Clovis City Council
July 6, 2026

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program
4-12
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Timing Monitoring Requirements Responsible Agency Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s) prior to continuation of any earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for TCRs include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery through capping in place, excavation and removal of the resource, interpretive displays, sensitive area signage, or other mutually agreed upon measures.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Assessment 4-13
This page intentionally left blank.

RESOLUTION 26-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2024-003 TO AMEND THE 2014 CLOVIS

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND APPLICABLE SPECIFIC AND MASTER PLANS FOR APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED THROUGHOUT

THE CITY OF CLOVIS FROM VARIOUS LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (20.1-30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (25.1-43 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (City), 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis CA, 93619, initiated an application for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-003 to amend the 2014 General Plan, Herndon-Shepherd Specific Plan (HSSP), Loma Vista Specific Plan (LVSP), Harlan Ranch Master Plan, and the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan (SASP); and WHEREAS, the initiation of the project was required in conjunction with the terms of the judgment entered in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case, whereby the City is required to rezone properties as part of the Infill Rezone Program in order to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state law, which includes approximately 54 acres (20 sites) throughout the City of Clovis; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the specific/master plans only apply to nine (9) of the 20 sites; and
WHEREAS, to ensure consistency between the zoning and the General Plan land use designations of the 20 sites, the underlying general plan land use designations need to be modified so that the zoning and densities do not conflict; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to amend the above mentioned plans for approximately 54 acres (20 sites) throughout the City and redesignate the land uses for 20 sites from various land use designations to the High Density Residential (20.1-30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) and Very High Density Residential (25.1-43 du/ac) land use designations, as shown in Attachment A (“Project”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City of Clovis worked with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project pursuant to Government Code section 65759, which provides that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element into compliance with State law pursuant to a court order or judgment; and
WHEREAS, the EA for the Project, dated April 2026, contains a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and collectively makes up the EA for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing for GPA2024-003 in The Business Journal on June 12, 2026, more than 20 days prior to the City Council hearing in Attachment 2

accordance with Government Code section 65484, subdivision (b)(2), and otherwise posted and provided written notice of the public hearing in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 6, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider the entire Administrative Record relating to the Project, which is on file with the City’s Department of Planning and Development Services, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the recommendation(s) of the Clovis Planning Commission, the EA for the Projects, the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written comments, testimony, and other evidence presented during the public hearing (“Administrative Record”).

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

1. As fully detailed in the analysis in the staff report for this item and Administrative Record, the Project satisfies the following required findings for approval of a general plan amendment, as follows:
a. GPA2024-003 is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.
b. GPA2024-003 would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.
c. There is a compelling reason for the amendment, namely that the amendment is required to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning, to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state law, and to comply with the judgment entered by the Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case.

2. The City Council hereby approves GPA2024-003 as described in Attachment A attached hereto.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on July 6, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN

DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Attachment A
General Plan Land Use Changes
Site
ID
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Address Existing
General
Plan Land
Use
Proposed
General Plan
Land Use
Specific
Plan/Master
Plan
3 49102042 270 W
Herndon Ave
General
Commercial
High Density
Residential
Not Applicable
(N/A)
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
HerndonShepherd
Specific Plan
(HSSP)
72 56008207 437 W Nees
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
HSSP
108 49123124 125 & 135 N
Clovis Ave
General
Commercial
High Density
Residential
N/A
110 49906074 236 & 256 W
Santa Ana
Ave
Medium
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
N/A
115 55457044S 1671
Leonard Ave
Medium
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Loma Vista
Specific Plan
(LVSP)
157 55803359S None Mixed Use
Village
High Density
Residential
Harlan Ranch
Master Plan
161 43043316 2930 Willow
Ave
Office High Density
Residential
N/A
167 55128004 1871 Shaw
Ave
Office High Density
Residential
Shaw Avenue
Specific Plan
(SASP)
168 55128003 1853 Shaw
Ave
Office High Density
Residential
SASP
197 55849230 1497 N
Locan Ave
Very Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
HSSP
217 49954013ST
(portion)
885
Gettysburg
Ave
Industrial High Density
Residential
N/A
589 55026023 2403 Bullard
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
N/A
590 55458036s 3959 Shaw
Ave
Medium
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
LVSP

592 56303131 1160 N
Fowler Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
HSSP
595 49817202 939 & 947
Sunnyside
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
Very High
Density
Residential
N/A
596 49817201 965 & 975
Sunnyside
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
Very High
Density
Residential
N/A
597 49817203 925
Sunnyside
Low
Density
Residential
Very High
Density
Residential
N/A
598 49938442 2560 Fowler
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
N/A
599 49938441 2612 Fowler
Ave
Low
Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
N/A

Attachment 3
ORDINANCE 26-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS AMENDING AND

CHANGING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9.08.020 OF THE CLOVIS MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 54 ACRES FROM VARIOUS ZONE DISTRICTS TO THE R-3 (MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY) AND R-4 (MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY) ZONE DISTRICTS FOR 20 SITES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF CLOVIS WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (City), 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93619, initiated an application for Rezone (R) 2024-002 to amend the City’s zoning map; and WHEREAS, the initiation of the project was required in conjunction with the terms of the judgment entered in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case, whereby the City is required to rezone properties as part of the Infill Rezone Program in order to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state law, which includes approximately 54 acres (20 sites) throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to amend the zoning map for approximately 54 acres (20 sites) throughout the City of Clovis and rezone the 20 sites from various zone districts to the R-3 (Multi-family High Density) and R-4 (Multi-family Very High Density) zone districts, as shown in Attachment A (Project) attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the City worked with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project pursuant to Government Code section 65759, which provides that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element into compliance with State law pursuant to a court order or judgment; and
WHEREAS, the EA for the Project, dated April 2026, contains a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and collectively makes up the EA for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City published notice of the public hearing for R2024-002 in The Business Journal on June 12, 2026, more than 20 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing in accordance with Government Code section 65484, subdivision (b)(2), and otherwise posted and provided written notice of the public hearing in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 6, 2026; and
WHEREAS, R2024-002 is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider the entire Administrative Record relating to the Project, which is on file with the City’s Department of Planning and Development Services, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the recommendation(s) of the Clovis Planning

Commission the written materials submitted with the request, and the verbal and written comments, testimony, and other evidence presented during the public hearing, which are incorporated herein by this reference (Administrative Record).

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

1. As fully detailed in the analysis in the staff report for this item and Administrative Record, the Project satisfies the following required findings for approval of a rezone:
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan;
b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City; and c. The parcel is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/ projects.

2. The City Council hereby approves R2024-002.

The City Council of the City of Clovis does ordain as follows:

Section 1 The official map of the city is amended in accordance with Section 9.08.020 and Chapter 9.86 of the Clovis Municipal Code by rezoning certain land in the City of Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California, to wit:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

See the attached Attachment A.

Section 2 This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

APPROVED: July 6, 2026
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
* * * * * * * * * *
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on July 6, 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of said Council held on [_______], by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:
___________________________________
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Site #3
From P-C-C to R-3
C-2
P-C-C
R-A
R1
R-A
R-1-7500
R-1-9500
C-M

M-P C-M

C-M M-P
M-1
R-1-AH
M-1
Site #3
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #3 will adjust the zone
district from the P-C-C (Planned Commercial Center) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 175 350 700 1,050
US Feet

Site #63
From R-1-7500 to R-3
R-2
R-2
R-1-PRD
R-1-7500
R-1
-7500
Site #63
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #63 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1-7500 (Single Family Residential) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 175 350 700 1,050
US Feet

Site #72
From R-1-7500 to R-3
R-A
R-1-7500
C-P
R1
-
750
0 R-1-7500
Site #72
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #72 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1-7500 (Single Family Residential) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 155 310 620 930
US Feet

Site #108
From C-2 to R-3
P
-C
-C
C-2
R-1
R-3
R-1
M-U R-1
Site #108
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #108 will adjust the zone
district from the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 155 310 620 930
US Feet

Site #110
From R-1 to R-3 R-3
R-3
R-A
R-1-C R-1
R-3
R-A
R-AR-A
R-1
R1
R-A
C-2
Site #110
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #110 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 137.5 275 550 825
US Feet

Site #115
From R-1 to R-3
P
-C
-C
R-3
R-1
Site #115
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #115 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 137.5 275 550 825
US Feet

Site #157
From P-C-C to R-3
P-C-C
R-1-AH
R
-1
R-1-8500
R-T
Site #157
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #157 will adjust the zone
district from the P-C-C (Planned Commercial Center) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 137.5 275 550 825
US Feet

Site #161
From C-P to R-3
R-1
R-3 R-3-A
R-1
C-P
C-2
R-1
R-A
R-1
C-P
Site #161
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #161 will adjust the zone
district from the C-P (Administrative and Professional Office) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 120 240 480 720
US Feet

Site #167
From C-P to R-3
R-1
R-1
R-A
P-C-C
R-A
C-P
C-2
P-C-C
C-P
R-1-B
R-1-8500
C-P
C-2
C-P
Site #167
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #167 will adjust the zone
district from the C-P (Administrative and Professional Office) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 170 340 680 1,020
US Feet

Site #168
From C-P to R-3
R-1
R-1
R-A
R-A
C-2
P-C-C
C-P
C-2
Site #168
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #168 will adjust the zone
district from the C-P (Administrative and Professional Office) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 120 240 480 720
US Feet

Site #197
From R-1-AH to R-3
P-C-C
R-1-AH
R-1
R-1-8500
R-T
Site #197
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #197 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1-AH (Single Family Residential Very Low Density) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 120 240 480 720
US Feet

Site #217
From M-1 to R-3
M-2
C-1
M-1
M-1
C-M
M
-1
M-1
P-C-C
Site #217
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #217 will adjust a portion of the zone district for the parcel from the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone district
to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 180 360 720 1,080
US Feet

Site #589
From R-A to R-3
R-1-8500
R-1
-7500
R-1-7500
R-A
R-1-7500
R-A
R-1-7500
Site #589
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #589 will adjust the zone
district from the R-A (Single Family Residential Very Low Density) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 175 350 700 1,050
US Feet

Site #590
From R-1 to R-3
P-C-C

P-FP-C-C
R-1-PRD
R-1
R-1-MD
R-1
R-2
Site #590
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #590 will adjust the zone
district from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 175 350 700 1,050
US Feet

Site #592
From R-A to R-3
R-A
R-A
C-2
R-1
R-1-7500
R-1-7500
Site #592
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Site #592 will adjust the zone
district from the R-A (Single Family Residential Very Low Density) zone district to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 155 310 620 930
US Feet

Site #596
From R-1 to R-4
Site #597
From R-1 to R-4
Site #595
From R-1 to R-4
R-1
R-2-A
R-2
R-3
M-1
R-1
Sites #595, 596, 597
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Sites #595, 596, 597 will adjust the zone district
from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone district
to the R-4 (Multifamily Very High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 137.5 275 550 825
US Feet

Site #598
From R-1 to R-3
Site #599
From R-1 to R-3
R-1
R-1-8500
R-1
R-1
R-2-A
R-1-7500 R-2
R-1
-8500
Sites #598, 599
City of Clovis Zoning
City Boundary
Clovis Streets
Rezone Site
Legend
Sites #598, 599 will adjust the zone district
from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone district
to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) zone district.

Description of Zoning Changes for Site:
0 137.5 275 550 825
US Feet

1 7
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 24
26 27
28 Scott G. Cross, SBN 199116
David J. Wolfe, SBN 137659
Matthew M. Lear, SBN 316582

LOZANO SMITH
7404 N. Spalding Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720-3370
Telephone: (559) 431-5600
Facsimile: (559) 261-9366
Exempt from Filing Fee
Per Coy. Code § 6103
Attorneys for CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL and LUKE SERPA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DESIREE MARTINEZ, an individual,
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO
Case No. 19CECG03855

CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL,
LUKE SERPA, in his official capacity as City
Manager of Clovis, and DOES 1-20,
Respondents/Defendants.

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:

Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
Complaint Filed: October 23, 2019
FAC Filed: December 16, 2019
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March 19, 2024, the Court entered and filed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation in this case. A true and correct copy of said Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A . 1,
Dated: March 26, 2024 LOZANO SMITH
Scott G. Cross
David J. Wolfe
Matthew M. Lear
Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants

CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY
COUNCIL and LUKE SERPA
Notice of Entry of Judgment Desiree Martinez, et al. v. City of Clovis, et al Pursuant to Stipulation Case No. 19CECG03855

E-FILED
3/26/2024 9:25 AM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: Alexandria Payne, Deputy
Attachment 4

0 zz
1 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Stephen P. Scudder, am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 7404 N.

Spalding Avenue, Fresno, California 93720. My business e-mail address is: [email protected].

On March 26, 2024, I served the attached NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION on the interested parties in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows and I caused delivery to be made by the mode of service indicated below:
[
[
Valerie Feldman
Public Interest Law Project
449 15th Street, Ste. 301
Oakland, CA 94612-2821
[email protected].,,
Patience Milrod
985 N. Van Ness Avenue
Fresno, CA 93728
[email protected]
Royce D. Stuteville
Stephanie H. Borchers
Central California Legal
Services, Inc.
2115 Kern Street, Suite 200
Fresno, California 93721
[email protected]
[email protected]
(Regular U.S. Mail) on all parties in said action in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth above, at Lozano Smith, which mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of postage and is deposited at the Post Office that same day, in the ordinary course of business, in a United States mailbox in the County of Fresno.
(By Federal Express/Overnight Mail) on all parties in said action by depositing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope/packet for overnight mail delivery, with charges thereon fully paid, in a Federal Express collection box, at Fresno, California, and addressed as set forth above.
(By Facsimile) on all parties in said action by transmitting a true and correct copy thereof from our office facsimile machine to the facsimile machine numbers shown in this proof of service and/or the attached list. Following transmission, a Transmission Report was received from our fax machine indicating that the transmission had been transmitted without error. [X] (By Electronic Mail) on all parties in said action by transmitting a true and correct to the persons at the email addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 26, 2024, at Fresno, California. 4857-6784-8880 vidocx
Stephen P. Scudde
Notice of Entry of Judgment
Pursuant to Stipulation Case No. 19CECG03855
2 Desiree Martinez, et al. v. City of Clovis, et al.

EXHIBIT EXHIBIT AA

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Scott G. Cross, SBN 199116
David J. Wolfe, SBN 137659
Matthew M. Lear, SBN 316582

LOZANO SMITH
7404 N. Spalding Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720-3370
Telephone: (559) 431-5600
Facsimile: (559) 261-9366
MAR 19 2024

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO
BY
DEPUTY

RECEIVED
3/18/2024 9:55 AM

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
By: Estela Gonzalez, Deputy
Attorneys for CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL and LUKE SERPA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO
DESIREE MARTINEZ, an individual,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
V.

CITY OF CLOVIS, CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL,
LUKE SERPA, in his official capacity as City
Manager of Clovis, and DOES 1-20,
Respondents/Defendants.

Case No. 19CECG03855
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:

Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan
41410NEI@HE@UDGMENT PURSUANT TO

STIPULATION
Complaint Filed: October 23, 2019
FAC Filed: December 16, 2019

JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation for Judgment between the Petitioner/Plaintiff Desiree Martinez and Respondents/Defendants City of Clovis, Clovis City Council, and Luke Serpa, and pursuant to the Court's authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement which is attached as Exhibit A to the foregoing Stipulation for Judgment. This judgment expressly incorporates the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions of Government Code section 65759, which provides in part that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") "does not apply to any action necessary to bring [the City's] general plan or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into Proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation Desiree Martinez, et al. v. City of Clovis, et a! Case No. 19CECG03855

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 O
N 0
n
a12
< 0
FA 13
0`14
F, N >v1
0<- 15
c.er 5 as
an 16 ct,
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
compliance with any court order or judgment under this article." Pursuant to Section 65759, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element and any relevant mandatory elements of the General Plan into compliance with State law.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the parties at their request to enforce the Settlement Agreement until the terms are fulfilled or excused.

DATED: '27
4888-7983-1467 v.l.docx
Judge UM Superior Court
Proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation 2 Desiree Martinez, et al. v. City of Clovis, et al.

Case No. 19CECG03855

EXHIBIT A

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Agreement") is entered effective on February 2-0 2024 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Clovis, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Desiree Martinez ("Martinez") with respect to the following Recitals, which are a substantive part of this Agreement City and Martinez are hereinafter sometimes referred to individually as the "Party" and together as the "Parties."

RECITALS
A. On October 23, 2019, Martinez, as Petitioner/Plaintiff, commenced an action against the City, Clovis City Council, and Luke Serpa, in his official capacity as the Clovis City Manager in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, as Case No. 19CECG03855 ("Action"). For purposes of this Agreement "City" includes the City of Clovis, Clovis City Council, and Luke Serpa, in his official capacity as the Clovis City Manager, as Respondents/Defendants listed in the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Respondent filed in the Action.

B. Martinez filed a First Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on December 16, 2019, in the Action against Respondents/Defendants.

C. On April 30, 2021, the Fresno County Superior Court issued an Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate in Part in the Action, and on June 1, 2021, the Court issued a Judgment for Writ of Mandate directing City within 120 days to adopt a Housing Element in substantial compliance with Government Code section 65754, and to implement Program 4 by rezoning an adequate number of sites to accommodate the City's unmet share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") for the 2008-2015 Housing Element planning period.

D. City and Martinez timely appealed the Court's Judgment E. On April 7, 2023, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its Opinion in Case No. F082914, on the appeal of City and cross-appeal of Martinez from the Judgment for Writ of Mandate entered by the Court on June 1, 2021. The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the Petitioner.

F. On May 17, 2023, the City filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeal Opinion with the California Supreme Court, which was denied by the Supreme Court on July 19, 2023. On June 6, 2023, the City filed a letter in the Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Court ofAppeal's opinion.

G. On July 19, 2023, the California Supreme Court denied the City's petition for review, and denied the request for depublication.

H. On July 20, 2023, the Court of Appeal issued the Remittitur to the Superior Court.

I. On August 22, 2023, following remand by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, the Superior Court issued an Order overruling the City's Demurrer to Martinez's fourth and fifth causes of action in First Amended Petition.

J. On August 24, 2023, Petitioner filed and served a Memorandum of Costs on Appeal totaling $714.95 in the Fresno County Superior Court.

K. City filed and served an Answer to the First Amended Petition on November 1, 2023. Martinez's fourth, fifth, sixth, arid eighth causes of action are at issue and remain to be tried. The Petitioner prevailed in part on the seventh cause of action, which was remanded in part for an evidentiary hearing on additional issues. Those causes of action pertain to Unlawful Land Use Discrimination, Violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, City's Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

L. The Court has held two Status Conferences, on October 19, 2023, and December 5, 2023, at which time the Parties informed the Court of ongoing settlement discussions over the various issues in this Action.

M. In accordance with Government Code section 65754, and as set forth in this Court's Order of April 30, 2021, the City has a mandatory obligation to bring its Housing Element into compliance within 120 days of the date of remittitur. Compliance necessarily includes implementing auy programs in the Housing Element necessary for statutory compliance.

These obligations are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as set forth in Government Code section 65759 and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) section 15282, subdivision (s).

N. City and Martinez now desire to avoid the trine and expense involved with further litigation in the Action and intend to compromise and settle all actual and potential issues and claims arising from or connected with the Action, the Judgment issued by the Court on June 1, 2021, and any rulings directed towards the Court contained in the April 7, 2023, Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion and by way of the remittitur issued on July 20, 2023, and to set forth the terms and conditions of the settlement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, Martinez and City agree as follows:

1. Definitions. The terms below shall have the following meanings when used in this Agreement and any Exhibit attached hereto.
"Affordable" means that the cost of a housing unit (rent or sale price) does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the state maximum household income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. The term "adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit" shall have the same meaning as provided in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5(c) as it may be amended, or in any successor statute.

"Affordable Housing" means a dwelling unit available at an Affordable rent or sold at an Affordable housing price. A dwelling unit designated for Affordable Housing shall remain affordable for the longest feasible duration (but not less than fifty-five years for rental units and forty-five years for for-sale units) from the date of recordation of a covenant or regulatory agreement or similar document recorded with the Fresno County Recorder's office. The recording must occur prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Affordable Housing Dwelling Units funded by a City Action Item program described in this Agreement within a multi-family housing project will be required to remain affordable for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years. Affordable Housing Dwelling Units funded by a City Action Item program within a single-family housing project will be required to remain affordable for a minimum of forty-five (45) years.
"Area Median Income" means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health & Safety Section 50093. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(4).)
"Dwelling Unit" means one residential unit, either for sale or rent "Extremely Low-Income Household" means a household whose income does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50106, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Extremely Low-Income Household may also be referenced herein as an ELI Household.
"Gap Financing" means the amount of funding necessary to fill the gap between the funding required to develop and make available the Affordable Housing Dwelling Units and the resources commonly available to developers.
"Low-Income Household" means a household whose income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Low-Income Household may also be referenced herein as an LI Household. "Very Low-Income Household" means a household whose income does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size, applicable to Fresno County, as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50105, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Very Low-Income Household may also be referenced herein as a VLI Household.

2. City Action Items. City shall take the following actions. Upon full execution of this Agreement by the Parties and their respective legal counsel, City shall immediately notify the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") of this Agreement and all City Action Item programs will be included in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031).
3

a. ACTION ITEM I: CHANGES TO R-3 ZONE DISTRICT: City shall amend its R-3 medium density zone district increasing the minimum permitted density from 15 units/acre to 20 units/acre.
i. The R-3 zone amendment ordinance shall be initiated by the City Council no later than the third regularly scheduled and held City Council meeting after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment (referenced in Section 9 below) is served on all parties. ii. Completion of the R-3 zone amendment shall occur no later than July 31, 2024. iii. The City will not initiate, nor approve, any action that would reduce the current capacity in the R-3 zone district.
iv. The R-3 zone allows for three story projects by right in accordance with Clovis Municipal Code section 9.10.030, Table 2-3 (R-3 Zone).
v. Reduced parking standards are available for affordable housing projects under the City's Density Bonus Ordinance in accordance with Clovis Municipal Code section 9.26.050. vi. The following parking language, or something substantially similar as approved by HCD, will be included as a program (proposed program H8) in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element:
"Review and update the Development Code to remove identified constraints on housing development, including reducing parking standards for multifamily housing to require no more than one parking space for studio and one-bedroom units and reducing open space requirements in the R-3 and R-4 zones. Initiate a comprehensive Development Code update to address inconsistencies between the Development Code and the General Plan land use designations and standards. [Sowre: New Program] • Objective: Accelerate housing production by ensuring that the City's development standards facilitate rather than constrain new development. • Timeframe: Review and amend development standards by June 2025; initiate Code update to address General Plan consistency by 2027. • Responsible Department: Planning and Development Services Department (Planning Division)."
vii. During the month of April 2024, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, and each March thereafter until the amendment to the R-3 zone district is completed, City shall provide a written summary to the below entities ("Facilitator") describing City's efforts to complete such changes. Following delivery of the written summary, City and Facilitator may meet and confer to discuss progress and obstacles.

Central California Legal Services
2115 Kern St., Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721
mkezirian@centralcallegatorg,[email protected] Attention: Executive Director Michelle Kezirian, Litigation Director Stephanie Hamilton Borchers
Public Interest Law Project
4

449 15th Street, Ste. 301, Oakland, CA 94612-2821
[email protected]
Attention: Valerie Feldman
Law Office of Patience Milrod
985 N. Van Ness Ave., Fresno, CA. 93728
[email protected]
Attention: Patience Milrod
Dez Martinez
705 W. University Ave.

Fresno, CA 93705
wearenotinvisible2015@ginaiLcom
b. ACTION ITEM 2: LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND: City shall establish a Local Housing Trust Fund ("Housing Trust Fund") for Affordable Housing that meets the requirements of HCD, and shall contribute at least $1.8 million in general fund money to the Housing Trust Fund.
i. City shall establish a Local Housing Trust Fund ("Housing Trust Fund") for affordable housing meeting the requirements of the California Department Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and contribute at least $1.8 million of general fund money to the Housing Trust Fund.
ii. City Council adoption of the Housing Trust Fund shall occur no later than the third regularly scheduled and held City Council meeting after the Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties.
iii. City shall make an initial contribution of $1 million to the Housing Trust Fund to be approved with the Fiscal Year (July 1 — June 30) 2024/2025 budget (July 2024). iv. City shall budget no less than an additional $100,000.00 contribution to the Housing Trust Fund on an annual basis beginning in July 2025 (FY 2025-26) for a minimum period of eight (8) years, through FY 2032-33, and shall continue until units for the Regional Housing Need Allocation for lower income households in the 2008-2015 Housing Element planning period have been constructed (3,035 units). v. Transfer of funds to the Housing Trust Fund shall be made based upon State Notice of Funding Availability ("NOFA") timing to maximize the opportunity for state matching funds.
vi. City contributions to the Housing Trust Fund required under this Action Item, including any State match, shall not be used to prefund Development Impact Fee Deferrals/Waivers required by Action Item 6 (Section 2.f. of this Agreement). vii. Other funding and resources that will contribute to the Housing Trust Fund include:

HCD's Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA); In Lieu fees paid through a Mixed Income Housing Ordinance as identified in Action Item 5 (Section 2.e. of this Agreement); real property identified in Action Item 3 (Section 2.c. of this Agreement); additional discretionary City funding above the $1.8 million contribution identified herein; interest earned on funds in the account through the Local Agency Investment 5

Fund ("LAIF"). These funds must also be used for the production and preservation of Affordable Housing.
viii. City may contribute additional general fund or other monies into the Housing Trust Fund in its sole and absolute discretion. Any such contributions in addition to the contributions described above, including any State match resulting specifically from deposits made above and beyond the deposits required, may be used for any purpose authorized by applicable law including but not limited to prefunding Development Impact Fee Deferrals/Waivers as required by Action Item 6 (Section 2.f. of this Agreement).
ix. Other Affordable Housing programs for which the City receives funding but which will not be deposited in the Housing Trust Fund include but are not necessarily limited to:
income received from affordable housing programs through the City's former Redevelopment Agency; Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funding; CaIHOME grants; HOME grants. These additional affordable housing programs, when allowed by the program terms, may be available to augment the Housing Trust Fund on an Affordable Housing project
x. The Housing Trust Fund, including any real property placed into the Housing Trust Fund, shall be used for production and preservation of permanent housing affordable to LI, VLI, and ELI households. Multi-family units will be required to remain affordable for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years and single-family units will be required to remain affordable for a minimum of forty-five (45) years.
xi. For all Affordable units created pursuant to or as a result of this Action Item 2, the City agrees to enter into affordability agreements and recorded covenants. The affordability agreements and covenants will prescribe requirements such as occupancy, resale, notices to the City of changed circumstances, City's right of first refusal, options to purchase, equity share, and related terms to ensure long term Affordability of all units. xii. City shall monitor compliance with all Affordability covenants pursuant to an updated Affordable Housing Unit Compliance Monitoring Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in the same manner and with the same frequency as the City monitors other housing programs utilizing City funds or containing occupancy income restrictions. xiii. During the month of April 2024, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, and each March thereafter until the Local Housing Trust Fund is fully established, City shall provide a written summary to the Facilitator describing City's efforts to establish the Trust Fund. Following delivery of the written summary, City and Facilitator may meet and confer to discuss progress and obstacles.
c. ACTION ITEM 3: REAL PROPERTY DEDICATION:
i. City shall dedicate to the Housing Trust Fund identified in Action Item 2, the following two (2) City owned properties: an approximate 0.89 acre parcel at 650 Fowler Avenue and an approximate 0.43 acre parcel at 354 Osmun Circle ("Initial Property Dedication").

