Clovis City Council
May 4, 2026

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................1

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................4

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................5

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING.....................................................................................................................................5

2.2 PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................................7

2.3 LAND USES / BIOTIC HABITATS................................................................................................................7

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS .............................................................................................9

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ......................................................................................................................16

2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES...................................................................................................17

2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................17

2.8 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT.........................................................................................................17

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS.............................................................................................19

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...............................................................................19

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES ...........................................................................................20

3.2.1 Fresno County and Clovis General Plans ................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................ 21

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species ........................................................................................................... 22

3.2.4 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 22

3.2.5 Birds of Prey............................................................................................................................................. 23

3.2.6 Nesting Birds............................................................................................................................................ 23

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans............................................... 23

3.2.8 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................ 23

4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS ......................................................................................................................26

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION .................................................26

4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors including the Swainson’s Hawk ....................... 26

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS...................................................................................27

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants................................................................................... 27

4.2.2 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site27

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for Foraging Only............... 28

4.2.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors..................................................................................... 29

4.2.5 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .................................................. 29

4.2.6 Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................... 29

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances..................................................................................... 29

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans................... 29 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT LIST...........................................................................................................31 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ON THE PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................................................................................34 APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE......................................................39 g’s

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical report, prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, describes the biological resources of an approximately 18-acre site (“project site”) proposed for a residential development (“project”), and evaluates the potential impacts to biological resources associated with project implementation. The project is located immediately north of Clovis city limits in unincorporated Fresno County, California (Figure 1). It may be found on the Clovis and Friant U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute quadrangles, in Section 20 of Township 12 South, Range 21 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 2).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lennar Homes Central Valley proposes a residential development on approximately 18 acres located between Barron and Sunnyside Avenues, north of Perrin Avenue. The existing Tract 6452 will be subdivided into 153 single-family lots and annexed into the City of Clovis. Current County of Fresno zoning is AE-20, which provides for agricultural and related uses on minimum 20-acre parcels; proposed City of Clovis zoning is Medium and Low Density Residential (M/L). The residential development will be located within the City of Clovis Heritage Grove Master Plan and will be subject to design development standards of the plan.

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report summarizes a biological study conducted by LOA to facilitate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As such, the report’s objectives are to:
• Characterize the project site’s existing biological resources, including biotic habitats, flora and fauna, soils, and aquatic resources.
• Evaluate the project site’s potential to support sensitive resources such as special status species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands. • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to project implementation.
• Identify and discuss potential project-related impacts to biological resources within the context of CEQA and other state and federal laws.
g’s

Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources:

National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp., Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,
Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri
Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
µ 0 0.5 1
Miles
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
Approximate Project Location
County Boundaries
)
0 5 10
Miles
FRESNO CO.

MADERA CO.

Lennar Homes Tract 6452
Date Project # Figure #
09/28/2023 2817-01 1
Vicinity Map
)
)
pper Ave E Copper Ave
l

1. E International Ave E International
p
ew Dr tAnOC
E Behymer Ave E Behymer Ave
O,
0 wO E Perrin Rd rin Ave
Shepherd Ave E shepherd Ave Shepherd Ave Shepher E Shepherd Ave D 0 D
0 Z
E Teague Ave W Teague Ave E Teague Ave Harlan Rancho
168).

Z
W Nees Ave E Nees Ave Nans Ave E Nees Ave
2 6
Ne
D 5
W Alluvial Ave 8 Alluvial Ave Alluvial Ave E Alluvial Ave 6 A
rv
Tae
O
Clovis
Fresno
wop
W Sanger
I
g o
O

LIVE OAK
D* ASSOCIATES, INC.

Parlier
Reedley
Selma
Caruthers [
1 Rrgshus
—T
eey
ec
i
I
Clovis ।
Community
College
O
C
F
s
8 I
c
o
2 Z
S
Z
c
S
Z
5 8 I U.

O
Z
o
5 8
z
I
12 s
z
2 z
c.

C
3 (
z
X
8 U
qeshoe
o X
aD
a
63 S
z
6 z
«**
Q
2 o
1 S
2 v
<
g
e
A
t
C
P
1 5
z
3 9
m
z
4

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
µ
0 0.5 1
Miles
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
Road 206
Lennar Homes Tract 6452
Topographic Map
09/28/2023 2817-01 2
Date Project # Figure #
“U 7
.I
8 4
9 U O V..

I J L — m=u — AVE : (
7 217 / — ) 6 4 ) '7
Well o V )
Pr : A u J y
( —s - 2 BM 31
s
===V u Gos 9
% L "F /
.71 J
-
378 5.382 BM .SERYMER 7 <
387 . 385 A -<
139/
U E
§
I ====== I 385 wt ‘t 380
S
■'Well Q C
383 0)
L. 4se= — ----- 19 2) 21 r
AVE I
" A I o. Flume 22 ,1 if
I C Y
““=========" BM 374 9 c® C
I 381 I
382 wei =======-- •Well
379
wJ w / B c
3o w o
2 I ~ 0; I ■ 375 s =—4 es SHEPHCRO cem:l 39 ’ ’Well A
0 ■ _ N ’
“Siphor ===== ==‘
F===e 2
COLE AVEsa • "in CAN /
" Well' onC" .

W . it
oMi
U
$
30 . HELM: y BM 375 cOl —I • )
-8—= 364 'tAL == • 976 ,27 JL
TEAGUE
e.E/7" . ©
Y
LIVE OAK 3
(2T7 /,
"==r 0 • :

ASSOCIATES, INC.
$ elk • 375 == ======" — 5
niBeCreek I
.. - ' - * ‘g 3Z NEES 378
----- — T.
• • I
[ !
। aan
well
369
Well
366
Well
367
" Well
393
1 ■
1 I
I
9 ?I
2 6
i
I
U
tt
c
th
#
I
S
s
o
ce
S
s
id
3 %
o
■ . b0
~ X392 “
Q
s
2 2
li
PERRIN
119
S
i
il
n e
ll
II
O
.1
EO
1 ♦
(— ==
IMi
•8
IN
IN
A377
=
_ -
HI
N
8 93
7 ‘2.. (02
2 3.
t
.n
99 Well
==-
3 i /
Pumpr.
:3
• ■ . -
=========
20 ytAs(
CE
S
3 2 20
29 V/

4 • Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of projectrelated impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA and species-specific guidelines.

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site was conducted on September 25, 2023 by LOA ecologist Jeff Gurule. The survey consisted of walking and driving through the project site while identifying its principal land uses, biotic habitats, flora, and fauna, and assessing its potential to support special status species and other sensitive resources.

LOA conducted an analysis of potential project impacts based on the known and potential biotic resources of the project site. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2023), Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2023), and manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the project vicinity.
g’s

5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The project site is located near the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Valley, about four miles southwest of the lowest Sierra foothills. The San Joaquin Valley is a large, nearly flat alluvial plain bordered by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the California coast ranges to the west, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the north.

Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation in the project vicinity varies considerably from year to year, but averages approximately 11 inches, almost all of which falls between the months of October and March (Western Regional Climate Center 2018). Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain.

The principal drainage of the project vicinity is Dry Creek, which originates in the Sierra Nevada foothills and flows past the project site approximately 0.6 mile to the southeast at its closest point.

Like many other natural drainages in Fresno County, Dry Creek in the project vicinity is heavily modified, having been channelized, realigned, dammed, and diverted to prevent flooding and to convey flows around developed areas.

The project site is located in the outskirts of Clovis, at the interface of urban and rural land uses.

It is situated in a mosaic of agricultural lands, rural residences, and low- to medium-density residential subdivisions. An adjacent Lennar Homes housing development, Tract 6200, is located immediately south of the site and was actively under construction at the time of LOA’s field survey. A Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) basin facility is located immediately to the north. To the east and west lie vacant land similar to the project site. The nearest areas of relatively undisturbed natural lands are located approximately 0.6 mile east and 2 miles north of the project site; both are annual grasslands that do not appear to have previously been used for agricultural cultivation. Please refer to Figure 3 for an aerial map of the project site and surrounding lands.
g’s

Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community µ
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
Road 206
Lennar Homes Tract 6452
Aerial Map
09/28/2023 2817-01 3
Date Project # Figure #
Lennar Homes
Tract 6200
(Under Construction)
Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District
Basin Facility
S
Shepherd Ave. u
n
n
y
sid
e
Av
e.

Behymer Ave.

F
o
wler Av
e.

Clo
vis
Av
e.

Enter p rise Canal
CLOVIS
Approx. 0.6 mile
Contiguous Grassland
tP
I
L m ■ ■ ■ m
l

2. is h
ll
C rnrsts
J r t
| "] 2ET
i r C
-
ATUe
5 $
oh
k
I —
V%
re 528an iae 183 Tel ghie ?
cins pe e iontiC e W‘ S
P.F
_C 14. S
“si < %
R 1 1 M
AVETEES) %
-4d
i
Tk
FI FIC CPf- J
82s it I C
r
I
t
!
35 w 1. ' et P.7

ALIVE OAK
D* ASSOCIATES, INC.

WTT St
P) YhA
[tk AT",
. ie
___________
r
l
t44 ______________ 2
}
L1
‘ V
? FA [ i
naanic C C III
____
17 Th
* A Mme) 13 irce: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
elits..

IEITu
Ansts at •
as
meg.
t B
fgotHre;
ieg
L.. 2 F t. ‘
ws " A
“ Ail
**" Inmenemegenpmi c l “ ■ i ’ .. "hipa pas fe p. 1 .3
3e% / PE J Jwaat.eh
U
—tr.

PP
IT93
"pste II. I
- ’
FTT a-- e
___
‘8
rl

7 2.2 PROJECT SITE
The project site has relatively level topography and sits at an elevation of approximately 385 feet above sea level. At the time of LOA’s survey, it consisted of a vacant field traversed by several dirt roads. A portion of the eastern end of the site had elevated topography, possibly the result of excess soil storage, and a shallow excavated area was observed in the middle of the site. An approximately 2-acre area along the site’s southern boundary was enclosed by silt fencing associated with the adjoining Lennar Homes Tract 6200 project, which was under construction.

The project site does not appear to have previously been cultivated, other than possible dryfarming. Analysis of aerial imagery indicates that it is periodically disked and/or mowed, with some areas subject to grading, and that the configuration of dirt roads has changed over time.

The site contains two soil map units: Atwater sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes; and Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (NRCS 2023). Neither of these map units are considered hydric, meaning they do not have the propensity to pond water and support the growth of wetland vegetation.

Lists of the vascular plant species observed within the project site and the terrestrial vertebrates using, or potentially using, the site are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively.

Representative photographs are presented in Appendix C.

2.3 LAND USES / BIOTIC HABITATS
A single biotic habitat was identified within the project site: ruderal grassland. This habitat supported grasses and forbs typical of annual grasslands in the project vicinity, but was characterized by repeated disturbance including disking and mowing, road construction, and localized grading. Dominant plant species at the time of LOA’s survey were primarily non-native and included foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), wild oats (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), doveweed (Croton setiger), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). g’s

8 The degraded nature of this grassland, combined with its location within the outskirts of Clovis, limits its potential for faunal biodiversity. However, some wildlife species certainly utilize the grassland. Reptiles expected to occur in this habitat include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), and Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer). Common amphibians such as the western toad (Bufo boreas) and Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) may breed at the adjoining FMFCD basin facility and subsequently disperse through the site’s grassland habitat.

The site’s ruderal grassland is expected to support both nesting and foraging by various avian species. Likely nesters include the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), both of which nest in ground vegetation, and the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), which preferentially nests in disturbed areas and may use sparsely vegetated or barren portions of the grassland. Likely foragers include the western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) in the summer, the Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) in the winter, and the Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) year-round.

Small mammal use of the ruderal grassland is expected to include the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). At the time of LOA’s field survey, burrowing rodent activity was limited to a small area in the northwestern portion of the site that was recently used for bee boxes (Google Earth aerial imagery dated May 2023) and was relatively barren of vegetation. All burrows in this area were associated with the Botta’s pocket gopher and were plugged with soil. No open burrows were observed anywhere on the site.

Mammalian predators expected to use the site’s ruderal grassland include the coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Due to the proximity of residences, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) may also occur here from time to time.
g’s

9 2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Many species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.2, state and federal laws have provided CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” or “fully protected” by CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own ranking system, California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR), for native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2023). Plants with a CRPR ranking of 1 or 2 meet the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act and are eligible for state listing. Collectively, all of the aforementioned plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.” The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023) was queried for special status species occurrences in the twelve USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and immediately surrounding the project site (Clovis, Friant, Little Table Mtn., Millerton Lake West, Millerton Lake East, Academy, Round Mountain, Sanger, Malaga, Fresno South, Fresno North, and Lanes Bridge). These species, and their potential to occur on site, are listed in Table 1 on the following pages. Sources of information for Table 1 included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988), The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), CNPS’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2023), Calflora.org, and eBird.org.
g’s

10 TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2023, CNPS 2023)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat / Range Occurrence on the Project Site Succulent owl’s clover
(Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta)

FT, CE,
CRPR 1B
Occurs in freshwater wetlands, and
occasionally in non-wetlands in
Valley grassland and foothill
woodlands, between 130 and 2,000 ft.
in elevation. Blooms April-May.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)

FE, CE,
CRPR 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland in sandy soils.

Elevations between 200 and 3,300
feet. Blooms February-May.

Absent. All historical populations of this
species on the San Joaquin Valley floor
are thought to have been extirpated by
1986 (USFWS 1998). There is only one
known occurrence of the California
jewelflower, historical or otherwise,
within approximately 50 miles of the
project site. It is generally mapped to
Fresno, based on a collection from the late
1890s or early 1900s. That population has
long since been extirpated (CDFW 2023).

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
(Gratiola heterosepala)

CE, CRPR
1B
Found in vernal pools or lake margins,
usually in clay soils; elevations up to
7,800 feet. Blooms April-August.

Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat for this
species is absent from the project site.

San Joaquin Valley orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT, CE
CRPR 1B
Occurs in Central Valley vernal pools
between 130 and 820 ft. in elevation.

Requires deep pools with prolonged
periods of inundation. Blooms AprilSept.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

Hairy orcutt grass
(Orcuttia pilosa)
FE, CE
CRPR 1B
Occurs in Central Valley vernal pools
between 65 and 1,215 ft. in elevation.

Requires deep pools with prolonged
periods of inundation. Blooms MaySept.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

Hartweg’s golden sunburst
(Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
FE, CE
CRPR 1B
Occurs in grasslands of the western
foothills of the Sierra Nevada in
heavy clay soils of the Porterville,
Cibo, Mt. Olive and Centerville soil
series, between 230 and 525 ft. in
elevation. Blooms March-April.

Absent. Suitable soils for this species are
absent from the project site.

San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)

FT, CE,
CRPR 1B
Annual sunflower occurs in
grasslands of the Sierra Nevada
foothills in heavy clay soils of the
Porterville and Centerville series,
between 300 and 2,625 ft. in
elevation. Blooms March-April.

Absent. Suitable soils for this species are
absent from the project site.

Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE, CR
CRPR 1B
Occurs in vernal pools between 130
and 3,740 ft. in elevation. Requires
deep pools with prolonged periods of
inundation. Blooms May-Sept.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.
g’s

11 TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS-ranked Species
Species Status Habitat / Range Occurrence on the Project Site Hoover’s calycadenia
(Calycadenia hooveri)
CRPR 1B Occurs on exposed, rocky, barren soil
within valley grasslands and foothill
woodlands between 200 and 980 ft. in
elevation. Blooms June-September.

Absent. Suitable rocky soils for this
species are absent from the project site.

There is only one documented occurrence
of this species on the valley floor, recorded
in Stanislaus County in 1976. All other
known populations are on and around rock
formations in the lower foothills (CDFW
2023).

Bristly sedge
(Carex comosa)
CRPR 2B Found at the margins of lakes and
other marsh habitats within valley and
foothill grassland and coastal prairie
ecosystems. Elevations up to 2,000 ft.

Blooms May-September.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the project site.

Tree-anemone
(Carpenteria californica)
CRPR 1B Found within on well-drained granitic
soils within woodland and chaparral
habitats, usually in north-facing
ravines and drainages. Elevations
1,100-4,400 feet; blooms April-July.

Absent. Habitat for tree-anemone is
absent from the project site, and the site is
situated below this species’ elevational
distribution.

Dwarf downingia
(Downingia pusilla)
CRPR 2B Occurs in vernal pools in valley and
foothill grassland habitats up to 1,460
ft. in elevation. Blooms March-May.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

Spiny-sepaled button-celery
(Eryginum spinosepalum)
CRPR 1B Occurs in vernal pools in valley and
foothill grasslands of the San Joaquin
Valley and the Tulare Basin, between
330 and 840 ft. in elevation. Blooms
April-May.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CRPR 2B Found in wetland seeps and riparian
areas within various types of scrub,
chaparral, and desert communities up
to 4,000 feet in elevation. Blooms
September-May.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the project site.

Forked hare-leaf
(Lagophylla dichotoma)
CRPR 1B Occurs in woodland and valley and
foothill grassland habitats, sometimes
in clay soils, at elevations from 600 to
1,100 feet. Blooms April-May.

Absent. The site is below the typical
elevational range of the forked hare-leaf,
and its degraded grassland habitat would
be marginal, at best, for this species. There
are only seven CNDDB occurrences of the
forked hare-leaf; only one of these, from
1915, is mapped on the valley floor, and
there is considerable location uncertainty
associated with it. All other known
occurrences are in the lower foothills.

Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon serrulatus)
CRPR 1B Found on dry slopes, often on
decomposed granite, within
cismontane woodlands and lower
montane coniferous forests. May
occur in disturbed locations such as
roadcuts (CDFW 2023, iNaturalist
2023). Elevations between 100 and
4,200 ft.; blooms April – May.

Absent. Habitat for Madera leptosiphon is
absent from the project site, and the site is
situated below this species’ elevational
distribution.
g’s

12 PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS-ranked Species
Species Status Habitat / Range Occurrence on the Project Site Orange Lupine
(Lupinus citrinus var.
citrinus)
CRPR 1B Found in association with rocky,
decomposed granitic outcrops in
chaparral, woodland, and lower
montane coniferous forest 2,000-
5,500 ft. in elevation. Blooms AprilAugust.

Absent. Habitat for orange lupine is
absent from the project site, and the site is
situated below this species’ elevational
distribution.

Pincushion navarretia
(Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii)
CRPR 1B Found in vernal pools within annual
grassland habitats at elevations up to
1,000 ft. Blooms April-May.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CRPR 1B Occurs in shallow freshwater
marshes, ponds, sloughs, and ditches
of the Central Valley and Sierra
Nevada foothills up to 2,100 ft. in
elevation. Blooms May-October.

Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat for this
species is absent from the project site.

ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Crotch bumblebee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE Once common in the Central Valley, this
species is now absent from most of it,
particularly in the central portion of its
historic range. Where present, it is
associated with open grassland and
scrub habitats, where it relies on food
plants of the Asclepias, Chaenactis,
Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and
Salvia genera (Williams et al. 2014).

Unlikely. This species is unlikely to occur
in the matrix of residential and agricultural
lands that characterizes the project
vicinity. In fact, it is generally thought to
be absent from the valley floor.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle (VELB)
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of
California’s Central Valley and Sierra
foothills, generally along waterways and
in floodplains.

Absent. The USFWS has revised its
understanding of VELB distribution to
exclude the San Joaquin Valley south of
Merced County. Moreover, elderberry
shrubs are absent from the project site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Occurs in vernal pools, clear to teacolored water in grass or mud-bottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Found in vernal pools and other seasonal
wetlands in the Central Valley, Bay
Delta, and eastern San Francisco Bay
Area.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat for
this species is absent from the project site.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
g’s

13 ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat / Range Occurrence on the Project Site California tiger salamander
(CTS)
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, CT Found primarily in annual grasslands;
requires vernal pools for breeding and
rodent burrows for aestivation. Although
most CTS aestivate within 0.4 mile of
their breeding pond, outliers may
aestivate up to 1.3 miles away (Orloff
2011).

Unlikely. CTS were historically common
in the project vicinity; the CNDDB lists 14
occurrences within 5 miles of the project
site. All extant occurrences in the project
vicinity are associated with contiguous
grassland habitats. The closest such
grassland is about 0.6 mile east of the
project site at its nearest point. The closest
extant CTS occurrences are in this same
grassland area, at about 0.9 and 1.3 miles
east of site boundaries. While CTS
associated with this block of natural land
may be physiologically capable of
accessing the project site, it is extremely
unlikely that individuals of this species
would forgo suitable habitat in favor of the
anthropogenic landscape that
characterizes the project vicinity.

Moreover, the site does not contain any
habitat features that could support CTS
life stages. Aquatic habitat is absent, and
at the time of LOA’s survey, the site
contained no open burrows within which
CTS could aestivate.

Western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
FPT,
CSC
Occurs in ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks,
marshes, and irrigation ditches with
abundant vegetation, and either rocky or
muddy bottoms. Logs, rocks, cattail
mats, and exposed banks are required for
basking. Eggs are deposited in a variety
of soil types on shore.

Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat for the
western pond turtle is absent from the
project site and adjacent lands. The
detention basins of the adjoining FMFCD
facility do not appear to have an adequate
inundation regime for this species.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT This breeding migrant to California
nests in mature trees in riparian areas
and oak savannah, and occasionally in
lone trees at the margins of agricultural
fields. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands or
alfalfa fields supporting rodent
populations.

Possible. Swainson’s hawks are
occasionally sighted in the project vicinity
(eBird 2023), and there is some chance for
individuals of this species to forage on site
from time to time. Nesting habitat is
absent from the site itself, but may be
found on nearby rural residential
properties and along the Enterprise Canal.

Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
CFP Found a wide range of habitats
throughout California’s mountains,
foothills, sage-juniper flats, and deserts.

Primarily nests on cliffs, but may also
use large trees in open areas.

Possible. Golden eagles may occasionally
pass over or forage on site, but nesting
habitat is absent from the site and
surrounding lands.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE Frequents valley foothill and desert
riparian habitats in scattered locations in
California.

Absent. This species has been extirpated
from the project vicinity.

Least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE, CE This breeding migrant nests in dense,
early-successional riparian vegetation,
and forages in adjacent chaparral and
coastal sage scrub. Winters in Mexico
and Central America.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the project vicinity.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
g’s

14 ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat / Range Occurrence on the Project Site Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, in thickets of
willows or shrubs, and increasingly in
grain fields. Forages in grassland and
cropland areas.

