Shafter City Council
February 15, 2022

\ilHEREAS, the NOP for the General Plan Update was sent to all agencies having involvement in the project per Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update was made available for a forty-five (45) day review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines which began on April 13,2005, and ended on May 27,2005; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2005, the Final Environmental Impact Report was completed pursuant to Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines and notice of its availability was published in the Shafter Press and Bakersfield Californian and provided to interested parties and commenting agencies.

WHEREAS' the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the project includes the following:

1. The Notice of Preparation, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the Final Environmental Impact Report; and

2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and other documents prepared by the consultant relating to the project; and

3. All testimony, documents, and evidence presented by the City of Shafter and consultant working with the City relating to the project; and

4. The proceedings before the Planning Commission relating to the 2005 General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report including testimony and documented evidence introduced at the May 10, 2005 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and certification of an environmental impact report, as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines were adhered to and duly followed by City Staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council; and
\ilHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing for the 2005 General Plan Update was held by the City Council of the City of Shafter at a regular meeting on June 21,2005, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 15090 and 15151 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines, the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029) was considered for adequacy, completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure and has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, on J:une 21,2005, the City Council of the City Shafter certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029) in Resolution No. 05-1738; and
Shafter City Council Ordinance No. 732
February 15,2022

\ilHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, findings and supporting rationale regarding identified significant environmental effects and related mitigation measures in the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No.2004101029) were adopted by the City of Shafter on June 21,2005, under Resolution Nos. 05-1739,05-1740,05-174I,05-1742,05-1743, 05-1744, and05-1745 and Ordinance No. 05-567; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, regarding the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029), a Statement of Oveniding Considerations with supporting reasons for Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing was adopted by the City of Shafter on June 2I,2005, under Resolution Nos. 05-1739,05-1740,05-1741,05-1742,05-1743,05-1744, and 05-1745 and Ordinance No. 05-567; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines, regarding the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the mitigation measures referenced above was adopted by the City of Shafter on June 2l,2005,under Resolution Nos. 05-1739, 05-1740, 05-1741, 05-1742, 05-1743, 05-1744, and 05-1745 and Ordinance No. 05-567; and
\ilHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2l-04 was scheduled by the City Council of the City of Shafter for a meeting on February 1, 2022, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said amendment; and
\ilHEREAS, the City Council has determined that pursuant to Chapter 15, Title 17 of the City of Shafter Municipal Code, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt an amendment to the Gossamer Grove Specihc Plan (Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04) to enhance the quality of life and to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development to the City; and
WHEREAS, the subject project is located within the City of Shafter's incorporated boundaries; and
\ryHEREAS, the subject amendment is consistent with the City of Shafter's existing General Plan; and
\ilHEREAS, the City Council has, at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 1,2022, studied and considered Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04, a proposal to amend the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan for minor changes to the circulation plan, land use conhguration, and associated text corrections. The text changes update the text and maps to reflect the relocation of the school site and road alignment as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and made aparf of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein; and Shafter Cify Council Ordinance No. 732
February 15,2022

\ryHEREAS, the subject amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan and adopted Gossamer Grove Specific Plan and is necessary and desirable for implementing the provisions of said planning documents; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; and WHEREAS, the subject amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of the remainder of Title 17 of the City of Shafter Municipal Code not under consideration; and \ilHEREAS, on February I,2022, the City Council of the City of Shafter certified the Addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04 in Resolution No. 22- 389.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLO\ilS:

SECTION L: The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan, pursuant to Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04, is consistent with the City of Shafter's General Plan.

SECTION 3: The City Council certified the Addendum to the Certihed Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04 in Resolution No. 2841.

SECTION 4: The Findings of Fact as provided in Exhibit "8", regarding the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029), are hereby adopted for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2I-04 by the City Council of the City of Shafter.

SECTION 5: That certain environmental impacts regarding Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Agricultural Resources, and Population and Housing are considered unavoidable and cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than signihcant level.

Moreover, the project alternatives analyzed in the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029), as referenced in the Addendum, would not feasibly mitigate the impacts. These impacts are discussed in attached Exhibit "8". Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts, the City Council is approving the project based on the overriding considerations as set forth, and hereby adopted, in Exhibit "C".

SECTION 6: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached in Exhibit "D" is hereby adopted.

SECTION 7: Based on the entire record before the City Council, including the above findings and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby Shafter City Council Ordinance No. 732
February 15,2022

adopts Specihc Plan Amendment No. 21-04, as shown in Exhibit ".Ã", attached hereto, and made part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein, and adopts all of the mitigation measures provided in the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04.

SECTION 8: If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared severable.

SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption and, within twenty (20) days after its adoption, a copy of same shall be published and circulated in the City of Shafter together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THrS 15rh DAy OF FEBRUARY, 2022.

Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST:

Y azmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Maninez, City Attorney
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
.,t,.'*'*
, ,îí
¡, 1
{r
?rrr}
.t\
¡r ,a .1
,l-'
,
*.., t
t
I
l¿
)
{,
H
il
'È.
¡
I
\¡
,1t
fr
t *
t.4'1
t.f'I
.d
{.

I
.-f r:-=:¿ ¡ !f,|L. r5¡,.. : J.
t
i
I
I
ærD
¡ r . ?. ÉÇ|F .¡+r-i.rl.
-- a ì - r ¡L-- Jtr¡ò'Lta. --- -iÊ.r¡l€üåG-iJJ
È
il;+Ëil
oto
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
Preparedfor:

City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA93263
ProposedbY:

Lennar Homes of California
8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno, CA93711'
(559)4374%9
Contact: Bill Walls
February 2018 (Ordinance704 approved: March 20,2018)
Amended: October 2021
Note: The original Specific Plan, adopted in 2005, was named Coberly West' The name was changed to Gossamer Grove as part of the 2014 amendment'
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
TISL¡ or CONTENTS

1. 0 Innooucnon ,
Authority and Scope
Action Expectations
Specific Plan User's Guide

2.0 Pno¡¡cr Loclr¡o¡ Ar{D SETTnc. . .

Location.-.

Surrounding Land Uses and Development...

Existing Site Conditions
Land Use Designations and Zoning

3. 0 Corrun¡ry D¡velopr¡m fum
Project Summary

3.10 Public Facilities

3.ll Public Services.
l.l

1.2 1.3
IA
Purpose and Intent.....
1-1
L:I
l:L
1-2
1-3
2-1
2:1
2:I
2-5
+1
3-1,

2.1 2.2

2.3 24

3.1 3.2
J.J
3A

3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9 ...3-25
...3-30

4. 0 D¡v+opr¡nr STAI{DARDS At{D REGULATtot{s

5.1 Purpose and Intent..... ............. 5-l

4.1 General Provisions..... ..............+1,

4.2 Development Standards and Regu1ations...................... ........44

5.0 D¡sret Gu¡o¡l¡n¡s ..... Fl

5.2 ArchitecturalDesignGuidelines. t2

5.3 Landscape Design Guide1ines..... ....................t12

6.0 Specrr¡cPurAon¡usrRATror. ...6-1

6.t

6.2 6.3

6.4 Required findings 64
Implementation 6-5
OcroaeR zozl TnnuorCovnurs
L¡sr O¡ FIEUR¡S
Figure 2-1
Figwe2-2
Figure 2-3
Figte2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-54
Figure 3-6
Figure9T
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10
Figure 3-11
Figure 3-12
Figure 4-1
Flgwe4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Fig;re4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 5-14
Figure 5-18
Figure 5-1C
Figure 5-24
Figure 5-28
Figure 5-2C
Figure 5-3
Figure 5-4
Figure 5-54
Figure 5-58
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-8
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-10
Figure 5-11
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
Land Use Plan..............'
Community Structure Diagram.."".

Walkable Community Diagram...'.'.
34 35
PA-1 Edge Condition Plan View 12
Circulation PIan.........'.'." ""' 318
Circulation Plan - Alternative Road Alignment Due to High Speed Rail Not Being Implemented"' 3-184 Typical Street Cross Sections."..... """".'"" 319
Cotton Creek and Cobble Creek Pedestrian Crossing """""""""' """"""""""""""320 Parks and Recreation Plan ""....'...... """""'ï22
Landscape Plan 3-24
:f-26

3.28 r29
+10
+1,4
4-18
4-22
+26
+N
4-34
$15
5],6
t17
Development Standards - 2000 S.F. Lots
3-6
Wall and Fence Plan....

Master Water Plan...

Master Sewer Plan."
Development Standards - 8,000-10,000 S'F' Lot
Development Standards - 6,000 S.F. Lots """""""'
Development Standards - 5,000 S.F. Lots """""""'
Development Standards - 4,000 S.F' Lots """""""'
Development Standards - Garden Court """"""
Development Standards - DuPlex
|ewetta Ave. & Gossamer Grove Boulevard Streetscape
Gossamer Grove Boulevard & Community Drive Streetscape
Local Road StreetscaPe
Community Core Structure Diagram"
Community Core ConcePt Sketch
Community Core Concept Perspective
Concept Perspective - Entry Monument"
Plan - Entry Monument'.
5-18
5-19
u20
t22
523
Flight Park Structure Diagram......' """""'5-25
ftlgnt fark Concept Sketch """""""""""126
Pathway Park Concept Sketch..'.......'.. """""'5-27
Trails Cross Sections"'...'.. ""U29
$30
PA 1 & 21ð'geCondition Sections.......' """"""""""""' 5-34 Wall Detail """ 5-35
NorthKemWaterStorageDistrictEdgeConditions"""""""""" """""""""5-36 Ocroern zozl
T
TAB¡OFCONTENTS
Ltsl or Tm¡s
Table 3-1
Table4-1
TableL2
Table43
Table44
Table t1-5
Table4-6
Table4-7
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
Gossamer Grove Statistical Summary
Development Standards Sumrnary: 1Q000 square Foot Lots
Development Standards Summary: 7,000 Square Foot Lots.

Development Standards Summary: Ç000 Square Foot Lots.

Development Standards Summary: 5,000 Square Foot Lots.

Development Standards Sumrnary: 4,000 Square Foot Lots.

Development Standards Summary: Garden Court
Development Standards Summary: Duplex - Single Family
Attached
3'
+9
.+13
.+17
.+21,
.4-25
.4-29
.4-33
OcroeeR zozl
TI
TnsuopCoNrENrs
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
l.O lrurRoDucrloN
l.l PunPoseRno lurrrur
Gossamer Grove is designed as a planned, community on 953.4 gross acres in the city of shafter' The CiÇ of shafter General Plan ae"signates an area in the southeastern portion of the city as specific Plan' which includes the Gossame, Gr,o\r" Propefty. The development of Gossamer Grove will proceed as an orderly conversion of agricultural land to urban useì characterized predominantly by suburban-type residential densities. community amenities will serve local neighborhood needs and will be integrated into three neighborhood centers. These centers will include some combination of recreation' school' park, public services and/or commercial uses located in close proximity to housing' The development of Gossamer Grove is an opportunity to establish a unique and cohesive community identity in shafter with the provision of entry monuments, landscape treatments, parkways, and appropriate architecture' The interface between individual development areas in the Gossamer Grove community will be unified through a well-designed streetscape'
This Specific plan document is intended to serve as the City of Shafter's long range plan for the physical development of the Gossamer Grove community and a guide to all future development proposals within the boundaries of the specific Plan area. The Environmental lmpact Report (EIR) for the city of shafter General Plan update, adopted in 2005, addresses environmental issues in the Gossamer Grove specific plan area. rr,e Ém. provides califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for approval of the Gossamer Grove SPecific Plan.
l,z AuruoRlw AND ScoPE
The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of California Govemment Code Section 65450, which grants local govemment agencies the authoriÇ to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of an area covered by the general plan. A specific plan effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and individual development proposals in a defined area' A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts, or ás detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the type, location, urla intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision' This Specific plan is designed to address site specific issues and to provide detailed policy guidance' development standards, ãnd regulations for a iocalized area within the City of Shafter General Plan study area. Furthermore, the Shafter General Plan provides overall guidance for physical development in Shafter and is broader in scope than this Specific Plan. The Shafter General Plan does OcroeEn zozl
1-t
l.o lNrRoDucnoN
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
not show details, such as site plans, landscape plans, and local circulation, whereas the Specific Plan does show this level of detail. The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan contains detailed text and exhibits, which describe the various land uses, amenities, and infrastructure improvements envisioned to occur in the community. Chapter 3 of this document sets forth the master development plan. Design guidelines and development standards in Chapters 4 and 5 will guide site planning, architectural design and landscaping. A comprehensive analysis has been undertaken to ensure that irnplementation of the Specific Plan results in the construction of a high-quality community. This document will also guide the build-out of Gossamer Grove in a manner that is consistent with State and City policies and standards.

The City of Shafter Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 15 in the Zodng Ordinance, specifies the purpose, requirements, regulations, and procedures for preparation of a Specific Plan in the City of Shafter.

California Government Code, Sections 65450 through 65454, establish the authority to adopt a Specific Plan, identify the required contents of a Specific Plary and mandate consistency with the General Plan.

The Califomia Government Code states that a " Specific Plan shøll include ø ststement of the relationshþ of the Specific Plnn to the General PIan, nnd finther, that it may not be ødopted or amended unless found to be consistent with the General PIøn." T1ire Gossamer Grove Specific Plan is consistent with the Shafter General Plan and witl be developed in accordance with the applicable policies and standards.

In response to government requirements, this Specific Plan has been prepared to provide the essential link between City of Shafter General Plan policies and actual development in the Specific Plan area. By functioning as a regulatory documenf the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan provides a means of implementing the City of Shafter's General Plan and detailing a specific development proposal for the property. In this regard, all future development plans, tentative parcel and/or tract maps or other similar entitlements, shall be consistent with regulations set forth in this document and with all applicable City regulations.

1.3 Acnoru ExpecrRlolrs
Numerous statements occur in this plan in the form of policies, standards, and guidelines that define action expectations to successftrlly implement the plan. The following terms clarify the level of commitment intended in the plan, and reflect the expectation or desired outcome. The application of each term to a particular policy or action is a deliberate application of these definitions.

S4øIL r//e will always follow the policy or apply the standard. This is our absolute commitment to the direction expressed. Our expectation is that the direction will definitely be implemented under all circumstances.

Should. We will follow the poliry or apply the standard in almost all cases. Exceptions or degrees of implementation are acceptable for good reason. Our expectation is that the direction will almost always be followed.

Allow. We will permit someone else's initiative and support it unless there is a very good reason not to. Our expectation is that the direction will generally be implemented, even though a party other than the City carries it out.

OcrosrR zozl
1-2
l.o l¡wnooucnor,¡
Gossamer Grove - 5Pecific Plan
. Consider. We will investigate the proposed action or standard to determine the actual level of commitment that is appropriate under the circumstances' our expectation is that an open-mined effort will be made to evaluate the possibilities until facts are determined and a decision can be made based on those facts'
. Restrict. we will take action within certain bounds to limit the direction defined' our expectationisthatimplementationwilloccur,butataconstrainedlevelorwithinspecified limits.
. Prohibit. we will actively prevent a specified condition, use oI standard from occurring' Our expectation is thai the conditio; or action described will not happen under any circumstance.
other terminology may appear in certain policy statements' These terms are to be interpreted according to their similarity to the appropriate term described above' l.+ Speclnc Pul.l UseRfs Guloe
This specific Plan is organized into six chapters and two appendices, as detailed below:
. ChLpter 1, - Introduction: Includes the document's purpose and intent' authority and scope, and this guide to the Specific Plan'
. Chapter 2 - Project Location and setting: Provides general information about the property location, existing site conditions and tie Specific Plan's general relationship to the City of Shafter General Plan and Land Use Map (2005)'
. Chapter 3 - Community Deaelopment Plan: Sets forth a master plan for development of the property consisting of a land use plan, a circulation plan, and public facility information'
. chapter 4 - Deaelopntent støndevds snd Regtilations: Includes zoning criteria for the Specific Plan area. These criteria will be applled in the same malìner as the City of Shafter MunicipalCodeZoningOrdinanceapplieselsewhereintheCity.
. Chøpter 5 - Design Guídelines: contains design guidelines which will define the community.haru""t"rincludingbutnotlimitedtoarchitecture'landscaping'wallsand fences, and signage.

Chøpter 6 - Specific PIan Administrøtion:
administrative Procedures for
Describes the project phasing and sets forth
implementing the SPecific Plan'
Ocroe¡R zozl
1-3
l.o lNIRoDUcnoN
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
z.o PRoJecr LocRnoN AND Sernruc

2.1 LocRrorrr
The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area is located in the southeast corner of the City of Shafter, approximately 6 miles northwest of downtown Bakersfield. State Route 43 (SR43) and State Route 99 (SR-99) provide regional access to Shafter and the Specific Plan area. The SR-99 is the dosest freeway to Gossamer Grove. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the Gossamer Grove community. The primary local access to the Specific Plan area would be from Seventh Standard Road. Access to individual development areas witl"ún the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area will be made possible from the development of new roads.

Specifically, the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area is generally bordered on the north by farmland; on the east by the Lerdo Canal and the Southem Pacific Railroad, which is adjacent to SR-99; on the west by the Friant-Kem Canal and the Calloway Canal; and on the south by Seventh Standard Road. Figure 2-2 shows the boundaries and vicinity of the Specific Plan area.

2.2 SunnouruorNc LAND UsesRno Devrlopn¡eur
Agricultural uses are an important part of the City's economic base and comprise the majoriÇ of existing and planned land uses in the City and sphere of influence. With the exception of rural residential development adjacent the Specific Plan area on the southeast boundary the surrounding land uses are agriculture and include the City's irrigation system and NKWSD recharge basin. There are no Williamson Act land use contracts within the Specific Plan area. Oif as a mineral resource, is also an important land use in the region. Large and small oil fields and tank farms can be found throughout the surrounding area including in the Specific Plan area.

As described above under Section 2.1, three major irrigation canals define the boundaries of the Gossamer Grove property. The Lerdo Canal borders a portion of the property on the east. The Calloway Canal is located on a portion of the westem boundary of the property aod the Friant-Kem Canal crosses through the northwesterly portion of the property and forms the westem boundary of the southern portion of the property. Although the canals, freeway, and railroad are not part of the Gossamer Grove property, they are important to the development of Gossamer Grove because they guide certain aspects of its design, such as necessitating road improvements over the canals to provide access to the Specific Plan area and requiring landscape zones or other design features that buffer urban development from potential hazards that may result from siting residential development nearby a canal. Figure 2-3 is an aerial photograph of the Gossamer Grove property and its surroundings.

Ocrosrn zozl
2-l

2.O PROJECT LOCATONAND SilNNC
Gossamer Grove
.. -..r¡t,iilr,* f. t:ßì.j
,t ,l
4'
,i
I
t"
;
'Kern
Gounty
jì )-
I
It
,.1",**
&Irrüille t
I
i
I
I
¡
I
ii
t
I
I
i
i
I
I,
1 I
I
!
¡
8¿{Hit¿s:
*ç*.:
,n
,r 8 ,
'4
uao:
.'1v
r dhi¡

1.,íal{
Itl¡7- s
rl.rnrlnhi! al,l
¡rrê¡a yrs ¡Â ¿4x{ ¡9¡ ¿'
' '/.' ...'. .;,t'
, Etott Nrt4i4
,1
.