A. The Initial Property Dedication will be dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund within thirty (30) days of creation of the Housing Trust Fund. 6

B. The Initial Property Dedication will be actively marketed for Affordable Housing development affordable to LI, VLI, or ELI households. The parties acknowledge that the 650 Fowler Avenue parcel will not be available for physical development until at least December 2024.

C. If the Initial Property Dedication does not result in an entitled, permitted Affordable Housing development on either or both parcels by December 31, 2025, City may choose to sell the unentitled and unpermitted parcel(s) included in the Initial Property Dedication. Any sale shall be at fair market value as established by an appraisal by an MAI appraiser and the proceeds of any sale shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund.

D. City shall provide a written summary of City's efforts to develop or sell the Initial Property Dedication to the Facilitator during the month of April 2024, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, and each March thereafter until the Initial Property Dedication is developed with affordable housing or sold. Following delivery of the written summary, City and Facilitator may meet and confer to discuss ways to eliminate hurdles to developing or selling the Initial Property Dedication. ii. City shall either acquire or provide financing to an Affordable Housing developer to purchase a third parcel of real property that will accommodate not less than fifty (50) units of Affordable Housing. If the City acquires the parcel it shall be transferred into the Housing Trust Fund ("Additional Parcel Dedication").

A. City is currently actively identifying parcel(s) to acquire and actively identifying an Affordable Housing developer to enter into a development agreement for a specific parcel, and such efforts will continue following execution of this Agreement B. City shall use its best efforts to close escrow on a parcel and/or enter into a development agreement with an Affordable Housing developer no later than December 31, 2024.

C. If City provides financing to an Affordable Housing developer to purchase the Additional Parcel Dedication, City will require the parcel be used for the construction of Affordable Housing units affordable to LI, VL1, or ELI households.

D. During the month of April 2024, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, and each March thereafter until the Additional Parcel Dedication closes escrow and/or a development agreement is executed, City shall provide a written summary to the Facilitator of City's efforts to acquire a parcel and enter into a development agreement Following delivery of the written summary, City and Facilitator may meet and confer to discuss ways to eliminate hurdles to acquiring a parcel or entering into a development agreement.
iii. For all Affordable units created pursuant to or as a result of this Action Item 3, the City agrees to enter into affordability agreements and recorded covenants prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The affordability agreements and covenants will prescribe requirements such as occupancy, resale, notices to the City of changed circumstances, City's right of first refusal, options to purchase, equity share, and related terms to ensure long term Affordability of all units.
iv. City shall monitor compliance with all Affordability covenants pursuant to the City's 7

updated Affordable Housing Unit Compliance Monitoring Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in the same manner and with the same frequency as the City monitors other housing programs utilizing City funds or containing occupancy income restrictions. d. ACTION ITEM 4: INFILL REZONE PROGRAM: City shall complete an Infill Rezone Program_
i. The Infill Rezone Program is based upon a map and analysis of sites dated December 8, 2023, and delivered to Martinez's counsel on December 8, 2023 ("Sites Map and Analysis"). The Sites Analysis identified 24 parcels, comprising approximately 54 acres, to be re-zoned to R-3 or R-4 creating capacity to provide approximately 1,284 Affordable Housing Dwelling Units. The Sites Map and Analysis is on file with City and with Martinez's counsel, and is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. ii. The Infill Rezone Program shall be separate, independent, and in addition to any rezone program through which the City is required to accommodate 100 percent of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") for its 6th Cycle Housing Element (2024-2031), which is currently pending review and approval by HCD.
iii. The Infill Rezone Program shall be initiated by the City Council no later than the third regularly scheduled and held City Council meeting after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties. Prior to or concurrently with initiation of the Infill Rezone Program, City shall begin the preparation of an Initial Study in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 65759.
iv. Formal noticing for the Infill Rezone Program shall begin within two (2) weeks after completion of the Initial Study, barring any need to comply with Government Code section 65759(b).
v. City shall use its best efforts to implement the Infill Rezone Program by January 31, 2025, and shall complete the program no later than June 30, 2025. vi. The Parties recognize that during the Infill Rezone process some parcels may need to be removed and other parcels added, in order to create capacity for 1,284 additional multifamily dwelling units pursuant to this Action Item. If parcels need to be replaced or the unit count on any particular parcel needs to decrease, prior to making any change City shall both 1) provide not less than ten (10) days' notice to Facilitator, and 2) meet and confer regarding the proposed changes. Facilitator shall approve the change if City identifies another parcel of similar size and equal or greater capacity that will be rezoned to R-3 or R-4 prior to removing any of the identified 24 parcels, or decreasing the capacity on any of the identified parcels. Any other changes shall be approved at the discretion of Facilitator following meet and confer with the City. vii. The parties recognize that there may be unforeseen delays in processing the Infill Rezone Program including legal challenges. In that regard, during the month of April 2024, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, and again in December 2024, and each March thereafter until the City Council has approved rezonings to create capacity for 1,284 units as required by the Infill Rezone Program, City shall provide a written summary to the Facilitator of City's efforts to complete the Infill Rezone Program. Any anticipated delays 8

beyond January 31, 2025, shall be set forth in the written summary. City and Facilitator shall meet and confer regarding any anticipated delays. e. ACTION ITEM 5: MIXED INCOME ZONING ORDINANCE: City shall adopt a Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance, and shall include a Program to adopt the Ordinance in its 6th Cycle Housing Element that provides that the Ordinance will be adopted within twelve (12) months after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties, or February 28, 2025, whichever is earlier.
i. City shall retain Keyser Marston Associates ("Consultant"), or a company with comparable experience, under written Contract at City's cost to complete a Financial Feasibility Analysis ("Analysis") for a Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance. City shall approve the written contract within thirty (30) days after Facilitator's written approval of a scope of work for the Analysis as described below.

A. The parties agree that time is of the essence for achievement of this Action Item 5, and that the Contract with Consultant shall incorporate provisions to expedite the process to the furthest degree possible, with the goal of concluding the Analysis and drafting the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance for adoption no later than the end of the fourteenth (14) month of the planning period; that is, by February 28, 2025.

B. The Analysis shall include an evaluation of a range of feasible affordable housing setaside percentages ("Set-Aside Percentage") for new residential developments in the City of Clovis. The Analysis shall also evaluate feasible complementary mechanisms by which a residential housing developer may meet the required Set-Aside Percentage. Such mechanisms will include, but are not limited to, an in lieu fee ("In Lieu Fee"), land donation, and construction of Affordable Housing units on alternative sites.

C. The In Lieu Fee analysis shall identify a per-unit or per-square-foot formula for fees sufficient to cover the need for Gap Financing, and to ensure that revenue generated by the In Lieu Fees is sufficient to facilitate the construction of enough Affordable Housing dwelling units to meet the Set Aside Percentage requirement for each new development.
ii. Key components of the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance, in addition to the Set-Aside Percentage and alternatives, shall include the following:

A. The adopted ordinance shall establish that in all new residential developments of more than ten (10) units in the City and in any area that may be annexed to the City in the future, a Set Aside Percentage of Affordable Housing units will be required, with fractional units rounded to the nearest whole number.

B. The Set Aside Percentage shall be the highest percentage supported by the Analysis that does not exceed ten percent (10.0%), and shall be no less than five percent (5.0%) even if the highest percentage supported by the Analysis is less than five percent (5.0%).

C. The Affordable Housing required by the Set Aside Percentage must be affordable to LI and VLI Households. For Affordable Housing rental units, the ordinance will require that at least fifty percent (50%) of the Affordable Housing units will be 9

affordable to VLI households and the balance of the Affordable Housing units will be affordable to LI households. One hundred percent (100%) of for-sale Affordable Housing units will be affordable at least to LI Households.

D. Affordable units within a multi-family housing project will be required to remain affordable for not less than fifty-five (55) years and single-family units affordable for not less than forty-five (45) years.

E. A requirement that affordability agreements and recorded covenants be entered into with the City for all Affordable units prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

The affordability agreements and covenants will prescribe requirements such as occupancy, resale, notices to the City of changed circumstances, City right of first refusal, options to purchase, equity share, and related terms to ensure long term Affordability of all units.

F. City shall monitor compliance with all Affordability covenants pursuant to the City's updated Affordable Housing Unit Compliance Monitoring Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in the same manner and with the same frequency as the City monitors other housing programs utilizing City funds or containing occupancy income restrictions.

G. City will prepare and present at a City Council meeting an annual report on the status of the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance, including how many market rate developments are subject to the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance, how each of these developments satisfied the requirements of the Ordinance, and a record of funds deposited in the Housing Trust Fund. The report will be provided to Facilitator at least ten (10) days prior to the report being presented at City Council. iii. City shall use its best efforts to complete the Analysis and adopt the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance within ten (10) months after issuing a notice to proceed to Consultant to begin the Analysis with adoption of the Ordinance no later than twelve (12) months after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties, or February 28, 2025, whichever is earlier. The Ordinance will be introduced, read, and adopted as an urgency measure, and will go into effect immediately.
iv. City shall meet and confer with Facilitator throughout the process for adopting the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance. This includes:

A. Obtaining written approval (includes email) from Facilitator of the scope of the Analysis and methodologies to be used.

B. Requiring the Consultant to contact any regional affordable housing developer identified by Facilitator as able to provide important information for the Analysis.

C. Submitting draft(s) of the Analysis to Facilitator for comment at least twenty (20) days before circulation to the general public for comment.

D. Obtaining written approval (includes email) from Facilitator of the final Analysis before processing the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance for approval before the Planning Commission and City Council.

E. Notifying Facilitator in writing (includes email) at least ten (10) days before any noticed public meetings. Noticed public meetings include community meetings initiated by the City, Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings. 10

F. Notifying Facilitator of any anticipated delays in obtaining the Analysis, conducting public meetings, and approving the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance. f. ACTION ITEM 6: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL/WAIVER PROGRAM: City shall adopt a Development Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program.

L City shall present a written program deferring/waiving development impact fees ("Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program") to the City Council for approval no later than the third regularly scheduled and held City Council meeting after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties, and the Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program shall be approved/adopted by the City Council no later than the third regularly scheduled and held City Council meeting after Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment. ii. The Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program shall be available for up to fifty percent (50%) of City's major facility sewer and water fees for up to one hundred twenty (120) deed restricted Affordable Housing units per year. Affordable units constructed pursuant to the Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance shall not be included in this program. Any unused fee deferrals/waivers in a given year shall be carried over to the following year. The reduction shall be as follows:

A. Low-income: 40%
B. Very Low-income: 45%
C. Extremely Low-income: 50%
iii. The Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program shall be calculated as a percentage of each development's major facility sewer and water fees, rather than as a prescribed dollar amount.
iv. The Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program shall begin as a zero-interest "residual receipts loan," payable in seventeen (17) years, or other term of years as may be required by senior financing. The residual receipts loans shall be as customarily defined in the industry. If the City receives any payments from a residual receipts loan, those payments shall be returned to the Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program or Housing Trust Fund and be available for additional affordable housing projects. v. The Impact Fee Deferral/Waiver Program shall be marketed in the Spring of 2024 following City Council approval/adoption, and available for use starting July 1, 2024. vi_ For all Affordable Housing Dwelling Units benefiting from any fee deferral or waiver pursuant to this Action Item 6, the City agrees to enter into affordability agreements and recorded covenants. The affordability agreements and covenants will prescribe requirements such as occupancy, resale, notices to the City of changed circumstances, City's right of first refusal, options to purchase, equity share, and related terms to ensure long term Affordability of all units.
vii. City shall monitor compliance with all Affordability covenants pursuant to the City's updated Affordable Housing Unit Compliance Monitoring Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in the same manner and with the same frequency as the City monitors other housing programs utilizing City funds or containing occupancy income restrictions. 11

viii. City will prepare and present at a City Council meeting an annual report on the status of the Development Impact Fee/Deferral Waiver Program, including how many residential development projects received deferraUwaiver of impact fees, and the number of units at each affordability level to be built as a result of the program. The report will be provided to Facilitator at least ten (10) days prior to the report being presented at City Council.

3. Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The parties agree to cooperate toward the City's adoption of a legally compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element.

4. General Release. In consideration of the promises set forth herein, and except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, this Agreement is intended to be and shall act as a full and final settlement and release of all claims set forth in the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on file in the Action. Entry of this Agreement as a Stipulated Judgment shall be deemed by the Parties and the Court as having satisfied the terms of the Court's Order issued on April 30, 2021, and Judgment issued on June 1, 2021, any rulings directed towards the Court contained in the April 7, 2023, Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion, and remittitur issued on July 20, 2023, the Court's August 22, 2023 Order Overruling Demurrer to First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate After Remand, and any other Orders issued by the Court in this case_ Upon entry of the Stipulated Judgment, the remaining fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh (in part), and eighth causes of action in the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief shall be dismissed with prejudice.

5. Waiver of Rights Under Civil Code Section 1542. The parties expressly waive and release all rights and benefits afforded by Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and do so understanding and acknowledging the significance and consequence of such specific waiver of Section 1542. Section 1542 of the California Civil Code states as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.

The Parties expressly waive the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542, and further expressly waive any right to invoke said provisions with respect to claims existing now or any time up to the date of the Parties' execution of this Agreement Therefore, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, the Parties expressly acknowledge that this release is intended to include in its effect, without limitation, all claims and causes of action which they do not know or suspect to exist in their favor and that this release contemplates the extinguishment of all such claims and causes of action arising out of or connected with the Action_ In connection with such waiver and relinquishment, the Parties acknowledge that they are aware that they, or their attorney(s), agent(s), or successor(s), may hereafter discover claims or facts in addition to or different from those which they now know or believe to exist with respect to the subject matter of, or any Party named in, this Agreement, but that it is their intention hereby fully, finally, and forever to settle and release all of the released matters. In furtherance of such 12

intention, each of the releases herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete release notwithstanding the discovery or existence of any such additional or different claims or facts.

6. All Obligations Extinguished by Release. It is expressly understood and agreed that, except as to matters with respect to which the Court will retain jurisdiction pending complete performance (Sections 8 and 9), this Agreement is in full accord, satisfaction, discharge, and compromise of disputed claims up to the date of the Parties' execution of this Agreement, and that this Agreement has been executed with the express intention of effectuating the legal consequences provided for in Section 1541 of the California Civil Code, i.e., the extinguishing of all obligations as herein described. Section 1541 states as follows:

Obligation Extinguished by Release. An obligation is
extinguished by a release therefrom given to the debtor by the creditor, upon a new consideration, or in writing, with or without new consideration.

7. No Admission of Liability. Each Party acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement effects the settlement of claims and potential claims that are contested, disputed, and denied and does not constitute an admission of liability by any Party for any purpose. Moreover, nothing contained in this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of any sums provided for in this Agreement shall be offered, admitted or construed as an admission by any Party of any liability or the amount of any liability to any other Party. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission of any liability or wrongdoing of any kind with respect to any matters alleged in or related to the Action. Martinez hereby agrees that the execution, and performance, of this Agreement resolve any and all of her claims related to, or arising from, the City's 2015 Housing Element and the Action, and satisfy all of the City's obligations under the Court's Order issued on April 30, 2021, and the Judgment issued on June 1, 2021.

8. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Martinez is the prevailing party in the Action, and is entitled to her reasonable attorneys' fees. Martinez's counsel agree to meet and confer with City in an effort to reach a resolution on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the Superior Court. Only if such a meet-and-confer is unsuccessful will Martinez seek an award of reasonable attorneys' fees from the Court. Any such motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs must be filed and served on the City's counsel no later than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the Notice of Entry of the Stipulated Judgment is served on all parties, unless such time is further extended by a stipulation approved by the Court, or by a court order; the prevailing party on any attorneys' fees motion will be entitled to costs and attorneys' fees incurred in bringing and litigating the motion. The Court of Appeal awarded costs on appeal and City will pay the amount of costs requested in Martinez's Memorandum of Costs on Appeal filed and served on August 24, 2023. Payment shall be made to Central California Legal Services at the same time City remits payment of the agreed upon or court-ordered attorneys' fees.

9. Stipulated Judgment and Retention of Jurisdiction. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties, the Parties shall jointly request the Court enter a Stipulated Judgment that incorporates this Agreement. The Parties agree, stipulate and request that the Fresno County 13

Superior Court shall maintain jurisdiction of the Action and the Parties until the obligations of the Parties under this Agreement have been fully performed or excused. The Fresno County Superior Court may enforce this Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

10. Meet and Confer Before Seeking Court Relief. The Parties agree to make a good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve any concerns about the performance of any obligations under the terms of this Agreement before filing any request for enforcement of this Agreement with the Fresno County Superior Court The Parties agree that for the purposes of this Agreement, good faith means: (1) providing written notice to the opposing party at least thirty (30) days prior to filing any motion to seek enforcement with the Court; (2) providing the opposing party an opportunity to cure during the thirty (30) day period; and (3) meeting with the opposing party's representatives and counsel within ten (10) days after providing said notice to attempt to resolve the dispute. The Parties, by stipulation, may modify or extend any of the deadlines or terms of this Agreement. Any party that successfully enforces the terms of this Agreement may recover attorneys' fees and costs expended in the enforcement from the opposing party.

11. Cooperation/Execution of Supplemental Documents. The Parties agree to cooperate fully, at their own cost and expense, in carrying out the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including taking further action that may be reasonably necessary to implement the Action Items or the terms of this Agreement.

12. Amendments; Waiver. No supplement, modification, or amendment to this Agreement will be binding unless executed in writing by each Party or a duly authorized representative or legal counsel of each Party. No waiver of any provisions of this Agreement will be deemed or will constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor will any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the Party making the waiver.

13. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, enforced, and governed by California law.

14. Binding Effect. The rights and obligations specified in this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the respective successors, heirs, next of kin, personal representatives, assigns, affiliates, and agents of the Parties.

15. Notices. All notices required or authorized pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent, in writing, via U.S. Mail or email to each of the following:

For• City:

Scott Cross, City Attorney
Lozano Smith
7404 N. Spalding Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720
14 For Martinez:

Valerie Feldman
Public Interest Law Project
449 15'h Street, Ste. 301
Oakland, CA 94612-2821
vfeldman@pilpca_org

Dez Martinez
705 W. University Ave.

Fresno, CA 93705
[email protected]
City of Clovis
John Holt, City Manager
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Patience Milrod, Esq.
985 N. Van Ness Avenue
Fresno, CA 93728
[email protected]
Michelle Kezirian, Executive Director
Stephanie Hamilton Borchers
Royce Stuteville
Central California Legal Services
2115 Kern Street, Suite 200
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Any Party may change the address(es) for notice purposes by providing prior notice of such change to the other Party as provided herein.

16. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts such that the signatures may appear on separate signature pages. Copies of signatures, including electronic copies of signatures, shall be deemed original signatures for all purposes. In addition, any Party may execute a copy of this Agreement that has been transmitted to the signing party by email or facsimile. A copy, facsimile or an original, with all signatures appended together, shall be deemed a fully executed Agreement.

17. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement as applied to any Party or to any circumstance is adjudged by a court to be void or unenforceable, the same shall in no way effect any other provision of this Agreement or the validity or enforceability of the Agreement as a whole, and the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

18. Voluntary Agreement; Opportunity to Consult Counsel. Each Party hereby affirms, acknowledges, and warrants that such Party has been adequately represented by competent legal counsel during the Action and the negotiation of this Agreement, and has completely reviewed the terms of this Agreement with such Party's own legal counsel and is fully informed and understands and appreciates the meaning and effect of this Agreement, and voluntarily accepts the benefits and obligations thereof.

19. Interpretation. This Agreement is the result of the combined efforts of the Parties and/or their respective attorneys and shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both Parties hereto. If any provision of this Agreement is found ambiguous, the 15

ambiguity shall not be resolved by construing this Agreement in favor of or against any Party, but by construing the terms according to their generally accepted meaning.

20. Headings and Captions. The headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They do not purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit, or extend the scope or intent of the sections or paragraphs to which they appertain_

21. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with the documents incorporated herein by reference and any exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement among the Parties regarding the subject matters set forth in this Agreement, and supersedes any and all other discussions, agreements, negotiations or understandings, either oral or in writing, express or implied, between the Parties to the same, other than a court determination or settlement of the amount of attorneys' fees and costs. No other representations, covenants, undertakings, or other prior or contemporaneous agreements, oral or written, respecting such matters, which are not specifically incorporated herein, shall be deemed in any way to exist or bind any of the Parties. Each Party signing this Agreement represents and acknowledges that such Party has not executed this Agreement in reliance on any promise, representation, conduct or warranty of any other Party not expressly set forth in this Agreement

22. Authority to Sign Agreement. Each of the signatories to this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is competent and authorized to sign and enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Party to whom he or she purports to sign.

WHEREFORE, Martinez and City, by the respective signatures below, enter into this Agreement effective on the Effective Date provided above. //I
//I
[Remainder of page is blank — signatures on page 17]
16

City of Clovis, a California Municipal
Corporation
By:

Desiree Martinez
By: goria
John It. City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ATTEST• Public Interest l,aw Project
By: Valerie Feldman, Attorney for
(pity Oak Desiree Martinez
Avidr4"., 44.4s1,
APPROM AS TO FORM: Patience Milrod
By: Paitince-marad
C- By: Patience Milrod. Attorney for
Scott G. Cross, City Attorney Desiree Martinez
Central Citlifo Legal Services t .7
By: — / --7") -----
Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, Attorney for
Desiree Martinez

City of Clovis, a California Municipal
Corporation
Desiree Martinez
By:

By:

John Holt, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ATTEST: Public Interest Law Project
By: (//cJ --)._/--------._
By: Valerie Feldman, Attorney for
Karey Cha, City Clerk Desiree Martinez
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patience Milrod
Pitiie-fwe- MitP By: a
By: Patience Milrod, Attorney for
Scott G. Cross, City Attorney Desiree Martinez
Central California Legal Services
By:

Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, Attorney for
Desiree Martinez
17

CITY OF CLOVIS POLICY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

UNIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING
EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT I

City of Clovis
Policy for Affordable Housing Unit Compliance Monitoring The City of Clovis will use this policy to develop and implement guidelines to monitor and preserve the affordability of the housing units developed by the following Affordable Housing Programs ("Programs").
• Affordable Housing Trust Fund
• Mixed Income Zoning Ordinance
• Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee Deferral Program

1. Deed Restrictions/Affordability Covenants:

All units developed by the Programs shall have deed restrictions recorded requiring the units to remain affordable, for the applicable income level and for the applicable affordability period - forty-five (45) years for ownership units, and fiftyfive (55) years for multi-family rental units.

2. Annual Occupancy Restrictions and Certifications:

The City shall conduct an annual occupancy review and certification process consisting of the following by each November for all Program units.

Owner-Occupant Units:

The City will require owner-occupants to annually certify occupancy during the affordability period by submitting utility bills or other documentation of proof or occupancy in the unit as the owner-occupants primary place of residence.

Rental Units:

The City will require Owner/Developer/Property Manager to annually certify the income eligibility of the occupants during the affordability period by submitting income documentation or a third-party regulatory report such as TCAC or HCD annual reviews.

3. Required Notioina and Restrictions on Any Changes of Title or Occupancy:

In all cases where there is a change in title, occupancy, or use of the unit, the Occupant/Owner/Developer/Property Manager must notify the City in writing of any change within 30 days. City and Occupant/Owner/Developer/Property Manager shall work together to ensure the unit Is kept in compliance with the original Program terms and conditions such that it remains available as affordable housing for lower income households at the applicable income level for the duration of the affordability period. Changes in title, occupancy, or use of any unit must be in keeping with the objective of benefiting lower income households at the applicable income levels identified at the time of construction. 1 of 2

4. Consequence of Failure to Comply
If any occupant/owner/developer/property manager fails to comply with the applicable affordability requirements, the City will exercise its rights to enforce the affordability restriction and gain compliance, up to and including foreclosure and eviction. Following any foreclosure and/or eviction, the City shall maintain the unit as affordable and available to eligible lower income households for no less than the duration of the original affordability period, including, if necessary, recording a new deed restriction and/or affordability covenants.
(Remainder of page is blank]
2 of 2

REZONE SITES MAP AND ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2

Spruce ,JD
E
f
Sierra
Alluvial
c.A-193
Sierra
Herndon
108 t -':

E
594 tit
4 I
r
I.
0 a
fr I
..,,,,p'P
'SO
Barstow
*
1595
Fifth
595
9913
rn
559
i ullard --.

I
...
., efp ibqp
a IL
16B 167
5 t1
115 a 50
`ei Shaw
1104
150 a—3ril r !
E
5 ..
9 8
V 217 2
-41.. r.. , GettY&P9,
g g
e• 1 )s. 6 377
Dakota 4
r r
L - ... J
r J
r -
Shepherd

REZONE SITES
November 13. 2023
Perrin
r December 8.2023' gib
/ 1 'sit r 1 oP
.0 Powers p yit:4053% #40
I
Teague r r J L J n
I i 1 § r j CityLimits cStmets
•
197,46jer _157 of 4"
' .
lb• 50 r X I- 1 Sphere of Influence
L. Nees ........_, ....
592 g--593 is--.1.99
40"
r7 Potential Rezone Sites
1284 dwelling units
Assumed density of 24 dwelling
units per aae
Non 1 . In December 8, 2023 Rezone Sites Package, Site
217 has been revised to Identity 1.8 acres of 4 acre see as availed° for a multi-family project.
41p
0 0;5 1
1 1
Miles
2

ASSUMED DENSITY (DU/AC)
e
4,
1 E. .t
-,...
••= 0
...,
3,
5 1
C. ,D
,
T.
i
7 14
E i
:=. E
1 iL
't,
s
1 i
8 A
Z
t
......

