Agenda — California City City Council, July 28, 2026

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026
Marquette Hawkins
MAYOR
Jim Creighton

MAYOR PRO TEM
Shawn Bradley
Della Clark
Ronald Smith

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sean Grayson

CITY MANAGER
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING AUTHORITY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 @ 5:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505 &

VIA ZOOM
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at (760) 373-7140 or via email at [email protected]. We request a 24-hour notification prior to the meeting in order for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 American Disabilities Act Title II) Zoom instructions and notes:

Web Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82424125440
Meeting ID: 824 2412 5440
Passcode: 288834

1. Public can dial into the Zoom line:
a. One tap mobile: +16694449171,87254527178# US
b. Dial the following number: +1 564 217 2000 US

2. Comments
a. Public must join Zoom Webinar to comment
b. Keep your mic on Mute until you are requested to speak c. Use the “Raise your Hand” button to request to speak or, d. Send a chat request to the City Clerk for a request to speak, and the City Clerk will unmute you.
e. When requested to speak, state your name for the record f. Re-mute when your time to speak has ended

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026
The public is urged to listen to the meeting in a quiet place to avoid background noise. We also request public to MUTE your audio device when not commenting to avoid disruption during meeting.
**Please take this time to turn off your cell phones ** CLOSED SESSION 4:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Bradley, Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

ADOPT THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council ONLY on those items listed on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given (3) three minutes to speak

CLOSED SESSION
CS 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):

Two cases.

CS 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) – One case
Jeremy Kosick v. City of California City, Kern County, Case No. BCV-24-103946 CS 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency designated representative: Sean Grayson, City Manager Employee Organizations:

California Miscellaneous Employees Association
California City Police Officer Association
Unrepresented Employees
CS 4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:

Title: City Manager

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

CITY COUNCIL CONVENES TO REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026
REGULAR MEETING 5:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / INVOCATION
ROLL CALL –
Councilmembers: Bradley, Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

DEPARTMENT REPORTS
City Clerk Animal Control
Code Enforcement Finance
Planning Police Department
Public Works Treasurer
City Manager* Cannabis
*The City Council will hold a special meeting on August 4, 2026, for the fiscal year 2026/27 budget workshop

CITY CLERK REPORTS/RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS
J.M. Powers – July 20, 2026

CIVIC/COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION ANNOUNCEMENTS

PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR / PUBLIC COMMENT
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the public to address the City Council on any matter NOT on this agenda and over which the City Council has jurisdiction. Please state your name for the record and limit your comments to (3) three minutes. The City Council will receive the comments but cannot engage in back-and- forth discussion with the public or make any decision. The City Council can direct staff to bring the item back to a future agenda for discussion.

PUBLICHEARING
PH 1. Subject: A Public Hearing for Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 26-836: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Adding Chapter 13 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) to Title 8 (Building Regulations) to the California City Municipal Code Implementing a Ministerial Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations A. Open Public Hearing
B. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
C. Public Comment
D. Close Public Hearing
E. Discussion
F. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Conduct Public Hearing for the adoption of Ordinance 26-836

2. Close the public hearing.

3. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from CEQA

4. Introduce, waive full reading, read by title only Ordinance 26-836

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026

CONSENT CALENDAR

WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Consideration to waive full-text reading of all Resolutions and Ordinances by single motion made at the start of each meeting, subject to the ability of the City Council / Agency to read the full text of selected resolutions and ordinances when the item is addressed by subsequent motion. All items on the consent calendar are considered routine, and non-controversial and will be approved by (1) one motion if no member of the council, staff, or public wishesto comment or ask questions. Public comments are to be limited to (3) three minutes. Roll call vote required.

CC 1. Approve City Check Register dated 07/10/26 – 07/23/26 CC 2. Approve Minutes for 07/14/2026 Regular Meeting
CC 3. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Resolution No. 26-3266: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Authorizing Acceptance of Completed Work by Aventus NV. Inc for the Vivian Water Main Replacement Project from Cal-City Blvd. to Charlene Pl and Directing the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion with the Kern County Recorder
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution authorizing acceptance of completed work by Aventus NV Inc. for the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project from CalCity Blvd to Charlene Pl and directing the City Clerk to file Notice of Completion with Kern County Recorder
CC 4. Staff Report: Kenny Cooper, Finance Manager
Subject: Resolution No. 26-3167: A Resolution of the City Council of the city of California City Authorizing the Finance Manager to Execute the Federal Transportation Act (FTA) Section 5311 Operating Expense Assistance Grant and Title VI Assurance and Urban Mass Transportation Civil Right Assurance
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution allowing the Finance Manager to submit documents on behalf of California City’s Dial-A-Ride (DAR) program for FFY 2026 CC 5. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Roadway Crack Seal Projects Update
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the report and provide any needed direction

CONTINUED BUSINESS
CB 1. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Resolution No. 26-3268: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Approving the Adoption of the Final Five-Year Transit Development Plan Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the plan CB 2. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of an Update to the City Council Committee and Board Appointments Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council discuss, appoint, and ratify the appointment of City Councilmembers to serve committees and boards

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026

NEW BUSINESS
NB 1. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Subject: 1) Discussion on Stray Animals and Potential Solutions; and 2) Notice of Vacancy for the City’s Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Review Board Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation, provide direction as needed, and call for the Review Board vacancies to be filled at the August 25, 2026 City Council meeting COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS, AGENDA REQUESTS, AND AB1234 REPORTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for council members to present information, announcements, and items that have come to their attention. The Brown Act precludes Council, staff, or public discussion. Short staff responses are appropriate. The Council will take no formal action. A Council member may request the City Clerk to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff.

ADJOURNMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING- July 23, 2026
I, John Paul Maier, Deputy City Manager / City Clerk for the City of California City, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing notice was posted on all official City bulletin boards and the City’s website at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in compliance with the provisions of the Brown Act.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026
Marquette Hawkins
MAYOR
Jim Creighton

MAYOR PRO TEM
Shawn Bradley
Della Clark
Ronald Smith

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sean Grayson

CITY MANAGER
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING AUTHORITY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2026 @ 5:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505 &

Web Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82424125440
Meeting ID: 824 2412 5440
Passcode: 288834

1. Public can dial into the Zoom line:
a. One tap mobile: +16694449171,87254527178# US
b. Dial the following number: +1 564 217 2000 US

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Bradley, Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

ADOPT THE AGENDA

CLOSED SESSION
CS 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):

Two cases.

Title: City Manager

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

CITY COUNCIL CONVENES TO REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026
REGULAR MEETING 5:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / INVOCATION
ROLL CALL –
Councilmembers: Bradley, Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

CITY CLERK REPORTS/RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS
J.M. Powers – July 20, 2026

CIVIC/COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. Conduct Public Hearing for the adoption of Ordinance 26-836

2. Close the public hearing.

3. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from CEQA

4. Introduce, waive full reading, read by title only Ordinance 26-836

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 28, 2026

DR – ANIMAL CONTROL
1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shannon Hayes, Acting Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: ANIMAL CONTROL MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
California City Animal Shelter
June 2026 Totals
California City
Animal Shelter Stats
Criteria June, 2026 June, 2025
Total Animals In 6 25
Adoptions 10 10
To Rescues 0 0
Canvassed 0 11
Warnings Issued 0 13
Returned to Owner 1 4
Put to Sleep 0 0
Licenses Issued 13 26
Citations 0 0
Dog Bites 0 1
Owner Surrender 0 0
Calls to PD/Shelter 183 238
DOA 1 4
DR – ANIMAL CONTROL
2 6
10 0
0 0
1 0
13 0
0 0
183
1 25
10 0
11 13
4 0
26 0
1 0
238
4 0 50 100 150 200 250

TOTAL ANIMALS IN

ADOPTIONS

TO RESCUES

CANVASSED

WARNINGS ISSUED

RETURNED TO OWNER

PUT TO SLEEP

LICENSES ISSUED

CITATIONS

DOG BITES

OWNER SURRENDER

CALLS TO PD/SHELTER
DOA
California City Animal Shelter Stats
June, 2025 June, 2026
1 DR-CANNABIS

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 23, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Carina Robinson, Cannabis Program Manager and Tax Administrator SUBJECT: CANNABIS TAX REPORT – NO CHANGES FOR THIS REPORT DR – CITY CLERK
4898-7406-7085 v1

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Paul Maier, MBA, MMC, Deputy City Manager / City Clerk SUBJECT: City Clerk’s Report
The City Clerk Department has produced the following activity statistics, reflecting its ongoing administrative and legislative support functions:

1. Resolutions Processed: Six resolutions were reviewed, finalized, and processed, demonstrating the department’s continued role in supporting City Council actions and ensuring proper documentation of official decisions.

2. Public Records Act Requests: The department responded to 10 Public Records Act requests, with five fully completed requests. This reflects the City Clerk’s commitment to transparency, compliance, and timely public access to information.

3. Notice of Hearings: Two Appeal Hearings were coordinated and scheduled for July 7, 2026, related to CoreCivic.

4. Notice of Business License Renewals: Over 800 notices for business license renewals were sent to business owners, and over 300 business license renewals have been processed, ensuring compliance with licensing requirements.

5. Special Election Update and General Election Update: The Nomination Period is open until August 7, 2026, until 5:00 p.m. Candidates are encouraged to make an appointment with the City Clerk for a brief orientation and to receive Nomination Forms. The open seats include City Council Member Districts One and Three, City Council Member At-Large, Mayor, and City Treasurer.

These statistics highlight the City Clerk Department’s essential role in maintaining legislative records, promoting transparency, and providing efficient administrative services to the public and other City departments.

DR - CITY MANAGER

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Manager’s Report
Budget Workshop Scheduled for August 4, 2026:

The City Council will hold a Special City Council meeting on Tuesday August 4, 2026. The agenda is a Budget Workshop for the fiscal year 2026/27 budget. The agenda and materials will be posted early the week of July 27, 2026, to provide a full week for review of the information by interested parties. Per the City Council’s direction, the meeting will have extended public comment periods.

July 14, 2026 City Council Meeting AB1234, Questions and Comments Follow-Up:

At the July 14, 2026, City Council meeting, there were questions and direction provided by the City Council. Below, please find the answers and responses to be shared with the City Council and the community.

The following is an update on information, questions, or requests that came from agendized items:
• Accounting for CoreCivic Donations.
o All funds have been used consistent with the agreement for the funds adopted by the Council. An item will be brought to the City Council with final accounting when all funds are expended.
• Was the check to Place Works on the July 14 check register their last payment? o Place Works has completed their work for the City in relation to the Housing Element and the check should be the last payment.
• From CB 3 and offer from the Mayor for the Councilmembers to have an opportunity to meet with our Planning consultant Anu Doravari.
o The opportunity has been provided as requested.
• Plan for public safety at meetings.
o The Deputy City Manager / City Clerk and Acting Public Safety Director have a safety plan that will be implemented for any future meetings with large attendance. •

DR - CITY MANAGER
• From CB 2 direction to fix leaks at TDS, Par 3, and Central Park as well as implement POS system at TDS.
o Staff is working with the Donovan Golf consultant to evaluate costs and opportunities to contract this work.
• From NB 2 direction to secure additional funding for review of ESA proposal and for the City Attorney and City Manager to review the latest submission. o 12 Holdings submitted the additional funds for the required deposit.

The following is an update on information, questions, or requests that came from AB1234 reports:

Councilmember Bradley
• Request for a discussion item on the next agenda on the topic of stray and dangerous animals and future municipal code amendment options.
o Staff will work with Councilmember Bradley to prepare the item for the City Council's consideration.
• Anticipate an announcement of the first tentative Town Hall date with the Councilmember at the July 28 City Council meeting.
o
Councilmember Clark
• Request start and end dates for the crack seal work and information on work completed to date.
o Staff will plan to bring an item to the July 28 City Council meeting with the requested information.
• Thank you to all that were involved in making the 4th and 5th of July Celebration a success.
o
Councilmember Smith
• Thank you to Parks Coordinator Leann Weible and her husband for all their efforts around the holiday event especially clearing all the brush around the fireworks shoot site.
o
• Street concerns brought up from the Senior Center: Yerba at West CCB trees encroaching the road, and 98th and North Loop issues.
o Staff will evaluate the conditions and correct as appropriate. • Streets initiative and desire to see more work done.
o
• Request for an update on Scout Island repair and use. o

DR - CITY MANAGER
o Due to the fire at the lodge this report will be deferred and the plan for insurance recovery and demolition of the remaining structure will be presented at a future meeting.
• Request for an update on the containers on Neuralia
o At the meeting Acting Public Safety Director Hayes advised that additional citations had been issued and code enforcement continues to work to remedy the situation.
• Code enforcement issues for a home trying to be sold on Magnolia but next to a house that has reported violations that force potential buyers away. o Code enforcement did evaluate the situation and made contact with both property owners.
• Public commenter request for a hazardous vegetation ordinance to be considered in the future requested by Councilmember Smith to come for a future council meeting. o Staff will prepare an item for a future City Council agenda. • We need a plan for beautification including adopt a road segment that includes options for volunteers. It should start with CCB and potentially Redwood. o Staff will evaluate options for such a program and provide a report to the City Council in the future.

Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
• Request that the deed recordation and issues of the Housing Authority incomplete from 2021 be addressed as quickly as possible.
o This is being evaluated by the City Attorney's Office and staff to determine next steps to record the previously authorized deed transfers.

Mayor Hawkins
• Request to explore a septic to sewer program for the City. o Staff will evaluate options for such a program. A meeting with the State Water Board is scheduled for July 30, 2026.
• Request to consider rocks or other vegetation resistant surface for the median on CCB.
o Similar requests have been evaluated in the past. The cost and locations of applicability will be reviewed for future consideration of the City Council. • Information on the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and community advocates work on Opportunity Zone 2.0 for California City.
o The Board of Supervisors recommendation for submission of Opportunity Zone 2.0 sites to the State of California included the California City opportunity zone. • Request for a future City Council agenda item to evaluate a potential cannabis ordinance revision related to reasonable and equitable ownership restrictions for cannabis retail sites.

DR - CITY MANAGER
o Staff will prepare an item for a future City Council agenda. • Information on pending workforce development actions in the City. o A Heavy Equipment Operator training to be hosted in California City in partnership with the City and Caltrans received nearly 500 applications that will be reviewed. Preference for the training is given to local applicants.

DR – CODE ENFORCEMENT
1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shannon Hayes, Acting Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Chambers
New Cases 46
Closed Cases 38
Open Cases at start of period 365
Open Cases at end of period 373
Chambers
Abandoned Refrig/Appliance 3
Abandoned Signs 0
Abandoned Shopping Cart 1
Abandoned/Inoperative vehicles 13
Accessory Building 2
Accum of Trash/Rubbish-private proeprty 13
Animals 1
Animal Abuse/Neglect 0
Blocked water meter 0
Blowing Dust/Industrial Zone 0
Building W/Out Permit 3
Burying/Burning garbage prohibited 0
Cannabis & quote;No Minors" Signs 0
DR – CODE ENFORCEMENT
2 Cannabis Building, Planning, and Fire Final Approval 0 Cannabis Business Permit Required 0
Cannabis City Business License Required 0
Cannabis Facility emergency contact info 0
Cannabis Fees and Taxes -Failure to Pay 0
Cannabis Graphics Visible Outside Business 0
Cannabis Records/Metrc Tagging 0
Cannabis, Sign to prevent use on property 0
Cargo Container 1
CFC Accumulation of Combustible Material 8
CFC Accumulation of Combustible Vegatation 12
CFC Certificate of Occupancy Needed 0
CFC Dangerous Storage in Buildings 0
CFC Door Operations-Blocked/Locked Exit 0
CFC Egress, Combustible Storage 0
CFC Electrical Equipment Workspace/Clearances 0
CFC Electrical Hazards/Unsafe Conditions 0
CFC Extension cords 0
CFC Fire access road, all weather surface required 0
CFC Fire Extinguisher Requirements 0
CFC Knox Box Needed 1
CFC Hazardous Materials Management Plans 0
CFC Premises Identification 2
CFC Rescue opening blocked, residential 0
CFC Smoke detectors required, sleeping spaces 0
CFC Unsecure vacant building 0
Civil Matter 1
Dog License Required 3
Dumping dirt on vacant land 0
Encroachment 8
Excessive Yard sales 0
Fail to Maintain Vacant Property 4
Fencing Violation 2
Fire Hazards 1
Fire Inspection 0
Garage Sale Signs 0
Graffiti 0
Grading W/Out a Permit 0
Health & Amp; Safety (Septic Tank Overflow) 1
Illegal Cannabis Cultivation 0
Illegal Dispose of Sewer 1
Illegal Dumping 15
DR – CODE ENFORCEMENT
3 Illegal Home business 0
IPMC 302.5 Rodent harborage 1
IPMC 302.7 Accessory structures or fencing 0
IPMC 304.2 Protective treatment, exterior 2
IPMC 404.4.4 Uninhabitable sleeping space 0
IPMC 705.1 Carbon monoxide detectors required 0
Items stored outside at a business 0
Landlord/Tenant issues 1
Leash law 0
Living in Recreational Vehicle 5
Mobile vending on public property 0
Mobile home installation permit required 0
Must Have Trash Service 1
No Business License 0
No Yard Sale sign permit 0
Nuisance or Excessive Animals 1
Open pit or excavation 2
Parking a Unhitched Trailer on Street 0
Parking Over 72 Hours 2
Possess Shopping Cart 0
Prolong Maintenance of Vehicle 1
Public nuisance (Building safety) 0
Public nuisance (Property maintenance) 4
Rabies Vaccination 3
Red Tagged 0
Squatting/Illegal Camping W/O Owner's Permission 3
Standing water 2
Substandard Housing 4
Substandard Housing Water Issues 0
Tenant Relocation After Red Tag 0
Trailer Not Attached to Vehicle Capable of Towing Same 0 Trash Can Lids 4
Trash cans left out 2
Trash Collection Franchise 0
Unlawful Storage in Yards 11
Unlawful storage of rubbish 0
Unlawful Temporary Property Use (Activity or Business on a vacant lot) 6 Unpermitted yard sale 0
Utility theft 1
Vacant house registration 1
Water meter easement 0
Yard Sale Permit Issued 10
DR – CODE ENFORCEMENT
4 Totals 163

DR - FINANCE

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenny Cooper, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: FINANCE MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT

DR - POLICE DEPARTMENT
1 0 0 0 0 0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

MURDER - JUNE
14 16 15 14
8 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

TOTAL VIOLENT

CRIMES - JUNE
13 17
10 17
8 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

TOTAL PROPERTY

CRIMES - JUNE

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shannon Hayes, Acting Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: PD MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
June 2026 Stats
36 39
28 31
16 0
10 20
30 40
50 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
TOTAL PART 1 CRIMES
Total Violent and Property Crimes Reported 2022 - 2026
June Part 1 Crimes - as of 7/13/2026

DR - POLICE DEPARTMENT
2 0 0 0
3 4
2 4
0 0
MAY 2026 PART 1 CRIMES BY
AREA
0 1 0
3 4
1 6
1 0
JUNE 2026 PART 1 CRIMES BY
AREA
MAY 2026 vs. JUNE 2026, UP BY 18.75%
Part 1 Crimes May 2026 – 13
Part 1 Crimes June 2026 – 16
JUNE 2026 – PATROL STATISTICS
Total Incidents (June): 1,361 Total Arrests (June): 21 Felony Arrests:13 Misd. Arrests: 8
Total Incidents (2026): 7,588 Total Arrests (2026): 108 Felony Arrests: 68 Misd. Arrests: 40
Calls for Service (June): 1,141 Calls for Service (2026): 6,456 Citations Issued (June): 16 Citations Issued (2026): 53

DR - PLANNING

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM

DEPARTMENT REPORT
To: The Honorable City Council
From: Anu Doravari, City Planner
Subject: Planning Monthly Department Report June 2026
A. Active Planning Projects
Project
Number
Application
Type
Project Name /
Description Location Status
SPR 26-02 /
CUP 26-01
Site Plan
Review Major /
Conditional
Use Permit
Community-Scale
Solar Photovoltaic
Facility
APN 302-303-01;

27.46 acres Staff comments issued.

SPR 26-06 Site Plan
Review Major Bakery / Restaurant APN 213-232-06 Staff comments issued; revised plans pending.

SPR 26-07 Site Plan
Review Major
Automotive Tire and
Suspension Testing
and Tire Storage
5759 Highway 58
Staff comments issued;
CEQA documentation
pending.

SPR 26-08 Site Plan
Review Major
New Metal Equipment
Storage Building 5759 Highway 58
Staff comments issued;
CEQA documentation
pending.

SPR 25-01 Site Plan
Review Major
6-Unit Apartment
Complex
83rd St. &
Catalpa Ave.

Final staff comments
issued; revised plans
pending.

SPR 25-16 Site Plan
Review Major
6-Unit Apartment
Complex
Catalpa Ave. &
82nd St.

Revised plans submitted
and under staff review.

CUP 25-01 Conditional
Use Permit
Emergency
Telecommmunications
Tower
Galileo Hill Lease Agreement under
review

DR - PLANNING
B. Approved / Completed Planning Projects
Project
Number
Application
Type
Project Name /
Description Location Status
LM 26-01 Lot Merger
Commercial /
Restaurant Parcel
Merger
APNs 213-232-
06 and 213-232-
07 City review completed;
pending recordation by Kern
County.

SPR 26-05 Minor Site
Plan Review
Tax Services, printing
and shipping
8525, California
City Blvd.

Approved

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
June 2026 Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT: TREASURER MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORT
Balance on Net Balance on Percent
5/31/2026 Transactions 6/30/2026 of Total
Bank of the Sierra -- General Checking $ 3,999,463 $ (77,012) $ 3,922,451 22.61% Bank of the Sierra -- Cannibas Checking $ 937,664 $ - $ 937,664 5.41% Sub-Total Operating Accounts $ 4,937,127 $ (77,012) $ 4,860,115 Balance on Net Balance on Percent
5/31/2026 Transactions 6/30/2026 of Total
Local Agency Investment Fund (122) $ 6,624,872 $ - $ 6,624,872 38.19% Kern County Investment Fund (9153) $ 4,838,898 $ - $ 4,838,898 27.89% Multi-Bank Securities (CD Manager) $ 1,020,548 $ 3,127 $ 1,023,675 5.90% Sub-Total Investment Accounts $ 12,484,317 $ 3,127 $ 12,487,444 Total City Operating Funds $ 17,421,444 $ (73,884) $ 17,347,560 100.00% Checking & CD Accounts 5/31/2026 Net Transactions 6/30/2026 Housing Corp. -- Bank of the Sierra, Checking $ 2,129,563 $ 13,165 $ 2,142,728 72.77% Housing Corp. -- Bank of the Sierra, CD 6574 $ 268,080 $ 670 $ 268,751 9.13% Housing Corp. -- Bank of the Sierra, CD 6582 $ 268,080 $ 670 $ 268,751 9.13% Housing Corp. -- Bank of the Sierra, CD 7653 $ 117,060 $ 293 $ 117,352 3.99% Housing Corp. -- Bank of the Sierra, CD 7654 $ 146,420 $ 366 $ 146,786 4.99% Total Housing Corporation Funds $ 2,929,204 $ 15,164 $ 2,944,368 100.00% Checking & CD Investment Accounts 5/31/2026 Net Transactions 6/30/2026 SDI -- Bank of the Sierra, Checking 6370 $ 1,066,300 $ (46,452) $ 1,019,848 1.07% SDI -- Bank of the Sierra CD 2389 $ 273,647 $ 685 $ 274,332 0.29% SDI -- US Bank Investments *$ 94,037,223 $ 226,724 $ 94,263,947 98.65% Total SDI Agency Funds $ 95,377,170 $ 180,957 $ 95,558,127 100.00% Checking & Investment Accounts 5/31/2026 Net Transactions 6/30/2026 Successor -- Bank of the Sierra, Checking 8870 $ 303,900 $ 324,494 $ 628,394 42.16% RDA/Successor -- US Bank Investments $ 862,084 $ - $ 862,084 57.84% Total Successor Agency Funds $ 1,165,983 $ 324,494 $ 1,490,477 100.00% Restricted Housing Corporation Accounts
FROM: Keith Middleton, City Treasurer
The values presented in this report are extracted from End of Month bank and investments statements.

The General Funds investment portfolio consists of funds for operations, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), water rate stabilization, administration replacements and reserves.

General Operating Accounts
General Investment Accounts
Restricted SDI Accounts
Note: Interest earned from the SDI CD is directly deposited into the SDI checking account monthly.

Restricted RDA/Successor Agency Accounts
1 of 2
June 2026 Report

INVESTMENT POLICY
5/31/2026 6/30/2026
Beginning Market Value 94,908,051 94,037,223
Ending Market Value 94,037,223 94,263,947
(870,828) 226,724
5/31/2026 6/30/2026
Beginning Market Value - -
Ending Market Value - -
- -
5/31/2026 6/30/2026
Beginning Market Value 0 0
Ending Market Value 0 0
- -
5/31/2026 6/30/2026
Beginning Market Value 1 1
Ending Market Value 1 1
- -
5/31/2026 6/30/2026
Beginning Market Value 862,082 862,082
Ending Market Value 862,082 862,082
- -
Total RDA/Successor Investment Assets 862,084 862,084
Total "US Bank" Investment Assets 94,899,307 95,126,030 RDA/Successor Agency Accounts
California City, California 93505

TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT OF INVESTMENT
The Treasurer shall invest the City's monies as permitted in the Citie's approved investment policy and approval of both the City Manager and Finance Director. The Treasurer shall consider current and projected cash needs in making such investments.