I.
1,,, '
x ¿ Âx { ð¿
'r
l';: |'
,âARta(tt'/ÀrL^l
,.!rr-r!pt,1 .,.-
¡
,
not to scale
a
onal M
Figure 2{
ru Gossamer Grove Specific Plan
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
, Kimberlina Rd
Kern
County
t
Burbank
5 o
o
UJ
Oifdale
Stockdale
lr
I j.,
..*;'.'
ii t
/-d'i -¡.: :
,ì . - '.; ,-ìì
'i '.

Rd
Hageman Rd
Hosedale
tÞît ECE 8Þ5
oo< ccN
¿Ë,
{g\ ßg
'ã. ã,'r Þ¡go
'E,G
o. p
t
'*t-: .:i
not to scale
Vicinity M
Figure 2-z
F:
't: f.I*
it,
.t! $*o* i't.tt\
\;
t
O Opcrating Oil Wt'lls Aerial Ma
lrot to sCalc Figure 2-3
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan
z.j Exrsnruc S¡re CoruotnoNs
The Specific Plan area has been historically used primarily as agricultural land but is not within an agricultural preserve or under a Williamson Act land conservation contract. A small oil field consisting of three wells and three small above ground tanks is located approximately one-half mile north of Seventh Standard Road on the eastern side of the property. The area has several unimproved roads that crisscross the property and one paved road known as Verdugo Boulevard (hereinafter referred to as Gossamer Grove Boulevard) that runs north and south the entire length of the Specific Plan area.

Topographically, the Gossamer Grove site is characterüed as flat to gently sloping in a southwesterly direction as shown in Figure 2-4, Topogrnphic Møp Elevations range from 388 to 426 Íeet above mean sea level. The property does not have any distinguishing geologic formations or topographic features due to its relative flatness. Two major faults are located near the site: the Permier fault which is 3.5 miles northeast of the site, and the Kem Front fault which is 5.5 miles east of the site. The Kern County Seismic Hazard Atlqs, RosedøIe ønd Oildale Maps show that there is a buried fault beneath the southeast comer of the property, and five other faults within a mile to the south. The site is not located within an Earthquake fault zone.

Soils on the Specific Plan area consist of alluvial deposits which are mostly cohesionless sands and silts, with some clayey soils to the northeast and central western portion of the site. It is recommended that the zurface soils be recompacted for stabilization. The estimated swell pressures of the clayey soils are not expected to be a major structural consequence, but it may cause minor movement effecting slabs and possible stucco or similar brittle exterior finishes. It is recommended the upper 18 inches of soil within building areas consist of non-expansive engineered fill. Up to 3 % leet of fill material exists at various locations due to the construction of access roads and irrigation ditches. The fill material will be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided it is cleansed of excessive organics and debris. Depth to ground water is approximately 210 feet.

Major structures on the Gossamer Grove property indude seven water supply wells, two of which are suitable for production - one for agriculture and the other for domestic use. The remaining wells are either inoperative or uneconomical for production. Oil and gas exploration has resulted in several abandoned wells or dry holes in addition to the operating wells and a small tank farm mentioned above. Oil and gasoline pipelines are located along the existing roadwayÐ such as Seventh Standard Road and SR-99.

One oil pipeline runs along the east side of Calloway Drive (hereinafter referred to as Community Drive north of Seventh Standard Road) within the project boundary.

Ocroern zoz'l
2-5

2.O PRoJECT LoCA]IoN AI{D SEITNG
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
('/þ
4s
s
---
7th Standard Road
phic Ma
not to scale
füPo
Figure 2-4
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan

2.+ Lnruo Use Des¡cNATtoNsnruo Zoullr¡c

2.4.r G¡ruenru-Pnru
The Gossamer Grove property is part of a larger area that has been designated as "specific Plan" in the City of Shafter General Plan. Figure 2-5 shows the City of Shafter General Plan Land Use Designations and the boundaries of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. The intent of the Specific Plan designation is to provide a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, parks, schools and communiÇ facilities in a master-planned community setting. The intent of the designation is to encourage orderly urban development and the creation of a unique community identity in Shafter.

2.+.2 ZOtrl¡lrtc
The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area is desigrated as (SP) in the City of Shafter Development Code.

Ocroegn zozl
2-7

2.O PRoJEcr LocAToN ANID SETTNG
LE(;Þ-N D
-
r.;l'\l R.\t ¡'l -\\ ¡\Rl \ ll(,l \¡r'\l.ll
i ; Rt R.\t t ,\t\tt:\lil ii :tt'.-\r::

I .11;|1!r:t.l I !:l{1.1}ltl:\ 5l!\{:l'
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan

1.r¡r r .r, r¡ , lrl 1 \
.ìt I r ,¡ ¡
I irrlsi\!.SS i"\itñ
il
t-_l r;tl\l\l l \ltY l'\(:ll tlll i
I '¡ ¡1¡r-1¡:¡tt:l:t¡,¡'¡¿{'l'l'çsl{)N:\l { }l lil(il'
E r\r)t!S I RI:\l
i-l "" \i'iìir;i¡i{)l t','\\
Ë
ú.
(l) J
C)
{¡) N
Cossamer Grove BoundarY
General Plan Land Use Designations
'l \
¿
rrot to sc¿le Figure 2-5
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan
j.o CoMMUNTTY DevelopMENT PI-nru

3.1 PnorcrSuMMARy
Gossamer Grove is envisioned as a master planned community containing a maximum of 3,432 dwelling units; a community core complete with neighborhood commercial and public service facilities; locations for two schools; and public recreation facilities. A variety of detached and attached residential homes will be provided that will appeal to a wide range of future home buyers, responding to both local and regional housing needs. Public recreation amenities will enhance the area and include such facilities as community and neighborhood parks and a comprehensive trail/open space system that will provide linkages to neighborhoods and schools and serve as an appropriate buffer to existing agricultural uses. Recreation facilities and schools will be located adjacent to or close to each other to provide the opportunity for community joint use and to serve as neighborhood focal points. The community core is located at the highly visible corner of Seventh Standard Road and Gossamer Grove Boulevard. The mixture of retail, entertainmen! residentiaf and public facility uses in this area will function as the hub of the Gossamer Grove community, while allowing easy access to the surrounding communities. Gossamet Grove Boulevard has been realigned in an effort to slow traffic through this portion of the community where pedestrian access is encouraged. The heaviest concentration of residential uses will be adjacent to the community core and the community park and elementary school in PAS to provide convenient support to the core uses. The community core will serve as the primary visual point of arrival and departure to the community.

As part of the development, infrastructure improvements will be made that include a primary traffic circulation system, water and wastewater systems. Development of internal roadways and public facilities will occur concurrently with residential development and are planned to accommodate the build-out requirements of Gossamer Grove, ensuring that the City's standards for orderly growth are implemented. A detailed description of the Gossamer Grove community is included in the remainder of this chapter.
j.z DesrcNOeJecÏves
The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan provides a long-range comprehensive planning approach that carulot be accomplished solely by designing the site at a parcel level. To achieve this goal, a number of important issues were considered during preparation of this Specific Plan document, including the City of Shafter Zorung Ordinance, the updated 2005 General Plarç as well as engineering feasibility, environmental constraints, market acceptance, economic viability, and local community goals. To ensure the functional integrity, economic viability, environmental sensitivity and positive aesthetic contribution of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plary this analysis was used to establish the following list of project Ocroe¡n zozt
?t

3.o CoMMUNIY DE\eoPMENrPh¡\
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
objectives. The Gossamer Grove project is intended to:
. Set forth a comprehensive development plan that implements the applicable portions of the City of Shafter General Plan and uchierr"s the City's development goals for this portion of the CitY
. Provide a balance of compatible and complementary residential, recreational and commerciallandusesinawell-designedmaster-plannedcommurrity. .Planforflexibilityinthecoreareabyprovidingforamixoflanduses. . Provide a range of housing types, densities and design for diverse ages and income levels through both lttached and detached housing options in one master-planned community that anticipates marketing needs and public demand'
. provide active and passive recreational amenities to meet the needs of the proiect residents by incorporating schools, public parks, and a trail system' . Locate recreational facilities adjacent to or close to schools to provide opportunities for joint use' . Ensure that supporting infrastructure systems sufficiently sustain the land use plan by approving d"rr"iop*"rli predicated on the ability to provide adequate water supply' sewer and storm water infrastructure, public services and transportation system connections in a comprehensive and timely marìner'
, Create an aesthetically pleasing and distinct community identity through the establishment of design criteria for architecture, landscaping, walls, street improvements, signs, entry monuments and other planning and design features'
J.3 Lnno Use Pu¡¡ oveRvlew
The Gossamer Grove Specific plan area will contain a high quality and aesthetically pleasing community composed of rlsidential, recreational, commercial, public services and educational land uses on 953.4 gross acres. The land use plan was developed to create a complementary mix of land uses that will appeal to a broad spectrum of the local population. The Gossamer Grove site design also reflects a plan .ãr,rirt"rrt with applicable City of Shafter ordinances, development standards and guidelines' The Land use Plan for Gossamer Grove is illustrated on Figure 3-'!" Land l-Ise Pløn, and includes six planning areas. specific information on each of the plaruring areas is provided in Table 3-1' støtisticøl summary,below and in section 3.4 that follows. The acreage total shown on the plan for individual planning areas is net acreage. For this plan, net acreage is defined as the area remaining after the right-of -way for roads shown on the Circulation Plan (Section 3.5) has been subtracted. The statistics for the number of acres in any land use shown on Figure 3-1 and in Table 3-1 are also net acreage with right-of-way for roads removed. only major roads are shown on the Circulation PIan. Additional intemal streets will be built Ocroern 2ozl
3-2

3.o CoMMUNTY DE\ELoPMErvr PLA¡\
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan
within the large block areas. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate t}re Commttnity Structure Diagram andWalkabte Communíty Diagratn. These exhibits show how the community has been organized around both a community core with commercial uses, public services, and higher density residential as well as two neighborhood focal points that consist of a school and a park. These areas are easily and safely accessible by foot and by bicycle through a series of paseos and local 2-larte roads. Most residents can reach these destinations without crossing a major 4-lane road. Lower density residential uses are integrated around these hubs such that they are within an approximate five minute walk of either a neighborhood focal point or one or more of the other several public parks dispersed throughout the Specific Plan area.

OcroeeR zozt
3-3

3.o CoMMUNIY DE\ÆLoPMEÌ.I PlAr{
-oo*n
a,-ê (/Ã
4 9.

19.3 Ac
319.3 Ac
lÞA-4l

56.2 Ac

53.3 Ac
306.5 Ac
7O.2 Ac
o
7th Standard
o
€ Figure J-l
iliì,r' "¿ "*"u1 ,*"86 ¡re rpporñ¡re rnd subjd to ch¡ng'' ,-prUf" þ¡; *** -. +Fônmår' ¡¡¿ 3ubi'd toch¿ntc' t¿nd Use Pl"r,
@
I
108.l
r9.2

18.27.1 934
Fdãnt"Kcñ Cãnål ROw PA-3NoRh K@Wàt rstõr¿8. Dbt. PA_3&dn P -4 hll l6l¿nd
PAr 25
PA-2 9.5PA-3 ó.8
PÂ-5 7.8PA,6 S
PA-3 19.2

62.1 lOTAL
TOTAL
il,06.8
r4,o
I
I
b-D.nsity Rcs. (LDR)
bw eßiry Ré (LDR)bw-Deñsiry Rd (LDR)
bw-DcMiry Ré. {LDR)À{.dium Dcn¡ity Rð. (MDR)1'OTAL
l-5
6r.2 4-7.5 DU/AC
2274 4-7.sDul{c
27o.r 4-7.5DU/AC
3rs 4-?.5 DulAc
y.o 7.5'9 DU/ÂC
r66299
t30l7t
275

60.3 2.4-4,0
Gossamer Grove
PA ACRB D€NgN
W
DUs
IÀND USE
PA{ ¿:l^T. I
-: trU õ--------- 'ooo- 2ooo'
Meander¡ng Way
Poi
%.
%oo
(6
dOô
Gossamer Grove
Western Specific Plan Neighborhoods
\tu
Fastern
ighborhoods
nt
,il
\t- \
Community
Core o
3 3
c
5 c' 3.

Õ
7rh
o

9. d
ñ
not to scale
Communi Structure Dia
Figure J-2
\
'îL
'"2 (-/^
Gossamer Grove
4qo Specific Plan
o
g
3 c
J
Of,.
o
7th
of.
ó
o
et
õ' t
o
m
lìot to scalc
Walkable Community Dia
Figure 3-3
Gossamer Grove - SpecÍfic Plan
Table 3-1
Gossamer Grove Statistical Summary
LAND USE/(Zoning)

PLANNING
AREA
NET
ACRESl

DENSITY
RANGE
(DU/AC)
MAX,

DWELLING
UNITS2

RESIDENTIAL
Estate P^-2 60.3 2.4-4.0 du/ac 166
Low-Density Residential (LDR) PA-1 61.2 4-7.5 du/ac 299 Low-Density Residential (LDR) PA2 227.4 4-7.5 du/ac 1,20L Low-Density Residential (LDR) PA-3 270.1 4-7.5 dulac 1,320 Low-Density Residential (LDR) PA_5 31.5 4-7.5 d.ulac 171.

Medium Density Residential (MDR) PA-4 32.0 7.5-9 du/ac 275 TOTAL 682.5 3,432
NON.RESIDENTIAL
Commercial (C) PA-4 11.0
Public Services (PS) PA-4 6.8
SchooÌ PA-5 74.0
School PA-6 14.0
TOTAL 45.8
PARKS AND RECREATION3
Public Park PA-1 2.5
Public Park PA-2 9.5
Put¡lic Park PA-3 6.8
Public Park PA_5 7.8
Public Park PA_6 5.3
Trails and Greenbelt PA-1 2.5
Trails and G¡eenbelt PA-2 7.1.

Trails and Greenbelt PA-3 19.2
Trails and Greenbelt PA-4 1.4
TOTAL 62.r
Public Roada 108.3
Friant-Kern Canal ROW PA-3 19.4
North Kern Water Storage District PA_3 18.2
Basin PA-4 7 -1,
Drill Island 10.0
TOTAL 163
TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE 953.4

1. Developable area after exclusion of appropriate right-of-way shown on Circulation Plan.

2. Lot sizes are averaged to achieve the maximum dwelling unit count for each planning area.

3. Trails and ¡yeenbelt acreages are approxirnate and strbject to change.

4. Public road acreages are approximate and subiect to change.

OcrosER 2o21
3-7

3.o COMMUNTTY DEVELoPMEM PLAN
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
J.t.1 REsIDENTIAL LAND UsEs
Residential planning areas account for 682.5 net acfes of the project site' containing 3'432 dwelling units. The overall gross density of the specific Plan area should not exceed 4'0 dwelling units per acre. In conformance with project goals, a variety of single-family detached and medium density attached housing styles, sizls and values are Pfoposed, appealing to a wide range of future Shafter residents. The housing mix will offer lot sizes for single detached housing ranging between 4'000 square feet and 8,000 to 10,000 squale feet (or larger) in addition to the medium density residential uses.

A. EsremItrsPwnerGR)
The Estate Residential (ER) land use designation is intended to encourage a predominant residential pattern of single-family detached ho-", set on large size lots' The density range for ER typically ranges from uplroximately 2.4 Io 4 dwelling units per acre' The ER designation allows for lots 8,000 to 10,000 square feet and larger'
B. IowDm.¡srrvRnsm.rn¿r[DR)
The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation is intended to provide for the development of single-family detached homes on a variety of lot configurations' The density range of LDR typicaìIy ranges iro* upproximately 4 lo 7 '5 dwelling units per acre' The LDR designation allows u ,ul,-tg" of lot sizes from a minimum 4,000 square feet to 7'000 square feet and larger. The LDR designalion provides flexibility with product types and styles that appeal to a rarrge of market segments from first-time buyers to families' C NdmruMDnrsrrYREsnENnALMDRì
The Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation is intended to provide for the development of a variety of attached, detached, and clustered single-family dwellings' The density range for MDR ranges from approximately 7.5 to 9'0 dwelling units per acre' Typical products lnclude duplexes, single-family homes, and court yards' 3l?,.2 NO¡l-ResloENTlAL LAND USES
Non-residential land uses account for 45.8 net acres of the Specific Plan and are comprised of neighborhood commercial uses, public services, drill islands, and schools.

A. NncnsoRHoooCoNtr\¡HtcrAl
Neighborhood commercial uses will be built in Planning Area 4 (PA-4), providing for localized retail and service uses for the benefit of the Gossamer Grove community and surrounding areas' Typical uses may include a gïocery store, d,rug store, restaurant, bank, and other smaller retail and support services' Ocroe¡R zozt
3-8

3.O COMMUNIY DEVELOPMEM PLAI\
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan
B. PusrrcSERVrcEs
The purpose of this land use designation is to provide for community serving facilities that are located within the community and promote community gathering and activity. Public facilities are located in a highly visible area of the community where they can serve as a beacon or way finding for residents of Gossamer Grove and beyond. This land use designation is planned adjacent to the main commercial area where the facilities can share and integrate parking. Typical uses in this area may include a range of public service facilities such as a police and/or fire statiory library, post office, dubs and lodges. In additioru a small percentage of attached residential land uses would be allowed so that the area has a population after working hours that can provide activity and "eyes on the street".

C ScHoors
Education facilities will be located in Planning Area 5 and Planning Area 6, totaling 28 net acres of the Specific Plan. This land area has been provided to accommodate two elementary schools for the population of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area.

D. Dnmlsr¡.¡os
Drill islands have been established in Planning Areas 1., 2, and 4, totaling L0 acres of the Specific Plan area.

This land area has been provided to accommodate oil and gas production.

3.3.3 PARKS AND R¡CnsRr¡On
Public recreation areas, trails and open space buffers constitute 61.8 acres of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. Public parks range in size from 1.5 to 7.8 acres.

A" Rmr¡cP¡ru<Fro.¡rms
Gossamer Grove will incorporate a community park in Planning Area 5 as an important element of the community design. The community park is intended to serve as a neighborhood gathering area and provide active and passive recreation for the residents of the community.

The public facility will total approximately 7.8 acres. In addition to the community park, neighborhood parks will be provided in Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, and 6 for a total of approximately 24 acres. Neighborhood parks shall be designed and maintained to provide active and/or passive uses and the design shall meet the approval of the City of Shafter and/or the entity that will be managing the facilities.

Ocroeen zozl
3-9

3.o CoMMUNIY DElELoPrvlEr\[ PLA],|
Gossamer Grove - SPecÍ fic Plan
B. Tn¡nseNnGnmNrBET
A natural trail and greenbelt system will be provided around the community boundary and along the canals to encourage passive recreation and pedestrian activity in the Gossamer Grove community. The naturul t*il" along with the internal paseo system will provide connectivity within the community. The natural trail system comprises 30'2 acres and includes a 100-foot buffer from agricultural lands on the northern boundary'

3.+ PlRrunlncAnens
six distinct development areas, referred to as "planning areas" have been designated to implement the planning objectives of the Gossamer Grove specific Plan (Figure 3-1). The overall struchlre of Gossamer Grove is based on the day to day functions of a planned community. The project has been designed around two neighborhooá focal points that consist of a school and park (one is located in the northem part of the community in Planning Area 6 and one is located in the southern part of the community in Þhr.'i,'g Area 5). These areas are easily and safely accessible by foot and by bicycle through a series of paseos and local 2-lane roads. Most residents can reach these destinations without crossing a major 4- lane road. The main commercial area, located in Planning Area 4, is also pedestrian-oriented and accommodates regional circulation for both bicyclists and motorists while occupying one of the most visible locations of the community. The higher density housing in this area shares boundaries with planning Area 5 and acts as a transition between land uses. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate these concepts' Collectively, the various planrring areas will form the interlinked Gossamer Grove community through complementary architectural and landscape themes, a network of community trails, and common recreational amenities positioned throughout the community' Although development in the planning areas of Gossamer Grove will conform closely to the design standards presented in this sectiorL actual residential lotting, site planning of the commercial and public services uses, and selection of specific recreation amenities will not be determined until the tentative tract map stage and may result in slight adjustments to the development standards upon written approval of the Planning Director.

During the tentative map stage of design, the actual number of dwelling units allocated to a particular residential planning areu muy sliglrtly differ from the numbers presented in Table 3-1' up to 15% of the detached units in a particular planning area may be transferred to another detached planning area' provided that the maximum unit count for the Specific Plan as a whole does not exceed 3,432 units' The Development Standards and Design Guidelines contained in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 will ensure uniformity of use and design as it pertains to zoning and community character. Throughout the discussion below, net acres is defined as the area left after right-of-way for roads shown on the Circulation Plan has been subtracted.

OcrosrR zo2l
3-10

3.O COMMUNI-IY DE\ELOPMENT PLAI\
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan

3.4.t Purlrrrlruc An¡R t
PlanningArea 1 (PA-l) contains a total af 70.2 net acres and will contain a maximum of 299 detached dwelling units located on67.2 acres with a density range of approximateþ 4.0 to7.5 units per acre. PA-1 will contain a public park of 2.5 acres and an additional 2.5 acres will be developed as trails as part of the Parks and Recreation Plan. Lot sizes will be a minimum ol 4,000 square feet or larger. This planning area is located on the eastem boundary of the Specific Plan bordering adjacent existing residential development to the south. Primary access to PA-1 will be via Community Drive, a$-lane, divided arterial that intersects with Seventh Standard Road and transitions to a 2-lane divided collector north of Cobble Creek Drive.

Community Drive will be an altemative second entrance to the Gossamer Grove community (the primary access occtrrs from Gossamer Grove Boulevard). Design considerations for PA-1 are as follows:
l. A natural trail system shall be provided within a 30-foot landscape buffer along the eastern and southern boundaries of the planning area consistent with the Parks and Recreation Plan.

2. A 24-foot access corridor was provided along the southem edge of PA-1 as part of the recorded map for Tract No. 6767. Pursuant to Specific Plan Amendment No. 16-22 this access corridor will be increased to 34 feet as shown in Figure 3-4.

3. A public park plus primary and secondary paseos and shall be provided where indicated in the Parks and Recreation Plan interconnecting the natural trail system and other planning areas.

3. A perimeter wall shall be provided on the eastern project boundary and the southern edge of the landscape buffer.

4. A 4 acre drill island will be located adjacent to Community Drive in PA-l OcroseR zoz'l
3-t I

3.O cOMMUNfiY DE\ÆLOPMENT PnN
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
¡¡ilfl
;
q,
o
Ê
E
E
o
U
Condition Plan View
rrot to scalc
PA-l South Edge
Figure 3-4
Gossamer Grove - SpecÍfíc Plan

3.4.2 Punrururruc AneR z
Planning Area2 (PA-2)consists of 287.1 netacres. Itwillcontainamaximum of 'J.,201. detacheddwellingunits on 227.4 acres with a densify range of approximately 4.0 to 7.5 dwelling units per acre and up to 166 detached dwelling units on 60.3 acres with a density range of approximately 2.4 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. Public park space will occupy 9.5 acres and7.'1, acres will be developed as natural trails and/or paseos.

Lot sizes will vary between 4,000 square feet and 7,000+ square feet within the Low Density Residential designation and 8,000 to 10,000+ within the Estate Residential designation. PA-2 is the largest land area in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan and is divided by PA-5, which will contain two public facilities for the benefit of the comrnunity - an elementary school and a7.5 acre park. Access to PA-2 from Seventh Standard Road will be provided either along Community Drive or Gossamer Grove Boulevard. Design considerations for PA-2 are as follows:
l. A natural trail system along Seventh Standard and the eastem and western boundaries of PA-2 shall be provided consistent with the trail system established for PA-1 and the Parks and Recreation Plan.

2. Primary and secondary paseos shall be provided where indicated in the Parks and Recreation Plan interconnecting the natural trail system and other planning areas.

3. A perimeter wall shall be provided on the eastem boundary, north and south of PA-1 and corridor walls shall be provided along major streets.

4. Enhanced landscape design features should be provided in cul-de-sacs with connections to the natural trail system as described in Section 5.

5. Two public square parks shall be provided where indicated on the Parks and Recreation Plan as well as the approximate L acre Pathway Park.

6. A primary entry monument shall be located at the intersection of Gossamer Grove Boulevard and Seventh Standard Road and at the secondary entrance at the intersection of CommunityDrive and Seventh Standard Road.

7. A three acre drill island will be located at the southwest corner of Stone Creek and Gossamer Grove Boulevard.

3.4.3 Fl¡r,t¡¡[rcAnen3
Planning Area 3 (PA-3) consists of 319.5 net acres and will contain a maximum of 1.,320 detached dwelling units on 272.7 acres with a density range of approximately 4.0 to 7.5 dwelling uníts per acre. PA-3 will contain 6.8 acres of the public parks and 19.3 acresof trails,paseos and greenbelts.PA-3 is located in the northern portion of the Specific Plan. It is bisected by the Friant-Kern Canal and surrounds PA-6. Lot sizes will be between 4,000 square feet and 7,000+ square feet for the Low Density Residential Designation. A road circulation system will be provided to link PA-3 and the remainder of the OcroseR zozl
3-t 3

3.o CoMMUN ny DE\ELoPMEIW PLAI\¡
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
specific Plan to the adjacent areas to tlre north and west' Major access from seventh standard Road will be via Gossamer Grove Boulevard andCommunity Drive/Stone Creek Drive. Design considerations for PA-3 are Design considerations for PA-3 are as follows:
l. A natural trail system shall be provided along the eastem and westem boundaries of PA-3 and along trre trriant-Kern Canal consistent with the trail system established for PA-l', PA-2 and the Parks and Recreation Plan'
2'ThenaturaltrailsystemshallbecontinuedalongthenorthemboundaryofPA.3withina 1gg-foot buffer to provide separation from existing agricultural land uses. This buffer area may also include community gardens, with prior approval from the City of shafter'

3. Primary and secondary paseos shall be provided where indicated in the Parks and Recreation Plan interconnecting the natural trail system and other planning areas'

4. A perimeter wall shall be provided on the eastern boundary'

5. Three small public parks shall be provided where indicated on the Parks and Recreation Plan.

6. Secondary entry monuments shall be located on Gossamer Grove Boulevard at the northem boundary or pÁ-s and at the Specific Plan boundaries where roads lead to adjacent properties in the western Portion of PA-3'
t,4.4 Pnruru¡ncAnsn4
Planning Area 4(PA-4) consists of 56.2net acres and will contain a maximum of 171 dwelling units on 32 acres with a dersity ,ág" of approximately 7.5 to 9.0 dwelting units per acre' The dwelling units in PA4 shall be either attached ãr detached with lot sizes ranging from approximately 2,800 sqrrare feet to 4,000 square feet or larger for detached units and 2,000 square feet for attached units' PA-4 will have the highest density development within the specific Plan and is located adjacent to two major roads to provide convenient support for the commercial uses. In addition to the residential uses' the main commercial area (encompassing I I acres) public facilities (encompassing 6'8 acres), a drilling island (encompassing 3.0 acres), and trails and greenbelts (encompassing 1.4 acres) will be located within PA-4' Access to pA-4 from Seventh Standard will be via Gossamer Grove Boulevard. To provide a more pleasing environment and safer access to the uses located within PA-4, the Gossamer Grove Boulevard alignment includes a 1,500 foot radius curve as a traffic calming d,evice and visual aide that "announces" more intense development is present. More frequent intersection spacing also indicates to the driver that slowerspeedsareappropriate.DesignconsiderationsforPA-4areasfollows:
l. A natural trail system shall be provided along the Friant-Kem Canal consistent with the trail systemestablishedinPA-3andtheParksandRecreationPlan.

Ocroern zozt
3-t4

3.o CoMMUNfIY DE\ELoPMENT PLAN
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan

2. Primary and secondary paseos shall be provided where indicated on the Parks and Recreation Plan interconnecting the natural trail system and other plarming areas.

3. Strong internal pedestrian linkages between all land uses shall be provided

4. Pedestrian friendly development should be encouraged throughout PA-4 and easy access to surrounding planning areas should be provided.

5. Continuous solid walls should be discouraged along Gossamer Grove Boulevard in favor of community walls (described and illustrated in Chapter 5) to provide connectivity to adjacent planning areas.

6. A three acre drill island will be located at the northwest comer of Gossamer Grove Boulevard within the Public Services area.

3.4.5 PLANN|NG AREA 5
Planning Area 5 (PA-s) consists of a'J.4 acre elementa-qy school, a7.8 acre community parþ and 31.5 acres of land that will accommodate a maximum of 171 single-family dwelling units at a density of approximateþ 4.0 to 7.5 dwelling units per acre. PA-S is envisioned to accommodate centrally located public facilities, which are easily and safely accessed from surrounding neighborhoods via all modes of travel. PA-5 is conveniently located between two major roads (Cotton Creek Drive and Cobble Creek Drive) and two residential neighborhoods (one to the north and one to the south). Gossamer Grove Boulevard and Community Drive will provide primary access to PA-S from Seventh Standard Road. Design considerations for PA-5 are as follows:

1. Primary and secondary paseos shall be provided where indicated on the Parks and Recreation Plan to continue the pedestrian connections to the other planning areas.

3.4.6 PLANNTNG AREA 6
Planning Area 6 (PA-6) consists o179.25 net acres and will contain 14 acres for school use and 5.3 acres for public recreation. PA-6 is envisioned as a family oriented neighborhood center focused on educational and recreational needs. Development of facilities in PA-6 should be coordinated with the local School District to provide cost saving opportunities for joint uses. Primary access to PA-6 from Seventh Standard Road is via Gossamer Grove Boulevard,Kellington Drive, and Meandering Vy'ay. Design considerations for PA-6 are as follows:

1. Secondary paseos shall be provided where indicated on the Parks and Recreation Plan to provide connections to the natural trail system and other planning areas.

2. Formal landscaping shall be provided around PA-6 to create an identifiable focus.

Ocroe¡n zozt
3-t5

3.o CoMMUNIY DE\ELoPMENff PLAN|
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
j.5 ClnculRlotl
A roadway concept has been developed for Gossamer Grove as illustrated on Figure 3-5, Circulation Pløtt' primary access to the project site is via seventh standard Road on the southem boundary of the site' The circulation system has báen designed to accommodate the build-out of the Specific Plan by providing direct and convenient access thrÀughout the community in a safe and efficient maruler and has been coordinated with circulation plans for the City of Bakersfield. Additional intemal streets will be built within the large block areas connecting to the circulation system shown' A description of the concept follows. Typical street Cross sections are illustrated in Figure 3-6. Detailed design of streets shall be included with tract map submittals.

In an effort to make the Gossamer Grove community more pedestrian and bicycle friendly' and thus more energy efficient, nalrower curb to curb dimensions are proposed and bike lanes have been added on the arterial and minor collector street sections. This has been accomplished by reducing the auxiliary lane to 6 feet and adding the balance to the landscaPe areas' The overall Row dimensions have not changed.

There are two reasons for these changes: 1) to create a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the auto dominated thoroughfares, and 2) to provide a system of birycle lanes that links the community to its common amenities. \fhen coupled with the off street system of paseos and trails' the community has a widely dispersed, safe means of transportation other than the auto' Two types of collector roads are proposed: Divided and undivided' Divided collectors have a center median and are used as a way finding or visual locater within the community of Gossamer Grove' They are used to link community fåatures srrch as schools and parks. They are used in conjunction with paseos to safely and efficiently move pedestrians and bicyclists between these facilities' Divided collectors will have a unique landscaie charact"r to assist in locating oneself within the community' They will also have bike lanes/emergency parking in addition to widened parkways' undivided collectors do not have a median and are used in less prominent locations where community features are not linked together. Flowevet, these roadways may also have Paseos associated with their alignment and bike lanes will be provided'
. Gosssmer Groae Bouletsørd: serves as the main entrance to the community and is the primary north/ south collector. It is designated as an arterial (4-lane, divided) street' Around the community core, traffic calming techniques will be integrated into Gossamer Grove Boulevard such as a 1,500 foot radius curve and more frequent intersection spacing' The intent is to slow traffic within the community core and provide a safer and more pleasant walking/bicycling exPerience.
. Community Driae: serves as a secondary entrance to the community at the far eastern property boundary and is a continuation of Community Drive from Bakersfield' Community Drive at this locatitn is designated as a -lane, divided arterial that leads to and terminates as an Ocroern zozl
3-16

3.o CoMMUNTTYDE\ÆLoPMENT Pw\
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan 6ü,å)
arterial at Cobble Creek Drive. Community Drive continues beyond Cobble Creek Drive as a 2- lane minor collector. It then bends and becomes Stone Creek Drive, which extends westerly to Gossamer Grove Blvd where it terminates. Kellington Drive, located north of the Stone Creek Drive intersection at Gossamer Grove Blvd, serves PA-3 and 6, and ultimately exits the project site to the west. At the 4-way stop intersection with Cobble Creek Drive and Cotton Creek Drive, Community Drive will feature enhanced pedestrian/bicycle safety features that tie into the primary paseo, such as pavement striping and signage that srgrufres that drrvers are approachmg a pedestrran crossmg zone/ sohd colored blcycle lanes through the intersectiorç high visibility crosswalks, median pedestrianþiryclist refuge islands, and enhanced street lighting (refer to Figure 3-7). \r1/here appropriate, similar tleatments may also be utilized at other intersections throughout the planning area.

Jezaetta Avenue North: is a north-south 4-lane arterial located west of the Friant-Kem Canal. It is intended to carry traffic from future northern communities through the project site and eventually connect to Seventh Standard Road.

East West Streets: are 2-lane collectors that frame PA-S and provide easy access to the community uses within PA-S. They also allow easy east-west movement from Gossamer Grove Boulevard to alloway in the southem portion of the community.

Neighborhood Center Streets: surround the neighborhood center in PA-6 and are designated as local streets with two lanes of traffic.

Secondøry Entrønce Streets: are all other secondary entrance streets into the community and are designated as major 4-lane divided roads.

Unless otherwise indicated on Figure 3-5, the remaining streets are designated as local streets. Local streets may have contiguous or non-contiguous sidewalks. Development standards and design of intemal residential streets shall be determined at the tract map stage. Various traffic calming devices are encouraged on all roadways to help provide a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially around public facilities within neighborhoods where safe pedestrian and bicycle movement is of paramount importance. AII streets within the Specific Plan shall be dedicated as public streets. Bike routes are also indicated on the Circulation Plan in conformance with the General Plan.

An alternative road configuration for the eastern portion of PA-3 has been included (Figure 3.54) due to the uncertainty of the high speed rail project in the vicinity of Gossamer Grove. This alternative adds a 3rd crossing of the North Kern Water Storage District property in order to better distribute automobile traffic within the project if implementation of the High Speed Rail does not take place.

Ocrosen zozl
3-t 7

3.o CoMMUNIY DEVELoPMEM PLANI
I Arterial Strcet (4 tattc
I Collector Divided (z Lane)
Collector Undivided (z Lane)
I Local Street (Sz' ROW)
Divided)
-
\ €ry, Gossamer Grove
.l'
%z (/^

4.tô Specific Plan A
'\
Meanderinq WaY
ono
'%%t
Drh€
\
o%.
""v
,\
qr-
€o-
'%
¡1¿¡ghts
W*
9oo.

I c)
o
ã
3 c
l
o3.
o
7th Standard Road
0ã.
o
o
9t õ
f
o
Circulation Plan
not to scalc Figure 3-5
I Arterial Street (4 Latt" Divided)
f Collector Divided (z tane)
Collector Undivided (z Lane)
f Local Street (Sz' nOW¡
shall
on
planting"
Stons CEk Drtre
"fu¿
r'o,,%
\%
Ol
'Ò-rrru,bô,,
\
goo.
%ro
"gov
(6
Gossamer Grove
4oo
ôt"rr%, Specific Plan
'%.
ßor.
way
II c) o
3 3
c
:
o
(ù
7th Standard Roâd
not to scale
Circulation Plan -
Alternative Road Alignment
due to high speed rail not
being implemented
g
ã.
o
o
g
o
t
0,
Figure 3-54
Figure 3-6
Gossamer Grove
Cross Sections
Typical Street
8¡kô þnó, Specific Plan :$€ \4ã:r¡At g¡ke þne/ ;Àlçg¿F;\é FÂÍ€v€\* EAË$48*T LAT{O9¿AP1N6 Ârterl¿l Sttcct Crors Sccüod {4 larr. divided}
Bl(ê lrn€r' -A'€ 8fts lân€r' åÅg€ÞiÊirl
Mino¡ Collector Cræs Seclion I hnc.
'a 6',
E¡kê frne|, *Al€ laÞ B¡le bnê/ g€Ér-G}|; -Alif?-
Minor Collector Cnxs Sertion {2 l¡rrc. dh/ided}
ã¡€S¿E|{: r -AN'.
rVA*.lEâ 16'
b b Þ
.A€
AÖ'
ÞAR(,r*d r$Ë
* lånd*âpe eâsetnenl vari€s tû Pâs€o ¡nd Planç.

Lffal Stre€t Cross Sedion (2 lane. ¡¡ndíúdedl
nol to tc¿le
Ul
=
-J
ç
Ë
$o
a
s
Ìr
Ë
Yt
Ë
vt
õ
õ9
ËÈ
Scù
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
(,
=É
È
-tt-kr t¿t
F(4
Õ
u
=+
=ur
s
k
a
F-
=I
O()
I
ot{¡ G
È=lr¡
õ
6 or 5()
\<!{r tr¡
ar Q
t--
l+, l¡JkÈ
14{
õ
o*J
$oou
5 (,
Ë=
s
()
{=
È
Ø
dü
Cotton Creek and Cobble Creek
Pedestrian Crossing
not to scale
Figure 3-7
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

3.6 Pnnrs Rruo RecReATloN
An important element of the Gossamer Grove community is the Pørk and Recreation Plan, Figjxe 3-8' The Parks and Recreation PIan provides for a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities available for the enjoyment of project residents, including community and neighborhood parks and a landscaped trail and paseo system. The parks and schools have been located throughout the community so that almost all residents are within a five minute walk of these destinations. The recreational facilities are also located to minimize the need to cross major 4-lane roads to reach them' The community park is approximately 7.8 acres and nine neighborhoåd parks range in size from 1 acre to 5'3 acres' Some or all of these facilities may be annexed into the North of the River Recreation and Park District or other maintenance entity in the future. Currently, the southern half mile of the project site is currently locatcd within the North of River Recreation and Parks District and the remainder of the project is located within the Shafter Recreation and Parks District'
j.6.1 PuBLlcPRRKFRclules
The 7.8 acre community park in PA-S is located adjacent to the Norris school District Elementary school' Together, these two .oÅårroity-*ide serving facilities are Hnked by a centrally located paseo that provides easy and safe access to a large segment of the community. Facilities to be provided within this park shall include, but are not limiteá to: a tot lot and children's play area with adjacent seating and paths, multipurpose turf space, multi-use courts that may includl te.nis, basketball' volleyball or handball' bike racks, trash receptacles and parking'
There are two 3.25 acre parks located in PA-2 that will provide both active and passive activities' These parks will also provide a large area of turf for free play and informal games of softball' soccer/ or football. Particular attention will be paid to providing facilities ihat will appeal to all age gloups' These parks are to be incorporated into the neig-hborhood design and shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees and turf. Additional elements such as overhead trellises' picnic tables, benches, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character. The park side of the streets surrounding these public squares will provide ample parking for these parks if necessary. Flowever, because of their small size and location within the neighborhood' it is anticipated that users will be pedestrians who live nearby' pA 6 will contain a 5.3 acre neighborhood park with similar facilities as the parks located in PA 2' There will also be numerous 2 acre parks throughout the project site that will serve as social gathering places with a variety of passive and active ,pu""r' No off street parking will be needed to access the parks due to their close pro*i*ity to surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, an approximately 1 acre pathway Park serves as one of the mÃy rest stops along the primary paseo adjacent to Gossamer Grove Boulevard. This park, as iliustrated in Figure 5-6, provides passive recreational opportunities such as picnic and seating areas. The Pathway Park is also located where it can be easily accessed by the residential uses to the east'
OcroerR zozl
3-21

3.o CoMMUNTTY DE\ELoPMEM PIAI\
-
rNaturc
r r rPrimary Paseo
.-Secondary Paseo
f Public Parks
Schools
"t^-
"8ry Gossamer Grove \z ü5
Specific Plan
|- r
7 n*,o
v""-
\\ \
t \
{"*":s:-q\"q"
\
I
I
\
t
\
Kollington Dr¡v€ r"- t
uo,b-
%a
+*=î\,\
I
\, I
I-
!
-t
\ tl
r
I
tI
î
t
lCoüoo CE€¡ t)rlt€
-.
-',1 \
I
J
I
I
I
I
CobbþC@tOriw
t -¡
_Jh
JË
-\L
Y
I
,-.;l_
r-J.
7th Standard Road
of.
o
oo
=o
f
o
Parks and Recreation Plan
Legend
not to scale
Figure f,-8
Gossamer Grove - SPecifÍc Plan

3.6.3 Tnnls, PRseos mo GRreNeetr
The Parks and Recreation Plan includes a network of trails, linear open space (greenbelts) and paseos that provide an altemative mode of transportation throughout the community' Design guidelines for these features can be found in Chapter 5. These trails provide a comprehensive system of linkages to recreation amenities, schools and other community facilities'

3.7 LANDSCAPE PI-AN
The character of the Gossamer Grove community will be in part formed by the landscape plan presented in Figure 3-9. strong landscape features along with streetscape features help integrate the diverse elements of the built environment by unifying the street scene, orienting travelers and creating a memorable image. The purpose of the plan is to Ástablish a unified landscape framework that provides continuity throughout the Specific Plan. Three distinctive landscape themes or elements are used within the Specific Plan as fol.lows:
. Formal Landscaping: shall be used to distinguish Gossamer Grove Boulevard and Community Drive, tt'r" northern neighborhood focal point, community facilities, and the major east-west road that links to future development to the west' Formal landscaping is characterized by trees arranged in repeated windrows at angles crossing stfeets. Tall growing trees will characterize the windrows so that they can be seen from u distance to provide orientation in the community' The formal landscaping also acts as "bookends" to the southern neighborhood focal point' The understory planting shall contrast the formal windrow tree arrangement with predominantly large drifts of grurir. While the windrow tree arrangement shall be consistent throughout and recognizable to orient travelers and the community to the major land use elements of the Specific Plan,eachstreetshalluseadifferenttreespeciesuniquetothatstreet. . Groves: are situated along the eastern boundary of the specific Plan and are intended to provide a buffer from the freeway, the railroad and adjacent existing development' The gfovesshallbeplanteduniformþwithnon-productivespeciesreminiscentoftraditional agricultural practices. Community gardens are also an allowed use, with prior approval from the City of Shafter, in this buffer zone as well within the 100 foot agricultural buffer on the northem boundary of the Specific Plan area'
. Entry Monuments: shall be placed at the major and secondary entrances where indicated on Figure 3-9 to provide a ,risual gateway to the Gossamer Grove community' conceptual illustrations of entry monuments can be found in Section 5.3 Løndscape Design Guidelines' OcroeER zozl
3-23

3.O COMMUNÍTY DE\ÆLOPMENT PIAI\
* Secondary Ëntry Monument
æ¡Windrows
-Groves
...0r¡Formal l¡ndsca
mary
\
*ry Gossamer Grove \z (.6
Q
û^a,\ Specific Plan
sfle- zñ
'!:,
a
aafotå
fa
ta
aa
ta s{Þt aa ?ñ.
a
I
ataaartaaa aroajaaaj
0 a
t
a
a
a
i
ô
a a a
¡
t
t
'1.
3*
aa
at
Itr¡l
aa
a
aó
aaat
aaa a
Kellinglon Drive aataa ala¡a
al
Itc¡rraaa òtaaaraaa ta
.%
$ø
aa at ¡t
C. a
I
t
I
I
a
¡rll
a!t
at
to
aa
a
a
t
a
a
a
a
a
*
¡
t
a
o
I
t
a
a
aa
aatatl-.-
ãd.u
of----l
a
a
a
I
üa
at
oata
aa
aa
t
a
a
a
a
t
a
a
a
a
; c)
o
f
3 c
f
o3.
o
t lf
aa
çl
tl
tl,
t{rt
aa
aa
Òa ri.l
7th Standard Road
oo¡. d¡
(D0{
o
Plan
Legend
not to scale
Landsca
Figure f,-g
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

3.8 Wru-uruoFerucEPten
A simple wall and fence plan for the Gossamer Grove community is shown in Figure 3-10' Walls and fences are primarily placeà around the perimeter of the community and along arterials' the North Kern Water Storage District, and canals for safety. The plan identifies four potential types and fences that can be used. l) North Kem Water Storage District block wall;2) block wall, wrought iron, or wrought iron/block combination; 3) sound wall and 4) corridor wall. In order to provide a feeling of community openness' individual developments within the Specific plan should limit the use of solid perimeter walls and gated entrances in favor of intermittent corridor walls or neighborhood walls described in Chapter 5. Details for walls can be found in section 5'3 Lands cap e D e s i gn Guide líne s'
,.9 Gnnolxc concepr
Grading for Gossamer Grove is tailored to the existing topography of the project site' The proiect site is part of a flat to gently sloping alluvial plain. Soils and geologic conditions present no significant constraints to grading, therefore, no conceptual grading plan has been provided' The primary objectives of grading áre to: a) establish road grades that are consistent with those of the existing City streets around the site; b) provide stable devãlopment pads for residential and commercial structures and recreation amánities; and c) balance the cut and fill grading quantities on-site. Grading will also be required to establish detention basins and detention basin slopes will not exceed a 2:1 slope' Grading is expected to balance on-site and will not require import or export of materials' Approximately 1,20e000 cubic yards of cut and fill will be necessary to accommodate development of the site' This quantity may vary as final grading plans are developed' The grading plans shall be designed to accommodate drainage and a street system that meets City of Shafter standards'

3.1O RISUCFnOtm¡s

3.f o.1 wRren
Oildale Mutual Water District (OMWD) will provide water service to the area. OMDW operates facilities that serve residents to a point north of Seventh Standard Road and east of Community Drive' Domestic water service (for drinking water) will be provided to residential, commercial, public facilities, parks facilities and the school. Secondary water for irrigation of lawns, parks, and common landscape areas will be provided by either existing or new wells on site. Gossamer Grove falls within the North Kern Water Storage District, where landowners have a right to reasonable and beneficial use of the underlying groundwater. There are seven wells on the Gossamer Grove property, of which one is suitable for ãgricultural production or secondary use and can serve approximately 100 acreq and one is a domestic *"11, brrt must be filtered for nitrates and metals. The other wells are either no longer usable or are uneconomical for production. OMWD's existing water supply is a combination of groundwater and treated surface water. It currently has excess groundwater and has expressed a willingness to consider expanding its service into the Gossamer Grove area, thereby more fully utilizing its existing groundwater resources.

OcroerR 2o21
3-25

3.o CoMMUNTTY DanrcPm¡¡n Pnru
-.-N.K.W.S.D
BlockWail
. . . . . il",ff"îållí lï;ilgii.T""
- ----- -PerimeterSoundWall Corridor Wall
\
\%
*** Gossamer Grove
('.^
e
Sô Specific Plan ^
,"%
\
\
I
I
\
þ
I Meanoering way \
I
I
r
\
Kellinoton Drive 5-
---"- --
I
q-
'øL
?,
o^
"".,
Sloñe Cr6ek Ori6
t
I
¡
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cotbn Crcok Oriw
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
ó
ô
Õ
ö
t
a
?
a
Õ
I
tÉ
Cobblc Crc€k Orþo I
I
I
I
tl
TT\\
I
I
I
il:
$
I
I
r¡l
7th Slandard Road
o:.
@
o
!r
o
{
o
Wall and Fence Plan
Legend
not to scalc
Figure 3-lO
Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
The water company's infrastructure consists of groundwater wells, above-ground water storage tanks with booster stations, groundwater and treated surface water, and water distribution lines' The primary connection point available for the Gossamer Grove area is located on the eastem property boundary and will require a main line to be placed under the Lerdo canal.

The proposed water system, as shown in Figure 3-11', Møster Wøter Plan, will include a 12-inch minimum main line coru-recting to the Oildale Mutual Water District in a complete looped system' Main lines will be provided east-west along seventh standard, north-south along Gossamer Grove Boulevard, north-south along community Drive and east-west along stone Creek Drive to the western property boundary' within the i¡temal roadways, 8-inch minimum lines will serve to provide domestic (potable water) service to each proposed residence and commercial tenant as well as zupplying sufficient fire flows to fire hydrants placed in accordance with the Kem County Fire Department standards' A parallel system for irrigation will be developed in the same easement connecting to the wells providing irrigation water that will be located throughout the property.

J.ro.2 sewen
The City of Shafter is responsible for the collection of wastewater within its corporate limits. The City has a |oint powers Agreement with Kem County and the North of the River Sanitary District (NORSD) for the operation of a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant'
A proposed sewer plan consists of new main lines that will be extended from Gossamer Grove Boulevard' A proposed 24-inch sewer line will connect to the existing 24-inch sewer main in Gossamer Grove Boulevard. This pipe will gradually decrease to a 1.2-inch main sewer line that will branch off along other roads within the Specìfic Plan as shown in Figure 3-12, Master Sewer Plan. hrtemal streets will have 6- inch and g-inch gravity sewer lines connecting to the main sewer lines. The system will flow ultimately to the Shafter-North of the River Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, located on 160 acres on Seventh Standard Road" approximateþ seven miles west of the City of Shafter. The facility provides secondary wastewater treatment'
Sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City of Shafter.

3.ro.l SronmwRreR
The Gossamer Grove site is mapped (usGS) as Quatemary alluvium in the southern san |oaquin valley. The southwesterly flowing Kem River is approximately six miles south of the site' Existing topographic relief consists of relatively flat contourt with the existing site drainage generally sheet flowing in a westerly-southwesterly direction. The site is not located within the 500-year Kern River floodplain zone. The drainage plan for Gossamer Grove will be consistent with common practice in the area and City of Shafter.

Ocroern zozl
3-27

3.o CoMMUNTTY DE\ÆLoPMENI PLA\¡
Water Main - 12" min
¿o,
-to
19 \% qe Gossamer Grove
06 f.to
Â,",,% Specific Plan
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I ueanoerine war
\ \
\
\
\__Iligog
I
\
-1
fI
/
Sl,oÉ Cßct Oriw
%9a
,\
^..,
eoo.

Bo-
''og
ue,shls
Way
/
I
I
I
:l
\
I
I
I
ll
I
I
-l
I
$ø
Coüon Cnd( Orltn
tI
\
Cobblr C@k OriE
\
I
I
I
l.

I
c) ô
¡
3 c
:
o!.

I o
7th Standard Road
0:.
o
o0¡
ó
f
o
Master Water Plan
[.egend
not to scale
Figure J-ll
Sewer Main - 12" min.
uo,
%.6
\z 'fup Gossamer Grove
06 d.toÂ
'"\ Specific Plan
\
\
\
\
J
\
\
Moandering WaY
I 1
\
\
\--fl$stono'iu"f*- J
\
I
€o. I %rurr"**
|
/
l
rI
Sþm Cmf Odw
.T
nq,
\
,\
su, \
. Coüüt
I
I
I
F
\
\
1 ,*O.*?l
c,ù¡oi* J
Cobbþ
c) ô
3 3
c
:
(]

3. o
7th Standard Road
0t.
o
oo
ô
f
o
Master Sewer Plan
not to scale Figure 3-r2
Gossamer Grove - SpecífÍc Plan
All surface runoff created within the Specific Plan area will be detained on-site within the specific plan area and percolate into the ground. Detention basins will be located within the individual tract maps submitted for approval within the planning areas or may be shared between adjacent areas. The drainage waters will be collected and then transported via underground piping systems to the detention basins.

Prior to final map approval, detailed drainage/hydrological studies shall be required to address on-site drainage conditions and increased runoff flows associated with proposed land uses on a subdivisionlevel basis. Drainage facilities within public road right-of-ways and drainage easements are proposed to be maintained by the City of Shafter.

3.1r PUBLTC 5¡RVIC¡S
The following information is a brief summary of services to be provided to Gossamer Grove. A more detailed discussion of faci.lities and service availability is presented in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan update.

3.11.1 POUCEnTO F|RE PROTECnON
Acreage for police and/or fire facilities shall be provided within the public service land use designation in Planning Area 4 as required by the City of Shafter.

3.11.2 PUBUCSCHOOLS
Gossamer Grove is divided between the Richland Elementary School District and the Norris Elementary School District. The plan for Gossamer Grove has allowed acreage for two new elementary schools. The Kem High School District will serve the older students of Gossamer Grove, and it is anticipated that School District will serve the older students of Gossamer Grove, and it is anticipated that they will they will attend Shafter High School. An additional middle school is anticipated to be built west of the Gossamer Grove community in another Specific Plan area lqxown as Mission Lakes. Ultimately middle school students from Gossamer Grove will attend that school after it is built.

OcroerR zozl
3-30
j.o CoMMUNTY DEVELoPMEM PLA\
Gossamer Grove - SPecÍfic Plan

3.1t., t¡ntmEs
Gossamer Grove will be served with telephone, cable internet (data), electric, natural gas, and solid waste collection service from private companies serving the area as detailed below:

Elechicity I€&E
Gas Southem Califomia Gas Co.

Water Oildale Mutual Water District
Sewer of Shafter
Solid Waste City of Shafter
AT&T, Bright House, Shafter Connect Municipal Fiber
N
Telecommunications
Ulrr Pt¡t lr"tl lt lt rlr
Ocros¡R zozl
3-31

3.o CoMMUNIY DE\ELoPMENT Pw'l
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan

4.o DEVELoeMENT SrnruoRnDs AND RecuunoNs
The following Development Standards and Regulations implement the plarrring and design concepts of this Specific Plan. These standards and regulations address site development issues and provide the basic criteria that govern all development within the boundaries of the Gossamer Grove Specific plan area. Development within the Specific Plan shall be subject to the review processes discussed in Chapter 6 of this Specific Plan. Any standard or regulation contained herein that differs from the City of Shafter Municipal Code shall take precedence over and supersede the City of Shafter Municipal Code, unless otherwise prohibited. Any standard or regulation of the City of Shafter Municipal Code not covered by this Specific Plan in the areas of site development, administration, review procedures, environmental review, and parking regulations shall apply to this Specific Plan. Where a discrepancy occurs that unreasonably restricts the implementation of this Specific Plan, a Specific Plan Amendment shall be required.
+.1 Geruenru PRovlstolrrs

4.1.1 DEHNtTtON OF TERM5
All terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided in the City of Shafter Municipai Code, Zoning Ordinance, Sechion 1.190, except where altered in the definitions provided below:
' Abutting, Adjoining, Adjøcent. Having district boundaries or lot lines in common, however, where properties would have had lot line in common except for the existence of an alley, the lot lines of those properties are considered to be abutting, adjoining, or adjacent.

Accessory Stnrcture. Any subordinate structure or portions of the main structure, the use of which is incidental to that of the main structure on the same lot or premises, and which is used exclusively by the occupants of the main structure. An accessory structure may be erected only after the principal structure is established. This definition does not encompass second dwelling units, which shall comply with the City of Shafter's second dwelling unit requirements.

Aueage, Gross. The total fee ownership of a parcel or land area including any easements.

Acreage, Neú. The land area which remains after dedication of ultimate rights-of-ways for 1) exterior boundary streets, 2) flood control rights-of-way, and3) easements.

Ocroern zozt
+t

4.o DE\ÆLoPMEMSrAI{DARDSANID REGUtAToNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
Actiae Reffeøtional Uses. Facilities occurring in a planned development or specific Plan which are designed to provide individual or group activities of an active nature including' but not limited to, sports fieldt court games, swimming poolg children's play areas, pioric areag golf courses, and recreational community gardening. Active recreational uses do not include natural open space, natule study areas, open space for buffer areas, riding and hiking trails' water courses or drainage areas.

Ailey. A secondary means of access to property, generally located at the rear or side of the property.Analleyisnotintendedforgeneralcirculationtraffic.

Architecturøl FeøtrLres. Any portion of the outer surface of a structure, including' but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building material, the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs, walls, fences, awnings' canopies' screens' sculptures' decoration, roof shape and materials, and other fixtures appultenant to a structure' ArcltitecturøI Projections. A marquee, fireplace, chimney, porch, canopy' oI similar projection of a building.

Building Height. The vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the highest point of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, but exclusive of ventt air conditioners, chimneys, or other such incidental appurtenances.

Coaerage, Lot or Site. "Lol or site coverage" shall mean the ratio between the ground floor area of the habitable buildings (or buitdings as defined by the uniform Building code) and the lot area.

Density.The number of permanent dwelling units per unit of land' Dwelting, Mtttti-Fømily. ,4 building containing two or more dwelling units; or two more dwelling units, either attached or detached, on one lot' Dwetting,single-Fømily.,4buildingcontainingonedwellingunitononelot.

Ensement. The right to use property owned by another for specific purposes or to gain access to another property. ro, e*ampte, utility companies may have easements on private properties to be able to install and maintain utility facilities.

Floor Areø, Gross. The total enclosed area of all floors of a buüding measured to the inside face of the exterior walls including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level' service and mechanical equipment rooms, and basement or attic areas having a height of more than 7 feet,bute*ctudlng area used exclusively for vehicle parking or loading' Floor Area, Net. The total building floor area excluding garages, hallways, lobbies, elevators, and other corunon spaces'
Ocroe¡R zozl
4-2

4.O DE\ELOPMEMSTAIDARDSAI{D RECULATONS
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan
Frontage, Bttilding. The side or face of the building which is parallel to or is at an angle of 45 degrees or less to a public street or a public parking area.

Frontage, Road. A minor street which is parallel to, and adjacent to an arterial street or freeway, and whidr provides access to abutting properties and protection from through and fast traffic.

Frontøge, Street or Highway. That portion of a lot or parcel of land which borders and has access to a public street, highway, ot parkway. The frontage shall be measured along the common lot line separating the lot or parcel of land from the public street, highway, or parkway.

Garage.,4 permanently roofed structure with three enclosed sides and a garage door which is used for automobile shelter and storage.

Lot. A site or parcel of land under one ownership having frontage upon a street, other than an alley, or a private easement determined by the Public Works Manager to be adequate for purposed of access.

Lof Area. The horizontal area within the property lines excluding area to be included in future street right-of-way as established by dedication.

Lot, Corner. A site bounded by two or more adjacent street lines that have an angle of intersection of not more than 135 degrees.

Lot Depth. The average horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines measured in the mean direction of the side lot lines.

Lot, Double Frontage. An interior lot having frontage on more than one street.

Lot, FIag or Corridor. ,4 lot with access provided to the bulk of the lot by means of a narrow corridor.

Lot, Interior. á lot other than a corner lot.

Lot, Reaersed Corner. z4 comer lot the side line of which is substantially a continuation of the front property line of the first lot to its rear.

Lot Line. ,4 line of record that divides one lot from another lot or from a public or private street or any other public space.

Lot Widtlt. The average horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.

Ocroe¡n zozt
4-3

4.o DE\ÉoPMEMSTAN|DARDSAT\¡D REGULAToNS
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
Open Space, Comtnon. An open space within a residential development reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the development and their guests' Open Spøce, Priuate. ,4 usable open space adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests' Open Spøce, llsable. Outdoor space which selves a recreational function or provides vizual relief from the building mast the minimum dimension of which shall be 6 feet excluding required front yards.

Primøry stntcture.A permitted single-family dwelling unit or residential structure' Project. Any proposal for new or changed use, or for new construction, alteration or enlargement of any structure, that is subject to the provisions of this specific Plan' Property Line, Front. The shortest boundary line of a lot which is coterminous with a street line. Boundary lines of a double frontage lot which are coterminous with street lines shall be front lines and shall both meet minimum front yard setback requirements' \Â/hen the boundary lines of a corner lot, which are coterminous with street lines, are of equal or substantially equal lengths, the front line shall be determined by the Planning Director' Ír determining the front lioe, th" Planning Director shall take into consideration the character of the improvements in the neighborhood of the lot, the relative impact to abutting ploperty ow"'ers from the establishment of either of such boundaries as a front line, the draracter of the building proposed to be constructed and the distance that the buildings are set back from the lines of the two streets on which the lot in question abuts.

Property Line, lnterior. ,4 lot line not abutting a street' Property Line, Rear.,A lot line that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line' Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line 10 feet in length within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line, shan be deemed the rear lot line for the purpose of measuring rear yard depth.

Property Line, side. Any lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.

Property Line, Streetside. A side lot line abutting a street' second Dwetling space. A private living suite that is allowable within the primary structure that contains a private entry, kitchenette, living area, bedroom, and bathroom' These homes will be served by one gas / electric meter, telephone, and CAT\/ service, and will have only one address' site. A lot or group of contiguous lots not divided by uo alley, street, other right-of-way or city limit that is proposed for development in accordance with the provisions of this Specific Plan and/or the Shafter Zoning Ordinance, Title 17, and is in a single ownership or has multiple owners, all of whom join in an application for development' Ocroern zozl
4-4

4.o DE\ELoPMENTSTA¡\DARDSAI{D REGUI.AToNS
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan
Specific PIan. A plan as defined in California Govemment Code 65450.

Structure. Anything constructed or erected that requires a location on the ground, including a building, but not including a fence or a wall used as a fence if the height does not exceed 6 feet, or access drives, or walks, or swimming pools.

Yard or Court. An open space on the same site as a structure, unoccupied, and unobstructed by structures from the ground upward or from the floor level of the structure requiring the yard or court upward except as otherwise provided in this title, including a front yard, side yard, rear yard, or court between structures.

Yard, Front. A yard extending the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front property line and a line parallel thereto on the site.

The front yard of a comer lot is the yard adjacent to the shorter street frontage.

Yard, Rear. A yard extending across the full width of a site, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear property line and a line parallel thereto on the site, except that on a comer lot the rear yard shall extend only to the side yard abutting a street.

Yard, Side. A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard, or the front property line of the site where no front yard is required, to the front of the line of the required rear yard, or the rear property line if the site where no rear yard is required, the width of which is the horizontal distance between the side property line and line parallel thereto on the site, except that the side yard on the street side of a comer lot shall extend to the rear lot line.

4.r.2 GENERAL NOTES
The maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted by the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan shall be 3,432. The approximate number of dwelling units within each residential planrting area is established on the Gossamer Grove Land l)se Pløn, Figure 3-1. Each planning area contains a target gross density and an approximate number of dwelling units. During the site plan and tentative map stage of design, the actual number of dwelling units allocated to a particular planning area may slightly differ from the number shown on Figure 3-1. Up To 15% of the detached units in a particular residential planning area may be transferred to another detached planning area, provided the maximum unit count for the Specific Plan as a whole does not exceed 3,432 units.

2. Minor boundary, density, and acreage variations (up to 15%) in the ptanning areas shall be permitted, subject to approval of the Planning Director, without an amendment to the Specific Plan document.

Ocroern zozl
4-5

4.o DEVELoPMENT 5TA\ DARDSAi{ D REGU|-AToNS
Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
Development standards contained in Chapters 10 through 14 of the Zoning ordinance' Title fZ of ihe City of Shafter Municipal Code, shall be applicable to performance standards' parking, signage, swimming pools and other specific uses, accessory structures and other general development in the Specific Plan area'
Special use regUlations; additional development standards for condos, townhouses' and apartment developments; and specific development standards contained in Chapter 4 of the zonng ordinance, Title 17 of the City of shafter Municipal Code, shall be applicable to the specific Plan area. specific development standards include parking requirements, landscaping' open space, private open ,pu"", pedestrian circulation, security fencing, laundry facilities, lighting, trash collection areas, security devices, and maximum number and dimension of connecting units. \Å/here a discrepancy occurs, the standards and regulations contained in this sectlon of the specific Plan document shall supersede chapter 4 of the Zoning Ordinance.

AII private streets within the specific Plan shall be permanently reserved and maintained for their intended purpose by a means acceptable to and enforceable by the City of Shafter' Access for emergency vehicles shall be maintained at all times' staggered building placement required for variation in streetscape shall not encroach into the minimum required setback area for any given lot (variations in building footprints shall be set back from the minimum front yard setback required)'

4.2 DevelopruENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIoNS
The following section sets forth development standards for all land use zones within the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area. Ail sltbacks established by this Chapter, unless otherwise noted below, shall be measured from the property line' A variety of residential lot sizes may be developed within each planning area provided that the maximum number of units designated for each planning ur"u u, stated in Table 3-1 is not exceeded' The planning area where the specific lot sizes described below shall be used is indicated in parenthesis behind the lot size'

4.2.r REstDENTnL EsrArE (RE)
Lot sizes in the Residential Estate (RE) zone range from approximately &000 square feet to 10'000+ square feet. The RE zone is located within Planning Areas. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in this zone shan be those allowed under the R-E (Residential Estate) District (zone) of the Municipal Code of the City of Shafter. Maximum lot coverage of 50%o'
J.

5. 6.

Ocroe¡n zozt
4-6

4.o DEVELoPMEMSTAI{DARDSAID REcuLAnoNs
Gossamer Grove - SpecífÍc Plan
A. Mmvruu 8,000 S.F. Lor (Plq¡¡¡vr¡¡c Anr¿, 2)
The following standards are applicable to lots a minimum of 9000 square feet in size and larger These standards are summarized in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-1. (1) Minimum Lot Size
Minimum residential lot size shall be 8,000 square feet.

Ø Minimum Lot Width
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 70 feet for interior lots and flag lots; (b) 70 feet for corner lots; (c) 35 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front property line; (d) 35 feet for knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line; and (e) 55 feet for lots with a side entry garage.
(3) Minimttm Lot Depth
Lot depth shall be a minimum of 100 feet for straight lot and 85 feet for cul-de-sac. For Purposes of this requirement, each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth.
(4) Minimum Front Yard Setback
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be (a) 25 feet for lots adjacent to a straight street and flag lots; (b) 20 feet for cul-de-sac lots; and (c) 20 feet for knuckle lots and (d) 20 feet to open porch. (5) Minimum Front Yard Setback - Garage
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 20 feet from the Sarage to the front property line; and (b) 20 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.
(6) Renr Ynrd Setback
Minimum rear yard setback shall be (a) 15 feet for a lot with no alley; and (b) 5 feet for a lot with an alley and (c) 10 feet to open patio cover.

Ø Side Yard Setback - Interior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots shall be (a) 5 feet for one-story structures, (b) 5 feet for cul-de-sac lots; and (c) 5 feet for knuckle lots.

Ocroa¡n zozt
4-7

4.o DEVELoPMEMSTA¡{DARDSAI\¡D REGUHIoNS
Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
(8) Sicle Yard Setbøck - Corner LotlReuerse Corner Lot
Minimum side yard setback shall be (a) 10 feet for corner lots; and (b) L0 feet for reverse corner lots. Garage loading on street side yards shall require a 20-foot setback from property line to garage.
(9) Minimum Building Sepøration-lnterior Side Yørd
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet for adjacent two-story homes. Side yard separation standards do not apply to accessory structures.

Q0) Møximum Bttilding Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projection' such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.
(11) Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
Minimum dwelling unit size for the primary structure shall be 1,800 square feet' (12) Archítectural Proj ections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies' and roof overhangs,mayprojectovertherequiredfrontyardsetback,butnotmorethan 10% thereof.
uncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feet' an openwork railing not more ihan 3O inches in height may be installed or constructed on any such porch, platform, or landing place' OcroeER zozl
4-8

4.O DEVELOPMENTSTAIDAFDSA¡\D REGULATIONS
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan
Table 4-1
Development Standards Summary:
8,000 Square Foot Lots
Minimum Lot Area 8,000s.f.

Minimum Lot Width:
(a) Interior and flag lots
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cul-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line Lots with side
70 ft.
70 ft.
35 ft.
35 ft.
55 ft.

Minimum Lot Deptlt:
(a) Front loaded lot
Cul-de-sac
100 ft.
85 ft.
(a) Front ProPerty line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots (b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot Minimum Front Yard Setback:

To
25 ft.
20 Ít.
20 ft.
20 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
Front
20 ft.
20 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setltack to Habitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
(c) For open patio cover (one- or two-story)
15 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setback:
(a) Side yard setback (interior lot, cul-de-sac lots, knuckle lots) (b) Corner lot
(c) Reverse corner lot
(d) Garage loaded side yard on corner or reverse lots
5 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.

Minimum B uil din g S ep ørat ion:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary one-story structure and any ad1'acent primary structure 10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximum Building Heigltt
(a) With architectural proiections
38 40
ft.
ft.

DnvELopvnrul STANI)AtìDs
PLaNNINc AREA(s)
OcroeeR zozt
4-9

4.o DEVELoPMENTSTA{DARDSANID REGULAToN5
Gossarner Grove
Specific Plan
15' min. rear Yard, no alley
10'min. to open Patio
cover (1 or Z-story)
Rcar
5'min. side Yard
on interlor lot or
10'mln. side Yard
on corner lot
Tlrrcl
l roßt 20'min. to garage
20'mln. to Porch
25'min. to house
20'min. to side antry garags
NOTE: This nrototype sitc plan is conccptual in naturc and.is onlv otre of many ""' .-a"ìiãti tãiut'ións thai arc permittótl in this lantl use designalion' Devel .ft. lots
rlt
i--?
G-rl
not to scale
ent Standards - 8,ooo-Io,ooo
Figure 4{
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan

4.2.2 Low D¡ruslry Resrornrru (LDR)
The following minimum lot sizes shall be allowed in the Low Densit5r Residential (LDR) zone:
7,000 square feet Ç000 square feet, Ð000 square feet and 4,000 square feet. The LDR zone consists of Planning Areas 1,2, 3, and 5. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the LDR zone shall be those allowed under the R-1 (Low Density) Residential District (zone) of the Municipal Code of the City of Shafter. There is no maximum lot coverage established for Low Density Residential.

A. MINII¡ulr¡ 7.000 S.F. Lor (Pr¡,NNlNc Anaa 2, Pr¡¡,¡wlNrc Anra 3) The following standards are applicable wherever minimum 7,000 square foot lots are planned in the LDR zone in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are suûunarized in Table 4-2 and shown in Figure 4-2.
(1) Minimum Lot Size
The minimum residential lot size shall be a minimum 7,000 square feet Q) MinimtLm Lot Width
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 60 feet for interior lots; þ) 60 feet for comer lots; (c) 30 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front property line; and (d) 30 feet for knuckle and flag lots along the arc of the front property line; and (e) 55 for lots with side-entry garages to maintain adequate entry/exit.
(3) Minimum Lot Depth
Lot depth shall be a minimum of 90 feet for front loaded lots and 75 feet for cul-de-sac lots, flag lots or lots fronting on a knuckle. For purposes of this requirement, each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth. (4) Front Yørd Setback
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be (a) 20 feet for lots adjacent to a straight street and flag lots; and (b) 20 feet for cul-de-sac or knuckle lots and (c) 15 feet to open porch. (5) Front Yørd Setback - Gnrage
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 20 feet from the garage to the front property line; and (b) 18 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.

Ocroe¡n zoz'l
4-t t

4.O DEVELOPMEMSTA¡IDARDSANID REGUTATONS
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
(6) Reør Yørd Setbøck
Required rear yard shall be (a) 15 feet for a lot with no alley; and þ) 5 feet for a lot with an alley and (c) 10 feet to open patio cover
Ø Side Yørd Setback - Interior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots shall be (a) 5 feet for one-story homes; cul-desac lots and knuckle lots; (b) 5 feet for any portion of a structure exceeding one story' (8) Side Yard Setbøck - Corner LotlReaerse Corner Lot
Minimum side yard setback shall be (a) 10 feet for comer lots; and (b) 10 feet for reverse corner lots. Garage loading on street sid,e yards shall require a 2O-foot setback from property line to garage.
(9) Minimum Building Separatiott - Interior Side Yørd
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet for adjacent two-story homes. side yard separation standards do not apply to accessory structures.
(1O) Møximum Building Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projectiory such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.
(11) Minimum Dwelling Unít Size
Minimum dwelling unit size for the primary structure shall be 1,400 square feet' (12) Architectural Proiections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies' and roof overhangs,mayprojectovertherequiredfrontyardsetback,butnotmorethan 10% thereof.
. IJncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feeÇ an openwork railing not more than 30 inches in height may be installedorconstructedonanysuchporch'platform'orlandingplace' Ocroe¡R zozt
4-t2

4.O DE\ELOPMENTSTAIDARDSAI{D REGULATIONS
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan
Table 4-2
Development Standards Summary
7,000 Square Foot Lots
Minimum Lot Area 7,OO0 s.Í
Minimum Lot Width:
(a) Interior
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cul-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots and flag along the arc of the front property line (e) Lots with side-entry garages
60 ft.
60 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
55 fr.

Minímum Lot Depth:
(a) Front loaded lot
Cul-de-sac and lots on a knuckle
90 ft.
75 Ít.

Minintum Front Yard Setback:
(a) Front ProPerty line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots
(b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot (d) To open porch
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 Ít.
15 ft.

Minimum Front Yarel Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
(b) Front entry
206t.
18 ft.

Minimum Rear Yørd Setbøck to Høbitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
(c) For open patio cover (one- or two-story)
15 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setback:
(a) Side yard setback - interior lot
(b) Corner lot
(c) Reverse corner lot
loaded side on corner or reverse corner lots
5 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.

Minímum Buil din g Separation:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
Between structure and acent structure
10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximunt Building Height
(a) With architectural proiections
38 ft.
40 ft.

DFtvEL()PNt ENr S.lnruonnos
Pr.¡Nrurruc; AREA(s)
OcroerR zozl
4-t3

4.o DE\ÆLoPMEMSTA{DARDSAND REGUÁnoNs
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
15' min. to rear Yard no alleY
5'min. rear yard w/ alleY
10'min. to open Patio
cover (1 or 2-story)
l{t lr
5'min. side yard
on interior lot or
10'min. side Yard
on corner lot
Strct't
Fr¡r¡t '15'min. to Porch
20'min. to house
20'min. to side entry garage
18'min. to garage
NOTE: Tlris Drototvpe site plan is conceptual in nature and is only one of many ' '- - - ¿"tii,i toluíiårt. thai are permittéd in this land use designation' .ft. lots
tett ?fl
E7
^, 1
not to scale
Developm ent Standards - 7,OOO
Figure 4-2
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan
B. lVfnrn¡vruv 6,0(X) S.F. Lor (Pmru¡.rn ¡c Anna 2. Pr-eNNn {c Annn 3) The following standards are applicable wherever minimum 6,000 square foot lots are planned in the LDR zone in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are suîunarized in Table 4-3 and shown in Figure 4-3.
(1) Minimum Lot Size
The minimum residential lot size shall be a minimum 6,000 square feet A) Minimum Lot Width
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 55 feet for interior lots; @) 60 feet for corner lots; (c) 30 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front property line; (d) 30 feet for knuckle and flag lots along the arc of the front property line and (e) 55 feet for lots with side entry garages for adequate entry/exit.
(3) Minimum Lot Depth
Lot depth shall be a rninimum of 75 feet for front loaded lots and 70 Íeel for cul-de-sac lots, flag lots or lots fronting on a knuckle. For purposes of this requirement, each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth. (4) Front Yard Setbøck
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be (a) 18 feet for lots adjacent to a straight street and flag lots; and (b) 20 feet for cul-de-sac or knuckle lots and (d) 10 feet to open porch. (5) Front Yørd Setback - Gørøge
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 15 feet from the gatage to the front property line; and þ) 18 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.
(6) Rear Yørd Setback
Required rear yard shall be (a) 15 feet for a lot with no alley; and (b) 5 feet for a lot with an alley and (c) 10 feet to open patio cover.

Ø Side Yard Setback - lnterior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots, cul-de-sac lots, and knuckle lots shall be (a) 5 feet for one- and two-story homes.

OcroeeR zozl
4-t5

4.o DE\ELoPMEMSTAN|DARDSATID REcuLATloNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
(8) Side Yørd Setback - Corner LotlReaerse Corner Lot
Minimum side yard setback for shall be (a) 10 feet for corner lots; and (b) 10 feet for reverse corner lots. Garage loading on street side yards shall require a 2O-foot setback from propertY line to garage'
(9) Minhru'Lm Buitding Sepøration - Interior Side Ynrd
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet for adjacenit*o-rtoty homes. Side yard separation standards do not apply to accessory structures.
(0) Maximum Bttilding Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projection, such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.
(1) Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
Minimum dwelling unit size for the primary structure shall be 1,L00 square feet. No more than 2Sg" of dwelling units in either PA-2 or PA-3 shatl be at the minimum size of 1,100 square feet.
(12) Architecturøl Proj ections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies, and roof overhangs, may project over the required front yard setbacþ but not more than 10% thereof.
. IJncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feet, an openwork railing not more than 30 inches in height may be installed or constructed on any such porch, platform, or landing place' OcroerR zozt
4-l 6

4.o DE\ÆLoPMENISrAI{DARDSANID REGUIAToNS
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan 6ürÐ
Table 4-3
Development Standards Summary:
6,000 Square Foot Lots
Minimum Lot Areø 6,000 s.f
Minimum Lot Width:
(a) Interior
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cul-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots and flag lots along the arc of the front property line (e) Lots with
55 ft.
60 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
55 ft.
(a) Front loaded lot
(b) Cul-de-sac lots, flag lots, or lots fronting on a knuckle Minimum Lot Depth:
75 ft.
70 ft.

Minimum Front Ya.rd Setback:
(a) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots
(b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot (d) To open porch
18 ft.
20 Ít.
20 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
(b) Front entry
15 ft.
18 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback to Habitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
(.) For open patio cover (one-or two-story)
15 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setback:
(a) Side yard setback (interior lot, cul-de-sac lots, knuckle lots) (b) Corner lot
(c) Reverse corner lot
(d) Garage loaded side yard on corner reverse lots
5 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.

Minimum B uil din g S epør øt ion:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary structure and any adjacent primary structure 10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximum Building Heíght
(a) Witlt architectural proi ections
38 fi.
40 ft.

Dnv nLopr r E ¡,1 r Sl'n¡¡ o a nns
PLnl¡ru1rur: Anr¡
OcroeEn zozl
4-t 7

4.o DE\ÉoPMEMSTA\DARDSAT{D REGUTAToNS
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
15'min. to rear Yard no alley
5'min. rear yard wl alleY
10'min. to open Patio
covsr (1 or 2-story)
Rr:rr
5'mln. side yard
on lnlerior lot or
10'mln. elde yard
on comgr lot
Sl r rr"l
I ¡r¡nl I0'min. to potch
18'mln. lo hot st
15' mln. to side 8ntry garage
18'min. lo gange
NOTE: fitis prototl'pr s¡lc plan is conceprual in n¡lurc ¡ncl is onlì' onc of nunt - A*ign *lui¡ims th¿i are pcrnritlcd in this l¡nrl use dtniSnulion' .ft. lots
;-t
¡ül
lt?
gJ
not to scale
Devel ent Standards - 6,000 s
Figure 4-3
Gossarner Grove - SpecifÍc Plan
C. ]\¡Inuuuru 5,000 S.F. Lor (Pre¡nvn,lc Anna 2. Pm¡r¡rrntc Anna 3, Pr¡x¡qlNc Anra S) The following standards are applicable wherever minimum 5,000 square foot lots are planned in the LDR zone in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are suÍunarized in ^îable 4-4 and are shown in Figure 4-4.
(1) Maximum Density
The minimum residential lot size shall be 5,000 square feet, including easements.

Ø MinimumLotWidth
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 50 feet for interior lots; þ) 55 feet for corner lots; (c) 30 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front property line; (d) 30 feet for knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line; and (e) 55 feet for lots with side-entry garages for adequate entry/exit.
(3) Minimum Lot Depth
Lot depth shall be a minimum of 75 feet for front loaded lots and 70 feet for cul-de-sac lots, flag lots or lots fronting on a knuckle. For purposes of this requirement, each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth. (4) Front Yørd Setback
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be (a) 16 feet for lots adjacent to a straight street and flag lots; and þ) 20 feet for cul-de-sac or knuckle lots and (d) 10 feet to open porch. (5) Front Yard Setback - Garage
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 15 feet from the garage to the front property line; and (b) 18 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.
(6) Rear Yard Setbøck
Required rear yard setback shall be (a) 10 feet for a lot with no alley; and (b) 5 feet for a lot with an alley and (c) 10 feet to open patio cover.

Ø Side Yard Setback - Interior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots, cul-de-sac or knuckle lots shall be (a) 5 feet for one- or two-story homes.

Ocroern zozt
4-t9

4.o DEVELoPMEMSTAT\DARDSA¡¡D REcut-ATloNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecifÍc Plan
(8) Sicte Yard Setback - Corner LotlReaersed Conter Lot Minimum side yard setback for shall be (a) 10 feet for corner lots; and (b) 10 feet for reverse corner láts. Garuge loading on side yards on colner reverse lots shall require a 2O-foot setback from property line to garage'
(9) MinimtLm Building Sepøration - lnterior Side Yard
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet for adjacent two-story homes. side yard separation standards do not apply to accessory structures.

Q0) Møximum Building Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projection such as a chimney or tower may exceed the maximum building height, but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.

Q1) Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
Minimum dwelling unit size for the primary structure shall be 1,000 square feet' No more than 35"/" ofãwe[ing units in either PA-2 0r PA-3 shall be at the minimum of 1'000 square feet.
('12) Architectural Proiections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies' and roof overhangs,mayprojectovertherequiredfrontyardsetback,butnotmorethan 10% thereof.
uncovered porches, platforms, or land.ing places that do not extend above the level of tl-e first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feet' an openwork railing not more ihan g0 inches in height may be installed or constructed on any such porch, platform, or landing place' OcroarR zozl
4-20

4.o DE\ELoPMENTSTaIDARDSA\¡D REGUI.ATIoNS
Gossamer Grove - SpecÍfÍc Plan
'lable 4-4
Development Standards Summary:
5,000 Square Foot Lots
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 s.f.

Minimum Lot Wídth:
(a) Interior
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cul-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line (e) Lots with garages
50 ft.
55 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
55 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth:
(a) Front loaded lot
(b) Cul-de-sac
75 ft.
70 Ût.

Minimum Front Yard Setback:
(a) Front ProPerty line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots
(b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot (d) To open porch

1.6 rt
20 ft.
20 Ét.
10 ft.

Minimum Front Yaril Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
(b) Front entry
15 ft.
18 ft.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback to Habitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
(c) For open patio cover (one-or two-story)
10 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setbøck:
(a) Side yard setback - interior, cul-de-sac, and knuckle lots (b) Corner lot
(c) Reverse corner lot
(d) Garage loaded side yard on corner reverse lots
5 ft.
10 ft.
10 fr.
20 ft.

Minimum Buil din g S ep ørat ion:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary one-story structure and any adjacent primary structure 10 ft.
10 ft,
Maximum Building Heigltt
(a) With architecturøl projections
38 ft.
40 ft.

Pt¡rrur¡rNc AREA(s)
D¡vnl.<lprtErul SraNlrnlrl rs
3, and 5
Ocrosen zozt
4-2t

4.o DEVELoPMENTSTAIDARDSANID REcuLAroNs
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
10'mln. to open Patlo
covor
Rr'¡rr
10'mln. to houge {no alleY)
5' min. to ellcY
5'mln. aide Yard
on lntedor lol or
10'mln. side yard
on comer lot
I r,¡rl rB' min. to gerag.
16'min. to houee or
slde entry garagê
10'mln. to porch
NOÎE Tlri> pr:rtolvft('silc Fliìn i5 crtn('uptuíùl in nllurt'and-ir onlv o¡rt'rrf m¡trt' -- '-¡."if¡,l
-¡uttån th¡i an' g'rmlttdtl in this l¡ntl ust'dtxi$nation' .ft. lots
Fs't trrl t,,icr
¡¿ .1^ i
not to scale
Developm ent Standards - 5,OOO
Figure 4-4
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan
D. Mnvnvruu 4.000 S.F. Lor (Prer.rsnqc Anne 1,2, 3, 4. and 5) The following standards are applicable wherever minimum 4,000 square foot lots are planned in the LDR zone in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are summarized in Table 4-5 and are shown in Figure 4-5.
(1) Møximum Density
The minimum residential lot size shall be a minimum 4,000 square feet.

Ø MinimumLotWidth
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 50 feet for interior lots and flag lots; (b) 55 feet for comer lots; (c) 35 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front properfy line; (d) 35 feet for knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line; and (e) 55 feet for lots with a sideentry garage for adequate entry/exit. (3) Minimum Lot Deptlt
Lot depth shall be a minimum of 75 leet for front loaded lots and 70 feet for cul-de-sac lots, flag lots or lots fronting on a knuckle. For purposes of this requiremenf each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth. (4) Front Yqrd Setbøck
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be (a) 10 feet for lots adjacent to a straight street and flag lots; and @) 18 feet for cul-de-sac or knuckle lots and (c) 10 feet for alley loaded. Minimum front yard setback from property line to open porch shall be 8 feet.
(5) Front Yard Setbøck - Gørøge
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 10 feet from the garage to the front property line; and (b) 18 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.
(6,) Rear Yard Setback
Required rear yard shall be (a) 5 feet for a lot with no alley; &) 0 feet for a lot with an alley; (c) 5 feet to open patio cover for two story homes; and (d) 3 feet to open patio cover for one story homes.

Ocroe¡n zozl
4-23

4.o DEVELoPMENTSTAT{DARDSAND REcULAToNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecÍfic Plan
Ø Side Yørd Setbøck - lnterior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots shall be (a) 4 feet for one-story homes; and (b) 4 feet for any portion of a structure exceeding one story' (8) Side Ynrd Setback - Corner LotlReaerse Corner Lot
Minimum side yard setback for shall be (a) 10 feet for corner lots; and (b) 10 feet for reverse corner låtr. Gurug" loading on side yards on corner reverse lots shall require a 2O-foot setback from property line to garage'
(9) Minimum Building Separation - Interior Side Yard
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet. side yard separation standards do not apply to accessory structures' (10) Møximum Building Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projectiory such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.
$1) Minimum Du¡elling Unit Size
Minimum dwelling unit size for the primary structure shall be 1,000 square feet' (12) Ar chitectur al P r oj ections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies, and roof overhangs, may project over the required front yard setbacþ but not more than 10% thereof'
. IJncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of thå building may extend irrto any front yard not more than 6 feet, an openwork railing not more than 30 inches in height may be installed or constructed on any such porcþ platform, or landing place' Ocroeen 2ozt
4-24

4.o DEVELoPMENI STA| DARD5 Al.¡D REGULAToNS
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
Table 4-5
Development Standards Summary:
4,000 Square Foot Lots
Minimum Lot Area 4,000 s.f.

Minimum Lot Width:
(a) Interior and flag lots
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cul-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots along the arc of the front property line (e) Lots with side-entry garages
50 ft.
55 ft.
35 ft.
35 ft.
55 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth:
(a) Front loaded lot
(b) Cul-de-sac lots, flag lots, and lots fronting on a knuckle 75 ft.
70 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback:
(a) Front Property line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots
(b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot (d) Alley loaded
(.) To open porch
18 ft.
18 ft.
10 ft.
8 ft.
10 ft.

Minimum Front Yaril Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
(b) Front entry
10 ft.
18 fr.

Minimum Rear Yard Setback to Habitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
(c) To open patio cover (two-story)
(d) To open patio cover (one-story)
5 ft.
0 ft.
5 ft.
3 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setback:
(a) Side yard setback - interior lot
(b) Corner lot
(c) Reverse corner lot
(d) Garage loaded side yard on corner or reverse lot
4ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary one-story structure and any ad'jacent primary structure Minimum B uil din g S ep arøt ion:
10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximum Building Heigltt
With architecturøI projections
38 ft.
40 ft.

PL¡NrNrNc Anr¡,(s)
D gvur-opru¡e¡¡r St'¡ru otnos
1 and 5
Ocroern zou t
4-25

4.o DEVELoPMENTSTAT\DARDSAN|D REGULAnoNS
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
5'min. to house or
0'for alley loaded
5' min. to open Patio
cover (2-story) or
3'mln. to op€n Pat¡o
cover (1-story)
I{t'¡t ¡
4'min. side yard
on intsrior lot or
10'mln" side yard
on comer lot
\! f t'.-l
l r¡lnl 18"min, to garâgo
8'min. to porch
15'min. to houso
10'mln. to slde
entry garage
í\iOTE' l'hi¡ nr$lotçfl('rik' plnn is cotxtptu;rl in n.lturt ¡nd i!¡ rtnlt' trlìt'(rf ln¡llll' dcsigÅ toluíiitru lhai arc pt'rmitttd ln thr-c l'rnd ux'drtiSnntirtn' .ft. Lots
ç ;'i tl .!
e--1
{¡:rr ?Úl
Ê?
i!t
not to scale
Development Standards - 4,OOO s
Figure 4-5
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan

4.2.3 Meoruu Derusry REsTDENTAL (MDR)
The following development standards shall be allowed in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone: Garden Court, Duplex and 4,000 square foot lots. Development standards for 4,000 square foot lots can be found in Section 4.2.2. The MDR zone is located in Planning Area 4.

Permitted and conditionally perrnitted uses in MDR shall be those allowed under in the R-2 (Medium Density) Residential District of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Shafter.

A. Genow Counr (PLl¡.NNc AREA 4)
The following standards are applicable wherever Garden Court development is planned within PA-4 in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are sumrnarized in Table 4-6 and shown in Figure 4-6.
(1) Møximum Density
Minimum lot size shall be 2,800 square feet, including easements Ø MinimumLotWidth
Minimum lot width shall be 35 feet.
(3) Minimum Lot Depth
Minimum lot depth shall be 7O feet.
(4) Front Yørd Setbøck
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be 10 feet. Porches located within the front yard shall have a minimum setback of 8 feet. The minimum distance house to house in the front shall be 40 feet. (5) Rear Yørd Setback
Alley entry garages shall maintain a rninimum rear yard setback of 5 feet measured from the garage to the property line. Rear yard setback to residential living area shall be 10 feet.

Rear yard setback for an open patio cover (one- or two-story) shall be 5 feet. (6) Side Ynrd Setbnck
Minimum side yard setback shall be 4 feet. Minimum distance between structures shall be 10 feet, excluding projections described in number (10).

The side yard setback on a comer lot shall not be less than 8 feet and shall extend the full length of the lot, excluding the corner lot cutout.

Ocroegn zozt
4-2/

4.o DE\ÉoPMEMSrA\DARDSANTD REcur,AroNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
(/) Minimum Building SeParation
The minimum building separation between adjacent two-story structures shall be 10 feet' The minimum building separation between one-story and any adjacent primary structures shall be 10 feet.
(8) Minimum Dwelling Unít Size
Minimum dwelling unit size shall be 850 square feet'
(9) Møximum Building Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projectiory such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.

Q0) Ar chitectural Proi ections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies, and roof overhangs, may project over the required front yard setback, but not more than 10% thereof.
. IJncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feet, an openwork railing not more than 30 inches in height may be installed or constructed on any such porch, platform, or landing place' (11) Guest Pørking
Guest parking shall be provided at a ratio of one-half (0.50) space per unit in offstreet/non-alley parking areas Ocroeen zozl
4-28

4.o DE\ELoPMENTSTA\DARDSAI{D REGULATIoNS
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan
Table 4-6
Development Standards Summary:

Garden Court
l Note: A subsequent reduction of the public utility easement (PUE) to 8-feet will also be required.

Minimum Lot Area 2,800 s.f
Minimum Lot Width: 35 ft.

Minimum Lot Depth: 70 ft.

Minimum Front Yaril Setback:
(a) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure (b) Front property line to porch
10 ft
I ft.

Minimum Distance Between Habítable Structures - Front Yard 40 ft.

Minimum Reør Yaril Setback:
(a) To habitable structure
(b) To open patio cover (one-story)
(c) To open patio cover (two-story)
(d) Allev garage
10 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft.
5 ft.

Minimum Side Yørd Setback:
(a) Side yard setback - interior lot
(b) Corner lotl
4 ft.
8 ft.

Minimum Building Separation - interior side yaril:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary one-story structure and any adiacent primary structure 10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximum Building Height
(a) With architectural projeclions
38 ft.
40 ft.

Dr.v¡lopv¡rlr Sleruunltos
Pr,rruurNc AREA(s)
Ocroern zozl
4-29

4.o DEVÉoPMENISTANDARDSAÌD REGU|ATIoNS
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
4'mn ¡rdo yarú m Inlðrlor bl
E' ñn ll(tr trrl o{ì cotlls bl
t0' lo
oo¡!l
S rrûr p¡úo
ær¡Ot
t ûún. þ
garrr¡a
cfÛy
a8'r{n.
ll{¡¡ro þ
hûJot
2gñdn Gd¡
Cürt
tffñin !o
t0'
A nth
ãf .rrt
NOTE: This rrroloh'fie sile nlan is rïìtl(tph¡al in n.lturt'and Ls onlv one of mnrnv rltsigr sr.rlutiòns th^ri.rrt permilted in lhis land ust'dtriig,nltion ent Standards - Garden Court
l3:l :
ll:"f Ir"'J
tixi
3l¡r r ¡
d rl I ¡.¿r ¡.j
¡'r. ". t
lr r rr¿ J
t:lr
ll. ,.
1 L. ¡ r'¡ J
Lilt
tir:
f:'lr t f
ìL:', .I
lÈtrrâ1 $r't.¡J
l:: ll
I
not to scale
Devel
Figure 4-6
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan
B. Dupro< Snqcm FalwrvArrecrreo (Pm¡wnrsc Anrn4)
The following standards are applicable wherever Duplex Single Family Attached development is planned in Planning Area 4 within the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. These standards are summarized in Table 4-7 and are shown in Figure 4-7.
(1) Maximum Density
The minimum residential lot size shall be a rninimum 2,000 square feet.

Ø MinimttmLotWidth
Minimum lot width shall be (a) 30 feet for interior lots; (b) 55 feet for corner tots; (c) 35 feet for cul-de-sac lots along the arc of the front property line; (d) 35 feet for knuckle lots and flag lots along the arc of the front property line; and (e) 55 feet for lots with side-entry garages for adequate entry/exit.
(3) MinimumLot Depth
Lot depth shall be a minimum of 70 feet for front loaded lots and 65 feet for cul-de-sac lots, or lots fronting on a knuckle or flag. For purposes of this requirement, each side of the lot may be averaged if one side is longer than the other to determine the lot depth. (4) Front Yard Setbøck
Minimum front yard setback from the front property line to the habitable portion of the structure shall be 10 feet for straight street and flag lots, cul-de-sac and knuckle lots and 6 feet from front property line to open porch.
(5) Front Yard Setback - Gørage
Side-entry garages shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of (a) 10 feet from the garage to the front property line; and (b) 18 feet from the garage door to the front property line for front entry garages.
(6) Renr Yard Setbøck
Required rear yard shall be (a) 5 feet for a lot with no alley; and þ) 0 feet for a lot with an alley.

