Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, August 10, 2026 (part 1 of 7)

August 10, 2026 - 1 - 6:00 PM
Agenda • City Council Meeting
Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612 (559) 324-2060 ClovisCa.gov
August 10, 2026 6:00 PM Council Chamber
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to access the City Council Chamber to participate at this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (559) 324-2060 (TTY – 711). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the Council Chamber.

The Clovis City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical location listed above.

Members of the public may observe and participate in City Council meetings through any of the following methods:

1. Attend In Person: Attend the meeting at the physical location listed above.

2. View the Meeting Online: View the meeting in a non-participatory capacity through the live webcast available at ClovisCA.gov/agendas or on the City's YouTube channel.

3. Participate Remotely: Members of the public may participate remotely through Webex. Click on the link below for information regarding registration, access, and participation instructions:

Click Here To Register Through Webex
In the event of a disruption that prevents the City from broadcasting the meeting or receiving remote public comment, the City will comply with applicable provisions of Gov. Code § 54953.4 and City policy governing remote participation and technological disruptions.

4. Written Comments: Members of the public may submit written comments through the online agenda portal at ClovisCA.gov/agendas. Please see the instructions below:
• Please submit written comments through the online agenda portal at ClovisCA.gov/agendas no later than 4:00 PM.
• Please submit a separate form for each agenda item.
• A copy of your written comment will be provided to the City Council and will identify the agenda item. If you wish to make a verbal comment, please see the instructions above. • Written comments that do not identify an agenda item will be included under general public comment.
• Please Note: written comments received after 4:00 PM may not be provided to the City Council during the meeting. All written comments received before the close of the meeting will be included in the official record.

Page 1 of 942 ends

August 10, 2026 - 2 - 6:00 PM
Campaign Contribution Prohibition and Mandatory Disclosure – Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, a Councilmember shall not accept, solicit, or direct a campaign contribution of more than $500 from any party or their agent, or from any participant or their agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, contract, or other entitlement for use is pending before the City or for 12 months after a final decision is rendered in that proceeding. Any Councilmember who has received a campaign contribution of more than $500 within the preceding 12 months from a party or their agent, or from a participant or their agent, must disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence the decision.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, subdivision (e), any party to a covered proceeding before the City Council is required to disclose on the record of the proceeding any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made within the preceding 12 months by the party or their agent to any Councilmember. The disclosure shall be made as required by Government Code Section 84308, subdivision (e)(1) and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, section 18438.8. No party or their agent, and no participant or their agent, shall make a campaign contribution of more than $500 to any Councilmember during the covered proceeding or for 12 months after a final decision is made in that proceeding. The foregoing statements do not constitute legal advice, and parties and participants are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the applicable requirements of the law.

Call to Order
Flag Salute - Councilmember Bessinger
Roll Call
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the City Council on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less, or 10 minutes per topic. Anyone wishing to be placed on the Agenda for a specific topic should contact the City Manager’s office and submit correspondence at least 10 days before the desired date of appearance.

Consent Calendar
Items considered routine in nature are to be placed upon the Consent Calendar. They will all be considered and voted upon in one vote as one item unless a Councilmember requests individual consideration. A Councilmember’s vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Motions in favor of adoption of the Consent Calendar are deemed to include a motion to waive the reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those that have received a unanimous vote upon introduction are considered Consent items.

1. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the August 3, 2026, City Council Meeting.

2. General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans to Adopt the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker Classification with a Salary Range of $5,929 to $7,206 per month.

3. General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Renewing Medical Plan Options for Eligible Retirees and Restating the Eligibility Requirements for Participation in the Plan.

Page 2 of 942 ends

August 10, 2026 - 3 - 6:00 PM
Public Hearings
A public hearing is an open consideration within a regular or special meeting of the City Council, for which special notice has been given and may be required. When a public hearing is continued, noticing of the adjourned item is required as per Government Code 54955.1.

4. Consider various items associated with approximately 54 acres of land located throughout the City of Clovis for the Infill Rezone Program, S C Ellis Investment Property LP, Cygnus 3 LLC, Bayrakdarian Ishkhan Trustee, John Gregory Development Co., Inc., Attia Amin Kamal, Sultan Intisab and Noreen Intisab Trustees, HRC Enterprises I LP, Central California Conference Association of the Seventh Day Adventists, Perry and Katherine Dictos Trustees, John and Debby Bettencourt, Clovis Unified School District, Robin M.

Rogers Trustee, Afarin Karimkhanzand, Allegiant YB Investment LLC, Kenneth E.

Crawford, David A. Ogden Trustee, and Kaleka Aaronjit Singh and Gurpreet Brar, property owners; City of Clovis, applicant. Continued from July 6, 2026. a. Consider Approval — Res. 26-___, A resolution of the City Council adopting an Environmental Assessment pursuant to Government Code Section 65759 for General Plan Amendment 2024-003 and Rezone 2024-002.
b. Consider Approval — Res. 26-___, GPA2024-003, A resolution of the City Council approving amendments to the General Plan and associated specific/master plans to redesignate 20 parcels from various land use designations to the High Density Residential (20.1-30.0 dwelling units per acre) and Very High Density Residential (25.1-43.0 dwelling units per acre) land use designations.
c. Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-___, R2024-002, An ordinance of the City Council approving a rezoning of 20 parcels from various zone districts to the R-3 (Multi-family High Density) and R-4 (Multi-family Very High Density) zone districts.

Staff: McKencie Perez, City Planner
Recommendation: Approve
City Manager Comments
Council Comments
Closed Session
A “closed door” (not public) City Council meeting, allowed by State law, for consideration of pending legal matters and certain matters related to personnel and real estate transactions.

5. Government Code Section 54957.6

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: Andrew Haussler, Paul Armendariz, Amy Hance, Bethany Berube, and Scott Cross
Employee Organization: Transit Employees Bargaining Unit Reconvene into Open Session and Report from Closed Session Adjournment

Page 3 of 942 ends

August 10, 2026 - 4 - 6:00 PM
Future Meetings
Regular City Council Meetings are held at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber. The following are future meeting dates:

Aug. 17, 2026 (Mon.)
Sep. 8, 2026 (Tue.)
Sep. 14, 2026 (Mon.)

Page 4 of 942 ends

Preliminary - Subject to Approval
- 1 -
City Council Meeting • Minutes
August 3, 2026 6:00 PM Council Chamber
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Mouanoutoua at 6:00 PM.

Flag Salute - Councilmember Basgall
Roll Call

Present: Councilmember Ashbeck, Councilmember Basgall, Councilmember Bessinger, Mayor Pro Tem Pearce, and Mayor Mouanoutoua
Presentations/Proclamations

1. Presentation of Proclamation Honoring the 50th Anniversary of McCaffrey Homes.

Public Comments
Upon call, there was no public comment.

Consent Calendar
Upon call, there was no public comment.

Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

2. Minutes from the July 6, 2026, City Council Meeting.

3. Administration — Approval — Authorize the City Manager to execute a three (3) year software and support agreement with ESRI, Inc., for the City’s Geographic Information System software for a total of $329,700 plus tax, payable at $109,900 each year.

4. Finance - Approval - Res. 26-78, A Resolution of Intention (ROI) to Annex Territory (Annexation #77) (MFRDR 2021-002 Southeast Corner Willow/Shepherd), to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2004-1 and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein and Setting the Public Hearing for September 8, 2026.

5. General Services - Approval - Res. 26-79, Approving a Side Letter Agreement with the Clovis Police Officers Association (CPOA) for Participation in the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Retiree Medical Trust (RMT), and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Joiner Application between CPOA, the City, and PORAC.

6. General Services - Approval - Final Acceptance for Senior Center Water Damage Repairs for a Final Contract Cost of $166,002.00; and Authorize the Recording of the Notice of Completion.

7. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance and Authorization to Record the Notice of Completion for CIP 21-02 Loma Vista Village Green for a Final Contract Cost of $8,150,954.59.

Page 5 of 942 ends

Preliminary - Subject to Approval
- 2 -

8. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance and Authorization to Record the Notice of Completion for CIP 24-27 Peach Avenue Street Improvements for a Final Contract Cost of $949,676.37.

9. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6268, located on the east side of Clovis Avenue, south of Riordan Avenue (Continental Estates Clovis, LLC).

10. Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 5789A, located west of Peach Avenue, near Escalon Avenue (Owner: David M. Hailpern and Developer: Gary Mason).

11. Police Department — Approval — Res. 26-80, Amending the 2026-2027 Budget for the Police Department to reflect the grant award in the amount of $114,625.00; and authorize the Police Chief to execute the 2026-2027 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Fund Agreement with the Department of California Highway Patrol.

12. Public Utilities - Approval - Final Acceptance for CIP 25-12, Big Dry Creek Canal Trail Improvements at Letterman Park, with a Final Contract Cost of $187,040.00.

13. Public Utilities - Approval - Recertification of the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) SixYear Update.

Public Hearings

14. Consider Approval - Res. 26-81, SPR2026-008, A Resolution of the City Council adopting a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and approving a site plan review for the site layout and design of the new City of Clovis Alternate Dispatch Center and associated site improvements located at 2288 Encino Avenue. City of Clovis, Owner and Applicant.

Upon call, there was no public comment.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Basgall. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

15. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Approval - Res. 26-82, a Resolution Adopting the Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

The public hearing was called to order at 6:19 p.m. The following individuals addressed the Council regarding the item: Brian Wilson and Steven Trevino. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed at 6:51 p.m.

Motion by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Councilmember Ashbeck, to approve the amendment directing staff to revise the text to clarify that the City of Clovis reserves the right to take credit for the effluent conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment plant for future water supply purposes. The amendment is intended as a textual clarification only and shall not modify the water supply tables or other quantitative analyses requiring recirculation of the document. Staff is authorized to make any necessary conforming language edits to accurately reflect the Council's intent. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Page 6 of 942 ends

Preliminary - Subject to Approval
- 3 -
Administrative Items

16. Consider Approval and Receive an Update – Approve a Contract with 4Creeks, Inc., for a Comprehensive Signage Code Review for the City's Electronic Freestanding/Billboard Signage Code in an amount not to exceed $48,000, and approve staff's recommendation to execute a contract.

The following members of the public addressed the Council on the above item: Steven Trevino Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Basgall. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

Council Items

17. Consider Approval — Consider Support for the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities' Statewide Tort Reform Coalition Letter; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the Coalition's Logo Authorization and Release Form.

Upon call, there was no public comment.

Motion for approval by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Councilmember Ashbeck. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

City Manager Comments
City Manager Haussler announced several upcoming events, including the Clovis Mobile Recreation Park Tour at Century Park on Wednesday, August 5, 2026; Clovis Police Department's Movie Night in the park at Bicentennial Park, August 22, 2026; and a recap on the Miss Winkles Pet Microchips event.

Council Comments
There was no formal Council direction for staff.

Closed Session
Upon call, there was no public comment.

18. Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Workers Compensation Case in regard to: Jason Smoak

Page 7 of 942 ends

Preliminary - Subject to Approval
- 4 -
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger to settle the case with a stipulated award in the amount of $87,942.50. Motion carried by unanimous vote.

19. Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Workers Compensation Case in regard to: Thomas Roberts
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger to settle the case with a stipulated award in the amount of $106,502.50. Motion Carried by 4-0-1 vote with Councilmember Basgall abstained from the discussion and vote.

20. Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Workers Compensation Case in regard to: Jennifer De La Torre Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger to settle the case with a stipulated award in the amount of $78,662.50. Motion Carried by unanimous vote.

21. Government Code Section 54957.6

Reconvene into Open Session and Report from Closed Session Adjournment
Mayor Mouanoutoua adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M. and the next regularly scheduled meeting is August 10, 2026.

Mayor City Clerk

Page 8 of 942 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: August 10, 2026
Staff: Linda Parry, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Authorizing Amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans to Adopt the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker Classification with a Salary Range of $5,929 to $7,206 per month.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: 1. Sr. Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker Class. ATT 1 Res 26-___ Recommendation:

For City Council to approve a resolution authorizing amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans by adopting the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker Classification with a Salary Range of $5,929 to $7,206 per month.

Executive Summary:

The City has a need to add a Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification. The proposed Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification will be assigned to the Public Utilities Department and support the Solid Waste Division. Adequate funds were included in the adopted FY 2026-2027 budget for the new classification. Modification of the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans require the City Council’s approval.

Background:

During the FY 2026-2027 budget process, the Public Utilities Department determined the need to create a Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification. This position was added to the Public Utilities Department FY 2026-2027 Position Allocation Plan but now requires the classification be approved by Council in order to recruit for and fill the position. In the last ten years, the Solid Waste Division has seen a rise in the number of employees and a significant increase in employee responsibility related to waste reduction and recycling due to state legislation. This growth has created a need for a dedicated Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker to support the Division’s solid waste, recycling, and organics diversion programs, including conducting site assessments and inspections, evaluating compliance with applicable regulations, and providing public education and outreach. This classification would also train other Solid Waste Recycling Maintenance workers.

Page 9 of 942 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

The recommended salary range for the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification will be $5,929 to $7,206 per month. The Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification will be assigned to the Clovis Public Works Employee’s Affiliation (CPWEA) and the salary range for the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification will be the same as the Senior Maintenance Worker salary within the CPWEA salary structure. CPWEA representatives are supportive of the assignment of the classification to the CPWEA employee bargaining unit. The new classification and salary range reflect the current needs of the City.

Fiscal Impact:

The additional costs were budgeted in the FY 2026-2027 Public Utilities Department budget allocation.

Reason for Recommendation:

Creation and addition of the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans provides a detailed classification description and allows for the recruitment of the new position.

Actions Following Approval:

Personnel staff will add the new Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

Page 10 of 942 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 26-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANS

FOR THE SENIOR WASTE RECYCLING MAINENANCE WORKER CLASSIFICATION

IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the City has a need for a Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification to provide the necessary support to the Public Utilities Department; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the appropriate salary range for the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification is $5,929 to $7,206 per month; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is appropriate to assign the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification to the Clovis Public Works Employee’s Affiliation (CPWEA); and
WHEREAS, modification of the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans requires authorization by City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis will modify the City’s Classification and Compensation Plans to include the Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker classification (Attachment A) with a monthly salary range of $5,929 to $7,206 per month.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on August 10, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dated: August 10, 2026
___________________________ __________________________
Mayor City Clerk

Page 11 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Senior Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker
Monthly Salary: $5,929 to $7,206
Description

DEFINITION
Under supervision, perform a variety of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled duties in solid waste collection, disposal, recycling and organic material programs and diversion, and assist in other related areas as directed; and perform related work as required.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
Positions in this class are usually assigned to the Solid Waste division and perform a majority of their work at the skilled level in the Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker series, performing the full range of specialized duties related to waste recycling in support of trade, technical, professional, or administrative staff. Incumbents are expected to possess a wide range of knowledge about recycling and organics diversion. Incumbents train Solid Waste Recycling Maintenance Workers. Positions in this class perform work which allows or requires a limited range of choice in the application of defined methods or procedures. Incumbents receive instructions when tasks are assigned and have some latitude in selecting work methods. Work is generally reviewed upon completion for final results. Incumbents are expected to refer to the supervisor for matters which do not fit a clear pattern. Incumbents participate in solid waste and diversion programs as directed.

Examples of Duties
Assist in the assessment of residential and commercial recycling, organics, and trash containers; perform a wide variety of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled duties; run errands and conduct scheduling; perform oversight of solid waste and diversion programs as directed and conduct mandatory site inspections, reports, and tracking; provide education and outreach to the public, and training for commercial sites to assist with proper disposal; coordinate with operations to conduct Route Reviews as needed and assist with data analysis to assess program effectiveness; load and unload supplies, maintain yards and alleys; clean tools used on the job; lubricate equipment to keep equipment in good working condition; make regular inspections and perform preventative maintenance adjustments; review Residential, Commercial and Multifamily accounts; plan, prepare, schedule, and conduct on-site and remote assessments; assess compliance of generators with applicable standards and report observations; write reports and communicate results of assessment through written and oral communications; evaluate corrective actions necessary when completing an assessment at a site; assess residential, commercial, and multi-family accounts for space waivers; mail and deliver educational information to commercial, residential, multi-family, and edible food generators; mail and deliver educational information to edible food recovery organizations; pick up blown litter on site and adjoining roads; inspect and record daily incoming loads; deal with customers in a professional manner, responds to customers politely and courteously; ask appropriate personnel for assistance when needed; keep accurate daily records; operate City vehicles; and perform related work as required.

ATTACHMENT A

Page 12 of 942 ends

Typical Qualifications

LICENSE REQUIRED
• Possession of a valid Class A or B California Driver’s License and a good driving record

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
Education
• High School diploma or equivalent.

Experience
• Three (3) years of responsible general construction or maintenance work experience equivalent to that of a Maintenance Worker with the City of Clovis including at least two (2) years of full-time work experience with the City of Clovis in a position comparable to a Waste Recycling Maintenance Worker.

QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
• Basic Math;
• Computer terminal operating methods;
• Basic principles and practices of record keeping;
• Occupational hazards and standard safety procedures, including proper usage of personal protective equipment (PPE);
• Personal computer system operation;
• Basic office and clerical practices;
• Appropriate safety precautions and procedures;
• Safe driving practices;
• Pertinent Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations.

Ability to:
• Operate a computer terminal accurately and efficiently • Use software programs such as Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, etc.; • Read, understand, and apply simple written materials; • Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; • Maintain accurate records and logs;
• Sort and file accurately and locate materials in files; • Perform a variety of semi-skilled duties;
• Use and properly maintain assigned tools and equipment; • Operate standard equipment;
• Multitask and work independently in the absence of supervision; • Operate a vehicle observing legal and defensive driving practices;

Page 13 of 942 ends

• Establish and maintain effective relationships with person contacted in the course of work.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
• Strength: Lifting, carrying, and or pushing 50 pounds with frequent lifting and/carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds.
• Incumbents may be required to work in outside environment and may be exposed to dusts, pollen, heat during the summer months and cold during the winter months.

Page 14 of 942 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: General Services Department
Date: August 10, 2026
Staff: Linda Parry, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: General Services – Approval – Res. 26-___, Renewing Medical Plan Options for Eligible Retirees and Restating the Eligibility Requirements for Participation in the Plan.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: 1. Retiree Medical Plan Renewal ATT 1 Res. 26 -___ Recommendation:

For City Council to approve a Resolution renewing the City’s Retiree Medical Plan options for eligible retirees and restating eligibility requirements for participation in the plan.

Executive Summary:

For many years, the City has sponsored a group retiree medical plan for retirees who meet certain eligibility requirements. Approval of the attached Resolution renews the retiree medical plan for the 2027 plan year.

Background:

For many years, the City has offered employees who retire from City service the option of purchasing the same medical and prescription drug benefit package offered to full-time, regular employees. The retiree medical plan option is renewed annually at the discretion of the Council. This option provides qualifying retirees, those with a minimum of five (5) years of full-time City service immediately preceding retirement, with the opportunity to continue participation in the City’s medical/prescription plans. Eligibility requirements for participation in the plan and rate information are listed in the attached (Attachment A of the Resolution).

Fiscal Impact:

The retiree medical plan option is rated separately from the active City employee medical plan. In addition, monthly premiums are paid entirely by the retirees. Consequently, there is no fiscal impact on the City from this program.

Reason for Recommendation:

Page 15 of 942 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Council action is necessary to renew the retiree medical plan option for eligible retirees for the 2027 plan year.