5. 0
S
co
..

S 7 Z Id. .ii
d
v..
a o
7 S c.

E 1:4
zr. , , i
L
s.
..
c
i . • .

E t,
i t• a 0
1,-
I
.1
o
Z
41 -.7.•
3:
i
v.
8 Z
b
P. c.7
'7'
i
v.
—
cr
Y.
6 Z.' ,
Ts
-6
i
1 £
— g
"5

9. 7., Lk,
'no -0
E
„
1 -0 0,
i!
,
E

3.• . .•
g

7..; E
‘r• C
C i
Od IO
E 4
.u. E
C
1 .=
t
a
N a
..,
5 3
3 r-4
,
µ
9 z:
t
I
6 49931151 OC C-2. 0 90 Vacant Southern end- parking lot Abuts Stte 377 & Same °vent.
-,-, N N N Y fl r N N N 74 r N v r N i ,,
50 56324501 1 R-1-7500 2.30 Vacant 55 Y N N N N Y N N N N r r Y r N Y Y 103 19123124 M C-2 . 1.25 Vacant 30 N V It r Y r Pi r r N e N Y N Y Y 110 49906074 M 11-1 L25 Vacant 30 N N Y r r N N r r N r N r r N Y r 111. 554570441 M R-1 2 31 Vacant .56 N N N NI r N N N N N N V Y N r 1 157 558033595 MU-V P-C-C 724 Vacant 174 N N N N N Y N r N N N N V r N r Y 119 492(6092 MU-V M-U 3 78
Prirnenly Vacant - 1 vacant bldg_ (Marketed
for MF)
Ablltr. 159B & Same Owner
91 N V N Y V V r V v r r N V V N ) Y
1596 492010545 MU-V M-U 042 Vacant - Abuts 159 & Same owner 10 N r N Y r r 't. Y r y Y N r Y N `I Y

1.60 199134205 NC
C-P 1.03 Vacant 25 N 74 Y 6 Y N N r N N N N v
. Y N 1 r
161 4360316 0
C-P L67 Vacant 40 N N N Y Y r N N N N N N r r r Y y
167 ssuaccit 0 C-P 101 Vacant
Abuts 168 - Same owner
25 N v 1 Y Y N Y N Y V Y ti
168 55122003 0 C-P 130 Vacant
Abuts 167 - Same owner
31 N r r r r r N r r N Y 1' Y `I N Y Y
1'36 56406042 VL
R-A 110 Vacant 51 y N N 7 Y Y !,) N N N N N r Y N V y
301 499(8121 0 C-P 094 Vacant 23 N N r Y Y N N r r N Y N `I Y r r Y 377 49931155 DC C-2 081
Vacant Southern end - narking lot. Abuts
Site 6 & Same Owns
19 N N N r N Y N N 77 N r N Y y N Y r
589 55026023 1 RA 8 01 Former RogersHelplcopter. Owner Interested in MF Project
192 Y N N 1' Y Y N N N N N N
J
r r Y Y y
590 554551134s M R-1 3 01 £FR °WIC( .nterested in MF 72 II V N N 71 r 71 71 74 N N N '7' Y N Y V 593 5632450; I. R-1-7500 230
SFR. Owner Interested In MF
Abuts 594 - Same Owner 55 1 N N N N Y N N N N `I r r Y N r r 591 56324506 L R-1-7500 2 30
EFR Owner interested in MF
Abuts 593 - Same Owner
55 y N N N r N N n 77 ,, 1 r V N r r
5% 49817202 L R-1 041 Vacant
Abuts 596 - Same Owner 10 N N N r Y r r N N N N
1 N r Y N y Y
596 49817201 1 R-1 072
VeKant
Abuts 595- Same Owner 17 N N N Y r r r N 74 N N N V Y N r r VIM $li 15 4014.0 11 11.2 I 10 ACtOMMODAI t SIN UIII; $ 197 55849230 VL R-1- H 4.5 Existingrte al residentid home. 108 N N N N N Y N N N N N N r Y N y y 217 4995401317 I M-1 1 80
Commerical business- °CMS Acadrneny 07
cjyrnnall<3 and Dance 13 N N
--1
v V Y N N V N N N RI V V N V V
592 563(8131 L R-4 2.09 (slather's& residertial home 50 N N N N N r N N N N r N r Y N Y Y TOTAL S3 50 1,184

SITE 6
Existing Future Bus Park/Community Elementary Elementary Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 TCAC/HCITI Flood Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer

N N N N N N N N
*.
a
ti
ow.
4 —"" AMR nu swat
s,:.1. I ' s t • r;Orc ,
wrywrywe sal
4-
•
1 1. f:7
s
• •
1 4-
•
4 .• astgiptilrF _de
s
Oat
,,;>
•
•
, • I
- 141W
a
4 • tts
•
'
flf
• 4
I
Ask
•
sirsaln.o
1 =Ma ,
•••• y II
• I•
•
is:••- .
sit
•
Ose Ito
Ai= •
SI
r. • •
•••
VIC0 1
I
at 7
olii1V411
1aA44
111-"ss rit,,,i- ii& ..r ......: .tei,44.04#
• it ..• o- I :4 t
Lj 1 .. - .

It
Ity
0 74
s,..

C
n.
-ree
.:2TOMMI
IV lira. a.
ti
•
11 • hitIcAs OA, •
-
'S.1? ! , S,Irs.:‘,3!
,• S. 411
S.*
V/rAll V
IS): • •
.S4 4..7
•

SITE 50
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (03 Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Site II) (1 mile) (1 mile) (9.5 miles)Z miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) 50 N N N N N N
0 rq
i• A
4m
5803 E
Nees
Ave
i
t •
•
111f/A:
• 1. Ncrs.%%t:Ameartibimeimmumm,.
. r_
=
217,3 N,,f......; Asti,: .e.A.,.?- . Yr
74; 10%-1,1,
5805_E,. log ',44,-,
,
Nee: ATP- ,-,,,
•
7915 N Armstrong Ave
132
14 rim* is,
1098 N
A rrrztrong
rw
Ave
Elementary Elementary
Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 TCAC/HCD Flood
(0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer N
1273 N
Ar I; str on g
rAve
yr—
,
2201 Jordan - 1
!13 t Ave'2211
Jilt -II:In
4 Ave
t
1 Ir .2202
Jordan
Ave
2212
Joirl
223
Jord
2221 Avi
Joidari
Ave
' I
Parcels - Clovis _Query resut
D soleyed features:1/1
Parcels - Clovis: 56.324504
P\ 56324504
Createc BILLF
Created Whe- 5/17/2019
Mod-tied By STEPHAN I EA
Modified Whe•-. 9/25/2019
NAME1 DA REAL ESTATE

HOLDINGS LLC
NAME2
ADDRESS1 1396 W HERNDON
*101
22 ADDRESS2 FRESNO CA 93711
don
an A ADDRESS3
A DDRESS,4
41 PERCENTINTERES77 0.00
Ho' JOINT_TENANCY_C.ODF_1
1142. Ai re
N FlIngt
j
CHANGE_D.ATE1 6/29/2021
2222
Ave Jordan
At;
if
1101•4 ocresnrormt nfitTrit i'ffIllf1 .14
• • •

SITE 108
Existing Future Bus Park/Community Elementary Elementary hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 TCAC/HCD flood Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) mtles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water _ , Sewer 108
r
L
•
4 1
1 V
• t
145 N Clovis
Ave 101
•
145 N Clswi
Ave 102
145 N
Clovis
el'
Clovis Ave
611.1111'
r
95 N
I.' •
115 N
Clovis Ave
105 N
Clovit7Ave
1 53 N
CIO, Is Ave
153 N Clovis
• a -4 Ave
41 103
;
Arye 151
.149 N
Claris Ave
*
N
Hugh e,
17014 'Hughes Ave
;pp t‘,1,?.....*
HugliesZkve
car
Alas
110N
Hughes Ave
N
Parcels - Co;s Query result
Usolayed feature6:1:1
Pantels - Clovis: 49123124
49123124
Created S-0 81LLF
Created When 5/17/2019
Modlied By STEPHANIEA
Modified When 9/25/2019

NAME', JOHN GREGORY

DEVELOPMENT CO
INC
NAME2
ADDRESS1 301 E HILLCREST
ADORESS2 FRESNO CA 93720
ADDRESS3
ADDRESS4
PERCENT INTEREST' 0.00
JOIN? TENANCY_CODE
CHANGE_DATE 1 6/26/2012
PECORDING_DATE1 6/26/2012
INSTROMENT_NUMBER1 0089115
PE.RCENT_INTEREST2 0.00
JOINT TENANCY_CODE7
C HA NGE_DATE2
RECORDINGDATE2

SITE 110
Site ID
Existing Future Bus Park/Community Elementary Elementary Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 7 CAC/HOD Flood (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (03 miles) (03 miles) miles) mites) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer 110
PI
:2 90W,Sante
Ana Ave
I Ilk
282 W Santa
Ana Ave
414 -
OP IN
11,1.1,t
Aet .4)
Zi mfr
272,W Santo
Ana Ave
•
• "• A
leftriManfte
MID
---"""il l,"""'""" '" ."'"'"INIIIMPW"'"'" • . .'"" —..— •--
. 1111111
CM:" 11 Ta..: 40
• e
r.
eria
• .4
0 281 W
,
•
"Rail Ave
.par
Rail Ave
0 1 1•",•' ,
291 W
Win Ave
ar.
" 47
i;.14r-011
• J23ri VVSar\t,;':

Alt 1 Ave ,.
216 W Santa
Ana Ave
4 2:434
Villa Ave
I
2460'
VII la Aiie
Parcels - Clovis _Query result
D'splayed •Features:1!1
Parcels - Clovis: 49906074
49906074
Created By BILLF
Created When 5/17/2019
Mothf ed By STEPHANIEA
Modified Wher 9/25/2019
NAME1 ATTIAAMIN KAMAL
NAME2
ADDRESSI P O BOX 3335
ADDRESS2 CLOVIS CA 93613
ADDRESS3
ADDRESS4
°F.-.RCENT_INTEREST - 0.00
_OINT_TENANCf_CODE7
CHANGE_DATE' 1/6/2015
E-CO R DI NG_ DATE 1/6/2015
AISTRUMENT NUMBER' 0001414
ERCENT_INTEREST2 0.00
..ADINT_TENANCY CODE2
CHANGE_DATE2 12/31/1999
RECORD1t4G_DATE2
es.

SITE 115
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School Site ID (1 mile) (1 mite) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) mlles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) Elementary
School (0.5
miles)
Elementary
School (0.25
miles) Internet Zone
1CAC/HCD Flood
Zone Water Se
115 N N N
i
5224 N
Leonard Ave
i
Leon and
Are
...If -•._•-•,••••,•••-•-•.-
F7
-
' "ea
1741 3803
Leonard KeatrAve
Aver
I.
45,
os
're
, . 823
Keat'Avv
'4 ' ay
..-
3833
Keats Ave
3843
Keats Ave
•
3853
Keats Ay
2 5200 N
Leonard Ave
38837
Keats'Av e
111
0 3873
Keats Ave
I
Keats
N N
Parcels - Clovis Que r), result
Displayed features- 111
Parcels - Clovis: 55457044S
Created By
Crested When
meddled By
Mod,fied When
NAME

ADDRESS
ADDRESS2
ADDRESS3
ADDRESS4
PERCENT INTERES- 1
JONT_TENANCY_C0DE I
C HANGE_DATE 1
RECORD ING_DATE I

INSTRUMENT NUMBER
PERCENT_INTEREST2
JOINT_TENANCYCODF2
CI-IANGE_DATE2
RECORDING_DATE2
INSTRUMENT_NUMBER2

WORD DESCRIPTION

LOT WIDTH
LOT_DEPTH
• • •.•••,•••••`1••••• • • • • I'
554570445
BILLF
5/17/2019

STEPI-IANIEA
6/1/2020

SULTAN INTISAB &

NOREEN INTISAB IRS
7301 N FANCHER
CLOVIS CA 93619

0.00 10/22/2019
10/22/2019
0127046

0.00 10/22/2019
0000000
1671 LEONARD CL

0.00 0.00
ET

SITE 157
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clink Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (03 miles) miles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) 157
p
C.

I
At..,4- • .t
...114911 .
•
1 1-
.Z.

Voge:
si4 •
* I
•
"
t4erriti?:
10411 A si _
IP
•
_ aGlf
, e,
'13
•-•
sur".Cie'L
.1 • •-•
° • I '
;r
II IUD
Elementary Elementary
Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 TCAC/HCO Flood
(0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer •••
IMEM
. „...,... .
• •
.7.147RIM
r. • •i
fY

4. ,t pi •
+ 0,
•
4 - • :‘,
•
el . -I
..v
" fsolt"
i a .06440
K,29
.1e .N
••0
• .
.1140. i
••••
No
;1°Cifi' ‘:%"••• tcL i L h
•
•
( . ' - ....
'
In*
,;:,". i•:.
!"'.4 •t, •trisr/ ° a7, ,.,,-*L ' i' ; 1. 1 i • - t. ',‘ - . ‘ dot .. .4-
'''
41r .
it
4:
.. .' • . It.
- ,..". ;7--

con
rte
4 z
Y-
-sue
4-
r 1.5
4 V
.3
'

4. Oak
rl •
1 •
Sb 4144Z.j.
is
Vf--cogi0
ow.
r,_ t
rte
'
zt
r -
IMO
it
-
-4

Areanit 3
s. r - 3
r
J
1r, CA •
eulOn
VINO II 4 4 . •11 4 k101 YJ
V.J.K.W.3.1.1.1V
A :a. ..4:13C3

1.: 4 44 4444110l 0::1 Ii.
i: .1 - • -.ilia 2 . ,1
.1 4 4111,111
A.J . A.- MASI
tivfoin 'e foe,:

III As.•
W•17
M61 III A .1.

I(I h 41 ('.11
• , {AKA. A•11tel
11 „
• mon 5.401010

11.7"
•k•S 1 P14
It 444
la
.
, 4.
ti
' 4 .1
imam° ) to
r1=
obei.
ler
44 .4 . - . •AA
f:
•
•
Hl A.D.o0 JA)
f.I
I•
no
•
Ale
to
II
bra
•.'
:( AD.)
f
A4y
1103k
-••• av ass v.'.
ss ) 44 411 . 11 1• 41 f ).
•
4111144 1 1•
OD
Dv
:yr
ylo
...CI
II
•
•
OA
•
. .
aft

A A A N A A N A A
a6ST N A N A A A
iairm sans "Oltli 01 1 twoz imoZ
ODIV)V31 ls oo P
st) r • I s it (s aln al TI sow I T) Nom o) - s Iteeto ro) (flow z(smoo al fi 1,4 (. Nefful co) (seow co) IsMIw
loorS Lin 0 io co) ST'0)Ioo4oc
H dc nl I tH 24 1 locuPS 'eget brut sng CI1S d sdc$ S'0) POVI Al co) 19 Aim rilpaby Alluntuumipped britystuoi3 Ainutowea
Illunspr3 saran' sng
allS I- 969

•
•
•
0 1
it
•
1 •
•
It •
" 7
_:. 2:41
•21,11=•••••••••••••■•101
4 n' r.
.1
• • • al
4 1 2 2 X
•
; • •
•
441
a 1
•4'
•
t:
a
4:7•
11 r
`
T .M
•
i• r.
•
•
teri •
•LL,
AIL
z10-1-
4 - -••.....-,,L.14,-40- •- .4-
gut
o ne
an
f.
s~iIs
• •
• •

4.,
,
• t.
•
•
!1•
c•-• •
4 .1
•
• • 1 .

Ant
.;
71:
7:; 0
0 3. 5.
:12
3 4' 5:
41$
"7,
3 'rS
71 YA
"")
1 .
3 I, 3
O 3
4, 5
cr
3 ;
pi•-
.v2. 13
in
et .2
Si
Act:
3 7'
.2. 5
3 2 g•
3 3
o
".
"".

LI,
1/1
3 03- 3,9—

4. "'
0 45
••
."4
A
O rb

E
:12
•
z
z
1 :b
-a
.
ci
=
g
E
E
2 3
ci
WI
.0
O
In
E 7.=
0 E
c E
V
3-
z
z
z
• • • I
I
ti
4 til
0 ,..
z
z
z
•
• SI
II:
•
•
•
4,4
1 21
a I
3;
I I
I
III
i
.4.

6.-
3j
.1
V.
•
•
, 10-k.
•
•
•
a•-•
#;" •
•
r I
Lit 1—
IL • 1r
• 14,0
•
•
k )
•
• I
•1 -
a
•
a
J.
•
;
al .4
•
401
•
4 tr.

I
•
r
,I!
•
• •
•
•
•
•
1 a
O
crt
•

SITE 167
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Site ID (1 mile) (1 mite) (03 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)2 miles) 1)7 N
-,111 • • • ms cn
• , .
•••••••- .

01.4 INI44•••

1.1?•••••••••
• • • • •
• • •
C
a. 1.10. -
• 7",
I/14 Av.
•1 • l.

Elementary
Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)
N
M.
;
•].„.
•••••40,4
actsm=csa
••••••••••
tTtSTJt•At.r
Ai *
#••--
r
trIr'x'.111)
nit
)§1
cadacom OMICtrao
BC w
L .1••.•••'
4o, -04 L.,;•
< do
!
, , or • •
• •
A.
• Ili, !
;As
N
"•••••••••‘•••••••
,171altrat
\
.21
aerie
Elementary
School (0.25
males)
L" t'r
SITSR- • -
•
•
•
AI.) • •••
TCAQI-Ith Flood
Internet Zone
111
•••••
.."14•7"- 7::"" * tiv -
'
110
• ,11,0::••• lImo P
•
-r
•

11..••• •••
7 r
• ...iv. v....

I, •••••••
—•••
Zone Water Sewer
N
••
0 111

Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (OS Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (DS miles) mlies)2 miles) 168
?Tel
-
•
7 • • •
• • •
\Li
•
I
r
........

1.7.•..... .,... OM,. or
AI
•••
^
1* •
• I •
dal
••• L.-
wt
KM* 41
4 SITE 168
Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clink Middle School
miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles)
....,*•••• r♦leg
;•-r
11 •••
•
••••-•-•••
N
Elementary Elementary
School (0.5 School (0.25 TCACJI ICD Flood
miles) miles) Internet ,,..„)44. Zone Water Sewer

1.•
at i
420216P-maier74% *saL,L .. - de. -IIt
••3 Zunr. •• •
•
•
fin!
inor•Ar.
t•-•

1.7••••
11,41;•• *et
ii•0„,•• •••
•
A
t
il
. t.••
• ar•-•.n.
114 • -r"'
I
ON. A..
.>„
•

11.6•-•••
• w•••••••••
fA• .r
4,4
f.
r,
Holub (11•......\•A•1••

SITE 193
Existing
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops
Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles)
193 N V
Ave
•
223
prOlina
Ave
1206N A
Iltnip Nan▪ ce
Av
ki#
•
11 tr.
t 24> N
Temper-an ce
Ave
• li
2617 Goshen= ' U . -
rive * tits rvarpitrpi. .3,111,„ •
At L1 • 11 Ay. fror.,-7•0 '. 1153 .. 2609 2675 27'15 olden Ave 1- 40 N 1 1-, , ..VV. - N Ay wooato 0061tell • AriolZjili4s. ' "A;:e 14/Ave • en 717 - _lort13n Ave 2Ntt Goshen Ave tin IIF
2719 Jet daii Av a :,, 11 APF1e131* 114 NApp•ceatcAvc 27•93 r Future Bus Park/Community Elementary Elementary
Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Library (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 TCAC/HCD Flood mlles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer "
alt= 4.
'eft.1-X1•1
‘ ,4 4471
M
'4'•
, •
2670Nce5A
3 •
• -
Goshen Ave
•••7 4 I 11-'0"
e 1124 1r
2Not r.et,then .12,', 11:14, N r:rs.foney Ave N Apilesia,e Ave 261♦ f„; N •` Ai ./.'` t4
2612 Gothon Av• G••,,Ilen _ 4...,
Ave 2".±.•""9 •
t o g rAL , i. e lillai wks e,ZZ,,,, 2660 1;ostten Ave

4.. art_ ONIP-7
4 ,1;1 56 N Applegate We
2657 cirelnott Ave
•
2665 Co'hon Aye
Zs
126 11 CoveAnPntry 110. Ave
f --
N Coventryib,,
'A.; ;We
• ,1511

1.<1,11ty
" 1111
tiles
N
•
2743 Nee* Ave
41116‘.0)11
2730 N•••••.. e
• k
114.

N
06T4 E
Noes Ave

4.6. 2 7CO Nam. Ave
N14 11
N
o
'714 • fit (
4 2743 .k)tihri
f 2757 Jodan
,„_ A,,,. 91..
2759 I 77:5
2751 Jordan inrdrin A
Jordan Ave el d;ei
,,. Ave
ordan Ave
(.4.1,rot" A..

T• •". •
4111 • 2760 Jordan Ave
••••
271a20 ° Aida' • 277o Joider!,—
%!,
\ 7•11:4,
Av 27110
orden Ave
21123 *et Ave
6790E
Nava Ave
41 2 Ne•iAv•
• Z31,N
IjozziAve
Parcois- Clovis _Wary eesu t
Displaye..: teat:yes:1n
Parc** Clovis 56406042
C•eatec
A'no-•
'•c•ciliec 0,
tvl••••,rMarl Wean
N W61
rAiy102
ADDRE.F.s
ADDRESS2
-L1UREss3
ADDRESS»
PF9e-Ft.17_ • 0.C.c
O NT 7E,.

CHAM.SE DOTE: 311o,2021
'ECOROINCLD0TE 3;10/2021
.STRUMEKT_NUMBER" 0044751
PERU_I;T_IIITERE5.72 0.C0
ENAN.t_rc..0 _
CI ANCE_DATE2
RFrnamt•ItI_DOTF::
i\STRUMENT_NUMBER: 00030CC
WORT,3_DESCRIFTICN 2?ao E NEES CL
LOT:10DM 210 00
. .
5643604:

BILLF
5,17;20' 0
s- cr, Amu,
0:754o.9

DA REAL ESTATE -LC
395%4. HERNCo•
!101
FRES\O CA 93711
• ••

SITE 197
Hospital High School Pharmacy Existing Bus
Silo ID (1 mile)
197
to •nAn•
(I mile) (0.5 miles) Stops (0.5 miles)
N
.-••••••••-•• •30.4 .10.44"111
ilk4 4 X14.4
.4.441:441
Aw
•
,
AM
'141""
kra
Are
)P'r 4431,1
A..

At
..2.1?
•Xl
•
wor
Pont...
trodal "
4 N ar070.0 3
11914

4.04.04431
ld N
A boudoir
'E
•
Foe,
k
Ent4rprr. •
3111
.14
I
NV'
.4.07........... .•3414.444
'. . .... 1•3;.. . ... ,-.:4
14,44
3IIM
130X34..

A..
1313
1143•444.4
• •-•
1 •
Iregoolose•
t
1101
_ AY,4
d Lenora,
C.0 00444
1771
Otilty0m,
__Art
3 3..0
Art

36.4444
aoynart
Portland
uture Out Park/Community
Stops (0.5 Center (0.5
miles)? miles)
MI N arfltralet
II

1.404
A
Po* dorm,
AV;•.4
7 4'
r r •
V
4461
'An WhO
•till
Ave
library
(0.5
miles)
Grocery
(0.5 miles)
Medical Clinic
(0.5 miles)
N N N
rt
W,,..1,
Ar
-""'"Vt'AINOttitZ"1"•11/4* ki
J.
•
:300 •
k„,
. •
•
•
1 1.!
1 `7one ii,,,AILF3I ,yh yr.

Middle School Elementary School ElementerY School
(0.5 miles) (0.5_m1les) (0.25 miles)

TCACMCD
Internet Zone
N
to,
I
4 7701 ND.

Moll *a
4K°
wt
!
miiiimmiame . .. .
0:052:::sfizz, <
4 114 1g.e,-
k., 9 W.7
k... -
v 4
Flood
Zane Water Sower
N
Arid ..martti "
Pc, .

F
.amlitta0407311
OW
4417M M 11 MALI

41.55.465 SW.PP4AWF.A
klodda.o1l9•••-- .1153,2011. 1144 Me
WA I etnErmuer JO44
CUB'
...x17

41.101t16, 1835
annutasy Box 111
400nts6,-.; cicms
grows,
.4.20:4044..044103., N. 4.1
r
C304.0.4•4DVW 5,1242013 414
COL, 14.._1:07G 3.•?2.134. 3 1.03 N.
kiTelArf.t. ,;...1.011340 • 01420
P.i,rltr, : 000

0.010KaLl:41E:

Rit.Citt.00.0141, ..1
UMW *Waal' WI:. &MIX

3.4003). rA..4.-.31, 4-•. 459 AC* Mint O4
t4
14'4 1521. .130,00
Slot, 1l0

3.1!.04
43, VECOPNC,:,.'-, 5.52/2013 5,13 Ft,
AA.
.sstisddi vs.. 217 Sid
r'vt,A 0
.• VOA .3! 3.

