which represents an achievement of 16% GHG emission reduction on the basis of BAU, which does not meet the 29% GHG emission reduction target.21 Although, the Project does not meet the 29% GHG emission reduction, the 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. With the implementation of recommended mitigation, the proposed project is generally consistent with the key project attributes recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan, as further discussed below.
Does the project comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions? If no, then
In December 2022 the 2022 Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB which assesses progress toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Because neither the City of Clovis or the SJVAPCD have developed or adopted numerical GHG significance threshold, the proposed Project was analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan consistent with statewide climate goals. The 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, VRPA Technologies, Inc, page 58-59, January 2024. 36 The proposed project would also be generally consistent with the transit density criteria recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan. The proposed Project would include an approximately 20-foot-wide parkway containing an approximately 6-foot-wide pedestrian sidewalk and 10-foot-wide landscaping along both N. Baron and Perrin Avenues. Additionally, the Project includes multiple direct pedestrian connections into the proposed Project that would support the ability to use alternative modes of transportation. As such, the project would promote initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 the Project would result in less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Based on the AQ/GHG Report,22 as required by California law General Plans contain land use elements that detail types and quantities of land uses needed for future growth assumptions.
Therefore, determination of consistency with a county/city’s General Plan can be used to confirm that the Project’s density and land use are consistent with the growth assumption used in the air quality plan. The Project is consistent with the currently adopted 2014 General Plan; therefore, is consistent with the growth assumptions under the applicable air quality plan and per the AQ/GHG Report, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Additionally, as indicated in the discussion above under Section 8a, the Project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, a state adopted plan for Statewide climate goals and greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Consequently, the AQ/GHG Report found this potential impact to be less than significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: In order to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan GHG requirements, consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals, each residential unit shall provide electric vehicle charging capabilities as part of the final project design.
The 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that a proposed project reduce parking requirements by eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit. The proposed Project would consist of 153 residential lots with construction of approximately 59 dedicated off-street parking spaces. Based on the minimal parking spaces when compared to the number of residential units, the proposed project would be consistent with this key project attribute. An additional State goal is to advance the availability of fair housing. The proposed project would help to address the California housing shortage and would increase the number of residences available to residents of the San Joaquin Valley.
Finally, consistent with the recommendations in the 2022 Scoping Plan, the proposed Project would be all electric and not include natural gas connections.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________
have been identified for future development in the 2014 General Plan. CARB guidance recommends that, to be consistent with State goals, a proposed project should not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands. As discussed in Section 2A the Project will not result in the loss or conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this key project attribute.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
37 “Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
For purposes of this chapter, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. A “hazardous material” is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as “substance or material that is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce” (49 CFR 171.8). California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines a hazardous material as follows:
LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS
Would the project:____________________
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?______________________
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?_____
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?___________________
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?________
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?__________________________
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
DISCUSSION
Less-Than-Significant Impact. See discussion above under Section 9a. 38 Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project consists of the construction of 153 single-family homes on ±18 acres. The type of hazardous materials that would be associated with the Project are those typical of residential uses, such as the use of household cleaners, landscape maintenance products, soaps, and potential pesticides (for pest control). These materials, when used and applied properly, would not necessarily create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Further, these materials are not anticipated to be stored in large quantities that could pose a threat. Overall, the Project would not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials other than those typical of residential development, which are not generally considered of the type or quantity that would pose a significant hazard to the public when used as directed. During construction, typical equipment and materials would be used that are associated with residential construction; however, any chemicals or materials would be handled, stored, disposed of, and/or transported according to applicable laws. Consequently, because the Project is not of the type of use that would routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials a less-than-significant impact would occur with no mitigation measures.
No impact. As mentioned above, the Project site is located approximately one (1) mile from the nearest school.
Further, the Project is not of the type of use typically associated with emitting hazardous emissions or handling the type or quantity of hazardous materials such that it would pose a risk or threat to the school, or surrounding area. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The nearest school to the Project site is Woods Elementary School, located approximately one (1) mile southwest of the site at its closest point.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? LENNAR HOMES (TM6452)
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CLOVIS_____________
reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?