Actions Following Approval:

Upon approval, the program renewal will become effective with the 2027 plan year, which runs from January 1, 2027, through December 31, 2027. Eligible retirees will be provided with an open enrollment period (October 19 through November 13, 2026). Additionally, employees who retire and become eligible during the 2027 plan year will be provided with a similar notice at the time of retirement.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

Page 16 of 942 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 26-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS APPROVING THE

RENEWAL OF THE RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN OPTION FOR ELIGIBLE RETIREES

AND RESTATING THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR

PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN
WHEREAS, the City offers a retiree health plan that allows retirees to purchase medical and prescription coverage; and
WHEREAS, the City has established eligibility requirements for participation in the plan listed in Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, continued offering of the retiree health plan is determined on an annual basis at the discretion of the Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis hereby renews the Retiree Medical Plan Option and rates effective January 1, 2027, as summarized in Attachment A.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on August 10, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dated: August 10, 2026
___________________________ __________________________
Mayor City Clerk

Page 17 of 942 ends

ATTACHMENT A
Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan Summary
For the 2027 Plan Year
Retiree Benefits
Effective January 1, 2027, retirees of the City of Clovis will be allowed to continue in a City sponsored Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan at their own expense, provided they meet the plan eligibility requirements. Enrolled retirees will participate in the annual open enrollment for the medical/prescription plans.

Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible for the Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan, a retired/retiring employee must meet the following eligibility requirements:

1. Been continuously covered in the medical/prescription portion of the City’s health plan through December 31, 2026, as a full-time regular employee or a retired enrollee; or, was continuously covered by a City-approved group medical/prescription plan as a fulltime regular City employee immediately preceding retirement from the City.

2. Be eligible to retire in accordance with CalPERS age and service requirements, including a disability retirement.

3. Have a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City of Clovis as a full-time regular employee immediately preceding employment separation with the City of Clovis.

4. Retired employees and their dependents are eligible for City coverage until they become eligible for Medicare. Retired employees and/or their dependents that become eligible for Medicare are no longer eligible to remain on the City’s retiree plans.

They have the option of enrolling in Medicare and may seek supplemental coverage other than through the City’s plan.
a. If a retired employee becomes Medicare eligible and has a spouse who is not Medicare eligible or a dependent child under the age of 26, the spouse and child may continue City coverage even after the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible and enrolls in Medicare and a supplemental plan. b. A spouse who becomes Medicare eligible, or a dependent child who reaches the age of 26, will not be eligible to continue in the City’s Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan.

5. An eligible employee who plans on retiring must enroll in the Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of employment separation. If an eligible employee fails to enroll, or waives enrollment, they shall not be eligible to enroll in the plan at a future date. A dependent who enrolls or has been enrolled in an alternative insurance plan for a period of time, may be added to the retiree’s plan upon loss of other coverage or during open enrollment if the retiree has maintained continuous coverage with the City under this plan.

Page 18 of 942 ends

6. Eligibility for dependents normally extends through the retiree. Dependents may only be enrolled for coverage if the retiree is concurrently enrolled (except as provided for in 4-a. above). Dependents of a retiree lose eligibility for coverage under the Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan when a non-Medicare eligible retiree elects to discontinue coverage. Upon the death of a covered retiree or the death of a covered employee who was eligible to retire, a spouse or covered child may continue coverage until the spouse is Medicare eligible and the child reaches the age of 26 respectively.

7. A retiree or eligible dependent that enrolls in the Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan shall not be allowed to re-enroll in the plan if they drop coverage in the plan or fail to make their monthly premium payment within thirty (30) days of the due date.

8. Continued enrollment in the Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan is also subject to terms and conditions set forth in the Evidence of Coverage/Disclosure Document of the medical plan in which the retiree and dependents are enrolled.

A Retiree who returns to work for the City and enrolls in an active plan because of reinstatement from retirement or who has returned as an elected official, will again be eligible for retiree coverage upon retiring subject to the normal retiree requirements.

Dental and Vision Coverage
Dental and/or Vision Coverage is not available to retirees through the City of Clovis Retiree Medical/Prescription Plan.

Page 19 of 942 ends

Pre 65 Retiree Health Plan Monthly Rates charged by Vendor for the 2027 Program Year
Anthem HMO 15 Kaiser HMO 15
Retiree Only $1,442.00 $1,257.00
Retiree & Spouse $2,985.00 $2,605.00
Retiree & Child(ren) $2,591.00 $2,238.00
Retiree & Family $4,319.00 $3,711.00
Anthem PPO 80
Retiree Only $1,390.00
Retiree & Spouse $2,916.00
Retiree & Child(ren) $2,503.00
Retiree & Family $4,162.00
Anthem HDHP Kaiser HDHP
Retiree Only $1,000.00 $983.00
Retiree & Spouse $2,093.00 $2,031.00
Retiree & Child(ren) $1,827.00 $1,746.00
Retiree & Family $2,990.00 $2,895.00

Page 20 of 942 ends

Page 1 of 11 ends

Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Planning and Development Services Department
Date: August 10, 2026
Staff: McKencie Perez, City Planner
Subject: Consider various items associated with approximately 54 acres of land located throughout the City of Clovis for the Infill Rezone Program, S C Ellis Investment Property LP, Cygnus 3 LLC, Bayrakdarian Ishkhan Trustee, John Gregory Development Co., Inc., Attia Amin Kamal, Sultan Intisab and Noreen Intisab Trustees, HRC Enterprises I LP, Central California Conference Association of the Seventh Day Adventists, Perry and Katherine Dictos Trustees, John and Debby Bettencourt, Clovis Unified School District, Robin M. Rogers Trustee, Afarin Karimkhanzand, Allegiant YB Investment LLC, Kenneth E. Crawford, David A. Ogden Trustee, and Kaleka Aaronjit Singh and Gurpreet Brar, property owners; City of Clovis, applicant. Continued from July 6, 2026. a. Consider Approval — Res. 26-___, A resolution of the City Council adopting an Environmental Assessment pursuant to Government Code Section 65759 for General Plan Amendment 2024-003 and Rezone 2024-002. b. Consider Approval — Res. 26-___, GPA2024-003, A resolution of the City Council approving amendments to the General Plan and associated specific/master plans to re-designate 20 parcels from various land use designations to the High Density Residential (20.1-30.0 dwelling units per acre) and Very High Density Residential (25.1-43.0 dwelling units per acre) land use designations.
c. Consider Introduction — Ord. 26-___, R2024-002, An ordinance of the City Council approving a rezoning of 20 parcels from various zone districts to the R3 (Multi-family High Density) and R-4 (Multi-family Very High Density) zone districts.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: 1. Infill Rezone Program ATT 1 Res. 26-___ EA

2. Infill Rezone Program ATT 2 Res. 26-___ GPA

3. Infill Rezone Program ATT 3 Ord. 26-___ Rezone

4. Infill Rezone Program ATT 4 Judgment

Page 21 of 942 ends

Page 2 of 11 ends

5. Infill Rezone Program ATT 5 Map of Sites

6. Infill Rezone Program ATT 6 Site List

7. Infill Rezone Program ATT 7 Letter for Removal

8. Infill Rezone Program ATT 8 Airport Influence Area Maps

9. Infill Rezone Program ATT 9 ALUC Consistency Determination

10. Infill Rezone Program ATT 10 Public Comments
Recommendation:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt resolutions approving the Environmental Assessment (EA) and general plan amendment and introduce an ordinance addressing rezoning necessary for the City of Clovis (City) Infill Rezone Program (Project).

Executive Summary:

This item was continued from the July 6, 2026, City Council meeting to allow consideration of the proposed Infill Rezone Program with the full City Council in attendance.

A judgment was entered by the Fresno County Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024 (Judgment). In accordance with the terms of the Judgment (Attachment 4), the City is required to complete the Infill Rezone Program to rezone 20 sites throughout the City to the R3 (Multi-family High Density) or R-4 (Multi-family Very High Density) zone districts to create capacity to accommodate 1,284 additional housing units to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state law. The Project also includes amendments to the general plan land use designations for each of the affected sites to ensure consistency between the general plan land use designation and the zoning classification. The Infill Rezone Program is also a required program of the City’s 6th cycle Housing Element that will help the City meet its current and future Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and applicable state law.

Background:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires local jurisdictions to identify sufficient housing sites to cover the jurisdiction’s RHNA obligations. According to State law, a housing element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need and specific State statutory requirements and must reflect the vision and priorities of the local community.

The City failed to meet its 4th Cycle Housing Element RHNA requirements for lower income households during the 2006-2014 planning period. In accordance with applicable state housing law, the unmet housing units (4,425 units) were carried over into the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element for the 2015-2023 planning period. However, the City again failed to fully satisfy the carried-over unmet housing units from the 4th Cycle with sufficient rezoning during the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element period.

As a result, a lawsuit was filed against the City in 2019 for non-compliance with Housing Element requirements.

Timeline
This section serves as a summary of the timeline of events related to the Judgment and the Infill Rezone Program.
• October 2019: A lawsuit was filed against the City for non-compliance with Housing Element

Page 22 of 942 ends

Page 3 of 11 ends

requirements.
• April 2021: A Trial Court issued an order directing the City to adopt a Housing Element and rezone adequate sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations (4,425 units). • June 2021: The City and the petitioner of the lawsuit (“Petitioner”) filed appeals. • April 2023: The City’s appeal was partially successful, but mostly unsuccessful regarding the RHNA overlay as a means to comply with the unmet infill rezoning required as part of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element.
• July/August 2023: The California Supreme Court declined to consider the City’s appeal; the Court of Appeal decision was final, and the case was referred back to the Trial Court. • October 2023 – February 2024: The City and the Petitioner negotiated and agreed to a settlement of the case, which included six (6) housing programs and the rezoning of properties was significantly reduced to accommodate approximately 1,284 units instead of 4,425 units. • March 2024: On March 19, 2024, a Judgment was entered by the Fresno County Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case that adopted the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement requiring the City to bring its Housing Element into compliance with state law, and included six (6) housing programs to be included in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, one of which is the Infill Rezone Program. The Infill Rezone Program is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state housing law and in satisfaction of the Judgment.
• May 2024: The City Council initiated a general plan amendment and rezone for the Infill Rezone Program, which included redesignating and rezoning 24 sites identified within the City.

The City Council also adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a consultant services agreement between the City and Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the preparation of an EA and related services for purposes of satisfying the environmental review requirements provided under Government Code section 65759. • June/July 2024: Staff mailed letters to the property owners of the 24 identified sites notifying them of the proposed inclusion of the parcels in the Infill Rezone Program. Several property owners reached out and expressed both opposition and support for their inclusion. Several property owners also reached out and requested that various parcels be included in the Infill Rezone Program.
• July 2024 – March 2025: Staff worked with the property owners to determine their inclusion in the Infill Rezone Program. The property owners of 10 sites originally identified requested that their identified parcels be removed and property owners of six (6) new parcels requested to be included. After review, 10 of the initially identified sites were removed from the Infill Rezone Program, and six (6) other sites were identified as adequate replacement parcel candidates to satisfy state housing law, the Judgment, and the City’s Housing Element and RHNA obligations.
• March 2025-April 2026: Staff worked with Rincon to prepare the EA for the Infill Rezone Program.
• December 2025: Staff hosted four (4) informational meetings related to the Infill Rezone Program. The meetings were held on December 2, 4, 11, and 16, 2025 in the City Council Chambers.
• May 2026: Planning Commission considered the item at their regular meeting on May 28, 2026.
• June 2026: Staff hosted one (1) informational meeting related to the Infill Rezone Program on June 23, 2026.
• July 2026: Scheduled for City Council consideration at the July 6, 2026 meeting; however, the item was continued to allow consideration of the proposed Infill Rezone Program with the full

Page 23 of 942 ends

Page 4 of 11 ends

City Council in attendance.

Proposal
On May 6, 2024, the City Council initiated a general plan amendment and rezone for the Infill Rezone Program. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-003 amends the land use designation of the 20 sites to High or Very High Density Residential and Rezone (R) 2024-002 rezones the 20 sites to the R-3 or R-4 zone districts.

These applications will facilitate the potential development of approximately 1,303 housing dwelling units in the City by increasing the authorized residential development densities of the sites. The estimated potential yield of at least 1,303 dwelling units is based on assumed residential densities consistent with the City’s Housing Element methodology. Specifically, 17 of the 20 sites are assumed to develop at 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), while the remaining three (3) sites are assumed at

25.1 du/ac. The applications are also being processed as a single program affecting multiple sites.

The total acreage of sites to be rezoned is approximately 54 acres. Attachment 5 depicts the sites to be amended and rezoned throughout the City. Attachment 6 details the site identification (ID) number, existing land use, proposed land use, existing zoning and proposed zoning designations of each site.

Site Selection
As part of the Judgment, 24 candidate sites were originally identified for the Infill Rezone Program.

Sites were initially identified because they each satisfy the following criteria that is consistent with criteria used to identify potential rezone candidate sites for the Housing Element Inventory:
• Between 0.8 acres and 10 acres
• Vacant or underutilized parcels
• Within the City limits
• Not part of the City's housing inventory or other housing programs After discussion with several of the candidate site property owners, several requested that they be removed from the Infill Rezone Program. In order to remove initial candidate sites from the Infill Rezone Program, staff needed to identify other candidate sites to comply with the Judgment and the required capacity of 1,284 housing units. Six (6) additional property owners requested to be included in the Infill Rezone Program and after review of each of the six (6) sites, it was determined that each site met the applicable criteria to be eligible for the Infill Rezone Program. In accordance with the terms of the Judgment, Petitioner’s legal counsel reviewed the 20 identified candidate sites and agreed with the City staff that the identified sites met the criteria for inclusion in the Infill Rezone Program so that the City’s housing element would be in compliance with State law. This modified the Infill Rezone Program sites from 24 sites to 20 sites, which will still create capacity for potentially 1,303 housing units, and satisfy the 1,284 housing units required by the Judgment.

Staff has since received a letter from the representative of one of the sites (Site 63) requesting its removal from the Infill Rezone Program (Attachment 7). However, staff did not support the request to remove the site because the site was added at the owner's request as one of the six (6) later identified sites and the EA process and technical analysis for all 20 sites had already commenced.

Removing the site at that late stage would have required revisions to the EA and supporting technical studies, and resulted in the City having to either identify a replacement site to make up the potential lost units or proceed without the site or any replacement site and falling below the total number of units required to satisfy the Judgment.

Page 24 of 942 ends

Page 5 of 11 ends

General Plan Amendment
GPA2024-003 proposes to amend the General Plan land use designations for 20 sites in the Infill Rezone Program. The proposed land use designations will be modified from various land use designations to High and Very High Density Residential. Of the 20 sites, 17 will be redesignated to the High Density Residential land use designation. This land use designation permits 20.1 to 30 du/ac. Three (3) sites will be redesignated to the Very High Density Residential land use designation, which permits 25.1 to 43 du/ac. The specific locations of the parcels are outlined in Attachment 5 and the site details are outlined in Attachment 6.

Amendments to Specific or Master Plans
Nine (9) sites within the Infill Rezone Program are also located within an adopted specific plan or master plan (Table 1). Approval of GPA2024-003 would amend the plans listed below to ensure consistency. If any of the plans listed below do not currently allow multi-family uses or specify densities different from those proposed in GPA2024-003, this amendment would revise those provisions for the nine (9) sites to permit multi-family development at a density of 20.1 to 30 du/ac.

Development standards of the Clovis Municipal Code and the R-3 zone district shall apply.

Table 1
Site ID Specific Plan/Master Plan Type of Modification
63 Herndon-Shepherd
Specific Plan (HSSP)
Land Use and Zoning
72 HSSP Land Use and Zoning
115 Loma Vista Specific Plan
(LVSP)
Land Use and Zoning
157 Harlan Ranch Master Plan Land Use, Zoning, and
Planning Area 30
167 Shaw Avenue Specific
Plan (SASP)
Land Use, Zoning, and
Planning Area 6
168 SASP Land Use, Zoning, and
Planning Area 6
197 HSSP Land Use and Zoning
590 LVSP Land Use and Zoning
592 HSSP Land Use and Zoning
Airport Land Use Commission
Five (5) of the sites in the Infill Rezone Program are located within the Airport Influence Area (Traffic Pattern Zone) of the Fresno Yosemite International (FYI) Airport (Attachment 8). The five (5) sites are identified in Table 2, below. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Environmental Safety Policy

3.11, the City shall approve land uses in a manner consistent with the FYI Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The FYI Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was replaced by the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in 2018. The Fresno County ALUCP is overseen by the

Page 25 of 942 ends

Page 6 of 11 ends

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which is required to determine consistency prior to the City approving a general plan amendment. Therefore, the City requested a Finding of Consistency from the ALUC.

The ALUC reviewed the general plan amendment at their meeting on April 6, 2026, and determined it to be consistent with the adopted Fresno County ALUCP (Attachment 9). This determination confirms that the revised land use designations will not result in incompatible development in the vicinity of the airport, nor will they introduce safety hazards or intensify uses beyond acceptable thresholds. As such, the general plan amendment supports orderly development, while maintaining compliance with established airport land use compatibility policies.

Table 2
Site ID Site Address Assessor's Parcel
Number
110 236 & 256 West
Santa Ana Avenue
499-060-74
161 2930 Willow
Avenue
430-433-16
217 885 Gettysburg
Avenue
499-540-13ST
598 2560 Fowler
Avenue
499-384-42
599 2612 Fowler
Avenue
499-384-41
Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies
The proposed Project would change the land use designations to High and Very High Density Residential. The change in land use designation would not conflict with goals and policies of the General Plan. The following goals and policies reflect Clovis’ desire to maintain a tradition of responsible planning and well-managed growth to preserve the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and ensure the development of new neighborhoods with an equal quality of life. The project also helps to affirmatively further fair housing by expanding opportunities for affordable housing throughout existing neighborhoods to balance the reliance on only new annexation areas to provide all the higher density sites for affordable housing opportunities.

Land Use Element
Goal 3: Orderly and sustainable outward growth into three Urban Centers with neighborhoods that provide a balanced mix of land uses and development types to support a community lifestyle and small town character.

Policy 3.6: Mix of housing types and sizes. Development is encouraged to provide a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and densities at the block level. To accomplish this, individual projects five acres or larger may be developed at densities equivalent to one designation higher or lower than the assigned designation, provided that the density across an individual project remains consistent with the General Plan.

Page 26 of 942 ends

Page 7 of 11 ends

Goal 5: A city with housing, employment, and lifestyle opportunities for all ages and incomes of residents.

Policy 5.2: Ownership and rental. Encourage a mixture of both ownership and rental options to meet varied preferences and income affordability needs.

Goal 6: A city that grows and develops in a manner that implements its vision, sustains the integrity of its guiding principles, and requires few and infrequent amendments to the General Plan.

Policy 6.2: Smart growth. The city is committed to the following smart growth goals. • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. • Mix land uses.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. • Take advantage of compact building design.

Housing Element
Goal H-1: Provide an ample supply of housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for households at all income levels.

Policy H-1.3: Variety of Housing Types. Facilitate development of a wide range of different housing types for people of all income levels to diversify the housing stock in Clovis neighborhoods and provide units for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income and special needs households, including people with disabilities, senior citizens, and people in need of assisted, supportive, and/or transitional housing.

Policy H-1.4: Distribute Housing Opportunities. Distribute new housing, affordable and market rate, supportive housing, and special needs housing across all neighborhoods and increase the supply of affordable housing and special needs housing in highest opportunity areas and in neighborhoods that currently have fewer affordable housing units or special needs housing to affirmatively further fair housing.

Environmental Safety Element
Goal 3: An environment in which minimized noise contributes to the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

Policy 3.11: Airport land use compatibility. Approve land uses in a manner that is consistent with the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Findings for General Plan Amendments
The findings to consider when deciding on a general plan amendment application and staff’s response to each of those findings are listed below.