Possible. Tricolored blackbirds may
occasionally forage on the project site,
but nesting habitat is absent from the site
and surrounding lands.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis)
FE, CE Historically occupied chenopod scrub
and grassland communities on the San
Joaquin Valley floor east of the wetlands
of the San Joaquin River and Fresno
Slough. Associated with bare alkaline
clay-based soils in level terrain.

Absent. The project site does not
contain suitable habitat for the Fresno
kangaroo rat, and no known populations
of this species remain in Fresno County.

San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF)
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, CT Frequents desert alkali scrub and annual
grasslands and may forage in adjacent
agricultural habitats. Utilizes enlarged
ground squirrel burrows as denning
habitat.

Unlikely. The highly disturbed habitats
of the project site and surrounding lands
are marginal, at best, for this species.

Moreover, there are no natural
occurrences of the SJKF in the project
vicinity. There is only one record of this
species within a 10-mile radius of the
project area, recorded in Friant in the
early 1990s. That sighting has since
been characterized by the observer as a
kit fox that had been domesticated and
transported from another part of the
state (D. Mitchell, pers. comm.).

California Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Hardhead
(Mylopharadon
conocephalus)
CSC Occurs in clear deep streams with a slow
but present flow, in a low to midelevation environment. May also inhabit lakes or reservoirs. Spawns in pools,
runs, or rifles with a gravel and rocky
substrate.

Absent. Aquatic habitat is absent from
the project site.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
CSC Occurs in grasslands of San Joaquin
Valley, where it breeds in vernal pools
or other seasonal wetlands and aestivates
in underground refugia such as rodent
burrows. Baumberger et al. (2019)
recorded a maximum distance of around
890 feet between breeding and
aestivation sites.

Unlikely. The project site does not
contain suitable habitat for the western
spadefoot. Aquatic habitat is absent, and
at the time of LOA’s survey, the site
contained no open burrows within
which this species could aestivate.

Moreover, although the western
spadefoot has been documented in
grassland habitats approximately 2.5
miles north of the project site, and may
also occur in the contiguous grassland

0.6 mile east of the site, it is unlikely to
have persisted in the anthropogenic
landscape that characterizes the
immediate project vicinity. The site is
well outside of the distance from
suitable habitat that this species is
capable of dispersing.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
g’s

15 ANIMALS (cont’d)
California Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Northern California legless
lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of
beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes,
and stream terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks. Requires moist
soils.

Absent. The project site does not
contain suitable habitat for the northern
California legless lizard. The only
CNDDB record for this species in the
Fresno/Clovis area is from the 1880s.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii)
CSC Ranges from the central and southern
California coast inland through the
western Sierra Nevada, where it is found
in grassland and open areas within
woodland and forest habitats. Often
found in sandy areas including washes
and floodplains.

Absent. The only CNDDB record for
the coast horned lizard in the
Fresno/Clovis area is from 1893. Any
habitat for this species that may have
once been present in the project vicinity
would have been lost with the area’s
conversion to anthropogenic uses.

California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
CSC Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral, where it
forages nocturnally, hiding in
underground burrows during the day.

Prefers loose, sandy soils.

Absent. The project site is outside of the
current distribution of this species
(California Herps 2023).

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSC Frequents open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low growing
vegetation. Dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably the California
ground squirrel, for nest burrows.

Unlikely. The project site is situated in
the outskirts of Clovis, in a landscape
dominated by residential development,
orchards, and other uses incompatible
with burrowing owl ecology. The
closest known occurrences of this
species are approximately 3 miles to the
east in contiguous grassland habitat
associated with Dry Creek and the Big
Dry Creek Reservoir (eBird 2023).

Landscape factors are likely to preclude
burrowing owls from occurring in the
project vicinity and, by extension, the
site itself. Moreover, at the time of
LOA’s survey, the site contained no
California ground squirrel burrows or
any other open burrow within which
burrowing owls could nest or roost,
further limiting their potential for
occurrence.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSC Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on groundand vegetation-dwelling arthropods, and occasionally takes insects in flight.

Prefers to roost in rock crevices, but
many also use tree cavities, caves,
bridges, and buildings.

Possible. The pallid bat could forage on
or over the site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
g’s

16 ANIMALS (cont’d)
California Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Spotted bat
(Euderma maculatum)
CSC Typically associated with prominent
rocky habitats where it roosts in
crevices, but is known to occur in a wide
range of habitats. Forages in large open
habitats, including Ponderosa pine
forests and marshlands.

Possible. The spotted bat could forage
over the site, but roosting habitat is
absent.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis ssp.
californicus)
CSC Frequents open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer, and
deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, palm oasis, chaparral and
urban. Roosts in cliff faces, high
buildings, and tunnels.

Possible. The western mastiff bat could
forage over the site, but roosting habitat
is absent.

American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC Found in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats
with friable soils. Utilize subterranean
burrows, usually self-dug, for rest and
reproduction.

Unlikely. The site’s disturbed nature
and urban setting make it highly
unlikely to be occupied or utilized by
American badgers.

OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FC Federal Candidate CCE California Candidate Endangered FPT Federal Proposed Threatened CFP California Fully Protected CSC California Species of Special Concern
CR California Rare

CRPR CODES
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere California and elsewhere

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Jurisdictional waters are those rivers, creeks, drainages, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands that are subject to the authority of the USACE, CDFW, and/or the RWQCB. In general, the USACE regulates navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to these waters, where wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. All waters under USACE jurisdiction are also regulated by the RWQCB as waters of the State. Additionally, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over certain isolated TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE

PROJECT VICINITY
g’s

17 features disclaimed by the USACE. The CDFW has jurisdiction over waters that have a defined bed and bank. The regulation of jurisdictional waters is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.8.

Aquatic features, including any potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands, are absent from the project site.

2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
California contains a wide range of natural communities, or unique assemblages of plants and animals. These communities have largely been classified and mapped by CDFW as part of their Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Natural communities are assigned state and global ranks according to their rarity and the magnitude and trend of the threats they face.

Any natural community with a state rank of 3 or lower (on a 1 to 5 scale) is considered “sensitive” and must be considered in CEQA review.

The project site does not contain or adjoin any sensitive natural communities.

2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and interpopulation movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.

The project site does not contain or adjoin any features likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.

2.8 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.
g’s

18 Designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and immediate vicinity. The nearest unit of critical habitat is located approximately 3.0 miles northeast of the project site at its closest point, and is designated for the protection of the succulent owl’s-clover (Castilleja campestris var. succulenta). Critical habitat for the San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis) and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is located in the same general area, approximately

3.1 miles north-northeast of the project site.
g’s

19 3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
In California, any project carried out or approved by a public agency that will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must comply with CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s potential impacts on the environment are evaluated and methods for avoiding or reducing these impacts are considered before the project is allowed to move forward. A secondary aim of CEQA is to provide justification to the public for the approval of any projects involving significant impacts on the environment.

According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
• 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 CDFW or USFWS.
• 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 CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• 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.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. g’s

20 Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires the lead agency to make “mandatory findings of significance” if there is substantial evidence that a project may:
• Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. • Achieve short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.
• Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES

3.2.1 Fresno County and Clovis General Plans
California state law requires cities and counties to adopt general plans to guide future development while conserving natural resources and working landscapes. In general, projects must be consistent with the goals and policies of these general plans. Because the proposed residential development will be annexed into the City of Clovis, it is assumed that it is subject to both the County of Fresno and City of Clovis general plans. The City of Clovis’s general plan was adopted in 2014, and has a planning horizon extending through 2035. The County of Fresno’s general plan was adopted in 2000, and has a planning horizon of 15 to 25 years.

The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Clovis General Plan includes goals concerning preservation of natural resources and protection of water quality. These goals are supported by numerous policies and implementation programs. Policies relevant to the project include: 1) encourage new development to incorporate on-site natural resources and low impact development techniques, 2) support the protection of biological resources through the conservation of high quality habitat, 3) encourage the use of native plant species and prohibit the use of invasive species, and 4) minimize the use of non-point source pollutants and storm water runoff.

The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Fresno County General Plan includes a number of goals, policies, and implementation programs concerning biological resources. Policies of g’s

21 particular relevance to the project are summarized as follows: 1) the County shall support the “nonet-loss” wetlands policies of the USACE, USFWS, and CDFW, and shall require new development to fully mitigate the loss of regulated wetlands, 2) the County shall require new development to be designed in such a manner that pollutants and siltation do not significantly degrade the area, value, or function of wetlands, 3) the County shall require new developments to preserve and enhance native riparian habitat unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat, and shall require riparian protection zones around natural watercourses, 4) the County shall identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critically important to wildlife species associated with those wetland and riparian areas, 5) where practicable, the County shall support efforts to avoid the “net” loss of important wildlife habitat, and should preserve in a natural state those areas defined as habitats for rare and endangered animal and plant species, 6) if loss of important habitat for special status species or other valuable wildlife resources cannot be avoided, the County shall impose adequate mitigation, 7) the County shall require adequate buffer zones between construction activities and significant wildlife resources, 8) the County shall support the preservation of significant areas of natural vegetation, e.g. oak woodlands, riparian areas, and vernal pools, and 9) the County shall require that new developments preserve natural woodlands to the maximum extent possible.

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
In California, imperiled plants and animals may be afforded special legal protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Species may be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under one or both Acts, and/or as “rare” under CESA. Under both Acts, “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under CESA, “rare” means a species may become endangered if their present environment worsens. Both Acts prohibit “take” of listed species, defined under CESA as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86), and more broadly defined under FESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). The USFWS commonly interprets “take” to include the loss of habitat utilized by a listed species. g’s

22 When state and federally listed species have the potential to be impacted by a project, the USFWS and CDFW must be included in the CEQA process. These agencies review the environmental document to determine the adequacy of its treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for the protection of listed species. Projects that may result in the “take” of listed species must generally enter into consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW pursuant to FESA and CESA, respectively. In some cases, incidental take authorization(s) from these agencies may be required before the project can be implemented.

3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
The classification of certain animal species as “fully protected” was the State of California’s initial effort in the 1960s, prior to the passage of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), to identify and provide additional protection to those species that were rare or faced possible extinction. Following CESA enactment in 1970, many fully protected species were also listed as California threatened or endangered. The list of fully protected species are identified, and their protections stipulated, in California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and fish (5515). Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take, except in conjunction with necessary scientific research and protection of livestock.

3.2.4 Migratory Birds
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Native birds are also protected under California state law. The California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities. g’s

23 3.2.5 Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.

3.2.6 Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

3.2.7 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act establishes a process by which non-federal projects can obtain authorization to incidentally take listed species, provided take is minimized and thoroughly mitigated. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with the USFWS and/or NMFS, ensures that such minimization and mitigation will occur, and is a prerequisite to the issuance of a federal incidental take permit. Similarly, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with CDFW, provides for the conservation of biodiversity within a project area, and permits limited incidental take of state-listed species.

3.2.8 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §1344), defined in the CWA as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). The CWA does not supply a g’s

24 definition for waters of the U.S., and that has been the subject of considerable debate since the CWA’s passage in 1972. A variety of regulatory definitions have been promulgated by the two federal agencies responsible for implementing the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. These definitions have been interpreted, and in some cases, invalidated, by federal courts.

Waters of the U.S. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’s joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), issued in January 2023 and amended in August 2023. Generally speaking, waters of the U.S. include:
• Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
• The territorial seas
• Interstate waters
• Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition
• Tributaries to other waters of the U.S. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water
• Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters
The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the U.S., many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include:
• Waste treatment systems
• Prior converted cropland
• Ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
• Certain artificial features, e.g. irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas
• Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
g’s

25 All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the U.S. require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into waters of the State that are not also waters of the U.S. require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB.

The SWRCB and RWQCBs also administer the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is concerned with the discharge of stormwater and other pollutants into water bodies. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the SWRCB’s current NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. A prerequisite for permit coverage is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Other types of pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S., such as wastewater, may require coverage under a different NPDES general permit, and in some cases an individual permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.
g’s

26 4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussions address the potential impacts to biological resources associated with future residential buildout of Tract 6452. In the absence of a detailed site plan, it is assumed that the full 18 acres will be developed.

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION

4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors including the Swainson’s Hawk Potential Impacts. The project site has the potential to be used for nesting by several avian species that nest in ground vegetation or barren areas. Trees and shrubs are absent from the site itself but occur on nearby lands; these could support nesting by a wide variety of birds and raptors, possibly including the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a California Threatened species. If birds or raptors are nesting on or near the site at the time of future residential buildout, individual birds could be killed or disturbed such that they would abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and construction-related disturbance leading to nest abandonment are potentially significant impacts of the project. Moreover, such incidents would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Code, and, in the case of the Swainson’s hawk, the California Endangered Species Act.

Swainson’s hawks are not expected to be adversely affected by project-related loss of habitat.

Residential buildout will eliminate approximately 18 acres of ruderal grassland that could potentially be used by foraging Swainson’s hawks. However, the site is located in the outskirts of Clovis, where Swainson’s hawks are uncommon, and use of this grassland would be infrequent, at best. Following project development, considerable alternative foraging habitat for this species will remain available in the larger project vicinity, including contiguous blocks of grassland habitat located approximately 0.6 mile to the east and 2 miles to the north of the site.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented for the protection of nesting birds and raptors including the state-threatened Swainson’s hawk.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1a (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, typically defined as February 1 to August 31.
g’s

27 Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for nesting Swainson’s hawks, 500 feet for other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.1c (Avoidance of Active Nests). 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 and are capable of foraging independently.

Implementation of the above measures will reduce potential project impacts to nesting birds and raptors, including the state-threatened Swainson’s hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS

4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants Potential Impacts. Nineteen special status plant species have been documented in the general vicinity of the project site (see Table 1). 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, the site’s being situated outside of the species’ distribution, or a combination thereof (see Table 1). The project is not expected to adversely affect these species, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are considered less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation. No mitigation is warranted.

4.2.2 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site
Potential Impacts. Twenty-three special status animal species have been documented in the general vicinity of the project site, or are known to occur regionally (Table 1). Of these, 17 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the site due to the absence of suitable habitat, the site’s urban setting and other landscape factors, and/or the site’s being situated outside of the species’ known distribution. These comprise the Crotch bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), vernal pool fairy shrimp g’s

28 (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), hardhead (Mylopharadon conocephalus), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Because these species have no appreciable potential to occur on site, they are not expected to be affected by the project, directly or indirectly. Project impacts are considered less than significant under CEQA.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for Foraging Only
Potential Impacts. Five special status animal species, the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis ssp. californicus), have the potential to forage on the site from time to time but would not nest or roost on or near enough to the site that they could be vulnerable to construction-related injury, mortality, or reproductive failure (see Table 1). Individuals of these species are unlikely to be injured or killed by construction activities because they are highly mobile while foraging and would be expected to simply avoid active work areas.

The project would not adversely affect any of these species through loss of foraging habitat. The site does not offer unique habitat for any of these species, nor is it likely to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, given its disturbed nature and urban setting. Similar and higher quality habitats, including contiguous blocks of grassland habitat located approximately 0.6 mile to the east and 2 miles to the north of the site, are regionally abundant. For these reasons, impacts to the golden eagle, tricolored blackbird, pallid bat, spotted bat, and western mastiff bat are considered less than significant under CEQA.
g’s

29 Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors
Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin features likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. No impacts to such corridors are anticipated.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.5 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin any sensitive natural communities or designated critical habitat. There will be no impact to such resources.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.6 Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain any aquatic features. No impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated.

Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances
Potential Impacts. The project appears consistent with Clovis and Fresno County General Plan policies related to biological resources.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
Potential Impacts. There are no known HCPs or NCCPs in effect for the project vicinity.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
g’s

30 5.0 LITERATURE REFERENCED
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. G. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Baumberger, K. L., M. V. Eitzel, M. E. Kirby, and M. H. Horn. 2019. Movement and habitat selection of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) in southern California. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222532. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222532 Calflora. 2023. Calflora: An online database of plant identification and distribution [web application]. Calflora, Berkeley, California. Available online at: http://www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database.

The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.

California Herps. 2023. Available online at: https://californiaherps.com/ California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Available online at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. eBird. 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey.

Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

NRCS. 2011. National Hydric Soils List by State, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.

Department of the Army.

Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshal White. Ed. 1988.

California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles, volume II, birds, and volume III, mammals. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. (Online:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx). g’s

31 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT LIST
g’s

32 APPENDIX A

VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE
The plants species listed below were observed on the project site during LOA’s September 25, 2023 surveys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland indicator status of each plant, if available, has been shown following its common name.

OBL - Obligate
FACW - Facultative Wetland
FAC - Facultative
FACU - Facultative Upland
UPL - Upland
AMARANTHACEAE – Amaranth Family
Amaranthus albus Pigweed Amaranth FACU
Amaranthus blitoides Prostrate Pigweed FACU
ASTERACEAE – Sunflower Family
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Starthistle UPL
Centromadia pungens Common Tarweed FAC
Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved Horseweed FACU
Helianthus annuus Common Sunflower FACU
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed UPL
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce FACU
BORAGINACEAE- Borage Family
Amsinckia sp. Fiddleneck UPL
BRASSICACEAE – Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana Mustard UPL
CHENOPODIACEAE – Goosefoot Family
Chenopodium album Lambs Quarters FACU
CONVOLVULACEAE – Morning Glory Family
Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed UPL
EUPHORBIACEAE – Spurge Family
Croton setiger Turkey Mullein UPL
FABACEAE – Legume Family
Acmispon americanus Spanish Clover UPL
Trifolium hirtum Rose Clover UPL
GERANIACEAE – Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium Redstem Filaree UPL
LAMIACEAE – Mint Family
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegarweed FACU
ONAGRACEAE – Evening-Primrose Family
Epilobium brachycarpum Willow Herb FAC
POACEAE – Grass Family
Avena sp. Wild Oats UPL
Bromus diandrus Ripgut Brome UPL
g’s

33 Bromus hordeaceus Soft Chess FACU
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass FAC
Festuca myuros Rattail Sixweeks Grass UPL
Hordeum murinum Foxtail Barley FACU
POLYGONACEAE – Smartweed Family
Polygonum aviculare Prostrate Knotweed FAC
Rumex crispus Curly Dock FAC
SOLANACEAE – Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii Jimson Weed UPL
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE – Puncture Vine Family
Tribulus terrestris Puncture Vine UPL
g’s

34 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY

OCCUR ON THE PROJECT SITE
g’s

35 APPENDIX B

TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR

ON THE PROJECT SITE
The species listed below are those that may be expected to routinely and predictably use or pass through the project site during some or all of the year. An asterisk denotes a species observed on or immediately adjacent to the site during surveys conducted for the current project by LOA on September 25, 2023.

CLASS: AMPHIBIA
ORDER: ANURA (Frogs and Toads)
FAMILY: BUFONIDAE (True Toads)
Western Toad (Bufo boreas)
FAMILY: HYLIDAE (Treefrogs and Relatives)
Pacific Tree Frog (Pseudacris regilla)
FAMILY: RANIDAE (True Frogs)
American Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
CLASS: REPTILIA
ORDER: SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes)
SUBORDER: SAURIA (Lizards)
FAMILY: PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana)
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
FAMILY: TEIIDAE (Whiptails and relatives)
Western Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris)
SUBORDER: SERPENTES (Snakes)
FAMILY: COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids)
Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer)
Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae)
FAMILY: VIPERIDAE (Vipers)
Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
CLASS: AVES
ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises and Relatives) FAMILY: ARDEIDAE (Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
Great Egret (Ardea alba)
FAMILY: CATHARTIDAE (New World Vultures)
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
ORDER: FALCONIFORMES (Vultures, Hawks, and Falcons)
FAMILY: ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) *Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
FAMILY: FALCONIDAE (Caracaras and Falcons)
*American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
ORDER: GALLIFORMES (Megapodes, Currassows, Pheasants, and Relatives) FAMILY: ODONTOPHORIDAE (New World Quails)
California Quail (Callipepla californica)
g’s

36 ORDER: CHARADRIIFORMES (Shorebirds, Gulls, and relatives) FAMILY: CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and relatives)
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
ORDER: COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves)
FAMILY: COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves)
Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
ORDER: STRIGIFORMES (Owls)
FAMILY: TYTONIDAE (Barn Owls)
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
ORDER: APODIFORMES (Swifts and Hummingbirds)
FAMILY: TROCHILIDAE (Hummingbirds)
Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)
Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)
FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya)
Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
FAMILY: ALAUDIDAE (Larks)
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) FAMILY: AEGITHALIDAE (Bushtits)
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
FAMILY: TURDIDAE (Thrushes)
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)
Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
FAMILY: STURNIDAE (Starlings and Allies)
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
FAMILY: MOTACILLIDAE (Wagtails and Pipits)
American Pipit (Anthus rubrescens)
FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Sparrows)
*Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla)
FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies)
*Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
g’s

37 Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus)
Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)
FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)
House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria)
FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Old World Sparrows)
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: DIDELPHIMORPHIA (Marsupials)
FAMILY: DIDELPHIDAE (Opossums)
Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
ORDER: INSECTIVORA (Shrews and Moles)
FAMILY: TALPIDAE (Moles)
Broad-footed Mole (Scapanus latimanus)
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (Vespertilionid Bats)
Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
California Myotis (Myotis californicus)
Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)
Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
Pale Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bat)
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)
ORDER: LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas)
FAMILY: LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares)
Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
Black-tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus)
ORDER: RODENTIA (Rodents)
FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots)
California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi)
FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers)
*Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
FAMILY: MURIDAE (Mice, Rats and Voles)
Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis)
Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)
Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
House Mouse (Mus musculus)
California Vole (Microtus californicus)
FAMILY: HETEROMYIDAE (Kangaroo Rats)
Heermann’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni)
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores)
FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives)
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
g’s

38 Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)
FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
FAMILY: MUSTELIDAE (Weasels and Relatives)
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
FAMILY: FELIDAE (Cats)
Feral Cat (Felis catus)
g’s

39 APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE g’s

40 Photos 1 (above) and 2 (below). The project site’s ruderal grassland habitat. Both photos were taken in the southern portion of the site; Photo 2 faces south toward the adjoining Lennar Homes Tract 6200 project, which was under construction at the time of LOA’s survey. g’s
JAL
a t W m
AP So
s a
-r.
3 sis e.
de w ' e ec, ■—
s
re 0
WA sy $0 % e. s Hfiy
a
vary
2 2
3 R. Pgi 245017 Ae ’
1 f 4
v.l Br; -4 .
cmi G s4
2 , it gecas 1 K I? I» Ein
ot snf -Par. • fe P 4 Coe
■
■ , s -s
s 4 2 tui
2 S i S% ste. f
fout
-
1S i’sh r.$
4 sent.
wsre. ne
sheteaee s ■ w"hle
rs.w3
,7
s s
1870
name
pcl ■
s
200255054500,
•iii; ni EENR
29a
das.
eets adnd’ei
e
ii
“-r. --
mgs '
... 2
2*r.
org.