SITF 217 REVISED 12-8-23
future Bus Park/Community Library
Hospital high School Ph yrrnacy Existing Bus Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 (0.5 'to ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) Stops (0.5 mlles) mlles)2 miles) miles) 217
T.
• 11,74*
•
...lel 91. q.162 ..ei*

1.110 LIU
AMA,.
•
Z., a
Gerra., ..13
•tite-114
/*Amigo
H
.
• - t
•
ma y..
• .2• oflaff
WI)
•
•
•
3 2
Grocery
(0.5 mites)
Medical Clinic
(0.5 miles)
Middle School
(0.5 mIkts) i
Elementary School
(OA miles)
Elementary School
(0.25 miles)

TCAC/HCD
2one
flood
Zone_ Watur Scwer
141 12•11.• Si
1170 5.0,e.
21t
Ivt"" -.
•••or•
Task%

7..= • •
fan..
.- •
• •
fib
• .1 •-
• • 1,, WY 411 • A;•• 1: I • •
Aal fl 1 •
MI `1110 52,11
• Aiss-Aa-
• O.0.2.41,991013ST ••• "44
• •
a • 6
.••1.0o •
•
• •
,• • • •
•
.1O 4042
AllTakf• 47,11
• ,
• •
'9,04:71.• Iva .222 arAv1222____
1110 San, •
Ana A':27,s II
• 1.8 Ac
•
a
a
a
•
•
._x.. ...Jilt. 4 _LA_
- - .2
VII 1,00
f.f.f•fs01. 0 ,
Ave
aaga ma INV
let
I
1%
IA -
0 P
1171.4200
A ni'Vri
s 100 Ira
l's Ana Ave 30:I
..•••
1170 Sonia
Ma Atr. _ - 32
tl
•
1100 L.. "
-12
Ofoln
• • •
• , •„
•
ccor tz,m
222 Inv 111 I;
.... i -1---4 cr... I.:liso.
0] ,I 11
vr.06.- .
"OW 2.10HA
•
UD
ars -itzao
• •
.., Aar 101
• Co11.2.0.amo
arryets,
•.• '00 ".7."" "•••••••-••••
•
Ave
10-10 Co O~0 P•• 10
ti
101 CelTirstAr0 Are
foal c.2ey232a.A22
* a •
•.41e. it,' of..

GiNAA:2; 1,11 =.7

22. Allall1111111101aLa.......yes.
4t.
•
11a)N
1113a .

COOY

1.597 111
LOOY MI • •
A
101
1101
1101
110
. : vs
pl AS

1.,-J201• • ft . AV
SiCh.A.NIE2
:0 NI.. )00 1 t • ol.•

SITE 301
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)2 miles) 301 N N N
!!!..!2,•
as rocas1.1
'.'",,; 1' 1
. • •
H w
WA"
• b
Library (0.5
miles)
Elementary
Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School School (0.5
(0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 mks) miles)
Elementary
School (0.25 ICAC/HED Flood
miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer
1 sm.
at.
"one,.
1,1
I 11
•
•z•NOI (Jew; ....Ida
.41,1 01
*tan
Xi rs1 • Cs IIC
nu
, • ••• i...;•••••••; arm
rk.

SITE 377
Hospital High School
Site ID (1 mile) (1 mile)
377
Pharmacy
(0.5 miles)
Existing
Bus Stops
(0.5 miles)
Future Bus
Stops (0.5
miles)2
Park/Community
Center (0.5
miles)
library (0.5
miles)
Gr ocely
(0.5 miles)
Medical Clink
(0.5 miles)
Middle School
(0.5 miles)
Elementary
School (0.5
miles)
Elementary
School (0.25
miles) Internet

TCAL/HCO
Zone
Flood
Zone Water Sewer

N N N Y N V
0 .0
•

11.$
„.
)
tiJ
ci; 't; 0:. .;
, I
01 SP- ' •
I
•
4111111=',• —
O
,
,•
17 pallI1•111
IMO
G,ttysItt rg
'Ave r
-^"
rir
7 -` -'1P•rach Ave
•
r
.**
4 IlliJi' 44 40 ,140.1
A1111f10010
014 millOlmiolV94
AP&
332 W
Gottysltur v
Ave '
•
• r
I • rl 4>4

1." 2
32C, W Get
Geter.burtj Ave 0
330 Wei)?
Getty:Aturo Ave
314,
W ricsw,clt
Ave
284r, Bush
.83e, 0ut.h Aye
r •
••••
•••• 0
2 ftrVI Avo
a
•
W

0.09 Nonevich
Ave
h A
11151 Hu IA*
contrib t ors, cc,
Tat:.:5 Results
f'src& • 7._iov • 2...h.rory rvac.,tt
Diaoloyec: recture4:1/1
Parcels Clovis: 4493'155
API\
T.Lreeied E
rwateei Wnen
fod;f•ed By
NOME
NAME2
ADDRESS.

AC DRESS:

ADDRESS.:
aDDRESS4

PERCENT INTER
inINT_TFNeNr?..trCrrF
O-ANGE_DATE'
RC^O2OING_DATC
• • •
A
„19n115.5
B LIF
5!' 71:(1•0
STEO1- ANI
2/27/2020

DAVIS ROBERT KELSEY
& BR=\DA BERLENE
17922 E 7OL_HOUSE
CLOVE CA. 91611

0.00 Ri
5:',20"9
INS'R~1MrNT !J ltylgFP (IG474P.

PEq.CENTJNTE4E.S77... 0 GO
JOINT TEN.4ICY
r)-ANGF_IIATF7
RECORDiNG_DP,Tr_2
INS- RUMENT_NJM3ER2 00D3000
wuti)_DtSC, iv I tjt'l E11S.soFi OFPAHA
g<27:07 g nF MP P.

<
3 2
y
d
Z 0'4
• 4.;
0 0
<
C
O
N
C
"
E E
• 2 42'1'
• %
7'.
•
11 •••••• v -•••
• AVAIL 4 04
Atigh
•
r
' ad. • r • •
• •••
it 1
• .1, ", 4T• •
tk
sr p -6≥
• •Z'1,1,4
•
Is
.1
tf
„, .„,
•

3. ,t
5 65!
8 et
Rs
0P ,2;
• 42f4,21S. :•C Fv
wa r 1 3
4 d
o .OAR -

4.4 FI B
•
-•••- r • v 211
A
t,219.)
;-; f...-70 • Alt
T •
•
".'
• 24.
•
:31
..#
651.
• it<
4 -4
ea,
117
g,
•
•
a
Ay • ...dam
RI
.4
1 a.
e
OW • •
•,!!
OS
E t
•
2 •11,4
o.! .2721
•
• 7-1
2 g 141!
giP
.0•••••2 '
42 •
0 6o
2 I ;

SITE 590
Existing Future Bus Park/Community
Hospital High School Pharmacy Sus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 tibrary (0.5 Grocery Medical Clinic Middle School Site ID (1 (1 mile) _(0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles)2 miles) miles) (0.5 miles) (0,5 miles) (0.5 miles) Elementary
School (0.5
miles)
Elementary
School (0.25 TCAC/HCO Flood
Miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer
r.

S90 V
5774 II o Lco n4 Arr
•
1411
Leo .nre'
Arc
•
3911 san
39111,
Scott Ave
irz ik
canton MY
•
767 Cowan
141 3141
1•••-- 1,4•44 Av.

It •
• thi) rmt4
!i dle:7
1313
rniAre
Kimitxf** •
Met,
1 1 N
aona MliVIan
'
*11

4.44448Aor
ieTe
7114Aumson
•
- 31153 KrAti
0,v,
sin
KwerM.

MSS ANN,
Aro
3663
use AU
Ave
1141
C0412041
444 3
tits'kn;
393
Non
Ara
-7407-
19S1
QM A
111_41
Scan
Are
'Inc.",.

Ara.
• - )332
- 4
A.
19 I )
Mots A
X
v.
114 IL 3973 Kew
R15 1
KeetrAve •
_err Nor
r.
3414 ice" aw •AKi„d.e.„
tArr!
1414
4itt
Men
,
- 4
1•4710414.4t4 Av fa N ann. 4.4
♦-:

4.1 44.
w 3953 Zits
1144771 Ave
)944
Mals-Ava
3974 114443111
v0
Ift it A

11.41474,44
VA),
aatiAre
34444
Kure
SS Non
MB 3963
INIVAr• •
117
f_-Me Am
fA
ai '
n, ar- F
•
Man Ave
t101.1
Kral* Ana
3964
Me
ties)
Wren
3611
Sinn
rn1
Kan
Ave
3944
Knots
.1911
NonA
oa'.n.
1977
Non
Aw
KM(
1960
ittnnn
AN
-
41117
sat
Ate
460
Matt
AN
gigtg
ps z,459))
2NP 65 ovz ca=, I
Ion
SO0
Avo
•40.

Skitt
406 4101
Scott Mt
Are
skitc.,N
1601 Agva
Oulc7, Ave
1111 144A44
Otaame
1111 Avila
oar: A:+
1441 Apes
Digerig••
4451440o
eineirmo
tart gaga
*ma'
N
41 Icott
Are
• .
t
4064
4•110
Are
R§v
444 pore Ma
a.

SIMIAN rWein
Avo
4103
Keit.

Ave
g2)
411
4111
gat
411

1.5. 444
4111
Tien
a..
674
Stott
Aro
104 San
IINAOA30
Twatierso
Ave
4141
CC." 1111
-Ai; men
1401 San
Marro Ase
7N San 014nno
Ave
UM.
4121
Wert
Are
144 Son
14471444
Ave
414
Oita
Al.
413$
town
Awe
III?
Ave
C37=1=0
4141
INS
Ave
4141.4
141041-Air
Sae Mint
Ants
A.
ig),§
4157
Pee poi
Aw
1111 tats.

KAT ,T,N4
; 1.1111:.•

4.110
e0 Main soft 4r. ;14- Ave. awe • —1•••••16....... • •
lta
APN Search
IMO
N
Ar X
%sully
.1
C't .:.sit 3 !11
Forcers -Clovit35454034S
Alkann ICA
5,17.19- 1.15 •
im•••rertr-4 -

3....44g VAV

1.10.14 SWAY
rao.i.• term% si
eIiO* %MAW
CA I3:19
71')011 5 rA
7,1',202I • ;341.-
1244:
t,itt as-A t f11/
rliCONY.A.S !;')PN
44,..C4,4•Lti,„.*.L.',,,..„ t144
'.,1$0 Si 143VC.

I C), %%4;7,14 747.47777
"CI. III....

TOTALI+SiCZCC:., -.2C 347 • IL
14)Si-5`).041 !Mt.

TPI va f

3.34, 4- yr.
14OOLL..,
ChrieftalC7...CAtte
7r1 ,'3A31 S f.trst
• Iv 341
'41643
it

SITE 592
Future But Park/Community
al High School pharmacy Existing Bus Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Site 10 , (1 mile) (1 mile) (0.5 miles) Stops (0.5 miles) mih?.$)2 macs)

Y N N N Y
592
Library
(0.S Grocery Medical Clink Middle School Elementary School Elsonenlary Sthool miles) _ (O S miles), (0.5 mites) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.25 macs) Internet TCAC/HCO Florid
Zone Zone_ IRAN Sewer

N N N N V
.
1707.1.1t
JordariAw
le 1
gr
a
1160
Jorilin Aw
Oir
• •
1161
ioution
Ave
0 ,
r
o 4,
421 N 1
160Nlow r
ts
<4.11., •
;i oi
•,1- 0 •111 .
' •
- 4a
1,frj-r
NIIILms"( °
"`-'51r- -0,060004.
•
-'1.^.7-14;y4tOlte 4 4 I
1602 Nets Ave
.17
--r
# •,! —
114ti
rl
O1155141
F
•
" 55 " .4% e
Ave 500 A? LI.#.,‘• OS
Ant,* V‘1..
•
1C-1
__4 ue
•
0 1,11. •
.
•0
- 0175 N
c
riroirer
Ai-WO
, •
,163)
- e /button let)
ilij6 t173 -1A477;
441
m-,trton
Ave
vtl Novara.,
Aw 1
Iloinlat 11uslar e ? e
Av Art ••
NretVor
'
1Thtier
'111161
N t
11 Ave
1116
N Whirtitt
AR, ir's
LNWT"I I:er
A
it
•41141 env . •011•
16 16
Houston
Av•
1136
110i t n
Ave
Iiouuon
.._
•

11.5i.

N frunvit
A .
1175
_ 1.1 Whittice
Ave
0 _1155 • W111111er.

AVe-
•
1145
" N veal,
Ace
.
)5'
H Wr .H.:7't •
Ait
• _
Houston
Ace
do on
Ay*
N
b
PA ark. Clwis SO.303131
I ••• •
.••• I Vr
5'17; 1 15 r'.41
CUP 5 6 CC
n. tti
S.11217.Nlivhf. V.
•••AN.o.AVell r•IN
2030 C
r%CSN3<.- X2720
'D.•••:.:.:77_11-17C1C11 0.00
07LO-4421 MOD PH
4,11:7421 D9.1
• El 17.1IONAEED 067665
-tic:riT_Irtrilcsn. coo
AC; PVI
5,20/21.121 5;0: P
'r5IT..M.7..41_1APACC%1 00, 45
21:0 7A:

1.011
55 e 2
a..77 5.212021 5:03PM
attst•.: Z.V,It•J
.14a
0 pE05. VAL 0
n

SITE 593
Existing Future Bus Park/Community Elementary Elementary Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Lite ary (0.5 Grocery Medical Unit Middle School School (0.5 School (0.25 ICAC/HCD Flood le 1 mile 0.5 min 0.5 miles miles 2 miles Set (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 miles) miles) miles) Internet Zone Zone Water Sewer 593 N N N N N N N N y N
Mitt>
iallaiiinaniThThn • •
•
1 •
1•11
W.. S.
of
•
a
•••
- ,
- ntaet
:Affr
_ -
4 • - 4.: Jiensist ..,
724. 0i4±:94;117.'' /- 7r". •
tha t 71P- a
1 •
Al
A
I-
• , 104/
MRS;
N_NE
•
i c.` • * ek.
1r
r
•Wo••••
syi
44* .=
otiii • 4 -174
ea4
t
SM.

MCA
(gibe. An

6.061•••••
Cr; kit:. fliA
a.. e. a ,
ti
•
••

11.1 •
au
• At
)111
IOU
4 at Ma r :AZ -.-.41-tinite • C a
4 it I
Mm.,i ono
1111 '
• AL
I a
143 S.
01;0. 0 A.
1111014-
)?•41
•••••••14
YWm
AM
a
-r
•
uu
Gosh,, A
ISMS
1*,
J••
. •..• • . ' •
herel. • Cm .Y 8•0132,1303

•
3 X
U
O
(2,
C.1 0 5 N
9 0
7 'LP
0 E
z
Cbv S037404
.
1 r
M.
if
4,
Li
IS,
:". • o
Via.
'
'
4 ' •.;.ik
'
•
Jas oE'-',4
;
—
RL
41 I ,t
is
41(
2 • .•
• •
'
'I
4 • t ;
, •
°W
•
'
04t
?
s• ••••• n
' I

4. es
1 ti

4. O
O
•
r.
•41.

SITE 595
ExistIna Future Bus ParlkiternmunIty
Hospital High School Pharmacy Bus Stops Stops (0.5 Center (0.5 Library (03 Grocery Medical Clinic. Middle School Site ID „, mile 0.5 miles 0.5 miles) miles)2 main) miles) (0.5 miles) (0.5 man) (0.5 miles) N y
r rs'm
N N N
Elennentery Ekmentary
School (0.5 Scheel (0.25 TCAC/HCD Flood
miles) miles) Internet Zone ion* Water Sewer
IP II -•
924
Sunnyside
aFlAv e
,
Ea 0 • a
nny side W
t
N9-10.

Su-July'.4de
,a:va
•
-01 954
SU wry s Id.

Ave
1291
efferson
Ave B
.1
964 Sun nysi de
Ave
974 Sunnyside
Ave
9441
Sunnyside Ave
1291 Sunnyside
.frer son Ave
'Ave
rile. F. •
• a
• 4 0
es
Wit
925
Sunnyside
Ave
rle
065
StstinYstcle
Ave
1033
SII !MY !. Ott
• gi
4'
1453 Mitnnt T
- R 1,
1447 Miami CC"-,
Alley
144f. Miami Ct
1437
Jefferson
Ave
034 Cater IIN•
ti
I 4t12 Muni Ct
wt. •
1447
Jefferson
Ave
•
T•
1465 ?Mani Ct
14'7 tAlarti Ct
NI Mali 4
derG Miami rt
Ole :Si
a, e1
1459
Jefferson
Ave
1033 N
Cafe/ Ave
•
0 1471) Msatts t
a Ia)
• •
•
1034
Min.& AC.,
a

IV I
U)
C)
rn
c
E
5 tf;
i
C
w
2 3
-7
-3
0 z
411
E
.0
a
E
C
4,4
O
•
.44
••
• E
-r
f.

Cl
.1"
r.,
,
at
t=
gro.
3-
in
sot
>
rit <
9 €
40 • 0
2 Z
f 4* it
Irt t
r <
, 44.
•-
i
• - de
If •
.It
• •
1 448 Miami Ct
At T..,11
ti
-r
,1 4`. -41 .4iV4 a
.. 0 -
.4
• .
, 1 0: t4 , d•• •
4C4A47,
. _
41- .t 1114..;‘,4 • -..44
'-‘) like•
•
c.
• c •
•
k
-'
yw
.

N
t
Atitfr 4 -
V
•
T's
Q
C! wrd
imif
I>
4".

N
O
"C(

DAKOTA
ASHLAN

GETTYSBURG
SHAW

BARSTOW

BULLARD
SIERRA

HERNDON

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER
CLOVIS

SUNNYSIDE

ARMSTRONG

TEMPERANCE
FOWLER
LOCAN

DE WOLF

LEONARD

HIGHLAND

THOMPSON
McCALL

MINNEWAWA
WILLOW

DOCKERY

DEL RAY

INDIANOLA
BETHEL

GREENWOOD

ACADEMY
PEACH
161
168 167
596
595
589
108
157
110
590
115
197
217
592
3 63
72 597
598
599
Infill Rezone Program Sites
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
1284 dwelling units
required per court judgment
1303 dwelling units proposed
Rezone Sites
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
Streets
Planning Area Boundary
Legend
Notes:

April 23, 2026
Attachment 5

Infill Rezone Program
Site List
Site
ID APN Address Existing General Plan land use
Proposed General Plan land
use
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave General Commercial High Density Residential P-C-C R-3 63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-1-7500 R-3 72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-1-7500 R-3 108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave General Commercial High Density Residential C-2 R-3 110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave Medium Density Residential High Density Residential R-1 R-3 115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Medium Density Residential High Density Residential R-1 R-3 157 55803359S None Mixed Use Village High Density Residential P-C-C R-3 161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave Office High Density Residential C-P R-3 167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave Office High Density Residential C-P R-3 168 55128003 1853 Shaw Ave Office High Density Residential C-P R-3 197 55849230 1497 N Locan Ave Very Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-1-AH R-3 217 49954013ST
(portion) 885 Gettysburg Ave Industrial High Density Residential M-1 R-3 589 55026023 2403 Bullard Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-A R-3 590 55458036s 3959 Shaw Ave Medium Density Residential High Density Residential R-1 R-3 592 56303131 1160 N Fowler Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-A R-3 595 49817202 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave Low Density Residential Very High Density Residential R-1 R-4 596 49817201 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave Low Density Residential Very High Density Residential R-1 R-4 597 49817203 925 Sunnyside Low Density Residential Very High Density Residential R-1 R-4 598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-1 R-3 599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave Low Density Residential High Density Residential R-1 R-3 Attachment 6

Attachment 7

Airport Safety Compatibility Zones
Attachment 8

Airport Safety Compatibility Zones

April 7, 2026
McKencie Perez
Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis - Planning & Development Services
1033 Fifth Street | Clovis, CA 93612
SUBJECT: ALUC Consistency Determination Result for the City of Clovis Infill Rezone Program Dear Ms. Perez,
This letter confirms that at the April 6, 2026, Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission meeting, the Commission approved a Finding of Consistency for the City of Clovis Infill Rezone Program with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

The project site is located within Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ), of Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Within this zone, residential uses are permitted, provided development complies with applicable ALUCP safety, height, and airspace protection criteria.

Future development proposals for the approved sites are subject to review by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission prior to construction.

While no physical development is proposed at this time, future development within the Airport Influence Area will be subject to the following applicable standards and requirements:

Development Considerations:
• Development must comply with all applicable ALUCP safety, height, and airspace protection standards, including the requirement for an Airport Disclosure Notice • Structures exceeding 100 feet in height will require additional airspace review and FAA notification
• New structures are prohibited on terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces and may require additional airspace analysis within the 50-foot terrain penetration buffer • Final development plans shall be subject to review by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission prior to construction
Prohibited Uses:
• Uses that would introduce hazards to flight, including physical, visual, or electronic interference with aircraft operations
• Outdoor stadiums and other high-intensity uses
• Land uses that may attract hazardous wildlife, such as certain agricultural uses identified in FAA guidance
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Rachel Hellett
Rachel Hellett
Staff, Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission
Associate Regional Planner
Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93721
Attachment 9

1 McKencie Perez
From:

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:02 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
text-1755209425252 = Mel Hill
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Stuart Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = Will parcel 589 located on Bullard Avenue be designated as R-3 or R-4 for zoning purposes?
Parcel 589 - R-3 or R-4?
If zoned R-3, could this include multi-story buildings whether condos or apartments? Client IP = 97.214.25.20
Attachment 10

1 McKencie Perez
From:

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:46 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Joe Guerrero
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Stuart Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Dear McKenzie Perez, MPA,
I am submitting this comment to formally and strongly oppose the inclusion of Site 589 in the Infill Rezone Program. I live directly adjacent to this parcel, and I want to express in the clearest possible terms that I do not support any level of development on Site 589 — not three stories, not two stories, not one story, and not any multi-family structure of any height or density.

Site 589 should be entirely removed from the list of identified rezone parcels.

My opposition is based on several significant and unavoidable impacts:

1. Site 589 is completely incompatible with the surrounding established neighborhood.

This is a long-standing, stable, single-family residential area with no apartments or multi-family units anywhere nearby.

Introducing a multi-family complex—of any height—is fundamentally inconsistent with the existing zoning pattern and would permanently disrupt the neighborhood’s established identity, stability, and cohesion.

2. Any structure on Site 589 would create severe privacy violations.

Because the parcel sits directly behind our homes, any development would place dozens of windows, balconies, and pedestrian areas overlooking private backyards, bedrooms, and family spaces.

This is not a situation where minor mitigations are possible — the location makes privacy impacts impossible to avoid or lessen, regardless of the building height.

3. The location of Site 589 poses serious traffic, congestion, and safety concerns.

Our local streets were not designed for increased vehicle load or multi-family traffic. A development here would increase:
street parking overflow,
traffic near children walking and biking,
noise disturbances,

2 emergency access strain, and
overall congestion through narrow neighborhood streets.

This creates significant safety risks for families who rely on low-traffic residential roadways.

4. Schools and infrastructure cannot absorb additional density here.

Clovis Unified schools in this area are already heavily impacted. Additional units—whether high density or “moderate”—would strain classrooms, traffic flow, utilities, park space, and emergency services.

There is no viable way to mitigate these impacts at this location.

5. High-density redevelopment of Site 589 is unnecessary given better alternatives.

There are multiple parcels in Clovis already positioned for multi-family development—near commercial corridors, major arterials, and existing apartment zones.

Site 589 is surrounded on all sides by single-family homes and is one of the least appropriate locations in the city for multi-family rezoning.

Removing Site 589 will not prevent the City from meeting its state housing requirements.

6. Property values would be negatively impacted.

The placement of apartments immediately behind existing homes would devalue surrounding properties and undermine long-term investments made by families who purchased here under the expectation of consistent land use.

7. This parcel provides natural buffering and neighborhood continuity.

Currently, Site 589 acts as an important open-space buffer between properties. Developing it would permanently remove this buffer, crowd existing housing, reduce open sightlines, and diminish environmental quality (airflow, noise, light, and nighttime safety).

My Official Request
I respectfully but firmly request that the City:

REMOVE Site 589 entirely from the proposed rezoning list.

Not downsize it.

Not lower the building height.

Not redesign the proposal.

Remove it completely from consideration.

This parcel is simply not suitable—logistically, environmentally, or structurally—for any multi-family residential development.

3 Thank you for reviewing my comments and considering the very serious impacts this proposal would have on residents directly adjacent to Site 589.

Respectfully,
Joe Guerrero
Client IP = 76.20.72.170

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Jose Guerrero
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Stuart Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Dear McKenzie Perez, MPA,
I am submitting this comment to formally and strongly oppose the inclusion of Site 589 in the Infill Rezone Program. I live directly adjacent to this parcel, and I want to express in the clearest possible terms that I do not support any level of development on Site 589 — not three stories, not two stories, not one story, and not any multi-family structure of any height or density.

Site 589 should be entirely removed from the list of identified rezone parcels.

My opposition is based on several significant and unavoidable impacts:
---

1. Site 589 is completely incompatible with the surrounding established neighborhood.

This is a long-standing, stable, single-family residential area with no apartments or multi-family units anywhere nearby.

Introducing a multi-family complex—of any height—is fundamentally inconsistent with the existing zoning pattern and would permanently disrupt the neighborhood’s established identity, stability, and cohesion.
---

2. Any structure on Site 589 would create severe privacy violations.

Because the parcel sits directly behind our homes, any development would place dozens of windows, balconies, and pedestrian areas overlooking private backyards, bedrooms, and family spaces.

This is not a situation where minor mitigations are possible — the location makes privacy impacts impossible to avoid or lessen, regardless of the building height. ---

3. The location of Site 589 poses serious traffic, congestion, and safety concerns.

2 Our local streets were not designed for increased vehicle load or multi-family traffic. A development here would increase:
street parking overflow,
traffic near children walking and biking,
noise disturbances,
emergency access strain, and
overall congestion through narrow neighborhood streets.

This creates significant safety risks for families who rely on low-traffic residential roadways. ---

4. Schools and infrastructure cannot absorb additional density here.

Clovis Unified schools in this area are already heavily impacted. Additional units—whether high density or “moderate”—would strain classrooms, traffic flow, utilities, park space, and emergency services.

There is no viable way to mitigate these impacts at this location. ---

5. High-density redevelopment of Site 589 is unnecessary given better alternatives.

There are multiple parcels in Clovis already positioned for multi-family development—near commercial corridors, major arterials, and existing apartment zones.

Site 589 is surrounded on all sides by single-family homes and is one of the least appropriate locations in the city for multi-family rezoning.

Removing Site 589 will not prevent the City from meeting its state housing requirements. ---

6. Property values would be negatively impacted.

The placement of apartments immediately behind existing homes would devalue surrounding properties and undermine long-term investments made by families who purchased here under the expectation of consistent land use.
---

3 7. This parcel provides natural buffering and neighborhood continuity.

Currently, Site 589 acts as an important open-space buffer between properties. Developing it would permanently remove this buffer, crowd existing housing, reduce open sightlines, and diminish environmental quality (airflow, noise, light, and nighttime safety). ---
My Official Request
I respectfully but firmly request that the City:

REMOVE Site 589 entirely from the proposed rezoning list.