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The proposed amendment is consistent with existing General Plan goals and policies, which include an emphasis on providing a mix of housing types and sizes, providing a variety of housing product

Page 27 of 942 ends

Page 8 of 11 ends

types, and encouraging a mixture of ownership and rental options to meet the needs of the community. By encouraging a balanced mix of housing options, the proposed amendment advances the General Plan’s objectives for housing diversity, choice, and long-term community sustainability.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The amendment facilitates the development of higher-density housing in a manner that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, which encourages efficient land use patterns and expanded housing opportunities. The amendment assists with the implementation of the General Plan’s vision, and it helps address the community’s housing needs. The project will serve the public interest by providing additional housing options. Accordingly, the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and convenience, or general welfare of the City.

3. If applicable, the parcel is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested/anticipated project.

This finding pertains to the physical suitability of a site and therefore is not applicable to the proposed Project. The Infill Rezone Program does not approve or propose any specific development project on any specific parcel.

4. There is a compelling reason for the amendment.

The proposed amendment was initiated to satisfy a requirement in the Judgment entered against the City in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case, which specifically requires the Infill Rezone Program to rezone sites to allow for residential development at a minimum density of 20 du/ac on such sites. The proposed amendment is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state law and the related Judgment. The amendment is proposed in conjunction with the zoning modification to maintain consistency between the zoning and the General Plan land use designations.

Rezone
The proposed amendment in land use designation also requires a change in the property’s assigned zone district. R2024-002 proposes rezoning 20 sites from various zone districts to the R-3 (Multifamily High Density) and R-4 (Multi-family Very High Density) zone districts. The proposed zone districts are consistent with the High and Very High Density Residential land use designations.

Findings for Rezones
The findings to consider when deciding on a rezone application and staff’s response to each of those findings are listed below.

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan.

The proposed amendment is consistent with existing General Plan goals and policies, which include an emphasis on providing a mix of housing types and sizes, providing a variety of housing product types, and encouraging a mixture of ownership and rental options to meet the needs of the community. By encouraging a balanced mix of housing options, the proposed amendment advances the General Plan’s objectives for housing diversity, choice, and long-term community sustainability.

The proposed rezone to the R-3 and R-4 zone districts are consistent with the proposed High and Very High Density Residential land use designations.

Page 28 of 942 ends

Page 9 of 11 ends

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The project will serve the public interest by providing additional housing options. Accordingly, the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and convenience, or general welfare of the City.

3. The parcel is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/projects.

See number 3 under the “Findings for General Plan Amendments” section above.

Environmental Assessment
Because the Project requires discretionary approval, it would ordinarily be subject to the regular environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, Government Code section 65759 provides that CEQA is not applicable to actions necessary to bring its general plan or relevant mandatory elements (i.e., the Housing Element) into compliance with any court order or judgment. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s Judgment, the environmental review for this Project is to be completed in accordance with Government Code section 65759. Section 65759 requires only a specialized initial study or specialized EA to be prepared. An EA (Attachment 1A) was prepared in a form similar to a draft program environmental impact report under CEQA. (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15120, et seq.) The EA is an informational document for the public, decisionmakers, and the Court.

The EA addresses the “potentially significant impacts” concerning the environmental issue areas identified under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. It also includes environmental analysis of the existing environmental setting (baseline conditions), existing regulatory setting, project impacts (i.e., direct and indirect, short-term construction and long-term operational), relevant General Plan policies, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Attachment 1B, will be incorporated into the EA. All sites within the Infill Rezone Program will be subject to the MMRP. Because the Project is being carried out pursuant to a court order (the Judgment) requiring compliance with Housing Element law, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA, and the City has satisfied the requirements under Government Code section 65759 for purposes of environmental review for this Project with the completion of the EA which substantially conforms with the required content of a draft environmental impact report as set forth in Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gov. Code § 65759, subd. (c).) Public Outreach
Informational Meetings
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Division hosted four (4) informational meetings in December 2025 on the Infill Rezone Program, with an estimated 150 community members in attendance. Staff opened each meeting with a brief presentation outlining the program’s purpose, including state housing requirements, background on the Judgment, site identification, and the overall process and next steps. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to ask questions and share feedback. Community comments focused on housing density, traffic,

Page 29 of 942 ends

Page 10 of 11 ends

infrastructure, property values, privacy, impacts on police services, and site selection.

After the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Division hosted one (1) informational meeting on June 23, 2026 on the Infill Rezone Program, with an estimated 50 community members in attendance. Staff opened the meeting with a brief presentation outlining the program’s purpose, including state housing requirements, background on the Judgment, site identification, and the overall process and next steps. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to ask questions and share feedback. Community comments focused on housing density, traffic, infrastructure, property values, privacy, impacts on police services, and site selection.

Public Notification
For the informational meetings, the City mailed notices to property owners within 800 feet of each site that is part of the Infill Rezone Program.

The public hearing for this item was originally noticed for the July 6, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with applicable noticing requirements. This included a published notice in The Business Journal on Friday, June 12, 2026, more than 20 days prior to the July 6, 2026 City Council hearing in accordance with Government Code section 65484, subdivision (b)(2). Staff mailed notices to property owners within 800 feet of each site that is part of the Infill Rezone Program as required by applicable provisions of the Clovis Municipal Code. Staff also sent notices to members of the community that requested notification. In total, the City notified over 3,000 members of the community. At the July 6, 2026 meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing to a date certain, August 10, 2026, to allow for consideration by a full City Council. Because the public hearing was continued to a date certain, no additional public notice was required or provided. Notices for the original public hearing were mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the project site, and the public hearing notice was published in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

Public Comments
Since the notices of the informational meetings and public hearings, staff has received over 130 letters from members of the public (Attachment 10).

Planning Commission
The Planning Commission considered GPA2024-003 and R2024-002 at its regular meeting on May 28, 2026. Commissioners posed various questions related to the removal of sites, site alternatives, owner authorization, communications with the school district, removal of commercial land, and the concentration of sites, all of which were addressed by staff.

One (1) member of the public spoke in support of the project and 12 members of the public spoke in opposition of the project. The concerns related to the project focused on impacts from the increased density on traffic, schools, utilities, parks, crime, safety services, property values, the ability to develop, and the disproportionate allocation of units in the Harlan Ranch area. Staff provided responses to the various questions and comments.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of GPA2024-003 and R2024-003 to the City Council with a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Hebert voting no.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Reason for Recommendation:

Page 30 of 942 ends

Page 11 of 11 ends

The proposed GPA2024-003 and R2024-002 were initiated to satisfy one of the requirements of the Judgment and as required as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element so that the City's Housing Element will be in compliance with applicable State law.

Actions Following Approval:

The second reading of the rezoning ordinance will be brought back to the City Council for consideration at the August 17, 2026, meeting or as soon thereafter as possible.

Conflict of Interest:

None.

Page 31 of 942 ends

RESOLUTION 26-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS ADOPTING THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE INFILL REZONE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis (City), initiated the applications for (i) General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2024-003 to amend the Land Use Element of the 2014 Clovis General Plan and related specific and/or master plans to redesignate the land uses for twenty (20) sites from various land use designations to the High Density Residential (20.1 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) and Very High Density Residential (25.1 to 43 du/ac) land use designations; and (ii) Rezone (R) 2024-002 to rezone approximately 54 acres from various zone districts to R-3 (Multifamily High Density) and R-4 (Multifamily Very High Density) zone districts (Project); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project pursuant to Government Code section 65759, which provides that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element into compliance with State law pursuant to a court order or judgment, and the EA is attached hereto as Attachment A and is incorporated by this reference herein; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65759 requires only a specialized initial study or specialized EA to be prepared that substantially conforms with a draft environmental impact report as set forth in Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City worked with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and prepared the EA for the Project, dated April 2026, which contains a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as provided in Attachment B herein and is hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the EA and the MMRP collectively make up the EA for the Project; and WHEREAS, the EA has been made and remains available to the public since approximately May 19, 2026, in advance of the Clovis Planning Commission hearing on this Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review and consider the entire Administrative Record relating to the Project and the EA, which is on file with the City’s Department of Planning and Development Services, and reviewed and considered those portions of the Administrative Record determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including, but not necessarily limited to, the staff report, the recommendation(s) of the Clovis Planning Commission, the written materials submitted with the requests, and the verbal Attachment 1

Page 32 of 942 ends

and written comments, testimony, and other evidence presented during the public hearing (“Administrative Record”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the EA.

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

1. The EA for the Project attached hereto as Attachment A, is adequate and has been completed in compliance with Government Code section 65759.

2. The EA was presented to the City Council and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EA prior to approving the Project.

3. Based upon its review of the EA, the City Council finds that the EA is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project as described in the EA and represents the independent judgment of the City Council.

4. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project and has considered all feasible mitigation measures for the Project.

5. The MMRP for the Project attached hereto as Attachment B, including all mitigation measures identified therein and as described in the EA, is hereby adopted. * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on August 10, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk

Page 33 of 942 ends

Infill Rezone Program
Environmental Assessment
prepared by
City of Clovis
Planning and Development Services Department
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Contact: McKencie Perez, MPA, Deputy City Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4589 North Marty Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93722
April 2026
Attachment A

Page 34 of 942 ends

Table of Contents
Environmental Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................ES-4 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ES-4 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-5 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-5 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EA........................................................................................ES-5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-6 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Assessment Purpose............................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Assessment Authority ............................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Environmental Type, Scope, and Organization............................................................... 1-2

1.4 Environmental Assessment Intended Use and Process.................................................. 1-4 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Judgment Requirements................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Development Code Amendments.................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Infill Rezone Program...................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Rezone Project Studied in the Environmental Assessment............................................ 2-5

2.3 Infill Rezone Program Sites............................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.1 Development Potential................................................................................. 2-25

2.4 Project Objectives......................................................................................................... 2-27

2.5 Project Implementation................................................................................................ 2-27

2.6 Required Approvals....................................................................................................... 2-27

2.7 California Native American Tribal Consultation............................................................ 2-27 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Natural Environment....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Planning Context............................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.1 Land Use/Zoning Designations....................................................................... 3-3

3.3.2 Rezoning Sites Setting..................................................................................... 3-3

3.4 Cumulative Impact Setting.............................................................................................. 3-3 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1 Organization and Content .......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-4

4.1.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.1-6

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.1-10

Page 35 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ii

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-7

4.2.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.2-14

4.2.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................... 4.2-28

4.3 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-3

4.3.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.3-7

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.3-13

4.4 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Cultural Setting and Existing Conditions...................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-6

4.4.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.4-12

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.4-18

4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.5.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.5-11

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.5-16

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-6

4.6.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.6-15

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.6-22

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.7-13

4.7.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.7-21

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.7-29

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-2

4.8.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.8-8

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.8-15

4.9 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-4

4.9.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.9-8

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................... 4.9-10

Page 36 of 942 ends

Table of Contents
Environmental Assessment iii

4.10 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-3

4.10.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.10-7

4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.10-18

4.11 Population and Housing............................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.11.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-2

4.11.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.11-8

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.11-10

4.12 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................. 4.12-1

4.12.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................... 4.12-11

4.12.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4.12-15

4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.12-21

4.13 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................... 4.13-11

4.13.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4.13-15

4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.13-22

4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-3

4.14.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.14-5

4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.14-18

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-9

4.15.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4.15-18

4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................. 4.15-23

4.16 Effects Found Not to be Significant ........................................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources.......................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.2 Geology and Soils....................................................................................... 4.16-2

4.16.3 Mineral Resources..................................................................................... 4.16-3

4.16.4 Wildfire ...................................................................................................... 4.16-3 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth.................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects.................................................................................. 5-2

5.3 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................ 5-2

Page 37 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
iv
6 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.............................................................................. 6-2

6.1.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alternative 2: Alternative Infill Rezone Program Sites.................................................... 6-4

6.2.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-4

6.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Sites at Higher Densities............................................................ 6-5

6.3.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-5

6.3.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-5

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ............................................................................ 6-6

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................ 6-7 7 References.................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers............................................................................................................ 7-13 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Units by Rezoning Site ........................................................................ES-3 Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts....................................................................................................................ES-7 Table 2-1 Rezoning Sites........................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2 Summary of Units by Rezoning Site ....................................................................... 2-26 Table 4.2-1 Annual Air Quality Data at the Fresno-Garland Air Monitoring Station................ 4.2-7 Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................. 4.2-8 Table 4.2-3 SJVAPCD Rule 8021 Measures............................................................................. 4.2-11 Table 4.2-4 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds...................................................... 4.2-15 Table 4.2-5 SJVAPCD Rules..................................................................................................... 4.2-18 Table 4.2-6 Operational Emissions......................................................................................... 4.2-22 Table 4.2-7 Localized Operational Emissions......................................................................... 4.2-24 Table 4.3-1 Infill Rezone Program Sites.................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.4-1 Historical Resources in Project Area...................................................................... 4.4-5 Table 4.4-2 Inventory of Infill Rezone Program Sites by Build Date......................................... 4.4-5 Table 4.4-3 Properties with Moderate to High Potential for Archaeological Resources......... 4.4-6 Table 4.4-4 Properties Requiring Evaluation.......................................................................... 4.4-13 Table 4.4-5 Properties Requiring an Archaeological Resources Study................................... 4.4-16 Table 4.5-1 2023 Annual Electricity Consumption ................................................................... 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2 2023 Annual Natural Gas Consumption................................................................ 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3 2023 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Sales Estimates................................................ 4.5-4 Table 4.5-4 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans............. 4.5-14 Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan......................... 4.6-17

Page 38 of 942 ends

Table of Contents
Environmental Assessment v
Table 4.6-2 Operational GHG Emissions................................................................................. 4.6-19 Table 4.6-3 Project Consistency with 2022 RTP/SCS.............................................................. 4.6-20 Table 4.6-4 Project Consistency with City of Clovis General Plan.......................................... 4.6-21 Table 4.8-1 2020 UWMP City Growth Projections................................................................. 4.8-12 Table 4.9-1 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning .......................................................... 4.9-1 Table 4.10-1 Land Use Compatibility Matrix ............................................................................ 4.10-5 Table 4.10-2 Maximum Exterior Noise Standards.................................................................... 4.10-6 Table 4.10-3 FTA Construction Noise Criteria .......................................................................... 4.10-6 Table 4.10-4 FTA Vibration Damage Potential Criteria ............................................................ 4.10-7 Table 4.10-5 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment............................................. 4.10-11 Table 4.10-6 Traffic Noise Increase ........................................................................................ 4.10-14 Table 4.10-7 Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment....................................... 4.10-15 Table 4.10-8 Distances at Which Vibration Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Exceed Vibration Thresholds............................................................................. 4.10-16 Table 4.11-1 Current Population and Housing Stock Estimates for Clovis............................... 4.11-1 Table 4.11-2 Fresno County Population Forecasts (2022 to 2060).......................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-3 Fresno COG Unincorporated Area Housing Needs Allocations........................... 4.11-4 Table 4.12-1 Clovis Fire Department Stations.......................................................................... 4.12-1 Table 4.12-2 Fresno County Fire Protection District Equipment Summary ............................. 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3 Schools and Enrollment for Clovis, 2023-2024.................................................... 4.12-4 Table 4.12-4 Clovis Unified School District Facility Capacity in the City of Clovis.................... 4.12-6 Table 4.12-5 Park Classifications.............................................................................................. 4.12-7 Table 4.12-6 City Parks............................................................................................................. 4.12-7 Table 4.12-7 Park Acquisition and Development Fees........................................................... 4.12-15 Table 4.12-8 Estimated Student Generation From Project.................................................... 4.12-18 Table 4.12-9 2025 Clovis Unified School District Developer Fee Collection Rates................. 4.12-19 Table 4.13-1 Clovis Transit Routes ........................................................................................... 4.13-4 Table 4.13-2 Clovis Sphere of Influence Land Use Summary ................................................. 4.13-17 Table 4.13-3 Vehicle-Miles of Traveled Results ..................................................................... 4.13-19 Table 4.13-4 Cumulative Vehicle-Miles of Travel Results...................................................... 4.13-23 Table 4.15-1 Current (2020) and Future Potable and Non-potable Water Use....................... 4.15-4 Table 4.15-2 Current (2020) and Future Potable and Non-potable Water Supply .................. 4.15-4 Table 4.15-3 Wastewater Treatment Capacity ........................................................................ 4.15-7 Table 4.15-4 Planned Water Demand with Infill Rezone Program ........................................ 4.15-20 Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics................................. 6-2 Table 6-2 Infill Rezone Program Sites with Current Zoning...................................................... 6-3 Table 6-3 Reduced Infill Rezone Program Sites with Higher Densities .................................... 6-5 Table 6-4 Impact Comparison of Alternatives.......................................................................... 6-8

Page 39 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
vi
Figures
Figure 2-1 Zone Change Sites .................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Infill Rezone Program Site 3 Site Map ...................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-3 Infill Rezone Program Site 3 Site Photograph .......................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-4 Infill Rezone Program Site 63 Site Map .................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Infill Rezone Program Site 63 Site Photograph ...................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-6 Infill Rezone Program Site 72 Site Map .................................................................. 2-10 Figure 2-7 Infill Rezone Program Site 72 Site Photograph ...................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-8 Infill Rezone Program Site 108 Site Map................................................................ 2-11 Figure 2-9 Infill Rezone Program Site 108 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-10 Infill Rezone Program Site 110 Site Map................................................................ 2-12 Figure 2-11 Infill Rezone Program Site 110 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-12 Infill Rezone Program Sites 115 and 590 Site Map................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-13 Infill Rezone Program Site 115 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-14 Infill Rezone Program Site 590 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-15 Infill Rezone Program Sites 157 and 197 Site Map................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-16 Infill Rezone Program Site 157 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-17 Infill Rezone Site Program 197 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-18 Infill Rezone Program Site 161 Site Map................................................................ 2-16 Figure 2-19 Infill Rezone Program Site 161 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-20 Infill Rezone Program Sites 167 and 168 Site Map................................................. 2-17 Figure 2-21 Infill Rezone Program Site 167 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-18 Figure 2-22 Infill Rezone Program Site 168 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-18 Figure 2-23 Infill Rezone Program Site 217 Site Map................................................................ 2-19 Figure 2-24 Infill Rezone Program Site 217 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-25 Infill Rezone Program Site 589 Site Map................................................................ 2-20 Figure 2-26 Infill Rezone Program Site 589 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-27 Infill Rezone Program Site 592 Site Map................................................................ 2-21 Figure 2-28 Infill Rezone Program Site 592 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-29 Infill Rezone Program Sites 595, 596, and 597 Site Map........................................ 2-22 Figure 2-30 Infill Rezone Program Site 595 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-22 Figure 2-31 Infill Rezone Program Site 596 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-32 Infill Rezone Program Site 597 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-33 Infill Rezone Program Sites 598 and 599 Site Map................................................. 2-24 Figure 2-34 Infill Rezone Program Site 598 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-35 Infill Rezone Program Site 599 Site Photograph .................................................... 2-25 Figure 3-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 4.3-1 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 72.................................................................... 4.3-15 Figure 4.3-2 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 592.................................................................. 4.3-16

Page 40 of 942 ends

Table of Contents
Environmental Assessment vii
Figure 4.3-3 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 157 and 197................................................... 4.3-17 Figure 4.3-4 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 63.................................................................... 4.3-18 Figure 4.3-5 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 3...................................................................... 4.3-19 Figure 4.3-6 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 108.................................................................. 4.3-20 Figure 4.3-7 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 589.................................................................. 4.3-21 Figure 4.3-8 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 595, 596, and 597.......................................... 4.3-22 Figure 4.3-9 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 167 and 168................................................... 4.3-23 Figure 4.3-10 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 161.................................................................. 4.3-24 Figure 4.3-11 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 110.................................................................. 4.3-25 Figure 4.3-12 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Site 217.................................................................. 4.3-26 Figure 4.3-13 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 598 and 599................................................... 4.3-27 Figure 4.3-14 Clovis Infill Rezone Program Sites 115 and 590................................................... 4.3-28 Figure 4.7-1 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites........................................... 4.7-5 Figure 4.7-2 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites........................................... 4.7-6 Figure 4.7-3 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites........................................... 4.7-7 Figure 4.7-4 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites........................................... 4.7-8 Figure 4.7-5 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites........................................... 4.7-9 Figure 4.7-6 Hazardous Material Sites, Schools, and Rezone Sites......................................... 4.7-10 Figure 4.7-7 Airport Safety Compatibility Zones ..................................................................... 4.7-12 Figure 4.9-1 Existing Land Uses in Clovis................................................................................... 4.9-2 Figure 4.9-2 Existing Zoning in Clovis......................................................................................... 4.9-3 Figure 4.12-1 Fire and Police Stations....................................................................................... 4.12-3 Figure 4.12-2 Public Schools in Clovis........................................................................................ 4.12-5 Figure 4.12-3 City Parks........................................................................................................... 4.12-10 Figure 4.13-1 Existing General Plan Circulation Diagram.......................................................... 4.13-2 Figure 4.13-2 Clovis Transit Routes ........................................................................................... 4.13-5 Figure 4.13-3 Types of Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................... 4.13-7 Figure 4.13-4 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. 4.13-8 Figure 4.13-5 Critical Gaps in Sidewalk System......................................................................... 4.13-9 Figure 4.13-6 Existing and Planned Trails and Paseos............................................................. 4.13-10 Figure 4.15-1 City of Clovis Water System Service Area............................................................ 4.15-3 Figure 4.15-2 Clovis Wastewater Service Area.......................................................................... 4.15-6 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality (AQ) 1
Appendix B Air Quality (AQ) 2
Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix D Tribal Consultation
Appendix E Water Supply Assessment

Page 41 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
viii
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 42 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in accordance with Government Code section 65759 analyzing the environmental effects of the rezoning of 20 Infill Rezone Program sites throughout the City of Clovis due to the court judgment entered by the Fresno County Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024. This section summarizes the characteristics of, alternatives to, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Infill Rezone Program.