Serd 1
as
e.ti
1 l
f,
4, $
2"Ph
r
w

1.59. w , s
Ja
L
Se EO,
" ■
.. _ ■ J“ . Mahe 69 ;
M
"PUe
sh 4 zat
).
2223.8 icrd
e
0 ,0eE..
g.
2"is
fre sy
27 ,71
r
, p
2‘A

26.%■ - s
A. Paotgit
fi 3 " ■
4 8

41 Photos 3 (above) and 4 (below). Recently-disturbed portions of the site’s ruderal grassland. g’s
.B.B *meede"e&
■ ie
s-vr F4
Stea a —
scl
. ‘ .. " .7, 0 " a P3 i
> a n
*re 2 "
* it. --WDs Ss .. Th
me3 souev t
f“tet •I
-=== ■■ >"— —
cit" 2ar— =%. -d he
Se —= *Cr
' "scar
o <
5A Yeo cheA
}
.t of s
- r
etethlke > ■ >
-*
pegr
vat oomo 3 he -
. at. fh -■
indi wsav
-----
c
Ape, ehee
Ja hes.
wer
2-4e .. - -= e’l
e w
g ... ' ■.
cr . • w” f
-
29 r
t
X s.
■ I
".e4 '
F=—
—-P
22 —c
Jaens"a
-1 - ■
" .1
-y L
4 ' r
. s
e
“e
-8" - “
sh •
■ .A
’$ 4
Y.,
wap “Yrgrblss
===== *
rm.
77 Tha
a —=dgp
. . ■ - -E
- a
trew
ohkgsnect
-A
A b
ittn eitel vt
gC
lgw
--f.
-
treoly . =e .. .
i —EE
eo
11 iul
[ . sidle sterseg eeale
—-t
—
weges.
e ■
Fd
9).4
t ..
wto
\ "E 4
Fsomhs=-==-- 4
us -
2ese
-th" Are-. . “aeome
' N
Pentos wey." ,
mole
cr re - '
' =
— w
F ..
tP y ■ sodsg
2 sir I las l—
Y ... ye-e • 225 — —95
S tha poen
thant, 5 h
a 304 , fser
4

42 Photo 5 (above). One of the project site’s dirt roads. Photo 6 (below). Silt fencing in the southern portion of the project site. The fencing was presumably associated with construction of the adjoining Lennar Homes Tract 6200 project, pictured in the background. 7u
G
7: 1
,7
-
3 h th
11 —(
|
I
+ .
4!
A
s;
'i '
I
J <
y a7$
I
V 1 1
s.
. ■
Ui
W !
pi
i 40
I —
V t Se
44, .
ti
•I
)
‘5653
G IV AA44
i
d S r' 1 I 1
%
T, ■ s"s $ .

I
A 1
6 .
“ 4
4 A_il
” s
<w
4 y
; —v
4g
T (
“fr
—
s
ayy
4 ly 4
I
t
f
i
"/as s
1)dA
" oyagr nget’
74 ' .1 ’. • ■
f
4%
4 "‘c
) h)
, d
ire
t ...
4 BH
1T.

A
1).
< ■"
' s ’
Pe 2

15. Lke Y 1
P“Ast
fows" f Th*
All\ 3
“= i
g
p ■
.
s. f3
f '• “A I' f ’
Jg V
a
; 1:
an
d
s
A
ten
sst
“hie
■
' Ne
, -j
J
geatt’
* lryMsiiC* ths
NN CTs
‘22.3 eoe
' AT

1. )
J *,.
-
I
a- o
w.5
< —:ot
- f
i +
D
r -
3

USGS Friant, CA and Clovis, CA 7.5′ quadrangles, T12S, R21E, Sec. 20

18.2 acres surveyed
Resources: None
Cultural Resource Study for the
Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development,
City of Clovis, Fresno County, California
Nicole Saenz
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
Prepared For
Lennar Central Valley
8080 N. Palm Ave., Suite 110
Fresno, CA 93711
November 2023
Appendix C

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) conducted a cultural resource inventory for Lennar Central Valley’s proposed 18.2-acre Tract 6452 Residential Development Project (Project) in the city of Clovis within Fresno County, California. The Project is north of Perrin Road, between Clovis Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue.

The proposed development will require a permit issued by the City of Clovis. Therefore, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates that public agencies determine whether a proposed project will cause a significant change to the environment, including cultural resources. To assist Lennar Central Valley in fulfilling their responsibility under CEQA, Ӕ conducted a cultural resource study to identify whether there are potential historical resources (i.e., cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register [CRHR]) within the Project area.

To meet the requirements under CEQA, Æ conducted: (1) a records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); (2) desktop research to better understand the history of land use in the Project area; (3) a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, and nongovernmental outreach to local tribes and individuals; and (4) an intensive pedestrian survey of the 18.2-acre Project area to identify archaeological and/or historical built environment cultural resources.

The SSJVIC records search identified no cultural resources within the Project area and only one cultural resource—the Enterprise Canal (P-10-005934/CA-FRE-3564H)—which runs southwest of the Project area. There have been four previous cultural resource investigations that overlap the Project area and one within the 0.25-mile search radius. A search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File did not identify Native American cultural resources within or near the Project area, and no specific information was gleaned from outreach with local tribal representatives.

Ӕ’s intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area, conducted on August 23, 2023, covered the entirety of the 18.2-acre Project area. No cultural resources were identified in the Project area.

Ӕ’s inventory efforts found no historical resources within the Project area. However, if cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work should halt until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find. Additionally, if human remains are uncovered during construction, the Project operator shall immediately halt work within 50 feet of the find, contact the Fresno County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(e)(1). If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, then the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resource Code 5097.98 require that the county coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery.

The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendant, who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend treatment of the human remains following protocols in California Public Resources Code 5097.98.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development iii Field notes and photographs for this Project are on file at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. A copy of this report will be transmitted to the SSJVIC at California State University, Bakersfield, for inclusion in the CHRIS.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development iv

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................1

1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT...................................................................................1

1.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL.........................................................................................5

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION...................................................................................5 2 NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING......................................................................6

2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................6

2.2 PREHISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY................................................................6

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY....................................................................................................8

2.4 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...........................................................................................9

2.4.1 Early Settlement in the Clovis Area (1853–1874).......................................9

2.4.2 Initial Development of Agriculture in the Fresno-Clovis Area (1875–1900)...............................................................................................10

2.4.3 Diversification and Water Issues (1900–1950)..........................................12

2.4.4 Modern Water Management (1950–Present).............................................13 3 METHODS.......................................................................................................................14

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................14

3.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................................................................14

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................14

3.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY......................................................................................15 4 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................16

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................16

4.1.1 Previous Studies.........................................................................................16

4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources.................................................................16

4.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................................................................17

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................17

4.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY......................................................................................19 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................21

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................21

5.1.1 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources.................................21

5.1.2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains................................................22 6 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................23

APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development v

FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Fresno County, California..........................................................2 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Clovis and Friant 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. ...................................................................................3 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area.................................................................................4 Figure 4-1 1856 GLO map showing transport routes and Big Dry Creek...............................17 Figure 4-2 Cleared and sparsely vegetated ground surface with high visibility; facing northeast................................................................................................19 Figure 4-3 Waist-high grass and star thistle with zero percent ground visibility; facing west.......................................................................................20 Table 4-1 Previous Studies in the Project Area and Surrounding 0.25-Mile Radius ..............................................................................................................16

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 1 1 INTRODUCTION
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Ӕ) prepared this cultural resource study in support of Lennar Central Valley’s proposed Tract 6452 Residential Development Project (Project) in the city of Clovis, Fresno County, California (Figure 1-1). The property is directly north of Perrin Road between Clovis Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue, within Section 20 of Township 12 South, Range 21 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Clovis (1981), California

7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1-2).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lennar Central Valley proposes to construct 153 single-family lots on 18.2 acres of vacant land between Clovis Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue in the city of Clovis (Figure 1-3). The proposed zoning for the Project will be M/L – Medium and Low Density Residential, while the current Fresno County zoning is AE-20. The property is currently in the County of Fresno, though it will be annexed to the City of Clovis (City). This residential development will be within the City of Clovis (City) Heritage Grove Master Plan and will be subject to design development standards of the plan.

1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. Historical resources are considered part of the environment and are subject to review under CEQA. Per CEQA, the lead agency, in this case the City, is required to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources, and therefore cause a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1[b]).

CEQA defines a substantial adverse change to a historical resource as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][1]). Where substantial adverse change is unavoidable and the historical resource cannot be preserved in an undisturbed state, the lead agency shall require mitigation measures to minimize substantial adverse changes to the resource’s significance (PRC Section 21083.2[c]). It is further stipulated that the “lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][4]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]).

For the purposes of this report, a cultural resource is defined as a prehistoric or historic-era archaeological site or a historic-era building, structure, or object. The importance or significance of a cultural resource depends on whether it qualifies for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Cultural resources determined eligible for listing in the CRHR are called “historical resources.” (Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5 of the CCR). The determination of eligibility is based on a set of significance criteria (14 CCR 15064.5).

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 2 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Fresno County, California.

PROJECT

VICINITY
0 10,000
0 20,000
5 30,000 40,000
10 Kilometers
50,000
Feet o
0 5 10
Miles
Scale: 1:250,000
Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\4524 Clovis TR 0000\Projects\06 Report Figures\Figure 1 Project Vicinity.aprx National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

PROJECT VICINITY
Auberry"
v
G
41 _> d
92 2 Tollhouse
2 W Herndon Ave
Herndon Ave
D
E Shaw Ave
/
2 C A L I F
X E MeKiniey Ave j
E Kings Canyon Rd A
Fresno
D
E Jensen Ave .Sanger i X
P
Q
]
]
]
Anu Applied

EARTHWORKS,
Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport
TABLE

MOUNTAIN
KEYS
MOUNTA
E
LU
0)
t
—(
• 0
N 0)
E
P
o
a>
- e 0
2 Fresno Yosemite
—n tl Airport
AClovis
j Shaw Ave
AS
E
AC
Mi/le. $s
Lake

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Clovis and Friant 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
Township 12S /Range 21E , Section 20
Clovis (1981), and Friant (1964) CA

7.5' USGS Topographic Quadrangle
Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\4524 Clovis TR 0000\Projects\06 Report Figures\Figure 2 Project Location.aprx

PROJECT AREA
BM
-
-
394 —“ 7s 390
1:
8 9
o
AVE .D : ( 18 3 917 II
)
Ps“Pre
BM r‘, • £: •
% 4
.7 J. .4 -l n
BM
»• ol | ====== • 139/
8 _
■'Well O 6
383 0)
20 \ 21
L.[ 25 3 “n । Flume 20 nr I
BM I G
381
I I 9
382
Well 379
W I 60 wS
#30— "
’ 5o I
375 % Cs
Veil F
LA AVE K -Wel
u X392 T
“Siphor Se.l 9 e —III*E======s%-
COLE • ‘in r‘w VE -eP- CAN
Well' . onC" 385
y -
D
... “HELM: - “an BM 375 ;:38 COUQ/flAL == ==se*-== t 376 ell .reasus ave. • > s I
6o. /7
=* =====
PSue
]
Anu Applied

EARTHWORKS,
O
6 8
PERRIN
19 Well
349
I Well
368
" Well
393
I
I
I
I
Q
t
uu
i
s
“I...
h
77%..

Ps
g
IB|
III
IB
29//
- at
=h
i
3 is
365
,16
$
Pump.
/T. / 1
3 / ■z B
M
99 "Werst

5. SRP & 1327
3 : A
<P1
38S

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 4 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area.
o 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Meters
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Feet
Scale: 1:13,000
Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - Fresno Projects\4524 Clovis TR 0000\Projects\06 Report Figures\Figure 3 Aerial.aprx Enterprise No. 109
Perrin Rd
N Sunnyside Ave
E Behymer Ave
E Shepherd Ave
Project Area
Maxar
Canal
144 V.
2 "I a
0 g f2
S. o
*■ 2
sse
fTTeM
P, 4f SEETs. tt. am ave 5.

Bgest
t.
----% ‘ F pee
21 2 12
bntiy p L EErt dFAE FLP. (
eithd
___________
n r - ©
- E t ___ UR
J
Anu Applied

EARTHWORKS,
28 ______
ee '
A t
1P-4,
YAn
T.
(
8 —
teSik: 1
a E EOC,, se wewass * 3
t
T A1.

X s.

Mahassa r

PGMMPA L
4 2 PT", -.
apso grone 1
“Hh w VEF. J

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 5

1.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL
Æ Managing Principal Archaeologist Erin Enright (M.A. Registered Professional Archaeologist [RPA] 16575) served as principal investigator for the project. Æ Principal Archaeologist Anna Hoover (M.S., RPA 28576661) served as project manager, overseeing the study efforts and technical reporting. Field Technician Charles Pansarosa (B.A.) conducted the pedestrian survey.

This report was prepared by Staff Anthropologist Nicole Saenz (M.S.) and Principal Archaeologist Emerita Mary Baloian (Ph.D., RPA 15189) reviewed the report for technical accuracy. Résumés for key personnel are provided in Appendix A.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This document consists of six chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the environmental and cultural context of the Project area. Chapter 3 presents Ӕ’s methods for the study, including the records search, background research, Native American outreach, and pedestrian surveys, while Chapter 4 discusses the study results. Chapter 5 contains a summary and provides recommendations. A complete listing of references cited is in Chapter 6.

Appendix A contains résumés of Project personnel. Appendix B presents results of the records search, and Appendix C contains documentation of communication with the NAHC and local tribal representatives.

Field notes, maps, and a complete set of photographs from the current investigation are on file at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. A copy of the final version of this report will be submitted to the SSJVIC at California State University, Bakersfield.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 6 2 NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project area lies on the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Valley near the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills. In general, the valley is bordered on the east by the Sierra Nevada, on the west by the Coast Ranges, and on the south by the Tehachapi Range. The north-south orientation of the Sierra Nevada greatly influences the general hydrology of the region by directing the flow of rivers and streams westward into the San Joaquin Valley.

The complex geology of the adjacent foothills and the Sierra Nevada is reflected in the primary and secondary soils in the valley. Primary soils are developed by weathering the underlying granitic parent material. Secondary soils are formed by a combination of eolian and alluvial forces transporting a variety of granitic and assorted metamorphic and metavolcanic materials from mountain streams (Weir 1956). Quaternary and recent alluvium covers most of the valley basin.

The natural vegetation of the San Joaquin Valley has been severely compromised as a result of farming and ranching. Originally, the area was covered with native annual and perennial grasses such as needlegrass (Stipa spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), and three awn (Aristida divaricata) commonly found in the Valley Grassland Community (Munz and Keck 1973). Prior to EuroAmerican colonization, the valley floor was occupied by a diverse population of resident and migratory mammals and birds, which along with fish and other aquatic species provided a rich resource base for aboriginal subsistence. Historical and modern land use has greatly reduced the size and number of native habitats, eliminating numerous indigenous species. Most commonly found in the study vicinity today are jackrabbits, ground squirrels, field mice, snakes, and frogs, along with jays, mourning doves, crows, and red-tailed hawks.

The San Joaquin Valley lies within the Mediterranean climate zone typified by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Temperatures range from highs of 90–100°F in the summer months to lows of 40–50°F in the winter (Weir 1956), although temperatures exceeding 100°F in the summer and dropping below freezing in the winter are not uncommon. Annual precipitation averages 10 inches per year, with most of the rain falling between October and March. Thick “tule” fog is common in the valley during December and January.

The natural topography of the proposed development is flat at 400 feet above mean sea level.

The natural watercourse closest to the Project area is Dry Creek, which flows directly southeast of the Project area.

2.2 PREHISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Archaeological evidence suggests that the valley’s initial occupants settled mostly in lakeshore and streamside environments and used the foothills seasonally. Early (“Paleoindian”) sites are typified by fluted points, stemmed dart points, scrapers, and flaked stone crescents. The middle and late Holocene witnessed mobile hunters and gatherers. As compared with their predecessors,

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 7 Archaic groups utilized a broad resource base, including both large and small game and hard seeds. Manos, milling slabs, mortars, and pestles are common in Archaic assemblages, as are atlatl dart points. Favorable climatic conditions between 3,000 and 3,500 years ago fostered widespread settlement along the Sierran west slope. The late Holocene witnessed various technological and social changes, including the adoption of the bow and arrow, expansion of trade, increasing use of acorns, and improved food storage techniques. As populations grew, social relations became more complex. Economic stress and social instability became more pronounced during a period of xeric climates between circa A.D. 450 and 1250. Thereafter, new levels of population growth were achieved, resulting in part from movement of new Sierran groups. By circa A.D. 1600–1700, most groups claimed the territories that would identify them ethnographically. The Project lies in the territory of the Gashowu, a tribelet of the Foothill Yokuts (see Section 3.3).

A number of prehistoric sites have been identified in Gashowu territory (Price 1992). Located in the foothills northeast of Clovis, these sites are primarily either extensive midden deposits found along both small ephemeral drainages and larger permanent watercourses or multiple bedrock milling features, sometimes with numerous individual stations.

Investigations at CA­FRE­1671, which may have formed the core of the Pohoniu village community, yielded radiocarbon dates showing that Yokuts settlement of the area extended from A.D. 1300 well into the historic period. An earlier occupation phase at the site was dated between circa 700 B.C. and A.D. 300 but could not be linked directly to the Gashowu or any other Yokuts group (Moratto 1988).

At CA­FRE­64, investigations showed that the Yokuts may have occupied the area as early as A.D. 1100–1200, with continuing occupation to around A.D. 1600. An even earlier component lacked the data to attribute it to the Gashowu but suggested that the steatite industry in the area may have begun as early as A.D. 800 (Wallace et al. 1989).

CA­FRE­1154 and ­1155 are in the foothills east of the Project area. CA­FRE­1154, the Sharer Site, lies “along an abandoned oxbow bend associated with a channelized-stream”(Langenwalter et al. 1989). This site, interpreted as a seasonal procurement campsite, appears to have been used during a long temporal span from 850 B.C. to A.D. 1850. It consists of a midden ranging from 60 to 160 centimeters deep and a large bedrock boulder containing 76 mortars, cups, cupules, and slicks. Artifacts included ground and flaked stone tools, steatite bowl fragments, ornaments, crystals, daub, and ochre. Additionally, the remains of a juvenile burial were encountered.

CA­FRE­1155, the Harlan Site, contains a small but well-developed midden with thickness varying between 80 and 190 centimeters as well as five bedrock features. Artifacts similar to those from CA­FRE­1154 indicate that CA­FRE­1155 was used as a seasonal procurement site.

It appears to have been sporadically occupied between 850 B.C. and A.D. 300, with intensive occupation from A.D. 300 to 1500 (Langenwalter et al. 1989).

Surveys east of the current Project area have shown that many small processing stations and temporary camps occur along seasonal channels near the lower foothills (Meighan and Dillon 1987), suggesting a pattern of widespread but relatively ephemeral use of the area during the late Holocene (McGuire 1992).

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 8 In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Gashowu population was decimated by disease, missionization, and military action. This led to a radical change in settlement: the surviving peoples abandoned the residential sites that they had occupied prehistorically and congregated at a small number of locations. Glass trade beads and other historical artifacts recovered from CA-FRE-687 and CA­FRE­1671 may be evidence of these postcontact settlements (Price 1992:32–33).

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
At the time of first contact with the Spanish missionaries, the Yokuts people collectively inhabited the San Joaquin Valley, as well as the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada from the Calaveras River southward to the Kern River. The Yokuts language belongs to the broader Penutian family, which subsumes a relatively diverse assemblage of languages that also includes Miwok, Costanoan, Maiduan, and Wintuan (Silverstein 1978). Compared to other Penutian languages, however, Yokuts shows considerable internal linguistic homogeneity, especially given its relatively wide geographic distribution. Dialects differed minimally and were mutually intelligible, at least among speakers of contiguous groups. This relative lack of linguistic differentiation suggests that ancestors of the Yokuts entered California after the arrival and subsequent radiation of the more linguistically diverse Penutian groups such as the Miwok and Costanoan (Moratto 1984:554).

Linguists and ethnographers have traditionally divided the Yokuts into Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill categories based primarily on linguistic similarities and differences. Yet such broad groupings were not mirrored in the larger structure of Yokuts society. Instead, the Yokuts were organized into relatively small autonomous tribes or tribelets, which maintained a fluid territory containing multiple semipermanent settlements.

Gayton (1945, 1948), Kroeber (1976), Spier (1978), and Wallace (1978, 1987) have produced primary source material on Yokuts ethnography. Secondary works on this subject include those authored by Langenwalter et al. (1989) Moratto (1984, 1988), and Wallace et al. (1989). The following discussion about Yokuts lifeways is drawn from these sources.

The Project area lies within the territory of the Gashowu, a tribelet of the Kings River Group of the Foothill Division; that occupied the drainages of Big Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek. Two major settlements are attributed to the Gashowu: Pohoniu, below Letcher on Big Dry Creek, and Yokau, on Little Dry Creek in Auberry Valley(Kroeber 1976:481, plate 47). These villages appear to have been central year-round settlements that were occupied more densely in the winter. At these locations, the Gashowu built conical structures 15–20 feet tall over excavated pits, each with a central rock-lined hearth. Other structures probably included acorn granaries, sweat houses, roofed ramadas, sunshades, and large communal houses. During the summer, residents moved with extended families or family groups to base camps within a day’s walk of the central village. These stations served as summer villages and temporary storage places for food until it was transferred to the main village. Summer villages contained smaller structures and are most commonly recognized archaeologically by midden deposits and multiple bedrock milling features. Seed-gathering forays in the spring or summer expanded the Gashowu range to the lowlands of present-day Clovis and Fresno.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 9 Acorns were a Gashowu staple, with additional nutrition culled from other nuts and seeds, berries, fruit, and game. These dietary items as well as tool stone and a variety of other resources were gathered at summer camps. Procurement loci survive today as scatters of lithic artifacts and as bedrock milling stations where plants and seeds were processed. In addition to these features, artifacts used to process procured resources (such as mortars, pestles, and manos) and the remains of resources gathered (such as bone and acorn shell) also may be found.

Steatite is available locally, and items made from this material (including cooking bowls, beads, and ornaments) are often found at Yokuts sites. Steatite goods also were traded with neighbors for obsidian, pine nuts, shell beads and ornaments, and other exotic commodities.

