City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-12
Air Quality Management Plans
As required by the federal CAA and the CCAA, air basins or portions thereof have been classified as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on if the standards have been achieved. Jurisdictions of nonattainment areas also are required to prepare an air quality management plan that includes strategies for achieving attainment. The SJVAPCD has approved management plans demonstrating how the SJVAB would reach attainment with the federal onehour and eight-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.
OZONE ATTAINMENT PLANS
The SJVAPCD’s ozone attainment plans set forth measures and emission reduction strategies designed to achieve attainment with ozone one-hour and eight-hour standards. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard in June 2020. This plan satisfies CAA requirements and ensures expeditious attainment of the 70 parts per billion eight-hour standard.20 The SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard on December 15, 2022.
This plan uses extensive science and research, state of the art air quality modeling, and the best available information in developing a strategy to attain the federal 2015 NAAQS for ozone of 70 parts per billion (ppb) as expeditiously as practicable. Building on decades of developing and implementing effective air pollution control strategies, this plan demonstrates that the reductions being achieved by the SJVAPCD and CARB strategy (72 percent reduction in NOX emissions by 2037) ensures expeditious attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by the 2037 attainment deadline.
21 The SJVAPCD adopted the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1- Hour Ozone Standard on June 15, 2023. This maintenance plan demonstrates SJVAPCD’s consistency with all five criteria of Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA to terminate all anti-backsliding provisions for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard, including Section 185 nonattainment fees. This Maintenance Plan also includes a demonstration that would ensure the area remains in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS through 2036. Therefore, the SJVAPCD is requesting to be redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and requesting termination of all anti-backsliding obligations.22 As required by the federal and California CAAs, the SJVAB or portions thereof have been classified as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the standards have been achieved. Jurisdictions of nonattainment areas also are required to prepare an air quality management plan (AQMP) that includes strategies for achieving attainment. The SJVAPCD has approved an AQMPs demonstrating how the SJVAB will reach attainment with the federal and State ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
20 SJVAPCD. 2020. 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Adopted June 18, 2020. Accessible at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/3xrdxpvl/2020-ract-demonstration.pdf 21 SJVAPCD. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Adopted December 15, 2022. Accessible at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/0zdlenk3/04-proposed-2022-plan-for-the-2015-8-hour-ozone-standard.pdf 22 SJVAPCD. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. Adopted June 15, 2023.
Accessible at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03-adopted-2023-maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-therevoked-1-hour-ozone-standard.pdf
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-13
PARTICULATE MATTER ATTAINMENT PLANS
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2024 PM2.5 Plan in June 2024 to fulfill CAA requirements mandated under the EPA 2012 particulate annual standards and to demonstrate attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 standard by 2030 (SJVAPCD 2024). The 2024 PM2.5 Plan includes a control strategy to reduce PM2.5 emissions by 10.8 tons per day and NOx by 148.7 tons per day between 2017 and 2030, through the implementation of adopted SJVAPCD and CARB regulations, in addition to reductions to be achieved through new regulatory and incentive-based commitments for stationary, area, and mobile sources. c. Local Regulations
City of Clovis General Plan
The City General Plan Air Quality Element includes the following applicable goals and policies related to air quality:
Goal 1: A local environment that is protected from air pollution and emissions.
Policy 1.1. Land use and transportation. Reduce greenhouse gas and other local pollutant emissions through mixed use and transit-oriented development and well-designed transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems.
Policy 1.2. Sensitive Land Uses. Prohibit, without sufficient mitigation, the future siting of sensitive land uses within the distances of emission sources as defined by the California Air Resources Board.
Policy 1.3. Construction activities. Encourage the use of best management practices during construction activities to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants as outlined by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
Policy 1.6. Alternative fuel infrastructure. Encourage public and private activity and employment centers to incorporate electric charging and alternative fuel stations.
Policy 1.8. Trees. Maintain or plant trees where appropriate to provide shade, absorb carbon, improve oxygenation, slow stormwater runoff, and reduce the heat island effect.
Goal 2: A region with healthy air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 2.1. Regional coordination. Support regional efforts to reduce air pollution (criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions) and collaborate with other agencies to improve air quality at the emission source and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 2.6. Innovative mitigation. Encourage innovative mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-14
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
This analysis uses the guidance and methodologies recommended in the SJVAPCD’s 2015 Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) to determine whether air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project would have a significant impact.
Construction
Construction-related emissions are temporary but may still cause adverse air quality impacts.
Construction of development associated with the project would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances. At this time, there is not sufficient detail to allow project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts.
Rather, construction impacts for the project are discussed qualitatively and emissions are not compared to project-level thresholds.
Operational
The methodology for determining the significance of air quality impacts consists of quantifying operational emissions from development facilitated by the proposed project, then comparing emissions estimates to applicable thresholds, as described above. Criteria pollutant emissions for project operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or userdefined inputs. Specifically, CalEEMod incorporates SJVAPCD Rule 4601, which establishes restrictions on ROG content in architectural coatings, and the latest approved Emission Factor (EMFAC) model. The input data and subsequent operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix A and Appendix B. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibition was also incorporated into the modeling.
Operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project were modeled in CalEEMod.
Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of 1,303 residential units, as a conservative estimate, project emissions represent the maximum potential increase in the number of residential units by 1,651 units as described in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description.
In CalEEMod, operational sources of criteria pollutant emissions include area, energy, and mobile sources. Area emissions were based on CalEEMod defaults for each land use type. Modeling for electricity, water, and wastewater use were based on CalEEMod defaults. Mobile source emissions consist of emissions generated by vehicles to and from the Infill Rezone Program sites proposed
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-15
under the proposed project. Residential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was derived from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson and used to estimate mobile source emissions.
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)
The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not provide guidance applicable to plans. However, the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes significance criteria for evaluating construction and operational emissions associated with individual projects. The SJVAPCD recommends the use of quantitative thresholds to determine if a project would significantly contribute to a nonattainment designation for criteria pollutants based on project emissions. Therefore, this analysis conservatively applies the thresholds shown in Table 4.2-4 to land use developments facilitated by the proposed project for operational emissions.
Table 4.2-4 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant NOX ROG PM10 PM2.5 SOX CO
Thresholds (tons per year) 10 10 15 15 27 100
NOX= nitrogen oxides; ROG = reactive organic gases; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOx = sulfur oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2015 In addition to the annual thresholds outlined above for regional compliance, the SJVAPCD has published the Ambient Air Quality Analysis Project Daily Emissions Assessment guidance, which is summarized in Section 8.4.2, Ambient Air Quality Screening Tools, of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, adopted in March 2015. The Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) prepared by the SJVAPCD determined if localized emissions of criteria pollutants will exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS and therefore result in significant localized impacts. The Ambient Air Quality Screening Tools guidance provides a screening threshold of 100 pounds (lbs) per day for NOX, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide to inform localized significance impacts. The SJVAPCD recommends an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project activities exceed the 100 lbs per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures. For any analysis that results in a pollutant that exceeds this screening threshold, an AAQA should be conducted following District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increases from a project’s construction or operational activities would, in combination with background concentrations, cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality. If modeled concentrations combined with background concentrations would result in an exceedance of a NAAQS or CAAQS, then District Rule 2201 requires that the maximum modeled concentration of each
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-16
pollutant be compared to its corresponding Significant Impact Level (SIL). A SIL is a concentration threshold used to determine whether a proposed source’s emissions will have a significant impact on air quality in an area regardless of NAAQS or CAAQS exceedances. If modeled concentrations do not exceed the SIL, then the project would not result in a violation of ambient air quality standards.23 Because this EA is a programmatic document, an accurate AAQA analysis beyond the screening level analysis is not feasible. Therefore, for the purposes of the analysis, the 100 lbs per day screening level is used to determine if there would be an air quality impact for operational emissions.
At this time, reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the proposed project do not yet have sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) to allow for project-level construction analysis given the programmatic nature of the plan and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts for comparison with SJVAPCD’s project-level significance thresholds outlined under Significance Thresholds. Therefore, a more qualitative approach to characterizing construction air quality impacts has been employed for this analysis.
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal 5th 502
A 2018 Supreme Court of California decision, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, held that an EIR must reflect “a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between” and the estimated amount of a given pollutant the project will produce and the health impacts associated with that pollutant. Further, the EIR must show a “reasonable effort to put into a meaningful context” the conclusion that the project will cause a significant air quality impact. Although CEQA does not mandate an in-depth health risk assessment, CEQA does require an EIR to adequately explain either (a) how “bare [emissions] numbers” translate to or create potential adverse health impacts; or (b) what the agency does know, and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential health impacts further.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case, the SCAQMD – which has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State – indicated that quantifying specific health risks that may result from ozone precursors and other air pollutants from individual development projects (like those that would result from the proposed project) would be unreliable and misleading due to the relatively small-scale of these individual projects (from a regional perspective), unknown variables related to pollutant generation/release and receptor exposure, and regional model limitations. Accordingly, current scientific, technological, and modeling limitations prevent accurate and quantifiable relation of the proposed project’s VOC emissions (and other air pollutant emissions) to likely health consequences for local and regional receptors.
23 SIL’s are available in SJVAPCD’s APR 1235 Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling guidance document.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-17
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the regional air quality management plan?
Impact AQ-1 CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2022 OZONE PLAN AND 2024 PM2.5 PLAN EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN (GP) EIR MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) 3-1. IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
Development facilitated by the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants including ozone precursors, such as ROG and NOX, as well as particulate matter. The SJVAPCD has prepared several air quality attainment plans to achieve ozone and particulate matter standards, the most recent of which include the 2022 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, and 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard. The SJVAB is in attainment for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead, and there are no attainment plans for those pollutants.
Per the GAMAQI, the SJVAPCD has determined that projects with emissions above the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would conflict with/obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plan (SJVAPCD 2015). As discussed under Impact AQ-2, project construction would potentially exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with Policy 1.1 of the City’s General Plan Air Quality Element, which encourages transit-oriented development; Policy 1.2, which prohibits the siting of sensitive land uses within distances of emission sources defined by CARB; Policy 1.3, which encourages the use of the SJVAPCD construction best management practices (BMPs); Policy 1.6, which encourages incorporation of electric charging and alternative fuel stations; and Policy 1.8, which encourages the maintenance or planting of trees.
As discussed in the 2022 Ozone Plan and the 2024 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVAPCD adopted rules (shown in Table 4.2-5 as part of its control strategy to reduce NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions).
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-18
Table 4.2-5 SJVAPCD Rules
District Rule
Number District Rule
Adopted Regulations
4103 Improved Public Transit
4308 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 0.075 to <2 MMBtu/hr 4311 Flares
4306/4320 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters >5 MMBtu/hr 4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces
4601 Architectural Coatings
4702 Internal Combustion Engines
4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters
4902 Residential Water Heaters
1905 Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction
9510 Indirect Source Review
9610 State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated Through Incentive Programs New Regulatory and Incentive-Based Commitments
4550 Conservation Management Practices
4901 Residential Wood Burning
– Fireplace and Woodstove Change-Out Program
– Low-Dust Nut Harvester Replacement Program
Source: SJVAPCD 2022
The proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan and 2024 PM2.5 Plan and would be required to comply with the applicable SJVAPCD rules. Specifically, individual projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with Rule 4601, which limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings; Rule 4901, which enforces stringent curtailment requirements for wood burning fireplaces and heaters during wood-burning season; Rule 4902, which enforces NOX emissions for natural gas-fired residential water heaters; and Rule 9510, which encourages incorporation of clean air design to individual projects to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during construction and operation.
As shown under Impact AQ-2, development facilitated by the proposed project is anticipated to exceed the project-level construction significance thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.
Implementation of SJVAPCD rules would not be sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Ozone Plan and 2024 PM2.5 Plan as an exceedance of project-level significance thresholds reflects inconsistency with the plans because the thresholds were designed to reach attainment in the SJVAB. Therefore, because emissions from development facilitated by the proposed project would potentially exceed SJVAPCD project-level thresholds, the proposed project would not be consistent SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Future discretionary development projects under the proposed project shall implement GP EIR MM 3-1. Implementation of this measure would reduce emissions of NOx and particulate matter from development facilitated by the proposed project. However, it is unknown at this time if such mitigation would be sufficient to reduce ozone precursor and
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-19
particulate matter emissions to below applicable SJVAPCD thresholds. An exceedance of SJVAPCD project-level significance thresholds would conservatively reflect inconsistency with the 2022 Ozone Plan and 2024 PM2.5 Plan. The proposed project would therefore be inconsistent with applicable air quality plans, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, even with implementation of this MM, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
GP EIR MM 3-1
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the City of Clovis Planning Division a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts.
If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds of significance, as identified in the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), the City of Clovis Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3, Tier 4, or more stringent emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite, which shall be available for City review upon request. Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
Use of alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment, if available and feasible.
Clearly posted signs that require operators of trucks and construction equipment to minimize idling time (e.g., 5-minute maximum).
Preparation and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan that may include the following measures:
Disturbed areas (including storage piles) that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover (e.g., revegetated). Onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
Land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
Material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained when materials are transported offsite.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-20
Operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.). Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable. Enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The VERA shall identify the amount of emissions to be reduced, in addition to the amount of funds to be paid by the project applicant to the SJVAPCD to implement emission reduction projects required for the project.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Plan region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQ-2 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT ON A NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PLAN REGION IS NONATTAINMENT EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF GP EIR MM 3-1. OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
WOULD NOT RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR
WHICH THE PLAN REGION IS NONATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD AND IMPACTS RELATED TO OPERATION WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction
Construction facilitated by the proposed project would result in temporary emissions of various air pollutants. Ozone precursors NOX and carbon monoxide would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, while fugitive dust (PM10, and PM2.5) would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building construction. The extent of emissions, particularly ROG and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each individual project associated with buildout of the proposed project. PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-21
transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. The extent of VOC emissions would primarily depend on the square footage of buildings being painted and asphalt surfaces being paved each day. SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibition, further stipulates that property owners, contractors, developers, equipment operators, farmers, and public agencies employ fugitive dust control measures to minimize emissions from outdoor fugitive dust sources. These fugitive dust control measures are recommended for all projects.
24 As discussed in Methodology, the SJVAPCD has not established plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions. At this time, reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the proposed project do not have sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) to allow for project-level analysis given the programmatic nature of the plan and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Therefore, a more qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.
Construction activities would occur on 20 Infill Rezone Program sites identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. Proposed development on the sites would be subject to compliance with applicable SJVAPCD rules described under Section 4.2.2, Regulatory Setting, including Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4002 (Asbestos Requirements), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities), and Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Compliance with these rules would reduce construction emissions of air quality criteria pollutants such as PM10, VOC, fugitive dust, and NOx. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Policy 1.3 from the City of Clovis General Plan Air Quality Element which encourages the use of SJVAPCD construction BMPs to further reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. Nonetheless, even with adherence to regional and local regulations, construction could still potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants from exceeding SJVAPCD thresholds and this impact would be potentially significant. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to implement the City’s GP EIR MM 3-1. Implementation of GP EIR MM 3-1 would reduce construction emissions, but the extent to which reductions would occur is unknown. It is speculative to determine whether project-level emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project would be reduced below the SJVAPCD project-level significance thresholds because the nature and intensity of future projects are not known at this time. Therefore, construction-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Operation
Emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project would result in operational emissions from buildout of the 20 individual Infill Rezone Program sites. In addition, the SJVAPCD has established Rule 4601, which reduces ROG emissions from architectural coating activities. Table 4.2-6 shows the growth in operational emissions associated with the proposed project. As shown, development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in emissions exceeding SJVAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. 24 SJVAPCD. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015. Accessible at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-22
Table 4.2-6 Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (tons/year)
Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1 3 26 <1 11 3
Area 7 <1 8 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Total 8 5 35 <1 11 3
SJVAPCD Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX= nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
See Appendix A for summaries and CalEEMod results.
Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Most of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites are located within one mile of a bus stop, with the exception of Sites 157, 197, and 592, which are located within two miles of a bus stop. The proximity to bus stops would encourage the use of alternative transportation and reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles and thereby VMT. In addition, development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to Chapters 8.16 and 8.17 of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC), which requires compliance with the City’s Energy Code and the Green Building Standards Code. Adherence to local regulations and SJVAPCD rules would reduce operational-related emissions. Therefore, impacts from operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Construction
Implement GP EIR MM 3-1.
Operation
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable for construction impacts, less than significant for operational impacts.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-23
Threshold 3: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-3 CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF GP EIR MMS 3-1 AND 3-2. HOWEVER, OPERATION OF
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF GP EIR MM 3-4 SO OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Construction
At this time, reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the proposed project does not have sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) to allow for project-level analysis given the programmatic nature of the plan and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts. Therefore, a more qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.
The SJVAB is a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The current air quality in the Air Basin is the result of cumulative criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, residential developments, and other emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX for ozone) potentially contribute to poor air quality.
Construction activities would occur on 20 Infill Rezone Program sites identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. Proposed development on the sites would be subject to compliance with applicable SJVAPCD rules described under Section 4.2.2, Regulatory Setting, including Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4002 (Asbestos Requirements), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations, Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities), and Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Compliance with these rules would reduce construction emissions of air quality criteria pollutants such as PM10, VOC, fugitive dust, and NOx. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Policy 1.3 from the City General Plan Air Quality Element which encourages the use of SJVAPCD construction BMPs to further reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to implement GP EIR MMs 3-1 and 3-2. Implementation of the MMs would reduce construction emissions, but the extent to which reductions would occur is unknown. It is speculative to determine whether project-level emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project would be reduced below the SJVAPCD project-level significance thresholds because the nature and intensity of future projects are not known at this time. Nonetheless, even with adherence to regional and local regulations, construction could still potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants from exceeding SJVAPCD thresholds.
Therefore, construction-related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the City’s GP EIR. Individual development projects would be reviewed for project-specific impacts during any required environmental review. If project-specific significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures would be applied to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-24
Operation
Table 4.2-7 presents the estimated emissions for Site 3, which is a conservative assessment since Site 3 includes a maximum capacity of 242 units and would therefore generate the highest localized operational emissions among the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. As shown, operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD recommended daily 100 lbs. per day screening threshold for CO.
Therefore, localized operational emissions would be less than significant.
Table 4.2-7 Localized Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (pounds/day)
Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Emissions 11 5 36 <1 4 1
SJVAPCD Thresholds 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX= nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Notes: Emissions highest of summer and winter outputs.
See Appendix B for summaries and CalEEMod results.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A carbon monoxide hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above a carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard. Localized carbon monoxide hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local carbon monoxide concentration exceeds the federal 1-hour standard of 35 ppm or the federal and State 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
The entire SJVAB is in conformance with State and federal carbon monoxide standards and no air quality monitoring stations report carbon monoxide levels in the SJVAPCD jurisdiction. Additionally, CARB no longer reports carbon monoxide concentrations anywhere in California. Based on the low background level of carbon monoxide in the project (indicated by the lack of monitoring at State or local levels) and the ever-improving vehicle emissions standards for new sources in accordance with State and federal regulations, development facilitated by the proposed project would not create new carbon monoxide hotspots. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial carbon monoxide concentrations, and localized air quality impacts related to carbon monoxide hot spots would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998.
25 Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.
The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. 25 CARB. 2025. Top 4 Summary. Accessed July 2025: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-25
Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.
Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of nine, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk.
The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation and grading activities. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period.
Since the nature and intensity of future projects are not known at this time, DPM generated by project construction could potentially create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Future development would be required to implement GP EIR MM 3-2. Nonetheless, construction TAC impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Operation
CARB reports that DPM represents about 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from vehicle travel on a typical urban freeway. More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in size and thus is a subset of PM2.5; thus, diesel PM2.5 emission levels can serve as a proxy of DPM emission levels.26 The SJVAPCD GAMAQI set the significance threshold for long-term public health risk is at 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk. For non-cancer risk, the significance level is set at a Hazard Index of more than one (1.0). The Hazard Index of more than one means that predicted levels of a toxic pollutant are greater than the exposure level, which is generally considered acceptable. If a formal health risk assessment shows that a significant impact results, mitigation measures to reduce the predicted levels of toxic air pollutants from the facility to a level of less than significant may be required.
The population residing close to freeways or busy roadways may experience adverse health effects beyond those typically found in urban areas. CARB, in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (June 2005), recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities, within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The City’s GP EIR recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a major stationary source or roadway with over 50,000 vehicles per day. Additional non-cancer health risk attributable 26 CARB. 2025. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Accessed July 2025: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-andhealth
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-26
to proximity to freeways was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet (CARB 2005). As discussed above, proximity to freeways increases cancer risk and exposure to particulate matter. Similarly, proximity to heavily travelled transit corridors and intersections would expose residents to higher levels of DPM and carbon monoxide.
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Clovis Avenue, Herndon Avenue, Peach Avenue, Bullard Avenue, Blackstone Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Shaw Avenue, and Fowler Avenue are urban roads with more than 50,000 vehicles/day. 27 Infill Rezone Program Site 3 is
located within 500 feet of Herndon Avenue; Site 72 is located within 500 feet of Peach Avenue; Site 108 is located within 500 feet of Clovis Avenue; Sites 167, 168, and 590 are located within 500 feet of Shaw Avenue; Sites 63, 592, 598, and 599 are located within 500 feet of Fowler Avenue; and Site 589 is located within 500 feet of Bullard Avenue. Although future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the residential indoor air quality requirements in the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which currently require Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]), development of sites within 500 feet of a roadway that has 50,000 vehicles/day or more could result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of GP EIR MM 3-4 would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Asbestos
Asbestos may be contained in existing buildings that may be demolished as part of the land-use scenario envisioned by the proposed project. Individual project applicants would have to demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4002, which requires abatement of ACM by a licensed contractor prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. The requirements to obtain a demolition permit for the structures on the project location would ensure that ACM is handled appropriately and that hazardous materials are disposed of according to federal and State regulations. Therefore, impacts to workers and off-site receptors from asbestos exposure would be less than significant.
San Joaquin Valley Fever
Construction activities that include ground disturbance can result in fugitive dust, which can cause fungus Coccidioides spores to become airborne if they are present in the soil. These spores can cause Valley Fever. Workers who disturb soil where fungal spores are found, whether by digging, operating earthmoving equipment, driving vehicles, or by working in dusty, wind-blown areas, are more likely to breathe in spores and become infected. It is not a contagious disease and secondary infections are rare. Project construction for future development facilitated by the proposed project would include ground-disturbing activities that could increase potential for exposure of nearby residents and on-site workers to airborne spores, if they are present. Compliance with dust control measured required by SJVAPCD Rule 8021 would minimize personnel and public exposure to Valley Fever and reduce the potential risk of nearby resident and on-site worker exposure to Valley Fever.
Additionally, the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites are located adjacent to urban development where exposure risks to Valley Fever are lower due to less exposed dry soils when compared to risks associated with the development of undisturbed rural and agricultural land (Center for Disease Control 2024). As discussed under Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds, the SJVAPCD does not have a recommended threshold for Valley Fever Impacts but instead recommends consideration of the 27 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. Traffic Census Program. Accessible at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/census
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-27
following factors that may indicate a project’s potential to result in significant impacts related to Valley Fever:
Disturbance of the topsoil of undeveloped land (to a depth of about 12 inches) Dry, alkaline, sandy soils
Virgin, undisturbed, non-urban areas
Windy areas
Archaeological resources probable or known to exist in the area (Native American midden sites) Special events (fairs, concerts) and motorized activities (motocross track, All Terrain Vehicle activities) on unvegetated soil (non-grass)
Non-native population (i.e., out-of-area construction workers) Therefore, impacts associated with Valley Fever would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Construction
Implement GP EIR MM 3-1
GP EIR MM 3-2
Prior to discretionary approval, applicants for phased development projects (i.e., construction would overlap operation/opening of the project) involving residential land uses shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the City of Clovis (City) in conjunction with the SJVAPCD in preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) for construction activities. If the construction HRA identifies risk impacts that exceed the standards as determined by the SVJAPCD at the time the project is considered, it shall identify measures to reduce these impacts to below these standards. Recommended measures may include those identified in GP EIR MM 3-1. The recommendations of the construction HRA shall be incorporated into all construction management plans which shall be submitted to the City and verified by the City’s Planning Division.
Operation
GP EIR MM 3-4
Prior to discretionary project approval, the City of Clovis (City) shall evaluate new development proposals for sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, day care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
28 Applicants for sensitive land uses that are within
the recommended buffer distances shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 6 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06), the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or the thresholds established 28 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessible at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-28
by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk impacts may include but are not limited to the following:
Placement of air intakes away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters.
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building’s filtered ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air.
Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
Significance after Mitigation
Project level emissions would remain significant and unavoidable for construction.
Operational impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.
Threshold 4: Would the proposed project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQ-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT WOULD AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would facilitate the development of 1,303 residential units, with a maximum potential of 1,651 units, and would not site new odor sources near existing sensitive receptors or site sensitive receptors near odor sources. During construction activities, only short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.2.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The SJVAPCD is currently classified as nonattainment for the federal and State ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 standards, and the State 24-hour PM10 standards. Development facilitated by the project would generate particulate matter and the ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) in the area during construction and operation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-29
As described under Impact AQ-1, although the proposed project would be consistent with the SJVAPCD adopted rules (shown in Table 4.2-5 as part of its control strategy to reduce NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions), project construction would potentially exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan and the 2024 PM2.5 Plan and could potentially result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
As described under Impact AQ-2, although the proposed project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules and policies in the City’s GP and implement GP EIR MM 3-1, construction associated with the proposed project could still increase air pollutant emissions and create localized areas of unhealthy air pollution levels or air quality nuisances. Therefore, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant from construction emissions.
As identified under Impact AQ-3, even with implementation of GP EIR MMs 3-1 and 3-2, the proposed project could still potentially expose sensitive receptors to cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations during construction. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts for localized construction pollutants and construction TACs would result in a cumulatively significant impact.
As identified under Impact AQ-3, with implementation of GP EIR MM 3-4, impacts related to operational TACs would be less than significant and therefore would not result in a cumulatively significant impact.
As identified under Impact AQ-4, development facilitated by the project would not have a significant impact from odor emissions. The consideration of cumulative odor impacts is limited to cases when projects constructed simultaneously are within a few hundred yards of each other because of the short range of odor dispersion. It is unlikely that construction of housing sites would occur within a few hundred yards of major off-site construction. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable odor impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures GP EIR MM 3-1, 3-2, 3-4.
Significance after Mitigation
Operational impacts would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Project level impacts related to construction would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation measures incorporated.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.2-30
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-1
4.3 Biological Resources
This section evaluates the potential environmental impacts to biological resources either directly or indirectly as a result of the project.
A desktop literature review was conducted to determine sensitive biological resources that have been documented in or near the Infill Rezone Sites since 2014. Special-status plant and wildlife species and protected habitats that are present or potentially present within or adjacent to the project area were identified using the following sources:
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)2
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal4 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper5
CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System6 CDFW Special Animals List7
The CNPS database search included the 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey Clovis quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles (referred to as a “nine-quad search”). The CNDDB database search included the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites plus a 5-mile buffer. The IPaC search included the project area and a 1-mile buffer surrounding the project area. Following a review of these resources, Rincon also reviewed relevant life history information on those species documented as occurring in the region, including habitat type, soils, and elevation preferences.
4.3.1 Setting
The project area consists of 20 Infill Rezone Program sites within the existing City of Clovis boundaries and Sphere of influence. The City of Clovis is located east of the City of Fresno and west of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
All Infill Rezone Program sites within the proposed General Plan Amendment are within the Urban Land Use boundary in the Clovis General Plan. Half of the sites are currently developed or disturbed, while the remaining half have likely been previously disturbed, or experience intermittent disturbances such as mowing and disking. When developed, the Infill Rezone Program sites under the proposed project would be constructed as infill development or redevelopment. Sites 3, 63, 72, 197, 217, 589, 590, 592, 598, and 599 are disturbed or already developed lands and Sites 108, 110, 115, 157, 161, 167, 168, 595, 596, and 597 are either all or mostly vacant and undeveloped. The 1 USFWS. 2025a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed April 2025). 2 CDFW 2025a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. 5.3.0 (accessed April 2025). 3 CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9.5.1). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed April 2025). 4 USFWS. 2025b. Critical Habitat Portal. Retrieved from: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov (April 2025). 5 USFWS. 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (April 2025). 6 CDFW. 2025b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Biogeographic Information and Observation System. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov (accessed April 2025).
7 CDFW. 2025c. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed April 2025).
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-2
Infill Rezone Program sites and their existing use, as well as the current land cover/vegetation is described in Table 4.3-1.
Table 4.3-1 Infill Rezone Program Sites
Site Number Existing Land Use (2014 General Plan) Current Land Cover/Vegetation 3 General Commercial Developed/Disturbed
63 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
72 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
108 General Commercial Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
110 Medium Density Residential Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands 115 Medium Density Residential Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands 157 Mixed Used Village Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
161 Office Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
167 Office Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
168 Office Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
197 Very Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
217 Industrial Developed/Disturbed
589 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
590 Medium Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
592 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
595 Low Density Residential Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands 596 Low Density Residential Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands 597 Low Density Residential Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands 598 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
599 Low Density Residential Developed/Disturbed
A freshwater emergent wetland is identified by the National Wetland Inventory in the northeast corner of Site 63, but the wetland has likely been graded/disturbed due to adjacent development based on review of aerial imagery. No other wetlands or riverine habitats are identified within the Infill Rezone Program sites.
8 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The vegetation community/land cover type characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009), where applicable. Table 4.3-1 above identifies vegetation community/land cover that occurs on each site.
Developed/Disturbed
The developed/disturbed land cover type includes commercial and industrial buildings, multi- and single-family residences, schools, parks, paved areas with little to no vegetation (e.g., paved roads), and other infrastructure. These areas lack habitat for sensitive biological resources as there is a high level of human disturbance and a lack of natural habitat types that would support breeding, cover, 8 USFWS. 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (April 2025).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-3
and foraging activities for special-status species. Half of the Infill Rezone Program sites are developed/disturbed (Figure 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-2, Figure 4.3-3 (site 197), Figure 4.3-4, Figure 4.3-5, Figure 4.3-7, Figure 4.3-12, Figure 4.3-13, Figure 4.3-14 (site 590)).
Wild Oats and Brome Grasslands
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance) are generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills throughout coastal and interior California. They typically occur on soils consisting of fine-textured loams or clays that are somewhat poorly drained. Non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, dominate this vegetation type, likely as a result of human disturbance.