Project Synopsis
Lead Agency Contact Person
McKencie Perez, MPA, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis Planning Division
Planning and Development Services Department
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Project Description
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires local jurisdictions to identify sufficient housing sites to cover the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). According to State law, a housing element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need and specific State statutory requirements and must reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. The City was unable to meet its 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA for lower income households.

The Infill Rezone Program (project) encompasses the rezoning of infill sites to the R-3 and R-4 Districts and the associated General Plan amendments required to create the capacity for 1,284 additional housing units pursuant to the Judgment as required to satisfy the City’s unmet RHNA from the City’s 4th cycle Housing Element that were not fully accommodated with sufficient rezoning during the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element. The project, pursuant to Action Item 4 of the Judgment, will amend the land use designation of the 20 infill sites to High or Very High Density Residential and rezone the properties to the R-3 or R-4 Districts to facilitate the development of at least 1,284 additional housing dwelling units in the city. The total acreage of sites to be rezoned is approximately 54.32 acres. Of the 20 parcels, 10 parcels (17.60 acres) are vacant land.

The sites to be rezoned throughout the city may be seen in Figure 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description details the existing land use and zoning designations of each site, the vacancy status of the site, as well as the existing use of the property.

With the High and Very High Density Residential General Plan land use designations, the Infill Rezone Program sites could be developed at a maximum density of 30 to 43 units per acre, respectively. If developed at the maximum density, the 20 sites could accommodate a total of 1,651 housing units with the proposed zoning. In order to fulfill Action Item 4 of the Judgment, and as required by applicable housing element law, the assumed development density for the R-3 zoned sites is 24.0 units per acre and the assumed development density for the R-4 zoned sites is 25.1

Page 43 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-2
units per acre. Table ES-1 shows the unit potential by site. In total, the rezoned sites would facilitate the development of 1,303 housing units, with a 19 unit surplus over the required number of 1,284 units required by the Judgment.

Page 44 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-3
Table ES-1 Summary of Units by Rezoning Site
Site
ID* APN
Existing Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use Designation Existing Zone Proposed Zone
Size
(acres)
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Density
Assumption
(du/ac)
Assumed
Units
3 49102042 GC H P-C-C R-3 8.06 30 242 24 193
63 56303207 L H R-1-7500 R-3 3.78 30 113 24 91
72 56008207 L H R-1-7500 R-3 3.19 30 96 24 77
108 49123124 GC H C-2 R-3 1.25 30 38 24 30
110 49906074 M H R-1 R-3 1.25 30 38 24 30
115 55457044S M H R-1 R-3 2.31 30 69 24 55
157 55803359S MU-V H P-C-C R-3 7.24 30 217 24 174
161 43043316 O H C-P R-3 1.67 30 50 24 40
167 55128004 O H C-P R-3 1.04 30 31 24 25
168 55128003 O H C-P R-3 1.3 30 39 24 31
197 55849230 VL H R-1-AH R-3 4.5 30 135 24 108
217 49954013ST I H M-1 R-3 1.8 30 54 24 43
589 55026023 L H R-A R-3 8.01 30 240 24 192
590 55458036s M H R-1 R-3 3.02 30 91 24 72
592 56303131 L H R-A R-3 2.09 30 63 24 50
595 49817202 L VH R-1 R-4 0.41 43 18 25.1 10
596 49817201 L VH R-1 R-4 0.72 43 31 25.1 18
597 49817203 L VH R-1 R-4 0.41 43 18 25.1 10
598 49938442 L H R-1 R-3 1.09 30 33 24 26
599 49938441 L H R-1 R-3 1.18 30 35 24 28
Total 54.32 1,651 1,303

Page 45 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-4
Project Objectives
The project includes the following objectives:
 Ensure compliance with the Judgment entered by the court on March 19, 2024, in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case, in regard to Action Item 4: Infill Rezone Program, and as amended by both parties.
 Provide capacity to meet the State-required RHNA carryover for lower income households related to the 4th Cycle Housing Element.
 Ensure that housing development that is affordable to lower income households is achievable, through associated amendments to the Zoning Map of the Development Code.  Disperse housing sites throughout the City to ensure that no single neighborhood or area is overburdened or impacted.
 Encourage the development of additional housing and increase the overall availability of affordable housing by ensuring that development can occur at adequate densities by amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Alternatives
This EA examines alternatives to the Infill Rezone Program. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 1 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives:
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: Alternative Candidate Sites
 Alternative 3: Reduced Number of Rezone Sites at Higher Densities Alternative 1 (No Project). The No Project Alternative assumes there is no change in zoning or General Plan land use designations for the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. The future full buildout of the Infill Rezone Program sites would be controlled by the existing zoning and General Plan designations. This alternative assumes that infill residential development might still occur, where allowed, but would fall short of the required 1,284 units.

Alternative 2 (Alternative Candidate Sites). Alternative 2 assumes there exists an alternative 20 vacant and under-utilized sites across the city of Clovis that are similar or equal to the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites and satisfy applicable state housing law and RHNA requirements for rezoning to meet RHNA housing unit needs. Sites would be developed with strictly residential uses, in infill locations, similar to the proposed project. This alternative would accommodate the exact number of new dwelling units required by the judgment, or 1,284 new dwelling units and approximately 3,608 new residents. This would equate to approximately 367 less units and approximately 1,031 less new residents than the maximum proposed project. Like the maximum proposed project, this Alternative also proposes various amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan Land Use Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification. This alternative would meet the project objectives only if sufficient alternative sites exist in the City of Clovis that meet the applicable housing law and RHNA requirements as the 20 proposed sites do. Thus, this alternative would require additional analysis to determine whether sufficient alternative sites exist to comply with applicable state housing law and RHNA requirements, and that would prolong the implementation of the project as currently proposed and required by the Judgment.

Page 46 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-5
Alternative 3 (Reduced Number of Rezone Sites at Higher Densities). Under Alternative 3, the project would be implemented across a reduced number of sites, at higher densities, in order to meet the project objectives under the court judgment. This Alternative conceptualizes that the project proceeds with only 10 of the project sites with the largest acreages and still meets the 1,284 units required by the Judgment. This assumption is made because larger sites might have a greater chance of being developed because the value of the developed sites would be largest and larger parcels allow for more flexible development designs and greater number of units. This alternative would accommodate the exact number of new dwelling units required by the judgment, or 1,284 new dwelling units and approximately 3,608 new residents. This would equate to approximately 367 less units and approximately 1,031 less residents than the proposed project. Like the proposed project, this Alternative also proposes various amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan Land Use Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification.

Refer to Chapter 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The Infill Rezone Program is being initiated as a result of a court judgment entered on March 19, 2024, in Martinez v. City of Clovis, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 19CECG03855. In order to comply with the Judgment and ensure adequate sites are available to meet the City’s RHNA goals and applicable housing element law requirement for lower income households, the rezoning of 20 infill properties is necessary to accommodate the potential housing units needed.

Issues to be Resolved
The Infill Rezone Program aims to facilitate the development of residential housing units in order to meet the requirements of the Judgment. In order to meet the objectives of the project, development of the sites will need to occur at adequate densities to provide 1,284 new residential housing units.

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EA
As indicated in Section 4.16, Effects Found Not to be Significant, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Geology and Soils, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. Impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems are addressed in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis in this EA.

Page 47 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-6
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved under §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Page 48 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-7
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. Future development carried out
under the proposed project would not affect
public views of a scenic vista. Potential impacts to
scenic vistas and corridors would be less-thansignificant.

None Less than significant
Impact AES-2. The project is not near a designated
State Scenic Highway, so it would not damage
scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway and
impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact AES-3. The proposed project is in an
urbanized area and would be developed in
conformance with applicable zoning regulations
governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact AES-4. New development carried out
under the proposed project would add new
sources of light and glare to the City; however
development would be required to comply with
the City’s lighting regulations to negate adverse
effects on daytime or nighttime views. Impact
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. Construction allowed by the
proposed project would conflict with
implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan and 2024
PM2.5 Plan even with implementation of the City’s
General Plan (GP) EIR Mitigation Measure (MM)
3-1. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

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 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.

Significant and unavoidable.

Page 49 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
 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.

Impact AQ-2. Construction of the proposed project
would have a significant and unavoidable impact
on a net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Plan region is nonattainment even with
implementation of GP EIR MM 3-1. Operation of
the proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the Plan region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or
State ambient air quality standard and impacts
related to operation would be less than significant.

Construction:

GP EIR MM 3-1
Operation:

None
Significant and unavoidable for
construction impacts, less than
significant for operational impacts.

Impact AQ-3. Construction allowed by the
proposed project could expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Construction impacts would be significant and
unavoidable even with implementation of GP EIR
MMs 3-1 and 3-2. However, operation of the
proposed project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
with implementation of GP EIR MM 3-5 so
operational impacts would be less than significant.

Construction:

GP EIR MM 3-1
GP EIR MM3-2: Prior to discretionary approval, applicants for phased development projects (i.e., construction would overlap operation/opening of the project) involving residential land uses shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the City of Clovis (City) in conjunction with the SJVAPCD in preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) for construction activities. If the construction HRA identifies risk impacts that exceed the standards as determined by the SVJAPCD at the time the project is considered, it shall identify measures to reduce these impacts to below these standards. Recommended measures may include those identified in GP EIR MM 3-1. The recommendations of the construction HRA shall be incorporated into all construction management plans which shall be submitted to the City and verified by the City’s Planning Division.

Operation:

GP EIR MM 3-4
Prior to discretionary project approval, the City of Clovis (City) shall evaluate new development proposals for sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, day care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.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 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06), the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

Measures to reduce risk impacts may include but are not limited to the following:
 Placement of air intakes away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters.  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for units that are installed with MERV filters shall maintain positive pressure within the building’s filtered ventilation system to reduce infiltration of unfiltered outdoor air.

Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.

Project level emissions would
remain significant and unavoidable
for construction.

Operational impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation
measures incorporated.

Impact AQ-4. The proposed project would not
create objectionable odors that would affect a
substantial number of people. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None Less than significant
1 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessible at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf

Page 50 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. The proposed project would not
impact special status species or their habitats.

GP EIR MM 4-1 Biological Assessment and Focused Surveys. The City shall require for future development or redevelopment projects that disturb vegetated, vacant land pursuant to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The biological resources survey shall include, but not be limited to:
 Analysis of available literature and biological databases, such as the California Natural Diversity Database, to determine sensitive biological resources that have been reported historically from the proposed development project vicinity.
 Review of current land use and land ownership within the proposed development project vicinity.  Assessment and mapping of vegetation communities present within the proposed development project vicinity.  Evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife movement corridors.  General assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats  If the proposed development project site supports vegetation communities that may provide habitat for special status plant or wildlife species, a focused habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the potential for special status plant and/or animal species to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area.  If one or more special status species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area, focused species surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence/absence of these species to adequately evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species.  If construction activities are not initiated immediately after focused surveys have been completed, additional preconstruction special status species surveys may be required, in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act, to assure impacts are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. If preconstruction activities are required, a qualified biologist will perform these surveys as required for each special status species that is known to occur or has a potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area.

The results of the biological survey shall be presented in a biological resources survey letter report (for proposed development projects with no significant impacts) or biological resources technical report (for proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance) and submitted to the City’s Planning Director.

GP EIR MM 4-2 Resource Impact Avoidance/Minimization. Project applicants shall avoid potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources. Avoidance may include:
 establishing appropriate no-disturbance buffers (consultation with relevant regulatory agencies may be required to establish suitable buffer areas)  initiating construction at a time when special status or protected animal species will not be vulnerable to project-related mortality (e.g. outside the avian nesting season or bat maternal or wintering roosting season). Minimizing impact by measures such as:
 exclusion and/or silt fencing;
 relocation of impacted resources;
 construction monitoring by a qualified biologist;
 training program by a qualified biologist for construction personnel on sensitive biological resources GP EIR MM 4-3 Compensatory Mitigation. If project-related impacts cannot be avoided or minimized to less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4-3; feasible, compensatory mitigation shall be developed by a qualified biologist and implemented to reduce impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources. Mitigation may include but is not limited to:
 Compensation for lost habitat or waters in the form of preservation or creation of in-kind habitat or waters, either onsite or offsite, protected by conservation easement;  Purchase of appropriate credits from an approved mitigation bank servicing the Clovis General Plan Update Area;  Payment of in-lieu fees.

GP EIR MM 4-4 Jurisdictional Wetlands. The City shall require applicants of development projects that have the potential to affect jurisdictional resources, to contract with a qualified biologist to conduct a jurisdictional delineation following the methods outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual to map the extent of wetlands and nonwetland waters, determine jurisdiction, and assess potential impacts. The results of the delineation shall be presented in a wetland delineation letter report and shall be incorporated into the CEQA document(s) required for approval and permitting of the proposed development project.

Applicants of development projects that have the potential to impact jurisdictional features shall obtain permits and authorizations from the US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The agency authorization would include impact avoidance and minimization measures as well as mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts. Specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be determined through discussions with the regulatory agencies during the proposed development project permitting process and may include monetary contributions to a mitigation bank or habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement.

Less than significant with mitigation
measures.

Impact BIO-2. There would be no substantial
effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities.

None No impact
Impact BIO-3. There would be no substantial
effect on wetlands.

None No impact
Impact BIO-4. There would be no impact on
wildlife movement.

None No impact

Page 51 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-5. The project would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances.

None No impact
Impact BIO-6. The project would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plans, natural community
conservation plan, or other state or local
conservation plan.

None No impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development facilitated by the
project could impact known and previously
unidentified historical resources. Impacts to
historical resources would be significant and
unavoidable.

CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources. A historical resources evaluation shall be prepared prior to demolition or alteration for properties listed in Table 4.4-4 to evaluate existing structures on site. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify potential historical resources within the proposed rezone site. Properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. Evaluated properties shall be documented on applicable Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report must be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. The final report must be submitted to the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center. If the property is already a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.

CUL-2 Treatment of Historical Resources. If a project would occur on a site containing a historical resource as identified during implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts must be mitigated, to the extent feasible, to historical resources identified within a proposed development site. Application of mitigation shall be overseen by an architectural historian, historian, and/or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., avoidance).

Mitigation may include avoidance, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of the resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources.2 A report identifying and specifying the project description, treatment of character-defining features, and compliance with the Standards must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits.

If historical resources are identified and compliance with the Standards and/or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken as determined by a PQS historian, architectural historian, and/or historic architect and the City. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, reports similar to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), interpretive signage, and relocation. The mitigation shall be completed and submitted to the City prior to issuance of permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Significant and unavoidable.

Impact CUL-2. Development facilitated by the
proposed project could adversely affect identified
and previously unidentified archaeological
resources. However, this impact would be less
than significant with mitigation.

CUL-3 Archaeological Resources Study. For future projects involving ground disturbance on any of the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Phase I archaeological resources assessment under the supervision of an archaeologist meeting the PQS in archaeology (National Park Service 1983). Assessments must include a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search at the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center, Sacred Lands File search maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, and intensive-level pedestrian survey, and archaeological sensitivity analysis. The assessment must be completed prior to project approval.

If the Phase I archaeological resources assessment identifies resources that may be affected by the project, an extended Phase I testing program, Phase II testing and evaluation, and/or archaeological monitoring may be required, as determined by the qualified archaeologist. If resources are determined significant or unique, avoidance or preservation-in-place may reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program and curations, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist and City. The City will review and approve reports and ensure that mitigation measures are implemented as appropriate prior to or during construction.

CUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Less than significant with
mitigation.
2 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15126.4(b)(1). (2025). Consideration and discussion of mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects. Accessible at: https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-6/chapter-3/article-9/section-15126-4/

Page 52 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact CUL-3. There are no ground-disturbing
activities associated with the project that could
result in damage to or destruction of human
burials. However, future development facilitated
by the project would be required to adhere to
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
PRC Section 5097.98. This impact would be less
than significant.

None Less than significant
Energy
Impact E-1. Future development facilitated by the
project would consume energy, but more
efficiently than with current zoning due to the
higher density of development, and would not
result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources. This impact
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact E-2. The project does not conflict with any
state or local plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency. This impact would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. The proposed project could
potentially generate GHG emissions that may have
a significant impact on the environment. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM)
GHG-1, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.

GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions. Development on the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites shall be encouraged to not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing; shall achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

Significant and unavoidable
Impact GHG-2. The proposed project conflicts with
the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan. There are no local
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions that would
apply to the project. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable even with
implementation of MM GHG-1.

MM GHG-1 Significant and unavoidable
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. The proposed Infill Rezone Program
project would facilitate new residential
development that may involve routine
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials in Clovis near residential land uses.

Nonetheless, required compliance with applicable
regulations related to hazardous materials and
compliance with General Plan policies would
minimize the risk of release and exposure to these
materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HAZ-2. The proposed project would not
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant

Page 53 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact HAZ-3. Implementation of the proposed
project would accommodate development on or
near hazardous materials sites. However,
compliance with applicable regulations and
standard conditions of approval requiring site
characterization and cleanup would minimize
hazards from development on contaminated sites.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HAZ-4. The proposed project would not
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise related
to airport operation for people residing or working
in the project area. Mitigation would not be
required, and this impact would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HAZ-5. The proposed project would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Mitigation would not
be required, and the impact would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HAZ-6. The proposed project would not
expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None Less than significant
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Development facilitated by the
project would not violate water quality standards
or Waste Discharge Requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HYD-2. Development facilitated by the
project would not interfere substantially with
groundwater supplies or recharge such that the
project may impede water quality control plan
sustainable groundwater management of local
groundwater basins. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant
Impact HYD-3. Development under the project
would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of future development sites, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding or exceed the capacity of stormwater
drainage systems. Impacts related to drainage
patterns would be less than significant.