2.4 HISTORIC CONTEXT

2.4.1 Early Settlement in the Clovis Area (1853–1874)
The first Euro-American settlements in the greater Clovis area occurred not within the swampy “hog wallows” that once dotted the landscape of the present city limits but in the grassy plains around Dry Creek where the stream flows down from the foothills into the valley (Clough and Secrest 1984). A small outpost was established at the current intersection of Shepherd and Thompson avenues in 1853 and later became a stop along the Stockton to Los Angeles stage route (Smith 1991). For many years the lonely station, which eventually became known as Collins Corner, stood by itself with no other buildings in sight. After the Civil War, sheepherders, many from the southern United States, began to trickle into the area.

During the 1860s, homesteaders came to the valley to graze their herds or flocks in the pastures around the San Joaquin River and its drainages. The local cattle industry continued to grow until at least 1870, when, according to Vandor (1919), it reached its peak. There were, however, some bumps along the way. The erratic climate patterns of the 1860s—a decade that experienced alternating periods of severe flooding and drought—had considerable impact on the makeup of the Central Valley’s agrarian base. In particular, the 2-year-long drought that followed the great flood of 1862 decimated remaining old Spanish cattle that had escaped the deluge (Byron 1951).

In response, cattlemen restocked their herds with other varieties, including longhorns that had been driven from Texas Vandor (1919). For their part, shepherds adopted the annual cycle of Old World pastoralists: during the summer months they drove their flocks into the Sierra Nevada high country to conserve the lowland grasses for fall and winter grazing. The floods and droughts similarly wreaked havoc on production of agricultural goods, causing dramatic swings in commodity values. In the wake of the 1864 drought, crop failures depleted the supply of grain as the price of wheat on the San Francisco Market soared to $5.00 per cental (100 pounds) in March 1865 (Elliott 1883). By comparison, the price rarely breeched the $3.00 mark during the entire 1870s.

Along with the climate, political factors had a major hand in shaping the economic landscape.

Although the 1874 enactment of the “no fence” laws did not necessarily deal a death blow to valley ranching, the statute greatly curtailed the influence and importance of this industry. The law had both operational and monetary repercussions:

The “no fence” law obligated the stock owner to herd his cattle and sheep, whereas before the stock roamed at will and was not assembled except for the annual rodeo. He

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 10 was also made responsible for damage done by his beasts. The farmer was not required to fence his holdings, though . . . he occasionally did so (Vandor 1919:163).

Without the entire extent of the San Joaquin Valley at his disposal and burdened by the continual task of containing his herds and flocks, the rancher found himself increasingly marginalized in the developing valley economy.

2.4.2 Initial Development of Agriculture in the Fresno-Clovis Area (1875–1900) In addition to pro-agriculture legislation and the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1872, the development of irrigation systems greatly contributed to the growth of agriculture in Fresno County. Built in the early and mid-1870s, the first major water conveyance systems in the Fresno-Clovis area included the canals of the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company (FCIC), the Kings River and Fresno Canal Company (KRFCC), and the Enterprise Canal Company (ECC).

These same systems, which use the waters of the Kings River, remain essential parts of the area’s agricultural industry today.

In local history, Moses Church—a former sheepherder from Napa County—is considered the chief developer of water conveyance in Fresno County. As early as 1870, Church began acquiring water rights along the Kings River; in February 1871, he and two business associates incorporated the FCIC (Elliott 1882; Willison 1980). His first objective was to deliver appropriated water to the farm of A. Y. Easterby, located in the present-day Sunnyside neighborhood of Fresno (Vandor 1919). In 1872, the company completed construction of the first main head gate on the Kings River that allowed 2,000 feet of water to be diverted into the irrigation system (Elliott 1882). The Fresno Canal was the FCIC’s primary channel. Although it runs a relatively short 12 miles, the Fresno Canal is the source of numerous large branch canals that still irrigate the fields south, west, and east of the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area.

The KRFCC, also established in 1871, intended to build a similar system, although the project was not completed until 1873 when L. A. Gould purchased interest in the company (Clough and Secrest 1984; Willison 1980). By August of the same year, Gould’s farm was receiving irrigation water from the KRFCC Gould Canal, which taps the Kings River about 1.5 miles above the head gate of the Fresno Canal. The Gould Canal and its primary branch, the Helm Canal, irrigated the former agricultural lands in what is today the heart of the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area.

While local sources are not specific about the incorporation of the ECC or the dates of its major conveyance, the Enterprise Canal, circumstantial evidence suggests that construction began sometime after 1875 and continued episodically until the early twentieth century when the canal appears to have reached its present-day length of 36.5 miles. According to Willison’s (1980) account, the KRFCC agreed to supply water to the ECC following the completion of the Gould Canal in 1873. This agreement was the basis for the eventual creation of the Enterprise Canal.

Although the Enterprise Canal is not represented on an 1875 map of the county, construction might have begun shortly after (Willison 1980). Moreover, Hall’s (1885) serial maps depicting irrigation in Fresno County as well as later county atlases suggest that the canal was built in stages. Whereas the first 15 miles of the Enterprise Canal (or “Enterprise Ditch”) as well as its head gate on the Gould Canal are shown and labeled on the Centerville and Kingsburg Sheet of the series, the lower reaches of the canal do not appear on the Fresno Sheet. Taken at face value,

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 11 Hall’s (1885) maps indicate that in 1885 the Enterprise Canal terminated at Frolic Creek (present-day Dog Creek), southeast of the Project area. By the time of the 1891 Fresno County atlas, the canal had been lengthened another 9.5 miles through the Clovis area (directly west of the Project area) to its northernmost extent (in Section 18 of Township 12 South, Range 21 East); however, the canal’s existing southwesterly leg through what is today north Fresno had not been built yet (Thompson 1891).

Whatever the specific date(s) of the canal’s construction, the ECC’s dependence on the KRFCC and its Gould Canal clearly proved to be its undoing. In 1875, the KRFCC won a court battle with the FCIC that left KRFCC’s water rights intact (Willison 1980:77–83). Ten years later, however, the companies faced off again, but this time the FCIC succeeded in enjoining the KRFCC by drawing water from the Kings River (Mead 1901:277; Willison 1980:84). Without access to water from the river, the KRFCC and ECC were forced to sell their canals to the FCIC.

The court decision thus left the FCIC in control of all three canal systems.

Under the ownership of the FCIC, the Enterprise Canal continued to irrigate the farmlands north and east of the Fresno-Clovis area. It gave rise to several secondary canals along its route, including such Clovis-area branches as the Maupin Ditch, the Jefferson Canal, the Clovis Ditch, the Teague Ditch, and Helm Colonial Ditch as well as numerous unnamed laterals (Willison 1980). As early as 1900, the canal and its branches irrigated about 15,000 acres. By 1913, the lower portion of the canal appears to have been completed, bringing irrigation water to the area historically known as Forkner’s Fig Gardens (Progressive Map Service 1913:19). The Enterprise Canal, along with the rest of the FCIC’s system, was acquired by the Fresno Irrigation District in 1920 (Willison 1980).

For Church and other land promoters, the intended effect of irrigation was to increase the value of their properties so that they could be subdivided and sold to newly arriving homesteaders at a hefty profit. While this primary purpose was certainly achieved, the advent of intensive irrigation additionally led to a shift in both the types of crops grown and the size of a typical farm. Grain farming generally requires substantial acreage, but as irrigation water became more readily available, individual farmers realized that premium crops like grapes, citrus, and tree fruit could be profitably grown on lots as small as 20 acres.

Vandor’s history includes a commentary from (probably Charles) Nordoff, who describes how, with irrigation, bigger is not necessarily better.

Big ranches there are yet but they are hazardous ventures, and the fact is that in the big valley the twenty, forty and eighty-acre farmers brought the lasting and real agricultural prosperity. There, where wheat was once the big and only crop, the man with less than 320 acres classed himself as a humble small farmer. Slowly but gradually the conviction forced itself that eighty acres with water on a good location was a little too much, forty a liberal plenty with which to make a fair start in life, and twenty just enough for one man on which to make a comfortable living for self and family and have something over with industry and health for the proverbial rainy day. Wonders have been accomplished with ten acres by men who were not overambitious, not overburdened with money and hesitated not to combine brain and brawn in the labor in the field. Intelligent twenty-acre men are laying up what eastern farmers would consider a fortune . . . (Vandor 1919:261).

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 12 Much like the “no fence” laws, the 1887 Wright Act, which provided for the creation of irrigation districts, is also seen as an important step in solidifying the interests of agriculture. In practice, it took some years before newly formed districts could gain the necessary legal and financial traction for operation, and these public cooperatives did not begin replacing private irrigation companies until the early twentieth century. At its passage, the Wright Act was, nevertheless, another legislative expression of the growing need for appropriated water. Another important development in the late nineteenth century was construction of the San Francisco & San Joaquin Valley Railroad in 1896, which provided Fresno with another rail line. Before then, farmers had complained about the Southern Pacific Railroad’s “ruinous” rates and were continually looking for alternative ways to ship their products to the Bay Area. This second railroad was acquired by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway around 1900.

Agricultural growth in the San Joaquin Valley generally was accompanied by consistent population growth and urbanization, and with the rise in residential, commercial, and infrastructural development came an increase in demand for building materials. The one-man milling operations of the gold rush era had given way to late nineteenth-century lumber companies with the financial and technological means to harvest vast stands of timber in the nearby Sierra Nevada. It was primarily in this context that the town of Clovis arose.

Clovis originated in 1891 as a stop along the San Joaquin Valley Railroad, which extended from Fresno to the aspiring community of Pollasky (formerly called Hamptonville and later renamed Friant), located on the south bank of the San Joaquin River (Clough and Secrest 1984). Although Pollasky never fully materialized and the railroad was eventually sold off to the Southern Pacific, the new transportation link had opened the area northeast of Fresno for settlement and other ventures. Shortly afterward, the Fresno Flume and Irrigation Company, a combination lumber and irrigation venture, located its sawmill on a 60-acre parcel at the current site of Clark Intermediate School and the Clovis Rodeo Grounds. The mill was the end point of a 45-mile wooden flume from Shaver Lake. By its second year of operation in 1895, between 300 and 500 employees worked at the mill (Clough and Secrest 1984; Johnston 1997).

2.4.3 Diversification and Water Issues (1900–1950)
The trend toward smaller farms continued well into the new century. Between 1900 and 1920, 45,000 new farms were established in California, of which about 85 percent were less than 50 acres (Hall 1986). Yet whether a farm is small or large, the decision of which crop(s) to grow from year to year has historically been a speculative one for valley farmers. Given the decentralized nature of the industry, the market for a particular product was capable of unpredictable and dramatic changes. Oversupply of the previous year’s crop and the prospect of low prices have often compelled growers to look for other, more profitable alternatives. Out of this instability, many new fruit and vegetable varieties have been introduced to the valley.

The steady growth of the San Joaquin Valley’s agricultural base and its reliance on irrigation were beginning to erode the state’s water supply. In the period between 1909 and 1919, newly irrigated lands were placed under production at a rate of 155,000 acres per year (Hall 1986).

Established in 1920, the Fresno Irrigation District acquired the aging conveyance system of the FCIC, and immediately set out to revamp and add to the existing canals and structures (Willison 1980). Technological improvements to electric water pump technology allowed wells to extend

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 13 even deeper into the aquifer, and by the mid-1920s the proliferation of wells had caused the water table to drop to alarmingly low levels. Among the most threatened were farmers who relied solely on wells for irrigation water. Along with a falling water table, California’s water issues included reducing the danger of flooding along the major rivers, providing for more dependable navigation on the Sacramento River, and improving the water quality in the East Bay area (Jackson 1977).

The solution was the Central Valley Project (CVP), a statewide multicomponent water conveyance system to control and redistribute the tremendous supply of water flowing from the Sierra Nevada. The CVP, which began at the state level, became part of the New Deal project in the mid-1930s because of the massive financing required for the project. Partially due to labor shortages created by World War II, the entire system was not completed until the early 1950s.

The Friant-Kern Canal, an original component of the CVP, flows about 5.5 miles east of the Project area.

In many ways, the Dry Creek drainage was a microcosm of the water issues facing the state during the 1920s and 1930s. Winding southwest from the foothills, Dry Creek disappears into a natural sink near the Old Fig Garden area in north-central Fresno. The natural flow from the creek raises the underground water table, which has been an important source of well irrigation water. Since the earliest days of Fresno, however, the annual flooding of the waterway caused traffic hazards, material damage, and even loss of life (Wilson 1932).

2.4.4 Modern Water Management (1950–Present)
Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, water management methods became more diverse and presently involve the storage of runoff in reservoirs for hydroelectric power and flood control and maintenance of underground water tables for such uses as irrigation and drinking water. As part of this larger process, the Dry Creek Project has sought to control the stream’s natural runoff by channeling the water into reservoirs (Fresno Bee 1948). Since beginning operation in 1948, the Dry Creek Project has expanded its scope to prevent flooding while managing the groundwater level (Clovis Unified School District 1984; Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 2004).

When it reached fruition in the 1950s, the CVP sparked a new wave of agricultural growth by providing an ample supply of federally subsidized water across the valley floor. The Friant-Kern Canal flows through the Dry Creek District and its primary function is to convey irrigation water to the counties of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Nevertheless, water from the channel does not pass through the greater Fresno area completely untouched; along with the City of Fresno, the Garfield Irrigation District and Harlan Ranch established the right to divert water from the Friant-Kern Canal (Clovis Unified School District 1984).

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 14 3 METHODS
This chapter describes methods used to complete the cultural resource inventory of the Project area. This includes a records search to identify previous resources and studies within and adjacent to the Project area, background research, a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File and contact with Native Americans who may have knowledge about the area, and an intensive pedestrian survey.

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
At Æ’s request, the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Bakersfield, performed 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. SSJVIC staff consulted cultural resource location and survey base maps, reports of previous investigations, and cultural resource records (Appendix B).

3.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Prior to conducting a pedestrian archaeological survey, Æ conducted background research to identify areas within the Project area where extant historic-aged buildings, structures, or objects might be present, or where archaeological deposits might exist. Desktop and online library research focused on historical maps, aerial images, atlases, and photographs. Æ reviewed and compiled information from various sources including:
• General Land Office (GLO) maps (https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx; 1856 and 1901);
• HistoricAerials.com administered by NETRonline topographic maps (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer; T1922, T1923, T1946, T1955, T1965, T1974, T1975, T1982, T1995, T2012, T2015, T2018, and T2021); • Aerial photographs, accessed through the Map Aerial Locator Tool maintained by California State University, Fresno (http://malt.lib.csufresno.edu/MALT/; 1937 and 1964); FrameFinder administered by the University of California, Santa Barbara (http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/); and • HistoricAerials.com administered by NETRonline (1957, 1962, 1972, 1984, 1998, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020).

The result of Ӕ’s background research is discussed in Section 4.2.

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.9, state and local agencies cooperate with and assist the NAHC in its efforts to preserve and protect locations of sacred or special cultural and spiritual significance to Native Americans. On June 6, 2023, Æ contacted the NAHC to request a search

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 15 of its Sacred Lands File to identify Native American resources in the Project area and obtain the names and contact information for individuals knowledgeable of such resources.

The NAHC responded on September 12, 2023, with its findings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. Æ mailed a letter to each of the contacts identified by the NAHC. The letter summarized the Project and requested information about known cultural resources within the Project area and surrounding region. Ӕ additionally telephoned each contact to ensure they received the letter and to solicit information.

Outreach with the Native American tribes and individuals is standard best practices to complete a cultural resource inventory and is not part of formal government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52. Æ’s record of tribal outreach is included in Appendix C.

3.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
Æ Field Technician Charles Pansarosa performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area using interval transects spaced 10 meters apart. Æ collected locational information on the survey coverage and photographed overviews of the Project area documenting the ground visibility and other conditions. All field records and photographs are archived at Æ’s office in Fresno, California.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 16 4 FINDINGS
This chapter provides results of the SSJVIC records search, Ӕ’s background research, the NAHC’s search of the Sacred Land’s File and Ӕ’s outreach to local Native American tribal representatives, and describes the pedestrian survey, including observations of field conditions and findings within the Project area.

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On July 31, 2023, the SSJVIC responded to Æ’s records search request (Records Search File No. 23-286). In its response, the SSJVIC identified four previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area and one previous investigation in the 0.25-mile search radius. In addition, the records search identified no cultural resources within the Project area and one previously recorded cultural resource within the 0.25-mile records search radius.

4.1.1 Previous Studies
There have been four studies previously conducted within the Project area and one study within the 0.25-mile radius (Table 4-1; Appendix B). The entirety of the Project area has been surveyed previously, portions of which were surveyed most recently in 2006, more than 15 years ago. All other previous studies were conducted more than 30 years ago.

Table 4-1
Previous Studies in the Project Area and Surrounding 0.25-Mile Radius CHRIS
Report No. Author(s) Year Title
Within the Project Area
FR-00534 Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.
1991 Archaeological Survey Report for the Behymer Lake Storm Drainage and Flood Control Project Initial Study
FR-01219 Bissonnette, L.D. 1993 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Drainage Area "BY" Facilities
FR-02203 Varner, D.M. 2006 A Cultural Resource Study of the Battlin Brooks Property, Fresno County, California
FR-02289 Nettles, W.M. and
R. Baloian
2006 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the City of Clovis Northwest Urban Center Specific Plan Area, Fresno County, California
Within the 0.25-Mile Radius
FR-03067 Stanley, W., R.

Baloian, and M.

Baloian.
2018 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation for the Tract 6200 Development in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California

4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources
The records search identified no previously recorded resources within the Project area, and only one resource, the Enterprise Canal (P-10-005934), within the 0.25-mile records search radius. As

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 17 discussed in Section 2.4.2, the Enterprise Canal was constructed in the mid-to-late 1870s to provide bulk irrigation water to the greater Clovis and North Fresno areas. The entire canal is

36.5 miles long.

4.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Æ’s review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs revealed moderate development in the area over the last 100 years. An 1856 map from the GLO depicts Big Dry Creek running southeast of the Project area (Figure 4-1). Big Dry Creek was present on the 1923 topographic map but on the 1947 map had been replaced with “Colonial Ditch.” The 1856 GLO shows “Road from Stockton to Kings River” and “Old Road” on either side of the Project area.

There were no remnants of these roads on the 1923 topographic map: all roads depicted on that map reflect their current state.

Figure 4-1 1856 GLO map showing transport routes and Big Dry Creek.

Ӕ’s review of historical atlases, aerials, and maps dating from 1891 to the present concluded that no structures have been built in the Project area. Two houses were built directly east of the Project area prior to 1957 and remained extant until circa 2000. Large, isolated buildings began appearing in the area in 1998, followed by housing developments east of Sunnyside Avenue between 1984 and 1998 and south of Shephard Avenue between 2005 and 2009. The Pacific Gas and Electric Shephard Substation was built directly south of the Project area between 2012 and 2014. The Project area and a significant portion of the surrounding area remain agricultural land.

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On August 17, 2023, the NAHC stated in its search of the Sacred Lands File was negative for the presence of cultural resources in the Project area. The NAHC also supplied a list of individuals Fa“* 2.7 Mr, AOra’s
.ee.
f
m
mi
ein 1, 1220 ‘2,w
Tn J,A.
d
Jy
, /J
tfre. 20
*
f ,
*7

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 18 to be contacted for information regarding locations of sacred or special sites of cultural or spiritual significance in the Project area.

On September 14, 2023, Æ sent a letter describing the Project and its location to:
• Chairperson Elizabeth Kipp of Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; • Tribal Administrator Tom Zizzo of Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; • Vice Chairperson Joel Marvin of Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; • Jared Aldern of Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians; • Chairperson Carol Bill of Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians; • Chairperson Robert Ledger of Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government; • Chairperson Ron Goode of North Fork Mono Tribe;
• Tribal Secretary Anna Phipps of North Fork Mono Tribe; • Council Member and Archaeological Director Jesse Valdez of North Fork Mono Tribe;
• Timothy Perez of North Valley Yokuts Tribe;
• Chairperson Katherine Perez of North Valley Yokuts Tribe; • Tribal Administrator Michael Wynn of Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians;
• Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Heather Airey of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians;
• Chairperson Janet Bill of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians; • Cultural Resource Director Bob Pennell of Table Mountain Rancheria; • Chairperson Brenda Lavell of Table Mountain Rancheria; • Chairperson David Alvarez of the Traditional Choinumni Tribe; • Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe; • Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Indian Tribe; • Tribal Archaeologist Joey Garfield of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and • Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 19 Æ also distributed these letters via email on September 13, 2023, and followed up with all tribes by telephone on October 19, 2023. To date, Ӕ has received six responses from this outreach. • Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians requested to be informed of any discoveries. • The North Fork Mono Tribe requested that work crews remain cognizant of the fact that there are several sites known through oral history in the area that have not yet been located.
• Table Mountain Rancheria requested a copy of the cultural resources report and a meeting to discuss the Project; this communication is being conducted by Lennar Central Valley.
• Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Traditional Choinumni Tribe, and Tule River Indian Tribe all declined interest in the Project.

A log detailing the outreach efforts and responses is provided in Appendix C. Æ did not facilitate government-to-government consultation on behalf of the City.

4.4 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
Ӕ conducted an intensive archaeological pedestrian survey on August 23, 2023, encompassing the entire 18.2 acres of the Project area. The Project area is an open vacant field. Ground visibility varied across the Project area (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Portions of the Project area were clear and void of vegetation, whereas other portions were entirely obscured by overgrown vegetation with grasses reaching waist height. In addition to grasses, vegetation in the area includes sunflower, jimson weed, and lupine.

Figure 4-2 Cleared and sparsely vegetated ground surface with high visibility; facing northeast.

I
TM0997 •
1 t
■ U. wisset Y
.1 ro ‘2)
; s
—2 Al
- t
at %
GD
ATRT A
7 ■ • :
f
heeaat
&Awst."
e age
-1
a
Ptam s
15te4
oraorentn") *i
, ee -
ess
wthe
—
23 .
aaons $. oeF
033— ;
A 3
K
featde

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 20 Figure 4-3 Waist-high grass and star thistle with zero percent ground visibility; facing west.