Scattered native grasses and wildflower species representing remnants of the original vegetation community may also be common (Sawyer et al. 2009). This vegetation alliance is not considered sensitive due to the predominance of non-native species. 9 Wild oats and annual brome grasslands occur in the vacant lots of the Infill Rezone Program (Figure 4.3-3 (site 157), Figure 4.3-6, Figure 4.3-8, Figure 4.3-9, Figure 4.3-10, Figure 4.3-11, Figure 4.3-14 (site 115)). Aerial imagery shows some of these vacant lots have regular maintenance through mowing and disking.
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
FESA is intended to prevent the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states take of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. Take is defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species.
Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to aid the conservation of listed species, and to ensure that the activities of federal agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are responsible for administration of the FESA and have regulatory authority over federally listed species.
Section 10 of the FESA allows the USFWS to issue incidental take permits if take of a listed species may occur during otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Habitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS administers the MBTA. 9 CDFW. 2025c. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed April 2025).
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-4
United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and USACE implementing regulations, has jurisdiction over the placement of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Congress enacted the CWA “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Previous regulations codified in 1986 defined “waters of the United States” as traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, and adjacent wetlands.
On March 20, 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE released a revised definition of waters of the United States. This rule defines several categories of jurisdictional waters, documents certain types of waters that are excluded from jurisdiction and clarifies some regulatory terms. Under the revised definition, waters of the United States include:
Territorial seas and traditional navigable waters;
Perennial and intermittent tributaries that contribute surface flow to those waters; Certain lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and; Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters.
USACE jurisdictional limits are typically identified by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the landward edge of adjacent wetlands (where present). The OHWM is the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area” (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3).
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). For projects that affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA if the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA. Projects that result in take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.
The federal and State acts lend protection to species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-5
The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.
A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.
Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.
Under the CESA, “take” is defined as, “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively.
Nesting Bird Protection – California Fish and Game Code According to California FGC Section 3503 it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird [except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)]. Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently, 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-6
rare native plants but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA permitting procedures (California FGC Section 2081) would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Stream and Riparian Habitat
Pursuant to California FGC Section 1600, CDFW has authority over all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state, and requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” that supports fish or wildlife resources.
A stream is defined as a “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for any proposed project that would result in an adverse impact to a river, stream, or lake. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and out to the outer edge of adjacent riparian vegetation if present. However, CDFW can take jurisdiction over a body of flowing water and the landform that conveys it, including water sources and adjoining landscape elements that are byproducts of and affected by interactions with flowing water without regard to size, duration, or the timing of flow.
Special-Status Species Protection
Special-status wildlife species are those species included on the CDFW “Special Animals” list. “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on this list generally fall into one or more of the following categories:
Officially listed or proposed for listing under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; State or Federal candidate for possible listing;
Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern; Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring; Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon’s range but are threatened with extirpation in California.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-7
c. Local Regulations
Clovis General Plan
There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites; nor are there any designated for wildlife conservation or habitat conservation under the 2014 Clovis General Plan.10 The following General Plan policy aims to conserve natural resources in the City of Clovis.
Open Space and Conservation Element - Policy 2.6: Biological resources. Support the protection of biological resources through the conservation of high quality habitat area.
4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The following analysis is based on a literature review concerning biological resources known to occur in the area that is derived from biological resource databases and information on biological resources described in literature, such as, but not limited to, the City of Clovis 2014 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The literature review was conducted to assess and verify the environmental setting and to analyze potential impacts that could result from implementation of future projects at the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites on sensitive biological resources. This includes special-status plant and wildlife species, habitat for nesting birds and bats, riparian and other sensitive plant communities, federal and state waters and wetlands, locally protected trees, wildlife movement corridors, and habitat conservation planning areas.
Significance Thresholds
Consistent with the 2014 General Plan EIR and in substantial conformance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts related to biological resources would be significant if the Project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
10 Clovis, City of. 2014. Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update Draft PEIR. Prepared by Placeworks. Accessed April 2025:
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/general_plan/environmental_impact_report.php
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-8
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2014 General Plan EIR addressed potential biological resources impacts in Chapter 5.4, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR. The 2014 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant for effects to listed species or their habitats, loss of significant populations of sensitive species, protected wetlands, wildlife migration or movement corridors, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or conflicts with conservation plans and habitat management plans and habitat groups identified therein (Chapter 5.4, Biological Resources: 5.4-1 through 5.4-34). It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for the protection of biological resources. As such all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources.
The proposed project involves rezoning 20 sites within the City of Clovis. Therefore, the following impact analysis is programmatic to determine whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Biological Resources impacts identified in the 2014 General Plan EIR. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Some components associated with the proposed project, including updates to the General Plan, and master and specific plans for consistency between the City’s planning documents, in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to biological resources would occur. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the Infill Rezone Program which would facilitate the rezoning of 20 sites listed in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description.
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Impact BIO-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPACT SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES OR THEIR HABITATS.
The potential impacts concerning candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are discussed in the 2014 General Plan (GP) EIR Section 5.4.8 (Page 5.4-34). The 2014 GP EIR analysis concluded that implementing the mitigation measures provided would reduce impacts associated with biological species to a level that is less than significant.
The 2014 General Plan EIR identified 13 special-status plants with the potential to occur within the project area. Current CNPS and CNDDB database searches identified 16 plants that have documented occurrences within a 5-mile buffer of the Infill Rezone Program sites. Ewan’s larkspur (Delphinium hansenii ssp. ewanianum) and California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) were not identified in the 2014 General Plan EIR but have California Rare Plant Ranks of 4.2 and 2B.1, respectively, and no state or federal status. Pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii), a special-status vernal pool plant, was not identified in the original analysis of the 2014 General Plan
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-9
EIR, but was identified in current database searches. However, observations of this plant have not been recorded to CNDDB within five miles of the Infill Rezone Program sites and no suitable habitat is located within the Infill Rezone Program sites. Based on aerial imagery, the mapped wetland analyzed in the 2014 GP EIR at Site 63 appears to no longer be present due to urbanization and would therefore is not suitable for special-status vernal pool plants.
The 2014 General Plan EIR identified nine special-status animal species with the potential to occur in the project area. Current database searches identified 32 special-status animal species with documented occurrences within five miles of the Infill Rezone Program sites. Additional species included in this analysis were not previously analyzed due to increased search area and updates to endangered species lists. For example, Crotch’s bumblebee was not analyzed in the 2014 GP EIR and has since become a California State Candidate for listing as Endangered. There is low to no potential for the remaining 23 species to occur within the Infill Rezone Program sites due to heavy disturbance and urbanization.
The mitigation measures provided in the 2014 GP EIR are sufficient to reduce impacts to species not originally included in the analysis by requiring pre-construction surveys, focused plant and animal surveys if the habitat is present, and delineation of jurisdictional boundaries around potential waters of the United States or State. Mitigation measures require avoidance, if possible, of biological resources identified in the pre-construction surveys; consultation with agencies; and planning of projects to minimize potential impacts to biological resources.
The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010). The nearest wildlife movement corridor is over one mile northeast of Sites 157 and 197. None of the other sites are close to any wildlife corridors. Therefore, there would be no effect on wildlife movement.
Implementation of GP EIR Biological Resources Mitigation Measures (MMs) 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 would reduce potential impacts to special-status and/or locally important species to a less than significant level, and assure compliance with the FESA, CESA, CWA, MBTA, and California FGC Section 3503, by requiring a biological study to document the presence or absence of special-status species on a project specific basis and determining measures to address impacts such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation to special-status should they be present, and by ensuring that active nests are identified and as necessary avoided.
The Infill Rezone Program sites would require project-level, site-specific surveys prior to construction activities per the Clovis General Plan mitigation measures as copied below; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Mitigation Measures
With implementation of Biological Resources MMs 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 from the 2014 General Plan EIR, no additional mitigation measures are required.
GP EIR MM 4-1 - Biological Assessment and Focused Surveys The City shall require applicants for future development or redevelopment projects that disturb vegetated, vacant land pursuant to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The biological resources survey shall include, but not be limited to:
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-10
Analysis of available literature and biological databases, such as the California Natural Diversity Database, to determine sensitive biological resources that have been reported historically from the proposed development project vicinity. Review of current land use and land ownership within the proposed development project vicinity.
Assessment and mapping of vegetation communities present within the proposed development project vicinity.
Evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife movement corridors. General assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats.
a) If the proposed development project site supports vegetation communities that may provide habitat for special status plant or wildlife species, a focused habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the potential for special status plant and/or animal species to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area.
b) If one or more special status species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area, focused species surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence/absence of these species to adequately evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species.
c) If construction activities are not initiated immediately after focused surveys have been completed, additional preconstruction special status species surveys may be required, in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act, to assure impacts are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. If preconstruction activities are required, a qualified biologist will perform these surveys as required for each special status species that is known to occur or has a potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area.
The results of the biological survey shall be presented in a biological resources survey letter report (for proposed development projects with no significant impacts) or biological resources technical report (for proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance) and submitted to the City’s Planning Director.
GP EIR MM 4-2 - Resource Impact Avoidance/Minimization
Project applicants shall avoid potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources.
Avoidance may include:
establishing appropriate no-disturbance buffers (consultation with relevant regulatory agencies may be required to establish suitable buffer areas) initiating construction at a time when special status or protected animal species will not be vulnerable to project-related mortality (e.g., outside the avian nesting season or bat maternal or wintering roosting season).
minimizing impact by measures such as:
exclusion and/or silt fencing;
relocation of impacted resources;
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-11
construction monitoring by a qualified biologist;
training program by a qualified biologist for construction personnel on sensitive biological resources.
GP EIR MM 4-3 - Compensatory Mitigation
If project-related impacts cannot be avoided or minimized to less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4-3; feasible, compensatory mitigation shall be developed by a qualified biologist and implemented to reduce impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources. Mitigation may include but is not limited to:
Compensation for lost habitat or waters in the form of preservation or creation of in-kind habitat or waters, either onsite or offsite, protected by conservation easement; Purchase of appropriate credits from an approved mitigation bank servicing the Clovis General Plan Update Area;
Payment of in-lieu fees.
GP EIR MM 4-4 - Jurisdictional Wetlands
The City shall require applicants of development projects that have the potential to affect jurisdictional resources, to contract with a qualified biologist to conduct a jurisdictional delineation following the methods outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual to map the extent of wetlands and nonwetland waters, determine jurisdiction, and assess potential impacts. The results of the delineation shall be presented in a wetland delineation letter report and shall be incorporated into the CEQA document(s) required for approval and permitting of the proposed development project.
Applicants of development projects that have the potential to impact jurisdictional features shall obtain permits and authorizations from the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The agency authorization would include impact avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts. Specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be determined through discussions with the regulatory agencies during the proposed development project permitting process and may include monetary contributions to a mitigation bank or habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant with mitigation measures.
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Impact BIO-2 THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON RIPARIAN HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES.
Riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities within the project area tracked by the CNDDB include Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-12
Hardpan Vernal Pool, and Sycamore Alluvial Woodland.
11 None of these communities are present at
the Infill Rezone Program sites. None of the sites are within or adjacent to riparian habitats. The Infill Rezone Program sites consist of developed areas or disturbed non-native grasslands which are not considered sensitive. Therefore, there is no impact on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impact BIO-3 THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON WETLANDS.
State or federally protected wetlands are not present in any of the Infill Rezone Program sites. 12 Based on aerial imagery, special-status vernal pool plants are not found within five miles of Site 63 indicating the mapped wetland is no longer present due to urbanization. Therefore, there are no impacts on wetlands. Required adherence to Clovis General Plan Mitigation Measure 4-4, listed above, would ensure wetland impacts, if identified in the future, would be mitigated.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact BIO-4 THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT ON WILDLIFE MOVEMENT.
There are no aquatic habitats mapped within or adjacent to the Infill Rezone Program sites. There are no mapped wildlife corridors within any of the rezone sites. The closest wildlife corridor is over one mile northeast of Sites 157 and 197.
13 Therefore, the project would not interfere with any
wildlife movement.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
11 CDFW. 2025c. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed April 2025).
12 USFWS. 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (April 2025). 13 CDFW. 2025b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Biogeographic Information and Observation System. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov (accessed April 2025).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-13
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact BIO-5 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 2.6 of the City of Clovis General Plan states that projects should “support the protection of biological resources through the conservation of high quality habitat area.”14 The Infill Rezone Program sites are within the urban land use of the City of Clovis and not considered “high quality habitat areas.” The General Plan does not have any tree preservation ordinance. Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) Section 9.30 establishes tree protection regulations and standards. Future development on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites requiring the removal of protected trees as defined in CMC Section 9.30.040 would be required to obtain a tree removal permit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-6 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER STATE OR LOCAL CONSERVATION PLAN.
The Infill Rezone Program sites are not within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3).) The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable biological resource impacts includes the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites and immediately adjacent areas that could be affected by other current or future projects. Cumulative impacts to biological resources are typically site and project specific. Subsequent projects allowed by the proposed project may result in sitespecific impacts to biological resources including nesting birds. However, the mitigation measures included in the 2014 General Plan EIR would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Since the exact size and nature of future developments are not known at this time, it would be speculative to predict what impacts may occur. The Infill Rezone Program sites are within the urban setting of the City of Clovis and are previously disturbed and/or developed. Any 14 Clovis, City of. 2014. Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update Draft PEIR. Prepared by Placeworks. Accessed April 2025:
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/general_plan/environmental_impact_report.php
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-14
currently proposed, future, and past projects within the urban setting of the City of Clovis would alter developed and/or previously disturbed lands.
Completing the rezoning through Zoning Map and General Plan amendments for the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would allow for the future development of the sites that better meet the needs of the community. Future development of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would result in the redevelopment of developed areas and removal of wild oats and brome grasslands. Habitats in the proposed Infill Rezone Program sites and adjacent to Infill Rezone Program sites are not expected to harbor special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or other protected natural resources.
Therefore, the cumulative effects of the proposed project when considered with past, current, and future projects nearby would not result in significant cumulative impacts to sensitive natural resources.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures GP EIR MM 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant with mitigation measures.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-15
Figure 4.3-1 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 72
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-16
Figure 4.3-2 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 592
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-17
Figure 4.3-3 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 157 and 197
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-18
Figure 4.3-4 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 63
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-19
Figure 4.3-5 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 3
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-20
Figure 4.3-6 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 108
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-21
Figure 4.3-7 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 589
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-22
Figure 4.3-8 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 595, 596, and 597
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-23
Figure 4.3-9 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 167 and 168
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-24
Figure 4.3-10 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 161
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-25
Figure 4.3-11 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 110
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-26
Figure 4.3-12 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 217
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.3-27
Figure 4.3-13 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 598 and 599
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.3-28
Figure 4.3-14 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 115 and 590
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-1
4.4 Cultural Resources
This section analyzes impacts to cultural resources within Clovis that would result from the project, which includes the rezoning of 20 sites within the city limits. Cultural resources include sites, buildings, landmarks, and other physical markers important to our understanding of indigenous peoples, and the history of Clovis and the region since colonization. Appendix C to this Environmental Assessment (EA) is the 2025 Cultural Resources Report that was used to prepare this impact section. All reference citations can be found in Appendix C, incorporated here by reference.
