McFarland City Council
June 24, 2026

5 Figures
Figure 1: Location of McFarland within California and Kern County............................................................9 Figure 2: Proposed Land Use in the 2040 McFarland General Plan ...........................................................10 Figure 3: Location of Annexation #21 Area in McFarland ..........................................................................11 Figure 4: Proposed General Plan Land Use in Annexation #21 Area ..........................................................11 Figure 5: Assessor’s Parcels in Annexation #21 Area..................................................................................13 Figure 6: Williamson Act Lands within and around McFarland’s Sphere of Influence ...............................14 Figure 7: Types of Farmland in McFarland's Sphere of Influence...............................................................15 Figure 8: Modified McFarland City Boundary and Land Use on General Plan Land Use Map....................19 Tables
Table 1: List of Parcels with Modified Land Uses and Sizes in Annexation #21 Area .................................13

6 Preamble
The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the CEQA Technical Advice Series (OPR, December 2004 Edition) to clarify aspects of the California Environmental Quality Act. According to the Technical Advice:

CEQA Guidelines § 15152 and § 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code allow a Negative Declaration to be adopted when an EIR has previously been prepared for a program, policy, plan or ordinance. The later project must be consistent with that program or other action and must not result in any significant effects which were not examined in that previous EIR. In order to tier from an EIR, the later project must be consistent with the general plan and zoning of the applicable city or county.

In preparation for the adoption of the 2040 McFarland General Plan, The City of McFarland prepared a Draft Program EIR, filed it with the State Clearinghouse, received comments, addressed the comments, and filed a Final EIR. The 2040 General Plan is separated into thematic elements. All elements must be consistent with each other. Seven elements are required for all General Plans in California, with two further elements required for communities meeting certain criteria that exist in McFarland. Optional elements may also be included and carry the same legal force and status as the required elements. The General Plan includes five optional elements. The fourteen elements are:
• Required: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Safety, Conservation, Open Space, and Noise • Required in San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: Air Quality • Required in Disadvantaged Communities: Environmental Justice • Optional: Economic Development, Health, Community Design, Public Facilities, and Sustainable Agriculture
This project involves a general plan amendment and annexation into City limits of two adjacent parcels to the immediate north of Elmo Highway, between Garzoli Avenue on its west and Davis Avenue on its east. The development application for Annexation #21 involves the parcels hitherto identified as 060- 030-08 (with Jose Alberto Duran listed as owner) and 060-030-12 (with AMM Properties LLC as listed owner). The parcels lay right outside the City limits, but within McFarland’s sphere of influence (SOI).

The initial development proposal is to pre-zone the adjacent parcels totaling 124.26 acres of vacant land via the annexation application to C-2 (which includes a wide array of permitted land uses).

Consistent with the Technical Advice, this Initial Study & Negative Declaration tiers upon the Program EIR of the General Plan. Annexation Area #21 is under temporary agricultural use within the City’s SOI, pending future need to expand the physical development envelope of the City. Its pre-zoning proposal is consistent with the General Plan and it contains no new proposals which would result in any significant effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR.

Both the 2040 General Plan and the Final General Plan EIR are available to the General Public. The electronic copies of the documents are accessible at the City’s website: www.mcfarlandcity.org; hard copies are available at City Hall.

City of McFarland
401 West Kern Ave.

McFarland, CA 93250

7 Summary of Project Information
Project Title General Plan Amendment and Annexation #21, North McFarland Lead Agency City of McFarland
401 West Kern Ave.

McFarland, CA 93250
Contact Person & Phone Megan Snyder, Community Development Director 661-792-3091
[email protected]
Project Location Parcels 060-030-08 & 060-030-12 property north of Elmo Hwy., McFarland. Garzoli Avenue demarcates its western boundary and Davis Avenue demarcates its eastern boundary.

Applicant Benjamin Marin
General Plan Designation Agricultural use (temporary)
Zoning Pre-zoning for C-2 (which permits a wide array of uses) Surrounding Land Use Residential and commercial (to the south); Agriculture (to the north); other existing developments (to the west and east) Description of Project General Plan Amendment and Annexation of Parcels 060-030-08 & 060-030-12 in North McFarland into City limits and conversion of the approximately 126-acre property into a C-2 district, which permits a wide array of land uses.

Other Approving Agencies Kern County LAFCO
Native American Consultation With assistance from the Native American Heritage Commission, the City identified and contacted nineteen Native American Tribes in 2021 during preparation of the Program EIR on the 2040 McFarland General Plan. Responses indicate the project area (consisting of the City of McFarland and its sphere of influence) is outside ancestral homes for which the Tribes did not request consultation.

Other Information Consistent with the CEQA Technical Advice (OPR, December 2004 Edition), this Initial Study & Negative Declaration tiers upon the Program EIR of the 2040 McFarland General Plan.

Compatibility of Project The annexation of the area, which is contiguous to the City, and the potential mixture of land uses are consistent with the vision and policies of the 2040 McFarland General Plan.

8 1.0 Project Information

1.1. Project: General Plan Amendment and Annexation #21, North McFarland

1.2. Lead Agency: City of McFarland, 401 West Kern Ave. McFarland, CA 93250

1.3. Contact Person & Phone: Megan Snyder, Community Development Director, 661-792-3091. [email protected].

1.4. Project Location: Within City of McFarland, comprising parcels 060-030-08 & 060-030-12 north of Elmo Hwy., McFarland. Streets that demarcate the boundaries of the project area include Elmo Hwy on the south, Garzoli Ave on the west, and Davis Avenue on the east. Davis Avenue is a western frontage road that is adjacent to SR 99.

1.5. Applicant: Benjamin Marin

1.6. General Plan Designation: Agricultural use (temporary)

1.7. Zoning: Pre-zoning for C-2 (which permits a wide array of uses)

1.8. Project Location And Setting

1.8.1 The City of McFarland
The City of McFarland sits in the northern section of Kern County within California’s Central Valley.

Figure 1 displays the location of McFarland in relation to the State of California and Kern County. The City is located along Highway 99, approximately 25 miles north of Bakersfield and approximately seven miles south of Delano. McFarland’s 2022 boundaries encompass approximately three-square miles of land consisting of mostly residential, institutional, and agricultural uses. McFarland’s Sphere of Influence and the surrounding area are primarily under agricultural use. Figure 2 displays the proposed land uses in the 2040 McFarland General Plan.

9 Figure 1: Location of McFarland within California and Kern County

10 Figure 2: Proposed Land Use in the 2040 McFarland General Plan

11 1.8.2 Annexation #21 Project Location
The proposed Annexation #21 area covers two contiguous parcels (060-030-08 & 060-030-12) north of Elmo Hwy., McFarland. Elmo Hwy marks the boundary of the area on the south, with Garzoli Ave on the west, and Davis Avenue on the east. Davis Avenue is a western frontage road that is adjacent to SR 99.

The project area is right outside the City limits, but within McFarland’s sphere of influence. Figure 3 (also showing as Appendix A) identifies the location of the annexation area on the northern edge of the City.

Figure 4 identifies land use proposals under the General Plan within the Residential Development Plan area. The General Plan designates one of the parcels for temporary agricultural use pending future need to expand the City limits into that part of its sphere of influence as Figure 4 and Figure 2 show. Figure 2 also shows a complete legend for land use designations under the General Plan.

Figure 3: Location of Annexation #21 Area in McFarland
Figure 4: Proposed General Plan Land Use in Annexation #21 Area

12 1.9. Project Description

1.9.1 Annexation #21: Multi-Use Development Plan Proposal The project involves a general plan amendment and annexation into City limits of contiguous parcels 060- 030-08 & 060-030-12 in North McFarland. The development proposal is to consolidate the two parcels (outlined in Figure 3 and Figure 4) into a Multi-Use Development Plan area with a wide array of permitted land uses under the C-2 designation. Figure 4 shows that portions of the southern and eastern boundaries of Annexation #21 area adjoin McFarland City limits. Appendix B is an aerial view depicting existing uses of land in the vicinity of the project area.

1.9.2 Annexation #21: Parcels and Land Use Designations Figure 5 is a copy of the Assessor’s Map for the parcels that constitute the Annexation #21 area. Figure 6 confirms that the parcels are not under Williamson Act contract. Their use for agriculture was therefore temporary, pending the expansion of the City into those parcels intended for future urban development.

Figure 7 reveals further that the parcels were not designated prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.

The proposed project area covers approximately 124.26 gross acres. Table 1 is the list of Assessor’s parcels within the proposed annexation area. The table also shows the original (temporary) land use designations and the modified land uses under pre-zoning of parcels 060-030-08 & 060-030-12. Overall, there is good consistency in land use designations between the original (which was only temporary) and modified uses on the parcels. The most noticeable change is the conversion of future urban land under temporary agricultural use into urban land under the C-2 zoning designation.

The designation, C-2, refers to a “Commercial Zone”, but the municipal code also permits a mixture of uses with multi-family residential at 16 to 24 dwelling units per acre in such zones. Chapter 17 of the McFarland Municipal Code identifies a wide array of permitted land uses in C-2 zoning districts (17.80.020) as follows:

A. Any use permitted in the C-0 and C-1 zones, which include versions of the land use categories listed next in item B of this list.

B. Many subcategories of the following land use categories:

1. Residential uses (including community care facility; condominium; duplex; emergency shelter; fraternity or sorority house; residential hotel).

2. Recreation, Entertainment, and Tourist Facilities

3. Commercial uses

4. Institutional uses

5. Miscellaneous uses (which include day-care, storage, and parking, among others).

C. Accessory buildings
D. Emergency shelters.

Appendix C has additional details covering the list of uses permitted under the C-0, C-1, and C-2 districts.

13 Table 1: List of Parcels with Modified Land Uses and Sizes in Annexation #21 Area Assessor's
Parcel Number
(APN)
Acreage General Plan Land Use
Designation [Temporary]
General Plan Land Use
Designation [Amended
for Annexation #21]
PreZoning
060-030-08

39.09 Agriculture General Commercial C-2
060-030-12

84.26 Agriculture General Commercial C-2
Total

123.35 Acreage includes future internal road rights-of-way Boundary Roads

0.96 Acreage of adjoining boundary road right-of-way (Davis Ave.) Grand Total

124.26 Acreage includes adjoining boundary road right-of-way Figure 5: Assessor’s Parcels in Annexation #21 Area
Source: Kern County GIS
Annexation #21 Area

14 Figure 6: Williamson Act Lands within and around McFarland’s Sphere of Influence Source: Kern County GIS
Annexation #21 Area

15 Figure 7: Types of Farmland in McFarland's Sphere of Influence Source: Kern County GIS
Annexation #21 Area
0 0
0 0

16 1.9.3 Annexation #21: Distribution of Land Uses
The proposed project is envisioned to be developed within one of the flexible zoning districts defined in the City’s Municipal Code. It is anticipated that multiple forms of housing that can meet the needs of households within a range of income groups, a variety of commercial retail, office, and ancillary uses, as well as recreational and entertainment activities may be implemented to be consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. However, the exact combination of uses and sizes are to be determined in the future. The pre-zoning has assigned to the parcels McFarland’s zoning designations that would become applicable following annexation of the area. This is consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (Gov’t Code Sections 5600 et seq.), which requires that parcels proposed for annexation are “pre-zoned” prior to annexation.

1.9.4 Compatibility of Proposed Land Uses in Annexation #21 Area with McFarland General Plan The vision for the proposed development in Annexation #21 Area (which its pre-zoning reflects) will be compatible with the residential and commercial land uses within the part of the city limit that the proposed development project area adjoins. The following are noteworthy:
• Annexation #21 will adjoin existing City boundary thereby avoiding leap-frog development. • The development site is contiguous with the built-up area of North McFarland. This would limit travel distances for residents between the proposed development and other destinations in the City thereby limiting environmental impacts in the form of energy consumption and pollution related to travel.

Review for intended vs. historic use of land reveal the following:
• Agricultural lands in McFarland are important in that they provide commodities that generate local jobs and income, contribute to the local character of the City, and create habitat for wildlife. McFarland recognizes the economic and cultural importance of agriculture for the community and continues to actively preserve and protect farmland, particularly Williamson Act Parcels.
• Parcels in the Annexation #21 area have in recent years been partially under temporary agricultural use and adjoin other parcels that accommodate housing and other structures related to farming activities. However, the parcels were neither under Williamson Act contract, as Figure 6 shows, nor are they designated prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as Figure 7 shows. Consequently, Annexation #21 parcels have prior intended use for urban development as are other parcels in its immediate vicinity. Therefore, conversion of the parcels to urban uses is consistent with the long-term intent for use of the land to accommodate the needs of a growing population thereby also contributing potentially to alleviating the acute housing shortage in the State.

Reviews for compatibility with the McFarland General Plan reveal the following:
• Annexation #21 adjoins a residential area according to the Land Use Map of the 2040 General Plan. Refer to Figure 2 for the citywide land use map and Figure 4 for a close-up of project area

17 land use designations under the General Plan. The group of parcels being converted into a Residential Development Plan (Parcels 060-030-08 & 060-030-12), are to accommodate a variety of uses including residential, commercial, and community uses in addition to an internal network of roads. Development review in the future would assure that land uses would be compatible with each other.
• Annexation #21 Area is wholly outside the 2022 City limits but is within McFarland’s sphere of influence. Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 4. This would require modification to the boundaries of the City limits via the proposed annexation process.
• Since the project area falls within a section of the City’s sphere of influence that already has similar and compatible land use designations, the EIR for the 2040 General Plan covers the area of proposed development.
o The development proposal would, however, trigger a need for change to area land use in the General Plan to the appropriate, compatible land uses. o The circumstances qualify for tiering the environmental documentation for the annexation off the General Plan EIR for a Negative Declaration for the proposed development.
• The primary land uses intended under the project area’s pre-zoning are consistent with the 2040 McFarland General Plan. Specifically, they are directly compatible with or offer the potential to meet the following policies among others:
o Policy HO 1.3.1: Accommodate the City’s housing need over the life of the General Plan.
o Policy HO 1.3.3: Locate new residential developments near amenities such as grocery stores, public parks, and schools.
o Policy HO 2.2.2: Provide housing alternatives to community residents. o Policy HO 3.1.1: Increase affordable housing production. o Policy LU 1.1.1: Expand the range of allowable housing types and areas in which they may be built.
o Program LU 1.2.2.1: Establish strategic mixed-use nodes of commercial and office uses to serve nearby neighborhoods (along Elmo Highway). o Policy LU 1.4.1: Preserve open space in new residential developments. o Policy LU 2.1.2: Prohibit leapfrog development.
o Objective CIR 1.5: Provide a supportive environment for active transportation users. o Objective CIR 2.2: Improve connections and accessibility for all modes of transportation including walking, bicycling, and public transit. o Policy CIR 2.2.2: Improve accessibility for all ages and needs. o Objective CIR 3.1: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). o Objective CIR 3.2: Increase pedestrian and bicycle mode share. o Policy HTH 2.1.1: Promote alternative modes of transportation for short distance trips.
o Policy OS 1.1.1: Provide park spaces within a quarter mile of residential neighborhoods.
o Policy OS 1.2.1: Enhance pedestrian and vehicular access to open space.

18 o Policy EJ 1.1.1: Address air pollution and its sources. o Objective 3.2: Link parks, schools, and other public facilities citywide. o Policy EJ 4.1.1: Promote physically active lifestyles.

1.9.5 Modifications to City Boundary and Land Uses in Annexation #21 Area Figure 8 shows the General Plan Land Use Map with two sets of modifications: (a) to City boundaries on the north side to include Annexation #21 Area; and (b) for potential land use designations (tentatively captured as “mixed-use” as a surrogate for the potential future mixture of uses) on affected parcels.

Table 1 identified the key changes to land uses from the original land use map. The following are noteworthy from that table and the modified land use map for the General Plan:
• The parcels of the annexation area were previously under agricultural use. They are modified to tentatively capture the potential mixture of uses.
• Upon the amendment to the General Plan and annexation, the new City boundary would wrap around the Annexation #21 parcels as Figure 8 depicts.

19 Figure 8: Modified McFarland City Boundary and Land Use on General Plan Land Use Map

Modified City Boundary for Annexation #19 Area
Modified City Boundary for Annexation #20 Area
Modified City Boundary for Annexation #21 Area

20 1.10. Other Required Agency Approvals
Externally, the City will consult with Kern County LAFCO for approval. Besides LAFCO, no other external agency is required to approve the annexation project.

Internally, pertinent departments of the McFarland city government will conduct reviews of the application in accordance with established procedures of the City and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the City Council will act with consideration of input from the Planning Commission in giving authorization to initiate annexation.

1.11. Native American Consultation
Consistent with regulations of the State of California (e.g., SB 18, AB 52, et al), the project team initiated consultation with Native American Tribes likely to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area as part of the General Plan EIR process. With assistance from the Native American Heritage Commission, the project team identified nineteen Native American Tribes and contacted each via a letter in 2021. The Appendix to section 1.6 of the Final Program EIR on the 2040 McFarland General Plan includes a list of Tribes contacted and responses received, if any, as well as copies of the letters sent to the Tribes. Overall, responses indicate the project area is outside ancestral homes for which the Tribes did not request consultation.

1.12. Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected In accordance with Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Program EIR on the 2040 McFarland General Plan analyzed the programmatic and cumulative environmental impacts that would possibly result from the adoption of the 2040 McFarland General Plan, which includes the long-term vision, policies, and programs for housing. This section identifies the required topics of discussion. Subsections of the next section summarize the respective impacts of the proposed Plan under these topics. Specific environmental conditions relate to individual topics and detailed discussion of impacts are available in sections 4.1 through 4.20 of the Final EIR. The topics include the following:
o Aesthetics
o Agricultural Resources
o Air Quality
o Biological Resources
o Cultural
o Geology and Soils
o Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Hydrology and Water
Quality
o Land Use and Planning
o Mineral Resources
o Noise
o Population and Housing
o Public Facilities
o Recreation
o Transportation
o Utilities
o Energy
o Tribal Cultural Resources
o Wildfire
o Mandatory Findings of
Significance

21 2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This section presents a summary of the analyses on the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 1.1 through 1.9) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project’s short-term impacts (construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses, which are listed in increasing order of severity; they are:

1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project’s implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.

2. Less than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.

3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

The summary tables that follow list the four possible responses in decreasing order of severity for each of the required topics of discussion.

22 2.1 Aesthetics
Would the proposed plan: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X

2. Substantially damage scenic
resources including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X

3. In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X

4. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
AE – 1: There are no officially designated scenic vistas or viewsheds in the City of McFarland. As a result, the Annexation #21 project (Project) will have no effect on scenic vistas.

AE – 2: There are no officially designated State scenic highways in the City of McFarland nor are there any National or California Historic Landmarks in the City. The closest eligible place is the Friant-Kern Canal, which is eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRPH). The Project will have no effect on any scenic highways or historic landmarks.

AE – 3: The proposed developments in the Project would be contiguous to the City and the development review process will assure preservation of the visual character of the City. The Project will have no negative effect on the visual character of the City.

AE – 4: Build-out of developments from the Project would create new, but minor sources of glare and light. Any new lighting installed under the Project would increase safety and security for residents and visitors and result in a less than significant impact.

23 2.2 Agricultural Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X

2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X

4. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

5. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
AG – 1: Agricultural lands in McFarland are important in that they provide commodities that generate local jobs and income, contribute to the local character of the City, and create habitat for wildlife. While some designated urban land under temporary agricultural use may be converted to urban land uses under the Annexation #21 project (Project), the parcels of land under consideration are not under Williamson Act contract nor are they designated prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Overall, use of the land for its intended urban purpose would result in a less than significant effect.

AG – 2: McFarland recognizes the economic and cultural importance of agriculture for the community and continues to actively preserve and protect farmland, particularly, Williamson Act Parcels.

Annexation #21 project area is not under contract and thus its conversion to housing in order to accommodate the growing population in the long term would not result in loss of Williamson Act land.

Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on zoning and Williamson Act Parcels.

24 AG – 3: There is no forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production within the City of McFarland. The Project will have no impact on forest or timberland.

AG – 4: There is no forest land within the City of McFarland. The Project would have no impact on the loss of forest land to non-forest use.

AG – 5: Agricultural resources are directly threatened by urban development as well as urban growth.

McFarland is committed to preserving its agricultural resources; however, while long term buildout of housing may impact the agricultural environment by changing the activities occurring on adjacent properties, Annexation #21 parcels have prior designation for urban development as are many of the parcels in the immediate vicinity. This would cause the overall impact to be less than significant.

25 2.3 Air Quality
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Conflict or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality?
X

2. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X

3. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

4. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
X
AQ– 1: McFarland, like the rest of the San Joaquin Valley area, is in attainment with the federal PM 10 standard, but not with the federal PM 2.5 standard, and the area is not in attainment with state PM 10 or PM 2.5 standards, making the area not in attainment with federal nor with state ozone standards.

Features within the Annexation #21 project (Project) promote contiguous growth with intensification of development, thus increasing the use of alternatives to the auto like walking, biking, and transit causing the overall impact to be less than significant.

AQ – 2: The SJVAPCD has published two state implementation plans (SIPs) which address ozone and particulate matter, for which the Basin fails to meet attainment standards. Housing Elements are typically considered consistent with SIPs if they do not increase population or VMT above that projected in the Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The Project does not exceed these growth assumptions. The SJVAPCD also published a CEQA assistance document, the “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts” (GAMAQI) which provides specific mitigation measures to be applied to projects in the Basin. Projects in the City, such as subdivisions will undergo project level CEQA review and are subject to the provisions of the GAMAQI. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

AQ – 3: The Project could contribute to the existing violation of several air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; however, the air basin covers a large region

26 and includes many large agricultural operations and major urban areas including the City of Fresno. The Project includes several policies and actions that will help to mitigate future air pollutant emissions and protect sensitive residential receptors such as nursing homes. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

AQ– 4: Considering the small size and rural location of the City of McFarland and the separation of incompatible uses, the Project will not have a significant impact on the exposure of substantial numbers of people to emissions.

27 2.4 Biological Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X

4. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X

5. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X

6. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
BIO– 1: McFarland is home to a few species that have been historically protected under federal and state regulations. Four species that have been on and off the endangered and threatened species lists

28 over the past years include the Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and the San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Impacts to these species will be mitigated from the federal and state regulations. Furthermore, the Annexation #21 project (Project) does not propose development in existing wildlife or natural habitat areas. While, infill development is prioritized, new development will avoid sensitive areas, and areas of the City that are environmentally sensitive are intended to be preserved resulting in a less than significant impact to protected species.

BIO – 2: There are no wetlands or riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities in McFarland; therefore, the Project will have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

BIO – 3: The City is nearly surrounded by croplands and Williamson Act lands and the policy is to preserve prime farmland, which controls the development envelope. Otherwise, the regional geography poses low fire risk to McFarland, the City lacks wetlands, forested areas, or other sensitive habitat that might hinder development. While there is a slight potential for interruption of the hydrological cycle with impervious surfaces that come with urban development, the impact will be less than significant.

BIO – 4: The Project could result in some impact if new development would interfere with movement of species through corridors, migration patterns, or affect their ability to reach breeding locations, but any impact would be less than significant.

BIO – 5: The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

BIO – 6: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that are relevant in this context. Even unforeseen possibilities are considered less than significant.

29 2.5 Cultural: Archeological and Historical Resources Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X

2. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
X

3. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
CULT– 1: McFarland does not have any officially designated historic resources leading to a conclusion of no impact. Furthermore, the Annexation #21 project (Project) seeks to preserve non-designated historic resources.

CULT – 2: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could cause a significant impact to archaeological resources in the plan area by potentially damaging or disturbing as yet undiscovered archaeological deposits through the placement of fill and soil compression. Therefore, the potential for encountering archeological resources could exist in some sections of the City, however the Project overall causes a less than significant impact.

CULT – 3: Historically, Native Americans inhabited the region, and historically significant sites within the region have been discovered. There exists the potential of significant impacts if there were unknown sites of human remains discovered during the build-out of the Project. There are no known such sites in key growth areas, resulting in a less than significant impact. If any were to be discovered, impacts would both be significant and unavoidable. In the event human remains are discovered during the build-out of the Project, construction must be stopped, and a qualified coroner must be contacted to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If the coroner makes this determination, the coroner should contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

30 2.6 Geology and Soils
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
X

2. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
strong seismic ground shaking?
X

3. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X

4. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
X

5. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X

6. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
X

7. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X

8. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X

31 9. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
X
GEO– 1: Seismic hazard mapping shows that the City has a low seismic hazard potential yet it is at moderate risk for earthquake vulnerability. The closest active fault is six miles west while the closest active and potentially hazardous fault zone is White Wolf Fault Zone, located 55 miles south of McFarland. The White Wolf Fault Zone last erupted in 1952. Therefore, the Annexation #21 project (Project) has a less than significant effect.

GEO – 2: Seismic hazard mapping shows that the City has a low seismic hazard potential yet it is at moderate risk for earthquake vulnerability. McFarland has a 25% to 30% chance of experiencing an earthquake greater than magnitude 5.0 within the next 20 years and a 50% to 60% chance of experiencing an earthquake greater than magnitude 5.0 within the next 30 years. Therefore, the Project would place few to no properties in danger of collapse or lives at risk due to ground shaking, causing a less than significant impact.

GEO – 3: Liquefaction is the conversion of soil into a fluid-like state. McFarland is not within an area identified as having the potential for liquefaction. Therefore, the probability of loss of life or property due to liquefaction is less than significant.

GEO– 4: Earthquake-induced landslide and slope failure occurs when steep slopes composed of weak materials fail because of ground shaking caused by an earthquake. McFarland is not in an area identified as having the potential for earthquake-induced landslide or slope failure. Therefore, the Project will create less than significant risk of landslides.

GEO – 5: McFarland’s largest economic sector is agriculture. As most agricultural operations take place outside the built-up area of McFarland, the Project would create less than significant loss of topsoil.

GEO – 6: McFarland is not in an area identified as having the potential for earthquake-induced landslide or slope failure or as having the potential for liquefaction. Subsidence typically occurs due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, natural gas, or other resource extractive activities. The nearby City of Delano experienced subsidence caused largely by groundwater pumping of the deep aquifer system during the 1950s and 1960s. Although McFarland is at some risk for future ground failure as it is affected by subsidence with seismic ground shaking due to historic water withdrawal, and existing subsidence conditions, the Project’s impact would be less than significant.

GEO– 7: Soils susceptible to expansion are high in clay content as they are able to absorb and retain water leading to volume disparities between wet and dry states. The City of McFarland contains sandy soils with little or no clay content (Olive et al., 1989) which will not expand when inundated with water.

Therefore, the Project creates less than significant risk of loss of life or building damage due to location on expansive soils.

32 GEO – 8: The City of McFarland relies primarily on the collection and treatment of wastewater through a city-wide sewer system. The City does not rely heavily on the use of septic tanks. In the event that septic tanks are needed to collect wastewater, the nature of the soil in McFarland would adequately support septic tank infrastructure, resulting in a less than significant impact.

GEO – 9: McFarland is not known to have paleontological resources. However, construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could result in unearthing paleontological resources.

In anticipation of this slim eventuality, the City of McFarland has adopted the policy that “in the event that archeological or paleontological resource is unearthed or otherwise discovered during construction related activities associated with the Project, all work must be suspended until a qualified archeologist is consulted.” Thus, the Project has a less than significant impact.

33 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Generate GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X

2. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of
GHGs?
X
GHG – 1: The Annexation #21 project (Project) is envisioned to increase development density which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting in a less than significant effect.

GHG – 2: The Project remains consistent with the 2040 General Plan and other relevant policies and plans related to the regulation of GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project results in a less than significant impact.

34 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X

4. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X

5. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
X

6. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X

7. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
X
HAZ– 1: The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are primarily associated with industry.

The Annexation #21 project (Project) focuses primarily on residential, commercial, and entertainment activities and supporting uses so the impact is less than significant.

35 HAZ – 2: Certain industrial and commercial land uses have the potential to create a significant hazard in upset or accident conditions if they involve the use, production, or transport of hazardous materials; however, the Project focuses on retail and service in addition to residential uses resulting in a less than significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, this projects is not the type to require CEQA review and mitigation of impacts associated with hazardous materials. In the case that the release of hazardous materials occurs, the City should collaborate with the County, following protocol from the County’s Hazardous Materials Area Plan to carry out a study to evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment.

HAZ – 3: Most existing and proposed schools are located beyond the quarter-mile threshold from anticipated land uses. The Project focuses on uses that are far from proposed industrial uses resulting in a less than significant impact on the environment
HAZ– 4: According to an EnviroStor search conducted in 2019, there were three DTSC cleanup sites within City limits and one cleanup site within the planned annexation south of McFarland. The Project will not change the existing land uses on the contamination sites without mitigation. Additionally, there is a potential for aerially deposited lead (ADL) soil contamination along Highway 99. Projects associated with development along Highway 99 should include soil sampling to test for ADL. Other projects (but not this project) might require CEQA review and mitigation of impacts associated with hazardous materials.

Therefore, the Project will create less than significant hazard to the public or the environment.

HAZ – 5: While four airports fall within the relative vicinity of McFarland, only three are relatively impactful. Delano Airport’s Sphere of Influence extends south to the border of Elmo Highway, thus providing a constraint to potential development north of that area. However, Delano Municipal Airport (DLO) is an uncontrolled, general aviation airport with a record of low-activity; it primarily serves local light aviation, including flight training and private aircraft, rather than commercial traffic thereby posing little to no conflict with the project area. There is no private airstrip within the Project Area. While no training or other significant military flightpaths cross over McFarland, Edwards Air Force Base, the nearest military installation, has some potential to impact safety in McFarland. Naval Air Warfare Station China Lake could also potentially effect aircraft hazards. The Project will not impact airport use.

HAZ – 6: The Project aligns with the General Plan which ensures collaboration with Kern County on the development and implementation of a Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Plan (ERP) as well as supports efforts outlined in the existing McFarland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Project does not impact implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

HAZ– 7: McFarland is not included in Local, State or Federal Responsibility Areas or the projected Sphere of Influence within the Fire Hazard Severity Zones. While the City does not lie within a CAL FIRE recognized Fire Hazard Severity Zone, urban structure fires remain a concern and steps to prepare for an emergency will benefit all residents. Additionally, the City of McFarland sits on land designated as Wildland-Urban Interface by the USGS, or the area where significant vegetation or fuel sources lie near human activity. The Sequoia National Forest lies approximately 30 miles to the east of McFarland, and

36 that eastern half of Kern County qualifies as a significant fuel source and an area of significant fire probability, with many areas falling in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Zone. Although large wildfires are unlikely near McFarland, caution is still warranted due to significant potential fuel sources in the area including agricultural waste, liquid fuel, gaseous accelerants, and other significant local point sources of impact in a city of its size. The Project will expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a less than significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

37 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X

2. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X

4. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
X

5. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
X

6. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
X

38 impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would impede or redirect flood flows?

7. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X

8. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
HY– 1: Future development associated with the buildout of the Annexation #21 project (Project) could negatively affect the quality of surface waters. Construction activities, which include grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities, could expose soils, which can be eroded and deposited into nearby water sources. Increased sedimentation and turbidity from storm water runoff could lead to lower oxygen levels and increased algal growth, which could harm aquatic life. Post-construction impacts to water quality and waste discharge are due to an increase of impervious surfaces creating changes to storm water amount and quality. An increase of impervious surfaces also could lead to an increase of pollutants that enter storm water runoff. Urban runoff can potentially carry oil and grease, metals, sediment, pesticide, and chemical residues from roadways, parking lots, and rooftops, depositing them into nearby waterways. Development from the Project is required to comply with State and local water quality regulations that are designed to protect water quality during construction.

Complying with the standards and regulations will prevent the Project from violating any water quality standards related to waste discharge. Therefore, the Project’s impact will be less than significant.

HY – 2: The future development in the Project area would result in an increase in impervious surfaces which may interfere with groundwater recharge. However, regulations for stormwater require various measures that aim to improve on-site retention and drainage improvements, which when adhered to should result in a less than significant impact.

HY – 3: Development of the Project would involve vegetation removal, earth excavation and grading, and the construction of new structures. These activities could have an impact on the drainage pattern through an increase in erosion from construction activities and an increase in impervious surfaces.

However, erosion control measures are to be implemented and regulated for any proposed project greater than one acre resulting in a less than significant level. Individual projects are also to mitigate any on-site or off-site erosion impacts.

HY– 4: Build-out of the Project will increase the number of impervious surfaces within the City. Drainage patterns have the potential to be altered through an increase in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces. McFarland owns nine sump basins for flood and storm control; however, additional sump basins have been identified for future development. This would help to alleviate potential runoff from developments to a less than significant level.

HY – 5: An increase in impervious surfaces from the development of the Project could result in an increase in stormwater runoff and pollutants within the stormwater. The increased pollutants include oil

39 and grease, metals, sediments, and pesticides from the increase in roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces. The water quality from stormwater runoff is regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVWQCB) and the municipal stormwater requirements in the McFarland Storm Drain Master Plan. These requirements and design features aid in offsetting the potential increase in stormwater from increase in impervious surfaces to a less than significant level.

HY – 6: An increase in development under the Project could result in alterations to water courses as retention walls, fences, and other structures are situated on land. However, site grading and design guidelines are meant to guard against unnecessary redirection of natural flow patterns, call for creation of retention basins, and preservation of streams and creeks, resulting in an overall less than significant impact. Furthermore, individual projects are to undergo project-level analysis to determine if they impede or redirect flood flows and mitigate them, as necessary.

HY– 7: McFarland does not fall within tsunami or seiche zones. However, assessor’s parcel data indicates approximately 457 parcels exist within the 100-year floodplain and 1,081 parcels exist within the 500- year floodplain. These properties account for 55% of homes in McFarland. Approximately 2,380 people live within the 100-year floodplain and 5,540 live within the 500-year floodplain. The Project limits additional residential growth in identified 100-year or 500-year flood plains without appropriate mitigation and the location of this Project in not among them, resulting in a less than significant impact.

HY – 8: An increase in development under the Project could increase surface runoff, its pollution, and subsequent degradation of water supply sources. McFarland is in a region with perennial shortage of water and a depleting groundwater aquifer. Growth in people and activities is likely to exacerbate the situation. CVWQCB regulates water quality while Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District (SSJMUD) protects and manages groundwater for sustainability ensuring the Project’s impact remains less than significant. The Project also remains consistent with SSJMUD’s Sustainable Ground Water Management Plan.

40 2.10 Land Use and Planning
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Physically divide an
established community? X

2. Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
LU – 1: The Annexation #21 project (Project) does not include expansion of growth on both sides of Highway 99 which already physically divides the community. To maintain the City’s small-town character and preserve open space, the Project is contiguous to existing development. The proposal in the General Plan to create neighborhood centers and mixed-use arterials, enhanced mobility options for all modes of transportation, and increasing connectivity in the area and throughout the City, would result in a less than significant impact.

LU – 2: The Project does not conflict with existing land use plans. The Project remains consistent with the 2040 General Plan and updated Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map.

41 2.11 Mineral Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
X

2. Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan,
Residential Development
Plan, or other land use
plan?
X
MR – 1: Mineral extraction operations do not exist in the City of McFarland, but there are operations within Kern County. The City has restrictions in its municipal code that do not allow mining operations within McFarland. However, expansion in physical development would require extraction of stones, gravel, and sand, which might come from other parts of the region. Therefore, buildout of the Annexation #21 project (Project) could result in a less than significant loss of known mineral resources.

MR – 2: As referenced under MR-1, there are no existing mining operations in the City of McFarland.

However, the need for building stones, gravel, and sand during expansion in physical development could potentially deplete a local quarry. Therefore, buildout of the Project could result in a less than significant loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site.

42 2.12 Noise
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in the
local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
X

2. Result in exposure of
persons to or generation of
excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne
noise levels?
X

3. For a project located within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project expose
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
NOISE– 1: To accommodate future growth, the Annexation #21 project (Project) proposes the conversion of some vacant land to residential facility uses. Noise-sensitive land uses, including open space, public facilities, and residential land uses are proposed outside of normally or clearly acceptable ranges of noise. Furthermore, the proposed land uses do not expose existing sensitive receptors to an unacceptable range of noise. However, with growth in population and activities, there is a chance that noise levels would increase. Therefore, the Project could cause less than significant generation of noise levels in excess of the established standards. Additionally, project implementation is to take this issue into consideration and mitigate any potential noise impacts.

NOISE – 2: Ground-borne vibration and noise levels in McFarland are primarily associated with vehicular traffic along SR 99. The railroad is also a significant source of intermittent noise, but its 60 dB contour is entirely contained within the SR 99 60 dB contour. The Project, consistent with the 2040 General Plan,

43 does not prioritize residential development along SR 99 and within the 60 dB contour. Sensitive land uses are located outside of the unacceptable noise ranges. However, increased activity under the Project could generate additional movement of heavy vehicles that could impact ground vibration.

Nevertheless, the Project would less than significantly expose people to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Furthermore, implementation of the Project is to take this issue into consideration and mitigate any potential noise impacts.

NOISE – 3: There are no aircraft operations, including private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport in the City of McFarland. The closest airport is the Delano Municipal Airport, just over four miles to the north. The 60 dB noise contours calculated for this airport do not extend to McFarland, nor to its planned expansion areas. Therefore, no persons residing or working in the Project area would be exposed to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport, resulting in no impact.

44 2.13 Population and Housing
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X

2. Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
POP– 1: The Annexation #21 project (Project), falls under the 2040 General Plan, which used the cohortcomponent method of population projection according to State of California guidelines to calculate population growth and number of households. The City of McFarland could need to accommodate up to about 4,500 additional housing units by 2040 in the five targeted key growth areas. This is to meet the needs of natural population increase and those that the target for jobs can induce by 2040 under the General Plan. The City, however, only has to meet a RHNA allocation of 244 units within the 2023-2031 cycle and can accommodate the additional housing units through a combination of infill, mixed-use, and ADU development in the downtown and vicinity plus key housing sites. This Project falls outside one of the key growth areas for new housing but can nevertheless contribute to meeting the allocated need therefore causing no impact.

POP – 2: The General Plan can meet population growth and related housing needs through the reoccupation of existing vacant units, redevelopment of existing units in “bad” condition, and developing new units. This Project does not necessitate the displacement of existing housing units, but rather can add to the growth and improvement of the housing stock by constructing new units. It does not involve redeveloping existing units in less than desirable conditions that could displace some occupants even if temporarily. Since the Project would not trigger displacement of people or existing housing units that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, it would have no impact.

45 2.14 Public Facilities
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for the following:

1. Fire protection? X

2. Police protection? X

3. Schools?
X

4. Parks? X

5. Other public facilities? X
PS – 1: McFarland does not lie in any identified fire hazard severity zone. However, the Sequoia National Forest lies approximately 30 miles to the east of McFarland, and that eastern half of Kern County qualifies as a significant fuel source and an area of significant fire probability, with many areas falling in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Growth in population and activities have the potential to increase the risk of urban fires which could tax the ability of Fire Protection and Emergency Services. There building standard that the Annexation #21 project (Project) must follow are meant to reduce the risk of fire on houses in McFarland, resulting in a less than significant impact.

PS – 2: Population growth has the potential to impact the ability of police services. Currently, the City of McFarland meets the FBI target of one officer per 1,000 residents and with the addition of the project, the City can maintain the standard officer-to-resident ratio. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

PS – 3: The current teacher to student ratio (1:24) is lower than the national average (1:30).

Construction of a new elementary school in 2016 increased facility capacity to 3,804. While the Project

46 has the potential to increase population, the Project will have a less than significant effect on school capacity if it allocates space for additional school facilities.

PS – 4: The Project will have a less than significant impact on parks. Refer to the Recreation section (section 2.15) for more details.

PS – 5: The Project has the potential to increase population which would likely increase demand for library services in excess of existing capacity. However, Mitigation PS – 5a in the General Plan EIR accounts for the increased demand and requires the City of McFarland to “Coordinate with Kern County Library to address the specific needs of the community and funding sources required to build library service and other services to meet those needs.” With Mitigation PS – 5a, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

47 2.15 Recreation
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
X

2. Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
REC – 1: There are currently 7 parks and 35 acres of parks in McFarland. While population growth would inevitably require demand for park use, the Annexation #21 project (Project) is expected to dedicate space for additional proposed park land which would serve residents and mitigate overuse of parks to an extent as to result in their deterioration. (This would be consistent with the contents of the General Plan Land Use in the northern parts of the City adjoining Annexation #21.) Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

REC – 2: The Project area is to permit the development of a mixture of residential, commercial, entertainment and supportive land uses which will not require additional recreational facilities beyond what is permitted and therefore will create no adverse physical impact.

48 2.16 Transportation
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
X

2. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? . . . . i.e., Is VMT
exceeding an applicable
threshold of significance?
X

3. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
X

4. Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
TRANS – 1: All development under the Annexation #21 project (Project) would be subject to policies, plans, and programs that ensure the performance and safety of users of multiple modal facilities including public transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. For example, all development under the Project would have to comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The impact of the Project on adopted policies, plans, or programs would therefore be less than significant.

TRANS – 2: Potential growth and development as a result of the Project can increase total vehicle miles travelled (VMT). However, anticipated focus of the Project and the keen focus of the General Plan on contiguous and mixed-use development can encourage alternatives to the auto, including nonmotorized travel, helping to reduce VMT. Consistent with statewide thresholds of significance, the proposed McFarland General Plan is assessed to produce upwards of a 50 percent reduction in per capita VMT. This is possible because the General Plan includes certain improvements to transportation and land use settings, which are projected to result in lower per capita VMT than existing and other future alternatives including the no project alternative. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on Project generated VMT.

49 TRANS – 3: All development under the Project would be subject to design and safety standards that are specified within the City of McFarland Municipal Code. The McFarland Municipal Code references, and is subject to, codes established by the State of California that ensure the safety of its citizens. As with current practice, all future roadways would be designed and reviewed in consultation with engineers to determine their compliance with these codes and regulations with regard to hazards and incompatible uses. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on hazards due to geometric design.

TRANS – 4: All development under the Project would be subject to design and safety standards, specified under the City of McFarland Municipal Code, which references the California Building Code and portions of the International Fire Code. As with current practice, all future roadways would be designed and reviewed in consultation with engineers to determine their compliance with these codes and regulations with regards to adequate emergency access. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on emergency access.

50 2.17 Utilities
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
X

2. Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
X

3. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has (in)adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
X

4. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X

5. Not comply with federal,
state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X

51 UTIL – 1: The Annexation #21 project (Project) will result in new growth and infrastructure development in an annexed area of the City of McFarland. This could result in new construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities. The Annexation #21 area is in the part of the City which does not have a history of major flood events, though it is possible that projected growth could change this as roadway expansion, land use changes and commercial growth and expansion could possibly increase the use of pavement and parking areas. However, programs in the General Plan address infrastructure requirements in order to efficiently capture and divert storm water to reduce the risk of urban flooding for new development and growth of the Project. Increased housing as a result of the Project would also likely require the extension of electric, gas, and wastewater lines as well as telecommunication facilities.

However, programs in the General Plan address increased demand for public services and proposed expansion when needed. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

UTIL – 2: The City has sufficient water supply to serve existing entitlements and resources, but water supply can be a limiting factor to growth. Continuing to monitor water quality is important as the community continues to grow. The current water supply needs to be supplemented by additional sources and continuously monitored for quality to facilitate growth. Additionally, the City of McFarland needs to reduce its water demand regardless of these impacts. Executive Order B-37-16 and Senate Bill X7-7 mandate water demand reduction which can potentially help the City offset demand associated with projected growth. With water conservation policies in the General Plan, the increased water demand as a result of the Project will have a less than significant effect on water supply.

UTIL – 3: Projected increase in population and changes in land use would increase demand for the City of McFarland’s wastewater treatment facilities and therefore potentially exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which mandates that all public sanitary sewer systems and treatment facilities comply with State Waste Discharge Order (WDR Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ). There is a planned expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, but due to the pipe size limitation it would only increase capacity for the west side where the Project site is located.

The east side has considerably lower capacity for growth, as it is served by only one 8-inch pipe. The General Plan proposed constructing a new facility on the east side of McFarland to accommodate future growth and demand. With the two expansions, the Project would have a less than significant effect on wastewater treatment facilities.

UTIL – 4: The Project will result in new growth and infrastructure development in key areas within the City of McFarland and this would increase the need for solid waste collection and disposal. R&F Disposal and Recycling, Inc. would not exceed capacity at buildout. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

UTIL – 5: Projects in the City, such as subdivisions undergo project level reviews and are subject to the policies in the General Plan to assure compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations and statutes regarding solid waste. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

52 2.18 Energy
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

2. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
ENE – 1: While the Annexation #21 project (Project) will result in new growth and infrastructure development in key areas within the City of McFarland, focus on contiguous, compact, and infill development can help to prevent excessive consumption of energy. Additionally, the Plan’s efforts to reduce VMT can further reduce energy consumption from transportation related activities. As a result of these progressive actions to conserve energy, per capita natural gas use under the Project can reduce and electricity use can decrease compared to the no project alternative, resulting in a less than significant impact.

ENE – 2: All development under the Project would be subject to all applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency plans including federal, state and local regulations. The Project would also be subject to the General Plan policies and programs, which work to help McFarland meet energy conservation standards and goals set by state and local plans. Furthermore, subsequent developments under the Project will undergo City of McFarland Building Department review to ensure they comply with energy conservation standards. Therefore, impact of the Project on adopted policies, plans, or programs would be less than significant.

53 2.19 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in the local
Register of Historical Resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k)?
X

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is a resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1?
X
TRIBE – 1: There are no historic sites, features, places, and cultural landscapes within the City that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2015, McFarland conducted a records search of California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) which includes a review of the NRHP, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory list, and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Property Directory. The records search identified 14 previously conducted studies and 14 cultural resources within the City but not the Annexation #21 project (Project) site and 200-foot buffer. All of the cultural resources are of the

54 built-environment type and were constructed during the 20th century. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any tribal cultural resources listed on any local or state registry.

TRIBE – 2: A 2015 records search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) including a review of the NRHP, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory list, and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Property Directory identified 14 cultural resources within the City, but not the Annexation #21 project site and 200-foot buffer. However, these resources are all of the built-environment type and were constructed during the 20th century and will not be impacted by the Project. Beyond this search, the City reached out to the 19 tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be historically or culturally associated with the geographic area of the City of McFarland for consultation.

McFarland’s SOI did not cover any land associated with any of the tribes. Given this information, the lead agency, the City of McFarland, is not aware of any tribal cultural resources that will be impacted by the Project.

55 2.20 Wildfire
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Substantially impair an adopted Emergency
Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? X

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X

3. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
FIRE – 1: The Annexation #21 project (Project) is a part of the General Plan which includes policies to ensure collaboration with Kern County on the development and implementation of a Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Plan and supports efforts outlined in the existing McFarland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Proposed land uses do not interfere with any existing emergency response plans (ERPs).

Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

FIRE – 2: According to CAL FIRE, McFarland (and its SOI) does not lie within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is at a low risk from fire hazards. The Project, as a result, does not increase exposure of any Project occupants to wildfire spread or wildfire pollutants. While the City does not lie within a CAL FIRE recognized Fire Hazard Severity Zone, urban structure fires and pollutant exposure from nearby higher risk areas outside of McFarland’s SOI remain a concern and steps to prepare for an emergency will benefit all residents. Policies in the General Plan help to mitigate that risk. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

FIRE – 3: As addressed in FIRE-2, McFarland (including its SOI) does not lie within a CAL FIRE designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is at low risk of fire hazard. Furthermore, any subsequent subdivisions or development projects required as part of the Project are subject to CEQA review. While the City does

56 not lie within a CAL FIRE recognized Fire Hazard Severity Zone, urban structure fires remain a concern and steps to mitigate fire risk are still important. Policies in the General Plan help to mitigate that risk.

Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

FIRE – 4: As addressed in FIRE-2 and 3, McFarland (including its SOI) does not lie within a CAL FIRE designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is at low risk of fire hazard. Due to the low risk of fire, there is an exceedingly small likelihood that any wildfire related slope instability, drainage changes, or run off caused by wildfires could occur. Thus, the Project will less than significantly impact the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides caused by fire related geological events. While wildfire risk is low in McFarland, urban structure fires remain a concern and steps to mitigate fires risk are still important.

57 2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range, of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X

2. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.)
X

3. Have environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
From the analyses in the foregoing sections, implementation of proposed land uses within the Annexation #21 Project area (Project) would not result in either limited or cumulative environmental impacts as follows:

MFS-1: It will not reduce fish habitats, threaten to eliminate plant or animal communities, reduce or restrict rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

MFS-2: It will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

MFS-3: It does not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.

Implementation of proposed land uses within the Annexation #21 Project area (Project) can contribute to the set of developments required to meet McFarland’s RHNA allocation. The policies that would guide project implementation would not change allowed density ranges even as they promote intensification of development toward the upper ranges of allowed density ranges in the City. Project implementation will consider environmental factors and adopt mitigation measures when deemed necessary.

58 3.0 Certification

3.1 Preparers
On behalf of the City of McFarland, De Lapide & Associates, Inc. prepared the Initial Study for this project.

3.2 Determination
McFarland Planning and Community Development Department based on the evaluation in this Initial Study and the Final Program EIR for the 2040 McFarland General Plan [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby determined.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or a “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required.

3.3 De Minimis Fee Determination
Pursuant to Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990-AB 3158,
[X] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project pending approval of the No Effect Determination.

59 [ ] It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively, and therefore fees shall be paid to the County Clerk in accordance with Section 711.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code.

3.4 Environmental Determination
The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination, contained in Section 2.0 preceding, is hereby approved.
_______________________________________________________ Megan Snyder, Community Development Director
City of McFarland

60 References
California Office of Planning and Research, CEQA Technical Advice Series, December 2004 Edition.

Accessible at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/MND_Publication_2004.pdf City of McFarland. 2021, 2040 General Plan. Available at:
https://www.mcfarlandcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3020/Final-General-Plan--2021pdf City of McFarland. 2021, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT on McFarland 2040 General Plan, SCH # 2021040288. Accessible via:
https://www.mcfarlandcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2302/Vol3_DEIR_05- 16-2021
City of McFarland. 2021, Background Report for the 2040 General Plan. Available at:
https://www.mcfarlandcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2301/Vol1_McFarland-Draft-General-Plan_May2021 City of McFarland. 2021, Sustainable Agriculture Element. Available at:
https://www.mcfarlandcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3021/VolAG_Sustainable-Agriculture-Element_v2pdf

61 Appendices
Appendix A: Boundaries of Proposed Annexation #21 Area

62 Appendix B: Aerial View of Existing Land Use in Vicinity of Annexation #21 Area

63 Appendix C: Permitted Uses in C-0, C-1, and C-2 Zones C-0 Zones

64

65 C-1 Zones

66

67 C-2 Zones

68

C-2, Commercial
C-2, Commercial

EXHIBIT E

PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
Check Services Which
City/District Will Provide
SERVICES Agency Which Presently
Provides Services
Upon Annexation Future Date
(Specify)
Indicate How Services
Provided by City/District will
be Financed (i.e., general tax
rate or special assessment)
Planning City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Parks and Rec. McFarland Parks &
Recreation
Library Kern County
Police Protection City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Fire Protection Kern County Fire
Streets City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Construction City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Maintenance City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Sweeping City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Lighting City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Flood Control City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND
Sewerage City of McFarland X SEWER FUND
Water City of McFarland X WATER FUND
Other: Refuse City of McFarland X GENERAL FUND WITH
CONTRACT WITH CITY’S

FRANCHISE HAULER

EXHIBIT E
Please provide the following information, when applicable, only for services which will be provided by the applicant City/District.

Location Service Level Capacity
Indicate location from which service will be provided Indicate frequency and availability of service (i. e., nearest fire station, library, etc. ) (i. e., street sweeping, response time for emergency services, rec. programs, etc.)
Police 401 W Kern Ave, McFarland CA 93250 24hrs/7days, 8:00-5:00pm Office Hours Fire
Parks and Recreation
Library
Streets 401 W Kern Ave, McFarland CA 93250 8:00-5:00pm Office Hours Construction/Maintenance
Sweeping
Lighting
Sewer 401 W Kern Ave, McFarland CA 93250 Regular 8:00-5:00pm Office Hours Water 401 W Kern Ave, McFarland CA 93250 Regular 8:00-5:00pm Office Hours Other: Refuse 401 W Kern Ave, McFarland CA 93250 Regular 8:00-5:00pm Office Hours

City of McFarland
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 7.

Section: ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENDA
Meeting Date: June 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Diego Viramontes, City Manager
Erika De La Cruz, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution No. 2026-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MCFARLAND, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A POLICY

ADDRESSING DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC SERVICE DURING CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS
SUMMARY:

Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely. This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.

The proposed City Council Technology Disruption Policy establishes procedures to address disruptions to telephonic or internet-based communication services during City Council meetings. The policy is intended to ensure compliance with applicable state teleconferencing requirements, maintain transparency, and provide continuity of public meetings in the event of technological interruptions.

The policy outlines procedures for temporarily suspending, continuing, or adjourning meetings when disruptions prevent public access or participation through required teleconferencing platforms.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

To comply with SB 707, the City is required to maintain Zoom Workplace Pro for teleconferencing services, at an annual cost of $4,379.88.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2026-65 and adopt the policy addressing disruption of telephonic service during City Council Meetings.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Disruption Policy For City Council Meetings - Final Version

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-65

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MCFARLAND, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING A POLICY ADDRESSING DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC SERVICE DURING

CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) establishes requirements for open and public meetings of local legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to update teleconferencing and accessibility requirements, including provisions related to remote participation in public meetings; and WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4(b)(1)(A) requires eligible legislative bodies, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on the consent calendar, a policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings conducted with remote participation; and
WHEREAS, the required policy must address procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts the legislative body will make to attempt to restore service; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4 further requires that, in the event of a disruption preventing members of the public from observing or participating in the meeting through a two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform, the legislative body shall recess the open session for at least one hour and make a good faith effort to restore service, and may not reconvene open session until at least one hour has passed or service has been restored, whichever occurs first; and WHEREAS, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored upon reconvening, the legislative body must make findings by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a technology disruption policy is required to ensure compliance with state law and to promote transparency and continuity of public meetings; and

WHEREAS, the proposed policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings of the City of McFarland has been prepared in accordance with Government Code § 54953.4 and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), no environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of McFarland that it hereby finds and determines as follows:

1. The City Council hereby adopts the policy entitled “Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings,” substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to implement the policy in coordination with agency staff, legal counsel, and technology support staff, as appropriate.

3. The City Council may approve minor, non-substantive modifications to the policy as necessary to conform to applicable law, agency practices, or formatting requirements, provided such modifications do not materially alter the intent of the policy.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of McFarland on June 24, 2026 by the following vote:

Aye Nae Abstain Absent
Saul Ayon
Ricardo Cano
Anita Gonzalez
María T. Pérez
Martin Gutierrez

CITY OF MCFARLAND
____________________________
Saul Ayon, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Erika De La Cruz, City Clerk

I, _________________________, City Clerk of the City of McFarland, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of McFarland on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Nathan Hodges, City Attorney

1 | P a g e

CITY COUNCIL TECHNOLOGY DISRUPTION POLICY FOR

CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

1. BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely. This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.

2. PURPOSE
This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the City of McFarland City Council, as required by the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54953.4). The policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions.

3. POLICY STATEMENT
This policy applies only to meetings of the City Council; it does not apply to City Councilappointed boards and commissions.

This policy pertains to telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the City Council. This policy does not apply to one-way television broadcasts or one-way Internet streams of City Council meetings. The meeting may carry on if one or more one-way services are disrupted, so long as two-way remote public access is functioning.

4. DEFINITIONS
➢ “Disruptions” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via these remote access service.

2 | P a g e
➢ “Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and observation of meetings.

5. PROCEDURES IN THE EVENT OF A SERVICE DISRUPTION

5.1 RESPONSE TO SERVICE DISRUPTION
If the City Clerk or designee becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:

A. The City Clerk or designee shall immediately announce the disruption to the public.

B. The City Clerk or designee may then call for a recess of the open session or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.

C. Staff shall begin efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.

D. The meeting shall remain in recess for a reasonable period of time, generally not to exceed one hour, while staff makes good-faith efforts to restore remote access services. If service is restored sooner, the meeting may reconvene immediately.

E. Minor or momentary technical issues that do not prevent the public from observing or participating in the meeting remotely shall not require a recess under this policy.

5.2 EFFORTS TO RESTORE SERVICE
The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:

A. Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software B. Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment
C. Attempting alternative connection methods
D. Contacting necessary support staff or service providers E. Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available F. Providing an alternate meeting link or telephonic access method if feasible The City Clerk shall document the restoration efforts undertaken.

3 | P a g e

6. RECONVENING THE OPEN SESSION

6.1 TIMING
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.

6.2 IF SERVICE IS RESTORED
If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.

6.3 IF SERVICE IS NOT RESTORED
If service has not been restored after one hour, the City of McFarland City Council may reconvene and:

A. Adjourn the meeting; or
B. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote, the following, or a substantially similar, finding:
“The City of McFarland City Council has made good faith efforts to restore telephonic or internet service in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”
Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session despite the fact that remote access services have not been restored. 7 RECORDKEEPING
The City Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following:

A. The nature and time of the disruption
B. The restoration efforts undertaken
C. The time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable)
D. Any findings adopted to pursuant to Section 6.c.
8 REVIEW AND UPDATES
This policy may be amended by the City of McFarland City Council at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar.

4 | P a g e

9. ADOPTION
Adopted by Resolution No. 2026-65 on June 24, 2026.