Ӕ noted that the Project area appears to have been disked in the last year, and there also has been subsurface infrastructure improvements such as fire suppression, irrigation, and utilities in areas along the southern and western boundaries, likely associated with the adjacent development. Ӕ observed a graded dirt access road along the southern border. Modern debris including paper, plastic, polyvinyl chloride pipe segments, and fragments of concrete were also observed by the surveyor throughout the property. No cultural resources were identified in the Project area during the pedestrian survey.
6 sus
%
3 Vo
o ' • 0 ‘V
2 Yalvo 5 J y
J
PA 2
4 V A
tgf V 2
I. r d
St f A . st 5 11387 11 : Ag% Sat 3
24 alnut wdeV
an VP W" } aille AUCr - .
_____ Hi !_ file __ I
’ n
912 3
o
2 4,
2 ■
Ie
t3
g • s
Prr.
,Ubs( i V,.
—ssUhun - -
swa/tas teti
A
1 AID4 "i 2, Y0e
1*0af
Tro d
T 9
todagta
CSSaulik - hi ■ hngiassth '
" yoy — -r ga for -Ey eY VSE2PAs ■ ■ — , t 1140 "j z
4 t

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 21 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Æ provided cultural resource services for the proposed Tract 6452 Residential Development Project in Fresno County, California for Lennar Central Valley. The Project proposes to construct 153 single-family lots on 18.2 acres of vacant land between Clovis Avenue and North Sunnyside Avenue, north of Perrin Road, in the city of Clovis. The proposed zoning for the Project will be M/L – Medium and Low Density Residential, while the current Fresno County zoning is AE-20. The property is currently in the County of Fresno and will need to be annexed to the City. This residential development will be within the City’s Heritage Grove Master Plan and will be subject to design development standards of the plan.

Æ conducted a cultural resource study to determine if archaeological or historical built environment cultural resources are present within the 18.2-acre Project area. Accordingly, Æ performed background research, obtained a records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS, requested a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File, contacted local tribal representatives, and performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project area.

The SSJVIC records search identified four previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area and one previous investigation in the 0.25-mile search radius. In addition, the records search reported no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project area and one previously recorded cultural resource within the 0.25-mile records search radius. A search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File did not identify Native American cultural resources within or near the Project area and no specific information was gleaned from outreach with local tribal representative. No cultural resource sites were identified in the Project area from Ӕ’s survey efforts.

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
This study concludes that there are no historical resources within the Project area. Based on the results of this cultural resource inventory, Æ recommends the following management practices be adopted for the proposed Project.

5.1.1 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources If unknown prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered during Project activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the resource and recommend appropriate treatment measures. If necessary, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources (i.e., historical resources). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that a historical resource cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation practices in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures. The City also shall consult with interested Native American representatives in determining appropriate mitigation for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native American in nature. If preservation in

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 22 place is not possible and additional studies or data recovery mitigation is necessary, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting these studies and/or additional mitigation of the resource. A copy of the report shall be provided to the City and to the SSJVIC. Construction can recommence based on the direction of the qualified archaeologist and with concurrence from the City.

5.1.2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
Æ advises that in the event human remains are uncovered during Project activities, the Fresno County Coroner is to be notified to evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 (e)(1). If the remains are identified to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires that the county coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendant, who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend means for treatment of the human remains following protocols in California Public Resources Code 5097.98.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 23 6 REFERENCES
Byron, William G.
1951 A Geographic Analysis of the Porterville Area, California. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

Clough, Charles W., and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County—the Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900, edited by Bobbye Sisk Temple. Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.

Clovis Unified School District
1984 Images of an Age. Pacific Printing Press, Fresno, California.

Elliott, Wallace W.
1882 History of Fresno County, California, with Illustrations. Wallace W. Elliott & Co., San Francisco, California. Reprinted 1973, Valley Publishers, Fresno, California.

Elliott, Wallace W.
1883 History of Kern County, California. Wallace W. Elliott & Co., San Francisco, California.

Fresno Bee
1948 Water Flows into Reservoir of Dry Creek Flood Project. 14 April:17. Fresno, California.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
2004 Flood Control System. www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/flood_control_system, accessed June 2004.

Gayton, Anna H.
1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409– 426.
1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography II: Northern Foothill Yokuts and Western Mono. Anthropological Records Vol. 10(2). Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hall, Richard D.
1986 Agriculture and Water. In Fresno County in the 20th Century: From 1900 to the 1980s, edited by Bobbye Sisk Temple, pp. 169–202. Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.

Hall, William Hammond
1885 Detail Irrigation Map: Fresno Sheet. 1:63,360. California Department of Engineering, Sacramento, California.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 24 Jackson, W. Turrentine
1977 The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta: The Evolution and Implementation of Water Policy: A Historical Perspective (UCAL-WRC-W-501). Water Resources Center Project. California Water Resources Center, University of California, Davis, 163.

Johnston, Hank
1997 The Whistles Blow No More: Railroad Logging in the Sierra Nevada. Stauffer Publishing, Fish Camp, California.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published 1925, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Langenwalter, P. E., and et al.
1989 Redbank and Fancher Creeks Archaeological Data Recovery Program CA-FRE-632, -633, -1154, and -1155, Fresno County.

Langenwalter, Paul E., II, Adella Schroth, Philip de Barros, and Franklin Fenenga 1989 Redbank and Fancher Creeks Archaeological Data Recovery Program, Final Report.

MITECH, Inc., Santa Ana, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, California, Contract DACW05-87-C0099.

McGuire, Kelly R.
1992 Rural Route 180, Fowler to Cove Avenues (06-FRE-180-R64.6/84.0 06-250-342500); Test Excavations at CA-FRE-61 and Extended Survey at CA-FRE-2851: A Preliminary Report, with contributions by R. Bethard, H. McCarthy, K. Tate, and E.

Wohlgemuth. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

Submitted to Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, California, and California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno.

Meighan, Clement W., and Brian D. Dillon
1987 Redbank and Fancher Creeks Intensive Cultural Resources Survey. MITECH, Inc., Santa Ana, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 1988 Archaeological Excavations at Site CA-FRE-1671, Fresno County, California. 2 vols.

INFOTEC Research, Inc., Sonora, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno, California. California Department of Transportation, Publications Unit, Sacramento, California.

Munz, Phillip A., and David D. Keck, contributor
1973 A California Flora with Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 25 Price, Barry A.
1992 Archaeological Survey Report of Route 168 Study Areas, with contributions by Michael J. Moratto and Clayton G. Lebow. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for CH2M Hill, Emeryville, California.

Progressive Map Service
1913 Progressive Atlas of Fresno County. Progressive Map Service, Fresno, California.

Silverstein, Michael
1978 Yokuts: Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 446–447.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Ephraim K
1991 Historical Architectural Survey Report for Route 168 Rural Project, 6-Fre-168 R9.0/R14.75, EA #06-342700. California State University, Fresno Foundation.

Submitted to INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California.

Spier, Robert F. G.
1978 Monache. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426–436. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Thompson, Thomas H.
1891 Official Historical Atlas Map of Fresno County. Thos. H. Thompson, Tulare, California.

Vandor, Paul E.
1919 History of Fresno County, California, with Biographical Sketches. 2 vols. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.

Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448–461.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1987 Ethnohistory of the Redbank-Fancher Area: The Gashowu, a Little-Known Foothill Yokuts Tribelet. In Redbank and Fancher Creeks Intensive Cultural Resources Survey, edited by Clement W. Meighan and Brian D. Dillon, pp. 133–149. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

Wallace, William J., Adella Schroth, and Philip de Barros 1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA-FRE-64.

Chambers Group, Inc., Santa Ana, California. Submitted to and on file at the California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno, California.

Cultural Resource Study for the Clovis Tract 6452 Residential Development 26 Weir, Walter W.
1956 Soils of Madera County, California. Soil Survey No. 12. Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition, University of California, Berkeley.

Willison, Paul H.
1980 Past, Present, & Future of the Fresno Irrigation District. Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno, California.

Wilson, L. H.
1932 Deaths, Injuries, Illness Caused by Dry Creek; Elimination Suggested. Fresno Morning Republican 19 January:7. Fresno, California.

APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS MARY CLARK BALOIAN Principal Archaeologist
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resource management
• Prehistoric archaeology
• Project management
Years of Experience
• 30
Education
Ph.D., Anthropology, Southern
Methodist University, 2003
M.A., Anthropology, Southern
Methodist University, 1995
B.A., Anthropology, University of
California, Davis, 1989
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 15189
Permits/Licensure
• Principal Investigator, California
BLM Statewide Cultural
Resources Use Permit CA-18-22
Professional Affiliations
• Society for American Archaeology
• Society for California Archaeology
Professional Experience
2021–2023 Principal Archaeologist, subconsultant for Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2000–2020 President (2015–2020), Managing Principal (2015–2020), Regional Manager (2012–2014), Assistant Division
Manager (2010–2011), Principal Archaeologist/Project
Manager (2016–present), Senior Archaeologist/Project
Manager (2000–2015), Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno,
California
1998–2001 Adjunct Faculty Member, Fresno City College, Fresno, California
1995–1996 Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
1994–1995 Staff Archaeologist, INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California
1992–1994 Teaching Assistant, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
1989–1991 Archaeological Project Leader, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
Technical Qualifications
Dr. Clark Baloian has been involved in archaeology in California and the western United States since 1987. Her areas of expertise include the prehistory of the San Joaquin Valley, Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, central California coast, and the Iron Age of West Africa. Dr. Baloian has served as Principal Investigator/Project Manager, Field Supervisor, Crew Chief, or Field Technician for projects throughout California, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Hawaii, and West Africa. Her experience in cultural resource management includes research design, data acquisition, laboratory analysis, and preparation of technical reports and compliance documents; she also has completed the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation course in National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 compliance policies and procedures. Her analytic skills include lithic and ceramic analyses as well as settlement pattern studies and spatial analysis, which were the foci of her doctoral research. As a Principal Archaeologist and subconsultant for Applied EarthWorks, Dr. Baloian provides quality assurance, high-level technical review, CEQA and Section 106 oversight, and overall professional guidance for project work, as needed.

Applied
EARTHWORKSIn

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS ERIN ENRIGHT Vice President/Principal Archaeologist/Project Manager Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resource management
• Project management
• Archaeological field work/
Supervision
• GIS analysis and desktop site
assessments
• Faunal analysis
• Prehistory and history of California
and the Southwest
Years of Experience
• 22
Education
M.A., Anthropology and Applied
Archaeology, Eastern New Mexico
University, Portales, 2008
B.A., Classical and Near Eastern
Archaeology, Bryn Mawr College,
Pennsylvania, 2000
Registrations/Certifications
• Register of Professional
Archaeologists 16575 (2009)
• OSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER
(2019)
Permits/Licensure
• Principal Investigator, California
BLM Statewide Cultural
Resources Use Permit CA-21-21
Professional Affiliations
• Society for American Archaeology
• Society for California Archaeology
Professional Experience
2021– Vice President/Managing Principal/Principal
Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis
Obispo and Fresno, California
2019–2021 Managing Principal/Principal Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California
2014–2018 Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California
2008–2014 Associate Archaeologist/Faunal Analyst, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California
2004–2008 Faunal Analyst/Student Supervisor/ Educational Outreach, Blackwater Draw Archaeological Site and
Museum, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales
2001–2004 Staff Archaeologist, Cultural Resource Management Services, Paso Robles, California
2000 Field Archaeologist, Princeton Expedition, Polis
Chrysochous, Cyprus
1999 Archaeological Field School, Anathica Field School, Petras, Crete, Greece
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Enright is an experienced professional archaeologist, principal investigator, project manager, and field supervisor/director who has managed projects throughout California and the Southwest. She has participated at all levels within the cultural resource management industry with projects ranging from survey and site recording; testing and data recovery; National Register eligibly excavations; buried site testing (backhoe trenching); development of monitoring plans; database creation and maintenance; curation management; GIS; technical report production; and compliance assistance for NHPA and CEQA projects.

Ms. Enright has developed close relationships with tribal groups and individuals throughout the Central Coast and Central Valley. She has played a critical role in providing consultation support between agencies and Native American groups for AB 52, CEQA, and Section 106.

Additionally, she has experience managing large on-call contracts and complicated cultural resource management efforts with complex regulatory requirements. Several of these efforts have been in support of energy projects. Ms. Enright has authored or co-authored more than 70 technical reports and other NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA compliance documents, and presented research at state and national archaeological meetings.

Applied
EARTHWORKSIn

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS ANNA HOOVER Principal Archaeologist
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resources management
• Prehistoric archaeology of
southern California
• Indigenous archaeology and Native
American/descendant community
coordination
• Federal, state, local environmental
laws and regulations
• Training, capacity building
• Traditional Cultural Property and
Landscape analysis
Years of Experience
• 24
Education
M.S., Anthropology, focus
Archaeology, 2003, University of
California, Riverside
B.S., Anthropology, 2000,
University of California, Riverside
B.A., Linguistics, 2000, University
of California, Riverside
A.A., English, 1996, Long Beach
City College
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 28576661 (current)
• Cultural Consultant, Riverside
County #171 (current)
Permits/Licensure
• Field Director, California BLM
Statewide Cultural Resources Use
Permit CA-21-21
Professional Associations
• Society of California Archaeology
Professional Experience
2023– Principal Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2020–2022 Senior Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2017–2023 Senior Ethnoarchaeologist, Cultural Geographics Consulting
2007–2017 Deputy Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians
2001–2015 Archaeological Assistant, San Bernardino County Coroner
2002–2007 Senior Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc.

Technical Qualifications
Ms. Hoover has more than 24 years of experience in archaeological, cultural, and tribal resource management in southern California, Alta and Baja California, and Yucatan, Mexico. Ms. Hoover has collaborated with governmental agencies, environmental consultants, and indigenous communities to develop sustainable and practical applications for the identification and preservation of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including landscapes and large, geographical features. As a capable Project Manager, she has coordinated dozens of CRM projects during all phases of development, including managing logistics and communications with various clients, lead agencies, Tribal communities, and project staff. Ms. Hoover is the designated archaeologist of record for three Native American Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) in southern California.

Ms. Hoover has authored, co-authored, reviewed, and contributed to hundreds of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) technical reports; Programmatic, Memoranda, and Master Agreements; THPO development applications and associated tribal ordinances and historic preservation guidance; ethnographic studies and National Register of Historic Places eligibility forms; and other compliance and mitigation documents.

Ms. Hoover has presented collaborative projects, personal research, cultural resources education, and environmental regulation guidance trainings to a wide variety of audiences, including topics such as AB 52, SB 18 and CEQA guidance, cultural and tribal consultation best practices, and Tribal Monitoring Program trainings. She has contributed to CalTHPO organizational committees, participated in development of California and Federal archaeological and tribal consultation policies, and contributed to a published book on Tribal GIS applications.

Applied
EARTHWORKSIn

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS NICOLE SAENZ Staff Anthropologist
Areas of Expertise
• Forensic anthropology
• Human osteology
• Faunal analysis/zooarchaeology
• Project administration
Years of Experience
• 6
Education
M.S., Forensic Anthropology,
Boston University Chobanian and
Avedisian School of Medicine, 2023
B.A., Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Cruz, 2012
Professional Experience
2023– Staff Anthropologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
2022– Forensic Anthropology Consultant and Peer Reviewer, Puerto Rico Institute of Forensic Sciences
2022–2023 Field Technician, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
2008–2012 Zooarchaeology Preparations and Curation Intern, University of California, Santa Cruz
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Saenz is a Staff Anthropologist at Applied EarthWorks, Inc. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz and her Master of Science degree in Forensic Anthropology from the Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine. In addition, Ms. Saenz has completed internships in zooarchaeological preparation and curation, thermally altered scene analysis and remains recovery, and currently serves as a forensic anthropological consultant and peer reviewer for the Puerto Rico Institute of Forensic Sciences. Ms. Saenz’s professional responsibilities include project administration, osteological assessments, outreach with the Native American Heritage Commission and its recommendations, pre-field project preparations, writing technical reports, completing California Department of Parks and Recreation 523- series forms, and assisting with project proposals.

Applied
EARTHWORKSIn

APPENDIX B
Records Search Results

7/31/2023

Milo Honsberger
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave.

Fresno, CA 93711
Re: 4524 Clovis TR 0000
Records Search File No.: 23-286
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Clovis & Friant USGS 7.5’ quads. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.25 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☐ custom GIS maps ☒ GIS data
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.25 mile radius: P-10-005934
Reports within project area: FR-00534, 01219, 02203, 02289 Reports within 0.25 mile radius: FR-03067
NOTE:

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note:

OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource.

Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Tulare
-
1 Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
California State University, Bakersfield
Mail Stop: 72 DOB
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311-1022
(661) 654-2289
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.csub.edu/ssjvic
California
Historical
Resources
In formation
S y stem
k

Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
UL.O.0..A

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 23-286
FR-00534 1991 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Behymer Lake Storm Drainage and Flood
Control Project Initial Study
Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc.

Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.

FR-01219 1993 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Drainage Area "BY" Facilities
Cultural Resources
Consulting
Bissonnette, Linda Dick
FR-02203 2006 A Cultural Resource Study of the Battlin
Brooks Property, Fresno County, California
Varner, Dudley M. Varner Associates
FR-02289 2006 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
of the City of Clovis Northwest Urban Center
Specific Plan Area, Fresno County, California
Nettles, Wendy M. and Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Baloian, Randy
10-006109
FR-03067 2018 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation for the Tract 6200 Development in the City of
Clovis, Fresno County, California
Stanley, Ward, Baloian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Randy, and Baloian, Mary
10-005934

Record Search Results Map: Reports
0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
12S 21E, 20, 21
Friant (1964), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic
Quadrangle
Clovis (1964-1981), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
FR-00534
FR-02203
FR-02289
FR-03067
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Survey Area
Study Area (RS limit)
Report Polys
5 1204 ■ well
-
— =
■■ —• i 394 — J4 390
r
-
]. 9
Q
i
AVE & \ Q 18 8 17 ।
) 6
<i l..57
f
Well o
sese
=======
; A
% N. / ? U
2 .7I io
ak 2l 2
.8E) BM
o
it; 385 A tr 387 .
□
Vs cl 139/ C
D ====== •
$
Jas E ump.
/ i V
34 11
19 L. ' c i
a 820 0 J 21
YE
I
I F lum- === ===== ==--34
== BM GA
9 38 1
=====;
T “elf i I Welt
w
379 389 n 7
390 o Js. l
‘I 3
7 po 375 % — d
/ N
"Well ass i.AvE Mell
1 Sipl
2-
9 a
=e
COLE
- AYE L' CAL
'< Well - ol
t
3 : • ), ...HELM. r— BM375 COLONIAL s===ns**==m) -376 1. . TEAGUE I
" J — E E
o =" W • (2
!
I
= Well,, 2 *• 3. ---
I
365 i x n I
N
1 Anu Applied

EARTHWORKS,
S
I
!
We?
336
I
I
‘s
I
I
XI O
It
Well "
393
I
O
8 1:

I
Q
g
__ PEKPIN
119
-L7o
S
J
3 s
1 385
7"?
6 8
dg
«
p
;3
i
$A 99
one
%
$
3 M
III|
IN
s
—
S
. g1\. 3
I ) —-LSOPPER—
. X392 S".1
"l
in
5

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
SSJVIC Record Search 23-286
P-10-005934 CA-FRE-003564H Resource Name - Enterprise
Canal;
OTIS Resource Number -
534499;
OHP Property Number - 163775
FR-02615, FR02919, FR-03067Structure Historic HP20 2007 (R. Baloian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.);
2013 (Randy Baloian, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.);
2017 (Ward Stanley and Randy
Baloian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.)

Record Search Results Map: Resources
0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
12S 21E, 20, 21
Friant (1964), CA 7.5' USGS Topographic
Quadrangle
Clovis (1964-1981), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
P-10-005934
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Resource Lines
Survey Area
Study Area (RS limit)
AvE ■ well •—( — —
/7co I '81 Iu \
6 11
394 3
PER W U:
s 390
IS
os I: S
“I... 39 4
2 9
Q
O
NAL AVE .D 18 17
6g
Well o
55 • uu £
OM : ( 34 TA st’ 9
>
%
“i )4
i)
302 .8EAYME BM & 385
-
al 9 139/
C
1 = = = 3 U
s § > 38$ Pumo, 7 ^80.. Q
1 0
f71 386
19 O Ll
920 V c
AVE
F lume 20
U If I
I G
I
Well "to Well
379 wn
■0 w ... 1
s 330— » s *
I
.3 ‘I V or 375 %
79". N I
Well ■ 1.4
“82 - X392
S=n".y
JR Welldir39? COLE ==i- r’w " Well'
)
...“HELM BM 375 ^COUQfillAL = = urss*=== - 376 " ' "383 TEAGUE !-. Ave. •• s __ _ a "e
C
I
I
I
P
51 Well |. .-Glg
365 L/E
N
]
Anu Applied

EARTHWORKS,
Well
389
%
°s
A
I
O
“e 2*.%
BM. * Is
£
<u
3 $
sV
It I
s
__ PERRIN
119
III
3 0
?"?
8 L
8 e
d
l
WS
394
; (
N
It
/
21 99
3 2,C
■
9 ur O > o Wei
onC" . 3850,
M
m
'B
IN
IN
AVE ..l
..Well
- - = ““Siphon
o
294//
/.

H---

APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-657-5390 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Date: 7/17/23
Project: 4524 Clovis Tract 0000
County: Fresno
USGS Quadrangle Name: Fresno & Clovis
TRS: 12S 21E, 20, 21
Company/Firm/Agency: Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Contact Person: Milo Honsberger
Street Address: 1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
City: Fresno Zip: 93711
Phone: (559) 229-1856 x
Fax: (559) 229-2019
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

Applied Earthworks will be conducting a survey in Clovis CA.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

September 12, 2023
Milo Honsberger
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: 4524 Clovis Tract 0000 Project, Fresno County
Dear Mr. Honsberger:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

ERICA/ P
(VP Mr
C
Z lela
2 A

Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Cultural Affiliation
Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government N Robert Ledger, Chairperson Foothill Yokut Mono
North Valley Yokuts Tribe N Katherine Perez, Chairperson Costanoan Northern Valley Yokut
North Valley Yokuts Tribe N Timothy Perez, Costanoan
Northern Valley Yokut
Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi
Indians
F Michael Wynn, Tribal
Administrator
Foothill Yokut
Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi
Indians
F Janet Bill, Chairperson Foothill Yokut
Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi
Indians
F Heather Airey, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Foothill Yokut
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe F Leo Sisco, Chairperson Southern Valley Yokut Table Mountain Rancheria F Brenda Lavell, Chairperson Yokut Table Mountain Rancheria F Bob Pennell, Cultural Resource Director
Yokut
Traditional Choinumni Tribe N David Alvarez, Chairperson Foothill Yokut Tule River Indian Tribe F Joey Garfield, Tribal
Archaeologist
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe F Kerri Vera, Environmental
Department
Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe F Neil Peyron, Chairperson Yokut Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley
Band
N Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson Foothill Yokut
Mono
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Fresno County
9/12/2023
09/12/2023 01:14 PM
1 of 1

1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711-3600
O: (559) 229-1856 | F: (559) 229-2019
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS September 13, 2023
Joel Marvin, Vice Chairperson
Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
P.O. Box 337
Auberry, CA, 93602
(559) 374-0066
Transmitted via USPS and email ([email protected])
RE: Clovis Tracts 6375 and 6452 Housing Development Projects in Clovis, Fresno County, California
Dear Joel Marvin,
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is providing cultural resource services, including archaeological survey, in support of proposed housing development. The development includes two separate projects on adjacent plots of land, the boundaries of which are just north of the City of Clovis.