4.4.1 Cultural Setting and Existing Conditions
As described in Appendix C to the EA, the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites are located within the Clovis city limits within California’s Central Valley, one of the largest intermontane basins in North America that extends 650 km from the Siskiyou to the Tehachapi mountains. No single chronological framework covers the entirety of the Central Valley, but California prehistoric cultural chronology of the Central Valley can be divided into five major periods of cultural development: the Paleoindian (11,550–8,550 BCE), Lower Archaic (8,550–5,550 BCE), Middle Archaic (5,550–550 BCE), Upper Archaic (550 BCE–CE 1,100), and the Emergent Period (CE 1,000 to Historic contact).
Paleoindian Period (11,550 to 8,550 BCE)
Geoarchaeological studies have demonstrated that erosion and deposition have buried or destroyed early archaeological deposits from the Paleoindian Period in the Central Valley. Human occupation during this period is represented by isolated finds, including fluted projectile and concave base projectile points near Tracy Lake and Tulare Lake basin and shoreline, dating from approximately 11,550 to 9,550 BCE.
Lower Archaic (8,550 to 5,550 BCE)
Climate change at the end of the Late Pleistocene caused significant periods of alluvial deposition with clear stratigraphic boundary between the Holocene beginning around 9,050 BCE. The Lower Archaic, like the Paleoindian Period, is represented only by limited isolated finds. Only one Lower Archaic site (KER-116) has been identified in the Central Valley proper and few in the foothills surrounding the valley suggesting that the foothill sites may have been seasonally used during this time.
Middle Archaic (5,550 to 550 BCE)
The Middle Archaic Period was marked by warmer, drier conditions that reshaped the Central Valley’s landscape, including the disappearance of Tulare Lake and the formation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Archaeological evidence from this period is limited but indicates increased residential stability and organized subsistence strategies. The Windmiller Pattern, characterized by extended west-oriented burials and a diverse material culture, emerged during this time. During the Middle Archaic, use of the mortar and pestle became more widespread, suggesting a shift toward more intensive subsistence practices and a higher reliance on acorn. Fishing technologies, such as bone gorges, hooks, and spears, specifically in the Marsh Creek area, suggest a new focus on fishing. This period also saw the introduction of basketry, simple pottery, and baked clay objects. Personal adornments became more common, and trade expanded to include utilitarian items like obsidian tools and decorative goods such as shell beads and ornaments.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-2
Upper Archaic (550 BCE to CE 1,100)
The Upper Archaic coincided with the onset of the Late Holocene, marked by a cooler, wetter climate leading to the reappearance of lakes and renewed floodplain activity. This period is better represented in the archaeological record than earlier periods. Cultural diversity was more pronounced and is marked by contrasting material cultures throughout the valley.
During this period, numerous specialized technologies were developed such as bone tools, and implements, manufactured goods such as beads and ornaments, well-made ceremonial blades, and ground-stone plummets.
Upper Archaic Period trade economies varied by region throughout the Central Valley but were primarily focused on seasonal resources such as acorns, salmon, shellfish, rabbits, and deer, as well as obsidian.
Emergent Occupation (CE 1000 to Historic)
There has been limited research in the San Joaquin Valley on the Emergent Period, and thus only the Pacheco Complex on the western edge of the valley has been formally defined. After CE 1,000, many of the technologies witnessed during the Archaic disappeared to be replaced by cultural traditions witnessed at European contact. Sometime between CE 1,000 and 1,300, the bow and arrow replaced the atlatl as the preferred hunting method.
Increased social complexity is evidenced by increased variation in burial types and grave offerings such as shell beads, ornaments, and ritually “killed” mortars and pestles are often found in burials.
Trade expanded with groups living in the easter foothills, with pottery and obsidian exchanged across regions. The Panoche Complex, active in the western San Joaquin Valley, featured sidenotched points, large structures, and diverse artifacts. Economies were more regionally varied, with greater emphasis on fishing and plant harvesting. Mortars and pestles became dominant tools, and small seed remains increased in archaeological deposits over time.
Ethnographic Overview
The City of Clovis is located in the traditional territory of the Penutian-speaking Yokuts, which includes San Joaquin Valley and surrounding foothills.1,2 Three geographical divisions of the Yokuts are the Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill Yokuts. The distinction between the three groups is primarily based on language dialect.
3 The Infill Rezone Program sites are located within the approximate boundary between the ethnographic territories of the Northern and Southern Valley Yokuts, though more likely located within the ethnographic territory of the Southern Valley Yokuts, who occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River, to the foot of the Tehachapi Mountains. More specifically, the vicinity was likely within the territory of the Tachi. 4 1 Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 2 Wallace, William J. 1978. Southern Valley Yokuts.” In “California,” edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, pp. 448–461. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 3 Mithun, Marianne. 2001. The Languages of Native North America. Reprinted. Originally published 1999. Cambridge University Press, New York.
4 Wallace, William J. 1978.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-3
Post-Contact Historical Context
Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, post-contact history for the State of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1822), Mexican Period (1822 to 1848), and American Period (1848 to present). Appendix C to the EA describes post-contact historical context in greater detail.
Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
The Spanish Period in California (1769-1822) begins with the establishment of Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769. Between 1769 and 1823, Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of California to construct missions, presidios, and pueblos to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers.
Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise.
Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns. Three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, two of which led to the creation of California cities: San José and Los Angeles.
Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
The Mexican Period began after independence from Spain in 1821. Growth in Alta California remained limited due to foreign threats, political instability, and indigenous unrest. In 1822, trade restrictions were lifted, opening California ports to foreign merchants. Mission secularization led to the redistribution of mission lands and the creation of inland ranchos, often granted to former soldiers and influential families with full land ownership. From 1834 to 1848, the cattle industry dominated the economy, with hides serving as a key export. Increased settlement introduced foreign diseases to Native populations, contributing to significant demographic impacts.
American Period (1848 – Present)
The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States (U.S.).
California officially became a U.S. state in 1850. The Gold Rush, beginning in 1848, spurred rapid population growth and economic expansion in the northern part of the state, with cattle remaining a key commodity for meat and hides. Rancho vaqueros drove herds north to support mining communities. A severe drought in the 1860s devastated cattle herds and ranchero incomes.
Disputes over poorly defined land boundaries led to legal conflicts, debt, and the sale of rancho lands, which were eventually subdivided into farms and towns, reshaping California’s landscape and settlement patterns.
City of Clovis History
Since the community’s founding in the final decade of the nineteenth century, life in Clovis has historically centered on the fertile farmlands that surround the City. The history excerpted below is from the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update.
5 5 City of Clovis. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code Update. 2014. Accessed July 2025:
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/general_plan/environmental_impact_report.php
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-4
Clovis was founded following the construction of a freight stop along the recently completed San Joaquin Valley Railroad in 1891. As the agricultural potential of Fresno County began to be realized in the late nineteenth century, a number of individuals rapidly developed the railway to transport the region’s grain, cattle, and timber longer distances. In close proximity to agriculture and the nearby Sierras, the new stop had an ideal location and was named after local farmer Clovis M. Cole, who sold a large portion of his wheat ranch in support of the railway.
Another contributor to the growth of Clovis was the Fresno Flume and Irrigation Company. The company constructed the Shaver Log Flume that started at the Shaver Dam and traveled 42 miles into the valley to the present-day intersection of Fifth Street and Clovis Avenue. Here, the company constructed a 40-acre mill and finishing plant, which served as an impetus for the further development of Clovis as workers arrived to work at the plant.
A number of businesses, churches, and schools soon developed in response to the increasing population and, by 1895, the community had its first post office. Italian immigrants brought grape production to Clovis with the first vineyards in the region. Clovis incorporated in 1912 and grew modestly into the 20th century, with its economy continuing to rely primarily on agriculture. An unprecedented demand for canned food occurred with the onset of World War I, stimulating the local economy and growth in the City. As evidence of the City’s changing status, Clovis High School was relocated to an ornate, Spanish-designed building in 1920.
Increased agricultural production required additional water, and the Central Valley Project (CVP) was undertaken in the early 1930s to provide irrigation and water management to the San Joaquin Valley. The CVP began as a New Deal project but was not completed until the early 1950s due to labor shortages caused by World War II. An original component of the CVP was the Friant-Kern Canal, which flows immediately northeast of Clovis. The City experienced a modest building boom in the years following World War II as a number of housing developments expanded away from the city center. Although residential growth has continued since that time, the City continues to maintain its small-town character.
Existing Conditions
As part of the 2025 Cultural Resources Report, Appendix C to this EA, a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and preliminary background research for each rezone site was conducted to analyze constraints for potential future development and the potential to impact historical and archaeological resources.
Historical Resources in Project Area
Based on a CHRIS records search, 46 built environment resources were identified within a half-mile radius of the rezone sites. Resources include one railroad segment, agricultural buildings, public and religious buildings (i.e., libraries and churches), water conveyance features (i.e., ditches and canals), and single-family residences. No historical resources were identified within the rezone sites. As shown on Table 4.4-1, two resources were identified as ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as summarized below, and are not considered historical resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5(a).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-5
Table 4.4-1 Historical Resources in Project Area
Resource Name/# Description Eligibility Historical Resource? Rezone Site Helm Colonial Ditch
(P-10-005511/CA-FRE-3344H)
Water conveyance
feature
Found Ineligible for NRHP,
CRHR, and local listing
No 72
Jefferson Canal
(P-10-006140/CA-FRE-3615H)
Water conveyance
feature
Found Ineligible for NRHP,
CRHR, and local listing
No 599
Based on review of parcel data, historic maps, and aerials, 10 of the Infill Rezone Program sites contain buildings that are or will become historic-aged, and will require evaluation prior to demolition or alteration of the properties during future development projects. These parcels are shown in Table 4.4-2 below.
Table 4.4-2 Inventory of Infill Rezone Program Sites by Build Date Site ID APN Address Vacant? Existing Use Built Date
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave No Single-family residence; Sports facility; Tree lot
c. 1965
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave No Single family residence 1971 72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave No Single family residence 1978 197 55849230 1497 N Locan Ave No Single family residence 1988 217 49954013ST 885 Gettysburg Ave No Clovis Academy of Gymnastics & Dance c. 1980 589 55026023 2403 Bullard Ave No Former Rogers Helicopter c. 1980 590 55458036S 3959 Shaw Ave No Single-family residence c. 1965 592 56303131 1160 N Fowler Ave No Single family residence 1976 598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave No Single family residence 1925 599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave No Single family residence 1960 Archaeological Resources
As described in greater detail in Appendix C, the Infill Rezone Program sites are situated within the San Joaquin Valley archeological subregion of the broader Central Valley Archaeological Region which spans from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta into today’s Kern County. The subregion encompasses the southern half of the great Central Valley and includes most of Kings, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties, as well as the western portions of Fresno, Kern, Madera, and Tulare Counties.
Geologically, the Infill Rezone Program sites are underlain by Quaternary-age alluvial, lacustrine, playa, and terrace deposits. These sediments, primarily composed of unconsolidated or semiconsolidated marine and continental materials, are predominantly alluvial. Due to the episodic nature of alluvial deposition, there is a heightened potential for buried archaeological resources.
Human habitation in the Central Valley is estimated to date back as far as 12,000 years.
Archaeological sites along the Tulare Lake shoreline and near Tracy Lake, have yielded evidence such as fluted projectile points and concave base points, indicating early human presence in the region during the Late Pleistocene.
Based on the CHRIS records search, negative NAHC SLF search, historic map and aerial review, and geological and soils map review, this study did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources in any of the proposed rezone sites. However, one rezone site (157) has been previously surveyed, which took place in 2002. Table 4.4-3 shows the seven Infill Rezone Program sites that are
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-6
considered to have moderate to high potential for subsurface archaeological deposits. The absence of previously recorded prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources within the immediate vicinity of the remaining rezone sites, along with the existing level of disturbance, suggests there is a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits.
Table 4.4-3 Properties with Moderate to High Potential for Archaeological Resources Site ID APN Address Moderate-High Potential for Archaeological Resources 3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave High
108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave Moderate
110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave Moderate
115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Ave Moderate
157 55803359S De Wolf & Richmond Ave High
161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave Moderate
167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave Moderate
Tribal Cultural Resources in the Project Area
As part of its tribal cultural resource identification process, pursuant to California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City sent letters via certified mail to Native American tribal contacts who had previously requested consultation and tribes provided by the NAHC. Notification of tribal contacts and tribal cultural resources are detailed in Section 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-7
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.
Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies to determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-8
there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.
According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]; see also Sections 15064.5[b][2][B-C]).
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a][b]).
Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates an EIR shall describe feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts (which is used for preparation of this EA). In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impact of the project. Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the SOI Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]).
For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC Sections 5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.6 The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for State use to include a range of historical resources that better reflect State history. 7 Unlike the NRHP however,
the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for 6 California Public Resources Code, § 5024.1(a)). Accessed July 2025:
https://california.public.law/codes/public_resources_code_section_5024.1 7 Ibid.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-9
the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance. Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility. Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility.8
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the California PRC states:
No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
As used here, “public lands” means lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 regarding their activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required.
9 California Health and Safety Code
The disposition of human remains is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.
Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3, which was adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18, requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “[t]he intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes 8 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1995:2. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
9 California Public Resources Code, § 5097.5. (2025). Protection of archaeological and historical resources on public lands. Accessible at:
https://california.public.law/codes/public_resources_code_section_5097.5
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-10
an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
AB 52 expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” AB 52 further states when feasible, the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource. PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe,” and meets either of the following criteria:
Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship of California local governments and public agencies with California Native American tribal governments and with respect to the interests and roles of project proponents, it is the intent AB 52 to accomplish the following:
Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.
Establish a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation.
Establish examples of mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources that uphold the existing mitigation preference for historical and archaeological resources of preservation in place, if feasible.
Recognize that California Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, which concern the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated (because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources).
In recognition of their governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, early in the CEQA environmental review process, so that tribal cultural resources can be identified, and culturally appropriate mitigation and mitigation monitoring programs can be considered by the decision-making body of the lead agency.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-11
Recognize the unique history of California Native American tribes and uphold existing rights of all California Native American tribes to participate in, and contribute their knowledge to, the environmental review process pursuant to CEQA.
Ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have information available, early in CEQA environmental review process, for purposes of identifying and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources and to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.
Enable California Native American tribes to manage and accept conveyances of, and act as caretakers of, tribal cultural resources.
Establish that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.
AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
c. Local Regulations
City of Clovis General Plan
The City’s 2014 General Plan includes several goals and policies relevant to the project and the protection of cultural and historic resources, including:
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 2: Natural, agricultural, and historic resources that are preserved and promoted as key features for civic pride and identity.
Policy 2.9 National and state historic resources. Preserve historical sites and buildings of state or national significance in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
Policy 2.10 Local historic resources. Encourage property owners to maintain the historic integrity of the site by (listed in order of preference): preservation, adaptive reuse, or memorialization.
Policy 2.12 Public education. Support public education efforts for residents and visitors about the unique historic, natural, and cultural resources in Clovis.
Fresno County Historical Landmarks Commission
Fresno County Historical Landmarks and Records Advisory Commission established the Fresno County List of Historic Places to inventory historic and prehistoric sites and structures, considering all resources, including beyond those currently listed in any state or federal registry program.
According to the website, the Commission advises the County Board of Supervisors on matters related to landmark designation and preservation, maintains the county’s list of historic places,
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-12
recommends properties for inclusion in local, state, and national historic registers, and collaborates with other agencies and community organizations to support historic preservation efforts. 10 4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
If a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).
Significance Thresholds
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to cultural resources, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Threshold 1 broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, analysis under Threshold 1 has been limited to built environment resources. Archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 and those that may be considered unique archaeological resources pursuant to Section 21083.2, are considered under Threshold 2.
Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation.
Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district.
The State Legislature, in enacting the CRHR, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered to be significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 150645[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 11 The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its 10 Fresno County Landmarks. 2025. Accessed June 2025: https://www.fresnolandmarks.com/ 11 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15064.5(b)(1). (2025). Determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Accessible at: https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-6/chapter-3/article-5/section-15064-5/
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-13
inclusion in the California Register … local register of historic resources … or its identification in historic resources survey.” As such, the test for determining whether or not the project will have a significant impact on identified historical resources is whether it will materially impair physical integrity of the historic resource such that it could no longer be listed in the CRHR or a local landmark program.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project includes the rezoning of 20 infill sites, including amendments to the General Plan Land Use designations, in order to facilitate the development of higher density and affordable housing development. The project in and of itself would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to cultural resources would occur, as no physical development is proposed as part of the project. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezoning and land use changes, which would facilitate the development of 20 sites as described in Chapter 2, Project Description.
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD IMPACT KNOWN AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HISTORICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS TO HISTORICAL RESOURCES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
There are no historical resources located on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. As identified in Table 4.4-4 below, there are Infill Rezone Program sites that have not been subject to previous historical resources evaluation, but which currently meet the 45-year age threshold generally triggering the need for evaluation. Pending further analysis there is potential for these unevaluated properties to qualify as historical resources pursuant to CEQA. For the purposes of this study, these properties are considered potential historical resources.
Table 4.4-4 Properties Requiring Evaluation
Site ID* APN Address Existing Use Built Date Age Eligible 45 Year
Threshold
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave Single-family residence;
Sports facility; Tree lot
c. 1965 Yes NA
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave Single family residence 1971 Yes NA 72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave Single family residence 1978 Yes NA 197 55849230 1497 N Locan Ave Single family residence 1988 No 2033 217 49954013ST 885 Gettysburg Ave Clovis Academy of
Gymnastics & Dance
c. 1980 Yes NA
589 55026023 2403 Bullard Ave Former Rogers Helicopter c. 1980 Yes NA 590 55458036S 3959 Shaw Ave Single-family residence c. 1965 Yes NA 592 56303131 1160 N Fowler Ave Single family residence 1976 Yes NA 598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave Single family residence 1925 Yes NA 599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave Single family residence 1960 Yes NA
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-14
Development facilitated by the proposed project could result in impacts to historical resources through demolition, construction, and reconstruction activities associated with the project. The City of Clovis has adopted General Plan Policies 2.9 and 2.10 to minimize impacts to historical resources, which would apply to future development facilitated by the project. Adherence to these existing policies would not by themselves protect the properties listed in Table 4.4-4 that have not been previously evaluated to determine eligibility as historical resources. Therefore, additional mitigation would be necessary to require evaluation and protection if determined eligible.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) CUL-1 and CUL-2, below, would reduce impacts to historical resources to the extent feasible by identifying and evaluating significant historical resources and managing avoidance, or preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction in compliance with the Standards as applicable. Nonetheless, even with implementation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, eligible historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that would be carried out under the proposed project. It is possible that a future project could result in the demolition or substantial alteration of a historical resource. Therefore, even with mitigation, impacts may not be reduced to a less than significant level, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation shall be prepared prior to demolition or alteration for properties listed in Table 4.4-4 to evaluate existing structures on site. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed rezone site. Properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. Evaluated properties shall be documented on applicable Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report must be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. The final report must be submitted to the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center. If the property is already a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.
CUL-2 Treatment of Historical Resources
If a project would occur on a site containing a historical resource as identified during implementation of MM CUL-1, impacts must be mitigated, to the extent feasible, to historical resources identified within a proposed development site. Application of mitigation shall be overseen by an architectural historian, historian, and/or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., avoidance).
Mitigation may include avoidance, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of the resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-15
historical resources.
12 A report identifying and specifying the project description, treatment of character-defining features, and compliance with the Standards must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.
If historical resources are identified and compliance with the Standards and/or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken as determined by a PQS historian, architectural historian, and/or historic architect and the City.
Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, reports similar to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), interpretive signage, and relocation. The mitigation shall be completed and submitted to the City prior to issuance of permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT IDENTIFIED AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. HOWEVER, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
There are no previously recorded archaeological resources in any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. However, one of the sites (Site 157) has been previously surveyed, which took place in 2002.
Additionally, seven Infill Rezone Program sites are considered to have moderate to high potential for subsurface archaeological deposits. The absence of previously recorded prehistoric or historicperiod archaeological resources within the immediate vicinity of the remaining Infill Rezone Program sites, along with the existing level of disturbance, suggests there is a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits. However, as these sites have not been previously studied, lack of evidence and sensitivity does not preclude the existence of archaeological resources within all 20 Infill Rezone Program sites listed in Table 4.4-5 below. 12 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15126.4(b)(1). (2025). Consideration and discussion of mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects. Accessible at: https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-6/chapter-3/article-9/section15126-4/
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.4-16
Table 4.4-5 Properties Requiring an Archaeological Resources Study Site ID APN Address Moderate-High Potential for Archaeological Resources 3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave High
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave
72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave
108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave Moderate
110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave Moderate
115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Ave Moderate
157 55803359S De Wolf & Richmond Ave High
161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave Moderate
167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave Moderate
168 55128003 1853 Shaw Ave
197 55849230 1497 N Locan Ave
217 49954013ST 885 Gettysburg Ave
589 55026023 2403 Bullard Ave
590 55458036S 3959 Shaw Ave
592 56303131 1160 N Fowler Ave
595 49817202 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave
596 49817201 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave
597 49817203 925 Sunnyside Ave
598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave
599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave
Therefore, future development on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would have the potential to directly or indirectly impact subsurface archaeological resources through ground disturbing activities associated with construction.
Implementation of MMs CUL-3 and CUL-4 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant levels by ensuring the avoidance of archaeological resources to the extent feasible, or by identifying, evaluating, and conducting data recovery archaeological resources that may be impacted by future projects in a timely manner. With implementation of these measures, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-3 Archaeological Resources Study
For future projects involving ground disturbance on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Phase I archaeological resources assessment under the supervision of an archaeologist meeting the PQS in archaeology (National Park Service 1983).
Assessments must include a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search at the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center, Sacred Lands File search maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, and intensive-level pedestrian survey, and archaeological sensitivity analysis. The assessment must be completed prior to project approval.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Environmental Assessment 4.4-17
If the Phase I archaeological resources assessment identifies resources that may be affected by the project, an extended Phase I testing program, Phase II testing and evaluation, and/or archaeological monitoring may be required, as determined by the qualified archaeologist. If resources are determined significant or unique, avoidance or preservation-in-place may reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program and curations, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist and City. The City will review and approve reports and ensure that mitigation measures are implemented as appropriate prior to or during construction.
CUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).
The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource.
Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant with mitigation.
Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 THERE ARE NO GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT THAT COULD RESULT IN DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN BURIALS. HOWEVER, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5 AND PRC SECTION 5097.98. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American
4.4-18
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendent (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
It is possible that future cumulative development could potentially disturb areas resulting in impacts to known or unknown historical resources. While impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for development facilitated by the project, cumulative development may result in direct or indirect impacts to historical resources. As such, cumulative historical impacts would be significant.
Development facilitated by the project would adhere to the provisions of the General Plan policies related to historical resources. However, even after implementation of these guidelines, the proposed project would result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
Buildout of cumulative projects could potentially disturb areas that may contain unknown archaeological resources. While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Projects would be subject to City policies and local and State regulations regarding the protection of such resources, and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for development facilitated by the project.
Development facilitated by the project would adhere to existing policies and regulation related to archeological resources. However, even after implementation of these guidelines, the proposed project would result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
Future projects and cumulative projects in the region would involve ground-disturbing activities which could encounter human remains. If human remains are found, the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, as described in Impact CUL-3, above. With adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4.
Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant with mitigation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-1
4.5 Energy
This section evaluates impacts to energy, including the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, associated with development facilitated by the proposed project. For impacts related to air quality, see Section 4.2, Air Quality, and for impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, see Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
4.5.1 Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality, as energy usage can adversely affect air quality and other natural resources. Fossil fuels are burned in order to create electricity that powers homes and vehicles. Transportation energy usage relates to the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, the availability and use of public transportation, miles traveled and the choice of different travel modes, including auto, carpool, and public transit. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of infrastructure also consumes energy, typically in the form of natural gas and electricity.
Energy Supply
Impacts to energy resources are directly related to petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear, thermal, solar, hydroelectric, biodiesel, ethanol and other sources of energy that could be consumed resulting from development facilitated by the proposed project.
Energy Consumption and Sources
Total energy consumption in the United States (U.S.) in 2023 was approximately 93.58 quadrillion British thermal unit (Btu).
1 In 2023, petroleum provided approximately 38 percent of that energy and natural gas provided approximately 36 percent. Other sources of energy included coal (approximately nine percent), renewable sources (approximately nine percent), and nuclear power (approximately nine percent). On a per capita basis in 2022, California was ranked the third lowest (i.e., most energy efficient) state in terms of total energy consumption (176 million Btu [MMBtu] per person), or about 47 percent less than the U.S. average per capita consumption of 332 MMBtu per person.
2 Electricity
In 2022, California generated approximately 215,625 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in-state.
The primary fuel sources included natural gas, hydroelectric, solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and solar thermal. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), the state's electricity mix is increasingly reliant on solar energy, with photovoltaic systems producing over 39,422 GWh in 2023.
3 Fresno County consumed approximately 7,414 GWh of electricity in 2023 from residential and non-residential uses.
4 Table 4.5-1 illustrates the County’s 2023 electricity consumption in comparison to statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per capita energy consumption from its 1 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2023. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-complete.php 2 Ibid. 2022. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/ 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024. Accessed June 2025: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californiaelectricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0 4 Ibid., 2023. Accessed June 2025: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-2
electricity demand. With a population of 1,015,633 in 20235, Fresno County’s 2023 per capita electricity consumption was approximately 7,297 kWh, or approximately 25 MMBtu (0.74 MMBtu more than the State per capita average).
Table 4.5-1 2023 Annual Electricity Consumption
Energy Type
Fresno County
(GWh)
California
(GWh)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per Capita
Consumption
(kWh)
County per Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Electricity 7,414 276,213 2.68% 7,297 25
Sources: California Energy Commission, 2023; and Department of Finance 2023 The primary electricity provider serving the City of Clovis is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E is responsible for the distribution of electricity and is also the natural gas provider for the City. As of 2022, PG&E delivered electricity that was approximately 95% GHG emissions-free, with nearly 40 percent sourced from eligible renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric power.
6 In conjunction with the utility companies, including PG&E, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversees and promotes a wide range of energy conservation programs throughout the state.
CPUC and the CEC are responsible for assessing population growth, electricity demand, and reliability in the state. The CEC conducts assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s economy, and protect public health and safety.
7 Power plants that provide electricity for PG&E are required to go through individual environmental review processes, which may be through the CEC’s certified regulatory program under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or through the CPUC’s CEQA processes. The CEC is continuously tracking potential projects 50 megawatt (MW) and larger. 8 Similarly, the CPUC conducts and
manages environmental review of infrastructure projects, including electric, gas, water, and telecommunications.
9 Natural Gas
Nationally, natural gas-fired generation has dominated electricity production in the U.S. for many years. In 2023, the two largest sources of energy production were from natural gas and petroleum (including crude oil); the U.S. produced 39.12 quadrillion Btu of natural gas and 34.96 quadrillion Btu of crude oil.10 Natural gas supplies nearly one-third of California’s total energy demand and is used across a range of applications, including electricity generation, space and water heating, 5 California Department of Finance (DOF). Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2021-2025. 2023. Accessed June 2025:
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2025-with2020-census-benchmark/ 6 PG&E. 2022. Accessed June 2025: https://www.pge.com/en/about/corporate-responsibility-and-sustainability/takingresponsibility/clean-energy-solutions.html 7 California Public Resources Code Section 25301[a]). Accessed June 2025:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=25301 8 CEC., 2023.). 9 Ibid., 2022. 10 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2023. Accessed May 2025: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/data-andstatistics.php
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-3
cooking, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. It is measured in cubic feet (cf). California relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.11 Fresno County as a whole consumed approximately 340 million therms of natural gas in 2023 in both residential and non-residential uses.
12 Table 4.5-2 illustrates the County’s 2023 natural gas consumption in comparison to statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per capita energy consumption from its natural gas demand. With a population of 1,015,633 in 202313, Fresno County’s 2023 per capita natural gas consumption was approximately 335 therms, or approximately 33 MMBtu (approximately 2.98 MMBtu more per capita than the state average).
Table 4.5-2 2023 Annual Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type
Fresno County
(Millions of U.S.
therms)
California
(Millions of U.S.
therms)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per
Capita
Consumption
(U.S. therms)
County per
Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Natural Gas 340 11,964 2.8% 335 33
Source: CEC, 2025; and DOF, 2023.
The City of Clovis is located within PG&E’s natural gas service area, which spans central and northern California. In 2023, PG&E customers consumed a total of 4.7 billion therms of natural gas.
Residential users accounted for approximately 43 percent of PG&E’s natural gas consumption.
Industrial and commercial users accounted for another 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The remainder was used for mining, construction, agricultural, and water pump accounts. 14 The 2024 California Gas Report presents a comprehensive outlook for natural gas requirements and supplies for California through the year 2040. The report is prepared in even-numbered years, followed by a supplemental report in odd-numbered years, in compliance with CPUC Decision D.95- 01-039. The projections contained in the California Gas Report are for long-term planning and do not necessarily reflect the day-to-day operational plans of the utilities.15 California natural gas demand is expected to decrease at a rate of 2.0 percent per year from 2024 to 2040. The forecasted decline is largely due to moderate growth in the natural gas vehicle market and across-the-board declines in all other market segments, including residential, commercial, electric generation, and industrial. Residential gas demand is expected to decrease at an annual average rate of 7.6 percent.16 Demand in the commercial and industrial markets are expected to decrease at an annual rate of 2.9 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively. Stricter regulations and standards coupled with more aggressive energy efficiency are making a significant impact on the forecasted load for the residential, commercial, and industrial markets.
Gas-fired generation will remain a key resource for meeting demand and supporting the variability of renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, statewide gas demand for electric generation is 11 Ibid., 2023.
12 Ibid. 2022. Accessed May 2025: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1 13 Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. Accessed May 2025: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2025-with-2020-census-benchmark/ 14 CEC. 2023. Accessed May 2025: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1 15 California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU) 2024. Accessed June 2025: https://www.pge.com/pipeline/en/referencelibrary/regulatory/cgr.html 16 Ibid.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-4
projected to decline by approximately 1.1 percent annually through 2040.17 This trend reflects the increasing efficiency of power plants, California’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions, and the growing adoption of low- or zero-carbon energy resources. For more details on PG&E’s gas supply and capacity outlook, refer to the 2024 California Gas Report.18 Transportation Energy
Energy consumed by the transportation sector accounts for roughly 42 percent of California’s energy demand, which amounted to approximately 3,056 trillion Btu in 2023. 19 Approximately 96
percent of the State’s transportation activity uses petroleum based fuels. 20 California’s
transportation sector, including on-road and rail transportation, consumed approximately 2,974 trillion Btus of petroleum fuels in 2023.