None Less than significant

Page 54 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact HYD-4. Development included under the
proposed Project would not place housing and
other structures within FEMA-designated Flood
Hazard Areas and tsunami zones. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The project involves implementing a
rezoning program on 20 sites, mainly in developed
areas of the city, and would not physically divide
an established community. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact LU-2. The project would not result in a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan and policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction of individual projects
carried out under the proposed project would
temporarily increase noise levels, potentially
affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

Development carried out under the proposed
project would also introduce new noise sources
and contribute to increases in operational noise.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI1 would reduce construction noise levels; however, construction noise impacts would be
significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.

Operational noise would need to conform to
existing City requirements and therefore
operational impacts would be less than significant.

NOI-1 Measures to Reduce Construction Noise. To minimize noise during construction, the City of Clovis shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures for construction activities conducted within the City for the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Clovis Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits.  Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.  Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.
 Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.  Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receivers, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater) and there are sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the construction site. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least one pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class 32 or higher.

Significant and unavoidable for
construction.

Less than significant for operation
and traffic noise.

Page 55 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact NOI-2. Construction of individual
development facilitated by the project could
temporarily generate groundborne vibration,
potentially affecting adjacent sensitive land uses.

Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.

MM NOI-1
NOI-2 Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring any of the following activities, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these construction activities.  Pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources  Pile driving during construction within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings)  Pile driving during construction within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)  Use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure  Use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The groundborne noise and vibration analysis shall include measures to ensure that vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to verify FTA vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Less than significant with mitigation
measures for construction.

Less than significant for operations.

Impact NOI-3. Development facilitated by the
project would be located outside of noise contours
associated with nearby airports. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None Less than significant
Population and Housing
Impact POP-1. Implementation of the proposed
project would facilitate development of an
assumed 1,303 additional housing units in the city
and add an estimated 3,662 residents. Growth
resulting from the project would be anticipated
and would not involve unplanned population
growth. This impact would be less than significant.

None Less than significant.

Impact POP-2. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in the displacement of
substantial numbers of people or housing. The
proposed project would facilitate the development
of new housing at higher densities. This impact
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PSR-1. Future development facilitated by
the project would result in an increase of
population and building capacity within Clovis. This
would increase demand for fire protection
services, which could result in the need for new or
expanded fire protection facilities. Nonetheless,
this impact would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact PSR-2. Development facilitated by the
project would increase the population in the City,
which would increase demand for police
protection services. However, this increase would
not require additional and/or expanded police
protection facilities. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant

Page 56 of 942 ends

Executive Summary
Environmental Assessment ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact PSR-3. Development accommodated by
the project would result in an increase in student
enrollment in Clovis but would not result in new
schools beyond what is planned or result in
substantial adverse physical impacts. Impacts
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact PSR-4. Development under the project
would incrementally increase the City population
and increase the use of existing public facilities,
such as libraries. Impacts related to the provision
of new or physically altered public facilities would
be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact PSR-5. Development under the project
would incrementally increase the City’s
population, increase the use of existing parks and
recreational facilities, and reduce the City’s
parkland to population ratio. However, impacts
related to the physical deterioration of parkland or
recreational facilities, and the need to construct
new facilities would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Transportation
Impact T-1. The project would not conflict with
adopted plans or policies addressing the
circulation system, including roadway, transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact T-2. Implementation of the project would
contribute to VMT per capita increasing above the
regional impact threshold. With mitigation,
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

T-2a Street Network. For individual development projects within the Infill Rezone Program that will include an internal street network, provide a well-connected street network, particularly for nonmotorized connections. Characteristics of street network connectivity include short block lengths, numerous three and four-way intersections, and minimal dead-ends (cul-de-sacs). Street connectivity helps to facilitate shorter vehicle trips and greater numbers of walk and bike trips and thus a reduction in VMT. The CAPCOA Handbook3 Measure T-17 uses increased vehicle intersection density as a proxy for street connectivity improvements. The CAPCOA Handbook estimates that VMT can be reduced up to 30 percent if a development provides a street grid that has much greater density (up to about three times) of streets and street intersections than the average American street grid density of 36 street intersections per square mile.

T-2b Bicycle Network. For individual development projects within the Infill Rezone Program, contribute to increasing the length of the area bicycle network, including separated trails available to bicycles as well as on-street bike lanes. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-20 estimates that a 20 percent increase in bike network mileage could reduce citywide VMT by 0.01 percent. The total daily VMT generated in Clovis is approximately 4,285,900, so this increase in bike network would reduce daily VMT by approximately 430. Note that these VMT reductions would occur citywide and would not exclusively affect project trips.

T-2c Transit Service. For individual development projects within the Infill Rezone Program, contribute to implementation of expanded transit service in Clovis, including potentially extending service to the project areas. Implementation of expanded transit service would require both capital expenditures for support facilities, including construction of transit stops and facilitating extensions of future transit routes. The CAPCOA Handbook Measure T-25 estimates that a 25 percent increase in transit service hours could reduce citywide VMT by 0.3 percent. The total daily VMT generated in Clovis is approximately 4,285,900, so the expanded transit network would reduce daily VMT by approximately 12,850. Note that these VMT reductions would occur citywide and would not exclusively affect project trips.

Significant and unavoidable
Impact T-3. Development associated with the
project would not increase hazards due to
geometric design and incompatible uses. Through
compliance with applicable regulations, impacts
would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
3 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, December, 2021. Accessible at: https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf

Page 57 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact T-4. Development associated with the
project would not result in inadequate emergency
access. Through compliance with City
development standards, impacts would be less
than significant.

None Less than significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. No known TCRs have been
identified within the Infill Rezone Program sites.

However, the project may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a previously
unknown or unidentified TCR due to ground
disturbance during project construction activities.

Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.

TCR-1 Inadvertent Discoveries During Construction. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during grading or construction, all earth disturbing work within a 50- foot radius of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find; an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted; and mitigation measures are put in place for the disposition and protection of any find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource (TCR) and thus significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s) prior to continuation of any earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for TCRs include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery through capping in place, excavation and removal of the resource, interpretive displays, sensitive area signage, or other mutually agreed upon measures.

Less than significant with mitigation
incorporated
Utilities
Impact UTIL-1. Development facilitated by the
Project may require the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas,
and telecommunications facilities in Clovis. While
new connections to existing utility service systems
would be required, such connections would not
result in disturbance beyond individual
development sites and adjacent infrastructure
corridors. Impacts would be less than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact UTIL-2. Development facilitated by the
Infill Rezone Program would place increased
demand on water supply in normal and drought
years. While projections considered in the UWMP
are slightly less than those afforded by
implementation of the Infill Rezone Program,
sufficient water supply exists to serve the
population due to conservation efforts during
multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant
Impact UTIL-3. Development facilitated the Infill
Rezone Program would not require the relocation
or construction of new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities in Clovis. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None Less than significant
Impact UTIL-4. Development facilitated by the
Infill Rezone Program would not generate solid
waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. The
project would not impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals and would comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than
significant.

None Less than significant

Page 58 of 942 ends

Introduction
Environmental Assessment 1-1
Introduction
This section discusses (1) the project and Environmental Assessment (EA) background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EA; (3) the scope and content of the EA; (4) issue areas found not to be significant; (5) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (6) the environmental review process required under Government Code (GC) § 65759 in lieu of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EA has been prepared in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for familiarity purposes and to assist the reader. The EA provides public agency decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects and identifies feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects. The proposed project is described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description.

1.1 Environmental Assessment Purpose
The proposed project requires discretionary approval by the City of Clovis City Council. Therefore, the proposed project would ordinarily be subject to the regular environmental review requirements of CEQA. However, due to a judgment entered by the Fresno County Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024 (Judgment), environmental review is being completed under the terms of the Judgment and GC § 65759. Under GC § 65759, CEQA does not apply to discretionary actions necessary to bring the Housing Element and other relevant mandatory elements of the General Plan into compliance with State Law pursuant to a court order or judgment.

The proposed project, as detailed in Chapter 2, Project Description is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with State Law pursuant to the Judgment. GC § 65759 does, however, require that a specialized initial study, and when appropriate, a specialized environmental assessment, be prepared.

For guidance on preparing the Initial Study and EA, the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14) are instructive. In accordance with § 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EA is to serve as an informational document that:
“...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
This EA has been prepared in a form similar to that of a draft program EIR pursuant to § 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program. As stated in § 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines:
“An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.”
As noted above, this EA is to serve as an informational document for the public, City of Clovis decision makers and the Court. The process will include public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider certification of a Final EA and approval of the project.

Page 59 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
1-2

1.2 Environmental Assessment Authority
This EA has been prepared by the City as Lead Agency, in conformance with the provisions of GC § 65759, and in substantial conformance with the criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 § 15000 et seq.), as applicable to the preparation of an EA under GC § 65759.

Lead Agency and Contact
CEQA Guidelines § 15367 defines a Lead Agency as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” As Lead Agency, the City conducted a preliminary review of the proposed project and determined that an EA in the form of a Draft EIR was appropriate. This EA’s analysis and findings reflect the City’s independent and impartial conclusions.

Contact information for the City, is as follows:

McKencie Perez, MPA, Deputy City Planner
City of Clovis
Planning and Development Services Department
1033 Fifth Street
Clovis, California 93612
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed actions, certain Responsible and Trustee Agencies will either approve the proposed project or have jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15381 defines a Responsible Agency as a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project.” CEQA Guidelines § 15386 defines a Trustee Agency as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.”
Responsible/Trustee Agencies for the proposed project include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

1.3 Environmental Type, Scope, and Organization
Environmental Assessment Type
The EA was prepared using pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Chapter 7, References.

The alternatives chapter of the EA (Chapter 6) was prepared in accordance with § 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the proposed project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives chapter identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the project.

Page 60 of 942 ends

Introduction
Environmental Assessment 1-3
The level of detail contained throughout this EA is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The CEQA Guidelines state:

An EIR [in this case a specialized EA] should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

Environmental Assessment Organization and Content
This EA is organized in substantial conformance with the most recent State CEQA Guidelines for EIRs.

The following summarizes this EA’s organization and content:
 Executive Summary contains a summary of the proposed project and its consequences. Each significant effect is identified, along with the proposed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce that effect. Alternatives capable of reducing or avoiding the project’s effects are identified. The known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved are also identified.  Chapter 1.0 Introduction contains an overview of the EA’s legal authority, purpose, and intended uses, as well as its scope and organization.
 Chapter 2.0 Project Description contains the following: proposed project history and background; a statement of the project’s objectives; a general description of the project’s technical and environmental characteristics; the discretionary actions required to fully adopt and implement the project; and a statement of the intended uses of the EA related to future development projects.
 Chapter 3.0 Environmental Setting describes the proposed project’s regional and local setting including its locational context; existing physical characteristics and land use; available public infrastructure and services; and relationship to other relevant plans. The precise locations and boundaries of the project (i.e., Infill Rezone Program sites) are presented on detailed maps, in regional and local contexts.
 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis contains an evaluation of the environmental issues listed below. Each issue evaluation includes a description of the existing environmental setting, existing regulatory setting, potential project impacts, mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen significant effects, and significant unavoidable impacts (if any).  Aesthetics
 Agriculture and Forestry
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Recreation
 Transportation and Traffic
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire

Page 61 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
1-4
 Chapter 5.0 Other CEQA Required Discussions discusses the long-term implications of the proposed action, including any significant environmental effects and irreversible environmental changes which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.  Chapter 6.0 Alternatives describes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, and to the project’s location, which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant effects and evaluates the alternatives’ comparative merits. The environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives considered is identified. Additionally, a summary and tabular comparison of the proposed project and the alternatives is also provided.  Chapter 7.0 References includes a complete list of documents referenced throughout this EA.

Technical Appendices
The technical appendices used as a basis for much of the environmental analysis in this EA have been summarized in the respective sections and are printed separately as part of the EA Appendices. The technical appendices are available for review at the City of Clovis Planning and Development Services Department, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California 93612.

Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15150, an EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document, which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language is considered set forth in full as part of an EIR. Since this EA substantially conforms to the required content for an EIR, this EA incorporates by reference the most recent comprehensive update to the City General Plan which occurred in 20141 and has referenced various technical studies and reports prepared in support of the General Plan, as well as those prepared in support of this EA. Also, information from these documents was summarized in this EA. The relationship between the incorporated information and this EA has also been described. These documents are included in Chapter 7.0, References, and are hereby incorporated by reference. They are also available for review at the City of Clovis Planning and Development Services Department, 1033 Fifth Street, Clovis, California 93612.

1.4 Environmental Assessment Intended Use and
Process
Environmental Assessment Intended Use
This EA is intended to be used by the City, as Lead Agency, in evaluating the proposed project and related amendments. Additionally, as an EA that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR, this document is intended to be used by the City when acting on subsequent applications for development on the Infill Rezone Program sites, to ensure compliance with the City of Clovis General Plan, Clovis Municipal Code, and mitigation framework; see Subsequent Environmental Review, below.
1 The City of Clovis adopted the first City General Plan in 1963 and subsequent updates occurred in 1974, 1993, and 2014. As of June 2024, the City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan and has published a new General Plan Land Use Map dated October 2023.

Page 62 of 942 ends

Introduction
Environmental Assessment 1-5
Environmental Assessment Process
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed actions, preparation of an “environmental assessment” that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR is required, if any of the proposed actions would have a significant effect on the environment (GC § 65759(a)). This document constitutes the required “environmental assessment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into this document and become part of the General Plan. The City will consider all information included in the EA when acting on the project to redesignate sites to High or Very High Density Residential. Once adopted by the City, the EA will be incorporated into the General Plan.

Notice of Availability of the EA and any associated public hearings will be provided to interested agencies and the public as required or otherwise requested by the City Council.

Subsequent Environmental Review
As allowed by the CEQA Guidelines, the City will review future development under the proposed project considering this EA. CEQA Guidelines § 15168, allows a program EIR to serve as the basis for environmental review of subsequent projects. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15182 and 15183 provide additional exemptions for projects proposed in accordance with an adopted specific plan, or consistent with an adopted community plan, general plan, or zoning.

If any future projects on the identified Infill Rezone Program sites are not eligible for “by right” approval or another CEQA exemption, and have potentially significant adverse environmental effects that were not examined in this EA, an Initial Study would be prepared for that project, leading to the preparation of either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, focused EIR, or supplement to this EA. When additional environmental documentation for a future project is necessary, this EA may be incorporated by reference to address regional context, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and other factors applicable to the program overall. Chapter 2, Project Description provides additional information concerning future project approvals and procedures.

Page 63 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
1-6
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 64 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-1
2 Project Description
The proposed project (herein referred to as the “project”) analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA) consists of the rezoning of 20 properties (Infill Rezone Program sites) from various zoning designations to the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and amending the land use designations to High Density Residential and Very High Density Residential. This includes amending the Land Use Map of the 2014 City of Clovis General Plan Land Use Element and revisions to the Zoning Map in the Title 9 Development Code of the Clovis Municipal Code.

The City of Clovis is initiating the project to comply with the terms of a court judgment entered on March 19, 2024, in Martinez v. City of Clovis, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 19CECG03855 (herein referred to as “Judgment”) related to the City’s 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements. This EA has been prepared pursuant to the Judgment issued by the court and in accordance with Government Code Section 65759. In order to comply with the Judgment and ensure adequate sites are available to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals and applicable housing element law requirements for lower income households, the rezoning of 20 infill properties is necessary to accommodate the potential housing units needed. The process is separate from the 6th Cycle Housing Element Rezone Program.

This chapter of the EA describes the key details of the project, the Infill Rezone Sites associated with the project, the additional housing unit potential as a result of the project, the objectives and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Judgment Requirements
The “Development Code Amendments” section discusses the minimum permitted density amendments to the Development Code for the R-3 District. The Development Code amendments were determined to be necessary to facilitate housing development at sufficient densities for the rezoning project, and have already been adopted. The Development Code amendments to the R-3 District are not analyzed as part of the project but are included to provide background information on the actions taken to facilitate affordable development to lower income households. The “Infill Rezone Program” section encompasses the rezoning of infill sites to the R-3 and R-4 Districts and the associated General Plan amendments required to create the capacity for 1,284 additional housing units (project) pursuant to the Judgment. The project itself proposes no physical development as further discussed below. “Rezone Project Studied in EA” describes the impacts of the project as analyzed in the subsequent sections if the 20 sites were to be developed at maximum density, or alternatively, developed at the capacity assumed under the requirements of the Judgment and applicable state housing law.

2.1.1 Development Code Amendments
For a housing element site to be considered adequate to accommodate housing for lower income households, development must be able to occur at a minimum of 20 units per acre, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2. To facilitate the goals of the rezoning project, and to complete Action Item 1 of the Judgment, the City Council amended the Development Code to increase the minimum permitted density for the R-3 District from 15.1 units per acre to 20.1 units per acre. Ordinance 24-10 was presented to City Council on June 17, 2024, and adopted on July 1,

Page 65 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-2
2024, at publicly attended hearings. The maximum allowed density in the R-3 District is 30.0 units per acre. The Clovis Development Code lists the district as appropriate for high density residential uses, including attached and detached single-family residential, multifamily apartments and condominiums. The R-3 District is consistent with the High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.

No Development Code text amendments were determined to be required for the R-4 District. The Clovis Municipal Code identifies the R-4 District as appropriate for high and very high density residential uses. The allowable density is 25.1 units to 43.0 units per acre, depending on the General Plan land use designation. The 43.0 unit per acre maximum density may be utilized for the Very High Density land use designation. The R-4 District is consistent with the High and Very High Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Transit Center land use designations of the General Plan.

2.1.2 Infill Rezone Program
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires local jurisdictions to identify sufficient housing sites to cover the jurisdiction’s RHNA. According to State law, a housing element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need and specific State statutory requirements and must reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. The City was unable to meet its 4th cycle Housing Element RHNA for lower income households. In accordance with applicable state housing law, the unmet housing units were carried over into the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element. But the City failed to fully satisfy the carried-over unmet housing units from the 4th cycle with sufficient rezoning during the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element period.

As a result, this project is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state housing law and the Judgment. The project is separate and independent from the rezone program as part of the City’s 6th cycle 2023 – 2031 Housing Element.

The project, pursuant to Action Item 4 of the Judgment, will amend the land use designation of the 20 infill sites to High or Very High Density Residential and rezone the properties to the R-3 or R-4 Districts to facilitate the development of at least 1,284 additional affordable housing dwelling units in the city. The total acreage of sites to be rezoned is approximately 54.32 acres. Of the 20 parcels, 10 parcels (17.60 acres) are fully vacant land. Figure 2-1 shows the sites to be rezoned throughout the city. Table 2-1 details the existing land use and zoning designations of each site, the vacancy status of the site, as well as the existing use of the property.

Page 66 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-3
Figure 2-1 Zone Change Sites

Page 67 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-4
Table 2-1 Rezoning Sites
Site
ID* APN Address
Size
(acres) Vacant?
Existing General
Plan Designation Existing Zone Existing Use
3 49102042 270 W Herndon Ave 8.06 No GC P-C-C 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 M 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 Vacant
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 *The sites for the Infill Rezone Program are based upon a map and Sites Analysis delivered to Martinez’s counsel on December 8, 2023, which originally identified 24 parcels with the capacity for approximately 1,284 housing units. Some parcels were agreed to be removed or replaced pursuant to the Judgment by the Facilitator and the City. The update includes 20 sites with 1,303 housing units.