The project areas are a combined 77 acres, one 18.23-acre parcel and one 58.9-acre parcel, as shown on the Friant and Clovis 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles (see enclosed maps).

The project does involve new construction, including multiple ground-breaking activities related to construction and development. Therefore, a cultural resource study is required.

On behalf of the City of Clovis, Æ is conducting Native American outreach and performing other tasks related to cultural resource management. The project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and, as lead agency, the City of Clovis is responsible for any formal government-to-government consultation required. This communication is not intended to initiate Assembly Bill 52 consultation.

Æ has requested a sacred lands file search from the Native American Heritage Commission. The results were received on September 12, 2023 and indicated a negative result. Your name and address were provided to us by the NAHC as someone who may have additional information and/or concerns about the project.

If you have information about tribal or cultural resources in the area or if you have any interest in the project, please email/phone me or send a letter to my attention. Your comments will be included in our cultural resource report unless noted otherwise. You can contact me during normal business hours (559- 229-1856 ext. 121) or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Nicole Saenz, M.S.

Project Administrator, Fresno Office
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
encl.: Project Maps
Applied
EARTHWORKSIn

Project location map for the Project - AE4524.
0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
12S 21E, 20, 21
Friant (1964), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
Clovis (1964-1981), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle

PROJECT AREA
11 It Q • m
I
•'“I
1’!'
..
ii

MINNEWAWA AVE
D".
£1
Ar
1 MINNEWAW
■(!
7 AYE
m
# "" s e
•itlo J
N Ii Ts : rj
t
SZ8-0 n • Oll
T o
i
I I
r
-- -A $. 47N
7 N CLovIs
I
1 o;’ AYE_
■
I 1 ==sg==ge..

I ✓ *
“AVE » •
■
7 Se
7 2 •. 1 \ 1
?NMYS/PE
th «.
•*s
AVE &3
n 8o
I
s V 390 .
1-
U
(
(Y
“5.

II
I
—AVE I ------ 2 (
% -AVE
1 s Ch .
—
*
tNF 10
I 11 l
:
*% l
8 2
N (
> 2. .. 1,
gm ss
ll'
J e
3f
anh
r
III
ll
IIII
A
IIll
il
Tret W 0
. /
«
u
■V
CD
• 2
X
s
8 -J
• W
o -
1 1
y
i
oli
r
k.

P.
“F=FR*
g
tl
N
I
It
I
I
a
i
•H
I ll
PI
... a
II
Da/I 1
ir
llII
J
9 ER
n
9 -o
. 1 .

V
#
llllll
II
II
5 5
_ Js.
o
&
st
CLOVIS
N) 0
o
• 0
t...,
_____Ker
II
11 •
II
-
‘X
8 AYE.L
&
SS
°
(I YMi
37: W
— w
. p
1) 20

37.0 7
R

w
AAs
I | A
CERTIFIED 4066 1535
October 18,2023
RE: Clovis Tracts 6375 and 6452 Housing Development Projects Dear: Nicole Saenz
Sincerely,
23736
Sky Harbour Road
Post Office
Box 410
Friant
California
93626
(559) 822-2587
Fax
(559) 822-2693
3 If you have already conducted a record search, please provide Table Mountain Rancheria with copies of any cultural resource report you may have.

Robert Pennell
Tribal Cultural Resources Director
Table Mountain Rancheria is responding to your letter dated September 13, 2023, regarding Clovis Tracts 6375 and 6452 Housing Development Projects. Thank you for notifying Table Mountain Rancheria of the potential development and request for consultation. The Rancheria is very interested in this project as it lies within our cultural area of interest.

At this time, please contact our office at (559) 325-0351 or [email protected] to coordinate a discussion and meeting date regarding your project.

Nicole Saenz, M.S., Project Administrator, Fresno Office Applied Earthworks Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711

TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE

9/14/23, 2:52 PM Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - City of Clovis Archaeology Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2539842cea&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r6902959180343600267&simpl=msg-a:r759906907052902… 1/2 Nicole Saenz <[email protected]>
City of Clovis Archaeology Project
2 messages
Nicole Saenz <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:40 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Anna Hoover <[email protected]>
Dear Elizabeth Kipp
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. is providing archaeological services for two projects in Clovis, Fresno County, CA. As a result of a recent Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Search for these projects, your name and contact information was provided by the NAHC as someone who may have additional information and/or concerns about this project.

Please kindly review the attached letter and project area map and respond with any comments or concerns you may have. Please note that our outreach is not formal government to government consultation, but an opportunity for you to provide information for the archaeological report.

We appreciate your time and consideration.
--
Nicole Saenz M.S. | Applied EarthWorks, Inc.

Project Administrator - Osteologist - Field Technician | (She/Her) 1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711-3600
Office 559-229-1856 x121
www.appliedearthworks.com
Archaeology | Paleontology | Historical Architecture | GIS 2 attachments
NAHC_Map_4522.pdf
725K
Big Sandy Rancheria Chairperson.pdf
139K
Liz Kipp <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:51 PM To: Nicole Saenz <[email protected]>
Cc: Anna Hoover <[email protected]>
On behalf of Big Sandy Rancheria, we have no comments or concerns with the City of Clovis Archaeology Project. If at any time anything of cultural significance is discovered, we request to be notified. Thank you and have a great day.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth D. Hutchins-Kipp
Tribal Chairperson
2 2
Applied EathWorks Employee Stock Ownership PLan AESOP
100% Employee Owned

9/14/23, 2:52 PM Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - City of Clovis Archaeology Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2539842cea&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r6902959180343600267&simpl=msg-a:r759906907052902… 2/2 Big Sandy Rancheria
PO Box 337
37387 Auberry Mission Rd.

Auberry, California 93602
559-374-0066 ext. 212
559-374-0055 fax
[email protected]
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Bicsnnov

RANCHERIA

Native American Outreach
Clovis Tract 6452 Project
Organization Name Letter Email Phone Summary of Contact Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Elizabeth Kipp 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left
10/19/2023
No response to date
Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Tom Zizzo 9/14/2023 9/13/2023 Message left
10/19/2023
No response to date
Big Sandy Rancheria of
Western Mono Indians
Joel Marvin 9/14/2023 9/13/2023 10/19/2023 Requested to be informed of any discoveries
Cold Springs Rancheria of
Mono Indians
Jared Aldern 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 No longer affiliated with tribal management
Cold Springs Rancheria of
Mono Indians
Carol Bill 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 No longer affiliated with tribal management
Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal
Government
Robert Ledger 09/14/23 09/13/23 Called
10/19/23;

No response to date
North Fork Mono Tribe Ron Goode 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 Requested that crews remain cognisant of the fact
that there are several known
sites in the area that have
not been located.

North Fork Mono Tribe Anna Phipps 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left 10/19/2023
No response to date
North Fork Mono Tribe Jesse Valdez 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left 10/19/2023
No response to date
North Valley Yokuts Tribe Timothy Perez 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left 10/19/2023
No response to date
North Valley Yokuts Tribe Katherine Perez 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left 10/19/2023
No response to date
Picayune Rancheria of the
Chukchansi Indians
Michael Wynn 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left
10/19/2023
No response to date
Picayune Rancheria of the
Chukchansi Indians
Heather Airey 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 Declined interest in the project
Picayune Rancheria of the
Chukchansi Indians
Janet Bill 09/14/23 09/13/23 — —
Table Mountain Rancheria Bob Pennell 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 Received e-mail response on 10/19, 2023 expressing
interest and requesting a
copy of the cultural
resources report and
meeting to discuss the
project
Table Mountain Rancheria Brenda Lavell 09/14/23 no email address
— —
Traditional Choinumni
Tribe
David Alvarez 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 Declined interest in the project
Tule River Indian Tribe Neil Peyron 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left 10/19/2023
No response to date
Tule River Indian Tribe Kerri Vera 09/14/23 09/13/23 10/19/23 Deferred interest to Table Mountain Rancheria
Tule River Indian Tribe Joey Garfield 09/14/23 09/13/23 — — Wuksachi Indian
Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow 09/14/23 09/13/23 Message left
10/19/2023
No response to date
11/27/2023 Page 1 of 1
Inc.

Applied

EARTHWORKS

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
TRACT 6452
CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Project No. 23-26
PREPARED FOR
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
8080 NORTH PALM AVENUE, SUITE 110
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 14, 2024
113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ill wjv acoustics
Appendix D

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  2

INTRODUCTION
The project, Tract 6452, is a proposed 153‐lot single‐family residential development to be located in Clovis, California. The project site is located north of (and adjacent to) the future alignment of Perrin Avenue, between the future alignment of N. Clovis Avenue and the future alignment of N.

Sunnyside Avenue. The City of Clovis has requested an acoustical analysis to quantify project site noise exposure and determine noise mitigation  requirements. This analysis, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon a project site plan prepared by Yamabe & Horn Engineering (dated 8‐14‐23), traffic data provided by the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) and the  findings  of  on‐site  noise  level  measurements.  Revisions  to  the  site  plan  may  affect  the findings and recommendations of this report. The site plan is provided as Figure 1.

Appendix  A  provides  a  description  of  the  acoustical  terminology  used  in  this  report.    Unless otherwise  stated,  all  sound  levels  reported  are  in  A‐weighted  decibels  (dB).  A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear.  Most  community  noise  standards  utilize  A‐weighting,  as  it  provides  a  high  degree  of correlation with human annoyance and health effects. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  3

NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA
General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Clovis General Plan establishes noise level standards for both transportation and non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources. Table I provides the maximum interior and exterior noise level standards for various land use categories, in terms of the CNEL.

The CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is the time‐weighted average noise level for a 24‐ hour day with penalties of 4.77 dB added to noise levels occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p.m‐10:00 p.m.) and 10 dB added  to noise levels occurring during  the nighttime hours  (10:00 p.m‐7:00 a.m.). Table II provides  the Land Use Compatibility Matrix. The City of Clovis applies Table II as guidance to approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility.

The  noise  element  establishes  an  exterior  noise  standard  of  65  dB  CNEL  for  exterior  noise exposure within outdoor activity areas of  residential land uses. Outdoor activity areas include backyards of single‐family  residences, individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments and common outdoor recreation areas of multi‐family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation. There is no applicable exterior noise level standard for commercial or office land uses provided in the General Plan Noise Element.

The Noise Element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB CNEL. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  4

TABLE I

MAXIMUM NOISE STANDARDS

CITY OF CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
Land Use Categories   Energy Average (CNEL)
Primary Land Use  Additional Uses Allowed  Interior1 Exterior2 Residential  Single Family, Multi Family  453
/554  657
Mobile Home  ‐‐  655
Commercial/Industrial
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging  45  656
Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant  55  ‐‐
Office Building, Professional Office, Research &
Development  50  ‐‐
Gymnasium (Multipurpose)  50  ‐‐
Health Clubs  55  ‐‐
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale,
Utilities  65  ‐‐
Hospital, School Classroom   45  65
Institutional  Church Library  45  ‐‐
Open Space  Parks  ‐‐  65
Source: City of Clovis General 2‐12 Plan Environmental and Safety Element, 2014.

Notes:
1 Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.  2 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single family or multifamily residences private patio which is accessed by a means of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.  3 Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208 of UBC.
4 Noise level requirement with open windows, if they are used to meet natural ventilation requirement.  5 Multi‐family developments with balconies that do not meet the 65 CNEL are required to provide occupancy disclosure notices to all future tenants regarding potential noise impacts.
6 Exterior noise level shall be such that interior noise level will not exceed 45 CNEL.  7 Except those areas affected by aircraft noise.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  5

TABLE II

LAND USE AND NOISE COMPATABILITY MATRIX

CITY OF CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
LAND USES  ENERGY AVERAGE (CNEL)
Example Land Uses  <  55  60  65  70  75  80>
Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, meeting hall  B  B  C  C  D  D  D Mobile Home  A  A  B  C  C  D  D
Hospital, library, school, faith/religious uses  A  A  B  C  C  D  D Hotel, motel, transient lodging  A  A  B  B  C  C  D
Single‐family, multi‐family  A  A  B  B  C  D  D
Parks  A  A  A  B  C  D  D
Office buildings, research & development, professional office, city office building  A  A  A  B  B  C  D
Amusement park, miniature golf, go‐cart track, health club, equestrian center
A  A  A  B  B  D  D
Golf courses, nature centers, cemeteries, wildlife reserves, wildlife habitat  A  A  A  A  B  C  C Commercial retail, bank, restaurant, movie theater  A  A  A  A  B  B  C Automobile service station, auto dealer, manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities  A  A  A  A  B  B  B
Agriculture  A  A  A  A  A  A  A
Notes: Compatibility zones indicate the degree to which the land uses listed are compatible with the noise levels (CNEL) shown in the table.

Zone A. Clearly Compatible. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

Zone B. Normally Compatible. New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

Zone C. Normally Incompatible. New construction or development should normally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis or noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design.

Zone D. Clearly Incompatible. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Municipal Code
Additionally, the City of Clovis Municipal Code provides noise level standards applicable to the project.  Section  9.22.080  (Noise)  of  the  City’s  Municipal  Code  provides  maximum  allowable exterior and interior noise level standards for specific land use types. Noise level standards are provided as energy average (Leq) noise levels and apply to any 15‐minute interval of time. Table III  provides  the  maximum  allowable  exterior  noise  level  standards  and  Table  IV  provides  the maximum allowable interior noise level standards. The Municipal Code also states that “If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard”.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  6

TABLE III

MAXIMUM EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS

CITY OF CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE
Noise Zone  Type of Land Use
A‐Weighted Decibels, Leq dBA
Sources
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

I  Single‐, two‐ or multi‐family residential  55  50
II  Commercial  65  60
III  Residential portions of mixed‐use properties  60  50 IV  Industrial or manufacturing  70  70
Source: City of Clovis Municipal Code

TABLE IV

MAXIMUM INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS

CITY OF CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE
Noise Zone  Type of Land Use
A‐Weighted Decibels, Leq dBA
Sources
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

I  Residential  45  40
II  Administrative/professional office  50  ‐‐
III  Residential portions of mixed‐use properties  45  40 Source: City of Clovis Municipal Code

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  7

PROJECT SITE NOISE EXPOSURE
The  project  site  is  located  north  of  (and  adjacent  to)  the  future  alignment  of  Perrin  Avenue, between  the  future alignment  of N.  Clovis  Avenue and  the  future alignment  of N.  Sunnyside Avenue, in Clovis, California. The project site will be exposed traffic noise associated with vehicles on these future roadways. The distance from center of the backyards of the closest proposed lots to the centerline of Perrin Avenue is approximately 60 feet. Additionally, the future alignment of N.  Clovis  Avenue  would  be  located  approximately  500  feet  west  of  the  closest  proposed residential lots.

Traffic Noise Exposure
Noise exposure  from  traffic on Perrin Avenue and N. Clovis Avenue was calculated  for  future (2046)  conditions  using  the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and  traffic  data  obtained  from Fresno COG.  A  description  of  the  noise  model,  applied  data,  methodology  and  findings  is  provided below. Future traffic volumes  for the  future alignment of N. Sunnyside Avenue, in the project vicinity, were below the threshold for inclusion in the Fresno COG traffic projection model.

WJVA  utilized  the  Federal  Highway  Administration  (FHWA)  Highway  Traffic  Noise  Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used for roadway traffic  noise  calculations.  The  model  is  based  upon  reference  energy  emission  levels  for automobiles, medium  trucks  (2 axles) and  heavy  trucks  (3  or more axles), with  consideration given  to  vehicle  volume,  speed,  roadway  configuration,  distance  to  the  receiver,  and  the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB.  To predict CNEL values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Annual  Average  Daily  Traffic  (AADT)  data  for  Perrin  Avenue  N.  Clovis  Avenue,  in  the  project vicinity  was  obtained  from  Fresno  COG.  Truck  percentages  and  the  day/evening/night distribution of traffic were estimated by WJVA, based upon previous studies conducted in the project vicinity since project‐specific data were not available from government sources. A speed limit of 45 mph was assumed for both roadways. Table IV summarizes annual average traffic data used to model noise exposure within the project site.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  8

TABLE IV

TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
TRACT 6452, CLOVIS
Perrin Avenue   N. Clovis Avenue
2046  2046
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 3,609  7,249
Day/Evening/Night Split (%)  83/7/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph)  45
% Medium Trucks (% AADT)   2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT)  2
Sources:  Fresno COG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Using data from Table IV, the FHWA Model, annual average traffic noise exposure was calculated for  the  closest  proposed  backyards  from  Perrin  Avenue  and  from N.  Clovis  Avenue.  Table  V provides the noise exposure levels for these two roadways, at the closest proposed residential lots to the roadway.

TABLE V
MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS, W. MINNEWAWA AVENUE, dB, CNEL TRACT 6452, CLOVIS
Roadway  2046 Conditions
Perrin Avenue  61
N. Clovis Avenue  51
Source: WJV Acoustics
Fresno COG
Reference  to Table V indicates  that  the  traffic noise exposure at  the closest  proposed lots  to Perrin  Avenue  would  be  approximately  61  dB  CNEL  for  future  (2046)  traffic  conditions,  and approximately 51 dB CNEL for the closest proposed lots to N. Clovis Avenue. Such noise exposure levels do not exceed the City’s 65 dB CNEL exterior noise level standard and mitigation measures are therefore not required for compliance with the City’s exterior noise level standard.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  9
Interior Noise Exposure:

The  City  of  Clovis interior  noise level  standard is  45  dB  CNEL. The worst‐case  noise exposure within  the  proposed  residential  development  would  be  approximately  61  dB  CNEL (2046 conditions). This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 16 dB (61‐45=16).

A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior  noise  levels  by  approximately  25  dB  if  windows  and  doors  are  closed.  This  will  be sufficient  for  compliance  with  the  City’s  45  dB  CNEL  interior  standard  at  all  proposed  lots.

Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  10

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The  proposed  153‐lot  single‐family  residential development will  comply with all City  of Clovis exterior  and  interior  noise  level  standards,  provided  the  following  mitigation  measures  are incorporated into final project design.
 Mechanical  ventilation  or  air  conditioning  must  be  provided  for  all  homes  so  that windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes.

The  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  this  acoustical  analysis  are  based  upon  the  best information  known  to  WJV  Acoustics  Inc.  (WJVA)  at  the  time  the  analysis  was  prepared concerning  the  proposed  lot  layout  plan,  project  site  elevation,  traffic  volumes  and  roadway configurations. Any significant changes in these factors will require a reevaluation of the findings of  this  report.  Additionally,  any  significant  future  changes  in motor  vehicle  technology,  noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis.

Respectfully submitted,

Walter J. Van Groningen
President
WJV:wjv

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24  11
FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN
Ref. & Rev. C s2is
! —।
ffiJ
2 i
i
FMFCDBASIBY2 I U
§
... wer I
1T
ny 11
I 'A
—
=us |E 1454 149 . 151. * f.
“ aS
awer.lawas
.zj ir.
12, is.

Ftff
l e
1 1
±
‘L
is APM: 557-011-09
s t, t I I
" IL........... '.1
L ===== Irif =
103/1/102 10) l’aI —= Fer*
-----
' ngl s3i5tgl
1 I
t 81
.1 ‘-0si
.i T,8, ' =
1UTTTT FT 1“
—
S
T
- . PERRIN AVE
-E
1 T
T
T7
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
o I II
|| i
i ir
T6344
Hih5 lisit 7
-4
L
I
I h
r/~- I —
Q
NOTES: VtaNTTYMAP:
§
MNGeUN JCub asce Shtole.s RUuS. OJLzIs a
TC., WTal THE EPCPCSED F AFHYF5 AN.F
T-iS AREA s NOT SLB.ECT "o FLOCD .NLWDATCN FRDPDSE SLEDMSIONS.OS NG LLLac 2 uLE auui es. 3 SmeAS. CLESS SIC5X. DAN AD 2 LDEACROUNC '
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE -F nen-nse Smnvaoy m 5 PEson ULV3: KLSULV"*L (1-A0W/At;
T-E DESEN cF TE PAOPOSED SJED’SGV SHALL FRDMDE T ThE
st n NATL.R). HFAT ce
32— CDCANSLO-ECI’UWLS
MIRANFYAIF "AFm FFSIIRCFSTas SmAGN nks FFFN
AAD cuur AAus." Cuar 88
5 SNCLE FAWLY RESUENA_
5 s

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
KLSDLV"_ (41-AL/AC)
s
LEGAL DESCHIPTION: NOTES:

PARKING LOT INFO:
o= FRESVC, STATE CF SAUFORL/ 3N0 is OF50E.BES A5 FCLLOWS. EXIST.NC STO=M OTAN ULET EX’SIN! STR —E SICEW DAN nL STANDAEEL P-RYNCD STALLS 52 LG HLCCSD-3 I BDCN 1, PaCO 53 o PAKCLL NA=s, FKESVC CCLN Y HecOUS; © EX5THC SANTARY SmFRO A3AH = EX’SIN: WAIeR LNE SICE, DAN WANHOLE ; 15, WA<F EXCAVATCNS AD
Ganaq= MRKNc (? CaRs "FF GARAGF):13 -D "ND FCLNE HESEOV AS EXCE-B, AN SEAKL I ‘HE EEED "ECW । O
J I ILBAMY 3. ‘953. %CtMSlV rUHUAKY 2, I926w JOcr i4/8 PoaL 215 cl DrWL FXISTMS® STos DAN WAHG F EX’SHMC OYE5HEADU EECTR LNE SANARY SEAEE WAAHOLE EX’SINC IR,CA:ICN® SML IRAICA.liOY SIAU=*L
I SOURCE OF GAS OWNER:
’ c- CO-D-MAI CM CASL NUME=A 401831 o.