Not downsize it.

Not lower the building height.

Not redesign the proposal.

Remove it completely from consideration.

This parcel is simply not suitable—logistically, environmentally, or structurally—for any multi-family residential development.

Thank you for reviewing my comments and considering the very serious impacts this proposal would have on residents directly adjacent to Site 589.

Respectfully,
Your Name
Client IP = 76.20.72.170

1 McKencie Perez
From: Michael Peloquin < >
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 11:58 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: Adrian Cruz
Subject: Infill Rezone Program: Question
I recently received a notice regarding the above-referenced program. I reside at 3943 Keats Ave, which is adjacent to parcels 115 and 590 that are proposed for rezoning from R1 to R3.

I would like to inquire whether the City has already determined the type of housing intended for these parcels if the rezoning is approved. For example, are these parcels being considered for Section 8 or other affordable housing developments? Alternatively, is the plan to construct condominiums, townhomes, or similar residential units?
My understanding is that R1 zoning allows for approximately 10 units per acre, whereas R3 allows for approximately 20 units per acre. While the rezoning itself is not my primary concern, I am seeking clarification regarding whether the nearby parcels may be designated for low-income housing, as such a designation could potentially affect property values within the surrounding area.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this inquiry.

Best regards,
Michael Peloquin
Property Owner
Keats Ave
Clovis, CA 93619
CC: Adrian Cruz
Co-Property Owner

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:01 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Doanh Tran
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Celeste Ave , Clovis CA93611
textarea-1755209560293 = I’m concerned if city will build apartments complex or low income housing units near my neighborhood because there will be more people and more cars in the area and that’s not safe.

Client IP = 73.158.28.36

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 8:54 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Jesus Mercado
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Gibson Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = This is a great first step for the city and they should move forward approving all the 20 parcels to R3 or R4 zone districts. More dense housing will only help our city in the long run and I believe we should also allow more mixed use development on the east side of Clovis by Temperance to allow for more shops and continued cash flow to the City. This along with our expanded bus routes will truly create a city that thrives for the future.

Client IP = 93.152.210.169

1 McKencie Perez
From: nadine pourier blumenshine < >
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2025 2:04 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill Rezone Program
Hello,
I am unable to make the December 2 public meeting and want to provide comment.

I support the City of Clovis' efforts to create opportunities for affordable housing. I understand that some parcels will need to be re-zoned, and I agree with the re-zoning in order to provide parcels that will accommodate multi-family, affordable housing. I am happy that Clovis has been put in the position of providing opportunity for affordable housing for those of us who can't afford the expensive costs associated with renting or owning a home in Clovis, and look forward to my neighborhood welcoming more residents.

Please continue to keep Clovis residents informed.

Sincerely,
Nadine Pourier Blumenshine
Bliss Ave.

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:32 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Kristina L. Palmer
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Laverne Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = My husband and I bought our home June 1994. This lot at Shaw and Laverne has been empty and zoned for businesses. My concern is the impact to the schools, Jefferson, Clark, and Clovis High. My next concern is green space for families who live in this kind of housing. My other concern is increased traffic onto Laverne cul de sac. Increased traffic on Shaw. Since over build out at Loma Vista and Clovis East area Shaw is very congested and hard to merge either direction. I think this area needs to have 8am-5pm offices built. Housing with such huge population in such a small space will drastically impact the Clovis way of life. I plan to be a voice at all future meetings regarding this proposal.

I was the main concerned neighbor who contacted Planning dept when the builder and land owner tried to have a meeting at Jefferson to pitch their proposal to the neighbors in 2019? My hope is that you survey the roads, schools, and impact to Clovis way of Life before making a decision. The final frustration is also crime and my property values lowering because of such an impactful proposal.

Client IP = 12.222.26.251

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 6:29 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Patricia Carreon
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = W Swift Ave 93612
textarea-1755209560293 = My daughter who lives with me would be interested in getting on a qualification list. Are you able to provide that information? Client IP = 76.20.90.52

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 2:20 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Nancy Vogt
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Quincy Ave.
textarea-1755209560293 = Rezoning the parcel on DeWolf and Owens Mountain Road to allow multifamily, high density apartments to be built would strain streets and roads adjacent to the property beyond their limits, and already very high current usage, affecting the public safety.

Client IP = 97.136.172.230

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 3:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Pavlo Gurnyak
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Browning Ave Clovis CA 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = Low cost housing will bring more crimes to our city. Please do not destroy Old Town Clovis living - do not use parcels 108, 595, 596, 597.

Client IP = 73.192.166.57

1 McKencie Perez
From: Ryan Avedisian < >
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 5:48 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Re: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us Attachments: Image.jpeg
4:15 pm . Backed up clear to 168 . Owens parkway
From: McKencie Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:14:07 PM
To: Ryan Avedisian < >
Subject: RE: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us

Ryan – It is only related to density.

McKencie Perez
Deputy City Planner | MPA
Office: 559-324-2310
[email protected]
From: Ryan Avedisian < >
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:50 AM
To: McKencie Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us

Under the affordability talk will that include section 8 housing

2 From: McKencie Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:36:18 AM
To: Ryan Avedisian
Subject: RE: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us

Good morning,
Your comments have been received and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.

There is no development proposed as part of this project; therefore, pricing is not available. For this project, the density is considered for affordability. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.

Thank you,
McKencie Perez
Deputy City Planner | MPA
Office: 559-324-2310
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 7:04 PM
To: McKencie Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us

text-1755209425252 = Ryan Avedisian
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = 1363 N. Twinberry Ave clovis Ca 93619 textarea-1755209560293 = What is criteria for affordable housing . Price points, density of homes or apartments ?
Client IP = 73.90.12.255
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.

Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 7:33 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us Attachments: image.jpg
text-1755209425252 = Brad dennis
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Bedford ave Clovis 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = Wonder what this notice is about. What type of housing is this? Client IP = 67.181.15.73

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 8:02 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Michael Murphy
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Fairmont Ave.
textarea-1755209560293 = Your message states property within 800 ft of our property maybe influenced by the proposed changes.. What property is 800 ft away? I don’t see how we are impacted by the rezoning for now.

Client IP = 146.75.154.147

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 9:20 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Terry Young
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = W Magill Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = I am concerned about the Villa and Herndon location. We have multiple traffic accidents at that location and it is already highly impacted by traffic. We were told the Nissan dealership ship would not affect us. We now have up to 30 vehicles parking in front of our homes. There is also two hotels approved on Magill. Peach and Villa are pathways for school age children with no sidewalks and the roads are both unsafe for them.

Client IP = 73.2.97.5

1 McKencie Perez
From:

Sent: Friday, November 28, 2025 11:13 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Clovis Rezoning program
Hello McKencie,
My name is Jennie Daly and I am a resident of Harlan Ranch, I saw the notice of the infill rezone program regarding “high and/or very high density” affordable housing. I along with my neighbors are curious as to what exactly that means. Does this mean apartments? Does this mean section 8? Being that we are home owners in one of the highly esteemed and well kept neighborhoods in Clovis, we would hope that the City of Clovis would try to maintain the value of our community and make sure that any rezoning project would take that into account. Furthermore, how would this affect the population capacity of Bud Rank Elementary? Also, although inclusion is always welcome, we hope that this change in affordability does not allow people (that may potentially have different standards) to create unwanted behavior in the neighborhood.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you for your time,
Jennie Daly

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 9:48 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Merriam Osmondson
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Carey Ave Clovis, CA 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = When was the notice for the Infill Rezone program distributed?! My neighborhood near sunnyside & Jefferson is on the list and would be unable to accommodate the increase in traffic! High density?! What does that mean? This area would be more appropriate for a cottage type senior housing neighborhood.

Client IP = 67.172.162.115

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 6:24 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Matthew Silva
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Serena Avenue Clovis 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my firm and uncompromising opposition to the proposed rezoning of the remaining vacant parcels in our neighborhood to high-density apartment housing (sites 157/197 Harlan Ranch). This proposal represents a complete reversal of the development vision that was presented when this community was established, and it threatens to dismantle the safety, stability, and quality of life that residents have spent decades building and protecting.

When this neighborhood was developed, the vacant parcels were clearly promoted as future commercial sites intended for community-enhancing businesses such as cafés, restaurants, and small local shops.

These assurances were not a minor detail—they were a central selling point and a key factor in the decision many of us made to invest our savings and our families’ futures into this community. Any move to disregard those long-standing representations is not just disappointing—it is a profound breach of trust.

The consequences of forcing high-density housing into an area never designed for it are serious, predictable, and unacceptable:
• Public safety will be compromised. Concentrated population increases without appropriate infrastructure strain emergency services, heighten disturbances, and threaten the low-crime environment residents have worked hard to maintain.
• Property values will suffer. Homeowners invested under a clearly communicated land-use plan.

Undermining that plan destabilizes financial security, erodes long-term equity, and disregards the commitments made to existing residents.
• Schools will be overloaded. Our elementary school is already operating near its limits. Adding a substantial influx of students will stretch resources past their breaking point and degrade educational quality for everyone.
• Quality of life will decline permanently. Increased traffic, congestion, noise, and disruption will fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Once lost, the cohesive and peaceful community atmosphere cannot simply be restored.

Given these impacts, it is imperative that the City conduct a serious and impartial assessment of alternative locations that are appropriately equipped to handle high-density or affordable housing. Areas with stronger infrastructure, existing multi-family development, transit access, and compatible land-use patterns are far more suitable. Sound planning—not expedience—must guide decisions of this magnitude.

Residents of this community have upheld their end of the bargain. We invested heavily, maintained our properties, and built a stable and safe environment. We now expect the City to honor the commitments

2 made during development and to protect the integrity, security, and future of this neighborhood.

I strongly urge that this rezoning proposal be reconsidered in full. The long-term consequences for the community are too great to ignore.

Sincerely,
Matthew Silva
Harlan Ranch and long time Clovis resident
Client IP = 73.2.120.72

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 8:50 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Helena Silva
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Serena Avenue, Clovis, CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = I am writing as a homeowner and resident of the Harlan Ranch community to express my strong concern regarding the proposed rezoning of the parcel located at Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue from commercial use to high-density residential.

When many of us purchased our homes, we did so with the understanding—based on city planning documents, community discussions, and representations made by the builder/developer—that this parcel was designated for a small neighborhood shopping center. This planned commercial space was a key factor in our decision to invest in this community, as it was intended to provide walkable amenities and support the neighborhood’s overall design.

The sudden proposal to shift this parcel to high-density housing represents a significant departure from what was originally communicated and expected. This change will have real and negative impacts on current residents, including:
• Reduced property values, as high-density developments are not consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood nor with the expectations set at the time of purchase. • Increased traffic congestion and parking strain on streets that were not designed to support added density.
• Loss of the promised commercial amenities that would have benefited the entire community and supported local walkability.
• Erosion of trust between the city, developers, and residents when commitments and long-term plans are altered without adequate community input.

I respectfully request that the City uphold the original land-use designation and require the developer to adhere to the plans and commitments made when this neighborhood was built. At minimum, I ask that the City pause this rezoning process until a comprehensive community impact study is completed and residents have meaningful opportunity to provide input.

Our neighborhood depends on thoughtful, consistent planning that respects both the promises made to residents and the long-term vision for our community. I urge the City to protect that vision and deny the proposed rezoning.

Thank you for your consideration.

Client IP = 73.151.183.17

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:18 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Erin Crowe
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = n Hughes ave. Clovis, 93612
textarea-1755209560293 = My house backs up to one of these properties. This will only increase the amount of people walking around this area at night. I have already had someone walking around my backyard one night smoking weed, and knocked over my plants and broke them. I have seen young teenagers walking around the businesses and purposed property late at night and early in the morning.

Not to mention the privacy factor. If a multi story unit is put in with windows on the side facing my house, these people will be able to see everything in my yard and will be able to see into my home. Lastly the property size is not even big enough. It would only be big enough for like 2-3 families to live. The lot is odd shaped and would be forced to build up against my property. Near this property is a bank and across the street is a planned luxury car lot! None of these businesses want this near their businesses. Crime will increase, so they better increase the budget for code enforcement, police, all the things that this WILL bring to our city.

Client IP = 104.28.123.93

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2025 3:53 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Leeanne Branham
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = RICHMOND AVE
textarea-1755209560293 = My concern is with parcels 157 and 197. I am concerned the 2 line, stop sign regulated roads at this intersection cannot handle the increased traffic from TWO high density housing additions at the same intersection. Already during rush hour we back up from dewolf almost to 168 going through that stop sign one at a time. And virtually everyone iscturing right, so to receive we would need 2 right turn lanes. Not possible onto a one lane each way Dewolf. To expand Dewold you would need to cut into each of these lots, decreasing number of units possible. Also this is the main entrance to all the neighborhoods along Dewolf. Detour required for construction would be both an inconvenience and a safety hazard for all these neighborhoods if emergency personnel needed to access. Why are you not looking at land east of temperance along Owen's Mountain Parkway that is already being developed? Still our general neighborhood but roads are already in progress to support development.

Client IP = 73.66.145.220

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 8:52 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Sherry Louise Pedersen
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Sunnyside Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = 595,596,597 sites. Why are these sites chosen to be very high density. I do not want my neighborhood to become crime ridden as so many of the high density housing projects become. I am very upset about this location. I have owned my property since 1984. How many apartments are allowed in these three zones?
Client IP = 192.145.118.62

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 3:38 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Jeff Wolpert
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Palm Ave # 101
textarea-1755209560293 = Hi McKencie,
As you know I am representing Afrain Karimkhanzand at 3959 Shaw.

I understand her parcel is one being considered for infill. If this property is zoned for the higher density it would be likely sold to a affordable developer.

If all goes as planned will this property have a "By Right" overlay? Would the City and County have grants for such a project? State funds are short as I am sure you know.

I am planning on attending the meeting tomorrow, will you address these issues? Client IP = 12.216.223.178

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:16 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Ian King
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Heritage Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = Is there any type of petition residents can sign to go against this rezoning. (Particularly for 197 and 157). If residents are not in favor of this rezoning what is City of Clovis doing to address this issue?
Client IP = 99.99.107.206

1 McKencie Perez
From: Susan Colby < >
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:24 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Re: Assistance Again
Hello, we are in one of the areas where Infill Rezone Program is being considered. I tried to give my input on the suggested page but the submit button isn’t working. So I am sending you my concerns. Please share them when this is brought up. Thank you.

I am VERY OPPOSED to any multi housing units to be built to my home. The proposed area is on Clovis Ave, between Palo Alto and Sierra. The lot is small and any housing units would be very crowded, not to mention surrounded by a school and commercial businesses. We live in a quiet, well established area and it needs to stay that way. Having a low income housing development will severely cause depreciation to my home and cause my family to deal with the noise that this will cause. Not to mention the safety issues that it will cause. Also there is also way too much traffic on Clovis Ave and Palo Alto and I am shocked that severe accidents haven’t happened. By putting in a multi family development will increase the traffic. If the City approves this request, you an be sure my home will be up for sale and we will move. We are already dealing with a neighbor that causes chaos for us and we cannot bare anymore.

Thank you,
Susan Colby
On Dec 2, 2025, at 10:08 AM, McKencie Perez <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
Thank you for your email. If you would like to submit comments, please respond to this email with the comments. Once I receive that email, I will make sure they are provided to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Thank you,
<image001.png>
McKencie Perez
Deputy City Planner | MPA
Office: 559-324-2310
[email protected]
From: Susan Colby
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2025 12:21 PM
To: Andrew Haussler <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Assistance Again

Hello,

2 I am not sure who else to reach out to, so I am sending my concern to you.

We received a post card regarding the Infill Rezone Program and I tried sending in my comments to my ABSOLUTE HATRED for this to happen near my home. Unfortunately the Submit button on the page is not working so I cannot submit my comments. I would really like the City Council to hear my opposition and why.

Thank you!

Susan Colby
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:22 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Kayleigh Moranda
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Graybark Ave Clovis CA
textarea-1755209560293 = Putting this “project” right near Harlan ranch is a horrible idea. There is already poor traffic flow in this area with 1 lane each way and people speed down Quincy Ave going 40+mph in a neighborhood and 200+ additional homes would make this so much worse. It’s literally a danger to kids in this area. Find an area where it won’t be such a detriment to traffic with more space for this.

Client IP = 108.71.98.181

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Derek Thomason
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Goshen Ave. Clovis, CA 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = Putting high density housing on alluvial and nees avenues off of Fowler Avenue will add to our traffic problems and congestion. It will also have a negative impact on our property value. Why should we have two of these projects adjacent to our neighborhood? Client IP = 45.131.194.166

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:39 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us Attachments: Christopher_Bosworth_Rezoning_Objection 2.pdf text-1755209425252 = Christopher Bosworth
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Corazon Ave, Clovis CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = Please see attached
Client IP = 23.113.44.151

Christopher Bosworth
1522 Corazzo Ave.

Clovis, CA 93619
December 03, 2025
Ms. McKencie Perez, MPA
Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis – Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
[email protected]
Re: Formal Objection to Rezoning of Parcels 115 and 590 Near Shaw & Leonard (Infill Rezone Program)
Dear Ms. Perez,
I am submitting this letter as a formal objection to the proposed rezoning of Parcels 115 and 590, located near Shaw and Leonard, as part of the City’s Infill Rezone Program. I request that this letter be entered into the official public record for both the Planning Commission and City Council proceedings.

While the City must comply with the Martinez v. City of Clovis judgment, the specific selection of Parcels 115 and 590 is a discretionary choice made by the City—not a requirement of the court. The City’s own presentation confirms this, stating that 24 parcels were initially identified, 10 property owners requested removal, and the City removed those parcels, while 6 additional parcels were added at the request of property owners. The final list of 20 parcels is entirely City-selected.

This proves that no individual parcel is mandatory, and the City retains full authority to remove or substitute parcels as needed. Therefore, Parcels 115 and 590 can be removed without jeopardizing compliance.

1. Parcels 115 and 590 Are Not “Strictly Necessary” Under Government Code §65759

The CEQA exemption under GC §65759 applies only to actions strictly necessary to bring the Housing Element into compliance. Because the City has already exercised discretion in adding and removing parcels, neither Parcel 115 nor Parcel 590 qualifies as “strictly necessary.” Accordingly, the City cannot claim that these parcels must be included, CEQA exemptions may not apply, and a higher level of environmental review may be legally required.

2. Rezoning Conflicts With the General Plan Due to Major Infrastructure Deficiencies The rezoning of Parcels 115 and 590 is incompatible with current General Plan standards, given the significant and longstanding infrastructure failures in the Shaw & Leonard corridor:
- The Shaw Avenue widening and underpass have been planned for over a decade and remain incomplete.
- Sidewalks remain missing or inadequate, forcing children and pedestrians to walk along dirt shoulders.
- Traffic congestion already exceeds capacity due to extensive residential growth and the recently developed commercial center.
- Insufficient roadway width and congestion negatively impact emergency response access and times.

Rezoning to R-3 or R-4 for Parcels 115 and 590 violates General Plan requirements tied to infrastructure and public safety.

3. The Environmental Assessment Must Fully Address Traffic, Safety, and Cumulative Impacts The City presentation states that a “specialized Environmental Assessment (EA)” will be prepared. This EA must rigorously analyze roadway capacity, pedestrian safety, emergency access, cumulative impacts from nearby high-density housing, and added traffic from the new Shaw & Leonard commercial center.

Any EA that fails to address these known deficiencies would be incomplete and vulnerable to challenge.

4. Cumulative Impacts Make Parcels 115 and 590 Particularly Unsuitable These parcels lie in an already overburdened area characterized by existing multi-family housing, a new commercial center with high-traffic businesses, heavy congestion, incomplete pedestrian pathways, and a decade of delayed roadway improvements.

Adding more high-density zoning will worsen traffic, reduce emergency access, increase safety risks, and negatively affect home values for residents who relied on the City’s prior infrastructure commitments.

5. Formal Request for Removal of Parcels 115 and 590
For the reasons detailed above, I respectfully request that the City:

1. Remove Parcels 115 and 590 from the Infill Rezone Program.

2. Provide written justification demonstrating why these parcels are considered “strictly necessary” under GC §65759.

3. Demonstrate General Plan consistency.

4. Release the complete Environmental Assessment (EA) for public review.

Conclusion
The proposed rezoning of Parcels 115 and 590 is not required by the court, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, and would impose serious burdens on a corridor that already lacks the infrastructure necessary to support additional density. The City should remove these parcels from the rezone list in the interest of public safety and responsible planning.

Sincerely,
Christopher Bosworth

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:23 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = John Chen
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Notting Hill Lane, Clovis Ca 93619 textarea-1755209560293 = I would like some info regarding parcels 197 and 157 with regards to what type of high density housing is proposed, whether they will be part of the Harlan Ranch Association, also how parking for such a plan would work in that location because there is already a shortage of parking for the Elevations homes as it is. Would want to see a feasibility study to show possible impacts to the area in regards to having that many more people in that area.

Client IP = 174.236.243.53

2 From: Jennifer Schantz < >
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:37 PM
To: Vong Mouanoutoua <[email protected]>
Cc: Diane Pearce <[email protected]>; Lynne Ashbeck <[email protected]>; Matt Basgall <[email protected]>; Drew Bessinger <[email protected]> Subject: Concerned resident- I strongly do not support rezoning Shaw and Leonard

Dear Clovis city council,
I am not able to attend the council meeting on December 4th. As a homeowner, local business owner and voter, I want my voice heard on this matter.

As a homeowner in Loma Vista off of Shaw and Leonard, I do not support and strongly encourage the Clovis City Council to reconsider rezoning for residential at Shaw and Leonard. We do not need any more residential buildings in our neighborhood.

Traffic is already high, people drive fast up Leonard, accidents occur almost weekly at the four way stop, there are no side walks in some areas, and when we bought our home four and a half years ago, we were told that the shopping center was going to be walking and biking friendly, it is not.

There have been zero events at the park which was also promised to us and the walking/biking trail was supposed to extend 18 miles, all of which have not happened. This has been extremely disappointing. Instead we got a new huge housing development and dog creek is almost gone.

Having residential and/or apartments of any kind in the area of Shaw and Leonard makes no sense at all. We are neighborhoods, houses with farms, and orchards. This is the small town feel we love and what made us move to East Clovis.

Apartments and low income housing will absolutely bring down my home value which makes me extremely upset.

We moved to east Clovis for the quiet small town feel. We moved away from the busy and trafficked areas south of here. Building more residential and/or apartments makes our quiet neighborhood noisy and the small town feel, very cramped and busy which ultimately increases traffic and crime. And decreases our home values.

Please stop rezoning and stop building residential on Shaw and Leonard. This is bad for our community, neighborhoods and our city.

Jennifer Martin-Schantz

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 9:36 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Joseph Payne
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Junipero Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Myself and the community I live in really hopes that you guys reconsider the rezone of the SE areas. When purchasing a home in this area years ago, we were promised so much more than what we are receiving. We were told there would be a beautiful, never before done shopping center and restaurants at Shaw and Leonard only to receive fast food and low-quality retail that you could have drove down Shaw to go to already. There is already high-density residential housing and apartments that have been built in this area. Loma Vista was supposed to be so much more than what it has become. I won't even begin to describe how dangerous the roads in this area are. Lack of cross walks and infrastructure is a huge issue here, especially with kids having to walk to school. Anytime these issues are brought up, everyone just passes the blame onto either the school, city or developers. I really hope this is reconsidered and you guys begin to reevaluate what is happening in Loma Vista.

Client IP = 207.114.160.2

1 McKencie Perez
From: Kayleigh Moranda < >
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 9:54 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Re: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us Another thought is that that area does a disservice to people who are lower income. There is nothing walkable anywhere near (gas, grocery stores, food places, workplaces.etc). Could make it hard for lower income people being near Harlan ranch and on Dewolf/Quincy without access to anything.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 9:52 AM McKencie Perez <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning,
Thank you for submitting comments, they have been received and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Thank you,
McKencie Perez
Deputy City Planner | MPA
Office: 559-324-2310
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:22 PM
To: McKencie Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us

text-1755209425252 = Kayleigh Moranda
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Graybark Ave Clovis CA
textarea-1755209560293 = Putting this “project” right near Harlan ranch is a horrible idea. There is already poor traffic flow in this area with 1 lane each way and people speed down Quincy Ave going 40+mph in a neighborhood and 200+ additional homes would make this so much worse. It’s literally a danger to kids in this area. Find an area where it won’t be such a detriment to traffic with more space for

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:22 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Arielle Duncan
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Amity Lane, Clovis
textarea-1755209560293 = I’d like to express my concern for the two proposed locations at Shaw and Leonard. There are a significant amount of new homes in this area, as well as many new businesses. The roads and infrastructure can not keep up with the amount of traffic. Adding additional homes would create an even larger problem than we already have at this location. The roads need to be widened before any more businesses or homes are added, as well as traffic signals.

Client IP = 71.193.50.100

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:52 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Pamela Freitas
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Rall Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Before any additional housing is even considered the area surrounding Clovis East school and the neighborhoods located on the east side of Leonard between Loma Vista and Gettysburg need sidewalks and crosswalks. The kids in these areas have no safe way to walk or bike to school. There have been multiple accidents involving either students or parents in the past 7 years. The fact that more housing is even being considered is irresponsible on the city’s part. Let’s make it safe for the kids to get to school and return home safely before we add more families to the mess.

Client IP = 73.116.106.176

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:48 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Jessica Hall
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Maine ave Clovis CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = I understand Clovis needs to comply with the CA ordinance about having low income housing. PLEASE consider the reasoning we just did for CUSD for overcrowding in schools. The current zoning plan with further strain the same school that all of our kids were just shuffled from/to! It may be easier to zone land that is on the outskirts where new schools can be built but is still Clovis proper? Be smart about it, come up with better ideas!
Client IP = 73.151.54.48

1 Briana Parra
From: Rebecca Simonian
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:49 AM
To: Briana Parra
Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Development Plan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Esther Hicks < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 7:38 AM
To: Housing Program <[email protected]>; Vong Mouanoutoua <[email protected]>; Lynne Ashbeck <[email protected]>
Subject: Affordable Housing Development Plan
Esther Hicks
1200 Scott Ave, Apt 137
Clovis, CA 93612
December 4, 2025
Clovis City Council
Clovis Housing Authority
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Housing Authority Members, My name is Esther Hicks, and I am a resident of Clovis as well as a professional with a background in homeless services. Through my work and lived experience, I have developed a deep understanding of how housing policy affects individuals, families, and the broader community. I am writing to share my perspective regarding the structure of Clovis’s low-income housing programs and to encourage policies that support long-term community stability, safety, and educational success.