US Bank
SDI Account
Market Value Summary - CUSTODIAN ACCOUNT
Investment Results (Acct. Number 104388-010)
US Bank
Market Value Summary - SUCCESSOR AGENCY Proj Area TAX RESERVE Investment Results (Acct. Number 211146003)
Market Value Summary - REDEVELOPEMENT AGENCY PROJ AREA TAX Investment Results (Acct. Number 211146000)
Market Value Summary - SUCCESSOR AGENCY Proj Area TAX INTEREST Investment Results (Acct. Number 211146001)
Market Value Summary - SUCCESSOR AGENCY Proj Area TAX PRINCIPAL Investment Results (Acct. Number 211146002)
2 of 2
DR – PUBLIC WORKS

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Departmental Report – June 2026

PH 1

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing for Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 26- 836: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Amending Chapter 1 (Building and Safety Regulations) and Adding Chapter 13 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) to Title 8 (Building Regulations) to the California City Municipal Code Implementing a Ministerial Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:

City staff is requesting the approval of Ordinance No. 26-836, which would implement a statemandated ministerial permitting process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (“EVCS”). As part of a State Legislative effort to encourage the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (“EVCS”), Assembly Bills (“AB”) 1236 and 970 require cities and counties to develop and implement an expedited, streamlined permitting process for all EVCS. AB 1236 requires cities to create a checklist of requirements for EVCS and to approve permit applications through a ministerial approval process. AB 970 requires cities to review complete applications within prescribed time periods. The proposed ordinance implements a ministerial approval process for EVCS that aligns with the State’s prescriptive requirements. Specifically, Ordinance No. 26-836 requires the City to:
• Make a determination regarding an application’s “deemed complete” status within five (5) days for projects that propose 1-5 EVCS; and ten (10) days for projects that propose more than 26 EVCS.
• Review project applications and make a determination to approve a project within twenty (20) business days for projects that propose 1-25 EVCS, and forty (40) business days for projects that propose more than 26 EVCS.
• Reduce the number of minimum number of parking spaces required in the Zoning Code, if the installation of the EVCS would reduce, eliminate, or otherwise impact the parking minimums imposed by the Zoning Code.
• Consider the rejection of an EVCS application pursuant to the appeals process provided in the Zoning Code if an EVCS application is rejected.

PH 1
When reviewing projects, the City may only review the project application with respect to compliance with a comprehensive checklist that is required for all projects. Such application may only be denied in the event that a project could have a “specific, adverse impact on public health or safety,” supported by written findings and substantial evidence. In the event that the proposed project presents a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, a project applicant may be required to apply for a use permit; however, any conditions imposed must be limited to those conditions that would mitigate the specific, adverse impact.

If approved on July 28, 2026, second reading will be conducted on August 11, 2026, and the ordinance will go into effect on September 10, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact from this action. Permits and applications for EVCS will be subject to the City’s adopted fee schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, hold first reading of Ordinance 26-836, waive reading of ordinance in its entirety, read by title only and schedule a second reading and adoption of ordinance on August 11, 2026.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Ordinance No. 26-836

2. EVCS Checklist Requirements

Page 1 of 5 ends

4912-5419-4367 v3
ORDINANCE NO. 26-836

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

COUNCIL THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA
ADDING CHAPTER 13 (ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATIONS) TO TITLE 8 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) TO THE

CALIFORNIA MUNCIPAL CODE IMPLEMENTING A

MINISTERIAL PERMITTING PROCESS FRO ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of California City (“City”) is a general law city, incorporated under the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its police powers, the City may enact and enforce laws within its boundaries which promote the public health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the community, and are not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1236 (“AB 1236”) requires all municipalities to create a checklist of requirements for applicants proposing Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (“EVCS”); and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 970 (“AB 970”) requires all municipalities to complete the application review process within certain prescribed time periods depending on the number of EVCS proposed in the project; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element sets forth a goal to facilitate and implement growth and development coordinated with the provision of infrastructure, public facilities, and public services; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is consistent with this General Plan goal because it will encourage the implementation and provision of EVCS consistent with market-demand; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element sets forth a policy that allows for the development of a variety of commercial centers which serve different users and levels of intensity, including neighborhood centers serving local residential neighborhoods, community centers which serve groups of neighborhoods, regional centers which serve the planning areas and surrounding areas and same highway commercial centers which serve visitors along regional transportation routes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is consistent with this General Plan policy because it provides a streamlined permitting system that will allow consumers to take advantage of EVCS facilities within its commercial centers; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance, considered all public comments received before and during the

Page 2 of 5 ends

4912-5419-4367 v3
public hearing, the presentation by City staff, the relevant staff report and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would not increase the permissible density or intensity of any proposed project and would merely streamline the approval process for EVCS projects; and
WHEREAS, it can be seen with certainty that the implementation of a ministerial streamlined permitting process for EVCS will not cause a direct or indirect impact on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14 § 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add Chapter 13 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) to Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the California City Municipal Code to comply with the provisions of AB 1236 and AB 970.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The facts set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein.

Section 2. The proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the implementation of a ministerial streamlined permitting process for EVCS will not cause a direct or indirect impact on the environment.

Section 3. Chapter 13 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) is added to Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the CCMC to read in its entirety as follows:
“CHAPTER 13 – ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
Sec. 8-13.01. – Applicability.

This chapter applies to applications for a streamlined approval process for building permits for electric vehicle charging stations pursuant to California Government Code Section 65850.7.

Sec. 8-13.02. – Definitions.
(a) “Building Official” means the City’s building official and/or his/her designee(s). (b) “Electric Vehicle” or “EV” means an electric drive vehicle that uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion. An electric vehicle may be powered through a collector system by electricity from off-vehicle sources, or may be self- contained with a battery or generator to convert fuel to electricity. (c) “Electric Vehicle Charging Station” or “EVCS” means an electric vehicle charging station, also called EV charging station, electric recharging point, charging point, charge point and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (“EVSE”), is an element in an infrastructure that supplies electric energy for the recharging of electric vehicles, such as plug-in electric vehicles, including electric cars, neighborhood electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.
(d) “Specific Adverse Impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, or unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards,

Page 3 of 5 ends

4912-5419-4367 v3
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Sec. 8-13.03 Requirements.
(a) All Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall meet all applicable health and safety standards and requirements, including but not limited to any requirements imposed by the State of California, the City, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, the California Building Code, California City Municipal Code, and Federal laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(b) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electric Code, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and the accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. (c) Installation of EVCS shall be incorporated into the load calculation of all new or existing electrical services and shall meet the requirements of the California Electrical Code. EVCS shall be considered a continuous load. (d) Anchorage of either floor-mounted or wall-mounted electric vehicle charging stations shall meet the requirements of the California Building or Residential Code as applicable per occupancy, and the provisions of the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Mounting of charging stations shall not adversely affect building elements.

Sec. 8-13.04 Duties of the Building Official.
(a) The Building Official shall adopt a checklist of materials required for a streamlined permit review process.
(b) The Building Official shall publish the application form, checklist requirements and any other required documentation on the City’s website. (c) All documents required for submission of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station application shall be made publicly available on the City’s website. (d) The Building Official shall allow the electronic submittal of the Electric Vehicle Charging Station application.
(e) An applicant submitting an application for an Electric Vehicle Charging Station pursuant to this chapter may submit the required application, forms, and other documents with an electronic signature in lieu of a wet signature.

Sec. 8-13.05 Application Submittal.
(a) An applicant shall submit a complete application that meets the requirements of the checklist adopted pursuant to Section 8-13.04(a), inclusive of the required application fee. Failure to submit a complete application that meets these requirements shall be deemed incomplete.
(b) The Building Official shall review the contents of the submitted application and determine whether the application is complete:
(i) Within five (5) business days if the project proposes one to twenty-five (1- 25) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.

Page 4 of 5 ends

4912-5419-4367 v3
(ii) Within ten (10) business days if the project proposes twenty-six (26) or more Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
(c) In the event that an incomplete application is submitted, the Building Official shall issue a written notification to the applicant detailing the application deficiencies and any additional information or documentation required pursuant to this article within the time periods prescribed in subsection (b).
(d) Failure to notify and provide written notification to the applicant of any insufficiencies of the application within the time periods prescribed in subsection (b) shall result in the application being deemed complete.

Sec. 8-13.06 Application Review.
(a) Applications for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations submitted pursuant to this chapter shall be reviewed administratively.
(b) The Building Official’s review shall be limited to the determination that the project meets all City, State, and Federal health and safety requirements. (c) Once an application is deemed complete, the Building Official shall review the permit application and issue a determination:
(i) Within twenty (20) business days if the project proposes one to twentyfive (1-25) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. (ii) Within forty (40) business days if the project proposes twenty-six (26) or more Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.
(d) If a proposed Electric Vehicle Charging Station would reduce, eliminate, or otherwise impact the parking minimums imposed by Chapter 2 (Zoning) of this Title 9 (Land Use Regulations) of the California City Municipal Code, the minimum parking requirements shall be reduced to accommodate the EVCS. (e) The Building Official may deny an application if they can make written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed EVCS could have a Specific Adverse Impact on the public health or safety and conditions of approval are required to mitigate the impact and require the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit pursuant to Article 25 (Conditional Use Permits) of Chapter 2 (Zoning) of Title 9 (Land Use Regulations) of the California City Municipal Code. (e) A decision by the Building Official pursuant to this chapter may be appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth Sections 1-4.04 and 1-4.05 of the California City Municipal Code except that the appeal shall be considered by the Planning Commission in lieu of the City Council.

Sec. 8-13.07 Fees.

The City Council shall adopt a resolution establishing a fee to be submitted in conjunction with an EVCS permit.”
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof,

Page 5 of 5 ends

4912-5419-4367 v3
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portion might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication and Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to be published and/or posted as required by law, which shall take full force and effect thirty (30) days after adoption.

INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of July, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________________
Marquette Hawkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
CKHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF9HKLFOH
6HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW
3(50,77,1*&+(&./,67)25(/(&75,&9(+,&/(6(59,&((48,30(17 )25([LVWLQJ5(6,'(17,$/$1'1215(6,'(17,$/%8,/',1*6
9HKLFOH6HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW3HUPLWWLQJ&KHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF 3OHDVH FRPSOHWHWKHIROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHODWHGWR SHUPLWWLQJDQG LQVWDOODWLRQ RI HOHFWULF YHKLFOH FKDUJHUVHOHFWULFYHKLFOHVHUYLFHHTXLSPHQW
(9&6(96(
DVDVXSSOHPHQWWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRU
D HOHFWULFDO DQGRU EXLOGLQJ SHUPLW 7KLV FKHFNOLVW FRQWDLQV WKH WHFKQLFDO DVSHFWV RI (96( LQVWDOODWLRQVDQGLVLQWHQGHGWRKHOSH[SHGLWHSHUPLWWLQJDQGXVHIRUHOHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJ 1HZ (9&6 (96( WKDW DUH IRXQG WR DGYHUVHO\ LPSDFW SXEOLF KHDOWK DQG VDIHW\ ZLOO QRW TXDOLI\ IRUWKH VWUHDPOLQHG SHUPLWWLQJ SURFHVV
-RE$GGUHVV
3HUPLW1R
6LQJOH-)DPLO\0XOWL-)DPLO\
$SDUWPHQW
0XOWL-)DPLO\
&RQGRPLQLXP

&RPPHUFLDO
6LQJOH%XVLQHVV
&RPPHUFLDO
0XOWL-%XVLQHVV

0L[HG-8VH3XEOLF5LJKW-RI-:D\
/RFDWLRQDQG1XPEHURI(96(WREH,QVWDOOHG

*DUDJHBBBBBB3DUNLQJ/HYHO
V
BBBBB3DUNLQJ/RWBBBBB6WUHHW&XUEBBBBB
'HVFULSWLRQRI:RUN

ϭ
City of California City
Building Department
21000 Hacienda Boulevard
California City, CA 93505
(760) 338-1377
&KHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF9HKLFOH
6HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW
6HUYLFH&KHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF9HKLFOH
(TXLSPHQW
(96(&KDUJLQJ/HYHO
/HYHO
9
/HYHO
9
/HYHO
9

0D[LPXP5DWLQJ
1DPHSODWH
RI(96HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW BBBBBBBBBBBN:
9ROWDJH(96( BBBBBB9 0DQXIDFWXUHURI(96(
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0RXQWLQJRI(96(
:DOO0RXQW3ROH3HGHVWDO0RXQW2WKHUBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6\VWHP9ROWDJH

:ࢥ:9ࢥ:9ࢥ9 9ࢥ:2WKHUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
5DWLQJRI([LVWLQJ0DLQ(OHFWULFDO6HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW BBBBBBBBBB$PSHUHV 5DWLQJRI3DQHO6XSSO\LQJ(96(
LIQRWGLUHFWO\IURP0DLQ6HUYLFH
BBBBBBBB$PSV
5DWLQJRI&LUFXLWIRU(96(
BBBBBBBBBB$PSVBBBBBBBBBB3ROHV
$,&5DWLQJRI(96(&LUFXLW%UHDNHU
LIQRW6LQJOH)DPLO\$
BBBBBBBBBB$,&

RUYHULI\ZLWK,QVSHFWRULQILHOG

$SSOLFDQW1DPH

$SSOLFDQW3KRQH HPDLO

&RQWUDFWRU1DPH
/LFHQVH1XPEHU 7\SH

&RQWUDFWRU3KRQH HPDLO

2ZQHU1DPH

2ZQHU3KRQH HPDLO

Ϯ
City of California City
Building Department
21000 Hacienda Boulevard
California City, CA 93505
(760) 338-1377
6SHFLI\(LWKHU&RQQHFWHG&DOFXODWHGRU'RFXPHQWHG'HPDQG/RDGRI([LVWLQJ3DQHO

x&RQQHFWHG/RDGRI([LVWLQJ3DQHO6XSSO\LQJ(96( BBBBBBBBBB$PSV x&DOFXODWHG/RDGRI([LVWLQJ3DQHO6XSSO\LQJ(96( BBBBBBBBBB$PSV 'HPDQG/RDGRI([LVWLQJ3DQHORU6HUYLFH6XSSO\LQJ(96( BBBBBBBBB$PSV

3URYLGH'HPDQG/RDG5HDGLQJIURP(OHFWULF8WLOLW\

7RWDO/RDG
([LVWLQJSOXV(96(/RDG
BBBBBBBBBB$PSV
)RU6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVLI([LVWLQJ/RDGLVQRWNQRZQE\DQ\RIWKHDERYHPHWKRGVWKHQWKH &DOFXODWHG/RDGPD\EHHVWLPDWHGXVLQJWKH³6LQJOH-)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO3HUPLWWLQJ$SSOLFDWLRQ([ DPSOH´LQWKH*RYHUQRU¶V2IILFHRI3ODQQLQJDQG5HVHDUFK³=HUR(PLVVLRQ9HKLFOHVLQ&DOLIRUQLD
&RPPXQLW\5HDGLQHVV*XLGHERRN´KWWSV
ZZZRSUFDJRY
&KHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF9HKLFOH
6HUYLFH(TXLSPHQW
(96(5DWLQJBBBBBBBBBB$PSV[ BBBBBBBBBB$PSV 0LQLPXP$PSDFLW\RI (96(&RQGXFWRU BBBBBBBBBB$:*
)RU6LQJOH-)DPLO\
6L]HRI([LVWLQJ6HUYLFH&RQGXFWRUV BBBBBBBBBB$:*RUNFPLO RU-
6L]HRI([LVWLQJ)HHGHU&RQGXFWRU
6XSSO\LQJ(96(3DQHO BBBBBBBBBB$:*RUNFPLO
RU9HULI\ZLWK,QVSHFWRULQILHOG

6HUYLFH&KHFNOLVWIRU(OHFWULF9HKLFOH
(TXLSPHQW
,KHUHE\DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSUHVHQWHGLVDWUXHDQGFRUUHFW including but not limited to the UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJ FRQGLWLRQV DW WKH MRE VLWH DQG WKDW DQ\ FDXVHV IRU FRQFHUQ DV WR OLIH-VDIHW\YHULILFDWLRQVPD\UHTXLUHIXUWKHUVXEVWDQWLDWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQ 6LJQDWXUHRI3HUPLW$SSOLFDQW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 'DWH
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
ϯ
City of California City
Building Department
21000 Hacienda Boulevard
California City, CA 93505
(760) 338-1377
CC 1

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenny Cooper, Finance Manager
Karina Chong, Accounts Payable
SUBJECT: Approve City Check Register dated 07/10/2026-07/23/2026 BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION:

The following checks have been prepared by the Finance Department. The items are provided to the Mayor and City Council for review and approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council discuss and approve the attached check register.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026
Marquette Hawkins
MAYOR
Jim Creighton

MAYOR PRO TEM
Della Clark
Ronald Smith

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Sean Grayson

CITY MANAGER

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL/ HOUSING AUTHORITY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 @ 5:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505 &

Web Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88186259370
Meeting ID: 881 8625 9370
Passcode: 288834

1. Public can dial into the Zoom line:
a. One tap mobile: +16694449171,87254527178# US
b. Dial the following number: +1 564 217 2000 US

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026
The public is urged to listen to the meeting in a quiet place to avoid background noise. We also request public to MUTE your audio device when not commenting to avoid disruption during meeting.
**Please take this time to turn off your cell phones ** CLOSED SESSION 4:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
MAYOR HAWKINS CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 4:14 P.M.

ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

ALL PRESENT

ADOPT THE AGENDA

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON, CARRIED 4-0, TO ADOPT THE AGENDA.

PUBLIC COMMENT
MAYOR HAWKINS CALLED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. NO ONE SPOKE.

CLOSED SESSION
CS 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2):

Three cases.

CS 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)
CS 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Boston, et al. v. City of California City, Kern County, Case BCV-22-101398-BCB

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
CITY ATTORNEY PONTO REPORTED OUT- DIRECTION WAS GIVEN FOR CS 1, CS 2, AND CS 3, WITH RESPECT TO CS 1, THERE WERE TWO CASES, COUNSEL WAS RECEIVED, AND THERE WERE NO FURTHER REPORTABLE ACTIONS.

CITY COUNCIL CONVENES TO REGULAR MEETING
REGULAR MEETING 5:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
MAYOR HAWKINS CALLED THE MEETING AT 5:12 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / INVOCATION

MAYOR HAWKINS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND PASTOR MOORE PROVIDED THE INVOCATION.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026
ROLL CALL –
Councilmembers: Clark, Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Creighton, Mayor Hawkins

ALL PRESENT

NEW BUSINESS
NB 1. Staff Report: John Paul Maier, Deputy City Manager Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 26-3260: A Resolution of The City Council of the Municipal Election Held On June 2, 2026 Declaring the Results Thereof and Such Other Matter as Provided by Law
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution declaring the election.

MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: ANONYMOUS SPEAKER AND AL HUDSON SPOKE.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON, CARRIED 4-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 26-3260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 2, 2026, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTER AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

NB 2. Subject: Administration of the Oath of Office to Councilmember Shawn Bradley

CITY CLERK MAIER PROVIDED THE OATH OF OFFICE TO COUNCILMEMBER SHAWN BRADLEY. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY EXPRESSED GRATITUDE TO THE PUBLIC AND TOOK HIS SEAT AT THE DAIS.

MAYOR HAWKINS RECESSED THE MEETING AT 5:20 P.M.

MAYOR HAWKINS CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 5:25 P.M.

PRESENTATIONS
P 1. Presentation: Life Saving Award Commendation:

Officer Jesus Flores, Dispatcher Rebecca Wofford,
Officer Joshua Flores, and Garcia (Civilian)
Presenter: Shannon Hayes, Acting Public Safety Director

MAYOR HAWKINS AND ACTING PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR HAYES PRESENTED

CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO OFFICER JESUS FLORES, DISPATCHER REBECCA WOFFORD, AND OFFICER JOSHUA FLORES.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Cannabis
City Manager
Housing
OHV
Parks and Recreation
MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT; ROBBIE CORDES SPOKE.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, CARRIED 4-0, TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE MEETINGS WITH THE SDI COMMITTEE.

CITY CLERK REPORTS/RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS
J.M. Powers – July 6, 2026

CITY CLERK MAIER ANNOUNCED THAT ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE WAS RECEIVED BY CARLA CONRY.

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026

CIVIC/COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION ANNOUNCEMENTS
MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS; DUANE VASQUEZ SPOKE.

PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR / PUBLIC COMMENT
MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT; AL HUDSON, J.M. POWERS, MICHELLE ARKIN, LING LING, PATTI, AND JESSICA SPOKE.

PUBLICHEARING
PH 1. Subject: A Public Hearing for Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 26-835: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Adding Chapter 10 to Title 7 of the City’s Municipal Code Relating to the Splash Pad in the City
A. Open Public Hearing
B. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
C. Public Comment
D. Close Public Hearing
E. Discussion
F. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council

1. Conduct Public Hearing for the adoption of Ordinance 26-835

2. Close the public hearing.

3. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from CEQA

4. Conduct second reading, waive full reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance 26-835 MAYOR HAWKINS OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:03 P.M.

MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS; AL HUDSON SPOKE.

MAYOR HAWKINS CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06 P.M.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDED ACTION.

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

CC 1. Approve City Check Register dated 05/22/2026-06/04/2026 CC 2. Staff Report: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director Subject: Resolution No. 26-3261: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City, California, for Rejection of All Bids for the Baseball Field Lighting Project Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution rejecting all bids CC 3. Staff Report: John Paul Maier, Deputy City Manager / City Clerk Subject: 1. Receive and File Resolutions for the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026; and 2. Consideration of Resolutions Calling a Special Election for Filling a Vacancy on the City Council
Recommendation: 1. It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the following Resolutions: Resolution 26-3257 A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of California City, Calling For The Holding Of A Regular Municipal Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, For The Election Of One Member To The City Council As Required By The Provisions Of The Laws Of The State Of California Relating To General Law Cities, Resolution 26-3258 A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of California City, Requesting The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Kern To Consolidate A Regular Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and Resolution 26-3259 A Resolution Of The City

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026
Council Of The City Of California City, Adopting Regulations For Candidates For Elective Office Pertaining To Candidates’ Statements Submitted To The Voters At A Special Municipal Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, from the Regular City Council Meeting held on June 23, 2026; and

2. Adopt the following Resolutions: Resolution 26-3262 A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of California City, Calling For The Holding Of A Special Municipal Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, For The Election Of One Member To The City Council As Required By The Provisions Of The Laws Of The State Of California Relating To General Law Cities, Resolution 26-3263 a Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of California City, Requesting The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Kern To Consolidate A Special Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, With The Statewide Primary Election To Be Held On That Date Pursuant To Elections Code §10403, and Resolution 26-3264 A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of California City, Adopting Regulations For Candidates For Elective Office Pertaining To Candidates’ Statements Submitted To The Voters At A Special Municipal Election To Be Held On Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

CONTINUED BUSINESS
CB 1. Staff Report: John Paul Maier, Deputy City Manager / City Clerk Subject: Consideration of Resolution 26-3265: A Resolution of the City Council of The City of California City Approving Appointment of One (1) Commissioner to the City’s Planning Commission
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution and appoint the commissioner.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH VOTING NO), TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 26-3265: A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY APPROVING APPOINTMENT OF INISHIA WHITE AS COMMISSIONER TO THE CITY’S PLANNING COMMISSION.

CB 2. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of a 30-Day Report from Donovan Golf Updating the Actions of the Golf Course Consulting Services Agreement
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the report and provide any needed direction on the topic of the TDS golf course
MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: JAKE, AL HUDSON, JESSICA, JEANNIE O’LAUGHLIN, DUANE VASQUEZ, AND MARY WITTY SPOKE.

MAYOR HAWKINS RECESSED THE MEETING AT 7:07 P.M.

MAYOR HAWKINS CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:23 P.M.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, CARRIED 5-0, TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE THE MAJOR LEAKS FIXED AT THE TDS GOLF COURSE.

CB 3. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Subject: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Anupama Doravari for Planning Services and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute it
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, SECOND BY MAYOR HAWKINS, CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON VOTING NO), TO APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH ANUPAMA DORAVARI FOR PLANNING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
July 14, 2026
CB 4. Staff Report: Nicole Jarmon, Housing Manager
Subject: Approve the award of Bid to Restoration Management Company-Hayward in the amount of $567,549.37 for the Phase 2 Fire Restoration Project at the Desert Jade Senior Housing Complex Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council, acting as the Housing Authority Board, approve the award of bid

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF BID TO RESTORATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY-HAYWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $567,549.37 FOR THE PHASE 2 FIRE RESTORATION PROJECT AT THE DESERT JADE SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX.

NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
NB 3. Staff Report: Sean Grayson, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of Direction to the City Attorney and City Manager to Analyze the Proposed Energy Services and Municipality Utility Agreement Between the City of California City and 12 Holdings, LLC
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the analysis of the agreement and its funding
MAYOR HAWKINS ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS: J.M. POWERS, AL HUDSON, JEANNIE O’ LAUGHLIN, JOHN FISHER, MARY WITTY, AND DUANE VASQUEZ SPOKE.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRADLEY, CARRIED 4- 1 (COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH VOTING NO), TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE AGREEMENT, ADDING $14,910, FOR A TOTAL OF $20,000.

MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON REQUESTED A MOTION ON TOP OF A MOTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM CREIGHTON STATED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TO ANALYZE AND EXPEND $5,090, AND IF THE COST EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT, TO FURTHER BRING BACK AN INVOICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH REQUESTED A MOTION ON TOP OF A MOTION ON TOP OF A MOTION.

MOTION BY COUNCIL CARRIED 4-0, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ORDER AND KEEP THE $20,000 DEPOSIT UNTIL THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE PROVIDES FURTHER ANALYSIS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS, AGENDA REQUESTS, AND AB1234 REPORTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for council members to present information, announcements, and items that have come to their attention. The Brown Act precludes Council, staff, or public discussion. Short staff responses are appropriate. The Council will take no formal action. A Council member may request the City Clerk to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff.

ADJOURNMENT
MAYOR HAWKINS ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:29 P.M.