ALFO?M, oL
3 4
EXISL.NC UTLIT" POLE EX’SIN: EDCE o PMENEMT
SOURCE OF CABLE T.V. covs"c o2013 "HCVCSD JKANVACe JHLC’D -sNt ILNCL fora Jo SOURCE OF TELEPHONE Dr. By: SUBDIVIDER: UTLITYPQE
••
=X‘SIN2 HHL "YSEANI
44 A&TE&To"
[
szce was 87/2023
EX’SLNE ONICUS ELs 10w
htet wire, 2 . tAS ’ • "PcPSSCDL s‘ Masa* OCOO Mit
PREPARED BY:

FIFE HDRAV GFAIGALO RECORDS FREEND CEUNr*II
YHJbNa. 23-186
2 YMMAAUC s IEV LMGN ‘ trpowt on &rGnc FFESNC CLTY FECODS EXI5TNC STO= ORAN LNE ShcotNo.
-EREFROLTHED 5ENs W AN TO AL CL PARCCL 4 or amoa MAP no 1772 "CAWEAS AN OTEF M’DEOCARBCN SLSSTA 32 b-8395 $ 280
San
TTM6343
APN:558-050-07S
&vnor s - 2325 s71
CUTLOT C - 2.328 5D.I
FRMDeer
FMFCD
APN:

SITE
LOCATION i
wesUio seou
82 ULSEMa LU Mr XX 5 .LLOIS CMLNIL 1, A vow’l 15 SCUIII s.

CSIEN’AUCN ‘C lAKs ADVBTaCE Or NA’UAL HAC AD
CO’NS O-PCRITFA
Lcur rug ses: ua se■ TCH 3 MPue tAin AD
ISL
A_L SIALLIS JMCLNI iC L:.L ubusuuS a nts sLuwscH
HAYE B== PAEMOSLY LEDCATED FCF F-BLC STREET PLRPGSES
28 |
CUTOT t - 2,128 S2F..CUTLOT C‘ - 23,755 SQ.5T.CITDT H‘ - 3,999 S.F1. &VnOT 14 T "" 2121,]
141
lznt"
.48.1

EXISTING ZONING
F 1 (SNDE FAMILY RESOFNTA)

PROPOSED USE
.s.7
‘ TE us T-=R=DF PEcnatrn Y4 e 2s AT nast a3 cr SARC= wArS FD=5 3447 acmtne To hr U*5 T FRO ecmmro t PCo ‘ AT >ar 47 cr - a23

EXISTING TREES
MOL (os ASL4 *CF OLLCP/A.)
EXISTING BUILDINGSNSIF (o AFA FCR QFVFI CPMAT)EXISTING USE 0z
i 5€ D5AlrO® -ce LAOSCANNS, UKLWES, Daiva’E WAWaY
AD RLCRLIDN -UWPDS:

US"oE ‘ar "
12115,
1 31
s82
AEIzQ-Otn I_UD LOVICL CIETHIC: ev LHJL5
OJP" OSCRBES AS FDLLCWS.
„50
es. uNe ce Ploe. ' ce sat psern. F t,ODF&: • PRC tNAtnv cr San S‘ O.A8T C 500 Stcno 2C
..202
u15 yIIL r: w ILUD 2 "pal" A ‘s GI . LUS PIICN_ PLw
‘HE "—CD0 WSUSANCL 5As MAPS.
3307082, T} 4 65.85 P2 "
1 L’.I.H
8 1 QI
Fu
- a
56 8
(A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)

IN THE CITY OF CLOVIS

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SHEET 1 OF 4

BOUNDARY ANALYSIS
O I
!
t...i
PEMN AvRUE AL"GNM/ca.
2995 N. EU-L ave, s.n2 *CI
SASa,540274
R"RURNUO% P"A‘C VAs A "UxLs * PAI
c
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 555-040-235

SITE AREA
CEcs5:21.75 ACRES, WCRE S LeSSFCHANOCR 3.54 ACRE& HO (R L553 HSLC: GDES 21.76 AOUS, HDIA D L-SSFRZECT AET 17.7 ACRE5, HCfr OR L555

SITE ADDRESS
O oi
„78.

VESTING

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
OF
TRACT NO. 6452
l==slr I
uJQ
C) I§
o
co l R
S Ws
ALL PICupLU S_w_‘s. MAILS. sot LA,N. ur WI’LN.

SUEWAL EAVLWLNT, SIREEI ‘HE-S, "ND SIRLET LICHI
WFRCFWFNTA JRF T.. FF DSF I ADCMRACF WTH CITY f
‘ALSNU SIAMIAD S’LUSAUS
"awDsW"cnss o sues aeam ma ill
avel
WATER wEus, PTER LheS TCVEFS, ET
SImsc" TG 5 Poow
2 = — " “t —
=ha #'
I A: o. Gas AN/R ANF=A s TH5n- am T-FRFLTFR, TOO-TAFR mT I TE "A AECFASARY 05 CEVIENT MFAN5 T BoR 4* F
59 4 ! !R F

PROPOSED ZONING
P < (SNm = Faul Y AFSOCFNLA)
SOURCE OF WATER aia cuommsiSOURCE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
an o= cums

SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY
s3
§. 3,
vh51
I

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24

APPENDIX A

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL:  The  composite  of  noise  from  all  sources  near  and  far.    In  this context,  the  ambient  noise  level  constitutes  the  normal  or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL:  Community  Noise  Equivalent  Level.    The  average  equivalent sound  level  during  a  24‐hour  day,  obtained  after  addition  of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB:  A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound  measured  to  the  reference  pressure,  which  is  20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/Ldn:  Day/Night Average Sound Level.  The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

Leq:  Equivalent  Sound  Level.    The  sound  level  containing  the  same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE:    The  CNEL  and  DNL  represent  daily  levels  of  noise  exposure averaged  on  an  annual  basis,  while  Leq  represents  the  average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

Lmax:      The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Ln:      The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval  (L90,  L50,  L10,  etc.).    For  example,  L10  equals  the  level exceeded 10 percent of the time.

23‐26 (Tract 6452, Clovis) 3‐14‐24
A-2

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS:    Lines  drawn  about  a  noise  source  indicating  constant  levels  of noise exposure.  CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR):  The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or  between  two  rooms  that  is  the  numerical  difference,  in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in  those areas or rooms.  A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL:    Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level.  The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft  overflight,  with  reference  to  a  duration  of  one  second.

More  specifically,  it  is  the  time‐integrated  A‐weighted  squared sound  pressure  for  a  stated  time  interval  or  event,  based  on  a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL:    The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network.  The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC):    The  single‐number  rating  of  sound  transmission  loss  for  a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS

SUBJECTIVE

NOISE SOURCE DESCRIPTIONSOUND LEVEL
120 dBAMPLIFIED ROCK ‘N ROLL ►
JET TAKEOFF @ 200 FT ► DEAFENING
100 dB
BUSY URBAN STREET ► VERY LOUD
80 dB
FREEWAY TRAFFIC @ 50 FT ► LOUD
CONVERSATION @ 6 FT • 60 dB
TYPICAL OFFICE INTERIOR ► MODERATE
SOFT RADIO MUSIC • 40 dB
RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ► FAINT
WHISPER @ 6 FT • 20 dB
HUMAN BREATHING ► VERY FAINT
0 dB

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Proposed Tract 6452
Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues Clovis, California
Prepared For:

Lennar Homes, Inc.
8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno, California 93711
Date:

February 8, 2024
Job No.:
23-039.01

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Appendix E

862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis for proposed Tract 6452 in Clovis, California. This analysis focuses on the anticipated effect of vehicle traffic resulting from the Project. The Transportation Impact Analysis was performed in general conformance with the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines dated September 15, 2022 (City Guidelines).

The Project site covers approximately 18.23 acres northeast of the intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues (APN 556-040-23) in Clovis, California. The Project will include 153 single-family residential lots. Site access is proposed via Marion Avenue at Perrin Avenue and Eclipse Avenue connecting to Baron Avenue. Sunnyside Avenue will be accessible via Heirloom Avenue.

This report includes analysis of the following intersections:

1. Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue

2. Baron Avenue / Behymer Avenue

3. Baron Avenue / Perrin Avenue

4. Clovis Avenue / Baron Avenue

5. Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue

6. Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue
This report includes an estimate of the number or Project trips that will occur at the following freeway interchanges:

1. State Route (SR) 168 interchange at Herndon Avenue

2. SR 168 interchange at Fowler Avenue
The study time periods include the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours determined between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The peak hours are analyzed for the following conditions:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing-Plus-Project Conditions;
• Near-Term With-Project Conditions (includes pending and approved projects not yet occupied);
• Cumulative (Year 2045) With-Project Conditions.

Standard traffic engineering principles and methods were employed to establish the existing conditions, to estimate the number of trips expected to be generated by the Project, and to analyze the traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future. The conclusions of the study are summarized in the following sections.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
Trip Generation
The Project is expected to generate approximately 1,444 vehicle trips per day (722 trips entering the site and 722 trips exiting the site). Peak-hour traffic volumes are expected to be on the order of 108 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 144 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

CEQA Impact Analysis (VMT)
Project-specific traffic modeling indicates a calculated Project VMT of 17.9 VMT per capita, which is greater than the threshold of 14.1 VMT per capita. Therefore, the Project would create a significant transportation impact.

The Project will implement feasible mitigation measures such as constructing sidewalk and trails. These Project design features can help offset a portion of the VMT impact of the Project but will not reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable transportation impact under CEQA.

It is recommended that the proposed Project, consistent with the General Plan, tier its environmental review from the General Plan SEIR, which has disclosed the VMT impacts of land use development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s significant transportation impact does not need to be disclosed in a Project-specific EIR.

Existing Conditions
The study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service with calculated 95th-percentile queues contained within the available storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with all-way stop control. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with allway stop control.

Existing-Plus-Project Conditions
The existing-plus-Project-conditions analyses represent conditions that would occur after construction of the Project if none of the pending and approved projects were constructed.

This scenario isolates the specific effects of the Project. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at levels of service similar to the existing conditions. The Project will not cause any intersections currently operating at acceptable LOS to operate worse than the target LOS, and the calculated 95th-percentile queues are within the available storage capacity.

The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues, which operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the Project’s contribution to the level of service issue is relatively minimal, as the Project’s percentage of the overall traffic volume in the existingplus-Project conditions is less on the order of one to two percent during the peak hours.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues during the p.m. peak hour, causing the LOS to drop from LOS E to LOS F.

However, construction of a traffic signal at the intersection is currently underway.

Existing-Plus-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Near-Term With-Project Conditions
The near-term with-Project conditions analyses represent conditions that are expected after construction of the Project and the known pending and approved projects. This scenario isolates the near-term cumulative effects of the Project and other known projects. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Clovis Avenue / Baron Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with one-way stop control.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound and northbound approaches.

Near-Term With-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Clovis and Baron Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require signalization. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It should be noted that signalization of the intersection by the Project alone is not recommended, as the intersection will not require signalization until Clovis Avenue is extended north of Baron Avenue.

In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Conditions
The year 2045 cumulative with-Project conditions analyses are based on the assumption that the Project has been constructed, the pending and approved projects have been constructed, and that 20 years of growth has occurred in the Clovis, Fresno, and Fresno County region as incorporated into the adopted Fresno County travel model.

The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Baron Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour on the northbound approach with one-way stop control. • Baron Avenue / Perrin Avenue: LOS F during the p.m. peak hour on the eastbound and westbound approaches with two-way stop control.
• Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with traffic signals.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: excessive queues on the westbound and southbound approaches.
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: excessive queues in the left-turn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches, the eastbound through lane, and the right-turn lanes on the westbound, northbound, and southbound approaches.

Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on all four approaches and a dedicated rightturn lane would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Baron and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, a dedicated left-turn lane with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. peak hour.

In order for the intersection of Baron and Perrin Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, allway stop control may be installed. With all-way stop control, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)
In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require modification from the planned signalized lane configurations to the following:

Eastbound: two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Westbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Northbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane Southbound: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane With the recommended widening, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour.

862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Jeff Callaway February 8, 2024
Lennar Homes, Inc.
8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno, California 93711
Subject: Transportation Impact Analysis
Proposed Tract 6452
Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues Clovis, California
Dear Mr. Callaway:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Transportation Impact Analysis for proposed Tract 6452 in Clovis, California. This analysis focuses on the anticipated effect of vehicle traffic resulting from the Project. The Transportation Impact Analysis was performed in general conformance with the City of Clovis Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines dated September 15, 2022 (City Guidelines).

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site covers approximately 18.23 acres northeast of the intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues (APN 556-040-23) in Clovis, California. The Project will include 153 single-family residential lots. Site access is proposed via Marion Avenue at Perrin Avenue and Eclipse Avenue connecting to Baron Avenue. Sunnyside Avenue will be accessible via Heirloom Avenue. A site vicinity map is presented in the attached Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, following the text of this report. A site plan is presented in Figure 2, Site Plan.

3.0 STUDY AREA AND TIME PERIOD
This report includes analysis of the following intersections:

1. Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue

2. Baron Avenue / Behymer Avenue

3. Baron Avenue / Perrin Avenue

4. Clovis Avenue / Baron Avenue

5. Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue

6. Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue
This report includes an estimate of the number or Project trips that will occur at the following freeway interchanges:

1. State Route (SR) 168 interchange at Herndon Avenue

2. SR 168 interchange at Fowler Avenue

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 2 The study time periods include the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours determined between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The peak hours are analyzed for the following conditions:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing-Plus-Project Conditions;
• Near-Term With-Project Conditions (includes pending and approved projects not yet occupied);
• Cumulative (Year 2045) With-Project Conditions.

4.0 LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
The existing lane configurations and intersection control at the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 3, Existing Lane Configurations and Intersection Control. The lane configurations and intersection control assumed for the near-term and year 2045 analyses are presented in Figure 4, Year 2045 Lane Configurations and Intersection Control.

5.0 CITY OF CLOVIS GENERAL PLAN
The City of Clovis General Plan designates the streets at the study locations as follows:

Minnewawa Avenue: Arterial south of Behymer Avenue and Collector north of Behymer Avenue
Baron Avenue: Collector
Perrin Avenue: Collector east of Baron Avenue and west of Clovis Avenue. Not designated between
Clovis Avenue: Arterial
Beyhmer Avenue: Arterial west of Clovis Avenue and Collector east of Clovis Avenue Shepherd Avenue: Arterial west of Clovis Avenue and Expressway east of Clovis Avenue Sunnyside Avenue: Collector south of Perrin Avenue

6.0 CEQA IMPACT ANALYSIS

6.1 Background and Significance Threshold
The City Guidelines provide guidance relative to analyzing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for purposes of determining transportation impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City Guidelines indicate that Projects that generate or attract fewer than 500 vehicle trips per day are presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. For residential projects, the City Guidelines indicate a significant transportation impact occurs if the Project VMT per capita is greater than a level of 13 percent below the existing average VMT per capita in Fresno County. The regional average is 16.1 VMT per capita, and the impact threshold is 14.1 VMT per capita.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 3

6.2 Project-Specific VMT Analysis
The Project will generate more than 500 trips per day (see the Trip Generation section of this report) and the Project site lies within a red area on Figure B1 of the City Guidelines.

Therefore, the Project is not be screened out with respect to transportation impacts and a Project-specific VMT analysis has been performed.

Project-specific traffic modeling was performed by a COG-approved traffic modeling consultant and the results are presented in Appendix A. The modeling indicates a calculated Project VMT of 17.9 VMT per capita, which is greater than the threshold of 14.1 VMT per capita. Therefore, the Project would create a significant transportation impact.

6.3 Feasible Mitigation Measures
Feasible mitigation measures must be identified to avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures can be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project designs. Mitigation of VMT impacts typically requires changes in habits and behaviors of residents. Project design features that encourage mode shift from automobiles to transit or nonmotorized modes can potentially reduce project-specific VMT.

VMT reduction and benefits from project design features are typically not accounted for in the project-specific VMT calculations conducted using the regional travel demand model.

Therefore, VMT reduction credit can be taken for Project design features that encourage the desired mode shift. Descriptions of such project design features and the corresponding potential VMT reduction are presented below. The potential VMT reduction was estimated using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity – Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers” dated December 2021.

The Project proposes to provide pedestrian facilities both internal to the Project site and along the project frontage. Providing such improvements encourages people to walk instead of drive and thereby reduces VMT. CAPCOA transportation measure “T‐18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement” provides an estimate of the VMT reduction due to project related enhancements in pedestrian access and connectivity. The Project study area includes approximately three miles of existing sidewalk. The Project proposes to add approximately one mile of sidewalk/pedestrian access. Utilizing the CAPCOA VMT reduction calculation, construction of sidewalk may reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately 1.7 percent.

The Project proposes to construct less than one mile of Class II Bike Lane on Baron Avenue and on Perrin Avenue. CAPCOA transportation measure “T‐19A: Construct or Improve Bike Facility” suggests the Project bicycle design features have a potential to reduce up to

0.04 percent of the project VMT.

Implementation of the Project design features described above reduces the calculated Project VMT by up to approximately 1.7 percent. The Project design features can help offset a portion of the VMT impact of the Project but will not reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable transportation impact under CEQA.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 4

6.4 Findings
On October 17, 2022 the Clovis City Council certified a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) with a statement of overriding considerations applicable to significant transportation impacts based on VMT for projects that conform to the General Plan and that have implemented feasible mitigation measures.

It is recommended that the proposed Project, consistent with the General Plan, tier its environmental review from the General Plan SEIR, which has disclosed the VMT impacts of land use development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s significant transportation impact does not need to be disclosed in a project-specific EIR.

7.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 7 th Edition, (HCM) defines
level of service (LOS) as, “A quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures that represent quality of service, measured on an A-F scale, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.” Automobile mode LOS characteristics for both unsignalized and signalized intersections are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1
Level of Service Characteristics for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
A 0-10
B >10-15
C >15-25
D >25-35
E >35-50
F >50

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 5 Table 2
Level of Service Characteristics for Signalized Intersections Level of
Service Description Average VehicleDelay (seconds)
A
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. <10
B
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is very short.
>10-20
C
Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is favorable or cycle length is moderate. >20-35
D
Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is ineffective or cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35-55
E
Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is unfavorable and cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. >55-80 F
Volume-to-capacity ratio is greater than 1.0. Progression is very poor and cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80
Reference for Tables 1 and 2: Highway Capacity Manual, 7 th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2022
The City of Clovis General Plan requires a minimum LOS D at intersections under the City’s jurisdiction. The City Guidelines state the following: “All City intersections and roadway segments shall operate at a LOS D or better under the near-term conditions, unless a finding of overriding consideration was adopted in the General Plan EIR. Under long-term conditions, all City intersections and roadway segments shall operate at a LOS D or better, except for the roadway segments adopted in the General Plan EIR to operate at LOS E or F.

Exceptions to this standard may be allowed on a case by case basis where lower levels of service would result in other public benefits, such as:
a) Preserving agriculture or open space land
b) Preserving the rural/historic character of a neighborhood c) Preserving or creating a pedestrian-friendly environment in Old Town or mixed-use village districts
d) Avoiding adverse impacts to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders e) Where right-of-way constraints would make capacity expansion infeasible” For purposes of this study, a traffic issue may be identified if the addition of the traffic generated by the Project results in any one of the following:
• Triggers an intersection operating at acceptable LOS to operate at unacceptable levels of service;
• Increases the average delay for a study intersection that is already operating at unacceptable LOS.

8.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual turning movement counts between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday. The traffic count

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 6 data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The existing peak-hour turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 5, Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

9.0 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION

9.1 Project Trip Generation
Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, are typically used to estimate the number of trips anticipated to be generated by proposed projects. Table 3 presents the vehicle trip generation estimates for the Project.

Table 3
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use Units
Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Single Family
Detached
Housing (210)
153 9.43 1,444 0.70 26:74 28 80 108 0.94 63:37 91 53 144 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021
Rates are reported in trips per dwelling unit.

9.2 Student Generation
For purposes of estimating trip distribution for students attending nearby schools, Table 4 presents the student generation estimates for the Project utilizing rates presented in the Clovis Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis by Odell Planning & Research, Inc. dated April 2023.

Table 4
Student Generation Estimate – Single-Family Homes
Grade Level Rate Homes Students
Elementary School (TK-6) 0.3324 students per home 153 51 Intermediate School (7-8) 0.0766 students per home 153 12 High School (9-12) 0.1421 students per home 153 22
TOTAL: 0.5511 students per home 153 85

9.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The regional distribution of Project trips was estimated using the results of a select zone analysis utilizing the Fresno County travel model maintained by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG), engineering judgment based on our knowledge of the area, available traffic counts, the location and configuration of site access points, and available travel routes.

A COG-approved traffic modeling consultant performed the Project-specific traffic modeling and the results are presented in Appendix A.

The estimated percentage distribution of Project trips is presented in Figure 6, Peak-Hour Project Traffic Distribution Percentages. The peak-hour trips presented in Table 3 were assigned to the adjacent road network in accordance with the trip distribution percentages in Figure 6. The peak-hour Project traffic volumes at the study intersections for existing-plusPage 832 of 1024 Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 7 Project conditions are presented in Figure 7, Peak-Hour Project Traffic Volumes (ExistingPlus-Project Scenario). In the near-term and future conditions, when Baron Avenue has been extended to Behymer Avenue, the Project trips are expected to be as presented in Figure 8, Peak-Hour Project Traffic Volumes (Near-Term and Future Scenarios).

