3
4
5
6
7
8
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 3:24 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Claudia Aghoian
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = El Paso Ave., Clovis, CA 93611
textarea-1755209560293 = I am very concerned about the impact of this dense and low income housing on our schools that are already at capacity within the tight city limits. I value the high caliber public education Clovis offers and do not want to see that diluted due to overcrowding. In addition, I am concerned about the impact on traffic and pollution to our community. Since I am a home owner directly affected by this proposal, I am concerned about the type of housing, number of residences in the proposed housing and how this will affect my property value. I would appreciate further information about the use of these proposed parcels. I plan to attend the meeting June 23, 2026.
Client IP = 146.75.136.138
1 McKencie Perez
From: Suzan Blair < >
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:45 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: City Infill Rezone Program DeWolf and Owen’s Mt Rd I strongly oppose this project. The traffic is already heavy at peak times on Owen’s Mt. We purchased this property due to its peacefulness and quiet neighborhood. We have been here just over seven years, and were told no high density housing/apartments would be built. The lack of crosswalks already puts children at risk. Is a new school going to be built? I can’t imagine Bud Rank being able to accommodate the children in the high density housing. I am unable to attend June 23, but strongly voice my opposition.
Suzan. Blair
Trenton Avenue
Clovis CA 93619
Suzan
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 6:49 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Scott Beckman
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Graybark Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = High density housing where there are no services for them. Not a bright idea.
Small business and coffee shops a must. Would serve people enabling goals for master plan living. What ever happened to those goals???
Client IP = 108.71.99.67
1 McKencie Perez
From: Susan Colby < >
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2026 8:27 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Parcel 108
Hello,
We are very opposed to the Infill Rezone Program in parcel 108. It is a small “L” shaped parcel of land, surrounded by banks, dental office and other professional buildings. Behind this property are homes in a very quiet establishment neighborhood with most residents being senior citizens. This parcel would need access on Clovis Ave, which is already over congested. Furthermore, across Clovis Ave you have approved 3 car dealerships, restaurants, etc which has already started building.
One cannot even image the traffic issues that will be caused with that. Already people cut through the quiet neighborhood to avoid the lights and traffic on Clovis Ave.
Please DO NOT APPROVE this parcel of land for this project.
Thank you,
Susan Colby
N Hughes
Clovis, CA
1 McKencie Perez
From: Rob < >
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2026 2:36 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Property Owner informational Meeting Regarding The City's Infill Rezone Program Good afternoon McKencie Perez, MPA, Deputy City Planner, I'm not sure if I'll be able to make the meeting due to some health care concerns, but have a few questions and comments to pass on, if that is acceptable.
1. If I understand the Martinez v. City of Clovis court judgement correctly, the plaintiff is directing the City of Clovis to offer more "low-cost" housing to residents of the Central Valley, or those that may want to move here. The judgement directs the City of Clovis to conduct a search to contract with builders such as Wilson Homes to develop such housing to the tune of 1284 units. Rezoning to higher density means that there will be more units per zone at a lower cost to potential buyers. Is that about the long and the short of it? If so, what power do the current area owners have to interrupt that progress? Is this a meeting to satisfy a requirement? I'm interested in making sure I'm understanding the situation. Appreciate any feedback on that.
2. Being a retired military member and Veteran, I do have a few concerns, if this is the situation. • Most of the residents of this area have worked hard and had to save to purchase a more expensive house. Bringing in lower-income housing would negatively impact that proposition. • It appears that Wilson Homes and other builders are already breaking ground to build units.
Are these the Very High Density dwellings you speak about in your notice? If this is the case, what are the options to curtail this development.
• I sent a previous note as a precursor to the previous meeting on May 28, 2026, but I'd like to reiterate that there should be some traffic evaluation and preparation prior to any development of new housing, be it low-income or regular developments prior to the work starting. I was stationed in San Antonio when new developments both residential and commercial were built around Lackland Air Force Base. This caused a lot of gridlock and caused the city to conduct reactive road widening and building after the fact. As you can imagine, this caused grief and traffic backups.