Based on my experience in the field, I respectfully propose that Clovis prioritize two groups for lowincome housing access:
(1) elderly residents living on fixed incomes, and
(2) individuals or families who are employed but earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income.

These groups often face significant financial challenges despite contributing greatly to the stability and continuity of our city. Ensuring that they have access to affordable housing provides needed support to

2 those with limited resources while also maintaining the strong neighborhood character that Clovis is known for.

Focusing eligibility on seniors and working households can help preserve neighborhood property values by encouraging predictable occupancy patterns and long-term commitment to the community.

Residents with consistent routines, work schedules, or fixed-income stability tend to contribute to safer, more cohesive neighborhoods.

Additionally, this approach supports positive educational outcomes. Stable housing, especially for families who are employed, reduces school turnover, promotes consistent attendance, and improves parental engagement. These factors directly benefit local schools and help maintain the high standards that Clovis families rely on.

My intention in offering these recommendations is to encourage a thoughtful, balanced approach to housing policy—one that aligns with Clovis’s long-standing goals of supporting seniors, strengthening working families, protecting property values, enhancing neighborhood safety, and promoting educational stability.

Thank you for considering my input and for your continued commitment to responsible community development. I appreciate your time and your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Esther Hicks

1 Briana Parra
From: Jeannie Gentile < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:04 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Low income apts., condos or ?
Sent from my iPhone
To Clovis City Council,
I live in Fresno and have a daughter in Clovis. I’ve always loved Clovis, especially Old Town.

This X homeless whoever she is, said she’d like to live in Clovis, but can’t afford it, I’m sure on the system.

Well guess what I can’t either & I work very hard. So too bad, work, make more money, that’s how. Not from taking from our taxes & expecting free.

I know Clovis fought this, but I read they would not let the city respond & passed it. I know it wouldn’t have mattered, they just wanted to pass it.

I’m just so so sorry that it did pass & they will build through out the city, not just a few spots. She had no right & our judicial system had no right, to place that awful burden upon Clovis. I’m so sorry, it sickens me. God bless you all.

I love Clovis, I hate that this happened. I hope your Police Dept. can handle this change.

Sincerely,
Jeannie Gentile
Fellow human being

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:09 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Phana heng
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = highland Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = The area is already congested, roads not wide enough. Adding low income housing/apartments will only add to the problem. I am not for this. Actual houses built in the area is the best option. Not multiplex housing.

Client IP = 172.226.212.127

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:55 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Darius Williams
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Chennault Lane
textarea-1755209560293 = 1)what was the criteria for choosing plots. 2)Have any of the plots been chosen within 800 feet or zone, in the building planner, council, or mayors location? If so could you please identify the plot and who and if none have been chosen in their areas could you please explain why.
3) have they plots been distributed through zip codes equally so there is not oversaturation of "affordable housing" or is there more concentration in certain zip codes 4) Have the maximum amount of units allowed been identified for each plot. If so where could we locate that information.

Client IP = 99.67.67.115

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:35 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Greg Gillenwaters
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Agua Dulce Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = I have a big concern with two apartment complex’s (115 and 590) being built around us. My wife and I worked hard for years to save up and buy a home in a quite family neighborhood and now a year after we finally realize our dream, two apartment buildings are now planned to go up right next to us. What will it do for property value, crime, traffic? Client IP = 12.245.131.126

1 McKencie Perez
From: Manbir Gill < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:02 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Few quick questions regarding Infill Zoning sites Good afternoon Ms. Perez
Congratulations to the city on this project after long drawn litigation and negotiations. As a Clovis citizen I understand both perspectives and would like to thank you and your team for being communicative and reachable.

I’m writing today to not criticize or complain or as a NIMBY or YIMBY, but a concerned citizen who wants best for all renters/ residents and watchful of the developers and builders.

1.) Is site 157 one of the 6 parcels whose owner or legal representative of the owning entity requested to be included / rezoned?

2.) Is site 197 one of the 6 parcels whose owner requested to be included/rezoned ? In regards to site 157: a lot of people in this area have been hoping for last many years for a commercial complex to be built for services.

Please pardon me for saying, keeping aside the need for rezoning to meet the judgement needs, it solely serves the financial interest of the owning entity to change it from P-C-C to High Density Residential as the owner has been trying to sell this parcel at an Exborbitant price unsuccessfully for a few years now. It will be prudent and fair to the residents if two adjacent parcels (157 and 197)are NOT rezoned right next to each other as this would affect this neighborhood disproportionately by taking away the planned commercial complex. Please consider the viewpoint of the area residents as well, in addition to the whims and wishes of the owning entity whose sole goal is turn a BiG Profit with its sale after R-3 zoning.

Again, we fully understand the need for additional housing and city’s situation regarding the litigation and hope to find a solution that benefits the society with more affordable housing for most folks.

Please share your thoughts.

Warm Regards
Manbir Gill

1 McKencie Perez
From: Alan Layne < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:52 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Clovis infill redone program. Citizen response Sent from my iPhone
Site # 157 The site on Richmond and de wolf. I would like your guarantee that proper drainage will be approved by engineer ing department. 2nd that a high wall is included on Richmond and Pamela. I also would like the bus stop that has been paused to be at the corner of Richmond and N. Vanguard way. We are meeting with the head of the transit system. We also would like existing hazmat materials and soil removed and tested after removal. The other hazmat dump on Owen’s mountain park way should be addressed also. If after rezoning a development application is submitted , I am requesting to be contacted to discuss the above issues .

From: Alan Layne
N Vanguard Way
Clovis CA 93619

1 McKencie Perez
From: Renee Mathis
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:56 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: FW: Proposed rezoning
Renee Mathis
Director of Planning & Development Services
Office: 559-324-2351
[email protected]
From: Andrew Haussler <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:39 PM
To: Renee Mathis <[email protected]>
Cc: Briana Parra <[email protected]>; Rebecca Simonian <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Proposed rezoning
Please include with the comments on this item.

Andy
From: Stacey Johnson < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:29 PM
To: Council Districts <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed rezoning
I live in the Loma Vista development. I am very much opposed to the two proposed high density housing projects. There is so much trraffic already that this would only cause major traffic concerns. I am so upset with the Leonard and Shaw intersection already. More traffic would make it much more of a traffic hazard than it already is. I think it is more than time to fix the intersection with a traffic light and widen the road. It is unbelievable that Shaw was widened from Leonard to McCall and then put in a traffic light there. The traffic there is mainly from homes. The traffic is so very congested at Shaw and Leonard and the road needs repairing, at the very least. I have seen so many fender benders and near accidents at the intersection. I have also seen young people trying to cross the intersection and an almost fatal accident with young people crossing the road on bikes and scooters. The mall has added much more traffic but I am so very happy to have the food and other businesses nearby. I moved to Clovis to live in a quieter and less congested neighborhood. Please reconsider the proposed high density housing. This is not the area to put in high density housing, it is too congested already and our "safe" community will certainly change with so many people.

Please do not change our neighborhood. Thank you.

S. Johnson

1 McKencie Perez
From: Briana Parra
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:17 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: Renee Mathis
Subject: FW: Opposing to Loma Vista Neighborhood Rezoning Here is another
Briana Parra, CMC | City Clerk
Clovis City Hall | Administration
1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612
P. 559.324.2057
[email protected]
https://www.clovisca.gov/
From: Rebecca Simonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:12 PM
To: Briana Parra <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Opposing to Loma Vista Neighborhood Rezoning From: Chelsea MacLane < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 3:08 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposing to Loma Vista Neighborhood Rezoning
To whom this may concern,
My name is Chelsea MacLane, mother of three young girls. I am reaching out to take a stand against the rezoning of our Loma Vista neighborhood to build high density housing.

Not only will this bring down the value of our family and friends’ homes, it will bring a large amount of traffic and danger to our children. The amount of traffic and incidents as it is have already been higher than the average neighborhood. I am asking to please put an end to this rezoning plan.

I fear there is not enough public knowledge on what is coming and not enough time to bring awareness for everyone to have an opportunity to voice their opinion. I will be spreading the word to our neighbors as best as I can.

Please let me know what other steps I can take to help stop the progress of the rezoning plans. Feel free to email or call me.

Most Appreciated,
Chelsea MacLane

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:12 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Andrew Golden
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Longford Way, Clovis, CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = Please do not put any high density or ultra high density housing in the parcels in and/or around Shaw/Leonord, Gettysburg/Leonard, Shaw/DeWolf, Gettysburg/DeWolf. The nearby shopping center is standardized fast food/low quality shopping and does not deliver on proposed/promised shopping center. Adding more dense housing to an already dense housing neighborhood will further devalue properties, traffic, and negatively impact the neighborhoods. I oppose any re-zoning actions in the aforementioned areas.

Client IP = 73.151.60.86

1 McKencie Perez
From: Amy Hall < >
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:39 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: No apartments on Leonard and Fowler!
I bought my home brand new in 2020 and it backs up to the proposed apartment complex location on Leonard north of Shaw. This will not only lower the value of my home, but it will also make my property less enjoyable. The worst part is the traffic congestion that is already awful in the area will become worse. Its dangerous to pull out on to Leonard. You can’t see traffic coming from the south and to add in more cars at this location would be incredibly dangerous. It’s too high of a traffic area to be adding in apartments.

Sent from my iPhone

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:47 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Ingrid O’Neal
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N De Wolf Avenue, Clovis, CA, 93629 textarea-1755209560293 = Dear Ms. Perez,
Would you please provide me with information about how these plans would affect our current rural way of life that I and my neighbors hope to maintain? My address is within the sphere of influence markings on the map. Thank you.

Client IP = 146.75.146.62

1 McKencie Perez
From: Mainou Her < >
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 9:46 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Kong Vang Subject: Inquiry: Infill Rezone Impacts on Clovis Unified Attendance Zones Dear Ms. Perez,
Thank you for the public information materials on the Clovis Infill Rezone program. I first learned about it through recent news coverage and then through the City’s website.

I understand this rezoning stems from a legal compliance requirement tied to the 2019 Martinez legal judgment. However, one concern I would like clarification on concerns school attendance boundaries and enrollment impacts within the area highlighted in the attached image.

Although the closest rezone sites to my property are Sites 157 and 197, which sit across the 168 freeway. Our neighborhood, shown in the red circle on the attached map, falls within Clovis Unified's attendance zones, specifically the Buchanan area. Based on City mapping, some of the rezoned capacity appears to be designated for higher-density housing (apartments/townhomes, etc), which is likely to result in increased student generation.

2 This raises a question I hope the City can address for my neighboring community:

3 Has the City consulted with Clovis Unified on how the rezoning could affect future enrollment or attendance boundaries over the next decade, particularly for the schools serving this circled area? Given that CUSD recently completed its own rezoning process and publicly discussed projected housing and population impacts (including references around the 11:25 and 19:05 marks of a district presentation), it seems important for the school district to be a partner in these conversations, especially before rezoning effects become operational.

I am copying Clovis Unified Assistant Superintendent for Buchanan Area, Kevin Kerney, and Assistant Superintendent of Facility Services, Denver Stairs, on this correspondence so they are aware of the request.

Any clarification on whether the City has already coordinated with the District or intends to incorporate school capacity analysis moving forward would be greatly appreciated. My neighbors have expressed serious concerns that our community could be affected by the proposals shared with the public last year, which may shift us to the Clovis High area.

Thank you for your time and transparency as this process unfolds.

Sincerely,

4 Mai Her

1 McKencie Perez
From: Pine and Palm < >
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:11 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill rezone - Leonard Ave, Loma Vista
McKencie Perez & City of Clovis Planning Division,

We are homeowners in the Loma Vista neighborhood, living at Keats Ave, with our rear property line directly connected to the parcel at Leonard Ave. My family has invested heavily in this neighborhood and we own two homes in Loma Vista. We expected to remain here long term, but that expectation has been shaken by the pattern of decisions the City of Clovis has made regarding this longplanned community.

In the past year alone, we have invested roughly $150,000 in our home, above just the purchase price, that shares a fence line with this parcel. We purchased another house nearby we felt would be a great investment due to the Loma Vista Master Plan that is seemingly being abandoned more and more each day.

I recognize that state housing law and recent litigation have placed the city under pressure to identify infill sites and increase zoning capacity for multi-family and affordable units. I also understand that the current infill rezone program includes multiple parcels across the city, not only this one.

When we purchased our home, the parcel behind us was designated for single-family residential under the adopted plans for the Loma Vista area. We relied on those adopted plans and zoning designations when selecting this lot and making substantial investments in our property.

My wife, Jerrissa Adkins, even worked as the new home sales agent for the builder Century Communities during that period selling this neighborhood and was instructed that this parcel behind us and many other of our neighbors was medium-density residential which influenced many buying decisions. Her professional reputation is now affected by the city’s departure from the published planning information she was required to convey to buyers.

In addition, the nearby commercial centers have shifted toward uses that diverge from what was originally described in the long-term vision for Loma Vista. The cumulative effect is a noticeable change in how this neighborhood is beginning to feel and function, making the proposed up-zoning behind our fence line particularly impactful.

The most significant concern for our household is the prospect of three- or four-story buildings directly on our rear fence line, with upper-story units looking down into our yard and rear windows. That level of height and adjacency would materially alter the privacy, security, and daily use of our home. Several nearby parcels to the south and west are also being considered for similar up-zoning. If all are pursued simultaneously, this neighborhood becomes encircled by high-density designations, which is not consistent with the adopted planning documents or the expectations set when these homes were sold.

I also want to note that, due to my position as the CEO of a large cybersecurity and technology company, I am already subject to elevated personal security protocols, including routine security sweeps of my

2 residence and radius of areas. Introducing high-density development directly adjoining our yard materially changes the exposure profile for my family and heightens risks that are already managed at considerable cost. This is not even mentioning a triangulation of sites (directly south, west, and north) now rezoned around us which encapsulates this neighborhood with high/very high density zonings with some affordable designations.

Given the direct impacts to existing homes and the original planning expectations for this area, we request that the city remove this parcel from the current rezone proposal, pause any action on it, and redirect the zoning obligation to alternative locations that can meet state requirements with fewer conflicts and a more appropriate fit. I may even be open to purchasing the property if a re-zone could be granted to another use.

I appreciate the difficult position the city is in as it works to comply with state housing law and the recent settlement. At the same time, decisions made now will shape the character and livability of this neighborhood for decades. The long-standing vision for Loma Vista continues to erode due to inconsistent development patterns and city actions that do not align with what residents were told to expect.

My family and I will be following this process closely and plan to participate in all upcoming meetings and hearings. I ask that adjacent residents be treated as stakeholders in this process and that the city refrain from advancing unilateral decisions without direct consultation.

I look forward to hearing back regarding this.

Charles & Jerrissa Adkins

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 1:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Victoria Reinhardt
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Heritage Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = I am very concerned about rezoning the two areas on Dewolf and Owens Mountain. I was a lifelong resident of Fresno and moved to Clovis to escape the increasing crime, homeless issues and traffic.

This is not the proper location of section 8 apartments. For many years I worked in areas in Fresno with large areas of section 8 apartments and have seen first hand what happens to the areas around section 8 apartments . Harlan Ranch does not want nor need this type of development. I am requesting that you reconsider these two areas.

Thank you
Victoria Reinhardt
Client IP = 98.255.30.36

From: Rosemarie Bezerra-Nader < >
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 9:29 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: REZONE
A high density development would best serve the greatest number of people and preserve existing neighborhoods by rezoning some of the many vacant parcels on International and Behymer, near Clovis Community College. Doing this would serve community college students and their families —— much like the communities around Fresno State do.

1 McKencie Perez
From: Kenneth Shipley < >
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 1:09 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Questions re: Infill Sites 197, 157
Hi McKencie, I have looked at the infill site map and am confused about the location of two of the sites.

1. On the map where the sites are identified in blue, Site 197 looks like it is just west of DeWolf--but the address listed on the Site List is 1497 N. Locan Ave. From the streets, it looks like Site 197 might be on the northeast corner of Locan and Quincy. Is Site 197 off DeWolf or off Locan? Can you give me the surrounding streets for Site 197?

2. On the map it looks like Site 157 (no address) is probably on the east side of DeWolf between Quincy and Owens Mountain.

Would this be correct?
Sorry to bother you with the questions, but I have been curious and haven’t really been able to tell where these two sites are.

Thank you, Ken

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 2:42 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Vicki Knapp
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = La Canada Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = So let’s impact are already full schools and play the school shuffle once again? Seriously you must consider school issues before building anything more in this area.

Client IP = 23.113.47.193

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 1:15 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Anthony Avila
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Graybark Ave Clovis CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = Re: Formal Objection to Proposed Rezoning — Site #197 (1497 N. Locan Ave, Clovis CA)
To: City of Clovis – Planning & Development Services
From: Residents of the Locan Avenue Neighborhood
Date: 12/07/2025
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers, We, the residents of the Locan Avenue neighborhood and surrounding areas, submit this formal objection to the proposed rezoning of Site #197 (1497 N. Locan Ave) as part of the Infill Rezone Program.

While we recognize the City’s obligations under State housing mandates and settlement agreements, California law is equally clear that rezoning actions must be internally consistent, properly supported by infrastructure, legally defensible under CEQA, and fully aligned with the General Plan. Rezoning this parcel fails to meet those requirements and exposes the City to significant legal and procedural risks.

To comply with California Government Code, CEQA, and the City’s own adopted policies, we respectfully request that Site #197 be removed from the rezoning list.

Below are our principal concerns, including strengthened legal bases:

1. Traffic Safety & Roadway Capacity — Failure to Mitigate Required Impacts Locan Avenue is a constrained corridor lacking shoulders, sidewalks, turning lanes, and safe bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. A substantial increase in vehicle trips triggered by R-3/R-4 zoning would create predictable and unmitigated safety hazards.

Under CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, VMT and safety impacts must be analyzed using substantial evidence.

Rezoning that introduces higher-density traffic onto an unsafe, substandard roadway—without funded improvements—cannot be exempted or cleared through a Negative Declaration.

Further, Government Code §65300.5 (internal consistency) requires that zoning actions align with circulation system capabilities. This rezoning would not.

2. Incompatibility With Existing Neighborhood Character — Potential “Spot Zoning” High-density zoning within a predominantly rural-edge, low-density environment would constitute a dramatic and unsupported deviation from the prevailing land-use pattern.

California courts have repeatedly invalidated zoning actions where a parcel is “spot-zoned” without a legitimate public interest, or where the zoning is inconsistent with surrounding uses (e.g., Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, 2014).

Changing Site #197 to multifamily residential:
• Disrupts established development patterns
• Fails to provide the required density transition
• Does not serve a unique public necessity that would justify a zoning outlier Such inconsistencies place the rezoning in conflict with Gov. Code §§65860, 65867.5, and the City’s own General Plan consistency requirements.

2 3. General Plan Inconsistency — Violates Gov. Code §65860 The General Plan presently designates this portion of Locan Avenue for low-density or rural-edge uses. A high-density designation:
• Contradicts the Land Use Map
• Violates policies governing compatibility, transitions, and rural-edge preservation • Requires a General Plan amendment
Under Gov. Code §65860, zoning must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. Courts have held repeatedly that inconsistency renders a rezoning action invalid.

A General Plan amendment to justify this parcel’s upzoning would itself be inconsistent with longstanding policy frameworks on neighborhood character and infrastructure capacity—and would set a precedent for arbitrary, parcel-by-parcel upzoning.

4. Insufficient Water, Sewer & Drainage Infrastructure — Violates State Law on Public Service Adequacy The area currently lacks sufficient:
• Sewer trunk capacity
• Water pressure and reliability
• Stormwater and drainage infrastructure designed for high-density uses California Government Code §65860(c) and §66473.7 (SB 610/SB 221) require public services to be adequate, available, and funded at the time zoning decisions are made—not at some hypothetical future point.

Additionally, CEQA requires a full analysis of utility capacity (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(a)). A rezoning predicated on unfunded or speculative future improvements is legally vulnerable.

Because no approved or funded Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects exist for this area, the rezoning is noncompliant.

5. School Capacity Impacts — Must Be Analyzed Under CEQA & Gov. Code Schools serving this area are at or near capacity. Increased density will worsen overcrowding unless substantial mitigation is identified.

School districts may impose impact fees, but fees alone are not sufficient CEQA mitigation where significant impacts remain (e.g., Mira Monte v. County of Ventura, 2021). CEQA requires substantial evidence demonstrating that enrollment impacts are mitigated or reasonably addressed—not assumed.

Proceeding without proper analysis violates CEQA and the statutory planning obligations under Gov.

Code Title 7.

6. CEQA Violations — A Negative Declaration Cannot Legally Suffice Based on site context and foreseeable impacts, the City cannot legally rely on a Negative Declaration or a blanket Infill Program EIR to cover this parcel.

A project-level CEQA review is required for:
• Traffic and safety impacts (Guidelines §15064.3)
• Pedestrian hazards on a sidewalk-deficient corridor
• Agricultural/urban interface conflicts
• Noise, light, and privacy impacts on rural residences • Biological resource impacts on undeveloped land
• Air quality impacts in a non-attainment region
Attempting to rely on a streamlined CEQA pathway would expose the City to litigation due to the presence of fair argument triggers under Guidelines §15064(f)(1). If a fair argument of potential significant impact exists, an EIR is mandatory.

7. Agricultural & Rural-Use Conflicts — Creates New Legal Liabilities for the City This area contains small-scale agriculture, equestrian uses, and rural-edge activities. High-density development adjacent to these uses will create foreseeable nuisance complaints.

California’s Right-to-Farm Act (Civil Code §3482.5) is designed to protect agricultural operations; however, rezoning to high density adjacent to existing rural activities increases the City’s exposure to

3 conflict, code enforcement burdens, and land-use disputes.

Placing incompatible uses side-by-side contradicts long-standing General Plan directives and violates the State’s own guidance on avoiding land-use conflicts.

Formal Request
Based on the regulatory inconsistencies, infrastructure deficiencies, and legal vulnerabilities outlined above, we respectfully request that the City of Clovis:

Remove Site #197 (1497 N. Locan Ave) from the Infill Rezone Program.

Replace it with a parcel that meets General Plan designations, infrastructure capacity, and compatibility requirements.

Conduct a full, parcel-specific CEQA environmental review if the parcel remains under consideration.

We strongly support responsible, well-planned growth that complies with State law, CEQA, and the City’s adopted General Plan. However, rezoning this parcel would create substantial legal, environmental, and public-safety challenges and would undermine long-standing planning principles.

We appreciate your attention and respectfully urge the City to reconsider the inclusion of Site #197.

Sincerely,
Residents of the Locan Avenue Neighborhood
Anthony Avila and Family
N Graybark Ave, Clovis, CA 93619
Client IP = 104.28.116.67

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 6:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Marlene Ellsworth
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = W Enterprise Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = Absolutely oppose the rezone at Peach and Nees. That corner is already so impacted with traffic from the Buchanan complex and the Muslim school. This rezone would further aggravate the situation. Plus just not a good idea adding dense housing across from an elementary school. There are plenty of other areas in Clovis to rezone, leave this one as residential.

Client IP = 73.151.50.156

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 9:07 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Rob Rahal
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Whiteash Ave.
textarea-1755209560293 = Understanding that there is no construction planned, please consider traffic patterns prior to any construction. Also consider commercial before more housing. There’s really nothing up this way. Thank you.

Client IP = 73.90.12.228

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 12:00 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Ann Goodwin
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = leonard Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = I own property north of parcel 115..corner of leonard and keats...I am curios if city will be building or will developers..

Client IP = 195.155.18.28

1 McKencie Perez
From: Leigh Trovato < >
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 5:07 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: Trovato Terry
Subject: Infill site 157 question
McKenzie
We received the meeting invite and cannot attend on December 15.

I have a few questions.

What is the difference between High Density and Very High Density? What is the plan for the traffic on Owen’s Mountain Parkway and DeWolf and DeWolf and Richmond? What developer is planning for this infill?
Thank you.
-Leigh
Salem Ave
Clovis, CA. 93619
Sent from my iPad

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 5:24 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Erin Darchuck
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = w Jordan Ave Clovis, 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = I saw there were other sites considered. As a neighborhood, can we petition site 72 from being rezoned?
Also, CUSD just redid boundaries. Our school got a lot of new students and there are many grades that are at capacity. With high-density housing going in, what is the plan for our school? Also, how many units are proposed for this site?
Client IP = 67.181.12.49

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2025 8:56 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Vanessa
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = las rosas
textarea-1755209560293 = Shaw and Leonard has not yet begun the Shaw widening project. They are expected to widen Shaw avenue to 3 lanes from Dewolf to McCall. That will worsen traffic to the area.

The 4 way stop on Shaw and Leonard is a nightmare and dangerous for pedestrians. Rezoning that area for high density homes will only worsen the traffic. Clovis east students are constantly crossing that 4 way stop intersection and I've seen many almost get hit. We need to prioritize improving the roads/pedestrian safety before any new high density housing is considered. Nearby elementary school red bank and cedarwood are already experiencing higher teacher to student ratios. This will worsen with more housing. In addition, Clovis east is experiencing the same over crowding. High density housing would not be a good fit for Shaw and Leonard.

Client IP = 73.41.171.225

1 McKencie Perez
From: Nico Moreno < >
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 3:56 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Concerns About Proposed Rezoning Near Shaw & Leonard Dear Council Members,
I am writing as a resident whose home backs directly onto the parcels proposed for high-density housing.

I want to express my strong concerns about the safety, traffic, and privacy issues this project will create for families like mine.

Traffic on Leonard is already extremely heavy, and turning out from Keats Ave is often difficult and unsafe due to poor visibility and constant vehicle flow. Adding high-density housing will only increase congestion and make this intersection even more dangerous for drivers, pedestrians, and children.

This project also threatens the privacy and security of the homes that share a property line with the proposed site. As a parent of two young children, I rely on having a safe backyard for them to play in, and this development raises serious concerns about losing that sense of safety, privacy, and peace of mind.

Additionally, our neighborhood still has unfinished sidewalks, missing infrastructure, and unresolved safety issues that affect residents every day. Before considering new high-density housing, I believe it is crucial to address these existing problems. I respectfully ask how the City plans to ensure public safety and resolve current deficiencies before introducing development that will amplify these existing issues.