21 California refines nine percent of the total crude oil in the U.S.; third in quantity following Texas and Louisiana.22 Gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles and refined in California is required to meet state-specific formulations required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
23 As shown in Table 4.5-3, an estimated 453 million gallons of fuel were sold at transportation fuel stations in Fresno County in 2023, of which approximately 372 million gallons were gasoline and approximately 81 million gallons were diesel fuel.24 Using CEC estimates on fuel sales and a Department of Finance (DOF) 2023 population estimate of 1,015,653, 25 the County’s annual per
capita fuel consumption in 2023 can be estimated at 366 gallons of gasoline and 80 gallons of diesel fuel per person.
Table 4.5-3 2023 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Sales Estimates Fuel Type
Fresno County
(million gallons)
California
(million gallons)
Proportion of
Statewide Sales
County per Capita
Annual Consumption
Estimates
(gallons)
Gasoline 372 13,576 2.7% 366
Diesel 81 2,316 3.4% 80
Total 453 15,892 − 446
Source: CEC, 2023; and DOF, 2023.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2023. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025. Accessible at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcmentprogram/california-reformulated-gasoline 24 CEC. 2023. Accessed May 2025: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1 25 Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. Accessed May 2025: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2025-with-2020-census-benchmark/
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-5
Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Health and Safety Code Section 38566 [Senate Bill (SB) 32]). Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with many alternative fuels including the following:
Hydrogen. Hydrogen is being explored for use in combustion engines and fuel cell electric vehicles. The interest in hydrogen as an alternative transportation fuel stems from its cleanburning qualities, its potential for domestic production, and the fuel cell vehicle's potential for high efficiency (two to three times more efficient than gasoline vehicles). As of 2025, there were 53 open hydrogen refueling stations in California. None are in the City of Clovis, the closest being in the City of Coalinga at 24505 West Dorris Avenue, approximately 60 miles southeast of Clovis.
26 Biodiesel. Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is biodegradable and cleaner-burning than petroleum-based diesel fuel. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine generally without alterations but fueling stations have been slow to make it available. There are 30 biodiesel refueling stations in California; the nearest biodiesel fueling station to Clovis is located at 3175 Avenue 17, approximately 35 miles from Clovis in Madera, California.27 Electricity. Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles directly from the power grid. The electricity grid usually provides electricity used to power vehicles, which store it in the vehicle's batteries. Electrical charging stations are available throughout Fresno County and in the City of Clovis. The City of Clovis has 139 public charging stations, three of which are free EV charging stations and 25 are DC Fast Chargers. 28 Energy and Fuel Efficiency
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the U.S., ranked 49th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climates.29 Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes and transportation. Though the demand for gasoline and diesel fuel is rising because of population growth and limited mass transit, the increase in demand can be offset partially by efficiency improvements and standards. Land use policies that encourage infill and growth near transit centers (e.g., following SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), as well as improvements to fuel efficiency, and gradual replacement of the vehicle fleet with new, more fuel-efficient and alternative fuel as well as electric cars, will all reduce petroleum fuel use.
26California Fuel Cell Partnership 2025 Accessed May 2025: https://h2fcp.org/stationmap 27 Alternative Fuels Data Center. U.S. Department of Energy. 2025. Accessed May 2025:
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest?country=US&fuel=BD&location=california 28 PlugShare 2025. Accessed May 2025: https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/clovis 29 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2024. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-6
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The Act aims to expand the production of renewable fuels, reduce dependence on oil, and confront global climate change. Specifically, it does the following:
Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over previous levels; and Reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national vehicle fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 – a 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards over those in 2007.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE standards). The CAFE standards are federal rules established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that set fuel economy standards for new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.. The CAFE standards have become increasingly stringent, with the combined industry-wide fleet for the model year 2020 required to achieve an estimated average of 38.3 miles per gallon.
30 In September 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NHTSA issued the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, Part One “One National Program” (84 FR 51310). This rule revoked a waiver previously granted by the EPA to the State of California under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which had allowed California to enforce more stringent GHG emission standards for motor vehicles than those required at the federal level. This revocation became effective on November 26, 2019, and could have restricted the ability of the CARB to enforce more stringent GHG emission standards for new vehicles and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California.
However, on December 21, 2021, the NHTSA published its CAFE Preemption rule, which finalizes its repeal of 2019’s SAFE Rule, Part One.
Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule addresses CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2024 to 2031. The CAFE standards require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026. The new standards increase fuel efficiency by eight percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and by 10 percent annually for model year 2026. They also increase the estimated fleetwide average by nearly 10 mpg for model year 2026, relative to model year 2021. Additionally, under this rule, the fuel economy will increase two percent per year for model years 2027 to 2031 for passenger cars, while light trucks will increase two percent per year for model years 2029 to 2031. These increases aim to bring the average light-duty vehicle fuel economy up to approximately 50.4 mpg by model year 2031.
30 Environmental Protection Agency & National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2012.77 Federal Register [FR] 62624 et seq.
October 15, 2012, Table I-1. Accessed July 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pd
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-7
Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by the U.S. EPA to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, certified appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the U.S.
EPA joined the Energy Department to expand the program to include the certification of commercial, industrial, and residential buildings.
Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The U.S. EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015. b. State Regulations
California Energy Plan
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established what is now known as the CEC. The CEC is responsible for preparing the California Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The California Energy Plan requires the State to assist in transforming the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies in an energy efficient manner. The plan identifies strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), such as providing assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles, addressing infrastructure needs and encouragement of urban designs that accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000; codified as Public Resources Code Sections 25720-25721), the CEC and CARB prepared and adopted in 2003 a joint agency report, entitled Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030; significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles; and reduce per capita VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand 15 percent below the 2003 demand. Furthermore, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.
Senate Bill 100: California Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Program:
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Approved by the Governor on September 10, 2018, SB 100 amends the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which originally called for electricity retailers to ensure 33 percent of electricity generation was sourced from renewable sources by 2020, 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. With implementation of SB 100, electricity retailers must ensure
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-8
33 percent of electricity generation is sourced from renewable sources by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, 50 percent by 2026, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 further requires electricity retailers to provide 100 percent zero-carbon electricity generation by 2045.
Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and price to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s economy, and protect public health and safety. The 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report, adopted in February 2023, highlights the implementation of California’s policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy. The Integrated Energy Policy Report contains recommendations on energy usage policies such as decarbonizing buildings, energy efficiency savings, increasing flexibility in the electrical system to integrate more renewable energy and improve energy reliability, and reducing gasoline and diesel use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. 31
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350), signed into law on October 7, 2015, advances California’s climate and energy goals by implementing key provisions of Executive Order B30-15. The bill establishes a statewide target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To achieve this, SB 350 mandates that 50 percent of electricity sold to retail customers must come from eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2030.
Additionally, it requires a doubling of energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses through increased conservation and efficiency measures by December 31, 2030. The latest statewide GHG emissions target and procurement of electricity from renewable sources is discussed under SB 1020 below.
Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the “Pavley bill,” amended Health and Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 and requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, lightduty trucks, and other noncommercial personal transportation vehicles in California.
Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required the State of California to apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the U.S. EPA initially denied the waiver in 2008, U.S. EPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions.
32 Energy Action Plan
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan (EAP) II, the CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as 31 CEC. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. 2023. Accessed June 2025: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report-iepr/2022-integrated-energy-policy-report 32 Ibid.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-9
the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues and research, and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative, nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Senate Bill 1020: Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act Originally established under SB 1078 (2002) and strengthened by subsequent legislation including SB 107 (2006), SB X1-2 (2011), and SB 100 (2018), California’s RPS was further advanced by SB 1020.
This legislation sets interim targets for achieving 100 percent clean electricity statewide by 2045.
Specifically, it requires that eligible renewable and zero-carbon energy resources supply 90 percent of retail electricity sales by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2045. Additionally, it mandates that all electricity procured to serve state agencies must come from 100 percent clean sources by 2035. SB 1020 was signed into law in 2022, and supersedes SB 350 targets, which had aimed for 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. The CPUC and the CEC, in coordination with the CARB, are jointly responsible for implementing and overseeing the program.
Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06, April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. EO S-06-06 also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste.
Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications.
Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the State.
Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-10
California Code of Regulations (CCR)
CCR Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CCR, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020, must follow the 2019 standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The CEC Impact Analysis estimates that nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to buildings built consistent with 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and single-family homes will be seven percent more energy efficient. Due to the solar requirement for all new homes, the CEC also estimates that the 2019 standards will cut energy demand from grid electricity in new homes by more than 50 percent. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided these standards exceed those provided in Title 24.
The City of Clovis has adopted the 2022 California Building Code (Title 24 Building Standards) in Chapter 8.1 of the CMC. CMC Chapter 8.16 and 8.17 adopts the 2022 California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code, respectively, establishing statewide standards for energy efficiency in building design, construction, and system. This includes requirements on insulation, lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, as well as renewable energy readiness.
California Green Building Standards Code (2019), CCR Title 24, Part 11 California’s green building code (CALGreen) was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building within the State. CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. The requirements pertain to energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and reductions to internal air contaminants. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485
Sections 2449 and 2485 are separate but related regulations in the CCRs that aim to reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles. Section 2449 contains the In-Use Off-Road DieselFueled Fleets Regulations, which are intended to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and diesel particulate matter. Section 2485 is an Airborne Toxic Control Measure that limits idling of certain diesel-fueled vehicles for more than five minutes.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-11
California’s 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Every two years, the CEC prepares the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). The IEPR identifies actions the state and others can take to ensure a clean, affordable, and reliable energy system.
California’s innovative energy policies strengthen energy resiliency, reduce GHG emissions, improve air quality, and contribute to an equitable future. Volume II of the 2020 IEPR examines microgrids, lessons learned from a decade of state-supported research, and stakeholder feedback on the potential of microgrids to contribute to a clean and resilient energy system. Volume III reports California’s energy-demand outlook, updated to reflect the global pandemic and plan for a growth in zero-emission plug in electric vehicles.
c. Local Regulations
Clovis General Plan 2014
The City has several policies in place to reduce energy consumption from area sources and promote renewable energy. Open Space and Conservation Element policies include:
Policy 3.5: Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage new development and substantial rehabilitation projects to exceed energy and water conservation and reduction standards set in the California Building Code.
Policy 3.6: Renewable Energy. Promote the use of renewable and sustainable energy sources to serve public and private sector development.
Policy 3.7: Construction and Design. Encourage new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies.
Clovis Municipal Code
Chapter 8.1 of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) adopts and amends the latest version of the California Building Code.
Chapter 9.110 of the CMC introduces energy conservation regulations for parcel configurations, site design and layout for heating and cooling.
4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
No physical development is proposed as part of the project, however, as a result of the rezoning an assumed additional 1,303 housing units could be accommodated, with the maximum amount of 1,651 units. The physical environmental impacts associated with the use of energy, including the generation of electricity and burning of fuels, are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy consumption is analyzed herein in terms of construction and operational energy.
Construction energy demand for the development facilitated by the project is evaluated qualitatively because project-specific information regarding construction is unavailable for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project. Construction energy demand accounts for anticipated energy consumption during construction of development facilitated by the proposed
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-12
project, such as fuel consumed by construction equipment and construction workers’ vehicles traveling to and from the construction site. These construction activities would temporarily create a higher demand for energy supplies. The extent of energy use generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project.
Operational energy demand accounts for the anticipated energy consumption from development facilitated by the project, such as fuel consumed by cars, trucks, and public transit; natural gas consumed for on-site power generation and heating building spaces; and electricity consumed for building power needs, including, but not limited to, lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning.
Operational natural gas and electricity consumption from development facilitated by the proposed project wase approximated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. This analysis then determined whether energy consumed during operation for full buildout (maximum allowable density of 1,651 housing units) facilitated by the project would be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Daily natural gas and electricity consumption for development facilitated by the project is detailed in Sections 4.2, Air Quality and 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The estimate of total daily VMT associated with the proposed project is based on VMT data provided in Section 4.13, Transportation.
Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant energy impact would occur if new development facilitated by the proposed project would:
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project involves land use designation changes and rezoning of 20 Infill Rezone Program sites throughout the City to allow higher densities. These changes would not result in direct physical changes to the environment such that impacts related to energy would occur. However, the land use designation changes along with the rezoning would facilitate the development of up to 1,651 units with an assumed development potential of 1,303 units. Therefore, analysis focuses on impacts associated with the potential additional development on the identified lots throughout the City of Clovis.
Threshold 1: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact E-1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD CONSUME ENERGY, BUT MORE
EFFICIENTLY THAN WITH CURRENT ZONING DUE TO THE HIGHER DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project does not involve any physical development, however, energy resources consumed by construction and operation of development facilitated by the rezoning aspect of the project would be primarily reliant on petroleum fuels. Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-13
other vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel.
33 Diesel is used primarily by freight trucks,
trains, buses, boats, barges, farm equipment, and military vehicles. 34 Construction Energy Consumption
The project does not propose any physical construction; however, the rezoning of 20 sites would facilitate future development at densities higher than previously allowed. Energy use during project construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, lightduty vehicles, machinery, and construction worker travel to and from the project site. Energy use would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. Furthermore, development facilitated by the project would utilize licensed construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the CCR Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485. Statewide regulations restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment and require certification of construction equipment and periodic site inspection. Further, for both environmental awareness and cost efficiency, construction contractors are unlikely to utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. As such, future development on the Infill Rezone Program sites would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction. This impact would be less than significant.
Operational Energy Consumption
Development facilitated by the project would be at higher densities than might have occurred under previous zoning and land use designations. Therefore, operation of future projects could consume more electricity. However, future development would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11). The California Energy Code establishes mandatory energy efficiency standards for newly constructed and renovated residential and non-residential buildings throughout the state. These standards apply to various building components, including the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings, and appliances. It also provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize operational energy conservation.
Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings.
The California Energy Code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures. The California Green Building Standards Code sets targets for energy efficiency; water consumption; dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water; diversion of construction waste from landfills; and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. Additionally, rezoning to allow for higher density development would reduce energy consumption generally, as households in more compact neighborhoods consume significantly less energy than those in lower density, cardependent areas due to smaller unit sizes, shared walls for lower heating and cooling demands, and more efficient infrastructure on the site.35
33 EIA. 2022. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php 34 Ibid. 2023. Accessed June 2025: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/use-of-diesel.php 35 Location Efficiency and Housing Type. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2011.Accessed May 2025:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-14
CalEEMod analysis on whether the energy consumed during operation for the maximum allowable density of 1,651 housing units that would be facilitated by the project was not determined to be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Operation of future projects facilitated by the rezoning project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources; therefore, impacts on operational energy consumption as a result of the project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY STATE OR LOCAL PLANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
No physical development is proposed as part of the project. As described above, any development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to the CCR Title 24, Part 6 which sets requirements for California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and non-residential buildings. As such, future development would adhere to design standards that govern indoor/outdoor lighting, mechanical systems, solar, and electrical power distribution, among other features.
In addition to the California Building Code, new development facilitated by the project would be subject to Clovis General Plan policies to reduce energy consumption from area sources and promote renewable energy.
Table 4.5-4 outlines the project consistency with state renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.
Table 4.5-4 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency California Energy Plan. The plan identifies several
strategies, including assistance to public agencies
and fleet operators in implementing incentive
programs for zero-emission vehicles and
addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as
encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT
and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
Consistent. The proposed rezoning of 20 Infill Rezone Program sites throughout the City would facilitate higher-density development in existing urban areas. These infill locations are generally well-served by existing infrastructure and transit.