Page 68 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-5

2.2 Rezone Project Studied in the Environmental
Assessment
The City has identified 20 sites that meet applicable state housing law requirements to be rezoned to meet the requirements of the Infill Rezone Program and ensure there is adequate capacity for at least 1,284 additional housing units appropriate for lower income households in the city to ring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with applicable state housing law and the Judgment. No physical development is proposed as part of the project, but the rezoning creates the capacity for affordable multifamily housing development to occur. This EA will evaluate the impacts of the project if development were to occur at the maximum densities to adequately assess all potential impacts. The alternative to development at maximum density studied in this EA for the 20 sites is the assumed development capacity in accordance with applicable state housing law and the Judgment. If the 20 sites are developed under the proposed R-3 and R-4 Districts and High and Very High Density Residential land use designations, there is an assumed capacity or density of 1,303 housing units with a maximum capacity of 1,651 housing units.

2.3 Infill Rezone Program Sites
The 20 Infill Rezone sites are dispersed throughout the city and are largely vacant or underutilized with low density residential development. 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 Judgment. Table 2-2 details the unit potential for sites at both the maximum and assumed densities.

Rezone Site 3
The site at 270 West Herndon Avenue, currently zoned P-C-C with a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. The site, which is 8.06 acres, currently hosts a single-family residence, a commercial structure, and a tree lot. The new zoning is assumed to accommodate 193 units. Site 3 is shown in Figure 2-2.

Rezone Site 63
Located at 1933 Alluvial Avenue, this 3.78-acre site is currently zoned R-1-7500 with a General Plan 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 site currently has an existing residence and is assumed to accommodate 91 units under the new zoning. Site 63 is shown in Figure 2-4.

Rezone Site 72
Currently zoned R-1-7500, the site at 437 West Nees Avenue is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. This 3.19-acre site, which currently hosts an existing single-family residence, is assumed to accommodate 77 units under the new zoning. Site 72 is shown in Figure 2-6.

Page 69 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-6
Rezone Site 108
Located at 125 & 135 North Clovis Avenue, this 1.25-acre site is currently zoned C-2 with a General Plan 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. The site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 30 units under the new zoning. Site 108 is shown in Figure 2-8.

Rezone Site 110
The site at 236 & 256 West Santa Ana Avenue, currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, 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. Site 110 is shown in Figure 2-10.

Rezone Site 115 and Site 590
Site 115 at 1671 Leonard Avenue is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and 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.

Site 590 is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The site at 3959 Shaw Ave is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. This 3.02-acre site currently hosts a single-family residence.

The site is assumed to accommodate 72 units. Site 115 and Site 590 are shown in Figure 2-12.

Rezone Site 157 and Site 197
Site 157 at De Wolf and Richmond Avenue, 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 as a result of the project.

Site 197, currently zoned R-1-AH with a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential, at 1497 North Locan Avenue, is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. This 4.5-acre site currently hosts an existing rural residence and is assumed to accommodate 108 units under the new zoning.

Site 157 and Site 197 are shown in Figure 2-15.

Rezone Site 161
Located at 2930 Willow Avenue, Site 161 is a 1.67-acre site currently zoned C-P with a General Plan land use designation of Office. It is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. The site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 40 units under the new zoning. Site 161 is shown in Figure 2-18.

Rezone Site 167 and Site 168
Site 167, at 1871 Shaw Avenue, is currently zoned C-P with a General Plan land use designation of Office, and 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 70 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-7
Site 168 is a 1.3-acre site located at 1853 Shaw Avenue. The site is currently zoned C-P with a General Plan land use designation of Office and is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. It is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 31 units under the new zoning.

Site 167 and Site 168 are shown in Figure 2-20.

Rezone Site 217
Located at 885 Gettysburg Avenue, this 4.0-acre site is currently zoned M-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Industrial. Approximately 1.8 acres of the site is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. The site currently hosts Clovis Academy of Gymnastics & Dance and is assumed to accommodate 43 units. Site 217 is shown in Figure 2-23.

Rezone Site 589
The site at 2403 Bullard Avenue, currently zoned R-A with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. This 8.01-acre site currently hosts the former Rogers Helicopter and is assumed to accommodate 192 units under the new zoning. Site 589 is shown in Figure 2-25.

Rezone Site 592
Located at 1160 North Fowler Avenue, this 2.09-acre site is currently zoned R-A with a General Plan 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 site currently hosts an existing rural residence and is assumed to accommodate 50 units as a result of the project. Site 592 is shown in Figure 2-27.

Rezone Site 595, Site 596 and Site 597
Currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, Site 595 at 939 & 947 Sunnyside Avenue, is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 and redesignated to Very High Density Residential. The site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 10 units.

Site 596 at 965 & 975 Sunnyside Avenue, is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, and is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 with a new land use designation of Very High Density Residential. The site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 18 units under the new zoning.

Site 597, at 925 Sunnyside, is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, and is proposed to be rezoned to R-4 with a new land use designation of Very High Density Residential. The site is currently vacant and is assumed to accommodate 10 units as a result of the project.

Site 595, Site 596 and Site 597 currently all belong to the same property owner and are shown in Figure 2-29. The total acreage of the parcels is 1.54 acres (0.41 acres for Site 595, 0.72 acres for Site 596 and 0.41 acres for Site 597) and assumed to accommodate a total of 38 units.

Page 71 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-8
Rezone Site 598 and Site 599
Site 598 is a 1.09-acre site with an existing residence located at 2560 Fowler Avenue. The site is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 with a new land use designation of High Density Residential. The site is assumed to accommodate 26 housing units.

Site 599, at 2612 Fowler Avenue, is currently zoned R-1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, and is proposed to be rezoned to R-3 and High Density Residential. This

1.18-acre site has an existing residence and is assumed to accommodate 28 units under the new zoning.

Site 598 and Site 599 are shown in Figure 2-33.

Figure 2-2 Infill Rezone Program Site 3 Site Map

Page 72 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-9
Figure 2-3 Infill Rezone Program Site 3 Site Photograph Figure 2-4 Infill Rezone Program Site 63 Site Map

Page 73 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-10
Figure 2-5 Infill Rezone Program Site 63 Site Photograph Figure 2-6 Infill Rezone Program Site 72 Site Map

Page 74 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-11
Figure 2-7 Infill Rezone Program Site 72 Site Photograph Figure 2-8 Infill Rezone Program Site 108 Site Map

Page 75 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-12
Figure 2-9 Infill Rezone Program Site 108 Site Photograph Figure 2-10 Infill Rezone Program Site 110 Site Map

Page 76 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-13
Figure 2-11 Infill Rezone Program Site 110 Site Photograph Figure 2-12 Infill Rezone Program Sites 115 and 590 Site Map

Page 77 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-14
Figure 2-13 Infill Rezone Program Site 115 Site Photograph Figure 2-14 Infill Rezone Program Site 590 Site Photograph

Page 78 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-15
Figure 2-15 Infill Rezone Program Sites 157 and 197 Site Map Figure 2-16 Infill Rezone Program Site 157 Site Photograph

Page 79 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-16
Figure 2-17 Infill Rezone Site Program 197 Site Photograph Figure 2-18 Infill Rezone Program Site 161 Site Map

Page 80 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-17
Figure 2-19 Infill Rezone Program Site 161 Site Photograph Figure 2-20 Infill Rezone Program Sites 167 and 168 Site Map

Page 81 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-18
Figure 2-21 Infill Rezone Program Site 167 Site Photograph Figure 2-22 Infill Rezone Program Site 168 Site Photograph

Page 82 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-19
Figure 2-23 Infill Rezone Program Site 217 Site Map
Figure 2-24 Infill Rezone Program Site 217 Site Photograph

Page 83 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-20
Figure 2-25 Infill Rezone Program Site 589 Site Map
Figure 2-26 Infill Rezone Program Site 589 Site Photograph

Page 84 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-21
Figure 2-27 Infill Rezone Program Site 592 Site Map
Figure 2-28 Infill Rezone Program Site 592 Site Photograph

Page 85 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-22
Figure 2-29 Infill Rezone Program Sites 595, 596, and 597 Site Map Figure 2-30 Infill Rezone Program Site 595 Site Photograph

Page 86 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-23
Figure 2-31 Infill Rezone Program Site 596 Site Photograph Figure 2-32 Infill Rezone Program Site 597 Site Photograph

Page 87 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-24
Figure 2-33 Infill Rezone Program Sites 598 and 599 Site Map Figure 2-34 Infill Rezone Program Site 598 Site Photograph

Page 88 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-25
Figure 2-35 Infill Rezone Program Site 599 Site Photograph

2.3.1 Development Potential
With the High and Very High Density Residential General Plan land use designations, the Infill Rezone Sites could be developed at a maximum density of 30 to 43 units per acre, respectively. If developed at the maximum density, the 20 sites could accommodate a total of 1,651 housing units with the proposed zoning. In order to fulfill Action Item 4 of the Judgment, and as required by applicable housing element law, the assumed development density for the R-3 zoned sites is 24.0 units per acre and the assumed development density for the R-4 zoned sites is 25.1 units per acre.

Table 2-2 shows the unit potential by site. In total, the rezoned sites would conservatively facilitate the development of 1,303 housing units, with a 19 unit surplus over the required number of 1,284 units required by the Judgment.

Page 89 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-26
Table 2-2 Summary of Units by Rezoning Site
Site
ID* APN
Existing Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use Designation Existing Zone Proposed Zone
Size
(acres)
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Density
Assumption
(du/ac)
Assumed
Units
3 49102042 GC H P-C-C R-3 8.06 30 242 24 193
63 56303207 L H R-1-7500 R-3 3.78 30 113 24 91
72 56008207 L H R-1-7500 R-3 3.19 30 96 24 77
108 49123124 GC H C-2 R-3 1.25 30 38 24 30
110 49906074 M H R-1 R-3 1.25 30 38 24 30
115 55457044S M H R-1 R-3 2.31 30 69 24 55
157 55803359S MU-V H P-C-C R-3 7.24 30 217 24 174
161 43043316 O H C-P R-3 1.67 30 50 24 40
167 55128004 O H C-P R-3 1.04 30 31 24 25
168 55128003 O H C-P R-3 1.3 30 39 24 31
197 55849230 VL H R-1-AH R-3 4.5 30 135 24 108
217 49954013ST I H M-1 R-3 1.8 30 54 24 43
589 55026023 L H R-A R-3 8.01 30 240 24 192
590 55458036s M H R-1 R-3 3.02 30 91 24 72
592 56303131 L H R-A R-3 2.09 30 63 24 50
595 49817202 L VH R-1 R-4 0.41 43 18 25.1 10
596 49817201 L VH R-1 R-4 0.72 43 31 25.1 18
597 49817203 L VH R-1 R-4 0.41 43 18 25.1 10
598 49938442 L H R-1 R-3 1.09 30 33 24 26
599 49938441 L H R-1 R-3 1.18 30 35 24 28
Total 54.32 1,651 1,303

Page 90 of 942 ends

Project Description
Environmental Assessment 2-27

2.4 Project Objectives
The project includes the following objectives:
 Ensure compliance with the Judgment issued by the Fresno County Superior Court on March 19, 2024, in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case, by implementing Action Item 4: Infill Rezone Program.
 Provide capacity to meet the State-required RHNA carryover for lower income households related to the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Element.
 Ensure that housing development that is affordable to lower income households is achievable, through associated amendments to the Zoning Map of the Development Code.  Disperse housing sites throughout the City of Clovis (City) to ensure that no single neighborhood or area is overburdened or impacted.
 Encourage the development of additional housing and increase the overall availability of affordable housing by ensuring that development can occur at adequate densities by amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

2.5 Project Implementation
Although there is no physical development proposed as part of the project, completing the rezoning through Zoning Map and General Plan amendments for 20 sites would provide land available for housing development to occur at densities appropriate to fulfil the City’s RHNA carryover and to comply with the terms of the Judgment. The rezoning of 20 infill sites to R-3 and R-4 and land use amendments to High and Very High Density Residential would create the capacity of a maximum of 1,651 additional housing units and comply with the requirements of the Judgment by facilitating the development of at least 1,284 additional housing units. For the 20 sites identified as part of the project, 1,303 housing units would be achievable at the assumed densities, which would surpass the requirement by 19 units.

2.6 Required Approvals
With recommendations from the City’s Planning Commission, the City Council would need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the proposed plan:
 Adoption of changes to the Land Use Map in the Land Use Element of the General Plan  Approval of amendments to the City’s Zoning Map of Title 9 Development Code of the Clovis Municipal Code

2.7 California Native American Tribal Consultation
The City of Clovis contacted California Native American Tribal governments by distributing Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 notification letters via certified mail on March 26, 2025, to tribes with an affiliation with the project area based on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and request formal consultation. Under SB 18, Native American tribes have 90 days to respond to request consultation. The City received two responses, one from the

Page 91 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
2-28
Traditional Choinumni Tribe and the other from the Table Mountain Rancheria. Both tribes indicated they would like to be notified if cultural resources were identified, but did not request a formal consultation under AB 52 or SB 18. Therefore, no California Native American Tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.

Page 92 of 942 ends

Environmental Setting
Environmental Assessment 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This chapter provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The City of Clovis (City) is located in the San Joaquin Valley in the central portion of Fresno County bordering the City of Fresno to the east. Clovis is in the northeast portion of the Fresno Metropolitan Area and is one of two incorporated cities making up the majority of the metropolitan area. The City is surrounded by portions of unincorporated Fresno County to the north, east, and south and by the City of Fresno to the west and southwest. The City, its sphere of influence (SOI), and specific areas beyond the City and its SOI (non-SOI Plan Area) are defined and referred to herein as the project area. The project occurs within the existing City limits. The total SOI encompasses 22,903 acres (approximately 35 square miles). The City’s regional location is shown in Figure 3-1.

3.2 Natural Environment
The City is in the San Joaquin Valley; the foothills of the Sierra Nevada begin several miles east of the city limits. The terrain in the eastern and northeastern parts of the Plan Area is cut by numerous gullies and small canyons. The San Joaquin Valley is one of two valleys comprising the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, an alluvial plain approximately 400 miles long and 50 miles wide. The majority of the area within the current City boundary is urbanized; however, other portions of the SOI and the rural areas outside the City and its SOI contain undeveloped grasslands and hillsides.

Natural biotic habitats, though not extensive within the City, are represented by remnant grasslands potentially supporting populations of state- and federal-listed species.

Although rapid urban expansion over the past few decades has resulted in significant loss of farmland in the City, some farms remain. The Clovis region can experience cyclical severe drought conditions. Agricultural irrigation water in the Fresno – Clovis region is obtained from two sources:
surface water from the San Joaquin and Kings rivers; and local groundwater from the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. The planning area is in two hydrologic areas: the part of the project area southeast of the Friant-Kern Canal is in the Fresno Hydrologic Area, and the remainder of the project area is in the Academy Hydrologic Area. The City is within the drainages of three streams:
from north to south, Dry Creek, Dog Creek, and Redbank Slough.

Page 93 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
3-2
Figure 3-1 Regional Location

Page 94 of 942 ends

Environmental Setting
Environmental Assessment 3-3

3.3 Planning Context
At the local level, the project area is generally bounded by East Sheperd Avenue on the north, Willow Avenue on the west, North McCall Avenue on the east, and Shields Avenue on the south.

State Route 168 (SR-168) bisects the City from the southwest to the northeast. The majority of the City is urbanized, with residential and nonresidential development, mobility, and public facilities all contributing to Clovis’s existing built environment. The City’s incorporated boundaries encompass approximately 18,066 acres (28 square miles) and residential land uses occupy almost half of the land within the current City boundaries. Other major land uses include agriculture, commercial, industrial, office, public/park, and utilities. The majority of the commercial uses are generally concentrated along Shaw, Herndon, and Clovis Avenues. All of the potential Infill Rezone Program sites are located within city limits.

3.3.1 Land Use/Zoning Designations
The project area offers opportunities for employment and sustainable quality neighborhoods in all three growth areas along major transportation corridors. The City’s land use and zoning maps identify the various uses throughout the City, including residential, commercial, industrial, office, and public facilities. The largest zoning designation within the City boundary is Single-Family Residential, with commercially zoned areas the second largest.

3.3.2 Rezoning Sites Setting
The identified Infill Rezone Program sites are all located within the existing City limits and are largely vacant or are developed with low density uses. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, some of the sites contain existing single-family residences, this includes Site 3, Site 63, Site 72, Site 197, Site 590, Site 592, Site 598, and Site 599. Site 3 also contains an existing sports facility and seasonal tree lot, Site 217 contains an existing commercial business, the Clovis Academy of Gymnastics and Dance, and Site 589 is the site of the former Rogers Helicopters.

3.4 Cumulative Impact Setting
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental impact reports (EIRs) to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project, as this Environmental Assessment (EA) acts as a draft EIR, this document will follow that requirement. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EA to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential. Since the Infill Rezone Program involves the rezoning of 20 properties throughout the city, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than they would be for a specific development. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction relative to cumulative impact analysis:

Page 95 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
3-4
Impacts should be based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

Because the proposed project is essentially a set of guidelines for projects that could occur within the timeframe of the project, the project itself represents the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the area of the project. Cumulative effects would occur from development associated with buildout of the Infill Rezone Program sites combined with effects of development on land within and around the City and region through the horizon year of the City General Plan. This EA generally relies on the 2014 PEIR cumulative assumptions for growth forecasted in the 2014 City of Clovis General Plan and Development Code Update, and the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainability Communities Strategy (RTP\SCS) Program EIR. A broad examination of cumulative impacts involves considering buildout of the project together with growth and new development in these surrounding jurisdictions. For example, growth within the City and adjacent jurisdictions would result in increased traffic on area roadways and regional facilities.

The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends upon the topic that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative effect. Each section in Chapter 4, Sections 4.1 through

4.16, contain subsections that identify the specific parameters for the cumulative evaluation. Fresno COG estimates anticipated growth for Fresno County’s cities and unincorporated areas for allocating growth to specific areas and identifying regional transportation infrastructure needed to support regional growth. The land uses and associated potential development that would result from buildout of the Infill Rezone Program sites generally correlate to Fresno COG’s 2050 regional growth forecasts.

A significant impact would occur if the project’s contribution to the cumulative effect is determined to be significant. Sections 4.1 through 4.16 each provides a subsection with an overview of the potential cumulative impacts that could occur followed by a summary of the project’s potential contribution to that cumulative effect. The subsection concludes with a determination of the significance of the project.

Page 96 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Environmental Assessment 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis

As discussed in detail in Chapter 1, Introduction, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to bring the City of Clovis’ (City) general plan or relevant mandatory elements of the plan into compliance with any court order or judgment; provided the City prepares an initial study, and if necessary, an environmental assessment (EA) as required by Government Code (GC) section 65759. The Infill Rezone Program is necessary to bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with the judgment entered by the Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024. Therefore, CEQA does not apply to the proposed discretionary actions detailed in Chapter 2, Project Description (i.e., the Project). However, preparation of an “EA” that substantially conforms to the required content for a draft environmental impact report (EIR) is required (GC § 65759(a)). Therefore, this document constitutes the required “EA” and conforms to the required content for a draft EIR as described in CEQA Guidelines, Article 9 (California Code of Regulations (CCR)., Title 14, § 15120 et seq.).

Organization and Content
This EA addresses in detail the “potentially significant impacts” concerning the environmental issue areas under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Sections 4.1 through 4.16 contain a detailed environmental analysis of the existing environmental setting (baseline conditions), existing regulatory setting, project impacts (i.e., direct and indirect, short-term construction and long-term operational), relevant General Plan Policies, recommended mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable impacts. Cumulative impacts analysis can be found in each environmental issue section.