Caltrans requested that the volume of Project trips (trip trace) expected at the SR 168 interchanges at Herndon Avenue and Fowler Avenue be presented in the traffic study. The Project trips were assigned to the interchange and ramp locations based on the criteria described above and the results are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5
Project Trips on State Facilities – SR 168 and Herndon Avenue Interchange Location A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips
Westbound off ramp 1 1
Westbound on ramp from eastbound Herndon 0 0
Westbound loop on ramp from westbound Herndon 7 6
Eastbound off ramp 2 8
Eastbound loop on ramp from eastbound Herndon 0 0
Eastbound on ramp from westbound Herndon 1 1
Herndon Avenue westbound through the interchange 4 3
Herndon Avenue eastbound through the interchange 1 4
Table 6
Project Trips on State Facilities – SR 168 and Fowler Avenue Interchange Location A.M. Peak
Hour Trips
P.M. Peak
Hour Trips
Westbound off ramp 1 4
Westbound on ramp 0 0
Eastbound off ramp 0 1
Eastbound on ramp 3 2
Fowler Avenue northbound through the interchange 2 2
Fowler Avenue southbound through the interchange 3 2

10.0 EXISTING-PLUS-PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing-Plus-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 9, Existing-Plus-Project PeakHour Traffic Volumes. The values in Figure 9 were determined by adding the values in Figures 5 and 7.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 8

11.0 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Projects that were pending or not yet occupied when the traffic counts were performed. The following projects are considered in the near-term analyses:
• Tract 6205: 605 single-family homes northeast of the intersection of Shepherd and Sunnyside Avenues
• Tract 6343: 590 single-family homes northeast of the intersection of Behymer and Baron Avenues
• Tract 6406: 51 single-family homes southwest of the intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues
• Tract 6375: 387 single-family homes west of the intersection of Clovis and Baron Avenues
• Heritage Grove: 18-acre mixed-use development southeast of the intersection of Willow and Shepherd Avenues. It is acknowledged that a master plan covering a much larger area has been proposed. However, a traffic study has not been prepared and it is unlikely that large portions of the master plan will be developed in the nearterm condition. • Signalization of the intersection of Shepherd and Sunnyside Avenues is currently in progress. The signalization will include widening the intersection to the following lane configuration:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane Westbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Northbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane Southbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane

12.0 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Peak-hour near-term with-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 10, Near-Term With-Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

13.0 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2045 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Cumulative traffic volumes for the year 2045 were estimated based on information available from the COG travel model. The base year and horizon year model output is presented in Appendix A. Future weekday turning movements were estimated based on the methods presented in Chapter 8 of the Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255 entitled “Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.” Cumulative With-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 11, Cumulative (Year 2045) With-Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 9

14.0 INTERSECTION ANALYSES
The intersection levels of service were determined using the computer program Synchro 11, which incorporates HCM procedures for calculating levels of service. The intersection analysis sheets are presented in Appendix C.

Tables 7 through 10 present the results of the intersection analyses. For signalized and allway stop-controlled intersections, the overall intersection LOS and the average delay per vehicle are presented. For one-way and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the HCM does not define an overall intersection LOS; therefore, the average delay and LOS for the approach with the greatest delay is presented. Delays and LOS worse than the target LOS are presented in bold type and are underlined.

Table 7
Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer All-way stop 38.0 E 54.7 F
Baron / Behymer Does Not Exist
Baron / Perrin Does Not Exist
Clovis / Baron All-way stop 7.7 A 7.4 A
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 16.3 B 16.2 B
Sunnyside / Shepherd All-way stop 20.2 C 35.2 E
Table 8
Intersection LOS Summary – Existing-Plus-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer All-way stop 43.6 E 59.8 F
Baron / Behymer Does Not Exist
Baron / Perrin One-Way Stop 7.2 A 7.1 A
Clovis / Baron All-way stop 8.0 A 7.4 A
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 16.6 B 16.6 B
Sunnyside / Shepherd All-way stop 23.4 C 53.7 F

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 10 Table 9
Intersection LOS Summary – Near-Term With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer All-way stop 106.9 F 127.5 F
Baron / Behymer One-way stop 16.6 C 15.5 C
Baron / Perrin Two-way stop 13.3 B 18.1 C
Clovis / Baron All-way stop 17.8 C 37.9 E
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 24.2 C 26.2 C
Sunnyside / Shepherd Signals 20.3 C 43.2 D
Table 10
Intersection LOS Summary – Year 2045 Cumulative With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer All-way stop >300 F 295.2 F
Baron / Behymer One-way stop 125.9 F 36.0 E
Baron / Perrin Two-way stop 28.6 D 63.3 F
Clovis / Baron All-way stop 84.1 F 272.1 F
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 34.5 C 36.0 D
Sunnyside / Shepherd Signals 78.8 E 98.0 F
The results of the intersection operational analyses include an estimate of the 95th-percentile queue lengths. The existing storage capacity (where applicable) and the calculated 95th- percentile queue lengths are presented in Tables 11 through 14. The storage capacities reported in Tables 11 through 14 are based on measurements from available aerial photographs. Calculated 95th-percentile queue lengths that exceed the storage capacity by more than 25 (approximate space required for one vehicle) or that are considered to be excessive are indicated in bold type and are underlined.

Notes and abbreviations for Tables 11 through 14:
* Storage length exceeds 1,000 feet
+ Additional storage available – connects to a through lane or two-way left-turn lane S: Shared movement
DNS: Does not stop
TBD: To be determined per City standards or year 2045 queues

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 11 Table 11
Intersection Queuing Summary – Existing Conditions
Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 73 278 158 188
P.M. 123 290 193 308
Baron/
Behymer
Lanes
Storage
A.M.

P.M.

Baron/
Perrin
Lanes
Storage
A.M.

P.M.

Clovis/
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 1
Storage 600 105 * *
A.M. 0 0 10 0
P.M. 0 0 3 0
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 29 118 53 47 182 0 132 20 6 16 24 0
P.M. 26 133 40 34 130 0 134 23 16 10 16 0
Sunnyside/
Shepherd
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 125 198 28 5
P.M. 273 293 33 8

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 12 Table 12
Intersection Queuing Summary – Existing-Plus-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 78 305 183 205
P.M. 128 288 205 345
Baron/
Behymer
Lanes
Storage
A.M.

P.M.

Baron/
Perrin
Lanes 1 1 1 S 1 1
Storage 250 * * 250 *
A.M. 5 0 3 0 0
P.M. 3 0 5 0 0
Clovis/
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 1
Storage 600 105 * *
A.M. 5 0 10 3
P.M. 5 0 3 5
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 33 121 54 51 187 0 133 22 7 20 29 0
P.M. 37 137 40 36 137 0 136 26 20 12 19 0
Sunnyside/
Shepherd
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 150 225 30 13
P.M. 358 405 38 13

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 13 Table 13
Intersection Queuing Summary – Near-Term With-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 100 653 275 278
P.M. 180 428 313 560
Baron/
Behymer
Lanes 1 S S 1 1 S
Storage * * *
A.M. DNS 0 13
P.M. DNS 0 10
Baron/
Perrin
Lanes 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage TBD * TBD * TBD * TBD *
A.M. 3 13 5 3 3 DNS 0 DNS
P.M. 3 8 5 0 8 DNS 0 DNS
Clovis/
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 2 S 1 2
Storage 600 105 TBD * TBD *
A.M. 165 0 15 53 0 23
P.M. 153 0 5 368 0 23
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 80 278 82 124 392 4 219 77 35 104 181 63
P.M. 126 368 73 94 386 44 261 176 96 86 140 55
Sunnyside/
Shepherd
Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Storage 275 * 275+ 150 * 25 105 * 105 175 * 100
A.M. 83 424 38 90 231 0 176 37 0 51 68 28
P.M. 205 899 46 136 400 0 301 69 17 65 99 47

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 14 Table 14
Intersection Queuing Summary – Year 2045 Cumulative With-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S S 1 S
Storage * * * *
A.M. 133 >1,000 283 958
P.M. 496 445 800 491
Baron/
Behymer
Lanes 1 S S 1 1 S
Storage * * *
A.M. DNS 3 300
P.M. DNS 3 90
Baron/
Perrin
Lanes 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage TBD * TBD * TBD * TBD *
A.M. 5 13 30 25 3 DNS 13 DNS
P.M. 8 8 35 15 8 DNS 23 DNS
Clovis/
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 2 S 1 2
Storage 600 105 TBD * TBD *
A.M. 383 8 23 233 8 478
P.M. 240 3 8 >1,000 15 165
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 84 370 110 184 394 49 268 97 51 123 323 201
P.M. 135 448 82 167 437 52 287 350 289 117 167 35
Sunnyside/
Shepherd
Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Storage 275 * 275+ 150 * 25 105 * 105 175 * 100
A.M. 318 1,015 85 159 380 18 283 128 0 522 568 508
P.M. 629 1,211 66 155 593 295 382 476 133 315 229 158

15.0 DISCUSSION

15.1 Existing Conditions
The results of the analyses indicate that the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service with calculated 95th-percentile queues contained within the available storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with all-way stop control. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with allway stop control.

15.2 Existing-Plus-Project Conditions
The existing-plus-Project-conditions analyses represent conditions that would occur after construction of the Project if none of the pending and approved projects were constructed.

This scenario isolates the specific effects of the Project.

The results of the analyses indicate that the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at levels of service similar to the existing conditions. The Project will not cause any

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 15 intersections currently operating at acceptable LOS to operate worse than the target LOS, and the calculated 95th-percentile queues are within the available storage capacity.

The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues, which operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour.

The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues during the p.m. peak hour, causing the LOS to drop from LOS E to LOS F.

However, construction of a traffic signal at the intersection is currently underway.

15.2.1 Existing-Plus-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 15 and 16. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

It should be noted that the Project’s contribution to the level of service issue is relatively minimal, as the Project is expected to generate 17 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 24 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These values represent approximately 1.2 percent of the a.m. peak hour existing-plus-Project volumes and 1.9 percent of the p.m. peak hour existing-plusProject volumes.

Table 15
Intersection LOS Summary – Improved Existing-Plus-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer Signals 15.4 B 15.8 B
Table 16
Intersection Queuing Summary – Improved Existing-Plus-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage * * TBD * TBD *
A.M. 99 239 81 124 104 117
P.M. 129 198 60 131 138 110
TBD: To be determined based on Year 2045 analyses. S: Shared movement *: Storage length exceeds 1,000 feet

15.3 Near-Term With-Project Conditions
The near-term with-Project conditions analyses represent conditions that are expected after construction of the Project and the known pending and approved projects. This scenario isolates the near-term cumulative effects of the Project and other known projects.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 16 The results of the analyses indicate that the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Clovis Avenue / Baron Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with one-way stop control.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound and northbound approaches.

15.3.1 Near-Term With-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 17 and 18. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

In order for the intersection of Clovis and Baron Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require signalization. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 17 and 18. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D. It should be noted that signalization of the intersection by the Project alone is not recommended, as the intersection will not require signalization until Clovis Avenue is extended north of Baron Avenue.

In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 17 and 18. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

Table 17
Intersection LOS Summary – Improved Near-Term With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer Signals 19.8 B 19.4 B
Clovis / Baron Signals 10.2 B 10.8 B
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 21.4 C 22.9 C

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 17 Table 18
Intersection Queuing Summary – Improved Near-Term With-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes S 1 S S 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage * * TBD * TBD *
A.M. 106 336 105 143 136 131
P.M. 151 267 64 155 168 137
Clovis /
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 2 S 1 2
Storage 600 105 TBD * TBD *
A.M. 161 4 62 43 7 60
P.M. 166 3 33 83 4 51
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 70 233 83 107 324 14 100 77 30 90 154 55
P.M. 124 331 65 93 356 41 133 195 120 84 135 53
TBD: To be determined based on Year 2045 analyses. S: Shared movement *: Storage length exceeds 1,000 feet

15.4 Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Conditions
The year 2045 cumulative with-Project conditions analyses are based on the assumption that the Project has been constructed, the pending and approved projects have been constructed, and that 20 years of growth has occurred in the Clovis, Fresno, and Fresno County region as incorporated into the adopted Fresno County travel model.

The results of the analyses indicate that the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Baron Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour on the northbound approach with one-way stop control. • Baron Avenue / Perrin Avenue: LOS F during the p.m. peak hour on the eastbound and westbound approaches with two-way stop control.
• Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with traffic signals.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: excessive queues on the westbound and southbound approaches.
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: excessive queues in the left-turn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches, the eastbound through lane, and the right-turn lanes on the westbound, northbound, and southbound approaches.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 18

15.4.1 Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Improved Conditions In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on all four approaches and a dedicated rightturn lane would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

In order for the intersection of Baron and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, a dedicated left-turn lane with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. peak hour. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

In order for the intersection of Baron and Perrin Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, allway stop control may be installed. With all-way stop control, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

In order for the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require modification from the planned signalized lane configurations described in Section 11.0 of this report to the following:

Eastbound: two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Westbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Northbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane Southbound: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane With the recommended widening, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. The improved conditions are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The intersection analysis sheets for the improved conditions are presented in Appendix D.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 19 Table 19
Intersection LOS Summary – Improved Year 2045 With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Minnewawa / Behymer Signals 37.7 D 38.0 D
Baron / Behymer Signals 11.1 B 9.0 A
Baron / Perrin All-way stop 11.4 B 13.7 B
Clovis / Baron Signals 10.9 B 19.1 B
Clovis / Shepherd Signals 28.2 C 33.6 C
Sunnyside / Shepherd Signals 34.0 C 43.5 D
Table 20
Intersection Queuing Summary – Improved Year 2045 With-Project Conditions Intersection
Number of Lanes, Storage (feet), and Queue Length (feet)

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Minnewawa/
Behymer
Lanes 1 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage TBD * TBD * TBD TBD * TBD *
A.M. 10 213 75 512 138 187 233 189 566
P.M. 28 499 38 180 55 181 487 267 222
Baron/
Behymer
Lanes 1 S 1 1 1 S
Storage * TBD * *
A.M. 282 27 228 143
P.M. 396 27 111 96
Baron/
Perrin
Lanes 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S 1 1 S
Storage TBD * TBD * TBD * TBD *
A.M. 3 18 10 43 5 18 40 13
P.M. 0 13 5 20 23 93 73 23
Clovis/
Baron
Lanes 1 1 1 2 S 1 2
Storage 600 105 TBD * TBD *
A.M. 244 18 85 137 34 226
P.M. 300 12 45 522 78 132
Clovis/
Shepherd
Lanes 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
Storage 250 * 50 250 * 255 235 * 65 255 * 100
A.M. 81 356 132 180 375 47 125 104 54 123 311 198
P.M. 135 448 82 167 437 52 137 350 289 117 151 58
Sunnyside/
Shepherd
Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Storage TBD * TBD TBD * TBD TBD * TBD TBD * TBD
A.M. 123 354 54 105 344 13 189 79 0 146 330 336
P.M. 230 348 43 95 454 157 275 260 60 94 157 250
TBD: To be designed based on City standards and 95th-percentile queues. S: Shared movement *: Storage length exceeds 1,000 feet

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 20

16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Standard traffic engineering principles and methods were employed to establish the existing conditions, to estimate the number of trips expected to be generated by the Project, and to analyze the traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future. The conclusions of the study are summarized in the following sections.

Trip Generation
The Project is expected to generate approximately 1,444 vehicle trips per day (722 trips entering the site and 722 trips exiting the site). Peak-hour traffic volumes are expected to be on the order of 108 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 144 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

CEQA Impact Analysis (VMT)
Project-specific traffic modeling indicates a calculated Project VMT of 17.9 VMT per capita, which is greater than the threshold of 14.1 VMT per capita. Therefore, the Project would create a significant transportation impact.

The Project will implement feasible mitigation measures such as constructing sidewalk and trails. These Project design features can help offset a portion of the VMT impact of the Project but will not reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable transportation impact under CEQA.

It is recommended that the proposed Project, consistent with the General Plan, tier its environmental review from the General Plan SEIR, which has disclosed the VMT impacts of land use development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s significant transportation impact does not need to be disclosed in a Project-specific EIR.

Existing Conditions
The study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service with calculated 95th-percentile queues contained within the available storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with all-way stop control. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with allway stop control.

Existing-Plus-Project Conditions
The existing-plus-Project-conditions analyses represent conditions that would occur after construction of the Project if none of the pending and approved projects were constructed.

This scenario isolates the specific effects of the Project. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at levels of service similar to the existing conditions. The Project will not cause any intersections currently operating at acceptable LOS to operate worse than the target LOS, and the calculated 95th-percentile queues are within the available storage capacity.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 21 The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues, which operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour.

The Project is expected to increase delays at the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues during the p.m. peak hour, causing the LOS to drop from LOS E to LOS F.

However, construction of a traffic signal at the intersection is currently underway.

Existing-Plus-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It should be noted that the Project’s contribution to the level of service issue is relatively minimal, as the Project’s percentage of the overall traffic volume in the existingplus-Project conditions is less on the order of one to two percent during the peak hours.

Near-Term With-Project Conditions
The near-term with-Project conditions analyses represent conditions that are expected after construction of the Project and the known pending and approved projects. This scenario isolates the near-term cumulative effects of the Project and other known projects. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Clovis Avenue / Baron Avenue: LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with one-way stop control.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound and northbound approaches.

Near-Term With-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the northbound and southbound approaches.

With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Clovis and Baron Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require signalization. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. It should be noted that signalization of the intersection by the Project alone is not recommended, as the intersection will not require signalization until Clovis Avenue is extended north of Baron Avenue.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 22 In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Conditions
The year 2045 cumulative with-Project conditions analyses are based on the assumption that the Project has been constructed, the pending and approved projects have been constructed, and that 20 years of growth has occurred in the Clovis, Fresno, and Fresno County region as incorporated into the adopted Fresno County travel model. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with all-way stop control.
• Baron Avenue / Behymer Avenue: LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour on the northbound approach with one-way stop control. • Baron Avenue / Perrin Avenue: LOS F during the p.m. peak hour on the eastbound and westbound approaches with two-way stop control.
• Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour with traffic signals.

Calculated 95th-percentile queues are contained within the existing storage capacity, with the following exceptions:
• Minnewawa Avenue / Behymer Avenue: excessive queues on the westbound and southbound approaches.
• Clovis Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: left-turn lane on the northbound approach, rightturn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches. • Sunnyside Avenue / Shepherd Avenue: excessive queues in the left-turn lanes on the eastbound, northbound, and southbound approaches, the eastbound through lane, and the right-turn lanes on the westbound, northbound, and southbound approaches.

Cumulative Year 2045 With-Project Improved Conditions
In order for the intersection of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, dedicated left-turn lanes with protected left-turn phasing would be required on all four approaches and a dedicated rightturn lane would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Baron and Behymer Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection may be signalized. At a minimum, a dedicated left-turn lane with protected left-turn phasing would be required on the westbound approach. With signalization, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS A during the p.m. peak hour.

Transportation Impact Analysis – Proposed Tract 6452 February 8, 2024 Northeast of the Intersection of Perrin and Baron Avenues, Clovis, California Page 23 In order for the intersection of Baron and Perrin Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, allway stop control may be installed. With all-way stop control, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order to better accommodate queues at the intersection of Clovis and Shepherd Avenues, the intersection striping may be modified to open the second left-turn lane on the northbound approach. With the modification, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

In order for the intersection of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection would require modification from the planned signalized lane configurations to the following:

Eastbound: two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Westbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane Northbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane Southbound: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane With the recommended widening, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour.

Thank you for the opportunity to perform this Transportation Impact Analysis. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
Attachments: Figures 1 through 11
Appendix A - Traffic Modeling
Appendix B - Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix C - Intersection Analyses
Appendix D - Improved Intersection Analyses
RROFESS/Ow,
SAROW,
Co
9/O3 2
NO. 2484
★

TRAFFIC
g
1,€O
wor cauC

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS – TRACT 6452

FIGURES

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

BEHYMER AVE

PROJECT LOCATION
Li —
Lu
111,11 3
SHEPHERD AVE 'n TTII
—
I
[
-fT
I E
I I
L— •• = EE X
TEAGUE AVE Lil
]
7 LU r
Li
Ld
I
— L LU
L Lt o CY ES A' - 3IQS i
O) tn T
I
3 1
I T T
• [ ] TT ALLUVIAL AVE I
I
i I
-
HERNDON 4
1 LU B. EE>
T r Lr E A 2 8 EEs i
D—
LIl 1
___ 1
LEGEND

PROJECT SITE

VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP Figure 1
1 1
OK
LU or
Li
Proposed Tract 6452
Clovis, California
o
Q
I— D 00
o
o
A
©
5 x
VE g

■ 3FFO PFONEO EASLENT
T TT TTT T5 i 1T7 । ? 42 1
10 11 15 19 1. -— I- r
-*8r f
41 r ? f 13; 443 17133 tit 2 3 9 12 t 13 16 20 t >
L
31 32 57 58 !- ! 63 64 2
s 3
23, 40 -a 30 33"»
45' 53A456 t 59 a1 2 69
m__ ..ECLIPSE AVENUE/ " T1 a
p “P 46'
543 t 60) 9% ? 61 es . 24 ? t
29 39 55
s 129 1 135 8 49 ? a 143 a
,—ar.. a
150
47 m — j 351 38
.Uans t —*
128, 2 134; T 1 M2) 2 ‘AVENUE S
r 48 4 f
26 36‘ 37 LL.. ?
133, 141 t
s
120 I 140 ECLIPSE 153 * 70
82‘ L U —) —
-s 91 89 78 a
i s CD + l > i 71 LU; 95 34 j93 ■ 86 81 '
1 1 —i
P
119" *$ £110 —--l 88? 117 *
106 3,105 ,104 :103 101 t
fru. T™1 “ 20 1 2
‘ss 197 73

PERRIN AVENUE C
5 F T T T T T T T T 1

SITE PLAN
Not to Scale
PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP Figure 2
Z
O
or
Proposed Tract 6452
Clovis, California
22 J 1 52 !•
J
*
/ !
*
! 77 *
76 i
73 123 % I 2124 71
i
I
— Z
TT19
a L
2)
127)
$hio . . “3' *
14’4%
*
1 ,2
, >
— -»
Ji:
90 i t
—
ha
’’% 111 1142 113 1112
3i
Z
OD
J
[
3136
2137
2n
9138
• I
11 iV
I 3’30
8,131
PN $132
“? i
IT?
H i J f ?
2 f 51
— 8*1=-
13;
25*
979
— - 1152
s
125
1 -
l i
r 1
1,—
74 3
149 1
148 a
—— ’
“r—
2,2
hi -—r~ 121 2 “ i1

T

COPPER AVE
s L
O
3 INTERNATIONAL AVE
1 L BEHYMER AVE
o o
5 PRO, tt".OCATION I
1 L
SHEPHERD AVE— HH £
I £7 C' co —
* =
•f E —
HR

TEAGUE AVE
1 •••
IT 1
or a
J
o
NEES 00 AVE 2 Q
i
2 J —___ T
4* J
O dOLS dOLS

FUTURE SCENARIO FUTURE SCENARIO
[STOP] [STOP]
r 77
a a MINNEWAWA AVE / BEHYMER AVE BARON AVE/PERRIN AVE CLOVIS AVE/BARON AVE BARON AVE/BEHYMER AVE □ 1 4* <
dOLS 8 [STOP]

CLOVIS AVE I SHEPHERD AVE SUNNYSIDE AVE I SHEPHERD AVE
L

PROJECT SITE

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
® STOP SIGN

EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
Not to Scale
PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP Figure 3
5 6
—
—8
1 Proposed Tract 6452
Clovis, California
o
Q
—
0 Q.

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
U-TURN
2 0
o
L
sp
1 U
O
0 <
LEGEND_____________
© STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
I©
5 U
-
—