I ask the Council to reconsider this rezoning and prioritize the well-being of the families who already live here.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Nico Moreno

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2025 3:11 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Nimool Garcia
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N. Graybark Ave. Clovis CA 93619
textarea-1755209560293 = As a homeowner and parent, I am concerned that rezoning to allow higherdensity affordable housing will negatively impact my family and the stability of our neighborhood.

Increased density places significant strain on local infrastructure, including roads, parking, schools, and emergency services, which are already operating near capacity. Rezoning may also alter the character of a low-density residential area, leading to increased crime, increased traffic, noise, and reduced privacy for existing residents. From a financial standpoint, rapid changes in zoning and housing density can introduce uncertainty into the local real estate market, potentially affecting property values and longterm home equity for families who have made substantial investments in their homes. Additionally, insufficient planning, funding, or property management of affordable housing developments can result in higher turnover rates and maintenance concerns, which may further impact neighborhood cohesion and community standards. For these reasons, I believe rezoning decisions should carefully weigh the longterm consequences for current residents, families, and the overall sustainability of the neighborhood.

Client IP = 73.151.169.25

1 McKencie Perez
From: Judy Cornaggia < >
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 12:20 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill Rezone Program Harlan Ranch
Judy Drilling
Richmond Ave.

Clovis, CA 93619
January 7, 2026
McKencie Perez, MPA
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
RE: Opposition to Rezoning Sites Harlan Ranch #157 & #197 – [Infill Rezone Program] Dear McKencie Perez,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of sites 157 & 197 from Single-Family Residential to High-Density Multi-Family. As a resident of Harlan Ranch living directly across from the site, I am concerned that this development is inconsistent with the neighborhood's character and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

My opposition is based on the following material impacts:
• Infrastructure Strain: Our current water, sewer, and stormwater systems are already under pressure. Adding high-density housing will exacerbate these issues and may lead to increased maintenance costs for current taxpayers.
• Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Dewolf, Richmond Avenue, and Pamela are not designed to handle the surge in traffic and parking issues this development would generate. I am specifically concerned about the safety of children and elderly residents who walk in this area.
• Neighborhood Character and Privacy: The proposed height and scale of this building are incompatible with the existing low-density homes. Multi-story units will directly overlook my private yard, significantly diminishing the quiet enjoyment of my property. • School Overcrowding: Local schools are already at or near capacity. The influx of residents from this high-density project will create a burden that current facilities cannot support.

While I understand the need for housing growth, I urge the Planning Commission to reject this specific rezoning request and instead explore locations where high-density infrastructure is already in place. In addition, Harlan Ranch home buyers were promised access to commerce in this location by the plan developers when purchasing homes in this community.

2 Thank you for your time and for considering the long-term impact this decision will have on our community.

Sincerely,
Judy Drilling

1 McKencie Perez
From: Cheryl Rusconi < >
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2026 2:12 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Proposed Rezoning of sites 157 and 197
Dear McKenzie Perez,
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of sites 157 and 197 from SingleFamily Residential to High-Density Multi-Family. As homeowners in Harlan Ranch who live directly across from the proposed site, we believe this change is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

This proposal raises several serious concerns, including increased strain on already burdened water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure; traffic congestion and pedestrian safety risks on streets not designed for high-density use; and the incompatibility of a multi-story development with the existing lowdensity homes, which would negatively impact privacy and neighborhood character. Additionally, local schools are already at or near capacity and may not be able to accommodate the increase in residents this project would bring.

While we understand the need for housing growth, we respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny this rezoning request and instead direct higher-density development to areas with appropriate infrastructure in place. We would also note that Harlan Ranch homeowners were originally advised that this area would provide access to neighborhood-serving commercial uses, not high-density residential development.

Thank you for your time and consideration of the long-term impact this decision will have on our community.

Sincerely,
Cheryl and Steve Rusconi

1 McKencie Perez
From:

Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2026 12:12 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Lily Cha
Subject: Formal Objection to Proposed Infill Rezoning of Parcels at DeWolf Avenue, Richmond Avenue, and Owens Mountain Parkway
Attachments: Clovis_Open_Letter_Park_Designation.pdf
Dear City of Clovis Planning Division and Planning Commission Members, I am submitting this letter as a formal objection to the proposed infill rezoning of two parcels located near the Harlan Ranch and Diamond Crest communities, specifically:
• The approximately 7-acre parcel at or near DeWolf Avenue and Richmond Avenue, and • The approximately 4.5-acre parcel on the opposite side of DeWolf Avenue, near the DeWolf Avenue dead-end at Owens Mountain Parkway
(APNs to be confirmed by the City under the Infill Rezoning Program).

The proposed rezoning would allow high-density residential development of 20–30 units per acre, with buildings up to three stories, potentially introducing up to 345 additional households into an area that is already operating beyond reasonable infrastructure capacity.

Traffic, Safety, and CEQA Concerns
The existing roadway network—including DeWolf Avenue, Richmond Avenue, and Owens Mountain Parkway—is already congested, heavily parked, and unsafe for pedestrians. The addition of hundreds of new residential units would constitute a significant traffic impact under CEQA standards, particularly with respect to:
• Increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Reduced pedestrian and cyclist safety

2 • Emergency vehicle access constraints
• Cumulative impacts when combined with existing development Children in the surrounding neighborhoods already face unsafe conditions crossing these streets.

Approving this rezoning without meaningful traffic mitigation would knowingly increase the risk of injury or loss of life.

School Overcrowding
Elementary schools serving this area are already overcrowded and operating near or above capacity. The City cannot reasonably approve additional residential density without corresponding school infrastructure expansion. Failure to address this creates a foreseeable and significant public service impact.

Lack of Parks and Open Space
The neighborhoods surrounding these parcels consist of hundreds of homes with no nearby public park or usable green space. These parcels represent one of the last remaining opportunities to provide recreational space for children and families in this area. Converting this land to housing permanently eliminates that opportunity and undermines the City’s obligation to provide balanced, humane development.

Request for Alternative Use
I respectfully but firmly request that the City of Clovis:

1. Deny the proposed residential rezoning, and

2. Designate these parcels for park, open space, or recreational use, consistent with responsible planning, public safety, and long-term community well-being.

3 Rezoning this land for additional housing instead of park use would intensify congestion, endanger children, overburden schools, and degrade quality of life. This outcome would be inconsistent with sound planning principles and the City’s duty to protect its residents.

Thank you for considering this formal objection and the long-term consequences of this decision.

Sincerely,
Joyce Okeafor

Joyce Okeafor
Clovis, California
Date: January 17, 2026
City of Clovis Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Re: Formal Objection to Proposed Infill Rezoning and Request for Park Designation This letter serves as a formal objection to the proposed infill rezoning of parcels located at DeWolf Avenue, Richmond Avenue, and Owens Mountain Parkway near the Harlan Ranch and Diamond Crest communities. The proposed development would add up to 345 residential units to an area already experiencing severe traffic congestion, school overcrowding, and lack of public park space. Existing roadways are unsafe for pedestrians, particularly children, and schools are operating at or beyond capacity. These parcels represent one of the last remaining opportunities to provide much-needed green space and recreational areas for hundreds of surrounding homes. Rezoning for additional housing would permanently eliminate this opportunity and exacerbate existing safety and infrastructure challenges. I respectfully request denial of the rezoning proposal and designation of this land for park or open-space use in alignment with responsible urban planning and community well-being. Respectfully, Joyce Okeafor

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 3:48 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Annette Gettman
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Salem Avenue, Clovis
textarea-1755209560293 = I understand that the infill project needs to be done. That said, I am highly disappointed that the City would choose two parcels in the same area (literally across the street from each other) accounting for nearly 25% of the required units to satisfy the lawsuit. It seems our area is having to absorb more than its fair share.

There is already a lot of traffic in the area; adding so many units will make it unimaginable, especially since they will be located at the main entrance/exit of the neighborhood.

Additionally, there are two other parcels up for sale on Owens Mountain Parkway, just down the street from the parcels chosen. What are they zoned for? Do we need to worry about even more traffic, etc. in this small area?
It is very disappointing that the city would make this type of decision without any input from the residents of the area and the impact that it will have on us. Having an “informational” meeting to announce this is what has been decided and basically there is nothing we can do about it is unbelievable. I am proud to live in Clovis and have always supported (without question) whatever the City (and schools) have on the ballot; thinking the city officials know what is best for our wonderful City – unfortunately, my opinion has now changed.

1 McKencie Perez
From: Amy Hatcher
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 6:03 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Fw: Strong Opposition to Rezoning Lots 157 and 197 in the Infill Rezone Program Just making sure you have this.

Amy
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Susan Thompson < >
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 4:33:28 PM
To: Amy Hatcher <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Strong Opposition to Rezoning Lots 157 and 197 in the Infill Rezone Program

Dear Commissioner Hatcher,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Clovis to urge you to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning for Lots 157 and 197 as part of the City's Infill Rezone Program. While I recognize the legal obligations stemming from the Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis settlement to accommodate additional housing capacity, I believe these specific parcels are poorly suited for high-density (R-3 or R-4) rezoning and would impose disproportionate harms on the surrounding established neighborhoods.

The Infill Rezone Program targets underutilized parcels to help meet state housing requirements by redesignating them for high- and very high-density residential uses. However, approving rezoning for Lots 157 and 197 would fundamentally change the character of the nearby single-family residential areas. These neighborhoods have long been defined by low-density homes, providing a sense of openness, privacy, and community cohesion that residents value highly. Introducing multi-family developments here would erode this suburban character, increase noise and activity levels, and create an incompatible transition that disrupts the established fabric of the area.

Traffic concerns are particularly acute for these lots. Their proximity to major thoroughfares and freeway access points means rezoning to high density could funnel significantly more vehicles into already congested residential streets. This influx would worsen peak-hour backups, heighten risks to pedestrians and children, and strain local roadways not designed for such volumes. Without assured major infrastructure improvements, these changes would degrade quality of life and safety for current residents.

Moreover, rezoning these specific parcels would contribute to an unfair concentration of high-density housing in certain parts of Clovis. The program includes 20 sites citywide, but approving Lots 157 and 197 would place an outsized burden on the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to them, while other areas remain less affected. This uneven distribution exacerbates inequities, overburdening local schools, parks, utilities, and emergency services in already impacted zones.

Additional issues include potential strains on infrastructure—such as water, sewer, and schools—that may not readily scale to support hundreds of new residents per site. Environmental effects, including loss of open space and increased stormwater runoff or pollution from denser development, further weigh against approval. Property values in surrounding homes could also suffer, impacting longtime homeowners' equity and the overall stability of the community.

I respectfully ask that you, as a representative on the Planning Commission, carefully consider these site-specific impacts and recommend against rezoning Lots 157 and 197. Alternatives, such as prioritizing other parcels with better compatibility or lower-density options where feasible, would better balance housing needs with neighborhood preservation.

Thank you for your time and dedication to thoughtful planning in Clovis. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and can be reached at ]. Please keep me updated on the status of the Infill Rezone Program and any upcoming hearings.

2 Sincerely,
Susan Thompson Enterprise AvenueClovis, CA. 93619

1 McKencie Perez
From: Amy Hatcher
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 6:04 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Fw: Infill Rezone Program
And another one!
Amy
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Judy Cornaggia < >
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:51:17 AM
To: Amy Hatcher <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Infill Rezone Program

Judy Drilling
3495 Richmond Ave.

Clovis, CA 93619
January 29, 2026
Commissioner Hatcher
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, CA 93612
RE: Opposition to Rezoning Sites Harlan Ranch #157 & #197 – [Infill Rezone Program]
Dear Commissioner Hatcher,
I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of sites 157 & 197 from Single-Family Residential to High-Density Multi-Family. As a resident of Harlan Ranch living directly across from the site, I am concerned that this development is inconsistent with the neighborhood's character and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

My opposition is based on the following material impacts:
• Infrastructure Strain: Our current water, sewer, and stormwater systems are already under pressure. Adding high-density housing will exacerbate these issues and may lead to increased maintenance costs for current taxpayers.
• Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Dewolf, Richmond Avenue, and Pamela are not designed to handle the surge in traffic and parking issues this development would generate. I am specifically concerned about the safety of children and elderly residents who walk in this area.

2 • Neighborhood Character and Privacy: The proposed height and scale of this building are incompatible with the existing low-density homes. Multistory units will directly overlook my private yard, significantly diminishing the quiet enjoyment of my property.
• School Overcrowding: Local schools are already at or near capacity. The influx of residents from this high-density project will create a burden that current facilities cannot support.

While I understand the need for housing growth, I urge the Planning Commission to reject this specific rezoning request and instead explore locations where highdensity infrastructure is already in place. In addition, Harlan Ranch home buyers were promised access to commerce in this location by the plan developers when purchasing homes in this community.

Thank you for your time and for considering the long-term impact this decision will have on our community.

Sincerely,
Judy Drilling

1 McKencie Perez
From: Amy Hatcher
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 6:04 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Fw: Clovis Infill sites #157 & #197
Last one!
Amy
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JC D < >
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 3:40:39 PM
To: Amy Hatcher <[email protected]>
Subject: Clovis Infill sites #157 & #197

Hello City Commissioner Hatcher,
My name is Jennie Daly and I am a homeowner of Harlan Ranch, I have been following the information that has been made public regarding the infill rezone program for “high and/or very high density” affordable housing. We have been obtaining detailed information from other homeowners in the area who have taken time to do their research. So far it seems as if the parcels near Harlan Ranch (site# 157 and site# 197) have not been well thought out as to how it would impact our community and school system.

First and foremost, being that we are home owners in one of the highly esteemed and well kept neighborhoods in Clovis, we would hope that the City of Clovis would try to maintain the value of our community and make sure that any rezoning project would take that into account. High density housing will cause increased traffic coming off of the 168 which will greatly impact the flow on the single turn-lane onto DeWolf. The inevitable increase in population will also impact the facilities/parks at Harlan Ranch (which are financially maintained by the HOA, but yet are open to the public). This does not seem fair to the homeowners who pay into the HOA. Additionally, It is a known fact that with low-income housing comes several community struggles such as higher crime rates, more substance misuse in the area, and other unwanted activity in the neighborhood. Although inclusion is always welcome, we hope that this change in affordability does not allow people (that may potentially have different standards) to diminish the caliber that we uphold for the Harlan Ranch area.

Furthermore, how would this affect the population capacity of Bud Rank Elementary? And how would it potentially effect the academic level that Bud Rank currently maintains?
Another thought that has come up during homeowner discussions (if apartments are definitely going to happen), is the possibility of senior living apartments. This would avoid the impact on traffic, school, and crime. Has that been a topic of discussion?
Thank you,
Jennie Daly
Clovis resident of Harlan Ranch and physician at Valley Children’s Hospital.

1 McKencie Perez
From: Amy Hatcher
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 7:17 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Fw: Rezoning of Sites 157 & 197
Here is another one I just got. Let me know if you don’t need copies of these.

Thanks
Amy
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Barbara Hioco < >
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 1:56:10 PM
To: Amy Hatcher <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning of Sites 157 & 197

February 5, 2026
Dear Commissioner Hatcher,
We are writing to formally express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of sites 157 & 197 from Single-Family Residential to High-Density Multi-Family. As residents and property owners within 800 feet of the proposed sites, we are concerned that this development is inconsistent with the neighborhood's character and the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Infrastructure Strain: Our current water, sewer, and stormwater systems are already under pressure. Adding high-density housing will exacerbate these issues and may lead to increased maintenance costs for current taxpayers.

Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: Dewolf, Richmond, and Quincy Avenues are not designed to handle the surge in traffic and parking issues this development would generate. We are specifically concerned about the safety of children and elderly residents who walk in this area. A pedestrian/bike trail crosses both Richmond and Quincy. Quincy has no stop signs, nor speed bumps nor flashing lights to slow traffic. There are only two speed limit signs on Quincy (one in each direction), neither of which can be easily seen by traffic entering from DeWolf or Locan.

Excessive Traffic &. Speeding in Residential Neighborhood: When the neighborhoods bordered by Richmond and Quincy were built, a group of concerned residents met with City of Clovis personnel regarding the traffic and excessive speeding occurring on the two streets. The City noted that the excessive speeds recorded were within an acceptable range, i.e. 15 mph above the 25 mph speed limit. This was an unacceptable answer. Drivers continue to travel well above the 25 mph speed limit. This will only continue to get worse with the added traffic from the proposed multi family, high density projects.

Neighborhood Character and Privacy: The proposed height and scale of these projects are incompatible with the existing low-density homes. Decisions to live in this area were based on the existing zoning. If purchasers knew that a zoning change of this significance would be made, decisions to invest in this area most likely would not have been made. It is not fair to residents who have made significant investments in their properties.

Overcrowding: Local schools are already at or near capacity. The influx of residents from this high-density project will create a burden that current facilities cannot support. While we understand the need for housing growth, we urge the Planning Commission to reject this specific rezoning request and instead explore locations where high-density infrastructure is already in place. In addition, home buyers were promised access to commerce in this location by the plan developers and confirmed by City representatives when purchasing homes in this community.

Thank you for your time and for considering the long-term impact this decision will have on our community.

Sincerely,
Barbara & August Hioco
Maine Avenue, Clovis, CA 93619

1 McKencie Perez
From: Renee Mathis
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 11:41 AM
To: McKencie Perez; George González
Subject: FW: Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez v. City of Clovis) Court-Mandated Housing Program FYI
Renee Mathis
Director of Planning & Development Services
Office: 559-324-2351
[email protected]
From: Briana Parra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 9:49 AM
To: Renee Mathis <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez v. City of Clovis) Court-Mandated Housing Program Sharing this with you.

Briana Parra
City Clerk
Office: 559-324-2060
[email protected]
From: Rebecca Simonian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 9:46 AM
To: Briana Parra <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez v. City of Clovis) Court-Mandated Housing Program Comment sent to all Council:

Rebecca Simonian
Executive Assistant
Office: 559-324-2060
[email protected]
From: Grace Nelson < >
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Vong Mouanoutoua <[email protected]>; Diane Pearce <[email protected]>; Matt Basgall <[email protected]>; Lynne Ashbeck <[email protected]>; Drew Bessinger <[email protected]> Subject: Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez v. City of Clovis) Court-Mandated Housing Program Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:

I have been made aware of the Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez vs. City of Clovis) that may directly affect me and my community in Clovis, CA, and more specifically Harlan Ranch, which is directly across the street from the potential rezoning project(s). As part of this effort, the City of Clovis has identified 20 properties for potential rezoning to R-3 (medium-high density residential), with a few sites proposed as R4:

2 •• Site 115: Approximately 7 acres located at the southwest corner of Harlan Ranch, proposed to be rezoned to R-3, allowing up to 30 units per acre and three-story apartment development. •• Additional nearby property: The northwest corner of Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue, immediately west of an existing home, is also proposed for R-3 zoning.

If this rezoning occurs, and the housing developments are built, it will greatly affect me and my community.

One option that has been discussed by me and other residents of Harlan Ranch is that any development at these sites be restricted to senior housing, which could help mitigate several potential impacts, including:
• Reduced traffic congestion
• No impact on local schools
• Lower demand on community amenities by non-residents
• Addressing the current shortage of senior housing in Clovis Please consider building senior housing, above anything else, in the above-described locations.

Thank you for your attention,
Concerned Clovis, CA, Resident, Grace Nelon ( )

1 McKencie Perez
From: Paul Halajian < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:28 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Affordable housing in Clovis
McKencie:

I hope this finds you well.

I’m contacng you regarding the controversy regarding the proposed site for affordable housing at Owens Mountain and DeWolf Avenue. I live in Harlan Ranch and a&ended a Homeowners Associaon Board Meeng a few weeks ago where a resident made a presentaon on this subject. I’ve been thinking about this since then and I wanted to share some thoughts with you regarding this controversial ma&er.

As an Architect, my firm has designed several affordable housing projects throughout the Valley. At the moment, we have a 4-story, (114) unit project under construcon at the corner of Blackstone and Dakota in Fresno, a 3-story (80) unit project in Visalia, and we are just starng the renovaon of an affordable senior housing project in Exeter. We are wellversed in this typology and understand the financial, polical and development challenges associated with affordable housing. Furthermore, I am a proponent of affordable housing to address the daunng economic and social difficules Californians face – including residents of Clovis. I wholeheartedly support the development of affordable housing in Clovis and believe that well-designed affordable housing can benefit the city as a whole.

From my work in the affordable housing marketplace, I have learned that site selecon is one of the most crical issues contribung to a successful affordable housing development. Affordable housing necessarily relies on an infusion of public funding in the form of grants or tax credits to bridge the gap between a non-viable project and a viable one from a development standpoint. To be compeve in pursuing grant funding from the State of California, a site must meet the needs of its residents. The most compeve sites share the following qualies:
• served by mass transit
• connected to walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
• contribute to the creaon of “complete streets”
• provide access to amenies (work, services, parks, schools, entertainment, etc.) without reliance on an automobile
The State places a high value on resilient, sustainable sites, preferring more urbanized locaons over suburban areas that lack many of the a&ributes that support residents. A good example of this is our project at Blackstone and Dakota in Fresno. This project is situated on Fresno’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line that traverses the urbanized Blackstone Avenue Corridor. The BRT will connect resident of our project to downtown Fresno, Riverpark, and the new Fancher Creek commercial/retail center at Clovis Avenue and Tulare as well as schools, shopping, entertainment, work, etc.

Due to its locaon on the far edge of development in Clovis, removed from the services and amenies needed to support affordable housing, this reality suggests that a Harlan Ranch site would not be compeve for grant funding and would likely not be realized. While I welcome a mix of housing typologies in “my backyard”, from experience, I believe that the Harlan Ranch site idenfied by the city for affordable housing would be passed over, and available funding would go towards sites proposed by other urban centers.

I encourage the city to idenfy sites be&er suited to creang affordable housing projects that meet the day-to-day needs of future residents. I’m more than willing to help the City of Clovis in any way I can, to meet this challenge. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any service.

2 Best regards

1 McKencie Perez
From: Maria Spera < >
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 2:02 PM
To: George González; McKencie Perez
Cc: Renee Mathis; JASWANT BASRAON; Dirk Poeschel; Joyce Roach Subject: Third Request – IRP Removal for 1933 Alluvial Ave.

Good aernoon George and McKencie,
Aer further discussion regarding the project constraints, my client, Dr. Jaswant Basraon, has requested that the subject property be removed from the Infill Rezone Program as soon as possible. This correspondence serves as our third formal request for removal from the program.

Please advise on what steps, if any, are required on our end to facilitate and confirm removal from the program. Addi)onally, we would appreciate no)fica)on on when the Infill Rezone Program is an)cipated to proceed for review before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Thank you for your a,en)on to this ma,er. Should you have any ques)ons, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best,
Maria Spera | Associate Planner
Land Development Services, Inc.

Van Ness Ave.,
Fresno, Ca. 93721
Phone:

1 McKencie Perez
From: Jason Horg < >
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:50 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill Rezone Program
Dear Deputy City Planner Perez,
I hope this email finds you well. I have been meaning to write you for some time now in regards to the Infill Rezone Program. Unfortunately given the busy nature of the year end with both the holidays and business, I like many was unable to attend the December meeting. I heard from a neighbor recently that there was an additional meeting held in February, but I was never informed unfortunately as I would have attended.

Our neighborhood, which is the Wilson Windsor development just west of DeWold and North of 168, were in the very middle of the recent CUSD redistricting and zoning mess a year or two back. My proposal, along with a few other similar proposals, was actually used in the final draft of that decision. I was shocked that CUSD was truly listening and looking for solutions, and realized just how sincere they were when Norm Anderson reached out to me to discuss my ideas and inform me they were using it. The reason I bring this up is because the same concerns that stopped CUSD from making changes to our area are still present in the proposal to build high density housing here.

Our traffic and roads present a major problem in the area. Because there is no road that runs cleanly or completely from East to West from Harlan Ranch area to Temperance or further west except Shepherd, everyone who lives in Harlan Ranch already uses our small residential streets to travel through the neighborhood, which causes all kinds of traffic and safety issues. This was well documented in the redistricting as a problem, including impact and speed limit test being done by the city, with discussion of speed bumps and other measures. DeWolf is a major problem as well given the setup currently, with constant traffic problems, and poor planning for the current amount of homes. The other common issue, and main issue, is we already have schools highly impacted from all of the building in the area. This was what got our area in a round of heated board meetings. Dry Creek is ridiculously impacted currently. I can't imagine how adding ultra high density housing such as apartments would possibly work in this area. We already have quite a bit of high density housing in an entire section of Harlan Ranch right across the road from us, the smaller homes without the yards and condensed properties.

As a Clovis homeowner and tax payer, I was not pleased to find out that children in our area were being pushed to other schools, while other kids not from the area were simultaneously being bussed in. I am all about people having equal access to education, but you can't accomplish this by punishing the children in the area whose families pay the taxes that support those schools, and would not be possible without. We could have bought the same home we worked hard to buy here for quite a bit less in neighboring CUSD school areas, such as Clovis West or Clovis East, but we worked hard and wanted to live here. The majority of the reason it has taken so long for me to reach out is because of the long hours I work to be able to pay for our home and the taxes that go with it. That is a choice we made as a family. I am well aware of the California and Federal housing rules, but don't agree with them. Look, I feel that I deserve to live on a golf course on the coast because my and my family's health is impacted by the valley air quality with allergies and asthma, and golf would help me relax, but no one is going to make that happen for me. I have to make that happen for me. We all have wants and feelings, but

2 unfortunately that is not how the world works. If you keep doing this to your tax paying residents, eventually you will have no revenue with which to pay for this city, the employee salaries, or the school district. I can't tell you the number of neighbors and friends who I have had conversations with that feel this very way. They all say the same, if this is what is going to happen, it is time to leave the area and probably the state. The novel Atlas Shrugged was a powerful warning from historical experience against this type of behavior.

I appreciate you taking the time to consider my concerns and suggestions. I would be happy to discuss and expand if you would like to set up a time to talk. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Have a great evening!
Sincerely,

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2026 8:58 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = David Zoldoske
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = 878 N Whittier Avenue
textarea-1755209560293 = Mr. McKencie, my property shares a common fenceline with the proposed high density development (#63) near Alluvial and Fowler Avenue - I have two questions, first has there been any direct discussion with owner about developing the property into apartments? and second, does the review process allow for public comments before the project would be approved? If so, what does that process look like?
Thank you for time and consideration
regards
David Zoldoske
Client IP = 76.137.216.252

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 10:29 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Susan Colby
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Hughes Ave., Clovis, CA 93612
textarea-1755209560293 = We are very much OPPOSED to rezoning area 108 for multi housing structures. It is a small area with a bank and office building close. Furthermore, with the auto sales businesses going in across the street, the traffic on Clovis Ave will already be multiplied. Behind the proposed area are homes that have been there for 45 years. It is a well established neighborhood, very calm and quiet. Those that have homes that line up to the proposed property will suddenly have to start worrying about potential people coming over fences, debri, noise, etc. We already have a very disruptive person living on Clovis Ave (code enforcement is fining) for their space and disruptive behavior. Please do not approve this area for multi level low income housing. It will very likely drop the property values of the neighborhood also.