CC 3

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe D. Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 26-3266: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Authorizing Acceptance of Completed Work by Aventus NV. Inc for the Vivian Water Main Replacement Project from CalCity Blvd. to Charlene Pl and Directing the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion with the Kern County Recorder

BACKGROUND:

On December 3, 2025, at 2:00 PM, the City Clerk formally opened three sealed bids for the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project.

On January 27, 2026, the City Council awarded the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project to Aventus NV Inc. for $214,849.72. The project improved the municipal water distribution system on Vivian Pl, from Cal-City Blvd to Charlene Pl, by installing new water mains and fire hydrants and replacing existing water service laterals.

On June 19, 2026, the City Engineer informed Public Works Department that the project met all plan and specification requirements.

The proposed Resolution would authorize acceptance of the completed Project work and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Kern County Recorder.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding: Water Fund: $ 214,849.72
FISCAL IMPACT:

None with this action. Any funds received will be allocated to the Dial-A-Ride program budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution authorizing acceptance of completed work by Aventus NV Inc. for the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project from Cal-City Blvd CC 3
to Charlene Pl and directing the City Clerk to file Notice of Completion with Kern County Recorder.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

CEQA Notice of Exemption filed
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Completion

2. Resolution No. 26-3266

3. Project Map
Recording Requested By:

FOR DE BENEFIT OF:

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY
When Recorded Mail to:

City of California City
21000 Hacienda Blvd.

California City, CA 93505

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is OWNER or Agent of the OWNER of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described.

2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is City of California City

3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505

4. The NATURE OF THE INTEREST or ESTATE of the undersigned is: In Fee. (if other than fee, Strike "In Fee" and insert, for example, "Purchaser under contract of purchase," or "Lessee.")

5. The FULL NAMES and FULL ADDRESSES of ALL PERSONS, if any, WHO HOLD SUCH INTEREST or ESTATE with the undersigned as JOINT TENANTS IN COMMON are:

Names Addresses

6. The full names and full addresses of the predecessors in interest of the undersigned if the property was transferred after the commencement of the work of improvement herein referred to:

Names Addresses

7. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED June 19, 2026

8. The work of improvement completed is described as follows: Vivian Pl Water main Replacement Project From Cal-City Blvd to Walpole Ave

9. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is: Aventus NV Inc

10. The street address of said property is: Between Cal-City Blvd Charlene Pl in California City

11. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of California City, County of Kern, State of California, and is described as follows:

This project included installing about 850 linear feet of 8-inch water lines and 160 linear feet of 6-inch mains, as well as gate valves, fire hydrants, and replacing existing water services and laterals.
(Mayor)
Date Marquette E. Hawkins – City Mayor
Verification for INDIVIDUAL owner
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the owner of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct.

Date and Place Signature of Owner named in paragraph 2
Verification for NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the City Mayor of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read the said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct. - City of California City (Mayor)
Date and Place Marquette E. Hawkins – City Mayor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on
John Maier, City Clerk
City of California City Revised 9/22/2017

Page 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-3266

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA

CITY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED
WORK BY AVENTUS NV. INC FOR THE VIVIAN WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT FROM CAL-CITY BLVD. TO CHARLENE PL

AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION WITH THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER.

WHEREAS, On December 3, 2025, at 2:00 PM, the City Clerk formally opened three sealed bids for the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, On January 27, 2026, the City Council awarded the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project to Aventus NV Inc. for $214,849.72. The project improved the municipal water distribution system on Vivian Pl, from Cal-City Blvd to Charlene Pl, by installing new water mains and fire hydrants and replacing existing water service laterals; and WHEREAS, On June 19, 2026, the City Engineer informed Public Works Department that the project met all plan and specification requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The proposed Resolution would authorize acceptance of the completed work on the Vivian Pl Water Main Replacement Project, directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the Project with the Kern County Recorder.

SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 4: This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon approval by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of July 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 2 ends

Marquette E. Hawkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Paul Maier, MBA, MMC Victor M. Ponto
City Clerk City Attorney

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF KERN } SS
CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY }
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of California City, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of California City on the _________ day of ________________ 2026, by the following vote:

John Paul Maier, MBA, MMC
City Clerk
Vivian Pl Water main replacement
1,918
© Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.

0.1 Legend
1:

WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
0 0.03 0.1 Miles Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. The County of Kern assumes no liability for damages, incurred by the user of this information, which occur directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions or discrepancies in the information.

Roads
Freeway
Highway
Major
Minor
Local
Ramp
Unpaved
Parcels Land
CC 4

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenny Cooper, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 26-3267: A Resolution of the City Council of the city of California City Authorizing the Finance Manager to Execute the Federal Transportation Act (FTA) Section 5311 Operating Expense Assistance Grant and Title VI Assurance and Urban Mass Transportation Civil Right Assurance

BACKGROUND:

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 formula funding program is authorized by 49 United States Code (U.S.C) Section 5311. The 5311 program provides supplemental funding for public transit service in non-urbanized areas which have populations of fewer than 50,000 residents, as quantified by the United States Census Bureau.

The FTA apportions formula funds to each state on an annual basis. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Local Assistance, Office of Transit Grants and Contracts (OTGC) is the designated grantee for California.

In order for the City to execute the FTA Operating Expense Assistance Grant the City Council must authorize a staff member to do so. The attached resolution authorizes the Finance Manager to do so.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None with this action. Any funds received will be allocated to the Dial-A-Ride program budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt this resolution allowing the Finance Manager to submit documents on behalf of California City’s Dial-A-Ride (DAR) program for FFY 2026.

ATTACHMENT:

Resolution No. 26-3267

Page 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-3267

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CALIFORNIA CITY AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE MANAGER

TO EXECUTE THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT (FTA)
SECTION 5311 OPERATING EXPENSE ASSISTANCE GRANT

AND TITLE VI ASSURANCE AND URBAN MASS

TRANSPORTATION CIVIL RIGHTS ASSURANCE

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY that the Finance Manager is authorized to execute the FTA Section 5311 Operating Expense Assistance Grant Agreement for and on behalf of the City of California City to be used for the operation of the Dial-A-Ride system; and the Standard DOT Title VI Assurance and Urban Mass Transportation Civil Rights Assurance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of California City, this 28th day of July 2026.
_____________________
Marquette Hawkins,
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________
John Maier Victor M. Ponto,
Deputy City Manager City Clerk City Attorney
[THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Page 2 ends

CERTIFICATION
I, John Maier, City Clerk of the City of California City, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of said City at its meeting held on the 28th of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of California City, California, this 28th day of July 2026. __________________________
John Maier
City Clerk
CC 5

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Roadway Crack Seal Projects Update
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION/ UPDATE:

At the July 14, 2026, City Council meeting there was a request that the schedule for roadway crack seal activities underway be provided on the July 28, 2026, City Council agenda.

The new Crack Seal trailer for City Roads, approved by the City Council, has arrived. City staff were trained in its use and maintenance. The street crew will work on sealing cracks in the roads every Tuesday from 6 am to 11 am. Two roads have already started. The number of days to complete the first two road segments is based upon the size of the roadway, the materials needed, and the available days for the crews performing the work. The attached schedule of repairs includes this information for the first two road segments underway. Under this scheduling the crack seal activities on Neuralia and CCB as defined will carry through 2026 and into 2027. The City anticipates funding for additional resources to add hours and days to the project in the fall of 2026.

Below is a list of roads that the City plans to crack seal:
• Neuralia Road – From Moss Avenue to Washburn
• California City Boulevard (CCB) – From the 14 FWY (CCB West) to Tamarack Avenue (CCB South)
• Redwood Boulevard – From Neuralia Road to CCB South
• Hacienda Boulevard – From Forest to Mendiburu Road
• South Loop Boulevard – From CCB West to CCB South
• North Loop Boulevard – From CCB West to Randsburg Mojave Road • Randsburg Mojave Road – From CCB South to 20 Mule Team Parkway • 20 Mule Team Parkway – From Randsburg Mojave Road to Rutgers Road • Forest Boulevard – From Neuralia Road to Hacienda Boulevard • Great Circle Drive – From Isabella Boulevard to South Loop Boulevard • Airway – From Forest Boulevard to South Loop Boulevard • Poppy Boulevard – From Mitchell Boulevard to North Loop Boulevard • Mendiburu Road – From Neuralia Road to Randsburg Mojave Road ATTACHMENTS:

Schedule of Days and Costs to complete crack sealing street on current list.

Road From To Length (feet) Width
(feet) Total (SF) #of Boxes Needed
Cost
per
Box
Total Cost of
Material per
Street
SF per
Day
Days to
Complete
Days
Worked
Days Left
to
Complete
Neuralia Road Moss Poppy 11,557 60 693,420 942.15 $ 20 $ 18,842.93 13250 52 1 51 Neuralia Road Poppy Washburn 18,668 25 466,700 634.10 $ 20 $ 12,682.07 13250 35 - 35 CCB West 14 FWY Baron Boulevard 20,500 25 512,500 696.33 $ 20 $ 13,926.63 13250 39 - 39 CCB West Baron Boulevard Randsburg Mojave Road 24,160 60 1,449,600 1,969.57 $ 20 $ 39,391.30 13250 109 1 108 CCB South Randsburg Mojave Road Hanover Drive 4,700 50 235,000 319.29 $ 20 $ 6,385.87 13250 18 - 18 CCB South Randsburg Mojave Road Tamarack Avenue 2,175 25 54,375 73.88 $ 20 $ 1,477.58 13250 4 - 4 Redwood Boulevard Neuralia Road CCB South - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Hacienda Boulevard Forest Boulevard Mendiburu Road - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - South Loop Boulevard CCB West CCB South - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - North Loop Boulevard CCB West Randsburg Mojave Road - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Randsburg Mojave Road CCB South 20 Mule Team Parkway - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - 20 Mule Team Parkway Randsburg Mojave Road Rutgers Road - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Forest Boulevard Neuralia Road Hacienda Boulevard - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Great Circle Drive Isabella Boulevard South Loop Boulevard - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Airway Forest Boulevard South Loop Boulevard - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Poppy Boulevard Mitchell Boulevard North Loop Boulevard - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Mendiburu Road Neuralia Road Randsburg Mojave Road - - $ 20 $ - 13250 - - - Schedule to Crack Seal Roads in Town
CB 1

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joe Barragan, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 26-3268: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of California City, California, Approving the Adoption of the Final Five-Year Transit Development Plan

BACKGROUND:

California City Dial-A-Ride operates Monday–Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Within the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres neighborhoods the service operates from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

The California City Transit Development Plan (TDP) is a five-year roadmap for improving transit service, operations, and infrastructure in the City of California City. It was developed collaboratively with the public, City staff, and the consultant team. The plan reflects community needs and City priorities and will support future budgeting and grant applications.

There were two phases of outreach, including in-person engagement, online surveys, and a bilingual virtual meeting that together helped identify key community needs:
• An outdated dispatching system that can cause errors and inefficiency. • Need for more drivers due to past service disruptions. • Desire for later weekday service and new weekend service.

Other key findings identified include:
• Service can be unreliable due to staff shortages and vehicle availability. There are no backup staff or spare vehicles.
• Service must be stabilized in the short term and staffing issues resolved in the longer term. • There are opportunities to coordinate with Kern Transit and other transit providers in the region to improve service and potentially decrease costs.

The City is already taking steps to resolve staffing shortages and prevent them in the future.

The TDP includes twenty recommendations across four categories.

Service:
• Pilot extended weekday service (8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) • Pilot Saturday service (9:00 a.m. to 3 p.m.)
• Train part-time relief driver and/or dispatcher
CB 1
• Harmonize Route 230 and Route 250 stops (in coordination with Kern Transit) • Stabilize present operations and develop contingency plans Operations:
• Improve coordination with regional peers
• Transition to electronic record keeping
• Countywide collaboration on dispatching software, driver training, grant resources, and zero-emission vehicle maintenance
• Coordinate student transportation with the school district Administrative:
• Track performance data
• Improve customer communication and website
• Create fare adjustment policy and update farebox recovery policy • Pursue grant funding for road repair
• Create a Zero-Emission Transition Plan
Capital:
• Procure additional vehicle and associated charging infrastructure • Fill gaps in sidewalk network
The TDP also reviewed the financial outlook of California City Dial-A-Ride over the five-year plan.
• Existing funds may not be sufficient to maintain existing service levels • The City may need to spend a larger portion of its Local Transportation Funding (LTF) or State Transit Assistance (STA) funds on transit to maintain or expand service.

The TDP provides a realistic, flexible, and community-focused roadmap for improving transit in California City. Recommendations can be implemented as resources allow, and there is no penalty for adjusting timelines or re-evaluating feasibility. Adoption of the TDP will guide transit improvements and strengthen the City’s position for future funding.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adoption of the Five-Year TDP will have no fiscal impact; however, implementing the recommendations will require additional financial resources for the Dial-A-Ride program in the future.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 26-3268

2. Five-Year Transit Development Plan

3. Presentation
4927-8342-9785 v1 Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 26-32XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF

THE FINAL FIVE-YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The City Council of the City of California City (hereafter referred to as the “City”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the City of California City has prepared a Transit Development Plan (TDP) to guide transit service, operations, and capital improvements over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, community input identified key needs including expanded weekday service and new Saturday service, reduced service disruptions, and dispatching challenges; and
WHEREAS, the TDP documents that the current Dial-A-Ride service operates Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and that Kern Transit Routes 230 and 250 provide regional service with stops in California City; and
WHEREAS, the TDP identifies capital needs, including sidewalk improvements and an additional Dial-A-Ride vehicle with associated charging infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the TDP provides twenty recommendations across four categories:
service, operations, administrative, and capital including but not limited to:
• Piloting extended weekday service (8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) • Piloting Saturday service (9:00 a.m. to 3 p.m.)
• Harmonize Route 230 and Route 250 Stops (In coordination with Kern Transit)
• Stabilizing operations and developing contingency plans • Improving coordination with regional peers
• Collaborating on countywide initiatives including dispatching software, driver training, grant resources, and zero-emission vehicle maintenance • Improving customer communication
• Creating fare adjustment policy and updating farebox recovery policy • Pursuing grant funding for road repair
• Procuring an additional vehicle; and

WHEREAS, the financial outlook in the TDP indicates that additional Local Transportation Funds (LTF) or State Transit Assistance (STA) funding may be needed to maintain current service levels and will be needed to implement pilot programs or permanent service increases; and
4927-8342-9785 v1 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the TDP provides a realistic, flexible, and community-focused roadmap for improving transit in California City and its adoption will guide transit improvements and strengthen the City’s position for future funding for the next five years.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves the adoption of the five-year Transit Development Plan as the guiding document for transit service, operations, and capital planning for the next five years.

SECTION 3: City staff are authorized to implement recommendations from the TDP as resources allow, including pilot programs, operational improvements, capital planning, and regional coordination efforts.

SECTION 4: City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of California City, this ___ day of _________________ 2026. __________________________
Marquette Hawkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ __________________________
John Paul Maier Victor M. Ponto,
City Clerk City Attorney

CERTIFICATION
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of California City, California, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of said City at its meeting held on the ____ of ______________ 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:
4927-8342-9785 v1 Page 3 of 3
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of California City, California, this ____day of _________, 2026. __________________________
John Paul Maier
City Clerk
Kern Council of
Governments
City of
California City
Transit Development Plan
June 2026
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................i 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 Plan Approach ............................................................................................................................................1 Purpose of Document.................................................................................................................................2 2 Overview of Transit in California City and the Surrounding Areas ................................... 3 Local Transit.................................................................................................................................................3 Other Local Operators..............................................................................................................................3 Kern Transit..................................................................................................................................................4 Intercity Operators ....................................................................................................................................8 3 Existing and Future Market Conditions ............................................................................ 10 Population................................................................................................................................................. 11 Demographic Analysis............................................................................................................................ 15 Employment .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Major Activity Generators..................................................................................................................... 31 4 Service Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 41 Local Service Summary .......................................................................................................................... 41 Historical Trends ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Current Performance .............................................................................................................................. 53 Transfers to Other Providers................................................................................................................. 57 Transit Need Analysis............................................................................................................................. 57 Expenses and Revenues ......................................................................................................................... 59 Fleet and Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 60 Zero-Emission Transition Plan ................................................................................................................ 61 Agency Interview..................................................................................................................................... 61 Key Takeaways....................................................................................................................................... 62 5 Plan Review..................................................................................................................... 63 California City 2012 Transit Development Plan............................................................................... 63 6 Outreach Overview and Phase One Summary................................................................ 65 Phase One Public Outreach Summary ................................................................................................ 66 Phase One California City Survey Results.......................................................................................... 66 Key Takeaways....................................................................................................................................... 73 7 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 74 Resiliency: An Overarching Consideration ......................................................................................... 76 Service Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 78 Operations Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 84 Administrative and Policy Recommendations..................................................................................... 90 Capital Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 95 8 Phase Two Public Outreach Summary ............................................................................. 97 California City Virtual Public Meeting................................................................................................ 97 Phase Two Survey ................................................................................................................................... 98 9 Improvement Phasing.................................................................................................... 112 Impact of Phase 2 Outreach Feedback on Implementation .........................................................113 Implementation Phasing Table............................................................................................................114 10 Financial Forecast .......................................................................................................... 117 Data Sources..........................................................................................................................................117 Financial Model and Assumptions ......................................................................................................117 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 119 Revenue Sources.................................................................................................................................... 119 Major Expenses...................................................................................................................................... 122 Recommendations and Improvement Costs ...................................................................................... 123 Key Takeaways..................................................................................................................................... 125 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments

TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Transit Network in Kern County .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Kern Transit Route 230 Alignment...................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 Kern Transit Route 250 Alignment...................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 Intercity Transit Routes in Kern County .............................................................................. 9 Figure 5 California City Population Density.................................................................................. 12 Figure 6 Kern County Historical Population Growth 2005 to 2025 ........................................ 13 Figure 7 Population Forecast by Regional Subarea: 2024 to 2050....................................... 13 Figure 8 Kern COG Regional Subareas Definitions .................................................................... 14 Figure 9 California City Proportion of People of Color............................................................. 16 Figure 10 California City Proportion of Veterans.......................................................................... 17 Figure 11 California City Proportion of People with Disabilities................................................ 18 Figure 12 California City Proportion of Older Adults................................................................... 19 Figure 13 California City Proportion of Young Adults .................................................................. 20 Figure 14 California City Proportion of People in Poverty.......................................................... 22 Figure 15 California City Proportion of People with Limited English Proficiency............................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 16 California City Proportion of Households with Zero Vehicles.................................... 24 Figure 17 California City Employment Density ............................................................................... 26 Figure 18 California City Low-Wage Employment Density ......................................................... 27 Figure 19 Projected Employment Growth in Kern County............................................................. 28 Figure 20 Major Employers in Kern County..................................................................................... 29 Figure 21 Major Employers in Kern County..................................................................................... 30 Figure 22 Public Housing in Kern County.......................................................................................... 32 Figure 23 Grocery Stores in Kern County ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 24 Medical Facilities in Kern County .................................................................................... 36 Figure 25 Schools in Kern County....................................................................................................... 38 Figure 26 Prisons and Correctional Facilities in Kern County ....................................................... 40 Figure 27 California City Transit System Overview....................................................................... 42 Figure 28 City of California City Organizational Chart............................................................... 43 Figure 29 California City Dial-A-Ride Service Span ..................................................................... 44 Figure 30 California City Dial-A-Ride Fare Structure ................................................................... 44 Figure 31 California City Dial-A-Ride Ridership ............................................................................ 46 Figure 32 California City Dial-A-Ride Revenue Hours .................................................................. 47 Figure 33 California City Dial-A-Ride Productivity........................................................................ 48 Figure 34 California City Dial-A-Ride Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost........................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 35 California City Dial-A-Ride O&M Cost per Trip.......................................................... 50 Figure 36 California City Dial-A-Ride O&M Cost per Revenue Hour........................................ 51 Figure 37 California City Dial-A-Ride Farebox Recovery ........................................................... 52 Figure 38 California City Dial-A-Ride Monthly Ridership by Fare Type (FY 2024) .................................................................................................................................... 53 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments
Figure 39 California City Dial-A-Ride Daily Average Ridership, November 2024 ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 40 California City Dial-A-Ride Monthly Productivity (FY 2024) .................................... 55 Figure 41 California City Dial-A-Ride Daily Average Productivity, November 2024................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 42 Transit Propensity in the City of California City........................................................... 58 Figure 43 City of California City Transit Expenses – FY 2024.................................................... 59 Figure 44 City of California City Transit Revenues – FY 2024 ................................................... 60 Figure 45 City of California City Transit Fleet Composition......................................................... 60 Figure 46 Recommendations from the California City 2012 Transit Development Plan............................................................................................................... 64 Figure 47 Are you happy or not happy with the transit service you ride the most? (n = 21) ..................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 48 What are your biggest concerns with the transit service you ride the most? (Select all that apply) (n = 21)...................................................................... 69 Figure 49 What is your age? (Optional) (n = 14) ......................................................................... 70 Figure 50 Which of the following races/ethnicities do you identify with? (Select all that apply) (Optional) (n = 12).................................................................... 71 Figure 51 What is the approximate combined income for your household? (Optional) (n = 9)............................................................................................................... 72 Figure 52 Responses to "Do you normally ride the following?" (n = 57) .................................. 99 Figure 53 Summary of Responses to Questions on Benefits of Improvements ........................ 100 Figure 54 Responses to "Would Improvement #1 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (N = 55) ........................................................................................ 101 Figure 55 Responses to "Would Improvement #2 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 54).......................................................................................... 102 Figure 56 Responses to “Please pick which improvement you would like to see implemented first.” (n = 51).................................................................................... 103 Figure 57 Responses to “How would you like to find information about your transportation options?” (n = 54).................................................................................. 104 Figure 58 Responses to “What is your age?” (Optional) (n = 54) ........................................... 106 Figure 59 Responses to "Which of the following races/ethnicities do you identify with?" (Select all that apply) (Optional) (n = 49)....................................... 107 Figure 60 Responses to "What is the approximate combined income for your household?" (Optional) (n = 47) .......................................................................... 108 Figure 61 Responses to "How many vehicles are in your household?" (Optional) (n = 51) .......................................................................................................... 109 Figure 62 Responses to "Do you have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance?" (Optional) (n = 48)....................................................... 110 Figure 63 Responses to "Are you a veteran of the armed forces?" (Optional) (n = 50) .............................................................................................................................. 111 Figure 64 Revenue Sources for California City Dial-A-Ride, FY 2027–2031 ........................ 120 Figure 65 California City LTF and STA Funding Received, FY 2022–2025 ........................... 121 Figure 66 Expenses for California City Dial-A-Ride, FY 2027–2031..................................... 122 Figure 67 California City’s Financial Position, Baseline and with Recommendations, FY2027–2031 ................................................................................ 124 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) plays a critical role in planning and coordinating transportation in Kern County. This project is a combined effort that seeks to update nine Transit Development Plans (TDPs) for Kern County transit agencies, as well as the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. The City of California City’s TDP is one of nine TDPs the Nelson\Nygaard team is updating as part of this project.

This project supports Kern COG’s Regional Transportation Plan, which is a long-term (20- year) plan for Kern County’s entire transportation network. This project is funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Communities grant under the Climate Adaptation Program.

Plan Objectives
TDPs are usually updated every five years and are planning tools focusing on short-term transit needs and improvements. The City of California City’s previous TDP is now over 10 years old and must be updated to reflect the current environment. The goal of the TDP is to develop recommendations to improve service and enhance transit connectivity and access.

Plan Approach
The project team started by performing an existing conditions assessment. We analyzed existing data to identify potential issues, challenges, and opportunities for improving transit.

We also conducted an interview with city staff and asked transit riders in California City for their feedback and insights.

Based on the findings from the existing conditions assessment, Nelson\Nygaard developed recommendations to address the identified issues, challenges, and opportunities. Once recommendations were developed, we conducted a workshop with city staff to review and refine the recommendations. Once city staff were comfortable, the recommendations were presented to the public for input.

Using input from the public, Nelson\Nygaard then developed a five-year plan to implement the proposed recommendations. We also developed a financial model to help the City understand the costs associated with implementation.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments ii
Key Takeaways
The following issues were among those identified during the TDP existing conditions assessment:
 Span of service is limited. Dial-A-Ride is available Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Within the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres neighborhoods, the service operates between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. There is no weekend service.
 Service reliability is an issue. The service operates with two drivers so any absences (planned or unplanned) can result in service being reduced as there are no relief drivers. The service operates with two vehicles all day but there are no spare vehicles. Anytime a vehicle needs maintenance or repair, service is also reduced.  California City needs to focus on stabilizing service and identifying alternative transportation options for residents in the case of a service disruption due to staff shortages or equipment failure.

Public Outreach
The project team engaged in continuous outreach with the community to ensure the California City TDP reflects the input and priorities of California City residents. This chapter summarizes the project team’s work with Kern COG and California City staff to conduct and advertise the outreach events and gather input from residents for inclusion in the plan.

There were two phases of community outreach:
 Phase One (June–July 2025): Listen and learn about the community’s challenges and aspirations for transit. This phase of outreach involved administering a survey to California City transit riders in person and online.
 Phase Two (March 2026): Present potential transit recommendations for feedback and gather input on how recommendations should be phased for implementation.

This phase of outreach involved a virtual public meeting to explain the potential transit recommendations and a virtual survey to gather feedback from California City transit riders about the potential improvements.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments iii
Phase One Outreach
The project team conducted outreach in California City on June 25, 2025, riding the California City Dial-A-Ride vehicle and administering a survey to riders. The bilingual (English and Spanish) survey was also available online for three weeks. During the ridealong, bilingual outreach staff (fluent in both English and Spanish) connected with approximately 21 community members. The 21 people the project team connected with represent about one third of California City Dial-A-Ride’s daily ridership, indicating a successful outreach event with the community.

California City transit riders are generally satisfied with the service provided but raised concerns about limited service, road conditions, and dispatching.

Phase Two Outreach
Phase Two outreach took place in March 2026.

The goals of Phase Two outreach were to provide an update on the Transit Development Plan project and to present the proposed recommendations to the public for feedback. The feedback received was used to refine the recommendations and help inform phasing of recommendations.

Phase Two outreach involved a virtual public meeting in California City in March and an online survey.

California City Virtual Public Meeting
The Nelson\Nygaard team and city staff held a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was hosted on Zoom. No community members attended the meeting. The City’s outreach and promotion efforts for this meeting included posting the meeting flyer on California City Dial-A-Ride vehicles and handing out flyers to passengers.

Nelson\Nygaard staff presented two proposed transit improvements: later weekday service and new Saturday service. The meeting was presented in English and Spanish with bilingual Themes
Outdated Dispatch System: Pen-and-paper dispatching leads to errors and inefficiencies.

Staffing Shortages: Only two drivers and one dispatcher mean that any absence halts service.

Long Wait Times: Delays of up to two hours due to limited staffing and vehicles.

Suggested Changes: Shift to a bus stop-based model and a weekly Mojave shuttle.

Community Dependence: Most riders rely on Dial-A-Ride for essential travel.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments iv
slides and translation available throughout. The presentation was recorded and posted online for individuals who could not attend.

Phase Two Survey
A virtual survey was administered as part of Phase Two outreach and was open for almost four weeks in March 2026. The City handed out flyers with the survey QR code to transit passengers and distributed paper copies of survey questions at the California City Senior Center. The survey was also advertised during the recorded virtual public meeting held on March 11, 2026.

Like the public meeting, the intent of the survey was to receive feedback on the recommendations and how the recommendations could be implemented in phases. The survey also asked respondents demographic and socioeconomic questions, including their transit usage and vehicle ownership, age, ethnicity, and income. Altogether, 57 people took the Phase Two survey.

The Phase Two public survey asked riders to choose which improvement they think should be implemented first. Responses to this question helped the consulting team prioritize the implementation of the proposed improvements. More respondents (31 respondents) chose Improvement #2: New Saturday Service to implement first.

Priority Improvement
1st Improvement #2: New Saturday Service
2nd Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service
Improvement #2: New Saturday Service should be implemented first based on prioritization input from the public (see Recommendation S-2 in matrix). Nelson\Nygaard recommends this improvement be piloted in the third year of the plan to allow time for the City to stabilize existing transit operations due to recent staffing challenges. Piloting this improvement in year three would still allow extended weekday service to be piloted in the fourth year.

Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service should be implemented next based on prioritization input from the public. Nelson\Nygaard recommends this improvement be piloted in the fourth year of the plan (see Recommendation S-1 in matrix).

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments v
System Recommendations
Recommendations are specific actions that the City of California City can take to address current challenges and transportation needs in the community.

Twenty different recommendations are presented on the following pages. The recommendations are divided into four distinct categories:
 Service recommendations would increase existing service levels beyond what is operated today (longer weekday service, new Saturday service), enhance access to transit by improving connectivity within California City and outside the city limits, and improve agency staffing resiliency.
 Operations recommendations focus on improving how service is delivered, which includes new approaches to dispatching, record keeping, coordinating with Kern Transit, and new programs for training drivers, as well as identifying and applying for grants.
 Administrative and policy recommendations identify approaches to improve customer experience, comply with state guidelines, monitor system performance, and smooth the transition to a zero-emission fleet.
 Capital recommendations involve capital projects that would upgrade or enhance agency assets, enhance agency resiliency, and improve transit access for riders.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments vi
Service Recommendations
Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation
Cost
S-1 Pilot Extended Weekday Service Pilot extending weekday service to the evening (7 p.m.) for six to nine months California City $50,000–$100,000 S-2 Pilot Saturday Service
Pilot Saturday service for at least six
hours, potentially 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., for
six to nine months
California City $30,000
S-3 Train Part-Time Relief Driver
and/or Dispatcher
Cross training another California City
employee to drive and/or dispatch
could increase resiliency during staff
shortages or absences
California City Minimal cost to agency
S-4 Harmonize Route 230 and 250
Stopping Patterns
Routes 230 and 250 do not use the
same stops in Mojave and California
City. Harmonizing these stops would
increase access for California City
residents and reduce rider confusion
Kern Transit lead,
California City support
Further study needed,
but could be minimal cost
S-5 Stabilize Present Operations
and Develop Contingency Plans
California City is experiencing staffing
shortages and hiring freezes which are
impacting their ability to deliver service.

The City should identify ways to
stabilize existing operations while also
developing contingency plans for future
potential service disruptions
California City Minimal cost to agency
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments vii
Operations Recommendations
Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation
Cost
O-1 Improve Coordination with
Regional Peers
Use regular meetings with Kern Transit
and the transit operators group to discuss
issues and solutions
California City, Kern
Transit Minimal cost to agency
O-2 Transition to Electronic Record
Keeping
Use an Excel spreadsheet or other
electronic system to track data California City Minimal cost to agency O-3 Jointly Procure New
Dispatching Software
Study feasibility of jointly procuring
dispatching software with Kern COG
Kern COG lead,
California City and
other agencies support
Further study needed
O-4 Establish Countywide Driver
Training Program
Establish a standard driver training
program across the county by sharing
materials, centralizing training, or
developing a program at local colleges
Kern COG lead,
California City and
other agencies support
Further study needed
O-5 Establish Countywide Grant
Resource Program
Establish a grant resource program with
Kern COG to centralize information and
opportunities on grant funding
Kern COG lead,
California City and
other agencies support
Further study needed,
but could be minimal cost
O-6
Explore Opportunities to Share
Zero-Emissions Vehicle
Maintenance Expertise
Investigate the possibility of sharing
maintenance resources (staff, training, or
both) for Dial-A-Ride
Kern COG lead,
California City and
other agencies support
Further study needed
O-7 Coordinate Student
Transportation
Coordinate with school district to identify
solutions for student transportation California City Further study needed : Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments viii
Administrative/Policy Recommendations
Number Recommendation Description
Responsibility for
Implementation Cost
A-1 Track Performance Data Track performance data such as on-time performance, missed trips, or trip denials California City Minimal cost to agency A-2 Improve Customer
Communication and Website
Add or correct information on the website
for Dial-A-Ride service, Kern Transit
Routes 230 and 250, and vanpool/carpool
options. Develop a communication plan to
let riders know about service disruptions
California City Minimal cost to agency
A-3 Create Fare Adjustment Policy Develop a policy outlining cadence and process for fare increases California City Minimal cost to agency A-4 Update Farebox Recovery
Compliance Policy
Develop strategy when new guidance is
released to remain compliant California City Minimal cost to agency A-5 Identify and Pursue Funding
Sources for Road Repair
Roads which are in poor condition or
unpaved are damaging transit vehicles and
restricting service to some areas of
California City. The City should seek grant
funding to maintain and repair roads,
focusing on those which are unpaved
California City Minimal cost to agency
A-6 Create a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan
Develop a zero-emission transition plan to
navigate the transition to zero-emission
operations
California City $10,000–$50,000
(One time)
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments ix
Capital Recommendations
Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation Cost
C-1
Procure Additional Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
Procure one additional vehicle to use
as a spare in the fleet and install the
charging infrastructure needed
California City $100,007,000
C-2 Continue to Fill Gaps in
Sidewalk Network
Continue filling in gaps in the sidewalk
network to provide safe access to
transit facilities
California City Further study needed
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments x
Phasing Plan
There are twenty recommendations to be implemented by the City of California City. Since the TDP is a five-year plan, the improvement phasing matrix that follows is set up to organize which recommendations should be implemented during which year of the plan. The recommendations are intentionally staggered throughout the life of the plan to not overwhelm the City in the first few years.

Many recommendations are interdependent on others. For example, Recommendation A-1 (Track Performance Data) should ideally be implemented after electronic recordkeeping (Recommendation O-2) is implemented. Interdependent recommendations are indicated in the matrix.

This implementation plan was used in the development of the financial plan, discussed in the last section of the Executive Summary.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments xi
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) S-1 Pilot Extended Weekday Service California City
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate the pilot
 Advertise and conduct a sixmonth pilot
 Evaluate the pilot and collect
customer feedback
 Make a decision to discontinue
or make the pilot permanent
If the pilot is successful, secure
funding to make it permanent
S-2 Pilot Saturday Service California City
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate the pilot
 Advertise and conduct a sixmonth pilot
 Evaluate the pilot and collect
customer feedback
 Make a decision to discontinue
or make the pilot permanent
If the pilot is successful, secure
funding to make it permanent
S-3 Train Part-Time Relief Driver
and/or Dispatcher California City Identify and train one or more relief drivers and/or dispatchers
S-4 Harmonize Route 230 and Route
250 Stopping Patterns
Kern Transit lead,
California City support
Work with Kern Transit to evaluate
the feasibility and costs of this
alignment change
Support Kern Transit with any
potential pilot program and/or
community outreach needed
S-5 Stabilize Present Operations
and Develop Contingency Plans California City
Stabilize operations by identifying
part-time drivers and/or
dispatchers (Recommendation S3), seeking exemptions to the hiring freeze, and partially/fully
contracting operations
Develop a contingency plan
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments xii
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) O-1 Improve Coordination with
Regional Peers
California City, Kern
Transit
Add Kern Transit coordination item
to standing Kern County transit
operators meeting agenda
O-2 Transition to Electronic Record
Keeping California City
Implement electronic record
keeping as an interim step to
procuring dispatching software
(Recommendation O-3) and to
allow performance data to be
tracked (Recommendation A- 1)
O-3 Jointly Procure New
Dispatching Software
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in Kern
County
 Develop structure for
procurement and cost sharing
agreements
 Begin procurement process
 Select vendor and onboard all
participating agencies
 Conduct necessary training
O-4 Establish Countywide Driver
Training Program
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and build out structure of the
program
 Connect with potential industry
and education partners
Continue the development of the
program
Finalize and roll out the program
O-5 Establish Countywide Grant
Resource Program
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and build out structure of the
program
Finalize and roll out the program
O-6
Explore Opportunities to Share
Zero-Emissions Vehicle
Maintenance Expertise
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and determine feasibility
 Begin evaluation and feasibility
assessment
 Continue evaluation and
feasibility assessment
 Begin building out the structure
of the program
 Review plans with agency
partners
Begin implementation Continue implementation
O-7 Coordinate Student
Transportation California City
 Set up a meeting with Mojave
Unified School District
 Develop potential strategies
 Discuss recommended
solution(s) with Mojave Unified
School District
Begin implementation of preferred
solution(s)
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments xiii
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) A-1 Track Performance Data California City
Begin tracking performance data
after electronic recordkeeping
(Recommendation O-2) is
implemented
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
A-2 Improve Customer
Communication and Website California City
 Update website
 Develop a communication plan
to let riders know about service
disruptions
A-3 Create Fare Adjustment Policy California City
 Develop and finalize a fare
adjustment policy
 Solicit public feedback if needed
A-4 Update Farebox Recovery
Compliance Policy California City Develop a compliance strategy when new guidance is released
A-5 Identify and Pursue Funding
Sources for Road Repair California City Continuous implementation – Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
A-6 Create a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan California City
Complete a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan in house or hire
outside support
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) C-1
Procure Additional Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
California City
 Install charging equipment for
new electric vehicle
 Purchase new electric low-floor
van or cutaway
C-2 Continue to Fill Gaps in
Sidewalk Network California City
 Optional: Develop a sidewalk
prioritization plan to identify the
areas of greatest need and
options for phasing and
continuing investment
 Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is
secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments xiv
Financial Forecast
As part of this TDP, Nelson\Nygaard developed a five-year financial model to understand projected revenues and expenditures for the life of the plan. Using projections built off historical data, these forecasts are meant to provide a high-level view of the City’s financial health, upcoming capital projects, and capacity to implement recommendations.

The table on the following page displays the current net position and the reserve between FY 2027 and the end of the plan in FY2031. The reserve is calculated from the first year of the financial model (FY 2022) and does not reflect any previous savings the City may have. It also provides the estimated costs of implementing each recommendation and the net position if all are implemented. For costs with a range due to different implementation options, a high and low estimate is given, and a best-case overall position is provided. These costs are planning-level estimates given in 2025 dollars.
 Nelson\Nygaard’s financial model shows that California City may have deficits operating Dial-A-Ride service at existing service levels over the next five years based on projected growth in operating funds. Existing revenues may not be sufficient to maintain full service in some years.
 Over the last four years, the City has been spending between 0% and 18% of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) funding on transit operations. The City may need to consider allocating additional LTF and STA funding to transit to maintain present service levels and implement recommended service improvements.
 California City’s capital costs are primarily related to fleet expansion and associated charging facilities. This is expected to be funded with grant money.  Because grant revenue usually cannot be used to pay for ongoing operations, the City will likely need to identify additional resources to implement the two service expansion recommendations. Possible revenue sources include resuming fare collection, although it would be a very small revenue stream, or allocating more LTF and STA funds to transit operations.
 Creative implementation of the recommendations by the City, such as staggered workdays or shift times, may reduce costs and allow more recommendations to be implemented with available funding.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments xv
California City Dial-A-Ride Financial Position, Baseline and with Recommendations, FY2027–2031
FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Baseline Net
Position and Reserve
Net Position $(33,000) $12,000 $(74,000) $(73,000) $(71,000) Net Reserve $1,141,000 $1,153,000 $1,078,000 $1,006,000 $935,000 Estimated
Recommendation Costs
S-1 Pilot Extended
Weekday Service $(50,000)
S-2 Pilot Saturday Service $(30,000)
C-1 Procure Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
$(1,007,000)
A-6 Create Zero-Emission
Transition Plan $(10,000)
Sum of Costs $(1,017,000) $(30,000) $(50,000)
Projected Position $(33,000) ($1,005,000) ($104,000) ($123,000) $(71,000) Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projection
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) plays a critical role in planning and coordinating transportation in Kern County. This project is a combined effort that seeks to update nine Transit Development Plans (TDPs) for Kern County transit agencies, as well as the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. The City of California City’s TDP is one of nine TDPs the Nelson\Nygaard team is updating as part of this project.

TDPs are usually updated every five years and are planning tools focusing on short-term transit needs and improvements. The City of California City’s previous TDP is now over 10 years old and must be updated to reflect the current environment. The goal of the TDP is to develop recommendations to improve service and enhance transit connectivity and access.

PLAN APPROACH
The project team started by performing an existing conditions assessment. We analyzed existing data to identify potential issues, challenges, and opportunities for improving transit.

We also conducted an interview with city staff and asked transit riders in California City for their feedback and insights.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 2

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
This document is the final report for the City of California City TDP. Topics by chapter are as follows:

Chapter Title What questions does the chapter answer?
2 Overview of Transit in
California City and the
Surrounding Areas
 Who operates transit in California City?
 What local and regional services are available?
3 Existing and Future Market
Conditions
 Where do people live and work in California City?
 What are the population and employment projections for California City?
 Where are the major activity generators in California City and the surrounding areas?
4 Service Evaluation
 When is transit provided?
 How has transit performed over the past several years?  Where is the most demand, and need, for transit service?  What are the City’s current zero-emission transition plans? 5 Plan Review
 What previous studies and plans have been done for
California City?
 What is the implementation status of past
recommendations?
6 Public Outreach Overview
and Phase One Outreach
Summary
 What outreach was conducted for this project?
 What do transit riders think needs to be improved?
7 Recommendations
 How were recommendations developed?
 How is resiliency considered in these recommendations?  What are the recommendations for improving fixed-route and Dial-A-Ride transit?
8 Phase Two Outreach
Summary
 What do residents think of the proposed improvements?  Which improvements should be prioritized?
 Are there any needs that were missed?
9 Improvement Phasing
 Which recommendations should be implemented first?
 What actions should the City take in each of the five years of the plan to implement the recommendations?
10 Financial Forecast
 What is the City of California City’s current financial position?
 What projects and costs are already expected in the future?  How will implementing recommendations impact the City of California City’s finances, and what is an affordable
implementation plan?
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 3
2 OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT IN

CALIFORNIA CITY AND THE

SURROUNDING AREAS
This chapter discusses regional transit and transit operators, including the local services of neighboring towns and intercity transit operators, to help provide a holistic picture of regional transit and access to opportunities.

LOCAL TRANSIT
The City of California City operates a Dial-A-Ride service for all riders within the urbanized area of the city limits. The service is available Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Within the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres neighborhoods, the service operates between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

OTHER LOCAL OPERATORS
Golden Empire Transit in Greater Bakersfield operates 15 fixed routes and Get-A-Lift, a paratransit service for eligible riders with a disability. Fixed-route service operates in the City of Bakersfield with varying service hours depending on the route. Get-A-Lift is a shared-ride, curb-to-curb service operating in the same service area as the fixed-route system. The service operates seven days a week, with trips as early as 6:30 a.m. and as late as 7:30 p.m. Golden Empire Transit service can be accessed via a connection on Kern Transit.

Ridgecrest Transit operates one deviated fixed route and a Dial-A-Ride service for the general public. The Inyokern deviated fixed-route service travels between Inyokern and Ridgecrest three times daily on weekdays between 6:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The vehicle will deviate off the fixed route within the service area when a passenger makes an advance reservation. Ridgecrest Dial-A-Ride service is available on weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. within city limits. Ridgecrest Transit also offers Dial-A-Ride service to the Randsburg/Johannesburg area on Fridays by reservation only.

The service has two trips per day: one in the morning between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and one in the afternoon between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Ridgecrest Transit service can be accessed from California City via a connection on Kern Transit.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 4
Antelope Valley Transit operates 15 local, fixed routes as well as commuter, school, and Dial-A-Ride service in Lancaster and Palmdale. Most routes begin service at 5:00 a.m. and end service between 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Routes 50, 51, and 52 offer deviations upon request, and the Dial-A-Ride provides curb-to-curb service for rural and urban residents up to the county line at Avenue A, just south of Rosamond. Dial-A-Ride service begins at 5:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and 7:00 a.m. on Sundays, ending at 8:00 p.m. all days. Antelope Valley Transit service can be accessed from California City via a connection on Kern Transit or Eastern Sierra Transit.

KERN TRANSIT
Kern Transit operates 12 fixed routes and Dial-A-Ride services in six communities (Figure 1). Route 230 and Route 250 both serve California City. Route 230 links California City to the communities of Ridgecrest and Mojave, while Route 250 connects California City to Mojave, Rosamond, and Lancaster (see alignments in Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Route 230 operates three round trips on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Route 230 has three stops in California City. All trips stop at Aspen Mall, and by request at the Park & Ride/Shell. The last southbound trip of the day stops at the Rite Aid upon request.

Route 250 operates seven daily round trips on weekdays and four on Saturdays. Route 250 has four stops in California City. All trips stop at Cactus Deli, Aspen Mall, and the Rite Aid. Buses stop at the Shell/Park & Ride upon request.

Riders can transfer to Kern Transit Routes 100 (Bakersfield–Lancaster) and 240 (Boron–Mojave) and the ESTA Lancaster Route (Mammoth Lakes–Lancaster) in Mojave and Kern Transit Route 227 (Lake Isabella–Ridgecrest) in Ridgecrest.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 5
Figure 1 Transit Network in Kern County
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 6
Figure 2 Kern Transit Route 230 Alignment
Source: Kern Transit, 2025
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 7
Figure 3 Kern Transit Route 250 Alignment
Source: Kern Transit, 2025
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 8

INTERCITY OPERATORS
Several intercity agencies operate in Kern County. Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA), Amtrak, and Amtrak Thruway all operate in Southern California with stops in Kern County.

The routes and stops of these intercity services are shown in Figure 4. Metrolink operates only in Los Angeles County but is served by Kern Transit and ESTA. None of these operators serve California City directly.

Eastern Sierra Transit Authority
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) operates a route between Lancaster and Mammoth Lakes, with two stops in Kern County at Inyokern and Mojave. Depending on the length of travel, fares on this ESTA route range from $2 to $39. On this route, discount fares are available for riders ages 60 and older, individuals with disabilities, and youth under the age of

16. For a trip between Mojave and Inyokern, the regular adult fare (age 16 to 60) is $3.00, and the reduced fare is $2.00. Passengers must make reservations before midnight Pacific Time on the day of travel. Walk-on seating is also available but not guaranteed.

Amtrak
In Kern County, Amtrak has rail stations in Bakersfield and Wasco. Amtrak’s San Joaquins route operates between the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento Valley, and Bakersfield. The duration of the full route is 6 hours and 15 minutes long, with multiple departures available daily. Amtrak fares depend on time, destination, and fare class, such as coach or business class.

Amtrak Thruway
Amtrak Thruway is a bus service providing connections from Amtrak rail stations to areas without passenger rail service. Amtrak Thruway routes connect Bakersfield to points south (Santa Clarita, Burbank, and Los Angeles), and points east (Tehachapi, Mojave, Barstow, and Las Vegas, NV). Amtrak Thruway fares depend on time and destination.

Metrolink
Metrolink is the Los Angeles regional rail system. The Antelope Valley Line begins in Lancaster. Trains operate hourly in the peak direction (to LA in the morning, from LA in the afternoon). There is less frequent service during the off-peak on weekdays and on weekends.

Trains take approximately two hours to reach Los Angeles Union Station.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 9
Figure 4 Intercity Transit Routes in Kern County
Source: Amtrak, ESTA, 2025
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 10
3 EXISTING AND FUTURE

MARKET CONDITIONS
This chapter reviews key demographic, employment, and activity centers, including a discussion of transit propensity for the region. Unless otherwise noted, demographic and employment data are from the United States Census Bureau and reported for Kern County. Other notable data sources include the California Department of Finance and Kern COG.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 11

POPULATION
Population Density
Figure 5 shows the population density in California City and the surrounding areas, which averages fewer than two people per acre. The city center has the highest population density at 5-10 people per acre. This neighborhood is served by Kern Transit’s fixed routes and California City Dial-A-Ride.

Areas with higher population density are more likely to support transit because there are simply more people to use it. Population densities of over 15 people per acre are recommended for fixed-route transit, and densities between two and 15 people per acre are appropriate for on-demand transit, like Dial-A-Ride service. Densities below two people per acre are difficult to serve with any kind of transit and may be more appropriate for services like vanpool or carpool.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 12
Figure 5 California City Population Density
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 13
Population Projections
Kern County’s population has steadily increased from 751,000 in 2005 to 924,000 in 2025, a 23% increase. California City saw average growth between 2005 and 2025, up 20%. Since 2020, the population of the city has declined slightly from 15,100 to 13,300. A breakdown for California City and Kern County overall is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Kern County Historical Population Growth 2005 to 2025 Kern County
% Change in
Population
(2005–2025)
Population
Growth
(2005–2025) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
California City 20.0% 2,200 11,100 14,200 14,500 15,100 13,300 County Total 23.0% 173,000 751,000 837,100 873,500 907,400 924,000 Source: California Department of Finance, Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State Looking ahead, Kern County’s population is expected to continue growing between 2024 and 2050. Figure 7 shows projected population growth by regional subarea in Kern County (see Figure 8 on how regional subareas were defined). Greater California City is expected to grow slower than the county as a whole.

Figure 7 Population Forecast by Regional Subarea: 2024 to 2050 Regional Subarea 2024 2029 2050
Estimated
Pop. Growth
(2024–2050)
Estimated %
Pop. Growth
(2024–2050)
Greater California City 46,300 47,000 48,600 2,300 5.0% Countywide Total 890,500 922,200 998,300 107,800 12.1%
Source: Kern COG 2024 to 2050 Growth Forecast Update
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 14
Figure 8 Kern COG Regional Subareas Definitions
Source: Kern COG 2024 to 2050 Growth Forecast Update
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 15

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The demographic factors illustrated in the following maps provide an indication of potential transit demand and vulnerable groups within California City and its immediate surroundings.

The demographic groups included are:
 People of color
 Veterans
 People with disabilities
 Older adults (age 65 and above)
 Younger adults (age 18 to 24)
 People in poverty
 People with limited English proficiency
 Zero vehicle households
Some of these groups were also included in a transit propensity analysis, which identifies demographics which have a higher-than-average tendency to use transit and creates a composite index identifying where transit demand is strongest.

The results of this transit propensity analysis are discussed in Chapter 4, but the underlying data is displayed here to provide background information.

Demographic maps showing the entirety of Kern County are in Appendix A.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 16
People of Color
Based on census data examined by the project team, people of color are more likely to use transit than their white peers. California City has a high proportion of people of color, spread throughout the city, as seen in Figure 9. Only the urbanized area and the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres areas have Dial-A-Ride service. The high percentage of people of color in California City is common in many areas of Kern County.

Figure 9 California City Proportion of People of Color
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 17
Veterans
Transportation is critical for veterans to access medical care, government services, and other essential services. As shown in Figure 10, areas of California City south of Redwood Boulevard have high proportions of veterans. This area is served by California City’s Dial-A-Ride but not Kern Transit’s fixed-route service. Edwards Airforce Base is nearby, about a half hour drive south of California City, but there is no direct transit access to it. The nearest Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital is in Bakersfield, which could be difficult to access due to the lack of direct transit options and limited daily trips provided by Kern Transit.

Figure 10 California City Proportion of Veterans
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 18
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities may be more likely to rely on transit, paratransit, and human services transportation to meet their transportation needs and maintain an independent lifestyle.

There are areas with a high proportion of people with disabilities in the city center and points west outside the city limits, shown in Figure 11. Most of these areas in the city limits are served by California City’s Dial-A-Ride service, and Kern Transit’s fixed-route service.

However, a lack of sidewalks may make it challenging for all riders, including people with disabilities, to access these bus stops.

Figure 11 California City Proportion of People with Disabilities City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 19
Older Adult Populations
Older adults, defined as ages 65 and older, may no longer be comfortable driving or may not be able to drive. Transit, paratransit, and human service transportation providers can allow older adults to live independently, access healthcare, and meet their essential needs. Older adults are concentrated in the city center, Rancho Estates, and Wonder Acres areas, shown in Figure 12, where they are served by two Kern Transit routes in addition to California City’s Dial-A-Ride.

Figure 12 California City Proportion of Older Adults
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 20
Young Adults (18-24)
Young adults, defined as ages 18-24, may be enrolled in college, the armed forces, or just entering the workforce, and may not be able to afford their own personal vehicle. Based on census data examined by the project team, young adults are more likely to ride transit compared to their older peers. Most areas in California City have fairly low proportions of young adults, shown in Figure 13, but those areas with slightly higher proportions, at 10- 20%, have some access to Kern Transit fixed-route service, as well as California City’s Dial-ARide.

Figure 13 California City Proportion of Young Adults
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 21
People in Poverty
Based on census data examined by the project team, people in poverty (below the Federal Poverty Level) are more likely to take transit in Kern County. The Federal Poverty Level is defined at a national scale and calculated by household. The exact income threshold varies by household size, number of people over the age of 65, and number of children. As of 2024, it was $25,249 for a family of three with one child. 1 More information about how the Census Bureau measures poverty can be found here: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty.

The highest concentrations of people in poverty, shown in Figure 14, are in central areas of California City. These areas have access to Kern Transit’s fixed routes and California City’s Dial-A-Ride.
1 2024 Poverty Thresholds
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 22
Figure 14 California City Proportion of People in Poverty City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 23
Limited English Proficiency
People with limited English proficiency (LEP) are potentially more likely to take transit 2 and may have difficulty accessing transit and participating in community outreach events. In communities where LEP is high, special language accommodations may be needed. Most populated areas of California City have a low proportion of people with limited English proficiency, shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 California City Proportion of People with Limited English Proficiency 2 Using Census Data for Transportation Applications, 2013, pg. 63.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 24
Zero Vehicle Households
Based on census data examined by the project team, households without a vehicle are more likely to use and rely on transit. Households without a vehicle are most common in California City’s city center, shown in Figure 16, where they are served by two Kern Transit fixed routes and California City’s Dial-A-Ride.

Figure 16 California City Proportion of Households with Zero Vehicles City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 25

EMPLOYMENT
Employment Density
Employment density is a key indicator of where there is a market for transit and the level of service the market could support. Similar to population density, the more jobs in an area, the greater the potential demand for transit. Employment densities of over 10 people per acre are recommended for fixed-route transit, and densities between two and 10 people per acre are appropriate for on-demand transit, like California City’s Dial-A-Ride service. Densities below two people per acre are difficult to serve with any kind of transit and may be more appropriate for services like vanpool or carpool. There are no areas in or around California City with high employment density, shown in Figure 17.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 26
Figure 17 California City Employment Density
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 27
Low-Wage Job Density
People who work low-wage jobs are less likely to be able to afford to own and maintain a car and are more likely to rely on public transportation. Like employment density, a high number of low-wage jobs concentrated in one area illustrates a potential market for transit. There are no areas in California City or adjacent areas with a high density of low-wage employment, shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 California City Low-Wage Employment Density
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 28
Projected Employment Growth
Projected employment growth indicates how transit demand may increase in the future. As of 2024, there are no nearby areas with high concentrations of employment. Within Greater California City, employment growth is projected to increase 24% over the next 25 years, a faster rate than Bakersfield or the county as a whole, shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Projected Employment Growth in Kern County
Regional Subarea 2024 2029 2050
Estimated
Job Growth
from 2024 to
2050
Estimated %
Job Growth
from 2024 to
2050
Greater California City 10,400 10,900 12,900 2,500 24.0% Metro Bakersfield Area 234,100 240,900 270,000 35,900 15.3% Countywide Total 351,600 366,400 430,000 78,400 22.3%
Source: Kern COG 2024 to 2050 Growth Forecast Update
Major Employers
Like employment and job density, the location of major employers can be a generator of transit demand based on employment and services provided. Major employers are more likely to have a large number of employees who can be served by transit. Major employers are the 25 largest employers in Kern County and have greater than 500 employees each.

As detailed in Figure 20 and Figure 21 there is one major employer within Greater California City. Many major employers are concentrated in Metro Bakersfield. Military and other federal employees are excluded from these statistics, and Edwards Airforce Base is about a half hour drive south of California City.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 29
Figure 20 Major Employers in Kern County
Source: State of California Employment Development Department, 2025 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 30
Figure 21 Major Employers in Kern County
Major Employer Identifier
(See Figure 20) Major Employer Location Number of Employees 1 Paramount Farms Huller 4 Lost Hills 500–999
2 Wasco State Prison Fire
Department Wasco 1,000–4,999
3 California Department
Correctional Institution Delano 1,000–4,999
4 Wonderful Citrus, LLC Delano 500–999
5 Marko Zaninovich, Inc. McFarland 1,000–4,999
6 Amazon Fulfillment Center
- Shafter Shafter ~1,000
7 Frito-Lay Incorporated Bakersfield 500–999
8 Nabors CompletionProduction Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
9 Vasinda Investments, Inc. Bakersfield 500–999
10 Chevron Corporation Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
11 Kern High School District Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
12 Community Action
Partnership Bakersfield 500–999
13 Adventist Health
Bakersfield Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
14 Dignity Health Memorial
Hospital Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
15 Amazon Fulfillment Center
– Bakersfield Bakersfield ~2,000
16 Foster Care Human
Services Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
17 Bolthouse Farms Bakersfield 1,000–4,999
18 Grimmway Farms Arvin 1,000–4,999
19 Sun Pacific Bakersfield 500–999
20 California Correctional
Institute Tehachapi 1,000–4,999
21 Robertson’s Ready Mix California City 1,000–4,999
22 Edwards Air Force Base
and Family Readiness
Center
Edwards 10,000+
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 31
Major Employer Identifier
(See Figure 20) Major Employer Location Number of Employees 23 NASA/Armstrong Flight
Research Edwards 1,000–4,999
24 Ridgecrest Regional
Hospital Ridgecrest 500–999
25 Naval Air Weapons Station
China Lake Ridgecrest 5,000–9,999
Source: State of California Employment Development Department, 2025; 23ABC News, “Amazon Fulfillment Center coming to Shafter, will create 1,000 new jobs,” 2021; 23ABC News, “Amazon Fulfillment Center opens in Bakersfield,” 2020

MAJOR ACTIVITY GENERATORS
Major activity generators, such as hospitals and healthcare facilities, schools, and grocery stores can produce large numbers of both driving and transit trips and indicate where people might travel via transit. Providing transit services to these destinations can connect people in the community to essential services, employment, and education. Major activity generators identified in this report include:
 Affordable, low-income, mobility-impaired, and senior housing  Grocery stores
 Medical facilities
 Educational institutions
 Correctional institutions
Affordable, Low-Income, Mobility-Impaired,
and Senior Housing
The Kern Housing Authority provided an inventory of affordable, low-income, mobilityimpaired (defined as housing for people with disabilities), and senior housing (public housing) for the previous Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. These housing locations are shown in Figure 22.

Public housing options are concentrated in Metro Bakersfield and along Kern Transit and other regional transit routes. There is one development in California City, on the Randsburg Mojave Road, which has access to Dial-A-Ride service. These housing developments may be more likely to have populations who are in poverty or do not have access to a vehicle.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 32
Figure 22 Public Housing in Kern County
Source: Kern Housing Authority
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 33
Grocery Stores
Grocery stores and other fresh food stores are located throughout Kern County in incorporated areas. Figure 23 shows there is at least one option in California City providing residents with access to fresh food and vegetables within the California City Dial-A-Ride service area. People who live in unincorporated or rural areas may have to travel farther to access these stores.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 34
Figure 23 Grocery Stores in Kern County
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 35
Medical Facilities
Medical facilities include hospitals, dialysis centers, VA clinics and hospitals, urgent care facilities, and other medical facilities such as medical plazas and doctor’s offices. These are common locations for human service and non-emergency medical transportation providers.

Figure 24 shows there are two urgent care clinics within California City, while Tehachapi is the nearest location with a major hospital. The nearest VA hospital is in Bakersfield, requiring travel via Kern Transit Routes 230 and 100 (connection in Mojave).

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 36
Figure 24 Medical Facilities in Kern County
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 37
Educational Institutions
Educational institutions that are typically transit generators include middle schools and high schools as well as colleges, universities, and community colleges. Figure 25 shows middle schools and high schools are scattered throughout Kern County, and every incorporated jurisdiction has at least one middle school and high school. California City has one middle school and one high school, both of which are served by California City Dial-A-Ride. There are no higher educational facilities in California City.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 38
Figure 25 Schools in Kern County
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 39
Prisons and Correctional Facilities
Prisons and correctional facilities in Kern County are also major employers and drive demand for transit for their employees. They can also be a destination for friends and family visiting those who are incarcerated. Figure 26 shows the majority of prisons and correctional facilities in Kern County are located on Highway 99 in northern Kern County, including Bakersfield and areas north of Bakersfield. There are no correctional facilities in or near California City.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 40
Figure 26 Prisons and Correctional Facilities in Kern County Source: Nelson\Nygaard
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 41
4 SERVICE EVALUATION
This chapter reviews the performance of local transit over the past several years and summarizes California City’s Dial-A-Ride service in greater detail, covering items like organization, the transit needs analysis, fleet and facilities, and more.

LOCAL SERVICE SUMMARY
The City of California City operates a Dial-A-Ride service for all riders within the urbanized area of the city limits. The service is available on Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Within the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres neighborhoods, the service operates between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Figure 27 illustrates the Dial-A-Ride service area within the City of California City. Passengers must call California City Dial-A-Ride on the day of their desired trip, one hour before the desired pick-up time.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 42
Figure 27 California City Transit System Overview
Source: City of California City and Nelson\Nygaard, 2025 City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 43
Organization
The City Public Works Director oversees the transit program, and they are responsible for attending the Kern COG’s Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and the Social Service Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The City Council of California City is the governing body for the transit service. The City’s Engineering Department is responsible for procurement activities, and the facilities department is responsible for facilities management.

The organizational chart for California City is shown in Figure 28. There are currently two fulltime drivers and one dispatcher responsible for day-to-day operations. There are no relief drivers so any absences (planned or unplanned) can result in service being reduced.

Kern COG handles formal planning through the periodic development of a Transportation Development Plan, the most recent of which was published in 2012.

Figure 28 City of California City Organizational Chart
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 44
Span of Service
Figure 29 summarizes California City’s span of service for the Dial-A-Ride. All service operates Monday through Thursday and every other Friday. While still within the city limits, Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres have slightly shorter service hours. All Dial-A-Ride service is by reservation only; however, reservations must be made the same day as the trip, at least one hour in advance. The service has a pick-up window of 15 minutes on either side of the reserved trip time.

Figure 29 California City Dial-A-Ride Service Span
Service Area
Weekday* Service
Hours
Saturday
Service Hours
Sunday
Service Hours
City Limits 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. No service No service
Rancho Estates 9:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m. No service No service Wonder Acres 9:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m. No service No service
*Note: Service operates Monday through Thursday and every other Friday Source: City of California City, March 2026
Fares
California City Dial-A-Ride is currently fare free and is funding operations with Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) grant money. In the future, California City expects to return to charging fares. The previous fare structure had single trip and 10-ride fares, with reduced fares for seniors, Medicare card holders, ADA-certified passengers, people with disabilities, and children. Figure 30 describes the fare structure for California City’s Dial-ARide when fares were collected.

Figure 30 California City Dial-A-Ride Fare Structure
Fare Type Fare Amount
General $1.70
Senior / ADA / People with Disabilities / Senior Desert Jade $1.00 10-Ride General Public $17.00
10-Ride Senior / ADA / People with Disabilities $10.00
Children under 4 ft 9 inches $1.00
Source: City of California City, May 2025
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 45

HISTORICAL TRENDS
This section analyzes ridership, revenue hours, productivity, operations and maintenance costs, and farebox recovery values from 2014 to 2023, using data from the National Transit Database (NTD).

Data Notice: The intent of this section is to provide a historical reference of where California City has been and to help frame the discussion of how the agency evolved over time.

Potential data issues have been identified as follows:
 NTD reported data may be missing or questionable for some metrics. In cases where NTD data was unavailable, data from the California State Controller was used if available. However, it should be recognized that these sources may not be exactly comparable due to potentially different methodologies.
 In cases where data seems irregular or incorrect, we have denoted that in the charts using hatched lines. Data concerns are also included in the text.  In July 2025, a fire at the storage yard destroyed the trailer housing the dispatching office and all records for Dial-A-Ride service, which has impacted data availability.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 46
Ridership
Ridership on California City Dial-A-Ride, expressed as unlinked passenger trips and shown in Figure 31, was increasing pre-pandemic, going from 14,000 riders in 2014 to nearly 17,000 in the pre-pandemic baseline year of 2019. Ridership dropped substantially during the pandemic to a low of about 7,000 riders in 2021, and has since recovered slightly to 9,000 riders as of 2023, which is 55% of 2019 ridership.

Figure 31 California City Dial-A-Ride Ridership
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2016-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015. 14,116 14,441
15,836
14,360
15,263
16,772
12,218
6,947
11,068
9,224
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Unlinked Passenger Trips
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 47
Revenue Hours
Revenue hours are measured by the amount of time vehicles are in service and either transporting passengers or waiting for a ride request. Revenue hours, shown in Figure 32, were also increasing pre-pandemic before dropping in 2020 and 2021. As of 2023 California City Dial-A-Ride is operating 1,500 hours of service yearly, about half the level of 2019.

Figure 32 California City Dial-A-Ride Revenue Hours
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2016-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015. 2,455
2,609 2,603
2,369
2,546
2,727
2,126
1,357 1,372
1,562
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Vehicle Revenue Hours
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 48
Productivity
Despite lower ridership productivity (measured as riders per revenue hour and shown in Figure 33) was stable during the pandemic, decreasing slightly to 5.1 riders per revenue hours in 2021 but recovering quickly. As of 2023, productivity is at 5.9 riders per revenue hour, slightly lower than in 2019 but well within pre-pandemic norms.

Figure 33 California City Dial-A-Ride Productivity
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2016-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015.

What is Productivity?
Productivity measures the number of passengers served per revenue hour of operation.

High productivity means service is being provided efficiently and at a lower cost per passenger.

For on-demand transit like Dial-A-Ride, productivity is computed as the number of passengers divided by all the hours that the driver is ready and able to provide service.

Five passengers per revenue hour is considered good for on-demand service. Ten passengers per revenue hour is very high for on-demand service and indicates that fixedroute service should be considered to meet some or all of the demand.

5.7 5.5

6.1 6.1 6.0 6.2

5.7 5.1

8.1 5.9

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Passsengers per Revenue Hour
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 49
Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for California City Dial-A-Ride, shown in Figure 34 in nominal dollars have been mostly consistent at around $250,000 yearly, with notable decreases in 2017 and 2022 (possibly the result of a data error).

Figure 34 California City Dial-A-Ride Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2015-2023, California State Controller, 2014.

Note: 2017 and 2022 data hatched to indicate potential data error. $298,779
$214,163
$246,445
$141,477
$252,948
$261,707
$252,949
$259,338
$156,023
$241,891
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Operating Expense
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 50
Cost per Trip
O&M cost per trip is shown in Figure 35. Pre-pandemic, this fluctuated year-to-year but was mostly stable at around $15 per trip. Since 2020, the fluctuation has continued, with costs of $37 in 2021 and $26 in 2023 being higher than any year before the pandemic.

Figure 35 California City Dial-A-Ride O&M Cost per Trip Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2015-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015.

Note: 2017 and 2022 data hatched to indicate potential data error. $21
$15 $16
$10
$17 $16
$21
$37
$14
$26
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Expense per Passenger Trip
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 51
Cost per Revenue Hour
Cost per revenue hour trends, shown in Figure 36, look similar to cost per trip. Costs fluctuated between 2021 and 2023 and were 30% higher in 2023 at $155 per revenue hour than they were in 2019.

Figure 36 California City Dial-A-Ride O&M Cost per Revenue Hour Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2015-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015.

Note: 2017 and 2022 data hatched to indicate potential data error. $122
$82
$95
$60
$99 $96
$119
$191
$114
$155
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Expense per Revenue Hour
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 52
Farebox Recovery
California City Dial-A-Ride has not charged fares since FY 2023, instead using funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) to supplement income. Farebox recovery likely includes this LCTOP funding. As shown in Figure 37, California City Dial-ARide’s current farebox recovery has generally trended downwards since 2019, except in 2022.

While farebox recovery was 8% or better before the pandemic, it was only 4.5% in 2023.

Figure 37 California City Dial-A-Ride Farebox Recovery
Source: National Transit Database (NTD), 2015-2023, California State Controller, 2014-2015, 2022-2023.

Note: 2017 and 2022 data hatched to indicate potential data error.

8.7%

13.3%

9.3%

16.1%

8.6%

9.8%

7.3%

3.8%

10.1%

4.5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Farebox Recovery
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 53

CURRENT PERFORMANCE
System Ridership
FY 2024 California City ridership, shown in Figure 38, was composed primarily of seniors.

Ridership varied month-to-month, without any clear pattern. These variations in ridership could be due to external factors or disruptions in service. Daily data for November 2024 is shown in Figure 39 for a more granular look at ridership by day of week.

Figure 38 California City Dial-A-Ride Monthly Ridership by Fare Type (FY 2024) Source: California City, FY 2024 (July 2023 – June 2024). 410 622 577 589 416 406
555
556
318
459
603
522
175
242
197
214
156
155
213
155
141
219
224
153
11 4
8 5
18 10
8 6
0 3
2 3
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Passenger Trips by Fare Type
Senior Regular Free
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 54
Figure 39 shows daily average ridership levels for November 2024, chosen because it had the fewest service interruptions in 2024. California City Dial-A-Ride averaged slightly over 60 riders per day on Monday through Thursday, with lower ridership on Fridays. Service is not offered on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.

Figure 39 California City Dial-A-Ride Daily Average Ridership, November 2024 Source: California City, November 2024.
63 67
59 77
55 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Unlinked Passenger Trips
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 55
Productivity
Productivity trends in FY 2024 generally reflect ridership trends and are shown in Figure 40.

Productivity peaked in October 2023 at 6.6 riders per revenue hour and is broadly lower in the winter and spring compared to summer and fall. For a more detailed look at productivity across each day of service see Figure 41.

Figure 40 California City Dial-A-Ride Monthly Productivity (FY 2024) Source: California City, FY 2024 (July 2023 – June 2024).

5.3 5.8 5.7

6.6 5.1

4.8 5.9

5.3 3.4

5.1 4.8

6.2 0
2 4
6 8
Riders per Revenue Hour
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 56
Using more recent November 2024 data, productivity for California City Dial-A-Ride averages above six riders per hour on most days of the week, as shown in Figure 41. Fridays have a lower productivity of 5.6.

Figure 41 California City Dial-A-Ride Daily Average Productivity, November 2024 Source: California City, November 2024.

On-Time Performance
On-time performance for California City Dial-A-Ride is not tracked.

6.0 6.2 6.0

7.2 5.6
0 2
4 6
8 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Riders per Revenue Hour
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 57

TRANSFERS TO OTHER PROVIDERS
There is no data on passenger transfer volume, however passengers can transfer to Kern Transit’s Route 230 (Mojave to Ridgecrest via California City) or Route 250 (California City to Lancaster). Passengers can board both routes using several stops along California City Boulevard.

TRANSIT NEED ANALYSIS
Using select demographic and socioeconomic data can help determine the overall transit demand for a given area. Areas of higher demand are more likely to generate ridership and support transit service that is provided.

Nelson\Nygaard’s analysis utilized a composite index of demographic groups that are more likely to ride transit, also known as transit propensity. The groups included in the index are:
 People of color
 Zero vehicle households
 Low-income individuals
 Veterans
 People with disabilities
 Older adults (age 65 and above)
 Young adults (age 18 to 24)
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 58
As shown in Figure 42, the area with the highest transit propensity in California City is currently served by Dial-A-Ride service. The area is also along the Kern Transit fixed routes, with three stops serving the higher demand area.

Figure 42 Transit Propensity in the City of California City Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 59

EXPENSES AND REVENUES
The City of California City Transit agency spent $216,733.83 to operate service between July 2023 and June 2024 (FY2024). The agency recovered approximately 61% of this expenditure from a combination of passenger fares and federal government grants. Expenditures for FY 2024 are shown in Figure 43, and revenues in Figure 44.

Figure 43 City of California City Transit Expenses – FY 2024 Category Amount
Regular Salaries $97,368.98
Premium Overtime $821.76
Temporary/Part-Time $16,265.22
Cash-in-Lieu $32.22
Employment Fees $100.00
Medicare $2,109.55
Cafeteria Plan (Employee benefits) $54,151.00
Retirement $8,727.08
Unemployment Insurance $578.50
Worker’s Comp $2,289.99
PERS Unfunded Liability $92.49
Uniforms $509.97
Travel/Lodging $488.80
Office Supplies $415.12
Vehicle Operations/Maintenance $4,628.08
RSI Fuel $19,552.45
Building Operations/Maintenance $1,326.88
Telephone - Landline $1,516.31
Professional Services $4,095.00
Armory/Safety Equipment and Supplies $963.43
Licenses and Permits $125.00
Other Contracts $576.00
Total $216,733.83
Source: City of California City – Balance Sheet (FY 2024) City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 60
Figure 44 City of California City Transit Revenues – FY 2024 Category Subcategory Amount
Operating Revenue Passenger Fares $10,002.20
Miscellaneous Revenue $19.50
Subtotal $10,021.70
Nonoperating Revenue Federal Government $121,321.30
Other Sources (STA and LTF) $85,390.83
Total $216,733.83
Source: City of California City – Balance Sheet (FY 2024).

FLEET AND FACILITIES
California City’s fleet is comprised of two cutaway buses. Those two vehicles are typically in operation for peak service. There are no spare vehicles, so maintenance on a vehicle requires service to be reduced. The fleet remains within their useful life. Agency staff have stated that high winds make it unsafe to use the wheelchair lifts and they do not transport passengers that need the lifts during high winds.

Many city roads are in poor condition, requiring the fleet to undergo repairs and maintenance more frequently. Maintenance for this fleet is overseen by the City’s Shop Superintendent at the City’s Corporate Yard/Fleet Shop.

In July 2025, a fire at the storage yard destroyed the trailer housing the dispatching office and all records for Dial-A-Ride service. The two cutaway buses had cosmetic damage due to the fire but are otherwise operational. The fleet roster is shown in Figure 45.

Figure 45 City of California City Transit Fleet Composition Type Make Model Year Mileage
Cutaway Bus Ford E450 2021 52,508
Cutaway Bus Ford E450 2021 66,360
Source: City of California City, 2025
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 61

ZERO-EMISSION TRANSITION PLAN
As noted in the September 2023 Triennial Performance Audit Report, the City estimates the next vehicle replacements will occur over the next six years, when the City hopes to begin its transition to electric vehicles. However, the City has expressed concerns associated with the reliability, battery longevity, and charging range of electric vehicles, plus other potential climate-related challenges specific to the area’s desert conditions, such as extreme heat and dust. It is also challenging to find skilled mechanics to service transit EVs.

AGENCY INTERVIEW
As part of the existing conditions assessment for this project, the Nelson\Nygaard team interviewed City of California City staff in person the week of May 19, 2025. The intent of these interviews was to allow the project team to ask the agency questions about their operations, including the riders they serve, agency challenges with operating service, desired outcomes and recommendations as part of this planning effort, and questions about the data received. This was also an opportunity for the project team to tour the agency’s facilities and fleet, as well as see the community in which the agency operates. Below is a summary of what was discussed as working well and what some of the challenges and potential opportunities might be.

What is working well for transit in California City?
 Dedicated staff prioritizing community-centered approaches  Service maintains high level of responsiveness
 Emergency response service is innovative and adaptive Challenges and areas with possible room for improvements  Limited fleet, staff, and resources
 Challenged infrastructure impacts service; electrical grid unreliability, outdated dispatch systems, poor sidewalk condition
 Limited regional coordination compounds financial pressures City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 62

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Span of service is limited. The service is available Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Within the Rancho Estates and Wonder Acres neighborhoods, the service operates between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. There is no weekend service.
 Service reliability is an issue. The service requires two drivers and two vehicles to operate. Any absences (planned or unplanned) or vehicle unavailability can result in a service reduction as there are no relief drivers or spare vehicles.  California City has higher ridership Monday through Thursday, with between 60 to 70 rides per day. Fridays is lower, with an average of 55 rides.  No advance reservations are accepted. The service requires riders to call in one hour before their desired pick-up.
 The pandemic significantly impacted ridership. While California City adjusted revenue hours downward to maintain productivity, ridership has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels, and costs have risen.
 California City maintained good productivity through the pandemic and continues to have high productivity using more recent data from November 2024, exceeding six riders per revenue hour on most operating days. Productivity appears to be trending upwards.
 Despite high productivity, cost per trip has increased since the pandemic, going from $16 in 2019 to $26 in 2023. Cost per revenue hour has been on a similar trajectory.
 Nelson\Nygaard’s transit need analysis shows the areas with the highest transit propensity are served by California City’s Dial-A-Ride service and Kern Transit’s fixed-route service.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 63
5 PLAN REVIEW
This chapter summarizes the document that was reviewed to help provide context of previous planning efforts that are of consequence to transit and specialized transportation in California City. The data, strategies, and identified needs from this plan can provide insight into possible persistent gaps and transportation challenges. This plan was produced prior to 2020 and may lack the context and consideration of impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CALIFORNIA CITY 2012 TRANSIT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The 2012 California City TDP served as the primary planning document for the city’s transit system. Key issues identified in the TDP included a low farebox recovery ratio, limited service hours, and sluggish growth in ridership compared to population. Service recommendations were developed to address these issues. Recommendations focused on providing an efficient transit service that met TDA farebox ratio targets, deployment of two fixed routes, and the agency’s capital needs. A summary of recommendations from the plan is shown in Figure 46.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 64
Figure 46 Recommendations from the California City 2012 Transit Development Plan Category Recommendation Implementation Update
Service Strategies New Fixed Route Service Not implemented – no new fixedroute service beyond what Kern Transit provides.

Expanded Dial-A-Ride Service Hours Not implemented – no change to Dial-A-Ride hours.

Fare Increase Not implemented – Dial-A-Ride is
now fare free.

Management Plan General Procedures No update – unclear if implemented or changed
Marketing Plan Brochure Not implemented – no brochure was created.

Transit Information No update - unclear if transit
information was shared more broadly
across California City.

Marketing Promotion No update – unclear if community
events were held to promote Dial-ARide service.

City Website Not implemented – only Dial-A-Ride
service is included, not Kern Regional
Transit routes.

Travel Training No update – unclear if travel training
was ever conducted.

Free advertising No update – unclear if press
releases, news stories, or other
media sources were ever used for
advertising.

Cross Marketing Not implemented – Kern Regional
Transit information is not available on
the City’s website.

Source: California City Transit Development Plan, 2012
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 65
6 OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND

PHASE ONE SUMMARY
The project team engaged in continuous outreach with the community to ensure the California City TDP reflects the input and priorities of California City residents. This chapter summarizes the project team’s work with Kern COG and
California City staff to conduct and advertise the outreach events and gather input from residents for inclusion in the plan.

This chapter summarizes Phase One of public outreach. The results of Phase Two are presented in Chapter 8.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 66

PHASE ONE PUBLIC OUTREACH

SUMMARY
Phase One outreach occurred in June and July 2025 and involved all nine agencies in Kern County updating their TDPs. The goals of Phase One outreach were to introduce the TDP and accompanying Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan (CHSTP) planning processes to the public and collect feedback to inform draft recommendations for each transit agency.

A countywide survey was conducted to gather feedback on transportation needs and challenges.

The project team conducted outreach in California City on June 25, 2025, riding the California City Dial-A-Ride vehicle and administering a survey to riders. The bilingual (English and Spanish) survey was also available online for three weeks. During the ridealong, bilingual outreach staff (fluent in both English and Spanish) connected with 21 community members. Some riders took the survey, and their results are included in the summary in the next section. For riders that did not want to take the survey, outreach staff engaged with them to obtain feedback on transit concerns and potential improvements.

Those comments are noted in the narrative of the survey results section.

The survey asked community members which transit services they use in the county, what concerns they have, and how transit could be improved. Respondents who said they do not currently ride transit were asked why they do not and what improvements would encourage them to take transit. The survey also collected optional demographic information on age, ZIP code, race/ethnicity, and household income.

PHASE ONE CALIFORNIA CITY SURVEY

RESULTS
This section summarizes the results for riders who picked California City Dial-A-Ride as the agency they ride the most. A total of 26 respondents selected California City Dial-A-Ride as their most frequently ridden agency.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 67
Rider Satisfaction
As shown in Figure 47, all respondents were either very happy (90% of respondents, 19 respondents) or somewhat happy (10% of respondents, 2 respondents) with California City Dial-A-Ride service. Net satisfaction, computed by subtracting the percentage of somewhat unhappy and very unhappy respondents from the percentage of very happy and somewhat happy respondents, is 100%, noting an overall satisfaction with California City Dial-A-Ride.

Figure 47 Are you happy or not happy with the transit service you ride the most? (n = 21) 90%
10%
0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very happy Somewhat happy Neither happy nor
unhappy
Somewhat
unhappy
Very unhappy
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 68
Transit Concerns and Improvements
Most respondents (71% of respondents, 15 respondents) reported no concerns with California City Dial-A-Ride. Only one respondent noted a concern, which was “transit does not run when I need it to,” as shown in Figure 48.

Six respondents, or 29% of respondents, included write-in comments for other concerns with California City Dial-A-Ride. The six respondents had the following comments:
 “Not enough drivers”
 “Must fix the roads. It is unsafe for elderly.”
 “Dispatch is confusing and hard to get a hold of someone.”  “Not enough availability”
 “More drivers, not enough buses”
 “They might end the program”
The one respondent who said “transit does not run when I need it to,” also commented that there is “not enough availability.” Combining the comments about not enough drivers, availability, or buses, 14% of respondents (3 respondents) think service is insufficient in some way.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 69
Figure 48 What are your biggest concerns with the transit service you ride the most? (Select all that apply) (n = 21)
Respondents were asked an optional, open-ended question about what one improvement to transportation would help them, as well as if they have any other suggestions or comments.

The question received 18 written responses.

Out of the 18 respondents who provided comments, 17 requested the following improvements:
 More buses and drivers to meet demand (5 respondents)  Service to Mojave (3 respondents)
 Transport to clinics and nearby shops, including Walmart (3 respondents)  Weekend service (2 respondents)
 Improved dispatch services (dispatch, according to one respondent, is not answering the phone and giving wrong directions) (2 respondents)
 Larger buses (1 respondent)
 Switch to fixed-route service with bus stops (1 respondent) 5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
71%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Transit does not run when I need it to
Transit does not go to where I need it to
It is uncomfortable to ride the bus
It is uncomfortable to wait for the bus
Distance to the bus stop is too far
Buses are not reliable (on time)
It takes too long to get to where I am going
I need to travel with a stroller, groceries, bicycle,…
I do not know how to use the transit system in…
I have a disability or health condition that…
It is too expensive
I have no concerns
Other
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 70
Demographics
Respondents were asked to fill out anonymous, optional demographic information on age, ZIP code, race and ethnicity, and household income. Below are the demographic results for respondents who selected California City Dial-A-Ride as their most frequently ridden agency.

Age
As shown in Figure 49, out of 14 California City Dial-A-Ride riders who completed this question, 64% were adults age 25 to 64 years old (9 respondents). The next most frequent population was older adults age 65 years and older at 21% of respondents (3 respondents).

Young adults age 18 to 24 years old and youth age 17 years old or younger had one response each (7% of respondents for both categories).

Figure 49 What is your age? (Optional) (n = 14)
7% 7%
64%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
17 years old or younger 18 to 24 years old 25 to 64 years old 65 years old or older City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 71
Race and Ethnicity
As shown in Figure 50, out of 12 California City Dial-A-Ride riders who completed this question, 33% identified as Black or African American (4 respondents) and 33% identified as White (4 respondents). The next most frequent population identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine at 25% of respondents (3 respondents).

Figure 50 Which of the following races/ethnicities do you identify with? (Select all that apply) (Optional) (n = 12)
8%
0%
33%
25%
8% 8%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
American
Indian, Alaska
Native, or
Indigenous
East Asian Black or
African
American
Hispanic,
Latino, Latina,
or Latine
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
South Asian White
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 72
Household Income
Figure 51 shows the responses of the nine California City Dial-A-Ride riders who completed the question about combined household income. Out of the nine responses, 89% have a combined household income of less than $50,000 (8 respondents). The remaining one respondent reported a combined household income of $50,000 to $99,999.

Figure 51 What is the approximate combined income for your household? (Optional) (n = 9) 89%
11%
0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fewer than
$50,000
$50,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,000
$200,000 or
greater
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 73

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Overall, California City transit riders are generally satisfied with the service but raised concerns about not enough drivers and the hours of service. Community members and drivers both emphasized the importance of improving the system’s efficiency and reach.

Themes of concerns from in-person and survey outreach are summarized below.

Themes
Outdated Dispatch System: Pen-and-paper dispatching leads to errors and inefficiencies.

Staffing Shortages: Only two drivers and one dispatcher mean that any absence halts service.

Long Wait Times: Delays of up to two hours due to limited staffing and vehicles.

Suggested Changes: Shift to a bus stop-based model and a weekly Mojave shuttle.

Community Dependence: Most riders rely on Dial-A-Ride for essential travel.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 74
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are specific actions that the City of California City can take to address current challenges and transportation needs in the community. This chapter lists all potential recommendations that can be implemented.

The recommendations in this chapter were developed based on the existing conditions analysis conducted earlier in the project, which included feedback from the public via a survey, discussions with city staff, and industry best practices. These recommendations were discussed with California City staff in a virtual workshop. Recommendations involving Kern Transit were discussed separately via email and phone.

The feedback received during the workshop was used to refine the recommendations before presentation to the public for their input. Feedback received from the public during Phase Two outreach, which is summarized in Chapter 8, was used to refine the recommendations into their current state. Recognizing there are limited financial resources, Chapter 9 provides an implementation plan that would phase improvements across the five-year horizon of this plan.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 75
Twenty different recommendations are presented on the following pages. The recommendations are divided into four distinct categories:
 Service recommendations would increase existing service levels beyond what is operated today (longer weekday service, new Saturday service), enhance access to transit by improving connectivity within California City and outside the city limits, and improve agency staffing resiliency.
 Operations recommendations focus on improving how service is delivered, which includes new approaches to dispatching, record keeping, coordinating with Kern Transit, and new programs for training drivers, as well as identifying and applying for grants.
 Administrative and policy recommendations identify approaches to improve customer experience, comply with state guidelines, monitor system performance, and smooth the transition to a zero-emission fleet.
 Capital recommendations involve capital projects that would upgrade or enhance agency assets, enhance agency resiliency, and improve transit access for riders.

A summary table provides a brief overview and the estimated costs of all recommendations in each category. Each recommendation is then described in greater detail on the following pages.

Some of the recommendations include potential costs to help prioritize investment and provide an idea of the resources needed for implementation. Costs are preliminary estimates and not intended to be exact. Recommendations that are expected to be very low cost (under $10,000) or accomplished by city staff as part of their normal duties are not assigned a cost.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 76
RESILIENCY: AN OVERARCHING

CONSIDERATION
Resiliency is a key consideration in transportation planning because it ensures transportation systems can continue operating or quickly recover from disruptions such as climate hazards, 1 natural disasters, equipment failures, or economic hardship (e.g., funding challenges). A resilient transit system should be able to plan for and adapt to changing conditions, whether that means rerouting service during wildfires or floods, maintaining service during power outages, or responding to changes in travel from the community.

Within the framework of the nine TDPs Nelson\Nygaard is producing for Kern County transit agencies, resiliency is an overarching consideration. By incorporating resiliency into these TDPs, agencies can protect rider safety, maintain access to essential destinations, and minimize service interruptions. Ultimately, investing in resiliency helps create a more reliable, sustainable, and equitable transit network that can withstand future uncertainties.

From Nelson\Nygaard’s perspective, resiliency can be categorized into one of six buckets:
 Resiliency of fleet
 Resiliency of facilities
 Financial sustainability/resiliency
 Emergency preparedness resiliency
 Staffing resiliency
 Resiliency in operations (community mobility)
Aside from emergency preparedness, the recommendations developed in this TDP directly address these five elements of resiliency. Emergency preparedness is not directly addressed in this TDP. More information on emergency preparedness is included in the callout box below.
1 Per the Kern Area Regional Goods-Movement Operations (KARGO) study, climate hazards specifically identified for Kern County include “increased incidences of extreme heat events, prolonged drought, and associated increases in the risk of wildfires [… and] with longer dry spells combined with increased precipitation from singular storm events, the risk of flooding to the region also increases.” Resiliency [noun]:

An ability to recover from or adjust easily to adversity or change.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 77
Within this chapter, there are 13 recommendations that support system resiliency and are denoted by a leaf in the header. Resiliency recommendations include improving reliability of service, improving infrastructure, expanding fleet and personnel capacities, and enhancing customer-facing information.

What is emergency preparedness?
Emergency preparedness is the process of ensuring a transit agency can prevent, respond to, and recover from emergencies that affect riders, employees, and service.

Emergencies may include natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, wildfires), severe weather, major accidents, hazardous materials incidents, cyber disruptions, or security threats. The goal is to protect life and safety, minimize service disruption, and restore operations as quickly and safely as possible.

Emergency preparedness is a multi-dimensional issue that requires extensive planning and coordination both within and between various City departments, as well as externally with neighboring jurisdictions and Kern County government.

How can the City prepare for an emergency?
California City should develop an emergency preparedness plan if one is not already developed. This should include considerations for transit, including identifying key risks, defining staff roles and decision-making authority, and establishing clear procedures for communication, service changes, and coordination with first responders.

Consideration should be given to transit’s role in evacuations (especially during high wind events which can make it challenging to use the lifts on Dial-A-Ride vehicles), resource sharing (e.g., what happens if the City’s transit facility burns down or the fleet is lost due to a fire), and regional coordination in the event an emergency extends beyond the City. Regular training, drills, and updates help ensure plans remain effective and staff are prepared to respond if an emergency occurs.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 78

SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
There are five service recommendations, which would increase existing service levels beyond what is operated today (longer weekday service, new Saturday service), enhance access to transit by improving connectivity within California City and outside the city limits, and improve agency staffing resiliency.

Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation
Cost
S-1 Pilot Extended Weekday Service Pilot extending weekday service to the evening (7 p.m.) for six to nine months California City $50,000–$100,000 S-2 Pilot Saturday Service
Pilot Saturday service for at least six
hours, potentially 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., for six
to nine months
California City $30,000
S-3 Train Part-Time Relief Driver
and/or Dispatcher
Cross training another California City
employee to drive and/or dispatch could
increase resiliency during staff shortages
or absences
California City Minimal cost to agency
S-4 Harmonize Route 230 and 250
Stops
Routes 230 and 250 do not use the same
stops in Mojave and California City.

Harmonizing these stops would increase
access for California City residents and
reduce rider confusion
Kern Transit lead,
California City support
Further study needed, but
could be minimal cost
S-5 Stabilize Present Operations and
Develop Contingency Plans
California City is experiencing staffing
shortages and hiring freezes which are
impacting their ability to deliver service.

California City should extend weekday service to 7:00 p.m. as part of a pilot program.

Since staffing could be challenging with only two drivers, some potential implementation options are:
 Staggering driver shift times. The City could implement this recommendation by staggering driver start and end times with one driver working from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and one driver working from 10:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. This would maintain coverage across all hours of the day without increasing driver costs. However, the City will need to monitor trip activity to determine if a single driver can handle trip requests during the beginning and end of service. If this is not feasible, paying overtime or hiring one or more part-time drivers may be necessary.  A split shift for one of the drivers. Depending on ridership demand, one of the drivers could work two separate shorter shifts in a workday, targeting periods where ridership is highest. Because of the short overall span of service, this should not place a substantial burden on operators. However, it can be a way to operate the extended weekday service for the duration of the pilot.

If extended weekday service is made permanent, California City would need to explore if the staffing arrangement in place during the pilot can continue or if other options (e.g., hiring a part-time driver) should be considered.

Dispatching may also be challenging should this recommendation become permanent after the pilot. A backup driver and/or dispatcher (Recommendation S-3) could make this recommendation more viable.

Guidance on conducting a pilot program is included on the next page.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 80
Guidelines for Conducting Pilot Programs
Nelson\Nygaard recommends pilots have a six-month minimum duration and establish a series of metrics to gauge the success and future viability of the pilot. These metrics can include traditional quantitative metrics such as ridership, cost per passenger, or productivity (passengers per revenue hour).

However, they can also include more qualitative items, including customer satisfaction or providing mobility to access services or to workers with non-standard schedules.

A rider focus group could help the agency develop these metrics, and with launching and monitoring the pilot service.

The metrics are up to the agency to set and should reflect how the agency would like to measure success. Many agencies use ridership, but fulfilling transportation needs that cannot otherwise be met can be an equally important, if not more important, metric. The most important thing is to have an evaluation framework in place before the start of the pilot program to measure whether the pilot should continue beyond its targeted end date.

S-2 Pilot Saturday Service
Currently, California City Dial-A-Ride does not operate on weekends. In the Phase One public survey, riders noted transit does not run when they need it and specifically requested weekend service.

The City should pilot Saturday service with a minimum span of six hours as part of a pilot program, potentially between 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

At other transit agencies nationwide, Nelson\Nygaard has seen weekend ridership rebound faster than weekday ridership in the post-pandemic period. This is largely because weekend travel is driven by social, recreational, and discretionary trips, which have returned more quickly than traditional commute trips. While ridership on Saturday may still not be as high as on weekdays, transit still plays an important role in providing mobility to the community.

The City may wish to evaluate the success of this pilot not based on how many riders it serves, but rather by who is using the service and what trips they are taking. If riders without personal vehicles are using the service and/or there are Saturday riders who cannot take trips on weekdays, this may indicate the pilot is successfully improving mobility for the community.

The City will have to consider the dispatching and maintenance support that may be needed as part of the pilot program, along with the associated costs for doing so.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 81
Possible implementation methods for securing drivers for the pilot include:
 Staggering driver workdays. In California City, ridership is slightly lower on Fridays compared to other weekdays. The City could consider operating only one vehicle on Fridays and Saturdays for the duration of the pilot. The City should re-examine the practice of no service every other Friday. This configuration allows for two-vehicle coverage on Monday through Thursday, while extending service to Saturday with a single vehicle. One driver would work Monday through Friday while the other would work Monday through Thursday, and then on Saturday. While this does not provide both drivers with two consecutive days off, it serves as a short-term strategy to test the viability of Saturday service without increasing total headcount or overtime costs.  Overtime. Drivers could be asked to work a reduced schedule on Saturday as overtime. This would increase costs compared to staggered workdays but maintain full service on weekdays. Overtime pay would likely not be a long-term solution but could be an acceptable solution for the duration of the pilot program.  A temporary part-time driver. The City could hire a temporary part-time driver to provide Saturday service and possibly the extended weekday pilot as well (see Recommendation S-1). A part-time relief driver and/or dispatcher (Recommendation S-3) can also support the implementation of this pilot service.

If the Saturday service is made permanent, California City would need to explore if the staffing arrangement in place during the pilot can continue or if other options (e.g., hiring a part-time driver) should be explored. This service will also require a dispatcher and likely a mechanic working on Saturdays, possibly requiring additional part-time positions. A backup driver and/or dispatcher (Recommendation S-3) could make this recommendation more viable.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 82
S-3 Train Part-Time Relief Driver and/or Dispatcher
California City Dial-A-Ride operates with two drivers and one dispatcher. If any of these employees fall ill, take vacation, or are otherwise unavailable, service is reduced as there are no replacement staff.

To improve service reliability, California City should attempt to cross-train another city staff member for driving and/or dispatching. These designated employees would only drive and/or dispatch during service disruptions due to other employees being absent. While this may result in occasional overtime costs, the investment significantly increases service resiliency and ensures the City can maintain its published schedule.

Building on the recent success of identifying a City employee with a commercial driver’s license, the City should continue to identify and train alternate drivers and dispatchers. This proactive approach will establish long-term stability and prevent future service gaps.

A cross-trained driver and/or dispatcher could also help to pilot the extended weekday service (Recommendation S-1) and new Saturday service (Recommendation S-2) and can assist with achieving the goal of stabilizing operations (Recommendation S-5).

Another option could be to hire an outside contractor to help provide service, which is discussed further in Recommendation S-5.

S-4 Harmonize Route 230 and Route 250 Stops
Both Kern Transit Route 230 and Route 250 operate between California City and Mojave. In Mojave, Route 230 passes by, but does not have a stop, at the Stater Bros. grocery store.

Kern Transit Route 250 (as well as Route 240 to Boron), however, do have a stop at the market. Deviating Route 230 to also serve the Stater Bros. stop in Mojave would improve access to grocers for California City residents by supplementing trips provided by Route 250.

Similarly, in California City, Route 250 serves the Cactus Deli stop, but Route 230 does not.

Allowing Route 230 to also serve the Cactus Deli stop would improve access to this part of California City and reduce confusion from riders about which route serves this bus stop.

California City is currently working to construct a new bus turnout on California City Boulevard between Yerba Boulevard and Victor Way. When complete, this pullout will provide a safe location for riders to wait and to allow buses to pull out of the flow of traffic to pick up and drop off passengers.

The City should work with Kern Transit to identify the feasibility of implementing these changes, including potential alignment modifications and associated operational impacts, if any. Harmonizing stops shared by the two routes will reduce confusion for riders and improve transit access for California City residents.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 83
S-5 Stabilize Present Operations and Develop
Contingency Plans
California City Dial-A-Ride is currently experiencing staffing shortages due to recent departures or extended absences. California City is also under a hiring freeze, making it difficult to restore full operations in the short term.

California City should prioritize stabilizing current operations through cross-training staff, seeking limited exemptions from the hiring freeze, and exploring contracted operations.

California City has successfully identified a city employee with a commercial driver’s license to assist with operations and dispatching in the short term. By continuing to identify alternate drivers and cross-training dispatchers (as detailed in Recommendation S-3), the City can build long-term resiliency against future disruptions.

In early 2026, due to staffing shortages, the City hired a contractor to operate Dial-A-Ride service. The City should examine whether partially (or fully) contracting out the Dial-A-Ride service is appropriate to mitigate the risks of service disruptions due to staffing shortages.

The City is planning to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) later this year.

Additionally, the City should formalize a contingency plan based on lessons learned from the early 2026 service disruption. This plan should outline the procedures for securing emergency contractors, identify key decision-makers, and establish onboarding protocols. This planning effort should also account for other risks, such as natural disasters, maintenance staffing gaps, or extended vehicle downtime. Finally, the plan should integrate alternative regional resources like carpool, vanpool, and volunteer driver programs (see Recommendation A-2).

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 84

OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
The seven operations recommendations which focus on improving how service is delivered, which includes new approaches to dispatching, record keeping, coordinating with Kern Transit, and new programs for training drivers, as well as identifying and applying for grants.

Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation
Cost
O-1 Improve Coordination with
Regional Peers
Use regular meetings with Kern Transit
and the transit operators group to discuss
issues and solutions
California City, Kern
Transit Minimal cost to agency
O-2 Transition to Electronic Record
Keeping
Use an Excel spreadsheet or other
electronic system to track data California City Minimal cost to agency O-3 Jointly Procure New Dispatching
Software
Study feasibility of jointly procuring
dispatching software with Kern COG
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Further study needed
O-4 Establish Countywide Driver
Training Program
Establish a standard driver training
program across the county by sharing
materials, centralizing training, or
developing a program at local colleges
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Further study needed
O-5 Establish Countywide Grant
Resource Program
Establish a grant resource program with
Kern COG to centralize information and
opportunities on grant funding
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Further study needed, but
could be minimal cost
O-6
Explore Opportunities to Share
Zero-Emission Vehicle
Maintenance Expertise
Investigate the possibility of sharing
maintenance resources (staff, training, or
both) for Dial-A-Ride
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Further study needed
O-7 Coordinate Student
Transportation
Coordinate with school district to identify
solutions for student transportation California City Further study needed : Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 85
O-1 Improve Coordination with Regional Peers
Currently, there is limited communication between California City and other transit agencies in the region, including local operators and Kern Transit. Improving communication between agencies can help improve operations, raise awareness of issues, and ultimately enhance the transit rider experience in Kern County. Other transit agencies in Kern County who are also updating their TDPs have reported that they are not informed of Kern Transit schedule changes or service disruptions and have requested better communication with Kern Transit.

During the interview Nelson\Nygaard conducted at the start of the project, California City staff expressed that decision-makers at the City could benefit from leveraging the experiences of other transit operators in Kern County.

Kern Transit should hold regular check-in meetings with all Kern County transit operators, including California City, or have a standing meeting agenda item for Kern Transit updates during the regularly scheduled Kern COG transit operators meeting.

This group forum will allow Kern Transit to be aware of issues and collaboratively work with the other agencies to reach a solution. California City transit staff should attend these transit operator meetings and use this forum to raise issues of concern to the City and gather advice from their peers.

O-2 Transition to Electronic Record Keeping
California City currently keeps track of trips on paper, creating additional work to reconcile each day and introducing the possibility of errors. This process also makes it difficult to track performance until data has been entered into a spreadsheet and adds an additional layer of work for annual reporting.

The City should transition to electronic record keeping. This would improve staff productivity, reduce the possibility of errors, and allow the City to implement Recommendation A-1 (Track performance data) more easily. Electronic record keeping could be as simple as using an Excel spreadsheet or equipping transit vehicles with a tablet or smartphone to enter data. Ideally, the dispatcher should be responsible for logging the data rather than the driver. Dispatching software (Recommendation O-3) would mostly take care of the electronic record keeping, as it should be able to track all trip data and generate summaries for reporting purposes.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 86
O-3 Jointly Procure New Dispatching Software
California City does not currently use dispatching software. Calls are taken by the dispatcher who writes the trips down on paper. Other transit agencies who are also updating their TDPs in Kern County have told Nelson\Nygaard that their dispatching software is expensive, difficult to use, or that they are relying on manual dispatch. Several agencies, including California City, have expressed interest in a joint procurement of dispatching software through Kern COG.

California City should work with Kern COG and other interested transit agencies in Kern County to evaluate the feasibility and costs of a joint procurement of dispatching software. This can be a topic of discussion at a future Kern COG transit operators meeting.

By pooling resources, agencies can get a better deal, lowering the cost of entry to all transit agencies. In addition, this would allow data to be shared across Kern County, making it easier to coordinate trips between multiple providers (i.e., trips can automatically be tracked on the computer rather than by calling dispatch).

Software currently in use at other Kern County agencies, like Ecolane and TripSpark, should be evaluated, but the software chosen must be capable of working across multiple agencies.

O-4 Establish Countywide Driver Training Program
Currently, each transit agency in Kern County trains its own drivers. With the tight labor market, agencies are competing for a small pool of Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) certified drivers, many of whom are being recruited by freight, delivery, other private companies, or larger transit agencies (like Golden Empire Transit). Establishing a unified, countywide training program for agencies can increase the pipeline of qualified applicants, reduce training costs, and ensure applicant quality. Various agencies, including California City, expressed interest in establishing a countywide driver training program.

California City should work with Kern COG and other transit agencies in Kern County to establish a driver training program. This could be discussed at a future Kern COG transit operators meeting to gauge interest and discuss next steps.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 87
A driver training program can take many forms. A few possible options are listed below:
 Ensuring existing trainings are shared with all Kern County transit agencies. In cases where training is charged as a per-course or per-session fee, rather than perperson, there is an opportunity to invite other agencies and either share in the costs or attend free of charge. As an example, Kern Transit is already paying for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) training with a fixed per-course fee. If desired, other agencies should also send staff to attend the training.  Centralizing trainings. Interested transit agencies in Kern County could work together to develop a consolidated training program that would be accepted by all participating agencies. This could take many forms, including working with Kern Transit’s existing contractor who does their own trainings, hiring a different contractor, or having a single agency provide the training. The content should include all necessary trainings including ADA training, sensitivity training for passengers with disabilities, drug and alcohol testing, and other certifications necessary to drive a transit vehicle.
 Developing a training program with local colleges. When Nelson\Nygaard spoke with local community colleges in Kern County, there was interest in establishing a driver training program to help build the pipeline for future employees. This idea would need to be explored further but should include the trainings mentioned under the centralized training scenario to ensure employment can be secured after graduation.

The program could be funded with National Rural Transit Assistance Program grants, which should be sufficient to cover most, or all, of the costs associated, further reducing costs to the participating agencies.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 88
O-5 Establish Countywide Grant Resource Program
Grant funding opportunities can be difficult to identify and complicated to navigate, especially for small agencies. Various agencies, including California City, expressed interest in Kern COG establishing a countywide grant resource program that would allow them to better find and apply for grants. Kern COG currently provides two Grant Finder licenses to each member agency.

California City should work with Kern COG and other interested agencies to establish what this program could look like. This could be discussed at a future Kern COG transit operators meeting to gauge interest and discuss next steps. The COG could model the program off ones already established elsewhere in the United States. These programs often include lists of relevant grant opportunities, lists of third-party resources on grant identification or application, and training or help sessions from agency staff.

Establishing a grant training program would help local transit agencies find and secure more funding, thus improving the service they provide to their communities.

O-6 Explore Opportunities to Share Zero-Emission
Vehicle Maintenance Expertise
California City is planning a gradual transition to a zero-emission fleet by replacing older conventional vehicles with zero-emission vehicles when necessary. The City has set aside funding from SB 125 to install charging infrastructure at its City Corporation yard and to purchase a new electric Dial-A-Ride van.

It is unclear what in-house expertise exists at the City to perform specialized maintenance on this new zero-emission vehicle. For example, at the City of Shafter, city staff have indicated specialized electric vehicle work requires a mechanic from Los Angeles. This results in high costs to perform the maintenance and long delays getting vehicles back into service. Other transit agencies in Kern County have expressed similar concerns. There could be an opportunity for better coordination and sharing of maintenance resources in Kern County to service zero-emission vehicles. This could reduce costs and the time necessary to repair vehicles.

The City should work with Kern COG and other interested transit operators who utilize zero-emission vehicles to investigate the feasibility of sharing zero-emission vehicle maintenance expertise. This could involve sharing staff, training, or both. This could be discussed at a future Kern COG transit operators meeting to gauge interest and discuss next steps.

As an initial step, a search should be conducted to identify all available maintenance personnel in Kern County that can perform maintenance on zero-emission vehicles, which City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 89
can include transit agencies (e.g., Golden Empire Transit), local governments (e.g., City of Bakersfield, Kern County), or private companies.

If locally available maintenance personnel are identified, agencies can begin discussions on the feasibility of sharing zero-emission vehicle mechanics among interested parties. A costsharing agreement could also be negotiated.

If no zero-emission maintenance personnel are available, agencies should discuss and evaluate establishing staff in Kern County by either making strategic hires and/or training existing mechanics to perform zero-emission work. The training curriculum should be coordinated among Kern County agencies so mechanics can maintain all vehicles in operation.

While it may not make sense for a smaller agency like California City to employ a full-time mechanic to work on zero-emission vehicles, when shared among various agencies, it can become more feasible. The need for specialized expertise in zero-emission vehicles in Kern County will only continue to grow as more zero-emission vehicles continue to be added to many transit agency fleets.

O-7 Coordinate Student Transportation
Local students often use California City Dial-A-Ride to get to and from school, even though school bus service is available, resulting in capacity constraints during certain times of day.

Students often miss the school bus, and the Mojave Unified School District does not provide any financial assistance to California City Dial-A-Ride.

The City should coordinate with the Mojave Unified School District to address capacity issues during peak times. This could involve a cost-sharing agreement between the Mojave Unified School District and the City or another solution. The primary goal is to open dialogue and begin discussing solutions that will benefit all parties. Before opening dialogue, the City should identify:
 Which schools are creating the highest demand
 The specific times that student demand is peaking
 If high student demand occurs daily or only on certain days City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 90

ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The six administrative and policy recommendations identify approaches to improve customer experience, comply with state guidelines, monitor system performance, and smooth the transition to a zero-emission fleet.

Number Recommendation Description
Responsibility for
Implementation Cost
A-1 Track Performance Data Track performance data such as on-time performance, missed trips, or trip denials California City Minimal cost to agency A-2 Improve Customer
Communication and Website
Add or correct information on the website
for Dial-A-Ride service, Kern Transit
Routes 230 and 250, and vanpool/carpool
options. Develop a communication plan to
let riders know about service disruptions
California City Minimal cost to agency
A-3 Create Fare Adjustment Policy Develop a policy outlining cadence and process for fare increases California City Minimal cost to agency A-4 Update Farebox Recovery
Compliance Policy
Develop strategy when new guidance is
released to remain compliant California City Minimal cost to agency A-5 Identify and Pursue Funding
Sources for Road Repair
Roads which are in poor condition or
unpaved are damaging transit vehicles
and restricting service to some areas of
California City. The City should seek grant
funding to maintain and repair roads,
focusing on those which are unpaved
California City Minimal cost to agency
A-6 Create a Zero-Emission Transition
Plan
Develop a zero-emission transition plan to
navigate the transition to zero-emission
operations
California City $10,000–$50,000
(One time)
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 91
A-1 Track Performance Data
California City does not track performance data, such as on-time performance, missed trips, or trip denials. Tracking this data will allow the City to understand how service is performing, identify ways to improve, and ultimately set and monitor targets for service quality.

California City should begin tracking performance data. Tracking this data will allow the agency to identify potential issues and correct them. For example, if trip denials are high, that is an indication demand may be exceeding capacity, and an additional driver should be hired.

The City should implement Recommendation O-2 (transition to electronic record keeping) first, because this recommendation will establish the record keeping structure necessary to successfully implement Recommendation A-1.

A-2 Improve Customer Communication and Website
California City’s transit website provides basic information on Dial-A-Ride service but some information is missing or incorrect.

California City should refresh the webpage and add more detailed information regarding Dial-A-Ride service, Kern Transit Routes 230 and 250, and vanpool/carpool options. This will help riders understand all their potential transportation options, beyond just California City Dial-A-Ride.

Nelson\Nygaard recommends the following information be updated or included on the website:
 Clarify that Dial-A-Ride service is only available every other Friday. The website currently states service operates Monday through Friday, but not that no service is available every other Friday.
 Show a system map indicating where Dial-A-Ride service is provided. The website does not specify Dial-A-Ride service limits. We suggest including a map to illustrate where Dial-A-Ride service is provided to reduce customer confusion. The City could use the system map developed as part of this TDP for the website if desired (see map at beginning of Chapter 4).
 Information on Kern Transit Routes 230 and 250. The website does not provide a link to the Kern Transit main website or any information on the routes which serve California City, which provide a vital connection to services outside California City. A link should be provided to the current Route 230 and Route 250 schedule, along with a description of bus stops in California City.
 Share information regarding car and vanpooling options and volunteer driver programs. Sharing alternative mobility options can help people maintain their mobility if California City Dial-A-Ride service is disrupted due to staffing shortages or City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 92
other issues. The City should share information on programs like RideAmigos commute matching and other alternatives developed as part of Recommendation S-5 (Stabilize Present Operations and Develop Contingency Plans).  Optionally, create a bilingual brochure on how to ride California City Dial-ARide. How-to-ride brochures can be helpful for first-time riders who are looking for information on where service goes, when it operates, how to ride, etc. This can be useful to hand out to prospective riders at community events. It can also be a quick at-a-glance reference that is available on the website. This brochure could also include information on Kern Transit routes and carpooling/vanpooling options should riders wish to travel outside the city limits.

In addition to website updates, California City should develop a communications plan to let riders know of any service disruptions (e.g., no service, reduced service). This can include text notifications, posts on the agency website, and changing the voicemail message when riders call. California City should also investigate the feasibility of notifying riders via the Transit app alerts function, similar to what Kern Transit does. Advance notice will allow some riders to make alternative arrangements.

A-3 Create a Fare Adjustment Policy
California City Dial-A-Ride is currently fare-free and funding operations using Low Carbon Transit Operations (LCTOP) grants, but expects to return to charging fares in the future.

Establishing a policy to regularly review fares for potential adjustment can help ensure that fare revenue is not eroded by inflation, while remaining equitable and affordable.

California City should develop a policy to regularly evaluate and recommend adjustments to fares based on inflation. Establishment of this policy does not mean that the City needs to automatically increase fares or increase them with each review, but a stated policy helps ensure fares are regularly reviewed and that a process is established for determining when fares should be increased as well as how community input is incorporated in any decisions to adjust fares. A fare adjustment policy should include:
 A cadence for review (e.g., every two to five years)
 A benchmark in which inflation is measured and how that is translated into the real value of fares
 A target in which fares should be considered for a potential increase (e.g., if fares are generating 10% less real value due to inflation, they should be increased)  How fares should be increased (e.g., should fares be raised to the nearest quarter?)  An outline of the process for proposing a fare change, including how the public will be informed and engaged in the process. This should also document the City Council review/approval process.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 93
A-4 Update Farebox Recovery Compliance Policy
The 10% farebox recovery standard set by the state has been suspended since 2020, but a working group, the Transportation Transformation Task Force, recently recommended changes to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), which includes removing penalties associated with meeting farebox recovery standards.

Because the farebox recovery requirement currently remains in the TDA, California City should develop a strategy to meet the requirements and maintain full compliance with state guidance. This will ensure that the City avoids findings during TDA triennial performance audits.

A-5 Identify and Pursue Funding Sources for Road Repair California City staff have reported that roads in poor condition are damaging transit vehicles and increasing operating costs. There are also roads within the service area which are unpaved which California City Dial-A-Ride is unable to serve. This recommendation is listed in the Administrative and policy category rather than the Capital category, as this is not a traditional transit capital project.

The City should continue to pursue grant funding to pave and repair unpaved and damaged roads. The City should prioritize unpaved roads and any paved roads which are in such poor condition that transit vehicles are unable to use them. The City’s Public Works Department should work with Dial-A-Ride staff to identify problematic areas that should be prioritized.

One source of funds is California’s Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP), a formulafunding grant program which California City has received funding from in the past.

Establishing a countywide grant resource program (Recommendation O-5) could also help California City identify additional grant funding opportunities.

A-6 Create a Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plan
California City currently lacks a plan to transition its fleet to zero-emission vehicles. While small agencies which only operate cutaways or vans are not currently required to complete a zero-emission fleet transition plan, the regulations may change in the future. The City has expressed concerns about transitioning to zero-emission vehicles, including concerns about charging equipment being prone to outages. The City also expressed interest in acquiring a new zero-emission vehicle and associated charging infrastructure with some SB 125 funding they have secured.

California City should work to develop a zero-emission transition plan, either in-house or with a consultant. Zero-emission plans typically include an analysis of fleet needs, City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 94
charging or fueling infrastructure requirements, facility upgrades, workforce training, capital and operating cost projections, and a realistic timeline for phasing in new vehicles. The plan can also include an analysis of how the City will deal with potential challenges with a zeroemission fleet to ensure resiliency (e.g., power outages, natural disasters).

Zero-emission plans are helpful because they give agencies a clear roadmap for implementation, reduce risk by identifying challenges early, and strengthen grant applications by demonstrating readiness and long-term sustainability. A well-prepared plan also helps ensure reliable service for riders during the transition process.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 95

CAPITAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The two capital recommendations involve capital projects that would upgrade or enhance agency assets, enhance agency resiliency, and improve transit access for riders.

Number Recommendation Description Responsibility for
Implementation Cost
C-1
Procure Additional Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
Procure one additional vehicle to use as a
spare in the fleet and install the charging
infrastructure needed
California City $100,007,000
C-2 Continue to Fill Gaps in Sidewalk
Network
Continue filling in gaps in the sidewalk
network to provide safe access to transit
facilities
California City Further study needed
: Denotes a recommendation that supports agency resiliency City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 96
C-1 Procure Additional Vehicle and Associated Charging
Infrastructure
California City currently operates service without a spare vehicle. If one of the vehicles is damaged or otherwise out of service, California City must reduce the service provided.

California City should procure a third vehicle, one more vehicle than is currently in the fleet. One of the existing vehicles could then be used as a spare to maintain service during any potential disruptions.

California City has also reported difficulty using the wheelchair lifts on their current fleet in windy conditions. Any future vehicles procured should be low-floor or van type vehicles.

These types of vehicles can safely deploy the ramp for wheelchair passengers during windy conditions, ensuring access can continue to be provided when the City’s other vehicles cannot be used. An added benefit of low-floor and van type vehicles is they reduce dwell time to board and alight passengers and are more reliable compared to lifts.

The City has secured funding to acquire a new electric vehicle and install charging equipment at the city corporation yard.

C-2 Continue to Fill Gaps in Sidewalk Network
The California City sidewalk network has notable gaps near Kern Transit stops and common Dial-A-Ride pick-up and drop-off points. This affects riders’ ability to safely access transit, especially youth, older adults, and riders with disabilities. Access to transit was also included as a key concern collected from community workshops conducted as part of the Kern Area Regional Goods-Movement Operations (KARGO) Community Prosperity/Protection Study Project Phase III in 2024.

California City should continue to fill gaps in the sidewalk network to provide safe access to transit facilities. Costs associated with this recommendation are indeterminate and depend on local cost of sidewalk construction, amount of sidewalk to be constructed, available right-of-way, and site-specific conditions and constraints. The City should target areas around transit stops, schools, and community centers to get the largest benefit because vulnerable groups such as children, older adults, and people with disabilities often frequent these locations.

The City may want to consider producing a sidewalk prioritization plan to identify the areas of greatest need and options for phasing and continuing investment.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 97
8 PHASE TWO PUBLIC

OUTREACH SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes Phase Two outreach, which took place in March 2026.

Phase Two outreach involved a virtual public meeting in California City in March and an online survey.

CALIFORNIA CITY VIRTUAL PUBLIC

MEETING
The Nelson\Nygaard team and city staff held a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was hosted on Zoom. No community members attended the meeting. The City’s outreach and promotion efforts for this meeting included posting the meeting flyer on California City Dial-A-Ride vehicles and handing out flyers to passengers.

Nelson\Nygaard staff presented two proposed transit improvements: later weekday service and new Saturday service. The meeting was presented in English and Spanish with bilingual slides and translation available throughout. The presentation was recorded and posted online for individuals who could not attend.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 98

PHASE TWO SURVEY
A virtual survey was administered as part of Phase Two outreach and was open for almost four weeks in March 2026. The City handed out flyers with the survey QR code to transit passengers and distributed paper copies of survey questions at the California City Senior Center. The survey was also advertised during the recorded virtual public meeting held on March 11, 2026.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 99
Survey Results
Transit Ridership
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked to select which transit agencies they normally ride. About 40% of respondents (23 respondents) ride California City Dial-A-Ride, while 33% (19 respondents) ride Kern Transit (Figure 52).

Figure 52 Responses to "Do you normally ride the following?" (n = 57) 40%
33%
51%
California City Dial-A-Ride Kern Transit None of the above 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 100
Opinions on Improvements
The survey provided a short description of two proposed improvements, which are described further in the Recommendations chapter (Chapter 7). Respondents were asked if the improvement would benefit them, their family, or their neighbors. The answer choices were:
(1) yes, (2) no, or (3) not sure.

Overall, most respondents reported that both the improvements would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors. Figure 53 summarizes the results of the questions on the improvements. Further analysis and detail on each of the two improvements is included on subsequent pages.

Figure 53 Summary of Responses to Questions on Benefits of Improvements Improvement
Number of “Yes”
Responses
Number of “No”
Responses
Number of “Not Sure”
Responses
Improvement #1: Later
Weekday Service
(n = 55)
43 (78%) 6 (11%) 6 (11%)
Improvement #2: New
Saturday Service
(n = 54)
39 (72%) 6 (11%) 9 (17%)
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 101
Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service
Currently, California City Dial-A-Ride service operates on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Improvement #1 proposed extending weekday service to 7:00 p.m.

Respondents overwhelmingly supported Improvement #1. Most respondents (43 respondents) reported that Improvement #1 would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors. The same number of respondents (6 respondents each) said “no” or “not sure” (Figure 54).

Figure 54 Responses to "Would Improvement #1 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (N = 55) 78%
11% 11%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 102
Improvement #2: New Saturday Service
California City Dial-A-Ride does not currently operate on weekends. This improvement would introduce new Saturday service. Exact hours have not been determined but could be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Respondents were also in support of Improvement #2. Most respondents (39 respondents) said the improvement would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors. Slightly more respondents (9 respondents) said “not sure” compared to “no” (6 respondents) (Figure 55).

Figure 55 Responses to "Would Improvement #2 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 54) 72%
11%
17%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Improvement #2: Saturday Service
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 103
Prioritization of Improvements
Respondents were asked to choose which improvement they think should be implemented first. Responses to this question helped the project team prioritize the implementation of the proposed improvements. More respondents (31 respondents) chose Improvement #2: New Saturday Service to implement first (Figure 56).

Figure 56 Responses to “Please pick which improvement you would like to see implemented first.” (n = 51)
39%
61%
Improvement #1: Later weekday service Improvement #2: New Saturday service 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 104
Information on Transportation Options
A question was asked about how respondents would prefer to receive information about their transportation options. Most respondents (25 respondents) said they would like to look up information online and navigate it on their own. Text messaging with a professional coordinator/broker who handles the issue was the second most popular answer (Figure 57).

Figure 57 Responses to “How would you like to find information about your transportation options?” (n = 54)
46%
7%
9%
20%
17%
Look up information
online and navigate it
myself
Have a friend or
caretaker handle the
issue
Phone call with a
professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
Text messaging with
a professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
Online chat with a
professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 105
Write-In Responses
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional feedback on the proposed improvements.

Four respondents provided a written response on the proposed improvements:
 “I would like to see service later hours and have weekend service also.”  “Keep a published schedule.”
 “They are a great friendly service with excellent drivers [who are] always helpful.”  “We are 50 miles from nowhere, public transit won’t work.” Respondents were also asked “Do you have suggestions on other improvements that you would like to see?”
Four respondents provided further feedback:
 “Yes, on streets”
 “Holiday service”
 “Price of gasoline”
 “Stop wasting money on stops”
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 106
Demographics
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to fill out anonymous, optional demographic information on age, race and ethnicity, annual household income, vehicle ownership, and whether they have any disabilities or are a veteran.

Age
Most respondents were adults between 25 and 64 years old (33 respondents). The next most represented age group was 65 years old or older, while only one respondent was in the youth (17 years old or younger) and young adult (18 to 24 years old) age groups respectively (Figure 58).

Figure 58 Responses to “What is your age?” (Optional) (n = 54) 2% 2%
61%
35%
17 years old or younger 18 to 24 years old 25 to 64 years old 65 years old or older 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 107
Race and Ethnicity
Figure 59 shows the results for the question about racial and ethnic identity. Seventeen respondents identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine. The next most represented identities were white (15 respondents) and Black or African American (12 respondents).

Figure 59 Responses to "Which of the following races/ethnicities do you identify with?" (Select all that apply) (Optional) (n = 49)
35%
31%
24%
6%
4%
2% 2%
0%
Hispanic,
Latino,
Latina, or
Latine
White Black or
African
American
American
Indian,
Alaska
Native, or
Indigenous
Other
identity
East Asian South Asian Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 108
Annual Household Income
Figure 60 shows the annual household income of the respondents. Almost all respondents who answered this question have an annual household income of less than $50,000 (45 respondents). The other two respondents have a household income between $50,000 and $99,000.

Figure 60 Responses to "What is the approximate combined income for your household?" (Optional) (n = 47)
96%
4%
0% 0% 0%
Fewer than
$50,000
$50,000 to $99,000 $100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,000
$200,000 or
greater
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 109
Vehicle Ownership
Respondents were asked how many vehicles their household has, and the results are shown in Figure 61. Most respondents (22 respondents) have one vehicle in their household. Almost the same share of respondents have zero vehicles (15 respondents) or two or more vehicles (14 respondents).

Figure 61 Responses to "How many vehicles are in your household?" (Optional) (n = 51) 29%
43%
27%
0 1 2 or more
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 110
Riders with Disabilities
Respondents were asked if they have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance (such as a cane, walker, wheelchair, scooter, or service animal), and the results are shown in Figure 62. Most respondents (42 respondents) indicated that they do not have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance. Of the six respondents who said they have a disability, two specified that they use a walker and one said they use a cane.

Figure 62 Responses to "Do you have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance?" (Optional) (n = 48)
88%
13%
No Yes (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 111
Veterans
The last demographic question asked respondents if they are a veteran of the armed forces, with the responses shown in Figure 63. All but one respondent said they are not a veteran.

Figure 63 Responses to "Are you a veteran of the armed forces?" (Optional) (n = 50) 98%
2%
No Yes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 112
9 IMPROVEMENT PHASING
This chapter outlines how Nelson\Nygaard believes the 20 recommendations detailed in Chapter 7 should be implemented by California City. The TDP is a five-year plan, and the improvement phasing matrix that follows is set up to organize which recommendations should be implemented during which year of the plan.

The recommendations are intentionally staggered throughout the life of the plan to not overwhelm the agency in the first few years. Simpler and lower-cost recommendations can be implemented sooner, including items such as improving customer communications by updating the website or creating an educational brochure on how to ride Dial-A-Ride.

Many recommendations are interdependent on others. For example, Recommendation A-1 (Track Performance Data) should ideally be implemented after electronic record keeping (Recommendation O-2) is implemented. Interdependent recommendations are indicated in the matrix.

This implementation plan was used in the development of the financial plan, discussed in the next chapter.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 113
IMPACT OF PHASE 2 OUTREACH

FEEDBACK ON IMPLEMENTATION
The Phase Two public survey asked riders which recommendations should be prioritized given the limited financial resources that California City may have (see results in Figure 56 on page 103). Improvements ranked as follows:

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 114

IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) S-1 Pilot Extended Weekday Service California City
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate the pilot
 Advertise and conduct a sixmonth pilot
 Evaluate the pilot and collect
customer feedback
 Make a decision to discontinue
or make the pilot permanent
If the pilot is successful, secure
funding to make it permanent
S-2 Pilot Saturday Service California City
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate the pilot
 Advertise and conduct a sixmonth pilot
 Evaluate the pilot and collect
customer feedback
 Make a decision to discontinue
or make the pilot permanent
If the pilot is successful, secure
funding to make it permanent
S-3 Train Part-Time Relief Driver
and/or Dispatcher California City Identify and train one or more relief drivers and/or dispatchers
S-4 Harmonize Route 230 and Route
250 Stopping Patterns
Kern Transit lead,
California City support
Work with Kern Transit to evaluate
the feasibility and costs of this
alignment change
Support Kern Transit with any
potential pilot program and/or
community outreach needed
S-5 Stabilize Present Operations
and Develop Contingency Plans California City
Stabilize operations by identifying
part-time drivers and/or
dispatchers (Recommendation S3), seeking exemptions to the hiring freeze, and partially/fully
contracting operations
Develop a contingency plan
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 115
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) O-1 Improve Coordination with
Regional Peers
California City, Kern
Transit
Add Kern Transit coordination item
to standing Kern County transit
operators meeting agenda
O-2 Transition to Electronic Record
Keeping California City
Implement electronic record
keeping as an interim step to
procuring dispatching software
(Recommendation O-3) and to
allow performance data to be
tracked (Recommendation A-1)
O-3 Jointly Procure New
Dispatching Software
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in Kern
County
 Develop structure for
procurement and cost sharing
agreements
 Begin procurement process
 Select vendor and onboard all
participating agencies
 Conduct necessary training
O-4 Establish Countywide Driver
Training Program
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and build out the structure of the
program
 Connect with potential industry
and education partners
Continue the development of the
program
Finalize and roll out the program
O-5 Establish Countywide Grant
Resource Program
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and build out structure of the
program
Finalize and roll out the program
O-6
Explore Opportunities to Share
Zero-Emission Vehicle
Maintenance Expertise
Kern COG lead,
California City and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and determine feasibility
 Begin evaluation and feasibility
assessment
 Continue evaluation and
feasibility assessment
 Begin building out the structure
of the program
 Review plans with agency
partners
Begin implementation Continue implementation
O-7 Coordinate Student
Transportation California City
 Set up a meeting with Mojave
Unified School District
 Develop potential strategies
 Discuss recommended
solution(s) with Mojave Unified
School District
Begin implementation of preferred
solution(s)
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 116
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) A-1 Track Performance Data California City
Begin tracking performance data
after electronic recordkeeping
(Recommendation O-2) is
implemented
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
A-2 Improve Customer
Communication and Website California City
 Update website
 Develop a communication plan
to let riders know about service
disruptions
 Set up text alert signups
A-3 Create Fare Adjustment Policy California City
 Develop and finalize a fare
adjustment policy
 Solicit public feedback if needed
A-4 Update Farebox Recovery
Compliance Policy California City Develop a compliance strategy when new guidance is released
A-5 Identify and Pursue Funding
Sources for Road Repair California City Continuous implementation – Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is identified
A-6 Create a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan California City
Complete a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan in house or hire
outside support
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) C-1
Procure Additional Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
California City
 Install charging equipment for
new electric vehicle
 Purchase new electric low-floor
van or cutaway
C-2 Continue to Fill Gaps in
Sidewalk Network California City
 Optional: Develop a sidewalk
prioritization plan to identify the
areas of greatest need and
options for phasing and
continuing investment
 Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is
secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 117
10FINANCIAL FORECAST
As part of this TDP, Nelson\Nygaard developed a five-year financial model to understand projected revenues and
expenditures for the life of the plan. Using projections built off historical data, these forecasts are meant to provide a high-level view of the City’s financial health, upcoming capital projects, and capacity to implement recommendations.

DATA SOURCES
Data for past revenues and expenditures was primarily obtained from California State Controller reports. In cases where data from the California State Controller was missing or incomplete, data was supplemented by agency budgets and the National Transit Database (NTD). Data on ridership and revenue hours primarily came from NTD reports and has been supplemented by State Controller reports in more recent years if NTD data is missing.

Kern COG provided data on grant and state formula funding, such as Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), Federal 5311, and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. Information on capital spending, including new fleet and facilities, was obtained directly from California City.

FINANCIAL MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS
The model relies on a series of assumptions that allow current revenues and costs to be forecast in the future. Changing one or more of the assumptions can dramatically impact the future financial forecast.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 118
Assumptions built into the model include:
 Vehicle replacement costs and timeframes, including agency-provided data and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) useful life schedules  Scheduled capital projects
 Cost for providing an hour of revenue service
 Number of service hours budgeted per year
 Inflation rates for administrative labor, fuel, maintenance contracting, and other necessary costs
 Population and employment growth (used as an indicator for the potential growth of revenues)
 Necessary administrative and overhead costs
Projections are in nominal dollars, and future years are adjusted based on past performance or reliable projections, when available. Some important notes about projections and assumptions include:
 Inflation forecasts are based on Federal Reserve 10-year projections.  Revenues from sales and use taxes and formula grant funding are projected based on a composite of inflation, population growth, and employment growth for Kern County.
 Labor, fuel, and other expenditures that increase or decrease along with service provided are calculated at a per-service-hour rate, then adjusted upward for inflation.

This allows service hour projections to directly affect costs. Other expenditures that do not vary with service provided, like utilities or facility costs, are adjusted based on inflation alone.
 Farebox revenue is projected using the average revenue per passenger from the last reported fiscal year multiplied by projected ridership. Since fares are not automatically adjusted for inflation each year, per-passenger revenue remains consistent even if ridership is projected to change.
 For capital spending, if the agency had estimates, those estimates were used. When no agency estimate was available, capital costs were estimated based on a variety of sources, including the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Transit Fleet Cost Model, vehicle price menus from the Washington and Ohio state governments, and the CALSTART Infrastructure Insite cost estimation tool.  The model assumes replacement of vehicles using standard FTA useful life timelines unless otherwise specified in agency documents.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 119

LIMITATIONS
The financial model’s output and summaries are only as accurate as the data and assumptions input into the model. The model and associated outputs are Nelson\Nygaard’s best attempt at capturing California City Dial-A-Ride’s revenues and expenses. Model reliability to predict cashflow into the future with a reasonable degree of certainty assumes a stable regional economy.

The model is sensitive to operations revenue inputs. A significant portion of funds come from state Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funding; however, in some circumstances, jurisdictions are allowed to flex these funds to other transportation uses, including road construction and maintenance. It is sometimes unclear how much LTF funding is being used for transit, and small changes in allocation can substantially change the projection.

REVENUE SOURCES
Transit agencies in Kern County receive funding from a variety of sources, including state and federal grants, local taxes, and fares. Revenue sources can be used on operating and maintenance (O&M), capital, or both. The following list summarizes the revenue sources included in the model along with a brief description of what they can be used for.

State Funding Sources
 Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
− A ¼ cent sales tax that is administered at the state level and then allocated to the jurisdiction where the funds are generated, through Kern COG. While this funding is intended for transit use, jurisdictions are allowed to flex these funds for road construction and maintenance, provided certain criteria are met.  State Transit Assistance Fund (STA)
− This funding is generated by a statewide tax on diesel fuel and allocated in a similar manner to LTF funding.
 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
− This funding is generated by California’s Cap and Trade program and allocated to transit providers for use as operating or capital funds.  Zero-Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP)
− ZETCP is a state grant formula funding program administered by Kern COG and eligible for use purchasing zero-emission vehicles or refueling infrastructure. The ZETCP program has received additional funding through SB 125 as a one-time infusion.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 120
 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
− TIRCP is a formula grant administered by Kern COG that can be used for a variety of capital purposes, including electrification and capital projects that improve service or safety. The TIRCP program has received additional funding through SB 125 as a one-time infusion.
 State of Good Repair (SGR)
− State of Good Repair funding can be used to replace or repair transit capital assets, including vehicles and facilities.

Federal and Local Funding Sources
 5311 Grants
− 5311 grants are provided by the FTA to support rural transit operations and are based on a formula, which includes service area population, ridership, and other factors. The money can be used for operations or capital.  Fares and Local Revenue
− California City Dial-A-Ride is currently fare-free and has not spent a substantial amount of local dollars on transit in the years examined as part of this cost model.

Figure 64 displays the projected revenues for California City Dial-A-Ride for the next five years. These projections are based on historical trends and projections from Kern COG.

Figure 64 Revenue Sources for California City Dial-A-Ride, FY 2027–2031 Revenue Source FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Operating
Revenue
Farebox and Local revenue $8,254 $7,742 $7,262 $6,812 $6,390 LCTOP $38,358 $40,276 $42,290 $44,404 $46,625
FTA 5311 $109,623 $115,104 $120,859 $126,902 $133,247
Projected Capital
Revenue
SGR $24,114 $24,717 $25,335 $25,968 $26,618
ZETCP $43,819 $87,637
Total Revenue $224,168 $275,477 $195,746 $204,087 $212,879 Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projection
City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 121
Overall, the City of California City is seeing steady growth in 5311 and LCTOP funding, which provides most of the operating funds in the future. 5311 grants have grown at about 12% annually, exceeding inflation, but cover less than half of operating costs. Operating costs have also risen, while ridership is stable.

The City has access to other revenue sources in the form of LTF and STA funding, which is currently allocated entirely for non-transit purposes. This funding is theoretically enough to pay for the City’s current transit service and any potential service improvement pilots. Figure 65 shows the historical allocation of these funds towards transit. Our projections assume none of these funds will be used for transit in the future.

Figure 65 California City LTF and STA Funding Received, FY 2022–2025 Revenue Source FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total LTF and STA Funding $667,108.74 $855,220.55 $1,047,384.18 $1,074,234.00 Percent Used on Transit 0% 18% 2% 0%
Source: Kern Council of Governments, 2025
The City of California City also receives a steady stream of capital funding in the form of SGR grants, which can be used to repair or replace vehicles and facilities. The City has also received approximately $1.5 million in TIRCP and ZETCP funding, prior to the timeframe displayed in Figure 65. The City has stated that all TIRCP and ZETCP funding is earmarked for new passenger facilities and EV charging infrastructure, which was planned to begin construction in FY 2026. Due to the 2025 fire at the California City corporation yard, we assume the charging infrastructure has been delayed by at least two years and will now begin construction in FY 2028.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 122

MAJOR EXPENSES
Transit agencies incur two main types of costs, operating and capital. Operating costs are those related to day-to-day transit operations, including labor, gas, and office space. Capital costs include fleet and facility costs. Figure 66 shows the anticipated operating and capital expenses for California City Dial-A-Ride in the future. Details on what is included or not included follows the table.

Figure 66 Expenses for California City Dial-A-Ride, FY 2027–2031 Cost FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Operating Costs
Operating Expenses (Labor,
Fuel, and Maintenance) $257,000 $264,000 $270,000 $277,000 $284,000 Total Costs $257,000 $264,000 $270,000 $277,000 $284,000 Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projections
Operating Expenses
Operating costs can be broken down into variable costs, which increase or decrease along with service, and fixed costs, which are relatively steady. Variable costs include driver labor, fuel, maintenance, tires, and possibly contracted services. Fixed costs include administrative labor, utilities, or facilities costs, which do not change with small changes in service. The costs included in Figure 66 shows the anticipated costs to continue operating transit service in the future at existing service levels.

Capital Expenses
California City’s capital costs are primarily related to fleet and facilities. There is uncertainty surrounding the timeline for the construction of certain facilities, including the EV charging project, due to the fire which damaged the city corporation yard. We assumed a two-year delay for the construction of EV charging equipment and acquiring a new electric vehicle which were supposed to begin in FY 2026, pushing them to FY 2028 (shown in the recommendation costing table, Figure 67).

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 123

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

IMPROVEMENT COSTS
California City Dial-A-Ride is currently in a difficult situation, financially and operationally.

Revenues do not cover expenses in several years of the financial projection, possibly forcing service reductions in the future. There are also ongoing operational concerns due to staffing shortages and a citywide hiring freeze. Piloting the service enhancements such as extended weekday service and Saturday service would create large deficits in the years of implementation. These service enhancements have been placed later in the implementation schedule, to allow time for California City to identify and secure funding for the pilot programs. The costs for making these pilots permanent has not been accounted for in this financial plan.

Figure 67 displays the current net position and the reserve between FY 2027 and the end of the plan in FY 2031. The reserve is calculated from the first year of the financial model (FY 2022) and does not reflect any previous savings the City may have. It also provides the estimated costs of implementing each recommendation and the net position if all are implemented. For costs with a range due to different implementation options, a high and low estimate is given, and a best-case overall position is provided. These costs are planning-level estimates given in 2025 dollars.

As shown, the City’s net financial position is negative every year except for FY2028, assuming the lower end of recommendation implementation costs are realized. Large capital costs from the vehicle acquisition and associated EV charging infrastructure quickly deplete California City Dial-A-Ride’s reserve fund. The City has received grant funding to pay for these capital improvements, but the funding cannot be flexed to operations.

To fully implement the recommendations that impact the operating budget, the City will likely need to identify additional revenue sources, as these improvements are typically more difficult to fund with grant revenue. Possible revenue sources include resuming fare collection, although it would be a very small revenue stream, or allocating more LTF and STA funds to transit operations.

Creative implementation of the recommendations by the City, such as staggered workdays or shift times may reduce costs and allow more recommendations to be implemented within available funding means.

Rebuilding the fire-damaged transit facility is not accounted for in this analysis due to a lack of data on costs. It is likely that a substantial portion of the cost can be covered by grant funding, but the overall cost and the proportion that will need to be covered by other funds is unknown.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 124
Figure 67 California City’s Financial Position, Baseline and with Recommendations, FY2027–2031 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Baseline Net
Position and Reserve
Net Position $(33,000) $12,000 $(74,000) $(73,000) $(71,000) Net Reserve $1,141,000 $1,153,000 $1,078,000 $1,006,000 $935,000 Estimated
Recommendation Costs
S-1 Pilot Extended
Weekday Service $(50,000)
S-2 Pilot Saturday Service $(30,000)
C-1 Procure Vehicle and
Associated Charging
Infrastructure
$(1,007,000)
A-6 Create Zero-Emission
Transition Plan $(10,000)
Sum of Costs $(1,017,000) $(30,000) $(50,000)
Projected Position $(33,000) ($1,005,000) ($104,000) ($123,000) $(71,000) Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projection
Note: Recommendations S-1, S-2, and A-6 use the lower end cost of the estimate. This yields the best-case projected position.

City of California City Transit Development Plan Final Report Kern Council of Governments 125

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Nelson\Nygaard’s financial model shows that California City may have deficits operating Dial-A-Ride service at existing service levels over the next five years based on projected growth in operating funds. Existing revenues may not be sufficient to maintain full service in some years.
 Over the last four years, the City has been spending between 0% and 18% of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) funding on transit operations. The City may need to consider allocating additional LTF and STA funding to transit to maintain present service levels and implement recommended service improvements.
 California City’s capital costs are primarily related to fleet expansion and associated charging facilities. This is expected to be funded with grant money.  Because grant revenue usually cannot be used to pay for ongoing operations, the City will likely need to identify additional resources to implement the two service expansion recommendations. Possible revenue sources include resuming fare collection, although it would be a very small revenue stream, or allocating more LTF and STA funds to transit operations.
 Creative implementation of the recommendations by the City, such as staggered workdays or shift times, may reduce costs and allow more recommendations to be implemented with available funding.

Appendix A Countywide Demographics
Kern Council of Governments A-1
APPENDIX A:

COUNTYWIDE

DEMOGRAPHIC MAPS
City of California City Transit Development Plan
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-2
Figure 1 Kern County Population Density
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-3
Figure 2 Percentage of People of Color in Kern County
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-4
Figure 3 Percentage of Veterans in Kern County
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimate
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-5
Figure 4 Percentage of People with Disabilities in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-6
Figure 5 Percentage of Older Adults (65 Years and Older) in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-7
Figure 6 Percentage of Young Adults (18-24 Years Old) in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-8
Figure 7 Percentage of People in Poverty in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-9
Figure 8 Percentage of Population with Limited English Proficiency in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-10
Figure 9 Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimate
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-11
Figure 10 Employment Density in Kern County
Source: LEHD 2022
City of California City Transit Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-12
Figure 11 Employment Density of Low-Wage Jobs in Kern County Source: LEHD 2022
California City Transit
Development Plan – City
Council Presentation
Kyle Taniguchi
July 28, 2026
1 Agenda
 Purpose of Tonight’s Presentation
 Overview of Project
 Existing Conditions
 Recommendations
 Implementation Plan
Purpose of Tonight’s Presentation
 Provide an overview of the California City Transit Development Plan  Highlight key findings and recommendations
 Answer any questions
 Request adoption of the final report
3 What is a Transit Development Plan (TDP)?
 Short-term (5 year), costconstrained plan to improve transit service
 TDPs must be updated regularly
as part of the California
Transportation Development Plan
Act
 We’re conducting 9 TDPs, as
indicated in the map
4 Adopted TDPs
Our Approach with Developing this Plan
 The TDP is your document – It is designed to be reflective of your needs/priorities – The TDP is a roadmap for improving transit in your community – Can help provide justification for budgeting/grant application requests  This was a collaborative process!
 The public:
– Provided input on needs/challenges with transit in California City  The consultant:
– Provided an initial assessment of opportunities
 City staff:
– Provided feedback on initial recommendations
– Elevated concerns/asked questions
– Flagged items they were hoping to include in the plan 5 Existing Conditions
Overview of California City Dial-A-Ride
 Reserve trip one hour in advance (first come, first
served)
 Operates
– Monday through Thursday: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
– Every other Friday: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
 Average of 60+ rides per day between Monday
and Thursday, ~55 rides on Friday
7  Public Survey (English and Spanish) – Open from late June to early July 2025 – 11 questions – 26 respondents stated they most frequently rode
California City Dial-A-Ride
 In-person outreach with bi-lingual staff
– Rode transit vehicles – Connected with 21 community members 8 Phase 1 Outreach
Objective: Identify needs,
opportunities, and challenges
with transit in California City
 Public Survey (English and Spanish)
– Open for 4 weeks in March 2026
– 57 people responded
 Virtual Public Meeting – March 11, 2026
– English and Spanish slides/audio
– Meeting was recorded
9 Phase 2 Outreach
Objective: Get feedback on proposed
recommendations and priorities for
implementation
What’s Not Working
 Phase 1 survey:
– More buses/drivers to meet demand (5 respondents)
– Service to Mojave (3 respondents)
– Transportation to clinics, nearby shops, and Walmart
(3 respondents)
– Weekend service (2 respondents)
 Staffing and vehicle availability challenges
 2025 fire destroyed transit facility and records
10 Recommendations
Overview of Recommendations
 20 recommendations
 Service (5 recommendations) – Covering the service itself  Capital (2 recommendations) – Capital investments: Fleet/facilities, sidewalks  Operations (7 recommendations) – Back-end aspects of running the service  Administrative/Policy (6 recommendations) – Admin functions related to service 12 Key Recommendations
We’re covering just the highlights during tonight’s
presentation. See final report for more information.

Service Category
 Stabilize present operations and develop contingency plans  Pilot extended weekday service
 Pilot Saturday service
13  California City Dial-A-Ride operates Monday through Thursday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and every other Friday. There is no weekend service.
 We heard from the public: Transit does not operate when it is needed
 Improvement 1: Extended weekday service (8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.)  Improvement 2: New Saturday service
– Hours of operation to be determined, possibly 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 14 Extended Weekday Service and New Saturday Service
Key challenges: Staffing,
funding
Suggested approach: Sixmonth pilot
 Establish clear metrics before the pilot starts
– Can be quantitative – Ridership, cost, riders per hour – Can be qualitative – Customer satisfaction, riders without access to vehicles, riders that would not have otherwise been able to take the trip during regular hours  Metrics are up to the City to set
 Consider establishing a rider focus group to develop these metrics and help launch the service
 After the pilot: Evaluate using the metrics and determine whether pilot should be made permanent
– City would need to discuss staffing/funding to make permanent 15 Suggestions for a Successful Pilot
Key Recommendations
Capital Category  Procure additional vehicle and associated charging infrastructure
Operations Category  Improve coordination with regional peers, including: – Zero-emission vehicle maintenance – Countywide driver training program  Transition to electronic record keeping
Administrative/Policy Category  Track performance data  Improve customer communication and website 16 Financial Plan
 Existing revenues may not be sufficient to maintain full current service. – City will likely need to identify additional revenues to implement service expansion recommendations. – May be possible to reallocate Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) funding to cover more transit operations
 Fleet expansion and charging facilities expected to be funded with grant money.  Creative implementation (e.g., staggered shifts) may reduce barriers/costs for pilot programs. 17  Summary table of recommendations, with
estimated costs and responsible parties
 Detailed writeup
– Why something was proposed
– How the recommendation can be implemented
18 More Information in Final Report
Implementation
Plan
Final Report includes suggested implementation plan
 Plan covers the next five years
– Recommendations can be implemented sooner or later than suggested  The TDP is a list of projects to be undertaken or mini studies to be done  Some recommendations require further study
 There is no “penalty” if a recommendation is not implemented or further evaluation determines a fatal flaw
20 Thank you! Any questions?
We would like to request adoption of this plan by the California City City Council 21 Kyle Taniguchi, Senior Associate
[email protected]
What’s Working
 100% net satisfaction with DAR
– Computed by subtracting percent of
“unhappy” respondents from “happy”
respondents
 71% have no concerns with DAR
 Staff are dedicated and making do with
limited resources
25  Stops along California City Blvd
 Operates Mon, Weds, Fri: 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (3
roundtrips)
 Timed connection to Bakersfield in Mojave:
– One trip to Route 100 in morning
– One trip from Route 100 in afternoon
26 Overview of Kern Transit Route 230
Ridgecrest
California
City
Mojave
Inyokern
 Stops along California City Blvd
 Operates
– Weekdays: 6:15 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. (5 roundtrips)
– Saturdays: 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (3 roundtrips)
 Connections to Metrolink and Antelope Valley Transit in Lancaster
27 Overview of Kern Transit Route 250
California
City
Mojave
Rosamond
Lancaster
CB 2

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, City Manager
John Paul Maier, Deputy City Manager / City Clerk
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Update to the City Council Committee and Board Appointments

BACKGROUND:

On October 14, 2025, the Mayor made appointments of Councilmembers to various committees, boards, and activities both internal and external to the City. The City Council ratified the Mayor’s appointments.

On July 14, 2026, City Councilmember Shawn Bradley was sworn in having been elected in a special election in June of 2026. With an additional City Councilmember seated, the Mayor may wish to update the committee appointments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from this action. The dues, fees, and costs for participation on the selected work have been accounted for in the various budgets within the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Preliminary Budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council discuss, appoint, and ratify the appointment of City Councilmembers to serve committees and boards.

ATTACHMENTS:

Current listing of appointments
Committee/Commission Council Member (Primary/Alternate) Administration/Budget/Audit
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
City Manager
California City Economic Development
Corporation (CCEDC) Mayor Marquette Hawkins
California City Film Committee Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
California City/MUSD Corporation Committee
Della Clark
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton (Alt)
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Chairman
reports quarterly on Special Tax, road paving
EAFB Civilian Military Support Group
Ron Smith
City Manager (Alt)
EAFB Installation Restoration Program/Restoration
Advisory Board
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
Ron Smith (Alt)
East Kern Air Pollution Control Board
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
Ron Smith (Alt)
East Kern Alliance
Della Clark
Mayor Marquette Hawkins (Alt)
East Kern Economic Alliance (EKEA)
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
Della Clark (Alt)
Friends of Edwards Air Force Base (FEAFB)
Ron Smith
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton (Alt)
Gaming/Leisure/Entertainment Committee Mayor Marquette Hawkins Golf Course Sub Committee
Della Clark
Ron Smith (Alt)
Housing Corporation
Della Clark
Ron Smith (Alt)
Kern Council of Governments (KCOG)
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
Della Clark (Alt)
Kern County Association of Cities Mayor Marquette Hawkins Kern County City Selection Committee/Hazardous
Waste Management Committee
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
Ron Smith (Alt)
Kern Economic Develop Corporation (KEDC)
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
City Manger
League of California Cities/Desert Mountain
Division
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
Della Clark (Alt)
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) California City not currently assigned Mayor/City Manager
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
City Manager
Parks and Recreation Commission As appointed
Personnel Relations
Ron Smith
Della Clark (Alt)
Planning Commission As appointed
Public Safety
Della Clark
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton (Alt)
Regional Water Management Group
SDI Committee
Robbie Cordes
John Elmes
Successor Agency Council Serves as Board
Faith Based Coalition
Ron Smith
Della Clark (Alt)
Airport Ad Hoc Committee
Mayor Marquette Hawkins
Mayor Pro Tem Creighton
Potentially Dangerous or Vicious Dog Review
Board
NB 1

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
July 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Grayson, City Manager
SUBJECT: 1) Discussion on Stray Animals and Potential Solutions; and 2) Notice of Vacancy for the City’s Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Review Board

BACKGROUND:

At the July 14, 2026, City Council meeting, Councilmember Shawn Bradley requested that an item be placed on the next City Council agenda related to stray animals and potential solutions.

Councilmember Bradley will provide a verbal report and initiate discussion on the topic.

In 2025 the City revised the requirements for members to be appointed to the City’s Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Review Board. The purpose of the review board is to review any petition filed by Animal Control that seeks to declare a dog as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog. The City had previously issued notice of vacancies for the board but does not have any current applications on file. The City seeks three (3) members at large who shall be eighteen (18) years of age or older and shall reside in the city. Individuals with special skills or knowledge regarding canines and canine behavior are highly recommended and desired but not required. Each member shall be appointed by the City Council and serve for a two-year term or until a successor is appointed, whichever is last to occur. Such members serve at the pleasure of the city council and may at any time be removed by a vote of the majority of the city council. A notice of vacancy is attached to this staff report. The City will accept applications through August 14, 2026, and intends to have applicants for consideration of appointment at the August 25, 2026 City Council meeting.

All interested parties are encouraged to apply. Applications are available from the City Clerk’s office, City Hall, 21000 Hacienda Blvd., California City, CA 93505 or on the City’s website https://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact from this action. Any future action including ordinance adoption may result in costs to be detailed in the future action staff report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation, provide direction as needed, and call for the Review Board vacancies to be filled at the August 25, 2026 City Council meeting.

NB 1
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Vacancy for the City’s Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Review Board

NOTICE OF VACANCIES

CALIFORNIA CITY FOR THE POTENIALLY DANGEROUS

AND VICIOUS DOG REVIEW BOARD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there are three vacancies on the California City Potentially Dangerous or Vicious Dog Review Board. These seat terms will begin on September 1, 2026.

Below is the information regarding the board and the background needed to submit an application for appointment to a seat on the Vicious Dog Review Board:

Sec. 6-1.404. - Establishment of Review Board.
(a) A potentially dangerous or vicious dog review board is hereby established consisting of three (3) members appointed by the City Council. (b)The review board shall consist of three (3) members at large who shall be eighteen (18) years of age or older and shall reside in the city. Individuals with special skills or knowledge regarding canines and canine behavior are highly recommended and desired but not required. Each member shall be appointed by the City Council and serve for a two-year term or until a successor is appointed, whichever is last to occur. Such members serve at the pleasure of the city council and may at any time be removed by a vote of the majority of the city council. (c)The purpose of the review board is to review any petition filed by Animal Control that seeks to declare a dog as a potentially dangerous or vicious dog.

Applications will be reviewed by the City Council who will make appointments to the Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Dog Review Board by a majority vote for each appointed member, at the August 25, 2026 City Council meeting. The newly appointed members of the Board will begin their terms September 1, 2026. Terms of office are two years and will expire on August 31, 2028.

Applications must be given to the City Clerk prior to the deadline on August 14, 2026. Applications are available at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall, 21000 Hacienda Blvd., California City, CA 93505.

The application is also available online at https://www.californiacity-ca.gov/CC/. The City Council will establish an interview schedule for applicants who will be notified of their interview time(s) by email.

DATED: July 25, 2026
______________________
John Paul Maier, MBA, MMC
Deputy City Manager /. City Clerk
Notices Posted: Chamber of Commerce, Notified by a copy of this Notice:

City Hall, inside/outside boards Mayor, Council and City Manager City Attorney
Revised 07/21/2026

California City City CouncilJuly 28, 2026

California City City Council
July 28, 2026