• Another concern is that when you increase the population in areas and, with all due respect, include low-income or as you refer to as Very High Density housing, the crime rate will increase. This will put a stress on the Clovis Police and Sheriff's Departments. Are they or will they be ready to withstand additional work patrols and potentially more crime in the area. Many of residents have settled here to get away from the high crime rate in other areas in the Central Valley.
I'm sure other residents have concerns as well. For the above and other reasons, I respectfully request that this court order be reevaluated to take the current residents in the area into consideration. Thank you for your time. Take care.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Rahal, MPA, LFACHE
Concerned Veteran
2 N. Whiteash Ave.
Clovis, CA
"For Leaders Who Care"
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 12:38 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 93619 textarea-1755209560293 = Water availability is of the utmost concern with this proposed high-density rezone program. Any influx of users and consumers, whether they are on city water or on wells, will adversely impact the already depleted water table in this and surrounding areas.
Can the council please make an appeal to the administrators of the state housing requirements and of the court order, emphasizing the detrimental results of adding such a high-density population to the area? We are running out of water. Please, put an end to this.
Thank you.
Client IP = 146.75.136.66
1 McKencie Perez
From: Alma O'Neal < >
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 12:40 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Clovis Infill Rezone Program
Dear Ms. Perez,
Water availability is of the utmost concern with this proposed high-density rezone program. Any influx of users and consumers, whether they are on city water or on wells, will adversely impact the already depleted water table in this and surrounding areas.
Can the council please make an appeal to the administrators of the state housing requirements and of the court order, emphasizing the detrimental results of adding such a high-density population to the area? We are running out of water. Please, put an end to this.
Thank you.
Ingrid O’Neal
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 4:37 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Richard Clymore
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = W Muncie Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Did the City of Clovis put forth any effort in fighting this Martinez vs City of Clovis court judgement, or did you just roll over. Your proposal to put a 72 unit across from the Buchanan Complex is ignorant at best. In addition, has a study been done to determine by how much that is going to decrease the price of our homes in the development behind the proposed development? We didn’t purchase our homes to be forced to have a low income development built next door. Also, traffic, which is already a problem in the morning and afternoon, is going to be much worse. I’m quite sure the neither the City Planner nor members of the City Council would appreciate the development placed in your neighborhood. Finally, since we are being forced into having this low-income apartment complex in our neighborhood, is the City of Clovis going to compensate us for the loss in value of our homes? Client IP = 67.174.54.214
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 7:04 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Erin Crowe
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N Hughes Ave., Clovis, CA 93612
textarea-1755209560293 = Hello,
We are very opposed to the Infill Rezone Program in parcel 108. It is a small “L” shaped parcel of land, surrounded by banks, dental office and other professional buildings. Behind this property are homes in a very quiet establishment neighborhood with most residents being senior citizens. This parcel would need access on Clovis Ave, which is already over congested. Furthermore, across Clovis Ave you have approved 3 car dealerships, restaurants, etc which has already started building. One cannot even image the traffic issues that will be caused with that. Already people cut through the quiet neighborhood to avoid the lights and traffic on Clovis Ave.
Please DO NOT APPROVE this parcel of land for this project.
Thank you,
Client IP = 146.75.136.0
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 9:25 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Chris Kalashian
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = W Vermont Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = This is concerning the parcel across the street from Garfield on Peach Avenue. I am asking for the city to reconsider this parcel as part of the rezone project. As the city has grown north, Peach Avenue has become much busier. More and more people are using it from Shepherd as opposed to using Minnewawa or Willow. When school is in session, this only amplifies the traffic.
Must the city now add hundreds of people to this corner who will cause even more traffic and crowd an every growing area? Aren't there better places for this? Why add more people next to a school where cars are already an issue during the commuting hours and children are walking, biking, etc? In looking at the other parcels on this map, I don't see the surrounding area being impacted as much by the addition of hundreds of people and who knows how many additional vehicles. In addition to this, Fresno has changed the entire everyday life in this area by adding enormous apartment complexes all along Willow.
This little area has disproportionately been impacted by the addition of many, many, multi unit developments in recent years and the impact on driving, parking, crowding, etc cannot be overstated.
Will the city please reconsider adding another massive amount if people to an area that has already been impacted so greatly in recent years?
