Briana Parra
From: No Reply < [email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2026 5:55 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment Submission
Submitted by: Glenn Medina
Email Address: grn
Commented on event: https://clovisca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/24/overview If you are having trouble viewing the URL above, cut and paste the string into your browser window.
User comment: This is regarding item 4 on the August 10, 2026 City Council meeting agenda, the Infill Rezone Program. I am generally opposed to the program because most of the the 20 parcels adjoin residential neighborhoods. People living in a single family residence do not want a 3-4 story apartment building constructed next to their backyard, where apartment residents can easily view activities in the backyards. That is an invasion of privacy. I'm specifically opposed to the rezoning of site #72, the parcel near the northwest corner of Peach and Nees. I live at 498 W. Kenosha Ave. which is approximately 500 feet west of the intersection. Even though my house will not be directly impacted if a 3-4 story apartment building is constructed on said parcel, my neighbors along N. Terry Ave. and W. Muncie Ave. will be. They are very upset about the possibility of an apartment building behind their backyards. They would feel like they are being watched by some apartment residents every time they go to their backyards. No reasonable person would find that comfortable. I reviewed the site maps of all 20 parcels. Only two parcels, sites 167 and 168, do not border on a residential neighborhood. I request that the City Council remove the other 18 parcels from the Infill Rezone Program and direct the Planning Commission to select other parcels that meet the program criteria and do not border residential neighborhoods.
Public comment for item 4 on
August 10, 2026
1 Briana Parra
From: No Reply < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 3:43 PM
To: Briana Parra
Subject: Public Comment Submission
Submitted by: John Liu
Email Address: jor
Commented on event: https://clovisca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/24/overview If you are having trouble viewing the URL above, cut and paste the string into your browser window.
User comment: Re: Item 4 Infill Rezone Program I would like to express my concerns regarding the Infill Rezone Program. I am the original owner of 424 W. Muncie Avenue, which borders Site ID #72 near the intersection of Peach and Nees Avenues. At this time, it appears that the City of Clovis is proceeding with the rezoning from R-1-7500 to R-3 despite the concerns brought forth by the numerous homeowners who will be affected by this change. This year, I had planned to make a significant investment in my property to create backyard oasis for the enjoyment by the family, but the prospect of a three-story apartment building placed 15 feet from the rear property line has made me to indefinitely pause those plans as l weigh other options, including selling the property at a diminished value or turning my property into a rental, as the desirability to continue to live at the property has markedly decreased. Previously, when the subject property was partially rezoned to allow the orthodontist office, the property owner met with the neighbors to discuss concerns. Ultimately, several neighbors, including myself, spoke at the City Council meeting to support the project because it would not significantly adversely affect the neighborhood, and the property owner planned to develop the remainder of the parcel with single family homes for use as a family compound. The property owner later proposed multifamily housing on the parcel, and the City had directed the property owner to have meetings with the affected neighbors. While I approached the project with an open mind, the neighborhood discussion turned to concerns regarding traffic safety along Peach Avenue, crime, privacy, and property values, and the project was not well- received by the neighbors. The architect shared that the purpose of the project was to generate passive income for the property owner. After the meeting | discussed with the architect several potential changes that could make the project more palatable. We never heard back from the City or the property owner regarding the proposed project, and when I later inquired with the City's Planning Department, I was told that the City had not heard back from the property owner. It appears that with the proposed rezoning, the property owner intends to circumvent working with the neighbors to develop the property. My primary concern at this time is that if the City relaxes the design guidance for multifamily housing, as proposed and approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2026, the neighbors most affected by the proposed development will have no say in the project if the watered-down requirements are met. The stated reason by the Planning staff for the relaxed design requirements was that developers were finding it difficult to meet the current requirements. To me, it is not unreasonable for developers to work with the neighbors on finding a mutually agreeable design rather than to silence the neighbors by allowing the overly compromised design requirements that will allow the project to be approved ministerially. I do not expect the City to deny the rezone application, but my ask is to preserve the quality of life for the neighboring single-family homeowners with the following: 1. Mitigate the traffic safety impacts with proper access management by placing project access points on Peach Avenue at appropriate locations to minimize conflicts with other driveways, and use raised medians to channelize turns as needed. It has been my observation that for many other projects within the City, access points have not been placed for optimal traffic safety and operations. Peach Avenue already suffers from congestion due to traffic related to the Buchanan Educational Center. The traffic from upwards of 96 new residential units will exasperate the congestion. However, the reconfiguration of Peach Avenue with the road diet several years ago is much safer than the previous configuration of two-lanes in each direction without a two-way left-turn lane. 2. Provide larger transition zones within the property between dense housing and the bordering single-family homes by having open space, drive aisles, parking, or lower density housing where immediately bordered by single family homes. The denser housing would be placed on the property away from the homes to the extent possible. 3. Retain multifamily design requirements that do not overly compromise the ability of adjacent single-family homeowners from enjoying their homes and yards. A transparent public process that allows for site plan reviews when strict design requirements are not met rather than allowing ministerial approvals of overly relaxed design requirements would go a long way towards regaining trust with the City. Thank you for your consideration. John Liul Jeff & Susan Mendoza RECEIVED
AUG 0 5 2026
PLANNING DEPT
July 30, 2026
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of the apartment building on the corner of Peach & Nees, behind Unique Orthodontics, parcel #72.
Our neighborhood has long been a peaceful family-oriented community where children can safely walk to and from school and residents enjoy a calm and welcoming environment. A large multi-story apartment building would dramatically change our neighborhood and create many concerns that deserve careful consideration.
First, the increase in traffic would significantly worsen the congestion that already exists at drop off and pick up times. It is a safety risk for students, parents, teachers, and residents alike. Adding the high-density development would only increase the potential for accidents.
Second, the height of the proposed building is completely out of character with the existing homes and neighborhood. It would reduce privacy and negatively affect the appearance and atmosphere that we residents have worked hard to preserve.
While we recognize the importance of providing this type of housing, this development should be compatible with the surrounding community and should not compromise the safety of the children or the quality of life for existing residents. Alternative locations or some type of compromise needs to be addressed for this parcel.
We respectfully ask for your thoughtful review of this project and to make a decision that serves the best interest of our community.
Sincerely, .
Susan Mendoza
•
'i.
McKencie Perez
From: Adam Pohll <| >
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 2:19 PM
To: McKencie Perez
Subject: Infill Rezone Program
Mckencie,
I am writing to communicate my opposition to the adoption of the Infill Rezone Program on tonight's agenda, can you please share my concerns with the Council?
I have been a resident at I for 16 years and my house backs up to Site #72 of the Infill Rezone Program. This 3.2 acre site sits at the corner of Peach and Nees directly across the street from Garfield Elementary and Alta Sierra Middle School. This is an established single-family neighborhood and rezoning this parcel into high density is not a good fit for the neighborhood. The developers plan for this site is to have 2 driveways on Peach directly across the street from Garfield Elementary making traffic even more unsafe for kids walking to and from Garfield and Alta Sierra. After reading the Environmental Review for the Infill Rezone Program there is no mention of this potential traffic impact.
I understand the City's need to comply with the lawsuit and affordable housing, but I disagree with the City's addition of Site #72 to this program. Site #72 was not on the original settlement with the court, it was later added by the City. This site is surrounded by single-family homes on three sides, and Garfield Elementary on the fourth side with major traffic concerns along Peach Avenue which this project will impact even more. I am asking the City and Council to reconsider their decision to add Site #72 and find a location that is less impactful to the neighborhood, the traffic on Peach, and our schools.
Thank you.
Adam Pohll, PGA
CourseCo, Inc.
Cell I