Development facilitated by the project would ultimately encourage urban design that reduces VMT and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the California Energy Plan.
AB 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum.
Pursuant to AB 2076, the CEC and CARB prepared
and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing
California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003.
Included in this report are recommendations to
increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent
of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30
percent by 2030, significantly increase the
efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita
Consistent. The Infill Rezone Program would support increased development density in existing urban areas, which can reduce per capita VMT by encouraging proximity between housing, jobs, and services. By facilitating development in areas already served by infrastructure and transit, the project would indirectly support reduced petroleum consumption and vehicle efficiency goals.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of AB 2076 and Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-15
Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency VMT. One of the performance-based goals of AB
2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15
percent below 2003 demand.
2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Volume I
highlights the implementation of California’s
innovative policies and the role they have played
in establishing a clean energy economy. Volume II
provides more detail on several key energy
policies, including decarbonizing buildings,
increasing energy efficiency savings, and
integrating more renewable energy into the
electricity system.
Consistent. The proposed rezoning of 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would facilitate future development subject to the City’s General Plan policies, as well as the adopted Title 24 standards, which includes requirements for energy efficiency upgrades, improved insulation, renewable energy integration, and the use of electric appliances. By enabling development in areas already served by infrastructure, the project supports efficient energy use and decarbonization of buildings. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report.
AB 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and
adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible
and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions
from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
other vehicles used for noncommercial personal
transportation in California.
Consistent. The Infill Rezone Program would support compact development patterns in existing urban areas, which can reduce per capita VMT by encouraging proximity between housing, jobs, and services. Facilitating development in areas already served by infrastructure and transit, the project would indirectly support reduced petroleum consumption and vehicle efficiency goals.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct AB 1493.
Energy Action Plan. In October 2005, the CEC and
CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding
some important dimensions to the policy areas
included in the original EAP, such as the emerging
importance of climate change, transportationrelated energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an
update to the EAP II in February 2008 that
supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the
state’s ongoing actions in the context of global
climate change. The nine major action areas in the
EAP include energy efficiency, demand response,
renewable energy, electricity
adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity
market structure, natural gas
supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation
fuels supply/demand/infrastructure,
research/development/demonstration, and
climate change.
Consistent. As described above, new development would be subject to the City’s General Plan and Building Code, which adopts Title 24 standards, and would include energy efficiency upgrades such as improved insulation, renewable energy upgrades, and use of electric appliances. Furthermore, the Infill Rezone Program would facilitate development in existing urban areas, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by supporting shorter travel distances and increased access to transit, walking, and biking infrastructure. Therefore, the Infill Rezone Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the EAP.
Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06.
The EO establishes the following targets to
increase the production and use of bioenergy,
including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from
renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20
percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40
percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050.
Consistent. The Infill Rezone Program would not interfere with or obstruct the production of biofuels in California. Vehicles used by future residents would be fueled by gasoline and diesel fuels blended with ethanol and biodiesel fuels as required by CARB regulations. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bioenergy Action Plan or the State Alternative Fuels Plan.
CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; EO = executive order; GHG = greenhouse gas emissions; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-16
Development anticipated to occur on the Infill Rezone Program sites are required to be consistent with Clovis General Plan policies related to the reduction of energy consumption from area sources and promotion of renewable energy. These policies are also consistent with state renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Additionally, as shown in Table 4.5-4, given compliance with policies included in the Clovis General Plan and Municipal Code, construction and operation of future development facilitated by the project would not conflict with a local or state renewable-energy and energy-efficiency plans.
With regard to transportation related energy usage, the project would not conflict with the goals of FCOGs 2026 RTP/SCS. Any future building on the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would be infill development which would reduce fossil fuel use by decreasing VMT and increase energy efficiency compared to lower density uses through shared walls and more efficient infrastructure on the site.
A more detailed discussion on GHG impacts is included in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Therefore, the rezoning of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites does not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for energy consumption is the City of Clovis. This geographic scope is appropriate because the smallest scale at which energy consumption information is readily available is at the city level.
Cumulative development in Clovis and throughout the region would continue to increase concurrently; however, projects throughout California are required to adhere to applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency laws, programs, and policies such as California’s RPS, AB 2076, and Title 24 standards. All other pending and future projects in the City would be required to adhere to Clovis General Plan policies, CMC, and Title 24 building standards to address energy efficiency and mitigate adverse energy impacts where feasible.
Cumulative development would increase demand for energy resources, but those resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. However, new iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient appliances, building construction techniques, and building materials that reduce energy consumption in new development. In addition, vehicle fuel efficiency is anticipated to continue to improve through implementation of the existing Pavley Bill regulations under AB 1493.
Development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The operation of the new residential, public, and recreational structures and facilities would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy as discussed above. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy
Environmental Assessment 4.5-17
Future housing development as a result of the Infill Rezone Program would be located in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, which would reduce the usage of single-occupancy vehicles and lower projected VMT. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact is not cumulatively considerable.
Overall, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the energy-related goals, policies, and actions of the statewide plans, Title 24 building standards, and the City’s General Plan policies; therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant adverse cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.5-18
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-1
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section analyzes the project’s potential impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the potential for the proposed project to generate GHG emissions in excess of standards or to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, associated with the proposed project.
4.6.1 Setting
GHG emissions and climate change are a cumulative global issue. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate GHG emissions within the United States and the State of California, respectively. While CARB has the primary regulatory responsibility within California for GHG emissions, local agencies can also adopt policies for GHG emissions reduction. CARB has divided California into regional air basins. The project is in Fresno County, which is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature, rainfall, and other weather conditions, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented acceleration rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius (°C) between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (U.S. EPA 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-2
GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation, largely determine its atmospheric concentrations.
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (U.S. EPA 2021a).
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted. This is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) and is defined as the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis.1 The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 91 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler.2
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories
Global Emissions Inventory
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 MMT of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed three percent, and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change and forestry. 3 United States Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of
0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease in carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25. 2 World Meteorological Organization. 2022. Greenhouse Gases. Accessible at: https://wmo.int/topics/greenhouse-gases 3 U.S. EPA Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated April 2021. Accessible at:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-3
percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors.
4 California Emissions Inventory
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2022, California produced 371.1 MMT of CO2e in 2022, which is 9.3 MMT of CO2e lower than 2021 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 39 percent of the State of California’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 23 percent of the State’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 16 percent.5 The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California (State) achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e.
6 The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e.
7 Local Emissions Inventory
As discussed in the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report adopted in June 2014, Clovis’ 2014 GHG emissions totaled approximately 856,578 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e), of which 590,935 MTCO2e were from community-wide emissions and 265,643 MTCO2e were from natural gas permitted sources. Of the 590,935 MTCO2e of community-wide emissions, transportation contributed 63 percent; residential energy contributed 14 percent, non-residential energy contributed eight percent; off-road equipment contributed eight percent; waste contributed four percent; and water and wastewater contributed four percent. 8 c. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature for January 2025 was 1.33°C (2.39°F) above the 20th century average of
12.0°C (53.6°F) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2025). Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations jointly indicate that LSAT and sea surface temperatures have increased.
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential 4 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 2021. Accessible at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 5 CARB. 2025. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data 6 CARB 2021. GHG 1990 Emissions Level & 2020 Limit. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-2020-limit 7 CARB 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 8 City of Clovis. 2014. Clovis, City of. 2014a. General Plan EIR. Accessible at:
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/general_plan/environmental_impact_report.php
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-4
impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large wildfires, and more drought years.9 In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the State and regionally specific climate change case studies.
10 However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.
Air Quality and Wildfires
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by
2.4 to 3.2°C in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C in the next century. Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the State has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the State. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by possible wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them.
11 Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the West, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.
Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more.12 This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand are not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts.
13 The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that 9 California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf 10 Ibid. 11 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. Accessible at:
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf 12 California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf 13 Ibid.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-5
falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack.
Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050.
14 Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding. Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding and erosion of coastal areas. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2020, observed by satellites, is approximately 3.3 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year.15 Global mean sea levels in 2013 were about 0.23 meters higher than those of 1880. 16 Sea levels are rising faster
now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging between 0.25 to 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario.
17 A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100- year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure.18 Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.
Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts.19 Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks.
20 Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality. 21 14 California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf 15 World Meteorological Organization. 2022. Greenhouse Gases. Accessible at: https://wmo.int/topics/greenhouse-gases 16 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ 17 IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.
Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf 18 California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf 19 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. California Agricultural Production Statistics.” Accessed July 2025:
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
20 California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf 21 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. https://research.fit.edu/media/sitespecific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation-library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-6
Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales, including habitat for plants, animals, and people. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions as a result of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage.
22 4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal GHG Emissions Regulation
The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 497) held that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that establishes the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (134 S. Ct. 2427 [2014]) held that U.S. EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits that are otherwise required (based on emissions of other pollutants) may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of best available control technology.
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Rule
On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. To account for the effects of the Part One Rule, CARB released offmodel adjustment factors on November 20, 2019, to adjust criteria air pollutant emissions outputs from the emission factor (EMFAC) model. The Final SAFE Rule (i.e., Part Two) then relaxed federal GHG emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to increase in stringency at only about 1.5 percent per year from model year 2020 levels over model years 2021-2026. 23 The
previously established emission standards and related fuel economy standards would have achieved about four percent per year improvements through model year 2025. Therefore, CARB has prepared off-model CO2 emissions adjustment factors for both the EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017 models to 22 Parmesan. August. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Vol. 37, 2006. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 23 CARB. 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-7
account for the impact of the SAFE Vehicles Rule.
24 With the incorporation of these adjustment
factors, operational emission factors for CO2 generated by light-duty automobiles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks associated with project-related vehicle trips may increase by approximately one percent (in 2020) up to as much as 17 percent (in 2050) compared to nonadjusted estimates. These increases would not alter the significance of the operational GHG emissions from development facilitated by the project as studied in this EA and discussed further below.
b. State Regulations
California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (Assembly Bill 1493) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as Pavley), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “Low Emission Vehicle III GHG”, regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emission Vehicle, Zero Emissions Vehicles, and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions compared to their model year 2016 levels.
25 The implementation of these rules is currently delayed due to the SAFE Vehicle Rule, described under Federal Regulations.
Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act and Scoping Plan) California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 Statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 million MTCO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-andTrade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.
In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 Statewide goals. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land 24 Ibid.
25 CARB. 2011. Advanced Clean Cars Summary. Accessible at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/acc%20summaryfinal_ac.pdf
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-8
use. The State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction targets in 2016, and emissions have subsequently fallen further in 2018 to 425 MMTCO2e.
Senate Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act and Scoping Plan Extension) Senate Bill (SB) 32 signed into law on September 8, 2016, tightens the requirements of AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, it recommends that local governments adopt policies consistent with statewide per capita goals of 6 MTCO2e by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e by 2050. As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level).
AB 1279 (California Climate Crisis Act and Scoping Plan Extension) The California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279), signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires the State to achieve and maintain net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but not later than 2045. The Climate Crisis Act also requires the State to reduce Statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to 85 percent below the 1990 levels by 2045. Updates to the Scoping Plan are required to identify and recommend measures to achieve these goals and identify and implement policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the State.
On November 16, 2022, CARB also adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving targets for carbon neutrality and reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The 2022 Scoping Plan relies on significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.
Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (Senate Bill 100) Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Senate Bill 97 and CEQA Guidelines Update
SB 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG and climate change impacts.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-9
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan. On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) was assigned targets of a five percent per capita reduction in GHGs per capita by 2020 and a 10 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the Fresno COG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.
PRC Division 30 Part 3 Chapter 13.1 and Health and Safety Code Sections 39730.5-8 (Senate Bill 1383)
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Building Code) The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the State. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code and was developed to help the State achieve its GHG reduction goals under Health and Safety Code (HSC) Division 25.5 (e.g., AB 32) by codifying standards for reducing building-related energy, water, and resource demand, which in turn reduces GHG emissions from energy consumption, water storage and delivery, and other resource consumption activities. The purpose
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-10
of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute for or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Title 24 Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards continue to improve upon the previous (2019) Title 24 standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings.
26 The 2022 Title 24 Standards “build on California’s technology innovations, encouraging energy efficient approaches to encourage building decarbonization, emphasizing in particular on heat pumps for space heating and water heating. This set of Energy Codes also extends the benefits of photovoltaic and battery storage systems and other demand flexible technology to work in combinations with heat pumps to enable California buildings to be responsive to climate change.
This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. This update provides crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by midcentury”.
27 The 2022 Energy Code is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by 10 MMT of CO2e over the next 30 years and result in approximately 1.5 billion dollars in consumer savings.28 Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process.
Assembly Bill 341/Assembly Bill 1826 (Mandatory Recycling/Composting) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows diversion away from landfills of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020 and annually thereafter.
AB 1826 requires recycling of organic waste (i.e., composting). All businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and multi-family residential dwellings that have five or more units are required to recycle and compost.
Senate Bill 1383
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1383 into law. SB 1383 establishes methane reduction targets as part of a larger strategy to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The law establishes a mandated target to achieve a 75 percent reduction in statewide disposal of organic waste by 2025 and requires the state to increase edible food recovery by 20 percent for human consumption by 2025. To achieve these targets, CalRecycle developed a series of rules for all cities and counties throughout California to implement. The regulations were finalized by CalRecycle in November 2020 and take effect on January 1, 2022. 26 CEC. 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessible at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency 27 Ibid. 28 CEC. 2022. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions From Homes and Businesses. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2024-09/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standards-expanding-requirementsheat#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%93%20The%20California%20Energy%20Commission,climate%20and%20public%20health%20go als.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-11
Senate Bills 350 and 100 (Renewable Portfolio/Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act)
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. This act also requires doubling of the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030.
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Assembly Bill 1493 (Reduce GHG Emissions from Vehicle Use) AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the first Pavley Bill, amended HSC Sections 42823 and added 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.
Assembly Bill 1007 (State Alternative Fuels Plan)
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, State, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-State production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-State production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
CARB In-Use On-Road and Off-Road Diesel Rules
The CARB rule imposes limits on idling, restricts the addition of older vehicles, and requires the retirement or replacement of older engines depending on their fleet size category. This policy indirectly impacts energy consumption. More specifically, CARB is also charged with developing air pollution control regulations based upon the best available control measures and implementing feasible control measures under the State and Federal Clean Air Act. (HSC, §§ 39602.5, 39667, 43013, subds. (a) and (h), 43018, 40600, 40601, 40612(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A).) Pursuant to these statutory authorities, more stringent emission standards were adopted in 2004 for off-road construction equipment (i.e., “Tier 4” standards) (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2025; AR 2854). CARB also adopted emission standards for onroad heavy duty diesel vehicles (i.e. haul trucks). (CCR, tit. 13, § 1956.8.) These haul truck regulations mandate fleet turn-over to ensure that by January 1, 2023 nearly all on-road diesel trucks will have 2010 model year engines or equivalent [i.e. Tier 4]. In addition, interim steps are incorporated into the regulations (e.g., vehicles older than 1999 will be replaced with newer engines by 2020).
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-12
California Advance Clean Trucks Program
In June 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which requires manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. In addition, the regulation requires company and fleet reporting for large employers and fleet owners with 50 or more trucks. By 2045, all new trucks sold in California must be zero-emission. Implementation of this regulation would reduce consumption of nonrenewable transportation fuels as trucks transition to alternative fuel sources.