Client IP = 50.168.40.111
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 3:01 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Tammy Vestal
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Oak Creek Road
textarea-1755209560293 = My property is 235 W Rialto and is adjacent to lot 110. I was wondering if I could get my lot rezoned? If at all possible? Any information would be appreciated. Thank You Client IP = 140.248.20.66
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 7:54 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Kayleigh Moranda
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N. Graybark Ave.
textarea-1755209560293 = Hello,
As a homeowner in the area I have deep concerns regarding this project. I have written into the city of Columbus many times regarding how fast people are driving down Quincy Avenue. It is a huge hazard two children inside a neighborhood when people are driving 35+ miles an hour in a neighborhood street because they are using it as a cut off because the city does not have any streets that are more accessible to get from Dewolf to Locan closer to the 168. The traffic down, Quincy remains dangerous and has not changed since many of my writings. Putting even more people in a complex right there would make traffic even worse unless the city does something about the roads. Also, there is nothing accessible out here, so it would be difficult for people who are living in these apartments or in a low income area to access shopping, food, jobs, especially if they are lacking transportation, being all the way out here. This location does a disservice to them if they lack transportation. My largest concern however is the danger on Quincy and this project will just make this far worse.
Client IP = 108.71.98.181
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 7:56 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Kayleigh Moranda
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N. Graybark Ave.
textarea-1755209560293 = I forgot to mention in my prior submission that Dewolf is not set up for this type of traffic considering it is one lane each way as is Owens Mountain Parkway. This project would require significant road work and if not done, would cause major traffic issues on these roads as they are already plugged in the morning without more homes/apartments.
Client IP = 108.71.98.181
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 12:50 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = David Rete
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = E Alluvial Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Not in favor of proposed sites. Water issues, crime issues and traffic issues are my concerns.
Client IP = 74.253.6.64
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 1:00 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Shirley Peracchi
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Tollhouse Rd. Clovis. Ca. 93719
textarea-1755209560293 = I oppose the building of low income housing and apartments. This will cause more congestion, noise and crime. What will happen to our wells. There is not enough water for all that building. This is country!
Client IP = 12.75.225.47
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:13 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Ross Miller
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Sunnyside Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = I'm concerned with a few elements of this plan:
1. What efforts were taken to ensure that the infill projects do not create an inequitable burden on low/lower income neighborhoods?
2. Will traffic studies be conducted for sites prior to development?
3. What will be done to ensure that noise and construction do not cause significant impacts to neighbors? The City recently repaved Sunnyside in the vicinity of three of the parcels that are being rezoned, which included vibrating drum rollers operating attachment to many houses between midnight and 5 AM
Client IP = 174.227.178.170
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 5:44 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Tyler Stjerne
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N MAINE AVENUE
textarea-1755209560293 = City Council & Planning Members Constituents, I respectfully do not support the 2026 infill project that would get us "The City of Clovis" in compliance with the court judgement of Martinez v. City of Clovis. *A yes vote does more than kick the can down the road appeasing a court mandate.
My wife, son & I moved to our Harlan Creek neighborhood for the "Clovis way of Life" and enjoy the opportunity to live in a quiet low density neighborhood almost four years ago.
My now 6 year old loves to ride his bike and we happily go to our neighborhood park "always using the crosswalk" as much as possible. He is the highest priority for my wife and I.
I'm concerned for his safety as well as all of all our neighborhood kids, runners & walkers as the infill project brings potentially hundreds of additional cars daily through our 25mph neighborhood streets when they weren't designed for that capacity. We already experience excessive speeding as surrounding master planned communities use the streets of Quincy, Richmond & Salem as cut throughs to get from DeWolf to Locan or the inverse. It was eleven years ago my wife and I lost our first born son who is buried at the Academy Cemetery nearby and his loss amplifies the fear of loosing another child or neighbor.
Again specifically speaking to site #197 within my "Very Low Density Residential" neighborhood rezoning would bring additional traffic through our residential 25mph street that includes a crosswalk midway for a pedestrian parkway path said street narrows to 24' from curb-to-curb. Prior to my family moving in some neighborhood advocates have been trying to ask the city to either reduce the speed limit, put in speed bumps or patrol the area to avoid a car vs pedestrian fatality. I don't believe a 24' width residential two way street is to code in a neighborhood. Referencing city code 9.66.090 Circulation standards I see 26' as the minimum. If aware of this specific concern and or issue & you pass this rezoning allowing more residential development resulting to higher traffic through this choke-point and some is seriously hurt or killed it would be lifechanging for everyone involved.
Other parcel sites that are proposed for this infill rezoning have similar traffic concerns as our current planning and development was designed many years ago for the existing zoning. Site #157 could additionally bring near two times the traffic through our streets on top of the hundreds from #197. This safety concern is my primary objection. Please vote no or at least help us slow the speeding cars down that blaze through our neighborhood.
Tyler Stjerne
Client IP = 12.7.53.218
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2026 6:26 AM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Crystal
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = Soledad Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = Zone 115 poses future traffic issues and disturbance in an otherwise quiet neighborhood. The placement of multi-family units in that space, even if planned to regulation standards it’s not the ideal place for multi family units. Zone 590 is the better option of the 2. Please reconsider the fact that Leonard is narrow, and is not able to accommodate the influx of traffic. As well as, the fact of inconvenience as a renter. I myself would prefer to live somewhere less compact and easier to get in and out of having to drive to work or the store everyday.
Client IP = 104.56.39.181
1 McKencie Perez
From: Jason Horg < >
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2026 7:27 PM
To: Vong Mouanoutoua; Diane Pearce; Lynne Ashbeck; Matt Basgall; Drew Bessinger Cc: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill Rezone Program and July 6th Public Hearing Dear Mayor, Clovis City Council, and Deputy City Planner, I hope this email finds you all doing well. I have been meaning to reach out the past several weeks, but like many in the area we live in, I am a busy professional and parent. I wished to take more time with this, but hopefully it will cover the pertinent issues. This email is in regards to the Infill Rezone Program and specifically the lots chosen by Harlan Ranch and Dry Creek area. We own a home within 800 feet of the property being proposed for the project so we were notified, and have attended a few of the Clovis Planning Department meetings, where I spoke at one.
The first issue I would like to point out is the recent Clovis Unified Boundary fight we went through just a year or two ago. Our neighborhood, Wilson Windsor, which is by the Diamond Crest community encompassing the area between 168 and Teague, and De Wolf and Locan. We were in the middle of that battle and in the end we were able to show good reason why our area is already highly impacted, look at Dry Creek Elementary enrollment alone, and the high traffic and congestion issues already present. I will admit, I was skeptical that Clovis Unified was truly looking for parent feedback and suggestions in the process and meetings, and would actually use our feedback. I suggested a plan using the data, and the fact that Clovis Unified is going through the same aging in place issues NW Fresno went through years ago, meaning the children move on after school, but the parents stay, so no new children to feed into the school. This is now happening at Clovis High, Clovis West and Buchanan. My suggestion was to fill those elementary schools with declining enrollments, such as Garfield, by bumping the lines down a few streets for everyone to balance out the numbers. Much better than having to build new schools. Norm Anderson actually reached out and let me know mine, along with a few other similar plans, were actually used in the final draft. I was shocked and impressed that they held to their word and truly were listening to us.
Our area is isolated, with the only nearby basic few restaurants and the only gas station, which is small and very high priced, is on Temperance. There is also no road that runs East to West from our area except for Shepherd, which is only one lane heading in the western direction. Otherwise you have to use Nees, but to get to Nees you have to go through one of our neighborhoods. We already have a ridiculous amount of traffic through our neighborhoods on small residential and country single lane roads now, can't imagine an increase. Clovis Unified had this studied and agreed with the traffic flowing through the neighborhood being an issue. Again, if this was all true then, only a year or two ago, it is absolutely still true now. I don't see how this was ignored or not communicated in light of the lots chosen for the infill.
If our neighbor, Susan Thompson, who spoke also at one of the meetings, was at all accurate with her figures, then that would mean 250-350ish of the 1300 new residents would be filled into our tiny area. This seems to be an onerous and unfairly heavy burden to be placed on any one location, especially one as isolated and unconducive as ours. That would mean 20-25% would be in our two proposed lots!!! De Wolf in that area is a tiny one lane each direction road with a median, and a three way stop on the corner. I wanted to include pictures to show you how tight and dangerous that stretch
2 already is. Also, if you look at the entire stretch of Harlan Ranch in its southern area, they are mostly high density housing already. These are the small lot homes stacked next to the proposed lots. I would say we already have quite a bit of high density housing in our area as it is. Also, going back to the boundary fight, if they saw how impacted the schools were then, how in the world could they place another 300 families in this area. Let's say that is an average of one child per household, which is low by national standards, that would be 300 new students!! Let's say it is half that, 150 new students!! Our children were almost forced to move to new schools and we own homes here, but they want to cause a major injection of new students?
I think the most troubling thing is how the planning division has conducted itself so far. What we witnessed at that meeting was the opposite of what we experienced with Clovis Unified. They told us at that meeting that when given the mandate to identify and study these lots, that they did not look for any contingency or alternatives in case one of them did not work. That is either lazy or very intentional, making sure they could force it upon us, which is exactly what happened during the vote that night. I could only imagine if I was tasked with something and provided no contingency or alternative spaces. In business, you get fired or sued for such behavior. They work for us taxpayers, and I would imagine would have to abide by some kind of prudent man or fiduciary capacity. After letting us speak, only one planning division member dissented on the vote to change the zoning. He was very disturbed by what he had heard from all of us as Clovis residents, but the rest of them just rammed through the vote, changing the only lots in our area zoned for commercial or retail, leaving us no chance of having any much needed services in our area. I was disgusted by what I saw that night.
A much more suitable location would be in new construction like over by Clovis Ave and Shepherd, by Willow, or in all of the vast growth area in SE Clovis. Our area is so isolated that ather would be now services or transportation available out here either. I think the planning division, and the council, need to remember that we are the taxpayers that make all of this possible, and we have rights as well, and I am hoping that the city will fight for us just as hard.. Hearing that attorney that won the case against Clovis in her news clips is so blatantly racist, "these are areas that are upper middle class, and mostly white". I have never been so offended, what are other races that aren't white not capable of being upper middle class. I think it is time for people to stand and be counted. If this city starts to fold now to pressure or groups, I can tell you first hand from what I have heard from so many friends and neighbors, they will not just move, but leave the state. Once all of those heavy taxpayers leave, then Clovis will start to feel it.
One alternative idea for the space, if it has to be high density, would be a retirement home. This area is quiet, and I don't know of any in the area. It would keep the traffic down, and not add to the issue with school capacity by adding more students. Also, there is a freeway right there with access to Clovis Community right down the road, and the others easily accessible with 168. Plus plenty of doctors and medical groups nearby. You wouldn't have to worry about a grocery store or similar services or stores being nearby, since most of those provide food in house. I think that would be a much smarter fit. Just a thought.
I will be on vacation like most people for the July 6th meeting. I cannot say I agree with that being the date chosen given it is the Monday after the 4th of July weekend, meaning many people will most likely be unable to attend. I hate to be cynical, but it seems intentional to me.
I know this is a very long email, but a very important and informational one as well, so I hope you can find the time to read it in its entirety. Thank you so much for what you do, and your time and attention to this matter.
3 Sincerely,
Jason Horg
1 McKencie Perez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:38 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Planning Infill Rezone Program Form - contact us text-1755209425252 = Terry Maldonado
text-1755209464120 =
text-1755209498255 = N. Bush Ave
textarea-1755209560293 = I could not find specific information on the details regarding R-3 zoning.
Assuming it’s apartments but how many and how many stories is proposed? I’m also assuming the decisions have been made and they are final?
Client IP = 73.151.54.177
Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Administration
Date: July 6, 2026
Staff: Briana Parra, City Clerk
Subject: Consider Adoption – Ord. 26-05, An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the County of Fresno to enforce its infectious materials ordinance within the City; and adding Chapter 8.19 to Title 8 of the Clovis Municipal Code to adopt by reference the County’s ordinance to monitor and inspect privately funded laboratories within the City and to delegate enforcement authority to the County. (Vote: 4-0-1 with Mayor Mouanoutoua absent)
Recommendation: Adopt
Attachments: None
This item was approved for introduction with less than a unanimous vote on June 15, 2026.
Please direct questions to the City Manager’s office at 559-324-2060.