Each potentially significant environmental issue area is organized into the following subsections:

1. Setting describes the physical environmental conditions in the proposed project vicinity that could influence or affect the issue under investigation, as they exist at the time environmental analysis was commenced, from both a local and regional perspective.

2. Regulatory Setting outlines and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards applicable to the project.

3. Impact Analysis provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of significance and includes an “Impacts” analysis for each threshold.

The primary sources of the thresholds include:
 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria (CCR, Title 14, §§ 15000 – 15387)  Local, State, Federal and other standards applicable to an impact threshold  Officially established significance thresholds.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064(b) specifies that “...An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of any activity may vary with the setting.” Principally, “...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise,

Page 97 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program
4-2
and objects of historic and aesthetic significance” constitutes a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines section 15382).

The “Impacts” analysis for each threshold describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence, based on factual and scientific data, is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and the potential changes in the environment. All potential direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect, construction-related (short term), and operation (long-term) effects are considered. Generally, impacts are classified as no impact, less than significant impact, less than significant impact with mitigation, or potentially significant impact.

This EA uses the following terminology to describe the project’s environmental impacts:
 No Impact – the proposed project would not have any measurable environmental impact.  Less Than Significant Impact – the proposed project could impact the environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds of significance.  Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation – the proposed project would have the potential to generate an impact, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the Project’s physical or operational characteristics would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.  Significant Unavoidable Impacts – describes impacts that would be significant and cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level that is less than significant, and thus would be unavoidable.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact.

4. Cumulative Impacts identifies potential environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in combination with implementation of the proposed project.

The Executive Summary of this EA summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the Project.

Page 98 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Environmental Assessment 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics
This section summarizes the aesthetic resources in the City and analyzes the project’s potential impacts on aesthetics, including impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, visual quality, and light and glare, due to implementation of the project.

4.1.1 Setting
The City’s physical setting on the San Joaquin Valley floor affords scenic views of the Sierra Nevada and stretches of open space and undeveloped land in the rural parts of the City and beyond to the north and east. Poor air quality, however, often obscures views of the surrounding mountain range, especially during winter when particulates and ozone are trapped by a dense layer of hot air close to the San Joaquin Valley floor. Views of the Sierra Nevada occasionally improve in the summer months when strong winds push some pollutants to the south of the Valley. On clear visibility days, the mountains provide Clovis residents and visitors with a scenic backdrop and orienting features that physically and culturally define the community.

Visual Character
Clovis is in California’s San Joaquin Valley, and like most communities in the region, features a flat landscape organized around a mostly rectangular system of roadways. Due to its rapid growth in recent years and its proximity to the City of Fresno, Clovis has a largely suburban character. A majority of the City’s land area is devoted to low density residential neighborhoods. However, because the community has grown from a small farming town, it is still surrounded by agricultural land uses on three sides, so retains a rural atmosphere. The suburban/rural interface is most prominent on the City’s eastern, southeastern, and southern edges. In these locations, new housing subdivisions are situated between working farms and large residential estate lots of two to five acres. The project area beyond the City’s boundaries to the north and northeast is dominated by agricultural uses and undeveloped open spaces with its western boundary adjacent to the City of Fresno.

Natural Resources
The City’s greatest natural resource, though outside the City’s boundaries, is commonly considered to be the Sierra Nevada. The mountains’ foothills begin just beyond the northeast boundary of the City’s project area, and views of the mountains are visible from Clovis on clear days. The foothills extend to an elevation of 2,500 feet above sea level at the United States Forest Service (USFS) Sierra National Forest boundary. Within the Sierra National Forest, the mountains climb to a maximum elevation of 14,000 feet. The foothills and the mountains of the Sierra include forests, meadows, lakes, rivers, and wildlife scenic backdrops for the City.

There are no substantial, undeveloped natural resources within the City boundary other than grasslands in the northeast of the city, north of Shepherd Avenue and Tollhouse Road/State Route 168 (SR-168). Outside of this area there are only remnants of native habitats and vegetation communities. There are irrigation canals throughout the city that provide a scenic view of water and rural character. Other improved natural resources, such as parks and green space, offer recreational opportunities and natural landscapes to residents and visitors. This includes the botanical gardens and a network of multipurpose trails. These open spaces also provide visual buffers that break up the visual uniformity of the City’s built environment.

Page 99 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.1-2
Scenic Vistas and Corridors
According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no official state-designated scenic highways in or near the City.
1 In addition, there are no adopted scenic vistas in the City. SR168 bisects the city in a southwest to northeast direction and is considered an Eligible State Scenic Highway–Not Officially Designated.2 SR-168 offers limited views of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, most often at elevated freeway sections and interchanges.

The Clovis General Plan addresses scenic “landscape features” within its Open Space and Conservation Element. This element designates Clovis, Shaw, and Herndon Avenues as key gateways into the community and highlights their role as important visual connectors between the greater Fresno area and Old Town Clovis. It notes that “the identity of the gateways will be established through landscape design and features reflecting the historic and ‘small town’ atmosphere.” While these three corridors are extensive and include segments that lack scenic views, they serve as major arterial routes running east–west and north–south through the city’s urban core. These corridors not only facilitate physical connectivity between neighborhoods, but also contribute to visual cohesion, helping to unify the community. Additional east–west arterials—such as Shepherd, Bullard, and Ashlan Avenues—traverse the city’s suburban and rural edges and may also be considered scenic corridors under the City’s General Plan. These roads offer a visual and character transition from the nearly built-out central area of Clovis to its surrounding pastoral and agricultural landscapes to the north, east, and south.

There is one trail located within the city, Dry Creek trail, which could be considered a scenic corridor, although not officially designated in the General Plan. Access to the trail is located on the southwest corner of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues in northern Clovis and consists of approximately five miles of walking path throughout the city.

The aesthetic and community significance of the city’s central district and primary corridors is further discussed below.

Old Town Clovis
Clovis’s rural heritage is reflected in the architecture of its central district. Old Town Clovis features a mix of restored historic buildings and newer developments that honor and showcase the area’s western American, frontier-era architectural style. This distinctive character is a key element of the community’s identity. While Old Town Clovis is recognized for its small-town charm within the larger city, it has also experienced significant revitalization and redevelopment, emerging as a vibrant and welcoming historic district within a modernizing urban context. Enhancements to the area include cobblestone intersections, vintage-style streetlamps, and charming storefronts. The district also contains several notable historic landmarks such as the Tarpey Depot—the last remaining structure from the Minarets and Western Railroad—and the 1912 First State Bank Building, now home to the Clovis Museum, operated by the Clovis-Big Dry Creek Historical Society. In addition to its architectural and historical significance, Old Town Clovis serves as the primary venue for many of the city’s major community events, including Big Hat Days, the Clovis Rodeo, and ClovisFest, which attract tens of thousands of visitors from across California and beyond. 1 California State Scenic Highways. Caltrans. 2025. Accessed May 2025: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architectureand-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 2 Caltrans. 2025List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Accessed May 2025: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug2019_a11y.xlsx

Page 100 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Environmental Assessment 4.1-3
Shaw Avenue
Shaw Avenue functions as one of the primary transportation corridors within Clovis’s central business district. It serves as a major east–west route for traffic heading toward the Sierra foothills and supports a mix of neighborhood commercial, office, and residential land uses. Moving from east to west, the corridor transitions from agricultural and rural residential areas to more urbanized and developed zones, with pockets of mixed-use and commercial development interspersed throughout.

The segment of Shaw Avenue between Clovis Avenue and Temperance Avenue is regulated by the Shaw Avenue Specific Plan, adopted in 1994. This plan seeks to enhance the corridor’s livability and vibrancy as a key commercial spine, linking California State University, Fresno with older, economically disadvantaged neighborhoods to the west and Central Clovis to the east. This Specific Plan designates the corridor for land uses compatible with the existing landscaped boulevard concept, aiming to maintain a cohesive standard of design, signage, and landscaping. The plan also promotes a concentration of residential development in the eastern portion of the corridor, while reserving the western portion for commercial uses. Further west, the Shaw Avenue Corridor Plan applies to a 2.5-mile stretch between SR-168 and Clovis Avenue.

Clovis Avenue
The Clovis Avenue corridor is a heavily traveled north-south street which cuts through much of the more developed areas of Clovis on the west side of the City, considered the main street of Clovis. A portion of Clovis Avenue is governed by two specific plans, the Central Clovis Specific Plan (from Barstow Avenue to Sierra Avenue) and the Herndon-Shepherd Specific Plan (from Herndon Avenue to Shepherd Avenue). These plans supplement the General Plan by providing additional design direction and policy guidance aimed at revitalizing the corridor and strengthening its role as a connector between Old Town Clovis, the Civic Center to the south and its central business district immediately south.

In particular, the Central Clovis Specific Plan is intended to complement the revitalization efforts of Old Town by providing architectural, landscape and site design guidelines to establish a distinctive gateway and cultural center for the region. The specific plan also calls for transportation enhancements for pedestrians and bicycles along Clovis Avenue. The Central Clovis Specific Plan includes design strategies to enhance the visual quality of North Clovis Avenue, which functions as a key northern gateway into the city and its central business district.

Light and Glare
Sources of light and glare in the City include lighting from buildings (interior and exterior), security, sign illumination, and parking areas. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include streetlights and vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways. Additionally, a significant amount of ambient lighting comes from surrounding communities and roadways. Because the City is adjacent to highly urbanized portions of Fresno to the west and south, ambient light in the community is substantially impacted by land uses in Fresno. Large, light-intensive institutions and facilities near the City’s boundary include Fresno Yosemite International Airport and California State University, Fresno.

Page 101 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.1-4

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no Federal regulations regarding aesthetics that are relevant to the project. b. State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
Caltrans maintains the California Scenic Highway Program, enacted in 1963, to protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to those highways. The Caltrans Scenic Highway program allows local jurisdictions to officially designate a Scenic Highway to ensure protection of the visual resources along its corridor. Caltrans identifies highways as eligible for the program, and the local jurisdiction applies to be officially designated.

The status of a proposed State Scenic Highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for Scenic Highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway. Protection of visual resources for the designated corridor includes regulating land use and development, outdoor advertising, landscaping, and building design. SR-168 is listed as eligible for the States Scenic Highway program, however, there are currently no designated State Scenic Highways in Clovis3
.
c. Local Regulations
City of Clovis Design Guidelines
The City of Clovis maintains multiple design guidelines and standards to assist project developers/applicants and project designers in understanding the City’s goals and objectives for achieving, enhancing, and maintaining high-quality development in various areas of the City. The Clovis Old Town Design Guidelines outline design concepts in Clovis’ central business district (primarily Clovis and Woodworth Avenues between Sierra and Jefferson Avenues) to maintain consistency with existing architecture, lighting, materials, facades, and landscape. The Commercial Design Standards require new commercial projects constructed in C-1 and C-2 designated zones to comply with specific standards related to setbacks, parking, landscaping, architectural elevation, lighting, walls and fencing, utilities, and security. The Central Valley Research and Technology Business Park Design Standards guides architectural development in the northeast region of the City along SR-168 between Armstrong Avenue and Owens Mountain Parkway. The City also has a published list of approved drought-tolerant and noninvasive plants for use in landscaping for residential and commercial developments.
4 City of Clovis Specific Plans
Aesthetic considerations within the City are guided by four specific plans that apply to designated areas: Central Clovis, Herndon-Shepherd, Loma Vista, and Shaw Avenue. Each of these plans serves as a regulatory framework that informs development and design within its respective area. The level 3 California State Scenic Highways. Caltrans. Accessed: April 2025 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 4 City of Clovis. Drought Tolerant Plants. Accessible at: https://cityofclovis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Drought-Tolerant-PlantList.pdf

Page 102 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Environmental Assessment 4.1-5
of detail varies among the plans—some, such as the Central Clovis Specific Plan, provide comprehensive development standards and design guidelines, while others rely more heavily on the City’s municipal code for aesthetic direction.

City of Clovis Master Plans
At the time of the writing of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the City of Clovis has multiple adopted Master Plans that outline the design and visual character standards for the subject neighborhoods.

Harlan Ranch Master Plan
The Harlan Ranch Master Plan is located in the northeast Harlan Ranch neighborhood in the city, bounded by Shepherd Avenue and DeWolf Avenue, north of Highway 168. The Master Plan area consists of approximately 389 acres. Infill Rezone Program Site 157 is located within the Harlan Ranch Master Plan Area. The Master Plan goals include encouraging a mix of housing market economic levels, and increased densities.

Heritage Grove Master Plan
The Heritage Grove Master Plan area is one of the three Urban Centers identified in the General Plan to accommodate growth. The Master Plan establishes the overall architectural, landscape, sand site elements, as well as and outlines the design and treatment standards and qualities specific to the area. The site is made up of four square miles in the northwest of the City bounded by Willow Avenue, Copper Avenue, and Shepherd Avenue. There are no Infill Rezone Program sites located within the Heritage Grove Master Plan.

Home Place Master Plan
The Home Place Master Plan is located within the Southeast Urban Center of the Loma Vista Specific Plan, and consists of 310 acres east of Leonard Avenue, west of Thompson Avenue, north of Ashlan Avenue and south of Gettysburg Avenue. The Master Plan outlines the design and visual character guidelines outlined in the Loma Vista Specific Plan. There are no Infill Rezone Program sites located within the Home Place Master Plan.

Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan
The Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan outlines the visual and design standards specific to the area.

The Dry Creek Master Plan area is located within the Herndon-Shepherd Specific Plan area. The area is predominantly large residential or agricultural parcels. A portion of the Master Plan area west of North Fowler Avenue is within the City’s boundaries. There are no Infill Rezone Program sites located within the Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan.

City of Clovis Municipal Code
Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Municipal Code (CMC) outlines exterior light and glare specifications for exterior lighting, stating exterior lighting shall be:

Architecturally integrated with the character of on-site and adjacent structure(s); Directed downward and shielded so that all direct light and glare is confined within the boundaries of the subject parcel;
Installed so that lights do not blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness; and

Page 103 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.1-6
Appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the uses they are serving. Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to direct light rays onto the subject parcel only and the light source, whether bulb or tube, shall not be directly visible from an adjacent property or public street rights-of-way.5

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. The analysis is inherently subjective because viewers react to views and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual environment of the city against implementation of the project, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change. The project in and of itself does not contain specific development proposals that would result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to aesthetics would occur. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezonings which would facilitate development of Infill Rezone Program sites listed in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description in terms of arrangement of open space to built density and intensity of development, and building height according to the thresholds of significance discussed below. The existing visual character and context of the City is shown and described in Section 4.1.1, Setting, of this EA.

Significance Thresholds
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, impacts related to aesthetics (AES) would be potentially significant if the project would:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings; or, in urbanized areas, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact AES-1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT AFFECT PUBLIC VIEWS OF A SCENIC VISTA. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SCENIC VISTAS AND CORRIDORS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project does not propose specific development projects that would have a substantial negative impact on public views or scenic vistas and routes/corridors. The project includes 20 Infill 5 City of Clovis. Exterior Light and Glare. Clovis Municipal Code Accessed May 2025:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Clovis/html/Clovis09/Clovis0922.html

Page 104 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Environmental Assessment 4.1-7
Rezone Program sites located throughout the city in infill areas where there is already existing development. The proposed project does not include physical development projects but would allow for increased density on the Infill Rezone Sites, which would include increased building density and height. Views of scenic vistas could change incrementally as development of the sites occurs but would be limited due to the flat terrain of the City. Future developments would undergo development and design review on a project-by-project basis to identify and address project-specific impacts to scenic vistas. However, the sites have minimal potential for potential development to obscure or substantially degrade views of scenic vistas or views within scenic routes and corridors as the Infill Rezone Program sites are located within areas of the city where there already exists development obstructing views.

Dry Creek Trail consists of an approximately five-mile walking path throughout the city that is an aesthetic resource in Clovis. The trailhead is located on the southwest corner of Sunnyside and Shepherd Avenues in northern Clovis. Of the four closest sites to the trail, sites 157 and 197 are located approximately three miles from the trail and future development at those sites would not be visible from the trail. Site 63 and Site 592 are both approximately one mile from the trail where the path is adjacent to the Clovis Botanical Garden and Dry Creek Park. Developed urban areas exist between both sites and the trail area negating any aesthetic impact from development of those sites.

Development and redevelopment that may occur under the proposed project at any of the sites, including the sites near Dry Creek Trail, would be governed by the policies listed below, as well as design standards contained in the CMC. These would be applied and enforced through the City’s standard development review procedures that concern the protection of public views or scenic vistas.

CMC sections that would guide the project related to visual character and quality include:
 Chapter 9.28: Landscaping Standards
 Chapter 9.30: Tree Protection Standards
 Chapter 9.110: Subdivision Standards
Policies in the General Plan that would guide the proposed project related to visual character and quality include:

Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 2: Natural, agricultural, and historic resources that are preserved and promoted as key features for civic pride and identity.

Policy 2.3 Visual resources. Maintain public views of open spaces, parks, and natural features.

Enhance views along roadways and trails. Preserve Clovis’ viewshed of the surrounding foothills and orient new development to capitalize on views of the Sierra Nevada.

As there are no state designated scenic corridors or highways, nor officially designated scenic vistas in the City and protection of public views and scenic vistas is enforced by the CMC and existing General Plan policies, impacts to scenic vistas, including scenic routes and corridors, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Page 105 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.1-8
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact AES-2 THE PROJECT IS NOT NEAR A DESIGNATED STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY, SO IT WOULD NOT

DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.1.1 Settings, SR-168 is eligible for State Scenic Highway Program designation, as identified by Caltrans, but is not designated as such. None of the Infill Rezone Program sites are located along the eligible section of this highway which transects Clovis from east to west.6 As there are no officially designated Scenic Highways in the planning area, potential impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway would not be visible.

A State Scenic Highway changes from “eligible” to “officially designated” when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to Caltrans for Scenic Highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the roadway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The Infill Rezone Program sites are not visible from SR-168 (or vice versa) and the highway traverses through urban areas of the city, so even if it was to be designated in the future, impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, potential impacts to scenic resources visible from eligible State Scenic Highways associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 3: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN AN URBANIZED AREA AND WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING SCENIC QUALITY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project does not include any physical development; however, the land use changes envisioned under the proposed project may alter the visual character of various areas in Clovis as development would occur at higher densities among the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites compared to existing conditions. The projects would be required to conform with all design, density, and height guidelines applicable to the new land use designations and zoning and therefore would not create a conflict with regulations governing scenic quality.

Policies in the General Plan that would affect the proposed project related to visual character and quality include:
6 Caltrans. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. 2024. Accessed: April 2025. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

Page 106 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Environmental Assessment 4.1-9
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 2: Natural, agricultural, and historic resources that are preserved and promoted as key features for civic pride and identity.

Policy 2.3 Visual resources. Maintain public views of open spaces, parks, and natural features.

Enhance views along roadways and trails. Preserve Clovis’ viewshed of the surrounding foothills and orient new development to capitalize on views of the Sierra Nevada.

This change in density compared to what is currently allowed would not dramatically increase heights or the type or style of development compared to what is currently allowed or exists near the 20 sites and would still be regulated by City development standards. Impacts regarding conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Impact AES-4 NEW DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ADD NEW

SOURCES OF LIGHT AND GLARE TO THE CITY, HOWEVER DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S LIGHTING REGULATIONS TO NEGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS. IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project does not include any physical development; however, the project would facilitate development at increased height and densities. This would result in the creation of new sources of light from exterior building illumination, outdoor lighting, and glare from reflective building surfaces and vehicle surfaces or the headlights of vehicular traffic from future development. As a result, these new sources of light or glare could affect adjacent light-sensitive land uses.

As all 20 of the Infill Rezone Program sites are infill locations, ambient light from urban uses already exists. The proposed project is anticipated to facilitate the development of 1,303 housing units. Such development would occur in areas that are already at least partly developed. Thus, the proposed project would not in itself substantially increase light and glare beyond existing conditions or levels already allowed under current City regulations and policies. Additionally, the CMC addresses lighting regulations.7 Examples of these standards include light and glare regulations and shielding requirements for the prevention of light spillage and illumination on adjacent properties.

Development facilitated by the project would be subject to review to ensure consistency with the light and glare regulations for the City. Accordingly, highly reflective materials capable of generating substantial amounts of glare would be avoided in development of the sites. Some reflective material may be unavoidable, such as glass used in windows of new buildings. However, glare from building windows would be consistent with existing conditions and need to meet City requirements for reducing glare such as coatings to reduce this source of glare. 7 Clovis Municipal Code. Article 3 (Development and Operational Standards), Division 9.22 (Performance Standards), Section 9.22.050 (Exterior Light and Glare). Accessed May 2025: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Clovis/#!/Clovis09/Clovis0922.html#9.22.050

Page 107 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.1-10
CMC sections that would affect the project related to light and glare include:
 Chapter 9.22.050: Exterior Light and Glare
Adherence to these standards to reduce light and glare from new projects would reduce new sources of substantial light and glare from development at these 20 Infill Rezone Program sites.

Based on the discussion above and need to conform with City regulations, the proposed project would not create new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Future development facilitated by the project in existing developed areas could result in aesthetic impacts. Such impacts would be site-specific with future projects facilitated by the project having limited to no cumulative aesthetic impact to each other due to their lack of proximity to one another. Discretionary projects would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to site specific visual resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Even ministerial (non-discretionary) projects carried out in the city would be subject to the City’s ministerial development review procedures. These projects taken together as a whole could increase the impression of urbanization and development in the city but, as discussed throughout this section of the EA (and especially Impact AES-3) and in Chapter 2, Project Description of this EA. This development would be carried out with individual developments on the 20 Infill Rezone Program sites located within the City. The 20 sites proposed to be rezoned are on infill locations throughout the city with adjacent compatible land use designations and zoning. Consequently, future development carried out under the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts in conflict with aesthetics requirements for preserving visual character, public views, scenic vistas and resources, or requirements for minimizing and controlling potential light and glare. Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Page 108 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the impacts of the City of Clovis (City) Infill Rezone Program Project on local and regional air quality. Both construction and operational emissions associated with development facilitated by the proposed project are discussed. The analysis herein is based partially on the Transportation Impact Analysis dated June 20, 2025, prepared by Kittelson for this Environmental Assessment (EA).

4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate and Meteorology
Air quality is affected by the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by climatic conditions that influence the movement and dispersion of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local and regional topography, provide the links between air pollutant emissions and air quality.

The City is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which occupies the southern half of the Central Valley and comprises eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Merced, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and portions of Kern. The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and 35 miles wide (on average) and is bordered by the Coast Ranges on the west, the Sierra Nevada on the east, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. On the valley floor, the SJVAB is open only to the north, which heavily influences prevailing winds.1
Although marine air generally flows into the SJVAB from the San Francisco Bay Area through the Carquinez Strait (a gap in the Coast Ranges) and low mountain passes such as Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass, the mountain ranges restrict air movement through the SJVAB. The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone and is influenced by a subtropical high-pressure cell most of the year.

Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly in winter.

Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F in the valley.

The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500–3,000 feet). Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks, with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30°F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet.2
b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.3 Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD]. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015. Accessible at: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF 2 Clovis. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Volume 1: Draft PEIR and Appendix A (SCH # 2012061069). Accessible at:
https://www.clovisca.gov/services/planning_development/planning/general_plan/environmental_impact_report.php 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards. 2016. Last Modified May 4, 2016, accessed January 2022:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf

Page 109 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.2-2
California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of up to 10 microns (PM10) and up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates, otherwise known as smog. The following subsections describe the characteristics, sources, and health and atmospheric effects of air pollutants of primary concern.

Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction between NOX and ROG triggered by sunlight. NOX form during the combustion of fuels, while ROG form during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in concentrations considered serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic.

Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high-traffic volumes.

Carbon monoxide’s health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities.4 Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide, but nitric oxide reacts rapidly to form nitrogen dioxide, creating the mixture of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between nitrogen dioxide and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur.5 Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.

Particulate Matter
PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants

Page 110 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-3
mostly dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads and are emitted directly into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. Small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. Fine particulates are associated generally with combustion processes, as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of sulfur dioxide emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of sulfur dioxide emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and the burning of fuels with a high-sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Sulfur dioxide is linked to adverse effects on the respiratory system, including aggravation of respiratory diseases, such as asthma and emphysema, and reduced lung function.
6 Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and in manufacturing products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial sources. However, as a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries as a result of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing currently is the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is found generally near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The health impacts of lead include behavioral and hearing disabilities in children and nervous system impairment.

Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TAC) are airborne substances that form a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70th the 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants

Page 111 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.2-4
diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. 7 TACs are different than criteria pollutants, because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems.
8 Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel engine fuel combustion forms an important fraction of the particulate matter emission inventory, as particulates in diesel emissions are very small and readily respirable. The particles have hundreds of chemicals adsorbed onto their surfaces, including many known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed and evaluated the potential for diesel exhaust to affect human health and the associated scientific uncertainties. Based on the available scientific evidence, it was determined that a level of DPM exposure has not been identified below which no carcinogenic effects are anticipated.

The Scientific Review Panel that approved the OEHHA report determined that, based on studies to date, 3 x 10-4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
) is a reasonable estimate of the unit risk for DPM.

This means that a person exposed to a DPM concentration of 1 µg/m3 continuously over the course of a lifetime has a three per 10,000 chance (or 300 in one million chance) of contracting cancer due to this exposure. In 2000, the Statewide estimated average concentration of DPM was 1.26 µg/m3 for indoor and outdoor ambient air. If DPM concentrations remained the same, about 380 excess cancers per one million population could be expected.
9 Therefore, CARB has determined that these
particulate emissions are a TAC.

DPM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient Statewide air toxics risk. DPM can also be responsible for elevated localized or near-source exposures (“hotspots”). Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential risks are as high as 1,500 per million or more.
10 CARB staff have conducted risk characterization scenarios to determine the potential excess cancer risks involved when individuals are near various sources of diesel engine emissions, ranging from school buses to high-volume freeways. The purpose of the risk characterization was to estimate, through air dispersion modeling, the cancer risk associated with typical diesel-fueled engine or vehicle activities based on modeled particulate matter concentration at the point of maximum impact. The study included various sources of DPM emissions, including idling school buses, truck stops, low- and high-volume freeways, and other sources. High-volume freeways (20,000 or more trucks per day) were estimated to cause 800-1,700 per million potential 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants 8 Ibid.
9 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf 10 Ibid.

Page 112 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-5
excess cases of cancers, while low-volume freeways (2,000 or fewer trucks per day) were estimated to cause about 100-200 per million potential excess cases of cancers Statewide. 11 Asbestos
Asbestos is another TAC regulated by the SJVAPCD. Asbestos is a mineral fiber found naturally in the environment and is used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and fire retardant. The major sources of asbestos in construction materials include roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, paper products, asbestos cement products, textured paint and patching compounds, and walls and ceilings around wood-burning stoves.
12 Asbestos fibers can be released into the air
during demolition, building, or maintenance/repair when asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are disturbed. Asbestos exposure has a long-term impact of developing lung diseases including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.13
Dust-Related Concerns
Valley Fever
Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis is caused locally by the microscopic fungus Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The Coccidioides fungus resides in the soil in southwestern United States, northern Mexico, and parts of Central and South America. Fresno County lies in the endemic area for Valley Fever with approximately 403 cases reported in the County in 2021.14 Infection occurs when the spores of the fungus become airborne and are inhaled. The fungal spores become airborne when contaminated soil is disturbed by human activities, such as construction and agricultural activities, and natural phenomena, such as windstorms, dust storms, and earthquakes. About 60 percent of infected persons have no symptoms. The remainder develop flu-like symptoms that can last for a month and tiredness that can sometimes last for longer than a few weeks. A small percentage of infected persons (less than one percent) can develop disseminated disease that spreads outside the lungs to the brain, bone, and skin. Without proper treatment, Valley Fever can lead to severe pneumonia, meningitis, and even death. Symptoms may appear between one to four weeks after exposure.
15 Diagnosis of Valley Fever is conducted through a sample of blood, other body fluid, or biopsy of affected tissue. Valley Fever is treatable with antifungal medicines and is not contagious. Once recovered from the disease, the individual is protected against further infection. Persons at highest risk from exposure are those with compromised immune systems, such as those with human immunodeficiency virus and those with chronic pulmonary disease. Farmers, construction workers, and others who engage in activities that disturb the soil are at highest risk for Valley Fever. Infants, pregnant women, diabetics, the elderly, and people of African, Asian, Latino, or Filipino descent may be at increased risk for disseminated disease. Historically, people at risk for infection are individuals 11 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Accessible at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Learn About Asbestos. Accessible at:
https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos 14 California Department of Public Health. 2022. Coccidioidomycosis in California Provisional Monthly Report January-December 2022.

December. Accessible at:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCAProvisionalMonthlyReport.pdf 15 Los Angeles County Health Department. 2013. Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Accessible at:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/docs/ValleyFeverPreventionforWorkFlyer.pdf

Page 113 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.2-6
not already immune to the disease and whose jobs involve extensive contact with soil dust, such as construction or agricultural workers and archeologists.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos is the name for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in serpentine rock, and its parent material, ultramafic rock. Exposure to asbestos fibers can result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease which causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soildisturbing activities in areas with deposits present. Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Klamath Mountains, the Sierra Nevada foothills, and Coast Ranges. Based on information provided by the Department of Conservation (DOC) Division of Mines and Geology, naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present within Fresno County. 16 c. Existing Ambient Air Quality
CARB and the U.S. EPA established ambient air quality standards for major pollutants, including ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM10 and PM2.5. Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards for each of these pollutants except for lead and the eight-hour average for CO. The local Air Pollution Control Districts are required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The City is located within the SJVAB under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD. As the local air quality management agency, the SJVAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The closest air quality monitoring station to Clovis is the Clovis-North Villa Avenue station, which monitors ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide. The SJVAPCD does not monitor sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. Therefore, data is not available for these pollutants. Table 4.2-1 indicates the number of days that each of the air quality standards have been exceeded at the stations during the monitoring period from 2021 to 2023. Levels of 1-hour ozone exceeded State thresholds nine times in 2021 and three times in both 2022 and 2023. Levels of 8-hour ozone exceeded State thresholds 37 times in 2021, 26 times in 2022, and 23 times in 2023; and federal thresholds 34 times in 2021, 23 times in 2022, and 21 times in 2023. PM10 exceeded State thresholds 111 times in 2021, 73 times in 2022, and 44 times in 2023. PM2.5 exceeded federal thresholds 22 times in 2021 and four times in 2022. No other thresholds were exceeded in the years 2021 through 2023.
16 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf

Page 114 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-7
Table 4.2-1 Annual Air Quality Data at the Fresno-Garland Air Monitoring Station Pollutant 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.123 0.109 0.102
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.09 ppm) 9 3 3
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), Worst 8-Hour Average 0.100 0.084 0.084
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.070 ppm) 37 26 23
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.070 ppm) 34 23 21
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 49.4 51.8 47.9
Number of days above CAAQS (>0.180 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days above NAAQS (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <10 microns (µg/m3), Worst 24 Hours 208.8 127.0 104.7 Number of days above CAAQS (>50 µg/m3) 111 73 44
Number of days above NAAQS (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns (µg/m3), Worst 24 Hours 104.6 41.9 34.7 Number of days above NAAQS (>35 µg/m3) 22 4 0
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Source: CARB 2025a
Sensitive Receptors
Some receptors are considered more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greaterthan-average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are relatively sensitive to poor air quality, because children, elderly people, and the infirmed are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public.

Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality, because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater associated exposure to ambient air quality and potential pollutants. In addition, recreational uses are considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air pollutants because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system. The SJVAPCD considers hospitals, schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and residential areas as sensitive receptors.
17 The project area includes 20 Infill Rezone Program sites in the City. Therefore, sensitive receptor locations are considered to be any hospitals, schools, parks, and other recognized sensitive receptor groups that are located in the city. Sensitive receptors are therefore located throughout the project area.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section discusses the federal, State, and local agencies and regulations pertinent to air quality in the Fresno County area.
17 SJVAPCD. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015. Accessible at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF

Page 115 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.2-8
a. Federal and State Regulations
Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and State ambient air quality standards and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants. The CAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409], the U.S. EPA developed primary and secondary NAAQS. NAAQS have been designated for the following criteria pollutants of primary concern: ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The primary NAAQS “in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health” and the secondary standards are to “protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air” [42 USC 7409(b)(2)].

The U.S. EPA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS. States are required to adopt enforceable plans, known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the NAAQS. The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, State regulations, and federal controls. CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under State law.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) (California Health and Safety Code Section 39000 et seq.) was enacted in 1988. Under the CCAA the State has developed the CAAQS, which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data in the CAAQS.

Table 4.2-2 lists the current federal and State standards for regulated pollutants and the SJVAB’s attainment status for each standard. As shown therein, the SJVAB is currently classified as nonattainment for the federal and State ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 standards, and the State 24-hour PM10 standards. The SJVAB is unclassified or classified as attainment for all other NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
State Standard Federal Standard
Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Ozone 8-Hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.070 ppm Nonattainment/ Extreme
1-Hour 0.090 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
− Revoked
Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour 9.0 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified

9.0 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
8-Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour 0.180 ppm Attainment 0.100 ppm Attainment/ Unclassified
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm

Page 116 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-9
Pollutant Averaging Time
State Standard Federal Standard
Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour 0.25 ppm Attainment 0.075 ppm Attainment/ Unclassified
3-Hour − 0.5 ppm*
24-Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual − 0.03 ppm
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Attainment
Annual 20 µg/m3 −
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour − Nonattainment 35 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm Unclassified No Federal Standard
No Federal
Standard
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment No Federal
Standard
No Federal
Standard
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.010 ppm Attainment No Federal
Standard
No Federal
Standard
Visibility Reducing
Particles
8-Hour 1 1 No Federal
Standard
No Federal
Standard
Lead 30-Day 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment − No Designation/
Classification
Quarterly − 1.5 µg/m3
ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less 1In 1989, CARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Source: SJVAPCD 2025
The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentration that may be reached but not exceeded more than once per year. If ambient air quality concentrations of the pollutants of concern are below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards, then health impacts are not anticipated.

However, when concentrations of the air pollutants exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS standards, the health impacts are considered to vary based on the level of exceedance. The U.S. EPA has established the Air Quality Index to characterize health impacts based on the ambient air concentrations of a given pollutant.
18 b. Regional Regulations
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The project is located in the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD, which regulates air pollutant emissions for all sources throughout the SJVAB other than motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD enforces regulations and administers permits governing stationary sources. The following regional rules and regulations would apply to development under the proposed project.
18 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. Accessible at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants

Page 117 of 942 ends

City of Clovis
Infill Rezone Program

4.2-10
 Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) contains rules developed pursuant to U.S. EPA guidance for “serious” PM10 nonattainment areas. Rules included under this regulation limit fugitive PM10 emissions from the following sources: construction, demolition, excavation, extraction and other earth moving activities, bulk materials handling, carryout and track-out, open areas, paved and unpaved roads, unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and agricultural sources. The rule contains control measures that future project applications would be required to implement during project construction activities pursuant to Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.  Rule 4002 (Asbestos Requirements) requires any renovation or demolition of a regulated facility to conduct a thorough inspection of the facility and proper abatement of asbestos as necessary. The rule also requires a noticing period and a general prohibition on demolition until asbestos containing material has been abated and removed from the location and requires that abatement be conducted by persons with specific asbestos certifications (primarily Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA] certification).
 Rule 4101 (Visibility) limits the visible plume from any source to 20 percent opacity.  Rule 4102 (Nuisance) prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials in quantities that may cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public.
 Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) limits VOC emissions from architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements.  Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations) limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations and applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.  Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities) limits fugitive dust emissions from earthmoving activities and travel on access roads to and from the site. Measures required by Rule 8021 are listed in Table 4.2-3.  Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requires certain development projects to mitigate exhaust emissions from construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to 20 percent below Statewide average NOX emissions and 45 percent below Statewide average PM10 exhaust emissions. This rule also requires applicants to reduce baseline emissions of NOX and PM10 emissions associated from operations by 33.3 percent and 50 percent respectively over a period of 10 years.

A developer can also reduce the project’s impact on air quality by entering into a “Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement” (VERA) with the SJVAPCD to address mitigation requirements under CEQA. Under a VERA, the developer may fully mitigate project emission impacts by providing funds to the SJVAPCD, which then are used by the SJVAPCD to administer emission reduction projects on behalf of the project developer.
19 19 SJVAPCD. 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, March 19, 2015. Accessible at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF

Page 118 of 942 ends

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Environmental Assessment 4.2-11
Table 4.2-3 SJVAPCD Rule 8021 Measures
No. Measure
A.1 Pre-water site sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity.

A.2 Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time.

B.1 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity; or B.2 Construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity. If using wind barriers, control measure B1 above shall also be implemented.

B.3 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface.

C.1 Restrict vehicular access to the area.

C.2 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acre or more of disturbed surface area remains unused for 7 or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in section 3.58 of Rule 8011.

5.3.1 An owner/operator shall limit the speed of vehicles traveling on uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads within construction sites to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.

5.3.2 An owner/operator shall post speed limit signs that meet State and federal Department of Transportation standards at each construction site’s uncontrolled unpaved access/haul road entrance. At a minimum, speed limit signs shall also be posted at least every 500 feet and shall be readable in both directions of travel along uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads.

5.4.1 Cease outdoor construction, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities that disturb the soil whenever VDE exceeds 20 percent opacity. Indoor activities such as electrical, plumbing, dry wall installation, painting, and any other activity that does not cause any disturbances to the soil are not subject to this requirement.

5.4.2 Continue operation of water trucks/devices when outdoor construction excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities cease, unless unsafe to do so.

6.3.1 An owner/operator shall submit a Dust Control Plan to the APCO prior to the start of any construction activity on any site that will include 10 acres or more of disturbed surface area for residential developments, or 5 acres or more of disturbed surface area for non-residential development, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least 3 days.

Construction activities shall not commence until the APCO has approved or conditionally approved the Dust Control Plan. An owner/operator shall provide written notification to the APCO within 10 days prior to the commencement of earthmoving activities via fax or mail. The requirement to submit a dust control plan shall apply to all such activities conducted for residential and non-residential (e.g., commercial, industrial, or institutional) purposes or conducted by any governmental entity.

6.3.3 The Dust Control Plan shall describe all fugitive dust control measures to be implemented before, during, and after any dust generating activity.

6.3.4 A Dust Control Plan shall contain all the [administrative] information described in Section 6.3.6 of this rule.

The APCO shall approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the Dust Control Plan within 30 days of plan submittal. A Dust Control Plan is deemed automatically approved if, after 30 days following receipt by the District, the District does not provide any comments to the owner/operator regarding the Dust Control Plan.

VDE = visible dust emissions; APCO = Air Pollution Control Officer; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004

Page 119 of 942 ends

Clovis City CouncilAugust 10, 2026

Clovis City Council
August 10, 2026