Executive Order B-48-18 (Zero-Emission Vehicles)
On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-48-18 requiring all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of the EV charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Action Plan, along with the 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which includes and extends the 2016 ZEV Action Plan (Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles 2016, 2018), to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities.
Executive Order N-79-20 (Zero Emissions Vehicles Sales) Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 in September 2020, which sets a statewide goal that 100 percent of all new passenger car and truck sales in the State will be zeroemissions by 2035. It also sets a goal that 100 percent of statewide new sales of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero emissions by 2045, where feasible, and for all new sales of trucks to be zero emissions by 2035. Additionally, the Executive Order targets 100 percent of new off-road vehicle sales in the State to be zero emission by 2035. CARB is responsible for implementing the new vehicle sales regulation.
Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020, signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2045. All State agencies facilities must be served by 100 percent renewable and zerocarbon resources by 2030. SB 1020 also requires the Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and CARB to issue a joint progress report outlining the reliability of the electrical grid with a focus on summer reliability, as well as challenges and gaps. Additionally, SB 1020 requires the Public Utilities Commission to define energy affordability and use energy affordability metrics to develop protections, incentives, discounts, or new programs for residential customers facing hardships due to energy or gas bills.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-13
CARB Gas Appliances Sales Ban
As part of the 2022 State Implementation Plan in September of 2022, CARB adopted a ban by 2030 on new sales of natural gas heaters, water heaters, and furnaces. This new measure is intended to reduce emissions from new residential and commercial space and water heaters sold in the State.
An emission standard for space and water heaters will go into effect in 2030. Beginning in 2030, 100 percent of the sales of new natural gas-powered heaters and water heaters would need to comply with the emission standard, such as putting in electric heaters or other zero-emission options. c. Regional and Local Regulations
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD policies for addressing GHG emissions in CEQA are documented in their Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. 29 In the
guidance, SJVAPCD recommends using performance-based standards approach that determines significance based on project design elements that would reduce GHG emissions. This approach would pre-quantify the emissions reduced and would negate the need to quantify project emissions.
Implementation of SJVAPCD-approved Best Performance Standards (BPS) would demonstrate that a new project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For land use development projects, examples of BPS include zero net energy buildings, energy efficient appliances, and reducing vehicle miles travelled.30 However, SJVAPCD guidance does not address SB 32 goals or CARB’s latest 2017 Scoping Plan.
Fresno Council of Governments 2022 Regional Transportation Plan Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted on July 28, 2022, and outlines a regional transportation network that is environmentally sensitive and reduces GHG emissions through 2046.
31 The RTP/SCS includes policies, actions, and a SCS to encourage increased transportation and facility design, along with infill development near existing public transportation, which is intended to reduce VMT and the associated GHG emissions from those mobile sources. The following goals and policies from the 2022 RTP/SCS are relevant to the project.
City of Clovis General Plan
The City of Clovis General Plan Air Quality Element includes the following applicable goals and policies related to GHG:
29 SJVAPCD. 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/climate-change-action-plan/ 30 SJVAPCD. 2009. Final Staff Report Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act.
December. https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/1%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20CEQA%20GHG%20Staff%20Report%20- %20Dec%2017%202009.pdf
31 Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted July 28, 2022. Accessible at: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies-fall-outreach/
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-14
Goal 2: Vibrant communities that are accessible by sustainable transportation options Policy 4: Encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 6: Encourage sustainable development that focuses growth near activity centers and mobility options that achieve greater location efficiency.
Policy 10: Incentivize and support efforts to improve air quality and minimize pollutants from transportation.
Goal 1: A local environment that is protected from air pollution and emissions.
Policy 1.1. Land use and transportation. Reduce greenhouse gas and other local pollutant emissions through mixed use and transit-oriented development and well-designed transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems.
Policy 1.6. Alternative fuel infrastructure. Encourage public and private activity and employment centers to incorporate electric charging and alternative fuel stations.
Policy 1.8. Trees. Maintain or plant trees where appropriate to provide shade, absorb carbon, improve oxygenation, slow stormwater runoff, and reduce the heat island effect.
Goal 2: A region with healthy air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 2.1: Regional coordination. Support regional efforts to reduce air pollution (criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions) and collaborate with other agencies to improve air quality at the emission source and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
The City of Clovis General Plan Circulation Element includes the following applicable goal and policies related to GHG:
Goal 1: A context-sensitive and “complete streets” transportation network that prioritizes effective connectivity and accommodates a comprehensive range of mobility needs.
Policy 1.1. Multimodal network. The city shall plan, design, operate, and maintain the transportation network to promote safe and convenient travel for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight, and motorists.
Policy 1.4. Jobs and housing. Encourage infill development that would provide jobs and services closer to housing, and vice versa, to reduce citywide vehicle miles travelled and effectively utilize the existing transportation infrastructure.
City of Clovis Active Transportation Plan
The City’s Active Transportation Plan was adopted in September 2023 and defines a clear vision for the city’s active transportation network and supports walking, bicycling, transit, and use of other emerging modes of personal transport as alternatives to driving. The Active Transportation Plan includes five main goals related to safety and comfort, equity, connectivity, recreation, and mode shift.
32 32 (City of Clovis 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-15
4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The proposed project is analyzed for consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan goals and its Appendix D residential project attributes.
Construction and operational GHG emissions are estimated for informational purposes only using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1 CalEEMod uses projectspecific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses, and location, to estimate a project’s construction and operational emissions. Although the proposed project would facilitate the development of 1,303 residential units, as a conservative estimate, project emissions represent the maximum potential increase in the number of residential units by 1,651 units as described in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description.
Significance Thresholds
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).
Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Neither the City of Clovis nor the SJVAPCD has adopted a numeric threshold to address project-level GHG emissions. The BPS approach does not include measures to address the 2045 target established by AB 1279.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a threshold of significance. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-16
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.
This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in their white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (AEP 2016). However, the City of Clovis and the SJVAPCD do not have a qualified GHG reduction plan.
In the absence of any adopted numeric threshold, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. For the proposed project, the most directly applicable adopted regulatory plan to reduce GHG emissions is CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan33, residential projects that include all of the following attributes can be determined to be consistent with the State’s climate goals:
At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents; Result in no net loss of existing affordable units;
Utilize existing infill sites that are surrounded by urban uses, and reuse or redevelop previously developed, underutilized land presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer);
Include transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or are in proximity to existing transit (within ½ mile), or satisfy more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), for “SCS consistency” that would go further to reduce emissions;
Do not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands; Use all electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and would not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking; Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CalGreen Tier 2 standards; Relax parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit; Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease. 33 CARB. 2022. Appendix D, Local Actions, of the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Accessible at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp-appendix-d-local-actions_0.pdf
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-17
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) GHG-1, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
As discussed above under Section 4.6.3a, Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the proposed project would have less than significant GHG impacts if it were to be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan goals and residential project attributes from Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. A major element of the 2022 Scoping Plan is the aggressive reduction of fossil fuels, which includes the development of renewable energy and phasing out the use of natural gas for heating structures.
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would adhere to the most recent iteration of California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen adopted through Section 8.17.101 of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC), which would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions associated with water use and energy. Pursuant to CALGreen, new multi-family residential development would be required to include low-flow plumbing and energy efficient appliances; and include 10 percent of EV-capable parking spaces, 25 percent of EV-ready parking spaces, and five percent of Level 2 EV Supply Equipment parking spaces34. Future development would also be required to divert at least 65 percent of construction wastes pursuant to Section 6.3.1.03 of the CMC and CALGreen; recycle and compost organic wastes pursuant to SB 1383; and comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements outlined in Chapter 6.5, Article 5 of the CMC.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table 4.6-1 shows the proposed project’s consistency with the residential project attributes outlined in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan Residential Project Attributes Project Consistency
At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lowerincome residents.
Inconsistent. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project
Description, the proposed project would facilitate the
development of 1,303 residential units on 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. The units are targeting affordable housing; however, the proposed project does not include specific development at this time, therefore it is unknown what
percentage of each development will be affordable to lowincome residents.
Result in no net loss of existing affordable units. Consistent. As shown on Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites are
currently vacant or developed with single-family
residences or office uses, and do not include affordable units. The proposed project would not result in a net loss of existing affordable units.
34 Five percent of Level 2 EVSE parking spaces only apply to development with 20 or more units.
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-18
Residential Project Attributes Project Consistency
Utilize existing infill sites that are surrounded by urban uses, and reuse or redevelop previously developed,
underutilized land presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate
development on infill sites surrounded by urban uses and served by existing utilities and public services.
Include transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20
residential dwelling units/acre), or are in proximity to existing transit (within ½ mile), or satisfy more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), for “SCS consistency” that
would go further to reduce emissions.
Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Infill Rezone Program Sites, all 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would include transit-supportive densities of more than 20 residential dwelling units per acre.
Do not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s
natural and working lands.
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate
development on infill sites surrounded by urban uses and would not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands.
Use all electric appliances, without any natural gas
connections, and would not use propane or other fossil
fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
Inconsistent. The City currently does not mandate the use of all electric appliances or prohibit the use of natural gas and propane.
Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CalGreen Tier 2 standards.
Inconsistent. Future development facilitated by the
proposed project would be required to comply with
CALGreen mandatory EV requirements, including
installation of 10 percent of EV-capable parking spaces, 25 percent of EV-ready parking spaces, and five percent of Level 2 EV Supply Equipment parking spaces. While
CALGreen Tier 2 standards impose stricter EV
requirements, they remain voluntary and are not
mandated.
Relax parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including
maximum allowable parking ratios;
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit;
Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to
rent or lease.
Inconsistent. The proposed project does not include
specific development proposals and the number or
configuration of parking spaces for individual projects is currently unknown.
Source: CARB 2022b
As shown in Table 4.6-1, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the residential project attributes related to percentage of affordable units, natural gas, EVs, and parking requirements.
Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
GHG Emissions
Total GHG emissions for future development under the proposed project are provided below for informational purposes. Operation of future development under the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources, energy and water usage, vehicle trips, wastewater and solid waste generation, and refrigerants. Table 4.6-2 shows the estimated operational GHG emissions associated with maximum buildout potential of 1,651 units for future development under the proposed project. As shown therein, annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 13,391 MT of CO2e per year.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-19
Table 4.6-2 Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Mobile 10,003
Area 21
Energy 2,969
Water 63
Waste 333
Refrigerants 2
Operational Total 13,391
Source: Appendix A Air Quality (AQ) 1
Implementation of MM GHG-1 would ensure future development facilitated by the proposed project be compliant with CALGreen Tier 2 EV charging requirements and parking requirements, and would encourage future development to include an all-electric design. However, pursuant to case law California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court found that a city cannot ban natural gas because they are preempted from doing so by federal law under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Therefore, the proposed project would remain inconsistent with the residential project attribute related to natural gas from Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable even with adoption of MM GHG-1.
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Development on the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites shall be encouraged to not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing; shall achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONFLICTS WITH THE CARB 2022 SCOPING PLAN. THERE ARE
NO LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE PROJECT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MM GHG-1.
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
As discussed above under Impact GHG-1, even with implementation of MM GHG-1, the proposed project would remain inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan as the City does not require CALGreen Tier 2 standards, EV parking spaces, or reduced parking standards, and does not restrict natural gas appliances and heating in new developments. Additionally, the City cannot guarantee what percentage of each future development will be affordable to low-income residents on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites so is considered inconsistent with the 20 percent affordability
City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4.6-20
requirement of the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan and impacts would be potentially significant.
Fresno COG 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The 2022 RTP/SCS includes goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. 35 Table 4.6-3 shows the
proposed project’s consistency with applicable policies in the 2022 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 4.6-3, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with GHG emissions-related goals and policies of the 2022 RTP/SCS would be less than significant.
Table 4.6-3 Project Consistency with 2022 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal 2: Vibrant communities that are accessible by sustainable transportation options.
Policy 4: Encourage alternatives to singleoccupancy vehicles that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Consistent. All of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites are located within
1.25 miles of a bus stop. The proximity to bus stops would encourage the use of alternative transportation and reduce the use of singleoccupancy vehicles and thereby VMT. In addition, future development would be required to provide bicycle parking spaces pursuant to CALGreen requirements, which would encourage the use of bicycles and further reduce VMT.
Policy 6: Encourage sustainable
development that focuses growth near
activity centers and mobility options that
achieve greater location efficiency.
Consistent. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would adhere to the most recent iteration of California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. All 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would be located on infill sites in urbanized areas of the city in proximity to jobs and services, which would improve mobility and reduce VMT.
Policy 10: Incentivize and support efforts
to improve air quality and minimize
pollutants from transportation.
Consistent. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, with implementation of MM GHG-1, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen Tier 2 EV requirements and be encouraged to include an all-electric design, which would reduce pollutants and improve air quality. In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed project would adhere to the most recent iteration of California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, and include energy-efficient appliances, low-flow plumbing, and water efficient landscaping.
Source: Fresno COG 2022
City of Clovis General Plan
The Air Quality Element and Circulation Element of the Clovis General Plan contain emissions goals that would have the effect of reducing GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.6-4, the proposed project would be consistent with these goals and policies. Therefore, impacts related to consistency with GHG emissions-related goals of the General Plan would be less than significant. 35 Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG). 2022. 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted July 28, 2022. Accessible at: https://www.planfresno.com/sustainable-communities-strategies-fall-outreach/
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Assessment 4.6-21
Table 4.6-4 Project Consistency with City of Clovis General Plan Goals and Policies Consistency
Goal 1: A local environment that is protected from air pollution and emissions.
Policy 1.1. Land use and transportation. Reduce
greenhouse gas and other local pollutant emissions
through mixed use and transit-oriented development
and well-designed transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
systems.
Consistent. All 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would be located on infill sites in urbanized areas of the city in proximity to jobs and services. In addition, all of the 20 sites are located within
1.25 miles of a bus stop. The proximity to bus stops would encourage the use of alternative transportation and reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles and thereby VMT.
Policy 1.6. Alternative fuel infrastructure. Encourage
public and private activity and employment centers to
incorporate electric charging and alternative fuel
stations.
Consistent. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, with
implementation of MM GHG-1, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen Tier 2 EV requirements.
Policy 1.8. Trees. Maintain or plant trees where
appropriate to provide shade, absorb carbon, improve
oxygenation, slow stormwater runoff, and reduce the
heat island effect.
Consistent. Future development would be required to comply with Chapter 9.30 of the CMC which outlines standards to protect and manage trees. Pursuant to Section 9.30.090, projects would be required to replace trees removed or pay an in-lieu fee.
Goal 2: A region with healthy air quality and lower greenhouse gas emissions Policy 2.1: Regional coordination. Support regional
efforts to reduce air pollution (criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions) and collaborate with
other agencies to improve air quality at the emission
source and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, future development would be required to comply with SJVAPCD rules as well as GP EIR MM 3-1 and GP EIR MM 3-5 to reduce
criteria air pollutants from construction equipment and architectural coating. In addition, all 20 Infill Rezone Program sites would be located on infill sites in urbanized areas of the city in proximity to jobs and services, which would reduce VMT and GHG. Implementation of MM GHG-1 would also
require compliance with CALGreen Tier 2 EV standards, which are more stringent than CALGreen mandatory EV standards, and would improve air quality at the emission source.
Source: City of Clovis 2014
Even with implementation of MM GHG-1, the proposed project would remain inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, for the same reasons as outlined under Impact GHG-1. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable even with adoption of MM GHG-1.
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GHG-1.
Significance after Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable.