Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, August 10, 2026 (part 5 of 7)

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
39 / 60
Apartme 0.22 0.11 1.91 0.81 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,204 2,204 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,210 nts
Mid Rise
Total 0.22 0.11 1.91 0.81 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 — 2,204 2,204 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,210

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

33.9 33.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.72 2.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

8.55 8.09 0.87 94.0 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 250 250 0.01 < 0.005 — 251 Total 45.2 44.7 0.87 94.0 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 250 250 0.01 < 0.005 — 251 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

33.9 33.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 464 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
40 / 60
Architect
Coatings

2.72 2.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 36.6 36.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

6.19 6.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.50 0.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.77 0.73 0.08 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 Total 7.46 7.41 0.08 8.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 138 142 280 0.50 0.30 — 383
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 138 142 280 0.50 0.30 — 383 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 465 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
41 / 60
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 138 142 280 0.50 0.30 — 383
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 138 142 280 0.50 0.30 — 383 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 22.8 23.5 46.3 0.08 0.05 — 63.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 22.8 23.5 46.3 0.08 0.05 — 63.4

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 576 0.00 576 57.5 0.00 — 2,014
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 576 0.00 576 57.5 0.00 — 2,014 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 576 0.00 576 57.5 0.00 — 2,014
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 576 0.00 576 57.5 0.00 — 2,014 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 95.3 0.00 95.3 9.53 0.00 — 333
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 95.3 0.00 95.3 9.53 0.00 — 333

Page 466 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
42 / 60

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.4 11.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.4 11.4
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.4 11.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11.4 11.4
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.88 1.88
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.88 1.88

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

Page 467 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
43 / 60
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

Page 468 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
44 / 60
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 469 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
45 / 60

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 470 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
46 / 60
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 4/9/2026 5.00 70.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/10/2026 6/5/2026 5.00 40.0 — Grading Grading 6/6/2026 11/7/2026 5.00 110 —

Page 471 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
47 / 60
Building Construction Building Construction 11/8/2026 2/9/2031 5.00 1,110 — Paving Paving 2/10/2031 5/26/2031 5.00 75.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/1/2029 9/9/2031 5.00 593 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38

Page 472 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
48 / 60
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 1,189 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 176 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2

Page 473 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
49 / 60
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 238 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 3,209,544 1,069,848 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 60.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 330 0.00 —

Page 474 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
50 / 60
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2030 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2031 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,317 82,317 82,317 30,045,705

Page 475 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
51 / 60

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
3209544 1,069,848 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

Page 476 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
52 / 60

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 8,120,932 204 0.0330 0.0040 41,533,746

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 64,513,896 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 1,068 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

Page 477 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
53 / 60

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

Page 478 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
54 / 60

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 32.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A

Page 479 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
55 / 60
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

Page 480 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
56 / 60

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 96.7
AQ-DPM 76.2
Drinking Water 47.6
Lead Risk Housing 54.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 64.2
Traffic 44.4
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 70.2
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 84.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 93.4
Cardio-vascular 61.8
Low Birth Weights 82.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 53.6
Housing 44.5
Linguistic 34.6
Poverty 75.7
Unemployment 60.6

Page 481 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
57 / 60

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 25.79237777
Employed 68.92082638
Median HI 17.77235981
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 27.90966252
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 19.3763634
Active commuting 31.77210317
Social —
2-parent households 53.52239189
Voting 27.71718209
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 35.32657513
Park access 59.42512511
Retail density 77.28730912
Supermarket access 36.23764917
Tree canopy 23.29013217
Housing —
Homeownership 20.76222251
Housing habitability 68.61285769
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 97.5875786 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 65.39201848

Page 482 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
58 / 60
Uncrowded housing 74.48992686
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 43.11561658
Arthritis 8.9
Asthma ER Admissions 6.6
High Blood Pressure 15.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 15.0
Asthma 27.9
Coronary Heart Disease 9.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 15.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 40.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 6.8
Cognitively Disabled 26.7
Physically Disabled 11.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 23.7
Mental Health Not Good 39.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 49.0
Pedestrian Injuries 50.1
Physical Health Not Good 38.5
Stroke 17.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 45.1
Current Smoker 47.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 36.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0

Page 483 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
59 / 60
Children 82.0
Elderly 17.2
English Speaking 92.8
Foreign-born 4.0
Outdoor Workers 21.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 28.4
Traffic Density 38.4
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 55.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 25.8

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 78.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 25.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

Page 484 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone Detailed Report, 7/14/2025
60 / 60

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with Project Description. Population based on pph of 2.8 (DOF 2025).

Construction: Construction Phases Conservatively assumes construction occurs in one phase, architectural coating starts in the middle of the building construction phase.

Operations: Hearths No wood stoves or fireplaces
Operations: Water and Waste Water WTP 100% aerobic

Page 485 of 942 ends

Appendix B
Air Quality (AQ) 2

Page 486 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 1 / 49
City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

Page 487 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 2 / 49

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

Page 488 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 3 / 49

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

Page 489 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 4 / 49

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Page 490 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 5 / 49

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

Page 491 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 6 / 49

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

Page 492 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 7 / 49

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 22.6
Location 270 W Herndon Ave, Fresno, CA 93650, USA
County Fresno
City Fresno
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2429
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
242 Dwelling Unit 8.06 232,320 0.00 0.00 678 —

Page 493 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 8 / 49

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.8 10.5 11.7 21.5 0.03 0.41 1.22 1.63 0.37 0.29 0.66 — 4,106 4,106 0.15 0.12 5.09 4,152 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.7 10.4 29.2 29.3 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,390 5,390 0.22 0.12 0.13 5,410 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.11 3.89 9.21 13.8 0.02 0.34 1.58 1.92 0.31 0.62 0.93 — 2,708 2,708 0.10 0.07 1.19 2,733 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.75 0.71 1.68 2.53 < 0.005 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.06 0.11 0.17 — 448 448 0.02 0.01 0.20 453

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 10.8 10.5 11.7 21.5 0.03 0.41 1.22 1.63 0.37 0.29 0.66 — 4,106 4,106 0.15 0.12 5.09 4,152

Page 494 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 9 / 49
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 10.7 10.4 29.2 29.3 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,390 5,390 0.22 0.12 0.13 5,410 2027 10.6 10.3 11.2 19.7 0.03 0.36 1.22 1.58 0.33 0.29 0.62 — 3,937 3,937 0.16 0.12 0.12 3,978 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.11 3.89 9.21 13.8 0.02 0.34 1.58 1.92 0.31 0.62 0.93 — 2,708 2,708 0.10 0.07 1.19 2,733 2027 1.68 1.66 1.16 2.00 < 0.005 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.06 — 365 365 0.01 0.01 0.16 368 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.75 0.71 1.68 2.53 < 0.005 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.06 0.11 0.17 — 448 448 0.02 0.01 0.20 453 2027 0.31 0.30 0.21 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 60.4 60.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 60.9

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.4 11.1 4.41 36.4 0.06 0.17 3.77 3.94 0.16 0.96 1.12 105 7,403 7,508 9.06 0.33 16.0 7,848 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.66 9.33 4.65 21.6 0.05 0.16 3.77 3.93 0.16 0.96 1.11 105 6,987 7,093 9.11 0.35 2.04 7,426 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.1 9.80 4.38 26.6 0.05 0.16 3.53 3.69 0.16 0.90 1.05 105 6,891 6,997 9.07 0.32 7.56 7,327 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.85 1.79 0.80 4.85 0.01 0.03 0.64 0.67 0.03 0.16 0.19 17.4 1,141 1,158 1.50 0.05 1.25 1,213

Page 495 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 10 / 49

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.61 4.40 2.74 22.0 0.05 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,728 4,728 0.26 0.26 14.4 4,828 Area 6.64 6.58 0.13 13.7 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.8 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,616 2,616 0.28 0.02 — 2,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.4 0.00 84.4 8.44 0.00 — 295 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 11.4 11.1 4.41 36.4 0.06 0.17 3.77 3.94 0.16 0.96 1.12 105 7,403 7,508 9.06 0.33 16.0 7,848 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.11 3.87 3.11 21.0 0.04 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,349 4,349 0.32 0.28 0.37 4,442 Area 5.37 5.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,616 2,616 0.28 0.02 — 2,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.4 0.00 84.4 8.44 0.00 — 295 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 9.66 9.33 4.65 21.6 0.05 0.16 3.77 3.93 0.16 0.96 1.11 105 6,987 7,093 9.11 0.35 2.04 7,426 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.96 3.75 2.78 19.1 0.04 0.03 3.53 3.56 0.03 0.90 0.93 — 4,236 4,236 0.27 0.26 5.90 4,326 Area 6.00 5.96 0.06 6.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.2 Energy 0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 2,616 2,616 0.28 0.02 — 2,628 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.4 0.00 84.4 8.44 0.00 — 295

Page 496 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 11 / 49
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 10.1 9.80 4.38 26.6 0.05 0.16 3.53 3.69 0.16 0.90 1.05 105 6,891 6,997 9.07 0.32 7.56 7,327 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.72 0.68 0.51 3.49 0.01 0.01 0.64 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 — 701 701 0.05 0.04 0.98 716 Area 1.09 1.09 0.01 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 433 433 0.05 < 0.005 — 435 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 3.45 3.55 7.00 0.01 0.01 — 9.58 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 14.0 0.00 14.0 1.40 0.00 — 48.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 1.85 1.79 0.80 4.85 0.01 0.03 0.64 0.67 0.03 0.16 0.19 17.4 1,141 1,158 1.50 0.05 1.25 1,213

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 497 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 12 / 49
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.13 1.13 1.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 80.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 498 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 13 / 49
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —

Page 499 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 14 / 49
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.2 92.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 500 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 15 / 49

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.96 1.65 15.0 17.4 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.08 7.08 — 3.42 3.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.82 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 501 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 16 / 49
Off-Roa 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Page 502 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 17 / 49
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.73 0.61 5.63 7.41 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.35 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 503 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 18 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.69 0.36 5.97 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 1,034 1,034 0.03 0.04 3.59 1,052 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.53 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 334 334 0.01 0.05 0.78 350 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.64 0.62 0.44 4.83 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 918 918 0.04 0.04 0.09 933 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.57 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 335 335 0.01 0.05 0.02 350 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.36 0.23 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 543 543 0.02 0.03 0.88 553 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 191 191 < 0.005 0.03 0.19 200 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.0 90.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 91.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.6 31.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 504 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 19 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 Onsite
truck

Page 505 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 20 / 49
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 56.5 56.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 57.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.8 19.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.36 9.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.51 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.43 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 506 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 21 / 49
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.39 4.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.47 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Page 507 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 22 / 49
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

8.45 8.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

8.45 8.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 0.26 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.0 40.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.1 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.53 2.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 508 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 23 / 49
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.62 6.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.64 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.46 0.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.07 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 207 207 0.01 0.01 0.72 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 184 184 0.01 0.01 0.02 187 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 57.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.59

Page 509 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 24 / 49
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

8.45 8.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.14 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.47 1.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 510 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 25 / 49
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.85 3.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.86 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.27 0.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 180 180 0.01 0.01 0.02 183 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 32.4 32.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 33.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.37 5.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

Page 511 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 26 / 49

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

4.61 4.40 2.74 22.0 0.05 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,728 4,728 0.26 0.26 14.4 4,828 Total 4.61 4.40 2.74 22.0 0.05 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,728 4,728 0.26 0.26 14.4 4,828 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

4.11 3.87 3.11 21.0 0.04 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,349 4,349 0.32 0.28 0.37 4,442 Total 4.11 3.87 3.11 21.0 0.04 0.04 3.77 3.80 0.03 0.96 0.99 — 4,349 4,349 0.32 0.28 0.37 4,442 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.72 0.68 0.51 3.49 0.01 0.01 0.64 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 — 701 701 0.05 0.04 0.98 716 Total 0.72 0.68 0.51 3.49 0.01 0.01 0.64 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.17 — 701 701 0.05 0.04 0.98 716

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 512 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 27 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 665 665 0.11 0.01 — 672
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 665 665 0.11 0.01 — 672
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 665 665 0.11 0.01 — 672
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 665 665 0.11 0.01 — 672
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.02 < 0.005 — 111
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.02 < 0.005 — 111

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,951 1,951 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,957 Total 0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,951 1,951 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,957 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 513 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 28 / 49
Apartme
Mid Rise

0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,951 1,951 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,957 Total 0.18 0.09 1.54 0.65 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,951 1,951 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,957 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 323 323 0.03 < 0.005 — 324 Total 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 323 323 0.03 < 0.005 — 324

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.97 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.40 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.27 1.21 0.13 13.7 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.8 Total 6.64 6.58 0.13 13.7 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 514 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 29 / 49
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

4.97 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.40 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.37 5.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.91 0.91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.11 0.01 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01 Total 1.09 1.09 0.01 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

Page 515 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 30 / 49
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20.8 21.5 42.3 0.08 0.05 — 57.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.45 3.55 7.00 0.01 0.01 — 9.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.45 3.55 7.00 0.01 0.01 — 9.58

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

Page 516 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 31 / 49
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — 84.4 0.00 84.4 8.44 0.00 — 295 nts
Mid Rise
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 84.4 0.00 84.4 8.44 0.00 — 295 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.0 0.00 14.0 1.40 0.00 — 48.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.0 0.00 14.0 1.40 0.00 — 48.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28

Page 517 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 32 / 49
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

Page 518 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 33 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

Page 519 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 34 / 49
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 520 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 35 / 49
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————

Page 521 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 36 / 49

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/14/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/15/2026 1/31/2027 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 2/1/2027 3/1/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/1/2026 3/30/2027 5.00 172 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

Page 522 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 37 / 49
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —

Page 523 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 38 / 49
Building Construction Worker 174 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 25.9 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 34.8 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 4.00 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.6. Dust Mitigation

Page 524 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 39 / 49

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
1,316 1,188 990 456,792 5,329 4,810 4,006 1,849,003

Page 525 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 40 / 49

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

Page 526 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 41 / 49

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 1,190,349 204 0.0330 0.0040 6,087,926

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 9,751,632 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 157 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

Page 527 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 42 / 49

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

Page 528 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 43 / 49

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 31.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Page 529 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 44 / 49
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

Page 530 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 45 / 49

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 82.5
AQ-PM 96.1
AQ-DPM 71.1
Drinking Water 96.7
Lead Risk Housing 68.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 69.7
Traffic 76.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 78.3
Groundwater 63.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 74.7
Impaired Water Bodies 23.9
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 94.3
Cardio-vascular 71.5
Low Birth Weights 56.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 56.7
Housing 62.4
Linguistic 59.0
Poverty 92.5
Unemployment 86.2

Page 531 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 46 / 49

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 10.714744
Employed 48.29975619
Median HI 10.15013474
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 14.23071988
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 1.873476197
Transportation —
Auto Access 22.57153856
Active commuting 47.31168998
Social —
2-parent households 12.89618889
Voting 2.361093289
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 29.18003336
Park access 13.75593481
Retail density 92.23662261
Supermarket access 87.96355704
Tree canopy 40.66469909
Housing —
Homeownership 6.172205826
Housing habitability 37.70050045
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 99.12742205 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 39.80495316

Page 532 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 47 / 49
Uncrowded housing 26.21583472
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 38.36776594
Arthritis 64.8
Asthma ER Admissions 4.6
High Blood Pressure 74.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 7.7
Coronary Heart Disease 51.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 20.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 31.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 13.9
Cognitively Disabled 6.9
Physically Disabled 21.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 37.4
Mental Health Not Good 8.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 20.7
Pedestrian Injuries 88.5
Physical Health Not Good 17.6
Stroke 29.9
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 55.6
Current Smoker 13.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 10.8
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0

Page 533 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 48 / 49
Children 25.4
Elderly 77.9
English Speaking 82.2
Foreign-born 32.9
Outdoor Workers 47.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 43.8
Traffic Density 43.8
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 83.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 3.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 96.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 9.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

Page 534 of 942 ends

City of Clovis Rezone - Site 3 Detailed Report, 7/1/2025 49 / 49

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per Table 2-1 from the Project Description. Population based on pph of 2.8.

Construction: Construction Phases Assumes architectural coating occurs simultaneously as building construction Operations: Hearths No fire places or wood stoves
Operations: Water and Waste Water WTP 100% aerobic

Page 535 of 942 ends

Appendix C
Cultural Resources Technical Report

Page 536 of 942 ends

Clovis Infill Rezone Program
Environmental Assessment Project
Cultural Resources Technical Report
prepared for
City of Clovis
Planning Division
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Contact: McKencie Perez, MPA, Deputy City Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4589 North Marty Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93722
June 2025

Page 537 of 942 ends

Confidentiality
The following document contains sensitive and confidential information concerning archaeological sites. This report should be held confidential and is not for public distribution.

Archaeological site locations are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the National Historic Preservation Act (PL 102-574, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]). Sections of this report contain maps and other sensitive information. Distribution should be restricted appropriately.

Please cite this report as follows:

Haynes, Elaine, Alli Berry, and Margo Nayyar
2025 City of Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project, Clovis, Fresno County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 24-15842. Report on file at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield, California

Page 538 of 942 ends

Table of Contents
0BCultural Resources Technical Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................2 Project Site and Description................................................................................................2 Personnel ............................................................................................................................7 2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 23 Government Code Section 65759.................................................................................... 23 California Environmental Quality Act............................................................................... 23 California Register of Historical Resources......................................................... 24 California Senate Bill 18 of 2004...................................................................................... 25 California Health and Safety Code ................................................................................... 25 California Public Resources Code §5097.98..................................................................... 25 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................ 26 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 26 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................ 26 Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 26 Ethnographic Setting........................................................................................... 28 Post-Contact Setting ........................................................................................... 29 4 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 33 Background and Archival Research.................................................................................. 33 Archival Research................................................................................................ 33 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search................. 33 Sacred Lands File Search..................................................................................... 33 5 Findings........................................................................................................................................ 34 Background and Archival Research.................................................................................. 34 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search................. 34 Sacred Land File Search....................................................................................... 37 Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review .................................. 37 Geologic and Soils Map Review .......................................................................... 40 Archaeological Sensitivity Summary................................................................... 44 Built Environment Sensitivity Summary ............................................................. 46 6 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 47 Historical Built Environment Resources........................................................................... 47 Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 47 Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources............................................................. 49 Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 49 Human Remains............................................................................................................... 51 7 References................................................................................................................................... 52

Page 539 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project ii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................8 Figure 2a Rezone Site 3.....................................................................................................................9 Figure 2b Rezone Site 63 ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2c Rezone Site 72 ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2d Rezone Site 108 ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2e Rezone Site 110 ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2f Rezone Sites 115 and 550 ................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2g Rezone Sites 157 and 197.............................................................................................. 15 Figure 2h Rezone Site 161 ............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2i Rezone Sites 167 and 168 ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 2j Rezone Site 217................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 2k Rezone Site 589 ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 2l Rezone Site 592................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 2m Rezone Sites 595, 596, and 597..................................................................................... 21 Figure 2n Rezone Sites 598 and 599.............................................................................................. 22 Tables
Table 1 Rezone Site Locational Information....................................................................................3 Table 2 Rezoning Sites.....................................................................................................................4 Table 3 Geological Soil Series within the Project Sites................................................................. 42 Table 4 Archaeological Sensitivity by Rezone Site........................................................................ 45 Table 5 Overview of Build Date for Properties by Rezone Site .................................................... 46 Table 6 Properties Requiring Evaluation ...................................................................................... 48 Table 7 Properties Requiring an Archaeological Resources Study ............................................... 50 Appendices
Appendix A CHRIS Records Search Results [CONFIDENTIAL]
Appendix B NAHC Sacred Lands File Results [CONFIDENTIAL]

Page 540 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 1
Executive Summary
The City of Clovis (City) retained Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources study in support of the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the City of Clovis Infill Rezone Program Project (project) in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California. This study has been conducted in conformance with California Government Code Section 65759 to evaluate an increased capacity for affordable housing dwelling units in Clovis.

This study documents the methods and results of a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and background research for each rezone site to analyze constraints for potential future development.

The field survey and background research identified two previously evaluated built environment resources: Helm Colonial Ditch (P-10-005511/CA-FRE-3344H) and Jefferson Canal (P-10-006140/CAFRE-3615H). Both have been evaluated and determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and therefore, are not historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). Research also identified 11 rezone sites that include built environment resources that have not been previously evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility. Although the project includes rezoning and amending the land use designations, and there are no specific development associated with the project, implementation of the project would guide future development. Potential future development facilitated by the project may include site preparation, demolition, and construction activities and could have the potential to result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources. Historic-aged buildings, as well as parcels with buildings that may become age-eligible with the passage of time, may require further evaluation to determine if they are historical resources pursuant to CEQA and may be affected by a future project. Therefore, there is potential to impact historical resources.

This study did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources in any of the proposed rezone sites. However, only one rezone site (157) has been previously surveyed, which took place in 2002. In addition, seven rezone 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 rezone 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 these rezone sites. Therefore, future development of any rezone site would have the potential to directly or indirectly impact subsurface archaeological resources through ground disturbing activities associated with construction. Rincon presents recommended mitigation measures for updated archaeological resources study and unanticipated archaeological resources to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Page 541 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 2 1 Introduction
The City of Clovis (City) retained Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources study in support of the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the City of Clovis Infill Rezone Program Project (project) in the City of Clovis, Fresno County, California. This technical report documents the methods and results a cultural resources records search, archival and background research, and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. This study has been conducted in conformance with California Government Code Section 65759 to evaluate an increased capacity for affordable housing dwelling units in Clovis.

Project Site and Description
The project site includes 20 individual properties totaling 54 acres within the city of Clovis, Fresno County, California (Figure 1). The 20 rezoning sites are dispersed throughout the City and are largely vacant or are underutilized with low density residential development. Detailed information for each individual property, including Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), Quadrangle, Township, Range, and Section is included in Table 1.

The City is initiating the project as part of the City of Clovis v. Martinez Settlement Agreement and General Release (Settlement Agreement), effective February 20, 2024. The project consists of the rezoning of the 20 individual properties (Figure 2) and amending the land use designations of those properties. In order to ensure adequate sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for lower income households, the rezoning of the 20 infill properties (rezoning sites) is necessary to provide sufficient housing development at locations that are adequate for accommodating lower income households. Amendments are to be made to the Land Use Element Map of the City of Clovis General Plan (2014) and revisions to the Zoning Map in the Title 9 Development Code of the Clovis Municipal Code. The process is separate from the 6th Cycle Housing Element Rezone Program.

Page 542 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 3
Table 1 Rezone Site Locational Information
Site ID Address APN Quadrangle Township Range Section
3 270 W Herndon Ave 49102042 Clovis 13S 21E 6
63 1933 Alluvial Ave 56303207 Clovis 12S 21E 33
72 437 W Nees Ave 56008207 Clovis 12S 21E 30
108 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave 49123124 Clovis 13S 21E 4
110 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave 49906074 Clovis 13S 21E 17 115 1671 Leonard Avenue 55457044S Clovis 13S 21E 12
157 None 55803359S Clovis 12S 21E 26
161 2930 Willow Ave 43043316 Clovis 13S 21E 18
167 1871 Shaw Ave 55128004 Clovis 13S 21E 10
168 1853 Shaw Ave 55128003 Clovis 13S 21E 10
197 1497 N Locan Ave 55849230 Clovis 12S 21E 26
217 885 Gettysburg Ave 49954013ST Clovis 13S 21E 16
589 2403 Bullard Ave 55026023 Clovis 13S 21E 3
590 3959 Shaw Ave 55458036s Clovis 13S 21E 12
592 1160 N Fowler Ave 56303131 Clovis 12S 21E 33
595 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave 49817202 Clovis 13S 21E 9
596 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave 49817201 Clovis 13S 21E 9
597 925 Sunnyside 49817203 Clovis 13S 21E 9
598 2560 Fowler Ave 49938442 Clovis 13S 21E 16
599 2612 Fowler Ave 49938441 Clovis 13S 21E 16
Rezoning Sites
The following sections include details on the size and current use of the property, existing and proposed zoning and land use designations, and the number of housing units the site is assumed to accommodate pursuant to the settlement agreement. Table 2 details the unit potential for sites at both the maximum and assumed densities.

Page 543 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 4 Table 2 Rezoning Sites
Site
ID* APN Address
Size
(Acres) Vacant?
Existing General
Plan Designation
Existing
Zone Existing Use
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Avenue 8.06 No GC R-A Single-family residence; Sports facility; Tree lot
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave 3.78 No L R-1-7500 Single family residence 72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave 3.19 No L R-1-7500 Single family residence 108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave 1.25 Yes GC C-2 Vacant 110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave 1.25 Yes M R-1 Vacant 115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Ave 2.31 Yes M R-1 Vacant
157 55803359S De Wolf & Richmond Ave 7.24 Yes MU-V P-C-C Vacant 161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave 1.67 Yes O C-P Vacant
167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave 1.04 Yes O C-P Vacant
168 55128003 1853 Shaw Ave 1.3 Yes O C-P Vacant
197 55849230 1497 N Locan Ave 4.5 No VL R-1-AH Single family residence 217 49954013ST 885 Gettysburg Ave 1.8 No I M-1 Clovis Academy of Gymnastics & Dance
589 55026023 2403 Bullard Ave 8.01 No L R-A Former Rogers Helicopter
590 55458036s 3959 Shaw Ave 3.02 No M R-1 Single-family residence 592 56303131 1160 N Fowler Ave 2.09 No L R-A Single family residence 595 49817202 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave 0.41 Yes L R-1 Vacant 596 49817201 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave 0.72 Yes L R-1 Vacant 597 49817203 925 Sunnyside 0.41 No L R-1 Single family residence 598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave 1.09 No L R-1 Single family residence 599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave 1.18 No L R-1 Single family residence Total 54.32
Land Use Designations: GC = General Commercial; L = Low Density Residential; M = Medium Density Residential; MU-V = Mixed Use Village; O = Office; VL = Very Low Density Residential; I = Industrial Zoning Districts: R-A & R-1-AH = Single Family Residential Very Low Density; R-1 & R-1-7500 = Single Family Residential Low Density Residential; C-2 = Community Commercial; P-C-C = Planned Commercial Center; C-P = Administrative and Professional Office; M-1 = Light Industrial
Rezone Site 3
Rezone Site 3 is located at 270 W Herndon Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-A with a land use designation of ‘General Commercial.’ The project proposes the site be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ The 8.06-acre site currently has one existing single-family residence, one existing commercial structure, and a tree lot, and is assumed to accommodate 193 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 63
Rezone Site 63 is located at 1933 Alluvial Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1-7500 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R- 3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ The 3.78-acre site currently has one existing residence and is assumed to accommodate 91 units under the new zoning.

Page 544 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 5
Rezone Site 72
Rezone Site 72 is located at 437 West Nees Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1-7500 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ The 3.19-acre site currently has one existing single-family residence and is assumed to accommodate 77 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 108
Rezone Site 108 is located at 125 & 135 North Clovis Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned C-2 with a land use designation of ‘General Commercial.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ The 1.25-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 30 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 110
Rezone Site 110 is located at 236 & 256 West Santa Ana Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Medium Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 1.25-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 30 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 115
Rezone Site 115 is located at 1671 Leonard Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Medium Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 2.31-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 55 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 157
Rezone Site 157 is located at intersection of De Wolf Avenue and Richmond Avenue in Clovis, California. Currently zoned P-C-C with a General Plan land use designation of ‘Mixed Use-Village,’ is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This

7.24-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 174 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 161
Rezone Site 161 is located at 2930 Willow Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned C-P with a land use designation of ‘Office.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 1.67-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 40 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 167
Rezone Site 167 is located at 1871 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned C-P with a land use designation of ‘Office.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential,’ This 1.04-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 25 units under the new zoning.

Page 545 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 6 Rezone Site 168
Rezone Site 168 is a located at 1853 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned C-P with a land use designation of ‘Office.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 1.3-acre site currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 31 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 197
Rezone Site 197 is located at 1497 North Locan Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1-AH with a land use designation of ‘Very Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 4.5-acre site currently has one existing rural residence and is assumed to accommodate 108 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 217
Rezone Site 217 is located at 885 Gettysburg Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned M-1 with a land use designation of ‘Industrial.’ Approximately 1.8 acres of the property is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ The

4.0-acre site currently has one existing business, Clovis Academy of Gymnastics & Dance, and is assumed to accommodate 43 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 589
Rezone Site 589 is located at 2403 Bullard Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-A with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 8.01-acre site currently has the remains of a former helicopter business, Rogers’ Helicopter, and is assumed to accommodate 192 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 590
Rezone Site 590 is located at 3959 Shaw Ave, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Medium Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 3.02-acre site currently has one single-family residence, and is assumed to accommodate 72 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 592
Rezone Site 592 is located at 1160 North Fowler Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-A with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 2.09-acre site currently has one existing rural residence and is assumed to accommodate 50 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 595
Rezone Site 595 is located at 939 & 947 Sunnyside Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 with a new land use designation of ‘Very High Density Residential.’ This 0.41-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 10 housing units under the new zoning.

Page 546 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 7
Rezone Site 596
Rezone Site 596 is located at 965 & 975 Sunnyside Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 with a new land use designation of ‘Very High Density Residential.’ This 0.72-acre site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 18 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 597
Rezone Site 597 is located at 925 Sunnyside Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 with a new land use designation of ‘Very High Density Residential.’ This 0.41-acre site previously had an existing residence that was demolished in early 2025 and is assumed to accommodate 10 units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 598
Rezone Site 598 is located at 2560 Fowler Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 1.09-acre site currently has an existing residence and is assumed to accommodate 26 housing units under the new zoning.

Rezone Site 599
Rezone Site 599 is located at 2612 Fowler Avenue, Clovis, California. The property is currently zoned R-1 with a land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of ‘High Density Residential.’ This 1.18-acre site currently has an existing residence and is assumed to accommodate 28 units under the new zoning.

Personnel
Rincon Senior Archaeologist, Elaine Haynes, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), provided management oversight for this cultural resources study. Ms. Haynes meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for historic and prehistoric archaeology (National Park Service 1983). Archaeologist Alli Berry performed the cultural resources records search, completed the Native American outreach for this project, and is a contributing author on this report. Geographic Information Systems Analyst Kaylee Herbold prepared the figures found in this report. Principal Margo Nayyar, MA reviewed this report for quality assurance and control.

Page 547 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 8 Figure 1 Regional Location

Page 548 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 9
Figure 2a Rezone Site 3

Page 549 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 10 Figure 2b Rezone Site 63

Page 550 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 11
Figure 2c Rezone Site 72

Page 551 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 12 Figure 2d Rezone Site 108

Page 552 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 13
Figure 2e Rezone Site 110

Page 553 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 14 Figure 2f Rezone Sites 115 and 550

Page 554 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 15
Figure 2g Rezone Sites 157 and 197

Page 555 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 16 Figure 2h Rezone Site 161

Page 556 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 17
Figure 2i Rezone Sites 167 and 168

Page 557 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 18 Figure 2j Rezone Site 217

Page 558 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 19
Figure 2k Rezone Site 589

Page 559 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 20 Figure 2l Rezone Site 592

Page 560 of 942 ends

Introduction
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 21
Figure 2m Rezone Sites 595, 596, and 597

Page 561 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 22 Figure 2n Rezone Sites 598 and 599

Page 562 of 942 ends

Regulatory Setting
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 23
2 Regulatory Setting
This project is being conducted by the City to implement any programs necessary for statutory compliance with the settlement agreement, and as such, is exempt from CEQA, as set forth in Government Code section 65759 and CEQA Guidelines section 15282(s). This section presents a discussion of state laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources for informational purposes only.

Government Code Section 65759
Section 65759 of the California Government Code states that CEQA does not apply to any action necessary to bring its general plan or relevant mandatory elements into compliance with any court order or judgement. However, the local agency shall prepare an initial study to determine the environmental effects of the proposed action necessary to comply with the court order. If as a result of the initial study, the local agency determines that the action may have a significant effect on the environment, the local agency shall prepare, within the time limitations specified in Section 65754, an environmental assessment, the content of which substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report set forth in Article 9 (commencing with Section 15140) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 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 California Register of Historical Resources (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 cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are California Historical Landmarks 770 and above; both 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, 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.

Page 563 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 24 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]).

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]).

The requirements for mitigation measures under CEQA are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1). In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts 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 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 Title 14 Section 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 (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).

Page 564 of 942 ends

Regulatory Setting
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 25
A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005); “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes 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.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
 A Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
 A Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

California Public Resources Code §5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code §7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

Page 565 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 26 3 Natural and Cultural Setting
This section provides background information pertaining to the natural and cultural context of the project site. It places the project site within the broader natural environment which has sustained populations throughout history. This section also provides an overview of regional indigenous history, local ethnography, and post-contact history. This background information describes the distribution and type of cultural resources documented within the vicinity of the project site to inform the cultural resources sensitivity assessment.

Natural Setting
The project site lies in the San Joaquin Valley with elevation ranging between 105 and 125 meters (344 to 410 feet) above mean sea level. None of the surrounding area retains its natural setting, with the various rezoning sites located in residential and commercial areas characterized by a mix of single-family homes, apartment complexes, and industrial buildings. The city of Clovis is situated between Dry Creek to the north, which runs roughly northeast to southwest, and Dog Creek to the east, which runs roughly north-south. Vegetation within the vicinity of the site consists of ornamental trees, including low ground cover and succulents, consistent with urban environmental settings and manicured landscapes.

Cultural Setting
Indigenous History
The Central Valley has been described as one of the largest intermontane basins extending 650 km from the Siskiyou to the Tehachapi mountains (Rosenthal et al. 2007). No single chronological framework covers the entirety of the Central Valley, but California prehistory is generally divided into three broad time periods: the Paleoindian Period (ca. 11,550 to 8,550 BCE), the Archaic Period (8,550 BCE to CE 1,100), and the Emergent Occupation (CE 1,000 to European Contact) (Fredrickson 1973, 1974), which has been updated and adjusted by Rosenthal et al. (2007) to further separate the Archaic Period into Lower (8,550 BCE to 5,550 BCE), Middle (5,550 BCE to 550 BCE), and Upper (550 BCE to CE 1,100). The prehistoric chronological sequence for the Central Valley presented below is based on Rosenthal et al. (2007) and Moratto (1984).

Paleoindian Period (11,550 to 8,550 BCE)
Little is currently known about the Paleoindian Period in the Central Valley. Geoarchaeological studies have demonstrated that erosion and deposition have buried or destroyed early archaeological deposits. Most claims of ancient human occupation have been dismissed by Moratto (1984) based on radiocarbon dating. This period is represented by isolated finds, and currently, the earliest accepted date of human occupation in the Central Valley ranges from 11,550 to 9,550 BCE and comes from fluted projectile points similar to Clovis points found at sites near Tracy Lake and the Tulare Lake Basin. Along with fluted projectile points, concave base points have been discovered along the Tulare Lake shoreline which was occupied during the Late Pleistocene (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Page 566 of 942 ends

Natural and Cultural Setting
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 27
Lower Archaic (8,550 to 5,550 BCE)
Climate change at the end of the Pleistocene caused significant periods of alluvial deposition beginning around 9,050 BCE. These new alluvial deposits created a clear stratigraphic boundary between the Late Pleistocene and Holocene sediments. 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 (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

The relationship between foothill and valley floor adaptations is largely unknown during the Lower Archaic; however, it is suggested that the foothill sites may have been seasonally used during this time. More distinct adaptations are apparent in the Middle Archaic, and it is possible that these divergent traditions first emerged in the Lower Archaic (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Middle Archaic (5,550 to 550 BCE)
The Middle Archaic began with substantial climate change to much warmer, drier conditions. Tulare Lake shrank and eventually disappeared. With this came new wetlands that created new habitats, and rising sea levels led to the creation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, creating new deposits.

Fans and floodplains stabilized after an initial period of deposition in 5,550 BCE. Archaeological deposits dating to the Middle Archaic are rare in the Central Valley proper due to these geomorphic changes. The Middle Archaic record has revealed a pattern of organized subsistence strategies and increased residential stability. The archetypal pattern of the Middle Archaic has been identified as the Windmiller Pattern. This pattern is represented by extended burials oriented to the west and a sophisticated material culture (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

During this time, the mortar and pestle become 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, also appear during the Middle Archaic, suggesting a new focus on fishing, especially in the Marsh Creek area. Several other technologies become apparent during this time.

Baked-clay impressions of twined basketry, simple pottery, and other baked clay objects have been found at several sites. Personal adornment items also become more frequent. Exchange with outside groups is evidenced by the presence of obsidian, shell beads, and ornaments (Rosenthal et al. 2007, Moratto 1984, Burns et al. 2012). Trade also seemed to be focused on utilitarian items such as obsidian or finished obsidian tools from at least five separate sources (Moratto 1984).

Upper Archaic (550 BCE to CE 1,100)
The Upper Archaic began with the onset of the Late Holocene, marked by a cooler, wetter climate.

The environmental conditions of the Upper Archaic were characterized by the return of lakes that had disappeared during the Middle Archaic and a renewed fan and floodplain deposition. The Upper Archaic 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 (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

During this period, numerous specialized technologies were developed such as bone tools, and implements, manufactured goods such as Olivella and Haliotis beads and ornaments, well-made ceremonial blades, and ground-stone plummets. People living in the San Joaquin Valley region traded with neighboring groups for obsidian (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Page 567 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 28 Upper Archaic Period economies varied by region throughout the Central Valley. Economies were primarily focused on seasonal resources such as acorns, salmon, shellfish, rabbits, and deer (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Emergent Occupation (CE 1000 to Historic)
The stable climatic conditions of the Upper Archaic continued into the Emergent Period. There has been sporadic research in the San Joaquin Valley on this time 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. During the Emergent Period, the bow and arrow replaced the atlatl as the preferred hunting method sometime between CE 1,000 and 1,300 (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Increased social complexity is evidenced by increased variation in burial types and offerings and larger residential communities. Grave offerings such as shell beads, ornaments, and ritually “killed” mortars and pestles are often found in burials. Pottery was frequently obtained through trade with groups living in the foothills to the east. The Panoche side-notched point became important in the western side of the San Joaquin Valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007). In addition to the side-notched point, the Panoche Complex featured large circular structures, flexed burials, marine shell beads, bone awls, milling stones, and mortars and pestles (Moratto 1984).

As with the Archaic Period, Emergent Period economies varied geographically, although throughout the Central Valley fishing and plant harvesting increased in importance. Most Emergent Period residential sites contain diverse assemblages of mammal and bird remains and large amounts of fish bone. After 1,000 years, the mortar and pestle become the dominant tool type and small seeds increase in archaeological deposits over time (Rosenthal et al. 2007).

Ethnographic Setting
The Project site is located in the traditional territory of the Penutian-speaking Yokuts, which includes San Joaquin Valley and surrounding foothills (Kroeber 1925, Wallace 1978). 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 (Mithun 2001). The Project is located at 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 of the Project site was likely within the territory of the Tachi (Wallace 1978).

The Yokuts established large permanent village settlements, or closely associated smaller settlements. Residential structures were most often of two types: single-family dwellings and larger communal residences that housed 10 families or more. Villages frequently included mat-covered granaries and a sweathouse (Mithun 2001, Sutton et al. 2016). The closest known village sites to the Project site were “Golon,” near the present-day community of Huron (approximately 16 miles south of the Project site); and “Udjiu”, in a location later known as Posa de Chine or Poso Chane (approximately 18 miles south of the Project site) (Wallace 1978). Most of the western San Joaquin Valley is regarded as too arid to have supported permanent village sites, though the area was likely used for hunting and utilized for travel (Gayton 1945). The western periphery of the San Joaquin Valley was spanned by a major Native American trail, known by the Spanish name El Camino Viejo (Hoover et al. 2002; Davis 1961). El Camino Viejo stretched from modern-day Los Angeles to

Page 568 of 942 ends

Natural and Cultural Setting
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 29
Alameda County, and Cantua Creek served as a campsite along the route (Hoover et al. 2002).

Prominent intersecting east-west trails were likely found along Panoche Creek (20 miles north of Project site) and Los Gatos Creek (16 miles south of Project site), connecting Yokuts communities to their western neighbors through the Coast Range (Heizer 1978; Arkush 1993). The Fresno Slough and other waterways also served as travel corridors by tule raft (Wallace 1978; Gayton 1945).

The basic economic unit among the Yokuts was the nuclear family. The nuclear family was linked to totemic lineages based on patrilineal descent. Totem symbols were passed from father to offspring.

Families that shared the same totem formed an exogamous lineage. Totems were associated with one of two moieties. This moiety division played a role during ceremonies and other social events.

Yokuts were split into self-governing local groups that included several villages. Each group had a chief who directed ceremonies, mediated disputes, handled punishment of those doing wrong, hosted visitors, and provided aid to the impoverished. In certain cases, settlements had two chiefs, one for each moiety. Other political positions included the chief’s messenger and the spokesman (Wallace 1978).

Shamans were an important part of Yokut village life. A Yokut Shaman gained power through a dream or vision. If, after this vision, the man accepted the role as shaman, he would pray, fast, and acquire talismans to aid him in his future work. Shamans had the ability to heal the sick and served a primary role in religious life (Wallace 1978).

Yokuts subsistence strategy was based on a mixed economy focused on fishing, collecting, and hunting small game. Fishermen employed tule rafts and caught fish with nets, spears, basket traps, and bow and arrow. They often gathered mussels and hunted turtles in lakes, rivers, and streams.

Wild seeds and roots contributed a large portion to the Yokuts diet. Tule roots were gathered, dried, and pounded into a flour that was prepared as a mush. Tule seeds and grass and flowering herb seeds were prepared in the same way. Leaves and stems of certain plants, such as clover and fiddleneck, were also collected. Acorns, a staple of most California Native Americans, were not readily available in the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts. Some Yokuts tribes traded for acorns with neighboring groups, such as the Salinan and Chumash to the west, the Foothill Yokuts to the east, and the Kawaiisu and Kitanemuk to the southeast (Kroeber 1925). Waterfowl was frequently hunted with snares, nets, and bow and arrow. Land mammals and birds contributed a smaller part of the Yokuts diet. Small game was occasionally taken in snares or traps or shot with bow and arrow (Wallace 1978, Sutton et al. 2016).

Yokuts technology depended primarily on tule. Stems of the plant served as the raw material for baskets, cradles, boats, housing, and many other items. Manos and metates were used to process food and animal hides (Barton et al. 2010, Sutton et al. 2016). Tools such as knives, projectile points, and scraping tools were made from imported lithic materials, because stone was not readily available in the Central Valley. Some tools, such as bead drills, could be made from obsidian obtained from some distance or obtained through trade (Sutton et al. 2016). Marine shells secured through trade with coastal groups were used as shell money and personal adornment items, such as Olivella beads (Sutton et al. 2016, Wallace 1978).

Post-Contact Setting
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).

Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San

Page 569 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 30 Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and 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.

Spanish Period (1769-1822)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542 led the first European expedition to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885).

By the eighteenth century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769 (Hackel 1997).

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; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities: San José and Los Angeles (Gumprecht 1999).

Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914).

Mexican Period (1822-1848)
Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Hackel 1997).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land (Hackel 1997).

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834 to 1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary Southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx

Page 570 of 942 ends

Natural and Cultural Setting
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 31
of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities (Chapman 1928).

American Period (1848- Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. During the first year of the war, John C.

Fremont traveled from Monterey to Los Angeles with reinforcements for Commodore Stockton, and evaded Californian soldiers in Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Pass by taking the route over the San Marcos grade instead (Kyle 2002). The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as United States territories (Waugh 2003). Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the California economy through 1850s. The discovery of gold in the northern part of the state led to the Gold Rush beginning in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were still desired, mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from Southern to Northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom.

A severe drought in the 1860s decimated cattle herds and drastically affected many rancheros’ source of income. In addition, property boundaries that were loosely established during the Mexican era led to disputes with new incoming settlers, problems with squatters, and lawsuits.

Rancheros often were encumbered by debt and the cost of legal fees to defend their property. As a result, much of the rancho lands were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1994).

Local 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 below history is excerpted from the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update (Placeworks 2014).

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

Page 571 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 32 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.

Page 572 of 942 ends

Methods
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 33
4 Methods
This section presents the methods for each task completed during the preparation of this study.

Background and Archival Research
Archival Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this study in May of 2025. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included, but were not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following sources were utilized to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
 Historical aerial photographs accessed via NETR Online  Historical U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
On April 21, 2025, Rincon received California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search results (Records Search File No. 25-160) from the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSVIC) (Appendix A). The SSJVIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for the county in which the project falls. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. Rincon also reviewed the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (ADOE) list.

Sacred Lands File Search
Rincon contacted the NAHC on April 9, 2025, to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area (Appendix B). Rincon did not conduct any outreach to the Native American contacts in the area to request information on potential cultural resources in the project vicinity that may be impacted by project development.

Page 573 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 34 5 Findings
Background and Archival Research
California Historical Resources Information System
Records Search
The CHRIS records search identified a total of 82 cultural resources studies within 0.5 miles of the project sites and 47 cultural resources within 0.5 miles of the project site, including 46 built environment resources and one archaeological resource. Resources include one prehistoric archaeological site, railroad segments, ranch and barn buildings, public buildings (i.e., libraries and churches), infrastructure elements (i.e., ditches and canals), and private single-family residences.

Known studies and resources that occurred within 0.5-mile of the project site are included in Appendix A. Detailed findings per rezone sites are present below.

Rezone Site 3 – 270 West Herndon Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 63 – 1933 Alluvial Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 72 – 437 W. Nees Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no previously conducted cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. One resource was identified during the CHRIS records search within the rezone site, and is detailed below.

Helm Colonial Ditch (P-10-005511/CA-FRE-3344H)
Resource P-10-005511, the Helm Colonial Ditch, was first recorded in 2005 by Wendy M. Nettles of Applied EarthWorks, Inc., who recorded and evaluated the West Branch. The West Branch of the Helm Colonial Ditch runs north to south paralleling N. Peach Avenue through the eastern edge of Rezone Site 72. The South Branch, which does not overlap Rezone Site 72, was then recorded and evaluated in 2019 by Carlos van Onna of Applied EarthWorks, Inc. The resource is described as a historical canal that originates from the Enterprise Canal near the intersection of Shepherd and Sunnyside Avenues north of Clovis. From the Enterprise Canal, the ditch meanders in a southwesterly direction paralleling Dry Creek until it reached the intersection of Teague and Clovis Avenues, where it splits into the South and West Branches. From the split, the South Branch continues parallel to Dry Creek in a southwesterly direction to Nees Avenue. The ditch then parallels Nees Avenue underground, then turns south to parallel Minnewawa Avenue. At Alluvial Avenue, the ditch cuts through the southeast to Herndon Avenue, then turns south to parallel Peach Avenue.

Between Sierra and Bullard Avenues, the South Branch turns west and joins the Helm Canal. From the split, the West Branch continues west and then turns south at Peach Avenue. It continues along the western shoulder of Peach Avenue until it meets Herndon Avenue, where the ditch turns west,

Page 574 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 35
paralleling Herndon Avenue to Maple Avenue. At Maple Avenue, the ditch turns south and joins the Helm Canal. Both branches are approximately 2 miles long.

Constructed sometime between 1911 and 1913, the Helm Colonial Ditch supplied irrigation water to, among other agricultural subdivisions, the Colonial Helm development. Both ditch and subdivision are named for William Helm—a prominent stockman, farmer, and financier in the early history of Fresno County. Major portions of this canal system have been piped underground over the past 40 years. Routine maintenance requires periodic cleanout of the open ditch, during which dredged soil is piled on each side of the ditch.

In 2019, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. evaluated the West Branch of the Helm Colonial Ditch and found it ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this evaluation, and the resource record includes a status code 6Z: Found Ineligible for NRHP, CRHR, and local listing. Therefore, the West Branch of the Helm Colonial Ditch is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).

Rezone Site 108 – 125 & 135 N. Clovis Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 110 – 236 & 256 W. Santa Ana Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 115 – 1671 Leonard Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 157
The CHRIS records search identified one cultural resources study within the rezone site. The entirety of the rezone site had been previously surveyed in 2002. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 161 – 2930 Willow Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 167 – 1871 Shaw Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 168 – 1853 Shaw Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Page 575 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 36 Rezone Site 197 – 1479 N. Locan Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 217 – 885 Gettysburg Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 589 – 2403 Bullard Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 590 – 3959 Shaw Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 592 – 1160 N. Fowler Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 595 – 939 & 947 Sunnyside Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 596 – 965 & 975 Sunnyside Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 597 – 925 Sunnyside Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 598 – 2560 Fowler Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. No resources were identified within the rezone site.

Rezone Site 599 – 2612 Fowler Avenue
The CHRIS records search identified no previously conducted cultural resources studies within the rezone site. None of the rezone site has been previously surveyed. One previously recorded cultural resource was identified during the CHRIS search within the rezone site, and is detailed below.

Page 576 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 37
Jefferson Canal (P-10-006140/CA-FRE-3615H)
Resource P-10-006140, the Jefferson Canal, was first recorded in 2012 by Randy Baloian of Applied EarthWorks, Inc. The Jefferson Canal runs east to west through the central portion of Rezone Site 599.The resource is described as a historical canal that originates from the Enterprise Canal near the intersection of Barstow and Leonard Avenues. It flows in a southwesterly direction until it turns west between Shaw and Gettysburg Avenues. Once it reaches Sierra Vista Parkway, the Jefferson canal splits. One branch continues west until it reaches Clovis Avenue. The other branch runs north along Sierra Vista Parkway until it turns west along Shaw Avenue. It then turns north along Clovis Avenue then angles northwest near the intersection with Scott Avenue. The canal then turns west near the intersection of Beverly Drive and Minnewawa Avenue then continues in this direction for approximately 0.4 miles. At this point, it angles south and continues for approximately 0.2 miles until it ends east of a Walmart Supercenter located at 323 W. Shaw Avenue. The total length of the Jefferson Canal is approximately 5 miles.

The Jefferson Canal was built sometime between 1907 and 1909 with an approximate length of 2 miles. The canal was then extended in the early 1920s and sometime between 1947 and 1964. The canal was originally above ground, but development of Clovis lead to the canal being piped under the surface.

In 2012, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. evaluated the Jefferson Canal and found it ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR. The same year, the Jefferson Canal was listed in the BERD with a code 6Y: Determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus. Therefore, the Jefferson Canal is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).

Sacred Land File Search
On April 9, 2025, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s SB 18 contacts request and SLF request, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative. See Appendix B for the NAHC response, including Tribal contacts list(s).

Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review
Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the project site. The development history of each Rezone Site is presented individually below.

Rezone Site 3 – 270 West Herndon Avenue
Historic topographic maps and aerial photographs of the property depict residential and agricultural uses from 1923 to circa 1980. Throughout this time buildings, structures and crops were added and removed. In circa 1980, the commercial building at 350 N. Villa Avenue was added to the site. The property has been used for residential and commercial purposes until the present. A cemetery has been located adjacent to the rezone site, east of N. Villa Avenue, since at least 1923. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 63 – 1933 Alluvial Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site as vacant and undeveloped up to 1962 followed by agricultural use up to 1984. During this time, two structures associated with the agriculture use appear on the property. After 1984, the property appears to

Page 577 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 38 become a residence with new buildings and an added pool and associated driveway. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 72 – 437 W. Nees Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957, when agricultural use starts. By 1964, an associated structure was constructed in the northeast corner of the rezone site, which was then demolished by 1982, and the agricultural fields were abandoned. At this time, the extant residential building and associated driveways and pool appear. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 108 – 125 & 135 N. Clovis Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped.

By 1957, two residential buildings and associated structures appear within the western portion of the rezone site, which were then all demolished by 2009. No further buildings or structures appear within the rezone site up to the present (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b).

Rezone Site 110 – 236 & 256 W. Santa Ana Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957, when two buildings and an associated driveway appear in the eastern half of the rezone site. The southern building was demolished in 1998 and the northern building was demolished in 2009. No further buildings or structures appear in the rezone site up to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 115 – 1671 Leonard Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped until 1957. By 1957, the rezone site appears to be agricultural land with an associated structure appearing by 1964 near the eastern boundary with a second structure and orchard appearing by 1984, and a paved driveway appearing by 2002. The structures and agriculture are removed by 2020, and the rezone site remains vacant up to the present (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b).

Rezone Site 157
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when it is then utilized as agricultural land. By 1972 a road appears in the northern portion of the rezone site. By 1998 the agricultural land was abandoned and the east to west running road is no longer visible. The rezone site has overgrown vegetation removed in 2012, but remains undeveloped with structures or buildings to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 161 – 2930 Willow Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped. This is confirmed by aerial imagery from 1957 to 2022 which depicts the rezone site as vacant and undeveloped except for a line of trees that run parallel to W. Holland Avenue along the southern boundary from 1957 to 1962 (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b).

Page 578 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 39
Rezone Site 167 – 1871 Shaw Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site as vacant and undeveloped until 1972 when two linear structures surrounded by agricultural land are depicted.

The linear structures are no longer depicted by 1982. The property has remained vacant since. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 168 – 1853 Shaw Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped until 1946 when agricultural use appears on the site along with a south to north running road stemming from Shaw Avenue along the eastern edge of the rezone site. By 1972, the agricultural land appears abandoned, and by 1984, the south to north running road is no longer present. The rezone site remains in this condition to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 197 – 1479 N. Locan Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped.

A residential and ancillary building with dirt road were constructed by 1998. The property is mostly unchanged except for the removal of the oval dirt track in the southeast quadrant in 2009. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 217 – 885 Gettysburg Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1982, when two linear structures within the rezone site appear, one running east to west in the southern portion and the other running north to south along the eastern portion of the rezone site.

These structures are removed by 2012, and the rezone site has remained vacant to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 589 – 2403 Bullard Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1964 when two structures in the southwest portion of the rezone site appear. By 1984, both structures have been replaced with two different structures, both of which remain to the present.

By 2010 a parking area is constructed in the eastern portion of the rezone site, with the remainder of the rezone site staying unchanged. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 590 – 3959 Shaw Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when the rezone site is used as agricultural land. By 1974, one structure appears within the rezone site, which remains to the present. Between 2002 and 2022 multiple ancillary buildings in varying formations are built and demolished within the central portion of the rezone site. Some ancillary structures are still present today. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 592 – 1160 N. Fowler Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when the rezone site appears as agricultural land. By 1982, one structure appears within the rezone site, which remains to the present. By 1998, an ancillary structure appears within the rezone

Page 579 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 40 site, which is then removed by 2012. The rezone site remains unchanged to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 595 – 939 & 947 Sunnyside Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when a single structure in the western portion of the rezone site appears. By 1964 two additional structures appear in the western portion of the rezone site. All three structures are demolished by 2012, and the rezone site appears vacant to the present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 596 – 965 & 975 Sunnyside Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1962 when a single structure appears in the western portion of the rezone site. By 1964, a total of three structures are located in the western portion of the rezone site, one of which is demolished by 1972. In 2002 one ancillary structure appears, which is demolished by 2009. By 2018, another structure is demolished, leaving only one structure at the rezone site which is still present. (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b)
Rezone Site 597 – 925 Sunnyside Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped until a single structure in the western portion of the rezone site was constructed in 1957. The building was subsequently demolished in 2025 prior to August (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b) Rezone Site 598 – 2560 Fowler Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when three structures appear within the rezone site, which remain to the present (NETR Online 2025). By 2012, two small ancillary structures appear within the rezone site, both of which are demolished by 2022 (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b).

Rezone Site 599 – 2612 Fowler Avenue
Historical topographic maps and aerial imagery depict the rezone site vacant and undeveloped up to 1957 when agricultural use and a single structure appear in the southern portion of the rezone site as well as an irrigation canal. The irrigation canal is no longer present by 1962. By 1972, the agricultural land is abandoned and a new structure appears in the northeast corner of the rezone site. The rezone site remains unchanged to the present (NETR Online 2025a, 2025b).

Geologic and Soils Map Review
Geologically, the rezone sites are generally underlain by Quaternary age alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits (California Department of Conservation 2015; Matthews and Burnett 1965). The California Department of Conservation (2015) and Matthews and Burnett (1965) identified geologic sediments within the project site as map units “Q.” These sediments are typically comprised of marine and nonmarine (continental) sedimentary rocks that may or may be unconsolidated or semiconsolidated. Additionally, these sediments consist mostly of alluvium. Because of the episodic nature of alluvial sedimentation, the sudden burial of artifacts is possible, and alluvial soils have an increased likelihood of containing buried archaeological deposits (Waters 1992).

Page 580 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 41
Numerous soil series have been documented within the various project sites (California Soil Resource Lab n.d.). Soil series which comprised 80 to 95 percent of the soils within these project sites include the Atwater, Delhi, Greenfield, Handford, Ramona, Rocklin, San Joaquin, and the Visalia Series (California Soil Resource Lab 1999a, 1999b, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2019, 2023). These soil series are described in further detail below, with the exception of the Visalia Series, as there is no available data for this series in the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool. Other soil series within the project sites that comprise 20 percent of the project sites include the Dello, Grangeville, Himar, Dinuba, Snelling, Alamo, Foster, Chino, Chualar, Whitney, and the Exeter Series; no additional details pertaining to these soils series are provided here.

Page 581 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 42 Table 3 Geological Soil Series within the Project Sites Site
ID Address APN Elevation Soil Series
QuarternaryAged Alluvium
Present
Buried A
Horizon Soils
Present
3 270 W Herndon Avenue 49102042 110-111 m 1) Delhi (85%); Hanford (6%); Dello (6%); Grangeville (1%); Himar (1%)
Dinuba (1%)
2) Hanford (85%); Unnamed (15%)
Yes No
63 1933 Alluvial Ave 56303207 115-116 m 1) San Joaquin (90%); Snelling (5%); Alamo (4%); Unnamed (1%)
2) San Joaquin (85%); Unnamed
(15%)
Yes No
72 437 W Nees Ave 56008207 111-112 m Visalia (85%); Hildreth (3%); Unnamed (6%); Foster (2%); Chino
(2%); Chualar (2%)
Yes No
108 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave 49123124 111-112 m Atwater (85%); Delhi (3%); Unnamed (12%)
Yes No
110 236 & 256 W Santa
Ana Ave
49906074 105-106 m Hanford (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No
115 1671 Leonard Avenue 55457044S 119-122 m Ramona (95%); Unnamed (5%) San Joaquin (85%); Unnamed (15%)
Yes No
157 None 55803359S 124-125 m Ramona (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 161 2930 Willow Ave 43043316 104-105 m Hanford (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 167 1871 Shaw Ave 55128004 113 m Greenfield (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 168 1853 Shaw Ave 55128003 113 m Greenfield (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 197 1497 N Locan Ave 55849230 123-125 m 1) Ramona (85%); Unnamed (15%) 2) Rocklin (85%); Unnamed (15%)
Yes No
217 885 Gettysburg Ave 49954013ST 109-110 m Atwater (85%); Delhi (5%); San Joaquin (4%); Rocklin (4%); Whitney
(2%)
Yes No
589 2403 Bullard Ave 55026023 113-115 m 1) San Joaquin (85%); Exeter (10%); Unnamed (5%)
2) Ramona (85%); Unnamed (15%)
Yes No
590 3959 Shaw Ave 55458036s 118-119 m San Joaquin (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 592 1160 N Fowler Ave 56303131 116-117 m Ramona (85%); Unnamed (15%) Yes No 595 939 & 947
Sunnyside Ave
49817202 111 m Ramona (80%); Unnamed (20%) Yes No
596 965 & 975
Sunnyside Ave
49817201 111 m Ramona (80%); Unnamed (20%) Yes No
597 925 Sunnyside 49817203 111 m Ramona (80%); Unnamed (20%) Yes No 598 2560 Fowler Ave 49938442 113 m Delhi (85%); Hanford (6%); Dello (6%); Grangeville (1%); Himar (1%)
Dinuba (1%)
Yes No
599 2612 Fowler Ave 49938441 113 m Delhi (85%); Hanford (6%); Dello (6%); Grangeville (1%); Himar (1%)
Dinuba (1%)
Yes No

Page 582 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 43
The Atwater Series consist of very deep, well drained soils formed in granitic alluvium. This series generally occurs on gently undulating to rolling dunes in the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley at elevations of less than 500 feet above means sea level. A typical soil profile of this series features soft and very friable pale to dark brown loamy sand from 0 to 24 inches; weak, slightly hard and very friable pale to dark brown sandy loam from 24 to 39 inches; and slightly hard and very friable yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown sandy loam from 39 to 60 inches below surface (California Soil Resource Lab 2003a). Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The Delhi Series consist of very deep, excessively drained soils formed in wind modified material weathered from granitic sources. This series occurs on floodplains, alluvial fans and terraces in the eastern San Joaquin Valley as well as central valley and intermountain valleys in the western side of Southern California at elevations of 25 to 1,400 feet above mean sea level (California Soil Resource Lab 2023). A typical soil profile of this series features pale brown to brown loose sand from 0 to 21 inches; slightly lighter pale brown to brown loose sand from 21 to 40 inches; and light yellowish brown to yellowish brown loose sand from 40-70 inches. Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The Greenfield Series consists of alluvial soils formed from granitic and mixed rock sources. This series is commonly found along alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of 100 to 3,500 feet above mean sea level. A typical soil profile of this series features hard and friable pale to dark brown coarse sandy loam from 0 to 23 inches; weak and friable yellowish brown sandy loam with a thin patchy clay film from 23 to 51 inches; and soft, yellow stratified loamy sand, sandy loam, and fine sandy loam from 51 to 72 inches below surface (California Soil Resource Lab 2019). Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The Hanford Series consist of coarse alluvium soils formed from granite along steam bottoms, alluvial fans, and floodplains. This series is commonly found in the San Joaquin Valley and valleys within central and southern California at elevations ranging between 150 to3,500 feet above mean sea level. A typical soil profile of this series features pale brown to dark brown, slightly hard and very friable fine sandy loam from 0 to 60 inches (California Soil Resource Lab 1999a). Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The Ramona Series is part of the fine-loamy, mixed, thermic family of Typic Haploxeralfs formed in alluvium derived mostly from granitic and related rock sources. This series is on terraces and fans in the interior valleys of Central California and the western part of Southern California at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet above mean sea level. A typical soil profile of this series features hard and very friable brown to dark brown sandy loam from 0 to 14 inches; hard and very friable brown to dark brown fine sandy loam from 14 to 23 inches; hard and friable brown to dark reddish brown loam from 23 to 29 inches; very hard and firm reddish brown to dark reddish brown sandy clay loam from 29 to 37 inches; very hard and firm yellowish red sandy clay loam from 37 to 68 inches; and hard and firm strong brown fine sandy loam from 68 to 74 inches (California Soil Resource Lab 2003b).

Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The Rocklin Series consists of moderately well to well drained soils formed in old alluvium from granitic rock sources. This series is located on nearly level to rolling dissected terraces and is found between 80 to 500 feet above mean sea level in the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley and up to 2,500 feet in the intermountain valleys of Southern California. A typical soil profile of this series

Page 583 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 44 features hard and very friable light brown to dark brown fine sandy loam from 0 to 8 inches; hard and friable yellowish red loam from 8 to 24 inches; extremely hard and brittle reddish yellow indurated duripan from 24 to 28 inches; and very hard, dense, and brittle reddish yellow weakly cemented stratified sediments that crush to fine sandy loam from 28 to 60 inches (California Soil Resource Lab 2003c). Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

The San Joaquin Series consists of alluvium derived from granitic rock along low terraces, with varying levels of duripan. This series is commonly found at elevations of 20 to 500 feet in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. A typical profile of this series features hard and friable brown to dark brown or reddish-brown loam from 0 to 16 inches; extremely hard and firm brown clay from 16 to 26 inches; brittle and light brown indurated duripan from 26 to 29 inches; and hard but brittle brown duripan from 29 to 60 inches below surface (California Soil Resource Lab 1999b). Buried A horizons are not identified in this series, according to the California Soil Resource Lab Soil Data Explorer tool.

Archaeological Sensitivity Summary
Geoarchaeological studies regarding pre-contact archaeological sites have established the following predictive variables: proximity to previously recorded archaeological sites, underlying geology, and proximity to freshwater sources (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007). Therefore, Rincon considered proximity to previously recorded archaeological sites, buildings, and structures identified during the records search to increase archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, previous disturbance from construction of extant buildings is considered to decrease archaeological sensitivity due to the destructive nature of related ground disturbing activities.

The archival research indicates the sediments mapped at surface within the rezone sites are generally conducive to the natural burial and preservation of archaeological resources given they were deposited during the Holocene, a period consistent with recorded human occupation of the region. The soils map indicates all rezone sites are mapped with soil profiles that lack buried A Horizon soil indicative of buried paleosurfaces. Only two rezone sites, 115 and 590, are in close proximity (i.e., within 500 feet) of a freshwater source, and one rezone site, 161, is in proximity to a previously recorded archaeological resource. These factors increase the sensitivity for subsurface archaeological resources in those three rezone sites. Finally, 11 of the rezone sites include previous construction, as evidenced by extant buildings and/or associated structures. However, of these, one (rezone site 3) includes a building from the historic-period constructed by 1923, which further increases the sensitivity for historic-period archaeological resources. In consideration of the factors above, a summary of archaeological sensitivity (low, medium, or high) in consideration of these factors is included in Table 4 below.

Page 584 of 942 ends

Findings
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 45
Table 4 Archaeological Sensitivity by Rezone Site
Site ID Address APN Archaeological Sensitivity
3 270 W Herndon Avenue 49102042 High
63 1933 Alluvial Ave 56303207 Low
72 437 W Nees Ave 56008207 Low
108 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave 49123124 Moderate
110 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave 49906074 Moderate
115 1671 Leonard Avenue 55457044S Moderate
157 None 55803359S High
161 2930 Willow Ave 43043316 Moderate
167 1871 Shaw Ave 55128004 Moderate
168 1853 Shaw Ave 55128003 Low
197 1497 N Locan Ave 55849230 Low
217 885 Gettysburg Ave 49954013ST Low
589 2403 Bullard Ave 55026023 Low
590 3959 Shaw Ave 55458036s Low
592 1160 N Fowler Ave 56303131 Low
595 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave 49817202 Low
596 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave 49817201 Low
597 925 Sunnyside 49817203 Low
598 2560 Fowler Ave 49938442 Low
599 2612 Fowler Ave 49938441 Low

Page 585 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 46 Built Environment Sensitivity Summary
The table below provides built dates for properties with buildings. Any property with buildings over 45 years of age or older will require additional study during future projects.

Table 5 Overview of Build Date for Properties by Rezone Site Site
ID* APN Address Vacant? Existing Use Built Date
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Avenue 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 108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave Yes Vacant NA
110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave Yes Vacant NA
115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Ave Yes Vacant NA
157 55803359S De Wolf & Richmond Ave Yes Vacant NA
161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave Yes Vacant NA
167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave Yes Vacant NA
168 55128003 1853 Shaw Ave Yes Vacant NA
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 595 49817202 939 & 947 Sunnyside Ave Yes Vacant NA
596 49817201 965 & 975 Sunnyside Ave Yes Vacant NA
597 49817203 925 Sunnyside No Vacant N/A
598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave No Single family residence 1925 599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave No Single family residence 1960

Page 586 of 942 ends

Conclusions
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 47
6 Conclusions
The constraints analysis included here is organized based on the cultural resources thresholds included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Threshold A broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, we have chosen to limit analysis under Threshold A 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 B.

Historical Built Environment Resources
The field survey and background research identified two previously evaluated built environment resources: Helm Colonial Ditch (P-10-005511/CA-FRE-3344H) and Jefferson Canal (P-10-006140/CAFRE-3615H). Both have been evaluated and determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and therefore, are not historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). Research also identified 11 rezone sites that include built environment resources that have not been previously evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility.

Although the project includes rezoning and amending the land use designations, and there are no specific development associated with the project, implementation of the project would guide future development. Potential future development facilitated by the project may include site preparation, demolition, and construction activities and could have the potential to result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources.

Historic-aged buildings, as well as parcels with buildings that may become age-eligible with the passage of time, may require further evaluation to determine if they are historical resources pursuant to CEQA and may be affected by a future project. Therefore, there is potential to impact historical resources.

Recommended Mitigation Measures
CUL-1a Identification of Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation shall be prepared for projects carried out within the project area involving the demolition or physical alteration of a building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older. 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

Page 587 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 48 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.

Properties requiring evaluation are included in Table 6.

Table 6 Properties Requiring Evaluation
Site
ID* APN Address Existing Use
Built
Date
Age
Eligible
45 Year
Threshold
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Avenue 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 CUL-1b Treatment of Historical Resources
If a project would to occur on a site containing a historical resource as identified during implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, 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, or 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 historical resources (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]). 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, Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-

Page 588 of 942 ends

Conclusions
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 49
Like report, 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
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b 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 Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b, 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.

Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources
This study did not identify any previously recorded archaeological resources in any of the proposed rezone sites. However, only one rezone site (157) has been previously surveyed, which took place in 2002. In addition, seven rezone 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 rezone 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 these rezone sites. Therefore, future development of any rezone site would have the potential to directly or indirectly impact subsurface archaeological resources through ground disturbing activities associated with construction. The following recommended mitigation measures are for archaeological resources studies and unanticipated archaeological resources. With adherence to these measures, Rincon recommends a finding of less-than-significant impact with mitigation for archaeological resources under CEQA.

Recommended Mitigation Measures
CUL-2a Archaeological Resource Study
For future projects involving ground disturbance on the Infill Rezone Program sites listed in Table 7 below 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.

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

Page 589 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 50 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.

Table 7 Properties Requiring an Archaeological Resources Study Site ID* APN Address
3 49102042 350 N Villa Ave
63 56303207 1933 Alluvial Ave
72 56008207 437 W Nees Ave
108 49123124 125 & 135 N Clovis Ave
110 49906074 236 & 256 W Santa Ana Ave
115 55457044S 1671 Leonard Ave
157 55803359S De Wolf & Richmond Ave
161 43043316 2930 Willow Ave
167 55128004 1871 Shaw Ave
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
598 49938442 2560 Fowler Ave
599 49938441 2612 Fowler Ave
CUL-2b 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,

Page 590 of 942 ends

Conclusions
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 51
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
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b 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.

Human Remains
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 Public Resources Code 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 origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an 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.

Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Page 591 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 52 7 References
California Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
2011 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California Bancroft, Hubert How
1885 History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. San Francisco, California: A.L. Bancroft & Co.

Barton, Amber, Maria Del Carmen Guzman, and Breeann Romo 2010 The Preliminary Results of the 2008 Archaeological Investigations at the Bead Hill Site (KRE-450), Buena Vista Lake, California. SCA Proceedings 24: 1-12.

Bean, Walton
1968 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, California.

California Department of Conservation
2015 Geologic Map of California – Clovis, California. Electronic map at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/, accessed April 2025.

California Soil Resource Lab
n.d. SoilWeb – Clovis, California. Online interactive map. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed April 2025. 1999a Soil Data Explorer – Hanford Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=hanford#osd, accessed January 2023. 1999b Soil Data Explorer – San Joaquin Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=san%20joaquin#osd, accessed January 2023.
2003a Soil Data Explore – Atwater Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=atwater#osd, accessed April 2025. 2003b Soil Data Explorer – Ramona Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=ramona#osd, accessed April 2025. 2003c Soil Data Explorer – Rocklin Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=rocklin#osd, accessed April 2025. 2019 Soil Data Explorer – Greenfield Series.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=greenfield#osd, accessed January 2023.
2023 Soil Data Explorer – Delhi Series. casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/sde/?series=delhi#osd, accessed April 2025.

Page 592 of 942 ends

References
0BCultural Resources Technical Report 53
Chapman, R.N.
1928 Quantitative Analysis of Environmental Factors. Ecology 9: 111-122.

Davis, James
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 54.

Dumke, Glenn S.
1994 The Boom of the 1880s in Southern California. Southern California Quarterly 76(1):99-114.

Gayton, A.H.
1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409-426.

Hackel, Steven W.
1997 Land, Labor, and Production: The Colonial Economy of Spanish and Mexican California.

California History 76(2/3):111-146.

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.

Kyle, Douglas E.
2002 Historic Spots in California. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Livingston, M.M.
1914 The Earliest Spanish Land Grants in California. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 9(3):195-199.

Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L.
1965 Geologic map of California: Fresno Sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Atlas of California GAM-05, scale 1:250,000. Electronic document at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=7654, accessed April 2025.

Mithun, Marianne
2001 The Languages of Native North America. Reprinted. Originally published 1999.

Cambridge University Press, New York.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 The Central Valley Region. In California Archaeology, pp. 167-216. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

National Park Service
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Department of the Interior. 1997 National Register Bulletin-How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_ web508.pdf. October 2022.

Page 593 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project 54 NETR Online
2025a Topographic maps dated 1923, 1946, 1947, 1955, 1956, 1965, 1974, 1982, 2012, 2015, 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed multiple. 2025b Aerial photographs dated 1957, 1961, 1964, 1972, 1974, 1982, 1984, 1998, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2018, 2020, 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed multiple.

Placeworks
2014 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code Update. Prepared for the City of Clovis. June. https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/Chapter-05-05-Cultural-Resources.pdf, accessed March 11, 2020.

Rolle, Andrew
2003 California: A History. Sixth printing. 1963. Harlan Davidson, Inc. Wheeling, Illinois.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey, Gregory White, and Mark Sutton
2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 147-164. AltaMira Press, Lanham Maryland.

Sutton, Mark Q., Jille K. Gardner, Kenneth W. Gobalet, and Nancy Valente 2016 “Archaeological Investigations at the Manifold Site (CA-KER-4220), Buena Vista Lake, Southern San Joaquin Valley, California.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Vol. 52 (4), pp. 15-82.

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

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

Waugh, John C.
2003 On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Waters, Michael R.
1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.

Page 594 of 942 ends

Appendix A
CHRIS Records Search Results [CONFIDENTIAL]

Page 595 of 942 ends

Appendix B
NAHC Sacred Lands File Results [CONFIDENTIAL]

Page 596 of 942 ends

Appendix D
Tribal Consultation

Page 597 of 942 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

April 9, 2025
Alyssa Newcomb
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, 24-15842 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Environmental Assessment Project, Fresno County
To Whom It May Concern:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties.

Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
Commissioner
Vacant

ACTING EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY

STEVEN QUINN

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

Page 598 of 942 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code §6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we are able to assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected] Sincerely,
Melina Carlos
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

Page 599 of 942 ends

Appendix E
Water Supply Assessment

Page 600 of 942 ends

CITY OF CLOVIS
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT:

INFILL REZONE PROGRAM

CLOVIS, CA
MAY 2025
PREPARED FOR:

City of Clovis
PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611

Page 601 of 942 ends

https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/559d9481-8f8a-40ac-8229- 588acb0ac827/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_30.ppeng.egnyte.com/20250522 Clovis WSA HE Rezone_Draft_C.docx Report Prepared for:

City of Clovis
1033 5th Street
Clovis, CA 93612
Contact:

Sean Smith
(559) 324-2363
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Cristobal Gallegos
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

Page 602 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Water Supply Assessment..............................................................1-1

1.2 Reliance on a Related Urban Water Management Plan ...........................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization ...........................................................................................................1-1 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting.....................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Water Supply and Distribution .................................................................................................2-2 3 Water Demands ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Demands......................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Demands of Other Existing and Planned Development............................................................3-3 4 Overview of Water Supplies .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Surface Water...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Supply from Storage.................................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................................4-2

4.4 Recycled Water ........................................................................................................................4-5

4.5 Exchanges.................................................................................................................................4-5

4.6 Water Supply Summary............................................................................................................4-5 5 Normal Year Water Operations ..................................................................................................... 5-1 6 Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies .......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Water Year Effects on Water Sources......................................................................................6-1

6.2 Changes in Water Source Reliability Over the Planning Horizon..............................................6-2

6.3 Summary of Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Reliability Over the Planning Horizon..............6-3

6.4 Climate-Based Reliability Factors .............................................................................................6-3 7 Operational Reliability .................................................................................................................. 7-1 8 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Conclusions Including Additional WSAs....................................................................................8-1 9 References ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Page 603 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program
Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Location Map...........................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2. Water Infrastructure at Buildout.............................................................................................2-5 Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan in Project Area..................................................................................................3-4 Figure 4-1. Irrigation and Water Districts..................................................................................................4-4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Planned Demand Estimates......................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Proposed Demand Estimates....................................................................................................3-2 Table 3-3. Proposed Water Demands in 5-Year Increments .....................................................................3-3 Table 3-4. Planned Water Demands by Use Type......................................................................................3-3 Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13).................................................4-6 Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands ................................................................5-1 Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4).............6-3

Page 604 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program
Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS
AF ......................................................................................................................................................acre-feet AFY ..................................................................................................................................... acre-feet per year City ..............................................................................................................................................City of Clovis County ...................................................................................................................................... Fresno County CVP ................................................................................................................................Central Valley Project CWC..............................................................................................................................California Water Code FID ............................................................................................................................ Fresno Irrigation District GP................................................................................................................................................General Plan GWD............................................................................................................................ Garfield Water District HDR ...........................................................................................................................High Density Residential IWD...................................................................................................................... International Water District KRWA................................................................................................................Kings River Water Association MGD............................................................................................................................ million gallons per day MHDR......................................................................................................... Medium High Density Residential NKGSP....................................................................................... North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan RWRF......................................................................................................Regional Water Reclamation Facility SOI .................................................................................................................................... sphere of influence SFR............................................................................................................................Single-Family Residential SWTP ........................................................................................City of Clovis Surface Water Treatment Plant USBR...................................................................................................................... US Bureau of Reclamation UWMP.....................................................................................City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan WDF............................................................................................................................Water Demand Factors WMP.......................................................................City of Clovis, Draft Water Master Plan Update, Phase III WRF............................................................................City of Clovis Sewage Treatment/Water Reuse Facility WSA........................................................................................................................Water Supply Assessment WSCP......................................................................................................... Water Shortage Contingency Plan

Page 605 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section One: Introduction 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
California Water Code (CWC) §10912(a) requires preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) meeting the requirements of CWC §10910 et seq for projects within cities and counties that meet one of several water demand triggers, or the equivalent. These triggers include construction of 500 or more residential units, construction of a shopping center or business establishment having 500,000 square feet of floor space, construction of a commercial office building having more than 250,000 square feet, a proposed hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms, or another project having a water demand equivalent to or greater than the 500-unit development.

This WSA evaluates the adequacy of available water supplies for the proposed City of Clovis, Infill Rezone Program, located at various parcels throughout the City of Clovis, California. The Project would entail the rezoning on 54.32 acres across 20 parcels to create the capacity to provide approximately 1,303 affordable housing dwelling units, which is greater than the “500 residential units” trigger; therefore, a WSA is required.

The City of Clovis operates the water system to which the Project proposes to connect. This water system meets the standards for a “Public Water System” as set forth in CWC §10912(c); the City is therefore responsible for preparation of the required WSA in accordance with CWC §10910(b).

This WSA discusses the estimated water demands and water supply for the proposed Project. The Project is located in the City of Clovis (City) limits; the entire Project will be supplied water from the City.

1.2 RELIANCE ON A RELATED URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
If the Project falls within the boundaries of a current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the water purveyor, CWC §10910(c)(1) requires that the WSA determine whether projected water demand associated with the Project is included as part of that duly adopted UWMP.

The 2020 Clovis UWMP covers the SOI for the City. This Project lies across 20 parcels within the City of Clovis (City) limits, within the City’s SOI (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2021). Thus, in accordance with the CWC, the preparers have relied on information from the UWMP wherever possible in preparing the various elements of this Assessment.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This WSA is organized as follows:
• Section 2 describes the Project and its location.
• Section 3 describes the Project’s potable and non-potable water demands in addition to those of other existing and planned uses, and variations from the numbers in the UWMP. • Section 4 provides an overview of the City’s primary water supplies. • Section 5 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during normal years. • Section 6 discusses the adequacy of water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years. • Section 7 discusses operational reliability on a daily basis. • Section 8 concludes whether supplies would be adequate during normal, dry-year, and multiple-dry years during a 20-year projection.
• Section 9 lists references cited in this WSA.

Page 606 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Two: Project Description 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City limits currently encompasses 25.9 square miles. The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) covers 34.9 square miles, while the City’s General Plan (GP) encompasses approximately 74.3 square miles. The City’s General Plan (Placeworks, 2014) identified three Urban Centers to focus growth, including Loma Vista, the Northwest area, and the Northeast area; this Project lies across 20 parcels, within the City of Clovis (City) limits. Figure 2-1 identifies the location(s) of the Project in relation to the surrounding Clovis/Fresno region.

The Project would entail a General Plan Amendment and rezoning on 54.32 acres across 20 parcels to create the capacity to provide approximately 1,303 affordable housing dwelling units. The Project is a proposed High Density Residential (HDR) development. The Project site includes 54 gross acres bounded by the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Project site encompasses 20 parcels, as listed in Table 2-1.

The Project area is currently designated in the City’s General Plan, as various types of Residential, General Commercial, Office, Mixed-Use Village, and Industrial land uses.

Page 607 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Two: Project Description 2-2
Table 2-1. Existing Land Use Designation
Existing Land Use
Designation Site ID APN Existing Use Units Acreage
General Commercial 3 491-020-42 Single-Family Residential, Commercial business, Tree Lot 193 8.06
Low Density Residential 63 563-032-07 Existing Residence 91 3.78 Low Density Residential 72 560-082-07 Existing Building 77 3.19 Medium Density Residential 108 491-231-24 Vacant 30 1.25 Medium Density Residential 110 499-060-74 Vacant 30 1.25 Medium Density Residential 115 554-570-44S Vacant 55 2.31 Mixed-Use Village 157 558-033-59S Vacant 174 7.24
Office 161 430-433-16 Vacant 40 1.67
Office 167 551-280-04 Vacant 25 1.04
Office 168 551-280-03 Vacant 31 1.3
Very Low Density Residential 197 558-492-30 Existing rural residential home 108 4.5 Industrial 217 499-540-13ST Commercial business – Clovis Academy of Gymnastics and Dance 43 1.8
Low Density Residential 589 550-260-23 Former Rogers 192 8.01 Medium Density Residential 590 554-580-36S Single-Family Residential 72 3.02 Low Density Residential 592 563-031-31 Existing Rural Residential 50 2.09 Low Density Residential 595 498-172-02 Vacant 10 0.41
Low Density Residential 596 498-172-01 Vacant 18 0.72
Low Density Residential 597 498-172-03 Residence, Same Owner as 595 & 10 0.41 Low Density Residential 598 499-384-42 Existing Residence 26 1.09 Low Density Residential 599 499-384-41 Existing Residence 28 1.18 Totals: 1,303 54.32

2.2 WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION
The Project will receive water supply from the City’s water distribution system, which relies on both groundwater and surface water supplies. Built in 2004, the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plan (SWTP) has a current treatment capacity of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD); expansion to 45 MGD is planned.

In addition to the supply from the SWTP, the City has more than 30 groundwater wells located throughout the City, with the nearest wells being approximately one and a half miles southeast of the Project. While the City’s system is divided into two pressure zones, there are interconnections between the two to balance supply and demands throughout the year in various water demand scenarios.

The Project area is within both the water system’s Pressure Zone 1 and Pressure Zone 2. Water will be delivered to the Project via the City’s existing and planned distribution system. Table 2-2 shows the sites in Pressure Zone 1, and Table 2-3 the sites in Pressure Zone 2. The water distribution system is shown in full in the Water Master Plan Update, Phase III (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018), and in

Page 608 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Two: Project Description 2-3
detail for this area on Figure 2-2. Through other projects in the area being undertaken by others, the master-planned infrastructure is being constructed in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).

Table 2-2. Parcels in Pressure Zone 1
Site ID APN
3 491-020-42
72 560-082-07
108 491-231-24
110 499-060-74
161 430-433-16
167 551-280-04
168 551-280-03
217 499-540-13ST
589 550-260-23
595 498-172-02
596 498-172-01
597 498-172-03
598 499-384-42
599 499-384-41
Table 2-3. Parcels in Pressure Zone 2
Site ID APN
63 563-032-07
115 554-570-44S
157 558-033-59S
197 558-492-30
590 554-580-36S
592 563-031-31

Page 609 of 942 ends

?k
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
THIRD
SIERRA
FOWLER
LOCAN
NEES
TEAGUE
PERRIN
DEWOLF

SHEPHERD

DE WOLF
DAKOTA
ASHLAN
CLOVIS
SHAW

HERNDON

BULLARD
COPPER

LEONARD

BARSTOW

SHIELDS
MCCALL

HIGHLAND

SUNNYSIDE

ALLUVIAL

GETTYSBURG

ARMSTRONG

TEMPERANCE
590
108
592
115
197
110
589
217
167
595
596
161
157
168
72 63
3 597
598
599
0 0.5 1
Miles
Major Streets
Project Area
Clovis S.O.I.

City of Clovis
3/12/2025 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Ongoing\OG-2024\03 HE Rezone WSA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 2-1: Project Location
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program

Page 610 of 942 ends

TU
TU
TU
S#
S#
S# S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S# S# S#
S# S#
S#
S# S#
S# S#
S# S#S#
S#
S# S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
S#
590
108
592
115
197
110
589
217
167
595
596
161
157
168
3 63
72 597
598
599
Locan Ave
Shaw Ave
W Teague
Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Ashlan Ave
Clovis Ave
Sierra Ave
Bullard Ave
Sierra Ave
Barstow Ave
Bullard Ave
W Herndon Ave
Dakota Ave
W Sierra Ave
Teague Ave
Shaw Ave
Clovis Ave
Gettysburg Ave
Fowler Ave
Barstow Ave
Armstrong Ave
Ashlan Ave
Nees Ave
N Peach
Ave
Alluvial Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
N Minnewawa Ave
Herndon AveTemperance Ave
Leonard Ave
N Willow Ave
De Wolf Ave
Shepherd Ave
AkE
AkE
0 0.5 1
Miles
S# Well
TU Tank
Pressure Zone Boundary
Project Area
Fresno Irrigation Disrtrict
Existing Water Mains
12"
16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
Future Water Mains
12"
16"
18"
24"
30"
36"
4/1/2025
o
\\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City of - 1017\Ongoing\OG-2024\03 HE Rezone WSA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA.aprx Prepared By Figure 2-2: Potable Water Infrastructure
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program

Page 611 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Three: Water Demands 3-1
3 WATER DEMANDS
This section summarizes projected water demands of the Project, assuming full buildout of the Project by 2030. Water demands associated with development of the Project area were included in the UWMP and were based on Land Use-based Water Demand Factors (WDFs) applied to land uses shown in the City’s adopted General Plan. Proposed Project water demands have been estimated based on the proposed land uses and the WDFs shown in the adopted WMP. This section compares water demand estimates developed as part of this study with the City’s earlier plans.

3.1 PROJECT DEMANDS
Based on the adopted WDFs stated in the WMP and the existing GP land use (shown in Figure 3-1) designations, the planned water demands, shown in acre-feet per year (AFY), for the Project area are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Planned Demand Estimates
Planned Land Use
Designation Site ID APN Unit Factor (AFY/acre) Acreage Demand (AFY) General Commercial 3 491-020-42 2.9 8.06 23.37
Low Density Residential 63 563-032-07 2.5 3.78 9.45
Low Density Residential 72 560-082-07 2.5 3.19 7.98
Medium Density Residential 108 491-231-24 2.2 1.25 2.75 Medium Density Residential 110 499-060-74 2.2 1.25 2.75 Medium Density Residential 115 554-570-44S 2.2 2.31 5.08 Mixed-Use Village 157 558-033-59S 5 7.24 36.20
Office 161 430-433-16 2.7 1.67 4.51
Office 167 551-280-04 2.7 1.04 2.81
Office 168 551-280-03 2.7 1.3 3.51
Very Low Density Residential 197 558-492-30 2.9 4.5 13.05 Industrial 217 499-540-13ST 1.0 1.8 1.80
Low Density Residential 589 550-260-23 2.5 8.01 20.03
Medium Density Residential 590 554-580-36S 2.2 3.02 6.64 Low Density Residential 592 563-031-31 2.5 2.09 5.23
Low Density Residential 595 498-172-02 2.5 0.41 1.03
Low Density Residential 596 498-172-01 2.5 0.72 1.80
Low Density Residential 597 498-172-03 2.5 0.41 1.03
Low Density Residential 598 499-384-42 2.5 1.09 2.73
Low Density Residential 599 499-384-41 2.5 1.18 2.95
Totals: 54.32 154.68

Page 612 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Three: Water Demands 3-2
The proposed water demand estimates for this Project are summarized in Table 3-2, based on the proposed land uses and WDF.

Table 3-2. Proposed Demand Estimates
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Site ID APN Unit Factor
(AFY/acre)
Acreage Demand
(AFY)
High Density Residential 3 491-020-42 4.7 8.06 37.88
High Density Residential 63 563-032-07 4.7 3.78 17.77
High Density Residential 72 560-082-07 4.7 3.19 14.99
High Density Residential 108 491-231-24 4.7 1.25 5.88
High Density Residential 110 499-060-74 4.7 1.25 5.88
High Density Residential 115 554-570-44S 4.7 2.31 10.86 High Density Residential 157 558-033-59S 4.7 7.24 34.03 High Density Residential 161 430-433-16 4.7 1.67 7.85
High Density Residential 167 551-280-04 4.7 1.04 4.89
High Density Residential 168 551-280-03 4.7 1.3 6.11
High Density Residential 197 558-492-30 4.7 4.5 21.15
High Density Residential 217 499-540-13ST 4.7 1.8 8.46
High Density Residential 589 550-260-23 4.7 8.01 37.65
High Density Residential 590 554-580-36S 4.7 3.02 14.19 High Density Residential 592 563-031-31 4.7 2.09 9.82
Very High Density Residential 595 498-172-02 7.3 0.41 2.99 Very High Density Residential 596 498-172-01 7.3 0.72 5.26 Very High Density Residential 597 498-172-03 7.3 0.41 2.99 High Density Residential 598 499-384-42 4.7 1.09 5.12
High Density Residential 599 499-384-41 4.7 1.18 5.55
Totals: 54.32 259.31
While the proposed land use is residential, the intensity of the residential development is greater than the GP land uses; therefore, the proposed water demand estimates are greater than the planned estimates. The increase in total water demand for the Project area is 104.63 AFY. This increase is attributable to the proposed HDR designation having a higher WDF than that of the originally planned land use designations shown in Table 3-1. Despite the increase in demands for the Project area, the proposed increase amounts to 0.65% of the excess supply for year 2030 the City has in a normal year as shown in Table 7-2 of the 2020 UWMP1.

Project water demands were calculated in 5-year increments, as shown in Table 3-3, assuming 10 percent of the development by 2025 and the balance by 2035.
1 The excess supply in a normal year in 2030 is shown in the UWMP as 16,113 AFY; the total demand planned for the area is 154.68 AFY while the proposed demand is 259.31 AFY, yielding an increased demand of 104.63 AFY or 0.65% of the excess supply (104.63/16,113 = 0.65%).

Page 613 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Three: Water Demands 3-3
Table 3-3. Proposed Water Demands in 5-Year Increments
2025 2030 Total
Estimated Demand (AFY) 25.93 233.38 259.31

3.2 DEMANDS OF OTHER EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The UWMP report the planned demands for similar types of uses proposed with this Project within the City, referred to collectively as Multi-Family Residential uses (MFR). These demands are summarized in UWMP Table 4-5, which is reproduced, in part, below.

Table 3-4. Planned Water Demands by Use Type
Use Type
UWMP Projected
Demands in 2030
(AFY)
Proposed Project Demands in 2030
Project Demands
(AFY)
% of UWMP MFR
Demands
MFR 2,715 259.31 9.6%
Totals 2,715 259.31 9.6%
Comparing the total proposed Project water demands in Table 3-2 with the total water demand area analyzed in the UWMP and shown in Table 3-4, the Project makes up a very small portion of the overall water anticipated to be delivered by the City to similar types of uses; however, it is worth noting the additional demands beyond the original planned land use (104.63 AFY) accounts for 3.9% of the MFR projected demands shown in the 2020 UWMP for year 2030.

Page 614 of 942 ends

590
108
592
115
197
110
589
217
167
595
596
161
157
168
72 3
63 598
599
597
Locan Ave
Shaw Ave
W Teague
Ave
Sunnyside Ave
Ashlan Ave
Clovis Ave
Sierra Ave
Bullard Ave
Sierra Ave
Barstow Ave
Bullard Ave
W Herndon Ave
W Sierra Ave
Teague Ave
Shaw Ave
Clovis Ave
Gettysburg Ave
Fowler Ave
Barstow Ave
Armstrong Ave
Ashlan Ave
Nees Ave
N Peach Ave
Alluvial Ave
Minnewawa Ave
Sunnyside Ave
N Minnewawa Ave
Herndon Ave Temperance Ave
Leonard Ave
N Willow Ave
De Wolf Ave
Shepherd Ave
AkE
AkE
0 0.5 1
Miles
Project Area
Clovis City Limits
Clovis Sphere of Influence
City of Clovis General Plan
AG - Agriculture
RR - Rural Residential
VL - Very Low Residential
L - Low Density Residential
M - Medium Density Residential
MH - Medium High Density Residential
H - High Density Residential
VH - Very High Density Residential
MU-V - Mixed Use Village
MU-BC - Mixed Use/Business Campus
O - Office
I - Industrial
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
GC - General Commercial
OS - Open Space
P - Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
PK - Park
W - Water
3/12/2025 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Ongoing\OG-2024\03 HE Rezone WSA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Figure 3-1: Land Use Plan in Project Area
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program

Page 615 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies 4-1
4 OVERVIEW OF WATER SUPPLIES
CWC §10910(c)(2) allows reliance on the City’s UWMP to determine overall water supply reliability if the Project’s planned water demand was included in the UWMP. Although the proposed Project demand is more than what was included in the calculations for the UWMP, the Project area itself was included at the originally planned land use intensity.
§10910(d) requires that a WSA identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project, including any such existing entitlements, rights, or contracts held by the public water system or city or county preparing the WSA. These descriptions appear in detail in Chapter 6 of the UWMP and are summarized below.

4.1 SURFACE WATER
The City’s surface water supply is provided through agreements with Fresno Irrigation District (FID), which allows the City to receive a share of FID’s Kings River and Friant Central Valley Project Class II (CVP) entitlements. Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD) are located within the City’s General Plan boundaries. As the districts’ service areas are urbanized over time, surface supplies available to the two districts will be added to the City’s surface water supply. As those supplies are added to the City’s water supply portfolio, they will be available throughout the City’s service area as part of the general water supply. Currently, all surface water available to the City comes from the FID contract. The boundaries of each of the districts are shown on Figure 4-1.

4.1.1 KINGS RIVER
FID obtains much of its surface water from the Kings River. FID is a member of the Kings River Water Association, which holds water rights licenses for all the Kings River and storage rights licenses on Kings River reservoirs. FID is entitled to water based upon a prorated monthly schedule determined by the natural flow of the Kings River as it would occur without reservoir storage above the historic Piedra gauging station. FID is entitled to water from the Kings River at all flows, but the percentage is higher at relatively low Kings River flows. If the snowmelt is slow, the District receives a greater entitlement. FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 AF. Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015.

The City’s allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water; the total amounts available to the City are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.

4.1.2 CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER ALLOCATION: FRIANT DIVISION The water obtained from the CVP comes from the diversion and storage of water from the San Joaquin River behind Friant Dam. The total available water on the San Joaquin River has been estimated at 2,200,000 acre-feet (AF). Of that, 800,000 AF have been designated as Class I supply (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). Class I supply is considered to be dependable in most years with shortages only in very dry years. Class II water is in excess of Class I and is therefore much less dependable. FID has a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for 75,000 AF of Class II water from this source (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). The agreement between the City and FID requires the District to make available to the City the proportional share of all surface water available to the District although it does not allow the City to directly receive FID’s CVP supplies. Therefore, FID is required to make a like

Page 616 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies 4-2
amount of Kings River (or any other surface) water available to the City for its proportional share of Class II CVP supplies. FID’s Class II contract has received an average 13,577 AFY with the actual number ranging from zero to the full 75,000 AF depending upon the nature of each water year over that period. Table 4-1 lists the projected surface water volume through 2040.

4.1.3 GARFIELD WATER DISTRICT
GWD is located north of the City with a portion of the district in the City’s SOI. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2025, with the total 1,750 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.1.4 INTERNATIONAL WATER DISTRICT
IWD is located east of the City’s SOI within the general plan’s boundary. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s supply. As noted in the UWMP, the first portion of GWD supplies is not anticipated to be available to the City until 2030, with the total 1,200 AFY not accounted for in the supply totals until 2040.

4.2 SUPPLY FROM STORAGE
Since 2004, the City has been storing water in the aquifer to create a stable source of supply over the years. The City has been working with FID to recharge surface water, using the City’s contracted shares of capacity in FID’s Waldron Banking Facility and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility, to build up credit in those facilities which allow for annual water withdrawals, on an as-needed or as-requested basis. The surface water banked includes portions of FID’s Kings and CVP supplies and may in the future also include other surface water supplies that FID is able to secure on the spot market. Recharged water is purchased under separate agreements with FID and is not included in the surface water totals in the previous section, so this is truly a separate and additional water supply. This process is fully explained in the UWMP.

Two banking facilities, the Waldron Banking Facilities (Waldron) and Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility (Boswell), have been constructed in central Fresno County. The City entered into an agreement with the FID to participate in the financing of the construction of a dedicated water banking facility called the Waldron Banking Facilities. The City is entitled to receive up to ninety percent (9,000 AF) of the annual yield. The City and FID have entered into a similar agreement regarding the Boswell Groundwater Banking Facility whereby the City will have access up to 4,500 AFY of surface water. The recharged water will be “banked” for future recovery during dry periods or to accommodate planned growth.

The City has created a recharge plan accounting for historic variations in surface water supplies that will allow it to withdraw an annual 13,500 AF, the maximum withdrawal allowed under the City’s agreements with FID. This is considered a firm supply. The 13,500 AF maximum annual withdrawal is built into the water supply projections in the UWMP for each year over the planning horizon.

4.3 GROUNDWATER
The City is located within the Kings Groundwater sub-basin, a part of the Tulare Lake Hydrogeologic Basin as described in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (Department of Water Resources, 2003).

Page 617 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies 4-3
The groundwater basin is in overdraft and has been for many years. However, it has not been adjudicated.

Chapter 6 of the UWMP discusses a sustainable groundwater yield for the service area and concludes the sustainable yield to be 9,400 AFY, as discussed in greater detail in the WMP. While the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) has been written and adopted, it does not yet include a firmer approximation of sustainable yield, although development of one is anticipated. The sustainable yield from the UWMP and WMP has been used for this assessment.

Page 618 of 942 ends

590
108
592
115
197
110
589
217
167
595
596
161
157
168
3 72
63 598
599
597
0 1 2
Miles
Project Area
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
Clovis General Plan Boundary
Garfield Water District
International Water District
Fresno Irrigation District
3/12/2025 G:\Clovis_City of - 1017\Ongoing\OG-2024\03 HE Rezone WSA\400 GIS\Map\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA\CityOfClovis_Infill_Rezone_WSA.aprx o
Prepared By
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of Land
Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT

P, USGS, METI/NASA, NGA, EPA, USDA
Figure 4-2: Irrigation and Water Districts
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program

Page 619 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies 4-5

4.4 RECYCLED WATER
Most of the City’s wastewater flow is treated at the Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF), located southwest of the City of Fresno on Jensen Avenue. In 2009, the City of Clovis completed a new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). In 2020, the WRF produced approximately 2,496 AFY. Of that total, 28 percent was recycled for mostly landscape and agricultural irrigation, with the remainder being discharged to FID’s Fancher Creek for agricultural irrigation.

Ultimately the WRF will be expanded to be able to treat 8.4 MGD, or 9,400 AF per year, and will make a substantial contribution to the City’s overall water resources. According to the 2020 UWMP, recycled water is used for irrigation of public and private landscape within the service area. Areas receiving or planned to receive recycled water include the Freeway 168 corridor between Shepherd and Sierra Avenues, the existing Clovis Community Medical Center campus, and multiple City parks and landscape areas.

Landscape irrigation will continue to be the main use of recycled water in the future. All public landscape areas within three-quarters of a mile of the distribution system are considered potential recycled water use areas. Clovis Unified School District is evaluating the use of recycled water for its landscape areas.

Caltrans has expanded their use of recycled water along State Route 168 from Armstrong Avenue west to Sierra Avenue. Concurrent with the Project’s development, the City will expand its use of recycled water and broaden its range of beneficial uses to potentially include irrigating the public landscape space to be developed with the Project.

To affect that increase in use, the City now requires all new development of public landscape near recycled water transmission lines to use recycled water. Additional actions include extending the recycled water distribution system to discharge at groundwater recharge facilities and reducing the cost of recycled water. The UWMP indicates planned use of recycled water supply will be 9,400 AFY by 2040 (UWMP Table 6-13). With a planned2recycled water transmission main in Shepherd Avenue, it is possible this Project may use recycled water for landscape irrigation, but the City will make final determination of that at a later date.

4.5 EXCHANGES
Water exchanges, transfers, and water banking allow purveyors to manage demand and supply variability by ensuring water will be available for the near future. The majority of the City’s wastewater is treated at the RWRF. Under an agreement with FID, the City of Fresno receives 0.92 AF of Kings River surface water in exchange for each two AF of reclaimed water produced by the RWRF (46 percent exchange). Clovis is in discussions with the City of Fresno and FID on documenting its pro-rata share of RWRF effluent and the most efficient recover and beneficial use of that effluent. This will require a new effluent exchange agreement with FID, and potentially the City Fresno, to appropriately allocate Clovis’ pro-rata share of the treated water. This water is limited by agreement to being used for groundwater recharge activities.

4.6 WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY
The five sources discussed above make up the City’s water resources. These are tabulated overall for 2025 and for each subsequent 5-year period through 2040 in Table 4-1. 2 As noted in the City’s 2018 Recycled Water Master Plan

Page 620 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Four: Overview of Water Supplies 4-6
The City’s overall water resources are projected to increase from 50,739 AF per year in 2025 to 74,650 AF per year in 2040. Nearly all this increase will come from increasing surface water resources from 18,039 AF per year in 2020 to 39,400 AF per year in 2040. The mix of water supplies the City plans to use to meet these demands is changing over time and, while the surface water supplies will be the primary source, a mixture of groundwater and supply from storage will be used to meet demands.

Table 4-1. Water Supplies – Normal Year (UWMP Tables 6-12 and 6-13) Water Supply
Projected Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater [1] 11,429 10,753 10,076 9,400
Surface Water [2] 22,160 27,584 32,508 39,400
Supply from Storage
(Waldron and Boswell facilities)
13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500
Recycled Water 3,100 5,500 6,300 9,400
Transfers (GWD and IWD) 550 1,600 2,650 2,950
Total 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Notes:
[1] Reasonably available volume shows a steady reduction in reliance on groundwater supply, as planned, to the sustainable yield volume in 2040; discussed in greater detail in the UWMP. [2] Surface water quantities shown in greater detail in the UWMP.

Page 621 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Five: Normal Year Water Operations 5-1
5 NORMAL YEAR WATER OPERATIONS
This section evaluates the ability of the City to meet the overall water demands during normal water years. A normal year is a year, or averaged range of years, that most closely represents the average water supply available to the City. In this case, the normal year reflects the overall water supply summary discussed in Section 4.

This Chapter relies on information taken from Sections 6 and 7 of the UWMP. Table 5-1 compares the City’s water demands and compares them with the normal year water supplies (see Table 4-1) for the 5- year increments the Project is anticipated to be constructed, and through 2040, as shown in the UWMP.

As shown, total supplies would exceed total demands. Adequate supplies are available to serve the City and its water customers in normal rainfall years such as those discussed in this section. The excess water supply is more than adequate to meet the estimated Project water demands.

Table 5-1. Comparison of Normal Year Supplies and Demands Condition
Water Supply (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Demand 39,737 42,824 46,422 52,598
Water Supply 50,739 58,937 65,034 74,650
Excess/Shortage 11,002 16,113 18,612 22,052

Page 622 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies 6-1
6 SINGLE-DRY AND MULTIPLE-DRY YEAR WATER SUPPLIES
This section evaluates the availability of City water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry water years, based on Project buildout in 2030. Numerous factors will work to change the relative quantities of water the City receives from its several water sources. Since each of these has a different reliability in dry years, the overall water supply reliability will change over time. The following sections discuss how this will occur.

During a single-dry year, surface water allotments are anticipated to be reduced by as much as 66 percent for Kings River surface water supplies, and CVP Class II supplies are eliminated completely in dry years. In the future, as the City becomes more reliant on surface water supplies, the impact of surface water reductions in dry years will be more significant.

A multiple-dry year period represents the lowest average supply available to the Project for a consecutive five-year period. This analysis is referred to as a “multi-dry” condition in the UWMP. The WSA analysis is based on the five consecutive driest years of record for the Project’s surface water supplies, which were water years 2011/12 through 2015/16.

6.1 WATER YEAR EFFECTS ON WATER SOURCES

6.1.1 KINGS RIVER SURFACE WATER
Both the single-dry and multiple-dry analyses are most affected by the variations in Kings River entitlement in dry years. FID’s entitlement does not vary directly in proportion to overall annual runoff; rather it favors FID versus all the other Kings River diverters. When river flows are low due to slow runoff, low annual precipitation or both, FID’s proportional share of the daily river flow increases.

The effect of this is that FID’s entitlement, as a percentage of its average entitlement, is higher than the overall water year percentage flow, for virtually any below-average water year. As noted in the UWMP, the anticipated share of Kings River water is shown as 32,100 AFY (UWMP Table 6-4) in 2040 for an average water year. As discussed in the UWMP, the City has recently executed a contract with FID for development of a new firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter. This new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply

6.1.2 FRIANT CVP SURFACE WATER
Over the period of 1986 through 2016, the average Class II allocation has been 38 percent of contracted amount. However, Class II supplies are particularly subject to the water year type. However, these supplies are relatively small and would not have significant impact on the total supply.

While Class I entitlements do not currently affect the City’s FID supplies, they will affect the future-year GWD and IWD entitlements. Class I allocations in the five multiple-dry years were 0 percent of the contracted amount for all five years.

6.1.3 SUPPLY FROM STORAGE
The contract for the Waldron facility allows annual withdrawals of up to approximately 9,000 AFY, while the Boswell Facility allows up to 4,500 AFY. According to the UWMP, the combined withdrawal limit from the two facilities is 13,500 AFY. In any year where surface water deliveries are substantially limited, the City would want to use these resources to the limit.

Page 623 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies 6-2
A related matter is how contributions are made to supply storage. Whereas in normal years the City is making deposits to both facilities, in a drier year those contributions would be reduced or halted since the surface supplies necessary for the deposits would not be available. Since the deposits come from surface water resources not counted in the City’s water balance, being acquired under separate FID agreements, the curtailment of deposits does not reduce the City’s water demand.

6.1.4 GROUNDWATER
As of the preparation of the 2020 UWMP, the City of Clovis obtains groundwater from more than 30 wells, located throughout the service area. The total well production is estimated at 37,290 gallons per minute (gpm).

According to the UWMP, the City aims to reduce its direct groundwater consumption whenever possible.

Most the City’s water demands will be met by a combination of surface water and supplies from storage, in water years when those two resources are sufficient to meet demands. In drier years, when surface water supplies are limited, the City will pump groundwater, potentially beyond the 9,400 AFY accounted for in a normal year, to make up the shortfall but not to an unsustainable level as discussed in the NKGSP.

The City will also recharge surface waters when available to allow for additional groundwater pumping when needed.

Planning to make that objective possible is very important, as Chapter 6 of the UWMP states that the sustainable groundwater supply in the City service area is 9,400 AF per year, for normal, dry, and multidry years. For the time being, there is no restriction against pumping groundwater above the sustainable aquifer yield; however, the NKGSP indicates the City must sustainably use groundwater.

This WSA uses 9,400 AF per year as the sustainable groundwater pumping amount, as stated in the UWMP. Due to the very large size of the aquifer underlying the City, available groundwater is not quickly affected by the type of water year. Anticipating a mix of wet and dry years similar to what has been historically seen, this WSA does not reduce available groundwater in dry or multiple-dry years; however, the City will be prioritizing use of other supplies over groundwater when possible.

6.1.5 RECYCLED WATER
Recycled water production, being tied directly to indoor water use, does not vary significantly with the water year type, and is not adjusted from normal for this analysis.

6.2 CHANGES IN WATER SOURCE RELIABILITY OVER THE PLANNING

HORIZON
In 2020, surface water made up 58 percent of the City’s direct water supply. In 2030, the surface water supply is planned to be 53 percent of the total while the supply from storage will have increased to 18 percent in a normal year. Groundwater will remain an important component of the water supply in the near future.

This means the City’s reliance on surface water supplies, either directly used or pumped from subsurface storage, will have increased to 71 percent of the total. While there is a margin of normal year supply available over planned demand over the entire planning horizon, some provision may have to be made for additional reliable storage to account for such a large portion of surface water being subject to water year variability. See the reliability analysis in Section 6.3 following.

Page 624 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Six: Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Year Water Supplies 6-3

6.3 SUMMARY OF SINGLE-DRY AND MULTIPLE-DRY YEAR RELIABILITY OVER

THE PLANNING HORIZON
Supply for dry years would be drawn from a combination of Kings River surface water, supply from storage, groundwater, and recycled water. As shown in the UWMP, it is anticipated that surface water supplies from the FID Firm Water Agreement would still be available during drought years. Other firm water supply sources are groundwater, banked water, and recycled water, all of which are considered resilient against drought compared to surface water supplies. Groundwater banking activities would decrease to accommodate the decreased surface water supplies while still being able to use previously banked groundwater supplies from the Waldron and Boswell facilities. Project demand was assumed to be constant across all water years.

The supplies that would be available during single-dry and multiple-dry years in 2030 (at assumed Project buildout) are summarized in Table 6-1. As shown, adequate supplies would be available to supply the City and along with the estimated Project demand of 259.3 AFY, under all studied conditions. Further, the excess demand associated with the Project (104.6 AFY), over the originally planned land use, accounts for

13.7 percent of the excess supply without conservation and 1.7 percent of excess supply with conservation in the most critical year analyzed – the Single Dry Year. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2021) in place that could be partially or fully implemented if needed or mandated. The ‘demand with conservation’ values are reduced to reflect implementation of various stages of the WSCP, as discussed in the UWMP.

Table 6-1. Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison in 2030 (UWMP Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4) Scenario Single-Dry
Year [1]
Multiple-Dry Year [2]
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Baseline demand 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 42,824 Demand with Conservation
as shown in UWMP 37,359 39,422 36,962 33,969 30,474 40,757 Total Supply 43,587 54,607 52,576 48,310 43,586 57,992
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 762 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation
6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235
Note: Refer to the 2020 UWMP for details on how these values were calculated.

6.4 CLIMATE-BASED RELIABILITY FACTORS
This WSA defers to the UWMP for consideration of the overall effects of climate change upon supply reliability. Climate change has been considered in the preparation of the UWMP.

Page 625 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Seven: Operational Reliability 7-1
7 OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY
The City’s surface water entitlement does not accrue all at once during a given water year. Rather, the Kings River entitlement accrues daily throughout the year based on actual river runoff and the Kings River Water Association (KRWA) entitlement schedule. The daily nature of the Kings River supply is especially important early in the water year, which begins October 1. The very low river flows in October and November mean that supply is low, and the City must rely on other water supplies during those months.

The relatively large supplies available from storage help mitigate the seasonal nature of the surface water supply, and these are further backed up by groundwater supplies equivalent to almost half the City’s total annual demand.

The City has not had any issue with temporary water shortages to date. The City’s WMP and UWMP indicates a need to increase their surface water and groundwater supplies to meet future demands and provides detail on how much of each supply is needed compared to the existing supplies. The WMP also includes a Capital Improvements Program identifying capital projects that are necessary to acquire and facilitate the movement of current and future water supplies throughout the City’s system in a reliable manner. The City’s adherence to their planning documents and consistent development of these water supplies and infrastructure is critical for the City’s continued growth and development and will provide operational reliability into the future.

Page 626 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Eight: Conclusions 8-1
8 CONCLUSIONS
As summarized in Table 8-1, the City has adequate supplies to meet the needs of all the City’s water customers including the Project, in normal water years, over the 20-year planning horizon.

In the buildout year, if demand is as projected, the City will have sufficient water to meet dry year demands of all dry year event types. Conservation measures, detailed in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been developed that would mitigate possible shortfalls by reducing demand approximately 15 percent. Evidence from the 2013 to 2015 drought suggests that those results, and more, are achievable.

Additionally, as the City has surplus water supplies in normal years, short-term additional groundwater extraction in the single-dry and multiple-dry years is also planned as part of their water portfolio.

As discussed in Section 7, the City has plans to continue to acquire water supplies and construct infrastructure to supply current and future water users. Therefore, we conclude the City of Clovis has adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the City including additional demands associated with this Project in normal, dry, and multi-dry years given the previously discussed potential demand reductions and supply augmentations.

8.1 CONCLUSIONS INCLUDING ADDITIONAL WSAs
Since the 2020 UWMP was adopted, five WSAs have been prepared for the City, including this one. It is important to understand the cumulative impact of the additional demands associated with WSAs over and beyond the demands analyzed in the 2020 UWMP.

Page 627 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Eight: Conclusions 8-2
Table 8-1. Summary of Project Water Supplies and Demand Including WSAs 2020 UWMP Supply and
Demand Comparison
Results
Normal
Year (2030)
SingleDry Year
Multiple-Dry Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply 16,113 763 11,783 9,752 5,486 762 15,168 Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation -- 6,228 15,185 15,614 14,341 13,112 17,235 Additional Demands Associated with WSAs prepared since 2020 UWMP Home Place Master Plan
(Approved March 2021) No Additional Demands Associated with Home Place Master Plan WSA Tract 6205 SOI Expansion
(Approved May 2024)
256 256 256 256 256 256 256
Tract 6343 (Approved
May 2024)
79 79 79 79 79 79 79
Vista Ranch SOI Expansion 439 439 439 439 439 439 439
Infill Rezone Program 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
including Additional
Demands from WSAs
15,234 <116> 10,904 8,873 4,607 <117> 14,289
Excess/<Deficit> in Supply
with Conservation
including Additional
Demands from WSAs
-- 5,481 14,438 14,867 13,594 12,365 16,488
The demands in Table 8-1 include those demands noted in the UWMP, the additional demands associated with the Project evaluated in this WSA (105 AFY), as discussed in Section 2.2, and the additional demands discussed in the previously prepared WSAs. Similarly, the noted Excess/Deficit reflects the difference between these summated demands and the total supply noted in the UWMP. This approach accounts for the additional demands associated with the proposed land use type above the demands associated with the originally planned land use type. The project creates a deficit of supply in the Single-Dry year and Year 4 of the Multiple-Dry Year. Scenarios in the amount of 116 AFY and 117 AFY if conservation measures are not implemented. Assuming conservation measures would be implemented and effective, the deficit can be mitigated through conservation measures.

Page 628 of 942 ends

City of Clovis May 2025
Water Supply Assessment: Infill Rezone Program Section Nine: References 1 9 REFERENCES
Bureau of Reclamation. (2005, June). Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Basin Investigation. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage/docs/initial-alt-info/ta-iai-03-vol2-water-ops-ta.pdf.

Department of Water Resources. (2003). Bulletin 118 - California's Groundwater. Sacramento.

Placeworks. (2014). General Plan, City of Clovis. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis, Water Master Plan Update, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2021). City of Clovis, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Clovis.

Page 629 of 942 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Assessment 4-1
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

Attachment B Attachment B

Page 630 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program
4-2
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 631 of 942 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Assessment 4-3
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Timing Monitoring Requirements Responsible Agency Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Air Quality
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.
 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
Requirements: Ensure construction-related air quality
impacts are in conformance with SJVAPCD methodology
and that impacts are below adopted thresholds by
implementing construction-phase air quality mitigation
measures and entering into a VERA with SJVAPCD.

Documentation: A construction air quality technical
assessment, fugitive dust control plan, construction
documents incorporating required air quality mitigation measures, onsite equipment inventory list, and an executed VERA with SJVAPCD, if applicable, shall be submitted to the City.

Prior to issuance of any
construction permits. Air quality
mitigation measures shall be
implemented throughout
construction.

The Applicant will ensure
projects incorporate necessary
mitigation measures into
construction documents to
reduce air pollutant emissions
during construction activities to
below SJVAPCD adopted
thresholds of significance.

City of Clovis Planning
Division.

Page 632 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Clovis Infill Rezone Program
4-4
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Timing Monitoring Requirements Responsible Agency Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
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.

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.

Requirements The Applicant shall prepare a construction HRA in coordination with SJVAPCD or the City of Clovis in conjunction with SJVAPCD for phased residential
development projects where construction would overlap
with operation or occupancy. If the construction HRA
identifies health risks exceeding applicable SJVAPCD
standards, the Applicant shall incorporate mitigation
measures into all applicable construction management
plans submitted to the City.

Documentation: A construction HRA and construction
management plans incorporating identified mitigation
measures.

Prior to project approval at the
time of project consideration.

Required mitigation measures
shall be implemented throughout
construction.

The City of Clovis Planning
Division shall review the
construction HRA and verify
incorporation and
implementation of required
mitigation measures during
construction.

City of Clovis Planning
Division
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.1 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 Requirement: The Applicant shall prepare a project-specific HRA for sensitive land uses located within recommended
buffer distances in accordance with OEHHA guidelines and SJVAPCD policies. If the HRA identifies applicable
SJVAPCD thresholds will be exceeded, the Applicant shall identify mitigation measures to reduce risks and
incorporate such measures into the project design, site development plans, and building plans submitted to the
City.

Documentation: A project-specific HRA and project plans incorporating identified mitigation measures, including Prior to project approval by the
Planning Division and included on
building plans.

The City of Clovis Planning
Division shall review the HRA
and verify incorporation of
required mitigation measures
into project and building plans.

City of Clovis Planning
Division

Page 633 of 942 ends

Clovis City CouncilAugust 10, 2026

Clovis City Council
August 10, 2026