Client IP = 146.75.154.0

1 McKencie Perez
From: Christopher Valadez < >
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 6:39 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Public Comment on the Infill Rezone Program – Continued Opposition to Rezoning Sites Adjacent to Harlan Ranch (Specifically Site 115 and the Parcel at the Northwest Corner of Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue)
Re: Formal Public Comment on the Infill Rezone Program – Continued Opposition to Rezoning Sites Adjacent to Harlan Ranch (Specifically Site 115 and the Parcel at the Northwest Corner of Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue)
Dear Ms. Perez:

Thank you for the notification regarding the proposed Infill Rezone Program. As a homeowner and resident of Harlan Ranch (a master-planned community of over 1,500 single-family homes), I previously submitted written comments on February 3, 2026. I write now as continued formal public comment on the program in direct response to your notice, ahead of the May 28, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I remain supportive of the City’s efforts to comply with the Martinez v. City of Clovis judgment and the sixth-cycle Housing Element (certified December 2024), which require capacity for approximately 1,284– 1,300 additional affordable units to address unmet lower-income RHNA obligations. However, I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of peripheral sites adjacent to Harlan Ranch—specifically Site 115 (approximately 7 acres at the southwest corner, proposed for R-3 zoning allowing up to 30 units per acre and three-story apartments) and the parcel at the northwest corner of Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue—to high-density R-3 zoning. These sites are fundamentally incompatible with the area’s character, infrastructure, and state planning priorities.2041 The City’s own Infill Rezone Program documentation and the Housing Element describe these as “infill” sites, yet they fall far short of state definitions and preferences for true infill development. Harlan Ranch is a suburban, master-planned, low-density single-family community on the outskirts of Clovis, governed by a 2010 Master Plan and HOA CC&Rs that explicitly emphasize controlled density, family-oriented design, shared parks, playgrounds, and landscaping. Rezoning to R-3 (high-density, up to 30 du/ac with three-story buildings) would introduce an abrupt, incompatible scale—potentially 210+ units on Site 115 alone—that clashes with the neighborhood’s low-density character and burdens HOA-funded amenities without proportional contribution from new residents.

These sites are vehicle-dependent with limited transit, resulting in high Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Clovis Transit service in the eastern Harlan Ranch area remains limited (even with recent micro-transit additions), and residents rely heavily on personal vehicles for jobs, services, schools, and amenities.

This directly contradicts HCD’s Sites Inventory Guidebook best practices for lower-income RHNA sites, which prioritize proximity to transit, jobs, high-performing schools, healthcare, grocery stores, and amenities to promote walkability, reduce VMT, advance equitable housing, and support climate goals (consistent with SB 743). Peripheral edge locations like these score poorly on HCD suitability factors and fail to exemplify “true infill” as expanded under recent laws such as AB 130 (CEQA exemption for qualifying urban infill projects up to 20 acres) and SB 772 (expanding infill definitions to urbanized areas).

In contrast, central/downtown parcels or those along major avenues better align with these mandates

2 and successful Clovis examples like Butterfly Gardens (supportive housing) and Solivita Commons (affordable family units).

Traffic and infrastructure impacts are already documented concerns. Owens Mountain Parkway, Shepherd Avenue, and nearby Highway 168/Owens Mountain interchanges experience peak-hour congestion and delays (exacerbated by events and growth), as noted in public comments, General Plan analyses, and media coverage of the program. Adding high-density units would worsen Level of Service, safety risks, and VMT without adequate mitigation. Local Clovis Unified School District schools serving the area face record enrollment pressures (approximately 43,000 students citywide) and capacity constraints, with new schools planned but not yet alleviating near-term strain from family-oriented units.

These gaps undermine the legislative intent of the Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §§ 65580–65589.8) and Martinez requirements for adequate, suitable sites with realistic development potential (Gov. Code § 65583.2).

State law and the City’s adopted plans require sites to be “adequate” and suitable, considering infrastructure, realistic capacity, neighborhood character, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) principles. The 2010 Harlan Ranch Master Plan and General Plan prioritize low-density residential stability and family-oriented living in planned communities. Dense development here would undermine these policies, reduce quality of life for existing residents, and risk long-term incompatibility. Residents prefer—and the record supports—development that protects established neighborhoods while meeting housing goals.

Alternatives
I urge the City to:

1. Prioritize more centrally located opportunity sites from the Housing Element inventory (e.g., downtown or along major avenues). These better meet HCD criteria, reduce VMT, leverage existing transit/infrastructure, and align with AB 130/SB 772 infill preferences, minimizing legal and practical risks.

2. If any peripheral/edge sites must be used, restrict rezoning and development to senior or agerestricted housing only. This would address Clovis’s senior housing shortage, reduce traffic impacts by an estimated 20–30% (fewer school/commute trips), eliminate school capacity strain, and lower demands on community amenities—fully consistent with HCD guidelines on specialneeds housing and equitable distribution.

These alternatives are feasible, as the Housing Element identifies suitable central parcels and the program allows for tailored zoning/conditions. The City must fully evaluate them under state law to demonstrate compliance.

Risks of Under-Evaluating Alternatives
Selecting unsuitable peripheral sites without robust alternatives analysis exposes the City to significant risks:
• Further litigation or HCD findings of non-compliance (echoing Martinez, where inadequate zoning/density and site suitability led to the judgment). • Delayed or unrealized affordable housing production.
• CEQA challenges, community opposition delays (already evident in public meetings), and infrastructure costs borne by taxpayers/residents.

3 • Undermining AFFH goals and efficient RHNA progress, potentially inviting enforcement actions under AB 1398 or related statutes.

A thorough record of alternatives analysis, traffic/school studies, and master-plan consistency review is essential to avoid these outcomes and ensure defensible, sustainable compliance.

I respectfully request that the City reconsider and exclude (or heavily condition) the Harlan Ranchadjacent sites, prioritize truly suitable central infill alternatives, and provide a detailed written response addressing these points. This balanced approach will advance state mandates while preserving the character and livability of established communities like Harlan Ranch.

Thank you for your attention and for your service in balancing housing needs with community protection.

I look forward to your response and continued public engagement.

Sincerely,
Christopher Valadez
Clovis, CA 93619
Harlan Ranch Homeowner

1 McKencie Perez
From: Andrew Haussler
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 7:54 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: Renee Mathis; George González
Subject: FW: Public Comment Submission
For the file.

Thanks
Andrew Haussler
City Manager
Office: 559-324-2060
[email protected]
From: No Reply <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 10:00 AM
To: Andrew Haussler <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Submission
Submitted by: Susan Thompson
Email Address:

Commented on event: https://clovisca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/51/overview If you are having trouble viewing the URL above, cut and paste the string into your browser window.

User comment: I am writing as a concerned resident of Clovis to urge you to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning for Lots 157 and 197 as part of the City's Infill Rezone Program. While I recognize the legal obligations stemming from the Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis settlement to accommodate additional housing capacity, I believe these specific parcels are poorly suited for high-density (R-3 or R-4) rezoning and would impose disproportionate harms on the surrounding established neighborhoods. The Infill Rezone Program targets underutilized parcels to help meet state housing requirements by redesignating them for high- and very high-density residential uses. However, approving rezoning for Lots 157 and 197 would fundamentally change the character of the nearby single-family residential areas.

These neighborhoods have long been defined by low-density homes, providing a sense of openness, privacy, and community cohesion that residents value highly. Introducing multi-family developments here would erode this suburban character, increase noise and activity levels, and create an incompatible transition that disrupts the established fabric of the area. Traffic concerns are particularly acute for these lots. Their proximity to major thoroughfares and freeway access points means rezoning to high density could funnel significantly more vehicles into already congested residential streets. This influx would worsen peak-hour backups, heighten risks to pedestrians and children, and strain local roadways not designed for such volumes. Without assured major infrastructure improvements, these changes would degrade quality of life and safety for current residents. Moreover, rezoning these specific parcels would contribute to an unfair concentration of high-density housing in certain parts of Clovis. The program includes 20 sites citywide, but approving Lots 157 and 197 would place an outsized burden on the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to them, while other areas remain less affected. This uneven

2 distribution exacerbates inequities, overburdening local schools, parks, utilities, and emergency services in already impacted zones. Additional issues include potential strains on infrastructure—such as water, sewer, and schools—that may not readily scale to support hundreds of new residents per site.

Environmental effects, including loss of open space and increased stormwater runoff or pollution from denser development, further weigh against approval. Property values in surrounding homes could also suffer, impacting longtime homeowners' equity and the overall stability of the community. I respectfully ask that you, as a representative on the Planning Commission, carefully consider these site-specific impacts and recommend against rezoning Lots 157 and 197. Alternatives, such as prioritizing other parcels with better compatibility or lower-density options where feasible, would better balance housing needs with neighborhood preservation. Thank you for your time and dedication to thoughtful planning in Clovis. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and can be reached at [ ].

Please keep me updated on the status of the Infill Rezone Program and any upcoming hearings.

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 8:27 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Peggy Davis
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = PO Box 3615
textarea-1755209560293 = Dear McKencie Perez,
I am a resident of Bonaventure Mobile Home Park at 1724 Minnewawa, Space 213. I am well aware of the need for better low-cost housing. Having lived here since 2007, I have come to know mobile homes well and realize that there was a huge code change in 1980. Most of the mobile homes here were built before then.

One basic problem with MHs is that they are on inadequate foundations. Because the ground underneath settles over time, the house goes "out of level". The walls and flooring starts to rise and fall in different places. The walls can crack, the countertops can buckle or crack. My point is, "mobile" homes are fairly ridiculous things to put in!
Years ago, we had a manager, Randall Guerra, who took it upon himself to have a new home put in whenever the park 'inherited' a MH from someone who passed away with no provisions made and often, in arrears on monthly rent, so the space could be filled by the park and then the new house sold to a new resident. Unfortunately, the park owners no longer make that effort, so the place gets more rundown every year just because these old MHs get older. Covid took Randall and we miss him.

I urge you to think about manufactured housing in the city’s Infill program, but NOT mobile homes. I do think this is one of the few areas in the country where MHs are not going to blow away due to tornadoes (yet). I would not live in a MH anywhere else. But a good manufactured home, on a solid foundation, solar-equipped and wheelchair accessible would definitely beat a MH any day. I think the city could do these in a park-like setting, with a manager, and a wellness program, and do very well.

I am a semi-retired CPA and very interested in the Infill Rezone Program. I wish you success in making these improvements to the city attractive and useful. There are so many people who cannot afford decent housing, but if they could -- if more were available -- would be productive families, contributing to the city.

Blessings to you.

Client IP = 73.220.186.183

1 McKencie Perez
From: Manbir Gill < >
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:05 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Clovis infill rezoning
Good afternoon Ms. Perez
Rezoning two adjacent parcels, 157 & 197 will unduly affect the surrounding area as many residents having been waiting and bought with the hope that the commercial lot will eventually have a small grocery/convenience store and services. Please consider our humble request as it is a food desert out there and no barber shops etc either.

Please consider rezoning the already residential (low density) to high density while leaving the commercial as such. It will allow services that will well serve that area in the long run.

Warm regards
Manbir S Gill
Sent from my iPhone

P.O. Box 1432 Clovis, CA 93613 | 559.289.1090 | [email protected] | www.krollandassociates.com May 22, 2026
Clovis Planning Commission
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California, 93612
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Consideration of the Infill Rezone Program Sites 595, 596, 597.

Chairman and Members of the Clovis Planning Commission:

I represent Kenneth Crawford, owner of proposed Infill Rezone sites 595, 596 and 597. We support the redesignation and rezoning of the subject sites as proposed by Clovis’ Planning and Development Services staff.

The Crawford family are longtime residents of the Clovis area and have owned portions of this site since 1985. They have maintained several rental houses there over the years and it has always been their desire to develop a quality independent senior residential village at this location. The proposed infill rezoning program recommended by staff will greatly assist in moving forward with this project.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission support staff’s recommendation in assigning R-4 (Very High Density Residential) Zoning to the subject sites.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 6:16 PM
To: Aaron La Mattina
Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT
date-1745483708617 = 2026-05-28
text-1745483711071 = Government Code Section 65759 GPA 2024-003 text-1745483712599 = Rob Rahal
text-1745483713055 =
textarea-1745483714111 = Concern here obviates a traffic pattern study. This may be included in the Environment Assessment, but is very important to the quality of life and potential increase in crime and potential need for Clovis Police and Sheriff patrol. Recommend that considerations for appropriate road widths and lanes be part of the assessment.

Client IP = 73.90.12.228

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 6:23 PM
To: Aaron La Mattina
Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT
date-1745483708617 = 2026-05-28
text-1745483711071 = R2024-002
text-1745483712599 = Rob Rahal
text-1745483713055 =
textarea-1745483714111 = Consideration for the Environmental Assessment. With the Master Plan to redesignate and develop High Density and Multifamily High Density dwelling units, the potential for crowding and increase in potential crime rates. The need for increased Clovis Police and Sheriff patrols may be necessary. Also the potential the the esthetics in the community would be compromised.

Client IP = 73.90.12.228

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 6:29 PM
To: Aaron La Mattina
Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT
date-1745483708617 = 2026-05-28
text-1745483711071 = Government Code Section 65759 GPA 2024-003 text-1745483712599 = Rob Rahal
text-1745483713055 =
textarea-1745483714111 = With the development of High Density Multifamily dwellings, what are the property tax implications. How will they be determined and by who. Also consider water usage for that many dwellings and whether or not the water levels could sustain that increase. There is also the upkeep of the common areas. That will be much more challenging. Thank you for your time.

Client IP = 73.90.12.228

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 8:23 PM
To: Aaron La Mattina
Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT
date-1745483708617 = 2026-05-28
text-1745483711071 = 3
text-1745483712599 = Ciarán Jones
text-1745483713055 =
textarea-1745483714111 = Subject: Opposition: Clovis Infill Rezone Program - Sites 197 and 157 Dear Mayor Mouanoutoua, Honorable Members of the Clovis City Council, Members of the Clovis Planning Commission, and Deputy City Planner Perez,I am writing on behalf of my parents, Gerard and Sarah Jones, owners and residents at Whiteash Ave ( ), to express their strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of Site 157 and Site 197. These sites, located in northeast Clovis at the corners of De Wolf and Owens Mountain Parkway, are being considered under the Infill Rezone Program for High-Density Residential use (R-3). This email was also submitted as public comment for the May 28th session of the Planning Commission, which we were unfortunately unable to attend.We strongly urge the Planning Commission to remove Sites 157 and 197 from the Infill Rezone Program site list. Barring this removal, we urge the City Council to reject any rezoning plan that includes these proposed changes in zoning.The proposed rezone represents a jarring departure from the established vision set forth in the City of Clovis General Plan. These sites were never designed, intended, or structurally situated to absorb R-3 multi-family residential densities. Shifting from the existing mixeduse village and very low-density residential usage is a drastic change well beyond anything accounted for in the surrounding neighborhood design.The existing street infrastructure surrounding Sites 157 and 197 is not designed for and is incapable of safely handling the massive influx of traffic generated by highdensity complexes. Intended primarily for low-density residential access, the local roads, intersections, and neighborhood streets are already constrained. In particular, the critical intersection at De Wolf and Owens Mountain Parkway is already heavily impacted. Upzoning these sites will trigger severe traffic congestion, peak-hour gridlock, and elevated safety risks for pedestrians and local cyclists. Dropping high-occupancy developments into an area lacking major arterial capacity is fundamentally irresponsible.Beyond these immediate traffic deficiencies, high-density zoning demands a robust network of supporting public infrastructure and nearby transit options. Placing R-3 zoning in this specific location will result in a massive increase to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), running in direct defiance to the intent of regional environmental goals and sustainable urban growth.Sincerely,Ciarán Jones On behalf of Gerard and Sarah Jones
Whiteash Ave, Clovis
Email:

Client IP = 68.254.250.171

1 McKencie Perez
From: Ciaran Jones < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 8:24 PM
To: McKencie Perez; Vong Mouanoutoua; Diane Pearce; Lynne Ashbeck; Matt Basgall; Drew Bessinger
Subject: Opposition: Clovis Infill Rezone Program - Sites 197 and 157 Dear Mayor Mouanoutoua, Honorable Members of the Clovis City Council, Members of the Clovis Planning Commission, and Deputy City Planner Perez,
I am writing on behalf of my parents, Gerard and Sarah Jones, owners and residents at Whiteash Ave ( ), to express their strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of Site 157 and Site 197. These sites, located in northeast Clovis at the corners of De Wolf and Owens Mountain Parkway, are being considered under the Infill Rezone Program for HighDensity Residential use (R-3). This email was also submitted as public comment for the May 28th session of the Planning Commission, which we were unfortunately unable to attend.

We strongly urge the Planning Commission to remove Sites 157 and 197 from the Infill Rezone Program site list. Barring this removal, we urge the City Council to reject any rezoning plan that includes these proposed changes in zoning.

The proposed rezone represents a jarring departure from the established vision set forth in the City of Clovis General Plan. These sites were never designed, intended, or structurally situated to absorb R3 multi-family residential densities. Shifting from the existing mixed-use village and very low-density residential usage is a drastic change well beyond anything accounted for in the surrounding neighborhood design.

The existing street infrastructure surrounding Sites 157 and 197 is not designed for and is incapable of safely handling the massive influx of traffic generated by high-density complexes. Intended primarily for low-density residential access, the local roads, intersections, and neighborhood streets are already constrained. In particular, the critical intersection at De Wolf and Owens Mountain Parkway is already heavily impacted. Upzoning these sites will trigger severe traffic congestion, peakhour gridlock, and elevated safety risks for pedestrians and local cyclists. Dropping high-occupancy developments into an area lacking major arterial capacity is fundamentally irresponsible.

Beyond these immediate traffic deficiencies, high-density zoning demands a robust network of supporting public infrastructure and nearby transit options. Placing R-3 zoning in this specific location will result in a massive increase to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), running in direct defiance to the intent of regional environmental goals and sustainable urban growth.

Sincerely,
Ciarán Jones
On behalf of Gerard and Sarah Jones
N. Whiteash Ave, Clovis
Email:

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 9:27 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Angela Collins Kismet
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Broadbent Ln
textarea-1755209560293 = I have serious concerns regarding a high density housing development being built at Owen's Mt. and DeWolf. This area cannot handle this type of development. Bud Rank Elementary cannot handle the additional students. Many of us purchased homes in this area for the low traffic and quiet neighborhood. Changes to this area will have many of us relocating.

Client IP = 50.147.117.18

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 11:53 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Emily Hunt
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Sample Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Just a quick question as I have not been part of this type of occurrence before. What happens with the homes that are in the infill rezone squares? Is the city at risk of not meeting the needs from the court ruling if those tenants decide not to sell? Client IP = 76.20.90.97

1 McKencie Perez
From: Grace Nelson < >
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 7:42 AM
To: Vong Mouanoutoua; Diane Pearce; Matt Basgall; Lynne Ashbeck; Drew Bessinger; McKencie Perez
Subject: Re: Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez v. City of Clovis) Court-Mandated Housing Program
Hello, All:

It was a great meeting on May 28, 2026. Thank you for all your efforts.

It seems clear that the rezoning will happen, but there's one topic I don't believe anyone brought up regarding the two lots located at De Wolf Ave. and Owens Mountain Parkway and that is to please consider building senior living above anything else, please.

Thank you for your attention, Grace Nelson.

On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 9:04 AM Grace Nelson < > wrote:

Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:

I have been made aware of the Infill Court Decision (Dez Martinez vs. City of Clovis) that may directly affect me and my community in Clovis, CA, and more specifically Harlan Ranch, which is directly across the street from the potential rezoning project(s). As part of this effort, the City of Clovis has identified 20 properties for potential rezoning to R-3 (medium-high density residential), with a few sites proposed as R-4:
•• Site 115: Approximately 7 acres located at the southwest corner of Harlan Ranch, proposed to be rezoned to R-3, allowing up to 30 units per acre and three-story apartment development. •• Additional nearby property: The northwest corner of Owens Mountain Parkway and DeWolf Avenue, immediately west of an existing home, is also proposed for R-3 zoning.

If this rezoning occurs, and the housing developments are built, it will greatly affect me and my community.

One option that has been discussed by me and other residents of Harlan Ranch is that any development at these sites be restricted to senior housing, which could help mitigate several potential impacts, including:
• Reduced traffic congestion
• No impact on local schools
• Lower demand on community amenities by non-residents
• Addressing the current shortage of senior housing in Clovis Please consider building senior housing, above anything else, in the above-described locations.

Thank you for your attention,
Concerned Clovis, CA, Resident, Grace Nelon ( )

1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:18 PM
To: Aaron La Mattina
Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT
date-1745483708617 = 2026-06-25
text-1745483711071 = June 25th agenda not yet posted
text-1745483712599 = Ankara Lee
text-1745483713055 =
textarea-1745483714111 = Regarding the low income housing plans for Owens Mountain Parkway in Clovis near Harlan Ranch
I understand the city is reacting to a lawsuit against Clovis for the lack of mixed housing throughout the city
However the longterm impacts of mixing low income housing in areas of Clovis where we want to keep decades of future home buyers coming and being able to sell properties at their highest value is important. The short term gain of placing low incoming housing in this area will only have longterm negative impacts that will never rebound from this decision. What areas of Clovis are left where homes will continue to bring in higher property taxes to fund all the other projects as minimum wage to fix city still increase.

The planned low income housing may have plans to look nice and modern but ptoential homebuys will be deterred by it. I know there is new developments going up and those properties will lend money to the city but Clovis residents are proud to live here. The people will lose hope in the city and those people who make improtant decisions because the people aren’t valued or heard.

Besides the quick resolution with negative outcomes - is there anything else that can be considered to keep high values to more homes (such as those in Harlan Ranch) and the spirit of the residents alive — where we want to care about how we treat our city and their neighbors? Pretty soon this city will look like Fresno and no one ever says they want to move or live in Fresno Can we possibly reserve this piece of land for senior citizen housing / community? Or small mom and pop stores (similar to Old Town Clovis) with housing located above the shops? I’m not too familiar with all the laws/etc - however are there any other avenues up for consideration? Thank you for your time in reading this and I hope that there is something else we can do with this area Client IP = 108.227.94.245

1 McKencie Perez
From: Rebecca Simonian
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:43 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Cc: Briana Parra
Subject: FW: Where do I start?
Good morning,
Please see the email below which should be included in your citizen comments for the July 6th meeting, for the Infill Rezone Program item.

Thank you,
Rebecca Simonian
Executive Assistant
Office: 559-324-2060
[email protected]
From: Alice Silverman < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 9:19 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Where do I start?
RE: Lot 72
We’ve lived on W Kenosha Ave for over 28 years. We remember when Willow and Nees were only 2 lanes and the corner of Willow and Nees was undeveloped. So we’ve seen a lot of change - mostly good. We’re writing to share some history about Lot 72 as rezoning it to R3 or R4 would be disastrous to our neighborhood.

Lot 72 originally had just one home on it. When the owner passed away, the spouse sold it to the current owner, orthodontist. He told us from the beginning that he wanted to build a family compound on the land and shared his plans with us as he wanted to build and orthodontist building that contains office space as well. He went on about how being across from the Buchanan Complex would bring him a lot of business - all those teeth to straighten. Well, here we are many years later and it doesn’t appear that the business is thriving at this location. He has several around the valley, we understand. Nor did the family compound ever get built.

In the meantime, we’ve had to contend with the parking lot noise, pop-up business on Saturdays, hour long clearing of the parking lot by the gardener using a handheld blower, smokers of all sorts (not just tobacco). A broken sprinkler on their side of the wall flooded our yard. We called the orthodontist office asking for help and were referred to the sprinkler installer whose business is up north and go no help.

Long story short, they expected us to deal with it and offered no help. We never heard from the owner and eventually we contacted the county for help. A drone was sent out to verify the problem. They reported back that yes there was indeed a rupture but they couldn’t help because the owner needed to deal with it. We had to turn off the sprinklers that were leaking and then their gardener turned them back on.

Eventually it was fixed. It only took about 2 months. (Mind you this is when water was being rationed). The

2 orthodontist building has not been well cared for either. The lettering on the signs are coming down, the building itself is in need of paint - rust is visible, there was a cracked window that faced the street for several months. Landscape is mediocre at best.

The most problematic issues are the weeds/trash and mosquito problem. I’ve enclosed some photos of the field/yard that butts up to our yard and our neighbors yard. Mind you, their fence is wood and would more than likely, burn fast if it were to catch fire. We’ve had to contact weed abatement and the owner waits until the very last day before he’s fined to take care of the issue. But the truth is he doesn’t take care of the issue - he does piece meal fixes. He mows down the weeds on Peach across from the school.

You know the stuff you can see. The renter of the home on the property mows his front “lawn” but not the rest of the yard that extends toward us. You’ll see what we’re mentioning in the photos. There is also a water valve (which is also in the photos) that leaks and so weeds continue to grow. Water pools which, you guessed it, grows mosquitoes. (Not sure this is owner’s problem or city problem to fix).

The renters of the home on the property are relatives of the orthodontist and are nice neighbors. They’ve had problems with school children and some adults, trying to take a shortcut through their front yard to Kenosha. This might be the reason why they’ve not cleared the area (to discourage them - since it’s a dangerous mess to traverse). There’s also a broken down chainlink fence that they erected (it was not properly installed - just propped up) and fell within a few weeks. So, what remains is a true mess. The weeds grow out on to Kenosha in front of our home. We’ve tried to clean it up but it’s a huge job. It would take tools we don’t have.

It is now June 3rd, the deadline passed to clean up the weeds. Yesterday the large field was disced but not the mess near us. The owner hasn’t been a good neighbor or corporate citizen and is now offering his 2 acres across from Garfield Elementary as property to develop into R3 or R4. His previous attempts to develop the land was met with stiff opposition by us, the homeowners. We are an established neighborhood. We deserve to be able to continue with the same and we need your help.