Ø Side Ynrd Setback - Interior Lot
Minimum side yard setback for interior lots shall be 0 feet for adjoining interior lots or 4 feet for interior lots not adjoining (for minimum building separation).

OcroeER zozl
4-3/

4.O DNELOPMEMSTAIDARDSAÌ\D REGULA-TìON5
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
(S) Side Yørd Setback - Corner LotlReaerse Corner Lot
Minimum side yard setback for shall be (a) 10 feet for corner lots; and (b) 10 feet for reverse corner lots.
(9) Minimum Building Separøtion - Interior Side Yard
The minimum side yard separation between primary structures on adjacent lots shall be 10 feet. side yard separation standards do not aPply to accessory structures' Q0) Mnximum Building Height
No building shall exceed a height of 38 feet. An architectural projectiory such as a chimney or tower, may exceed the maximum building height but shall not exceed a height of 40 feet.

QL) Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
Minimum dwelling unit size shall be 850 square feet'
(D) Architectural Proi ections
No portion of any building may protrude into the front setback unless the following conditions are met:
. Architectural projections, such as porch roofs, awnings, canopies, and roof overhangs, may project over the required front yard setback, but not more than 10% thereof.
. IJncovered porches, platforms, or landing places that do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building may extend into any front yard not more than 6 feet' anopenworkrailingnotmorethan30inchesinheightmaybeinstalledor constructed on any such porch, platform, or landing place' OcroaeR zozl
4-32

4.O DEVÉOPMENI STANDARDSA}D REGUl.Afl ONS
Gossamer Grove - SpecífÍc Plan nqp
'lable 4-7
Development Standards Summary
Duplex - Single Family Attached
l Note: A subsequent reduction of the public utility easement (PUE) to 8-feet will also be required Minimum Lot Area 2,000 s.f
Minimum Lot Width:
(a) Interior
(b) Corner lots
(c) Cu1-de-sac lots
(d) Knuckle lots and flag along the arc of the front property line Sarages (e) Lots with
30 ft.
55 ft.
35 fr.
35 ft.
55 ft.

Minimum Lot Deptlt:
(a) Front loaded lot
(b) Cul-de-sac lots, flag lots, or lots fronting on a knuckle 70 ft.
65 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback:
(a) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: straight street and flag lots (b) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: cul-de-sac (c) Front property line to habitable portion of the structure: knuckle lot (d) To open porch
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
6 ft.

Minimum Front Yard Setback: Garage
(a) Side entry
(b) Front entry
10 ft.
18 ft.

Mínimum Rear Yard Setbnck to Habitable Structure:
(a) No alley
(b) With alley
5 ft.
0 ft.

Minimum Side Yard Setback:
(a) Side yard setback - interior lot adjoining
(b) Side yard setback - interior lot not adjoining
(c) Reverse corner lot
(d) Corner lotl
0 ft.
4 ft.
10 ft.

I ft_
Minimum Building Separøtion - interior side yørd:
(a) Between adjacent primary two-story structures
(b) Between primary structure and any adjacent primary structure 10 ft.
10 ft.

Maximum Building Height
(a) Witlt architectural proi ections
38 ft.
40 Ít.

Devnt.opvrrur Suw l;,rnrrs
PraruNlNc; AREA(s)
OctoeeR zozl
4-33

4.o DE\ÆLoPMEMSTAN|DARDSAI¡D REcuLATloNs
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
10' mln. to housc sr
0'min. to 6$oy.lo¡ded gaÊge
ll¡ ¡r
4'mh. ¡ldo ysd
on lntorþr lclt or
10'mln. eHe yard
on 6mot bl
\t¡r r !
I t r¡ul t8'rnln, lo g6¡tg8
6'mln. lo port'l
1O mln. lo hq¡s€ t
s¡de ontry gÐra0p
ex
I Jet
¡!:J g.l
rrt, I
¡.-i¡:¡
I
F 1
not to scale
Devel ent Standards - Du I
Figure 4-7
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan

4.2.4 Connnnururw Cone (Pl.nruru¡ruc Anen 4)
The commurrity core may consist of three different land uses: commercial, public services, and mixeduse residential. If included, the mixed-use residential component would occur on a limited basis. These uses support the Gossamer Grove community as well as surrounding areas. Development standards for educational facilities are governed by the California Department of Education and the State Architect.

The development standards and regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the City of Shafter Municipat Code, shall be applicable to all other uses in Planning Area 5 as indicated below.

A R.¡u-¡cfurrcs
Development standards for the Public Services (PS) zone shall be those contained in Section 3.203 of Chapter 3, Community Facilities (CF) District, of the Municipal Code. General requirements state that development standards shall be equivalent to the requirements of the adjacent zone district which is Commercial. Permitted uses shall be all those allowed in the Community Facilities (CF) District, described in Table 3.4 found in the Shafter Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance,TitleTT, Chapter 3. A limited amount of residential development is also permitted to provide "eyes on the street" and give Life to the adjacent land uses.

B. Cour,mtoer
Development standards for the Commercial (C) zone shall be those contained in Section 5.40 of Chapter 5, Commercial Development Districts of the Municþal Code. Permitted uses shall be all those allowed in Neighborhood Commercial (NC) as described in Table S.Au Chapter 5 which can be found in Title 1Z Zontng Ordinance, of the Shafter Municipal Code.

4.2.5 NErcHBoRHooD Csrur¡R (eunrururr.rc Anens 5 AND 6) The neighborhood centers consist of a public recreation zone and a school zone intended to serve the surrounding residential development. Development standards for educational facilities are governed by the California Department of Education and the State Ardritect. The development standards and regulations for the Public Recreation zone in Planning Areas 5 and 6 shall be the s¿une as those described above in Section 4.2.4,A., Public Services, except that there is no residential component. Permitted uses shall be only those allowed in the Community Facilities (CF) District, and listed in Table 3.4 as item 424 and A2Z which can be found in the Shafter Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance, Title 77 , Chapter 3.

Rather than collect fees by the developer for the fair share cost of developing park sites to serve the residents of the area being developed, the City of Shafter will require the developer to construct the public parks and then dedicate the park land and improvements to the City.

OcroepR zozl
4-35

4.o DEVELoPMENTSTAT\ DARDSA¡¡D REcuLAnoNs
Gossamer Grove - SPecÍfic Plan
+.2. 6 DmurruC lS¡no (¡1q¡¡¡¡*O AREA I, PI-ANNING AREA 2r n¡r'¡r.¡nc nnen 4) Three Drilling Island (DI) Districts have been established in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4' The development sìandards, guidelines and permitted uses contained in Chapter 3, Section 3'40 of the City of shafteilrrtunicipal Code,Inuu u" applicable to these sites (Refer to Figure 3-1, Land Use Plan). The edges of all drill islands shall have an e foot high block wall, consistent with the corridor wall along Gossamer Grove Boulevard and Community Drive (refer to Figures 3-10 and 5-10), to visually screen and reduce noise from entering the surrounding neighborhoods. Drought tolerant plant material, including trees, shall be used to soften the look of the wall from the surrounding neighborhood'

4.2.7 DEr¡rulo¡¡BASINS
Detention basins shall be designed in accordance with Section 1'.7.1' ofTitle 17 of City of Shafter Municipal Code and the following conditions:
. One major detention basin for each 160 gross acres of land or as determined by a registered civil engineer.
. Detention basins may be designed to allow for shared use by multiple homebuilders or planning areas'
. Detention basins shall be designed, tested and sized as part of the individual tentative tract map submittal.
. Where possible detention basins should be integrated into a parks and recreation plan as landscaped open space areas for passive recreation and/or playfields' . A maintenance district shall be established to maintain detention facilities.

4.2.g Exlslr..tcRr.loAeANDoÌ.¡eoOtLWEusAÌIDSToRAGETANKS-At"LPLANNINGAREAS All existing and abandoned oil wells shall be identified on tract maps or development plans and evidence shall be provided that existing wells have been properþ abandoned per the requirements of the Califomia Division of oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (cDoGGR) and that siting of structures near abandoned wells shall meet the setback requirements of CDOGGR. All storage tanks and contents shall be disposed of ProPerlY'
Ocrosrn zozt
4-36

4.o DNELoPMENISTANDARDSAI{D REGULAnoNS
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan

5.O DESTGN GUTDELTNES

5.1 Punpose Rruo Irureur
The Gossamer Grove Design Guidelines provide general criteria for architecture, landscaping entry monumentation, and lighting design in order to ensure a high-quality development and strong community character. The overall goal of the Gossamer Grove Design Guidelines is to create a unique master planned community witl'Ìin the City of Shafter. This Specific Plan document recognizes that the development of Gossamer Grove will play a vital role in the growth of the Shafter area.

These guidelines are intended to provide criteria for design, while allowing flexibility for architectg landscape architects, developers, builders, and others involved in the design of community elements.

Variation and customization within the context of the guidelines by a builder is encouraged in order to achieve individually distinctive neighborhoods complemented by recreational amenities and a neighborhood commercial component in the same community. Through collaboration and cooperation between the master developer, the builder(s), and the City of Shafter, the Gossamer Grove master planned community is destined to be a successftil and desirable addition to the Shafter area.

The specific objectives of the design guidelines are to:

Provide guidance to builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals in order to obtain high quality design.

Provide a framework for the formation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the use of land in the Specific Plan area.

Provide the City of Shafter with the necessary assurances that the community of Gossamer Grove will be developed in accordance with a certain quatity and character as set forth in this document.

The Design Guidelines are intended to be flexible and work in concert with the Deoelopment Standørds contained in Section 4.0 of this document. These guidelines establish standards that will ensure the quality of development the community landscape, and its character. These guidelines and the standards they contain shall be followed in the design and build-out of the community; they should not be viewed as voluntary. Through review of the plans by the Master Developer by means of a conformance form and official development review by the City of Shafter, these guidelines shall be enforced and implemented.

Projects will be encouraged to provide a variety of placement and form along long, straight streets.

Ocroern zozt
5-l

5.O DESrcNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecifÍc Plan

5.2 ARcnrecruRAL Deslctl Guloeunes

5.2.r Grruennl ARcHlTEfiJnRt Guloeurues (Anelles Pnrurulnc AREA5 1r 2, 3, 4 nruo 5) The goal of the architectural design guidelines is to allow for a diversification of ardritectural styles while ensuring visual compatibìHÇ. fn""" guidelines do not promote rigid adherence to style descriptions but assist in achieving a particular design direction and high quality construction' A. STrT
Achieving variety and diversity in neighborhood architecture is a key community objective' For inspiration, Gossamer Grove is encouraging compatible architectural styles that have historical precedence in southern California and the san Joaquin valley and are capable of contemporary interpretation and variation. Modern interpretations of historical architectural styles shall address today's market conditions, economics, and building industry standards' Appropriate architectural styles include the following:
. Colonial
. Spanish Colonial
. Cottage
. Monterey
. Craftsman
. Italianate
It should also be noted that additional architectural styles not listed above may be incorporated into the Gossamer Grove Project.

B CoLot{sAMMArEtAt
The colors and building materials used at Gossamer Grove shall be complementary' and when considered together, shall reflect a distinct community character- The use of elements sudn as white washed plaster, painted siding, and wrought iron will provide variety and contrast' New interpretations of these classic combinations of materials and inherent colors are encouraged as they relate to a general feeling of neighborhood unity' Color palettes that reflect traditional architectural themes are the basis for successful modern interpretations as proposed for Gossamer Grove. A variety of natural materials and earth tone based colors will provide the diversity required for visual interest while unifying the buildings with their settings and creating a timeless appeal. The primary PurPose of the architectural OcroerR zozt
5-2

5.O DESKNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SpecÍfíc Plan
style palette selection is to avoid monotony, provide a variety of color schemes, and promote visual diversity.

C. Ancnnrcrt¡nr Onrsurro ro nrn SrREnr
Architecture shall be oriented to the street so that interactive elements create a human scale and are inviting to the street scene. Interactive elements include; porches, verandas, porte-cocheres, balconies, decks, porticos, trellises, arbors, and courtyards.

The quality design and orientation of interactive elements provide "eyes on the street" and contribute to pedestrian safety, a sense of place, activity, and neighborhood socialization.

D. Ancrr¡cnin¡rDlvmsrry-DE-rAcÐSÌ.Ictß-FAÀ,[v
Detached residential planning area within Gossamer Grove shall utilize a minimum of three to six different architectural styles similar to those suggested below:

Italianate Craftsman
Spanish Colonial Colonial Cottage
:..,Å!¡
';fl
J
h¡¡
ü
Ocros¡n zo21
5-3

5.o DESKNGUDELJNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
The intent is to provide variety and to avoid monotony in the streetscape' A maximum of 40t" and a minimum of 20o/"of any o.r" styl" should be considered within each Planning Area of Gossamer Grove.

E But¡nrcMArmIAIs & CoI-oRs
To further the goal of diversity, the following criteria should be considered:
l. Each elevation shall have a minimum of two colors. For example: one body and one trim'

2. Front elevation design and materials are to wrap around the side elevation to an appropriate transition point. If the rear elevation is visible from a public street, rear elevationdesignandmaterialsshallalsowraparoundthesideelevation.

3. Different roofing colors are encouraged for each product line'

4. hrdividual color schemes must be appropriate to the architectural styles selected with a harmoniousselectionofaccentmaterialsandroofprofileandcolors.

5. No two adjacent homes using the same floor plan shall have the same exterior color sdaeme' A scheme of color values on exterior elements shall be distinct on adjacent homes' with deeper tones encouraged to promote variation'

6. If balconies are provided, materials shall match or complement those used on the main portion of the building'
OcrosrR zoz'l
5-4

5.o DESKNGUIDEUNLS
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan
F. Bu-onlcM¡ss,Fonu,ewo Scqrn
Creating a street scene that functions well and has visual variety is a key community objective. The following massing and scale criteria are intended to develop variation in appearance and a sense of individuality for each home. Projects where nearly identical buildings are placed on streets without variation in placement and form are discouraged. Listed below are massing and plotting techniques and standards which can create a quality environment. The following should be considered when designing the neighborhoods of Gossamer Grove.
l. Single-story components such as porches,
reduced heights of living spaces, and/or
garage areas shall be used to create a sense
of variety within the street scene and to
break up building massing.

2. Ten percent (10%) of all
elevations plotted shall have
single-story component, which
garages and covered porches.
plans and
a significant
can include
tx)\"t tr{t lilN I ,r ¡n lalrlle: rr.lt !t r1* rlraff t l¡r{jç.'l íllt'fnrf,
lrl] I lll]'
9n:.r¡ l, :l¡lnJ ?r¡ilt 1 :ta t:.r!ltq. .ilrTai+l,r'.Írl +rr,¡,. *:'r1 ãqrxrrÉ¡l! Ocroern zozl
5-5

5.O D6KNGUDBINES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

4. Homes shall be designed with entries, windows, front porches, and living areas placed directly adjacent to the street on most plan variations, while recessing the garages/ are encouraged.

5. The proportion of windows and doors to the wall massing shall vary according to the architectural style chosen. windows and doors shall enhance, rather than dominate' the overall architectural character of the home. The selected style of window shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the house'

6. Garage doors shall be fully integrated into the design of the architecture and shall complement the building elevation. Accent colors shall be considered to complement the architecture and to provide visual variety along streetscapes' Windows in garage doors are encouraged for all homes. Staggered setbacks, recessed garageq and side-entry galages shall be considered to further vary the streetscape'
G. Rn¡n Bullntxc Eltvartoxs
The dominant impact from the street is the shape of the building and roofline of two-story plans' Therefore, these second-story rear building elevations shall consider the following guidelines' 1,. Long stretches of unbroken exterior walls are not allowed in favor of articulated elevations with projections, recesses, windows, doors, and specialized architectural detailing, which are required.
rrr!\'f ¡H¡ ¡t{l-!
r r ,!'r¿r 'rlt r ¡tl, {t¡ a À¡Ú¡ l r 't '
:âFi
${r I ÍL\
ttr r!¡t tr' .t¡ .J¡, â:|,:' {.t:, i :: 'tl: ¡! ì¡

2. The second-story portion of the rear elevation of all structures which face arterial roads shall incorporate varied wall planes, roof forms and orientation, or window treatments' Articulate the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize the visual impact of repetitious flat plans, similar building silhouettes, and similar ridge heights on homes viewed from arterial roads.

Ocros¡R zozt
5-6

5.O DESKNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan

4. For each floor plan submitted to the Building Department for review, three elevations are required per floor plan. At least two out of every three elevations per floor plan shall provide general architectural relief at the rear elevation of each home in order to avoid one continuous wall or flat surface on the rear of the home. Fireplaces, rear yard trellises, and media niches are allowed.

H. Prorrruc Coxcsprs
The following criteria shall be considered when placing a structure on a single-family lot:

L Reduce the scale and size of each neighborhood by creating "sub-neighborhoods" or "villages" through the use of short or curved street segments, and short cul-de-sac streets.

2. Plot altemative floor plan types and/or elevation styles on contiguous lots. A floor plan shall not be used consecutively more than three times in a row whether reversed or not. t
¡
i
¿
1 I
ft(lñ'T fxl Tußr
Aioor glgl *tdl rEt þ úsd
tû¡r¡oc!¡livdy Ðört ilft ltvlr ltnË lô e ?rtr.
*fiÊ{hd fltta}üd r¡r }rgl
D{lrut$
fìol rltãnråùú í06 &n typra !r¡{t¡r rbr.lrt rlldü aå ûrà$¡ñilú¡lr OcrosER zozt
5-7

5.O DESrcNGUDH.JNES
-t.

4. Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
Any one floor plan shall comprise no more than 65 % of the number of lots on any cul-de-sac or along any street between intersecting streets'
Adjacent homes shall have varying front yard setbacks. This requirement does not apply to lots located on a curvilinear street, cul-de-sac, or knuckle, which already provide a varied street scene. When one and two-story homes are adjacent, the two-story home shall have the larger front Yard setback.

I. Roors
Roofs serve as major structural and architectural design elements. A variety of roof types are permitted and encouraged within the project. Roofs shall be consistent with the neighborhood or product-type architectural concept and the style, materials, and scale of the building'

1. As it relates to styles, a variety of roofs shall be permitted, including hip, gable' and shed roofs. Roof heighig pitch and planes shall vary to create interplay between the roof and the walls of the stfucture. Varying roof pitches on the same building shall be avoided unless they are integral to the architectural style or extending over porches and balconies' D('r'f m' Tlll!;
.*mxt r¿'yrq frtdÊå Èl r¡r¡ab¡¡ffitg
trt¡¿ I i! Ú.ltryr¡l tã t! rrdaltc¿rrf
Elv|t o, d¡ltltirn ¿l p¡¡¡ttuÈ¡h¡¡nD(, rulü
klôintaú Ûg cûtto tt¡l gft?tcr ün !4lb
hddhg
z
J.
4 Roofs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials' Acceptable materials include composition roofing, clay and concrete tile. Unacceptable materials include pressed wood' corrugated fiberglass, asphalt roll roofing, and corrugated metal' Roofing trim materials shall be of sirnilar materials and complementary colors' Roof vents and appurtenances shall be painted to match the roof color' Roof overhangs are permitted and shall be designed as an integral part of the roof form' Ocroern 2ozt
5-8

5.O DESKNGUDETINES
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
I. GARAGES
The home and front yard rather than the garage is the primary emphasis of the front elevation. In order to de-emphasize the role of the garage in front elevations, setbacks, side-entries, detached garages, and other "neo-traditional" treatments are permitted. The following criteria should also be considered when designing garages.

H¡¡r¡-,ç''¡,1
lidt.lrlrl
!
tì ¡ :l
::r:r, I ! l¡t,
l:Jl,¡?:!
tr't!.t 1 .,.trrû;
:r.¡: ;¡rlll
I
t..tL\t.,1. 1,1-.1(' []t].li'l
!,.rr't l¡¡¡.¡x¡r: :Lll¡ríf,rn nr¡¡l ;ìÈ f,lltlin;¡ttv* i:jÌ'itttre t.x¡;:l¡::r¡!.;.:¡ i.i 'rlltltlrll¿'c tllL' 1';t:i:. !r'ìt'¡ÌiJ

1. Garages shall be constructed of materials compatible with the architectural style of the primary structure.

2. No two adjacent homes having the same floor plan and elevation shall use the same garage door pattem. In no case shall more than two adjacent homes of any floor plan or elevation have the same garage door pattern.

3. A variety of designs shall be used on garage doors. Minimize the visual impact of garages facing the street by varying garage door pattems, varying colots, varying setbacks, splitting doors into two or more single doorg incorporating windows into garage doors, and using alternative garage configurations.

4. Swing-in (side loaded) garages are prohibited on lots less than 55 feet wide at the front setback line.

5. Side elevations of garages facing the street shall have architectural detailing.

6. All garage doors shall be sectional and roll-up. They are encouraged to have windows.

OcrosrR 2o21
5-9

5.O DESKNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - specífic Ptan {Cffi

7. The three-car garage configuration requires careful consideration to de-emphasize its impact on the street. The use of tandem garage design is permitted so that three garage spaces appear as two from the street.

8. The following design techniques should be incorporated in homes with three car garages:
. \¡y'hen the standard front facing three-car configuration is used:
a. Provide a minimum 40 square feet of porch area (horizontal or vertical) or b. Offset the dual car garage door 2 feet from the single car garage door. g. I¡r the case of the recessed two-car garage configuratiorl a l2-foot-wide driveway shall be allowed that tapers to 16 feet to de-emphasize its impact on front elevations.

K. PoRcnrs ¡t¡o ENrnvw¿,vs
Entrances to homes shall be clear and
easily recognizable. Covered entrances,
porches, and arcades are desirable,
because they serve to identify entrances
and provide front-yard and side-yard
elevational differences. All front doors
shall reflect the architectural style that
may include a window or other
decorative treatment. Porches and
entryways shall be used to visually
break up large, monolithic buildings into
smaller units, more in keeping with the
desired human scale. Where present,
porches shall be used on buildings of two or more stories as a transition from nearby single-story structures or other taller structures. Porches shall be constructed of wood, stucco, stone, brick and other similar materials. Wrought iron railings are permitted and acceptable.

L Doons¡uoWnvoows
By varying the spacing, sizes, shapes, and locations of door and window openings in building facades, structures can be made more visually interesting and attractive. It is especially important to vary the placement of doors and windows on buildings located in close proúmity to eadr other in the same neighborhood. hr additioru windows and doors shall be recessed into or projected out of structures to emphasize important areas of the building. Windows, frames, mullions, and door frames shall utilize complementary colors with the rest of the building. Doors shall indude inset Ocroe¡R 2o21
Ft0

5.O DESKNGUTDzuNES
Gossamer Grove - specífíc Plan fiÑetì
panels, carvings, and/or window panes.

M B¡rcc¡urs eNo Ovm*raucs
Balconies and overhangs are desirable elements of a building because they provide architectural interest even when not serving a practical purpose. Balconies and overhangs add visually to a structure by breaking-up wall masses, offsetting floors, and creating a sense of human scale. Balcony railings shall reflect the architectural style. Balcony railings can be solid, if desired. Accent tile is perrnitted in moderate amounts. In all caseg balconies and overhangs shall be designed such that detailing, form, color, and materials are similar and/or compatible to the main structure.

5.2.2 ARCHrrEcruRAL Dgsrclrt SrRruoRRos AND REQUIREMENTS - NercHeonHooD Comnn¡RcrRL (AppLtEs ro PLANNINc Anen 4)
The architectural design standards and requirements of
Planning Area 4 shall be consistent with the applicable sections of the City of Shafter Zoning and
Development Code at the time of development.

A.BrmorxcSmuc
l. The placement and design of structures
should facilitate and encourage pedestrian
activity and convey a physical
and visual link to the adjacent
residential developments, streets, and
sidewalks.

2. Whenever possible, new structures
should be clustered to create plazas
and pedestrian malls. When clustering
is impractical, a visual link between
separate structures should be
established through the use of an
arcade, trellig or other open structure.

3. Plazas and courtyards shall be incorporated
into commercial development
design.

4. Buildings should be divided in distinct
Ocroern zozl
5-t I

5.o DESGNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
massing elements. Building facades should be articulated with architectural elements and details. Vertical and horizontal offsets should be provided to minimize bulk'

5. Decorative paving should be incorporated into parking lot design, driveway entries, pedestrian walkways, and crosswalks.

Refer to the Community Core Strttcttre Diagram and concept plan sketches in Figures 5-2A' B' and c for additional guidance.

5.J LRttoscRpE DESIGN Guloeulrues
The Gossamer Grove Landscape Design Guidelines establish a landscape theme for the project and set forth general criteria for landscapìng of ihe residential community, neighborhood commercial center' and recreational amenities. These guidelines, consisting of written summaly and graphic exhibits' establish landscape criteria for entries, streetscapes, medians, recreational amenities, parks, plant palette, lighting, and walls to create a unifying fabric for the community' The Gossamer Grove Landscape PIan,Fig:u:e 3-Z is driven by the desire to integrate the proposed master planned community into the Shafter area and to create an identifiable sense of place, while maintaining a focus on water conservation. Landscape and streetscape elements will be used to create visual continuity throughout Gossamer Grove. Community elements such as entriet streetscapes, and walls will establish the ãesign theme for the community by reinforcing the design hierarchy and by providing a reassurance of the community areas and boundaries. These features ate created through a thematic blend of hardscape and planting elements. The use of turf will be used sparingly and only in areas where active recreational pursuits will take place. Turl due to its high water use' should not be used in parkways or narrow strips along streets or paths' Altemative drought tolerant ground covers and shrubs coupled with inorganic materials should be used in this hot, dry climate' The landscape plan of Gossamer Grove requires a compatible plant palette of drought tolerant trees' shrubs, and ground covers which will be developed by the master builder' Once a particular plant or plant combination is used for a particular applicatiory it shall be repeated in similar areas of the community to reinforce a sense of neighborhood cohesion. Landscape design shall not, however, result in monotony or lack of variety or biological diversity. The following is a description of landscape elements for the Specific Plan. These elements shall be detailed at the site development plan or other discretionary permit for each planning area. The landscape design is based on the vision and goals of the Gossamer Grove SPecific Plan.

Ocroeen zozt
5-t2

5.O DE$GNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SpecÍfíc Plan

5.3.1 STREETS: STREETSCAPES
Landscaping of the perimeter and internal streets shown on the Løndscøpe Plan, Figure 3-7 will provide continuity throughout the community and create an appropriate link with adjacent areas. Street trees within the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan area should reflect a communitSr design theme and be selected from the project's plant palette. Street tree placement and design may include a single street tree species used along all the streets in a particular neighborhood to identify that neighborhood, or may include a dominant street tree along with accent street trees used at strategic points along the street, such as clustered at intersections or at curves to break up long uninterrupted lines. Landscaping of streets shown on Figure 3-7 wtll establish the main planting theme for the community.

A. GoSSAMERGRoVEBOULEVARD
The Landscape Plan indicates formal planting shall be placed along this roadway. To maintain the visual continuity of the formal planting element, a single accent tree or specific pattern of trees and shrubs shall be planted in the medians as illustrated in Figure 5-14. The sidewalk will be 8 feet wide where the secondary paseo is indicated on Figure 3-8. Long, continuous walls should be avoided along Gossamer Grove Boulevard in favor of corridor walls which are intermittent in order to provide pedestrian connectivity as illustrated in the lower figure to the right on this page. The style of side yard (corridor) wall should be coordinated within each individual block.

B. MODIFIED LocAL STREET
A modified loop local street (see Figure 3-6 for cross section) which consists of two lanes of traffic surrounds PA-6 where a park and a school are planned. Parking shall be placed on both sides of this street and traffic calming techniques, such as narrowing the street at intersections, shall be applied along this street where appropriate. Formal landscaping and a secondary paseo shall be located on the interior side of the street adjacent to the school and park. An additional easement of 9 feet will be necessary to accommodate the paseo. Complimentary landscaping and a S-foot-wide walk will be placed on the outside of the loop. An additional easement will be necessary to accommodate a sidewalk.

Ocroern 2ozt
5-t3

5.O DESCNGUDzuNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
C CONÑflNTTYDRTVE
The Community Drive intersection with Seventh Standard
Road is a secondary entrance into the Gossamer Grove
community and borders an existing residential area' This road is designated as a four-lane divided arterial at its southern end near Seventh Standard Road' An I foot
concrete trail within a26 Íoot wide landscaped area shall be established on the east side of Community Drive adjacent the existing residential area with a wall and groves planting as shown in Figure 5-18' A secondary paseo shall be placed along the western side of Community Drive, which shall
extend northward as indicated on Figure 3-8 Parks antl
Recreation Pløn. Additional landscape easements will be required. Drought tolerant plant material shall be used' D. LocñSrREErsWrrHWnrDRows
Windrow planting is an important visual element of the
Gossamer Grove Specific Plan because it provides orientation within the community by providing tall tree specimens that can be seen from a distance. Most of the windrow planting occurs along local streets which have a right-of-way of 52 feet (6 feet for walk/landscaping). Primary and secondary paseos have also been designated for several local streets where limited right-of way exists for planting' To
accommodate these two elements on any of the streets where designated, additional easement will be required as illustrated in Figure 5-1C. The width of the paseos shall be maintained as discussed and illustrated in Section 5'3'4' Anywhere a
windrow has been designated with or without a secondary paseo, the minimum planting area containing the windrow trees that is adjacent the street shall be 7 feet'
txrl''l lxt tlll\
Âd it . rutlht.û r-r 'lO-Nl:¡ 8li^.¡1 l&st:'1år1
¡Lq!g¡!a¡
ü¡'l¡l¡l
F¡.r.È$ ¡¡el :ïrr[rF-:ljirt ln }t¡ lm¡r a-l
TX¡ I HI!\
¡+:v.1O lËl ¡:1 ,'.rt'¡ûì3 11lt{ llrrðr
Ocroern zozl
5-t4

5.O DES¡GNGUDBINES
Gossamer Grove
Section
Specific Plan
17 :.
/ . ,'^? 4.¿'
L a\t3¿ÄÞ:
,3
,A\g
- la /'/'ol7_{\a wtt A\ _a\5
76'
C; ?1êÁ- êr M*
;A\! t6/
Bike lane/ ,
17' {vÀ< f3, !À\igl-ÂPt taSrvg\: iìrr^A,.\-' rÅ\t33ÅÞ \3 t t:^Ai.\/ : emefgency/
palkrng
ia\?9iÀÞ \á
^rtc.¡Jl
Slrcet Crosr Sc(t¡o¡ {,1 lanc, dividcd}
Plan
Section Cut
Jewetta Ave. North/
Gossamer Grove Blvd. Streetscape
{)
{r
(çh (xJ {)
CI
M
Sccondary
Pasc.o
!É
cq,
!
C/ ú,
ô
?
I
)
(
{-,
\

1. I
T
7 !
d¿^ {U
a
Natural 'Irail
& Croves
landscaping
i
ît
cq,
.o
0J ú
ôo
x
l¡l
not to scale
Figure 5-la
Gossamer Grove
Section
ó -widc
Sidcwalk Specific Plan
8'-widc
Side'walk
tÉ
ETõ¡t J lr¡
r¡ \.: *ä9ä
(t) J
È' €
<J
i{¡
êJ
c
J
l2'
I
j
!J
J
ti
.!l
z
Ð
s
a)
J
lv
bó
xz i5
èO
c
*ä6U
.y rt ÚJ
Èoë
NEìtçËfl
JrS
¡4',
I'crimctcr Sound Wall
(lf Rcquircd)
t. I lt Ri8ht of ìr¡Y
Plan
RÕTT
-Section
Cut
Cossamer Grove mu Drive Streetsca
o
(>
{\l /
Õ
(\fJ
a
Natural'frail
landscaping
3 Ð
ro
s
ú
òô
ç
x
&
;
I
I
I
l\
Scrondary
Pasco
G'
c
t, .o
ù
d
lrot to scale
Blvd & Com
A to southern ,ooo feet
Figure 5-lb
€,
Ë
,{õ
fl]
ôo
€
il .o
J
ã9¡
dJ
dd
{,
c
,1
a/
I
0 õ
õ
èo ,'ê. 6
ø
I
Ê
o
út 6
E' l2' 12' ¡l'
Gossamer Grove
Section
Specific Plan
5'-widc
Sidcwalk
5'-widc
Sidov¿lk
6' 6',
r,/L 5?'R¡ght t'tt'
Plan
Section Cut
A
Ç
Rcsidenti¿l
Landscaping lanriscaping,
Rcsidcntial
not to scale
Local Road Streetsca
Figure S-lc
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
Medium Residential
Resident¡at
Neighborhood
7th Standard
am
not to scale
Comm Core Structure Di
Figure 5-2a
Gossamer Grove
Main Stfegt configuration for safe and enjoyabte shopping DifeCt ACCeSS to adjacent residenriat neighborhoods and regional and community kails
OUtdOOf SpaCeS with shade strucrures for socializino and eating
Specific Plan
-i: t$L¡-
o
c
(g
(J
Mix of Land Uses
grocery, smallto medium
shops, restaurants, fast
food, service station,
meeting rooms, office,
fire/police substation, mini
park, outdoor plazas, residential
!)l I t¡ t ì t
¡l Çtt o l; o
EnfiChed LandSCap¡ng wirh rrails and attractive monumenrarion Enriched Paving at key pedestrian crossings
UniqUe Siting of architecturat etemenrs to create a "Sense of ptace" Community Core Con t Sketch
TT
$Ë
not to scale
Figure 5-2b
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
t
not to scale
Communi Core Con Pers
Figure 5-2c
Gossamer Grove - Specifíc Plan

5.3.2 Erurnv Moruunn¡rurs
Entry monuments serve several important purposes; therefore careful consideration has been given to ihe design of primary and secondary entries. The intent of project monumentation design is to create visual gateways into Gossamer Grove and to provide aesthetically pleasing entry statements that highlight the distinciiveness of the community .'|l":re Landscape Plan, Figure 3-9, depicts conceptual locations of entries for the Gossamer Grove community.

As the primary entry to the community, major entry monumentation will be established at Seventh Standard Road and Gossamer Grove Boulevard as illustrated conceptually in Figure 5-3, Eleotttion - Entry Monument, and in plan view in Figure 5-4. Secondary monuments will be established on Gossamer Grove Boulevard at the northern boundary of the plan area, at Community Drive and Seventh Standard Road and at roadways leading to adjacent properties where indicated. Entry monuments are described below. The design and architectural elements of entries shall be compatible and consistent with the Specific Plan theme elements of Gossamer Grove. Each entry statement shall consist of a combination of signage, lighting, and landscaping. Additional information on signage and lighting standards is located in Sections G and H of this Chapter.

A. IÌn¡envEvnrvMoNÀ,ü[s
The primary entry monumentation establishes the character for all project monumentation treatments, emulates the unique landscape theme for Gossamer Grove, and provides a strong landmark that reinforces the distinctiveness of the community. Primary entry monumentation will occur at the intersection of Seventh Standard Road and Gossamer Grove Boulevard. The entry monumentation is intended to utilize plant palettes and hardscape materials that contribute to the consistent implementation of the Gossamer Grove landscape design theme, while complying with water conservation standards.

B. Snco¡vo¡nyhmtyMoNuvrnnm
An enhanced secondary entry treatment will be placed at four locations: Gossamer Grove Boulevard at the northern property boundary, the western entrance near the Calloway Canal, the northern entrance between the Calloway Canal and the Friant-Kern Canal and at the intersection of Community Drive and Seventh Standard. These entries will provide a dramatic visual gateway into Gossamer Grove and its amenities. The secondary entry monumentation will utilize a variety of landscape and hardscape elements, similar to the primary entry monuments but smaller in scale.

Ocroa¡n zozt
5-2t

5.o DESGNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
Monument
not to scale
Con Pe - Entry
Figure 5-3
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
{r
r
cuil¡linåar
variabþ
reta¡ning wãllg
g
ô
L
t7
b
g
ß
o
u
'bshos'
i
ol drought
i
j*
I
t*
!
j
j
l
I
l
largs spoc mn hos6
r1
I
ii!l
¡.. :
!: ì
i ',i
r-4 prci€ct
'-
zth Standard Road.

Monument
not to scale
Plan - Ent
Figure 5-4
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

5.3.3 NelcxBoRHooD PnRrs
Nine public parks are planned for residents of the Gossamer Grove community' The recreation areas are intended to serve as vizual amenities and provide both active and passive recreational uses induding but not be limited to, restroom facilities, basketball court, tot lots, open space turf areas for various activities' and barbeque facilities. Conceptual representations of these recreation areas are provided in Figure 5-5a' Drought tolerant plant species as well as turf will be used. Open turf areas in public recreation aleas may be vegetated with hydroseed. The exact placemen! size, and design of the public recreation areas will be determined at the design review stage of project implementation' . The neighborhood park areas, which are conceptually represented in Figures 5-5b, are intended to provide for active and passive recreational areas and, in the case of PA-6, may be developed for joint use by the School District. The neighborhood parks will have unique identities and shall contain passive sitting areas, open space turf areas for various activities, tot lots, walkways, and decorative lighting, subject to Planning Department approval' OcrosrR zozl
5-24

5.o DESENCUDEIINES
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
Freeplay Area
Rolling grass berms
Flat free play turf
Centrally located
Turf used only in active play areas
Formal "Buffer Zone"
Tree groves to buffer wind "Quiet zone" for
picinic, table games
high percentage of permeable ground covers
I
DJ
clú6õnxwÀv
'¿ ,"]
lnformal Adventure Play Area
Creative, non-structured nature play
Meadow grass, drought tolerant plants
"Learn from nature"
Fli
not to scale
ht Park Structure Dia am
Design lntent
Provide comfortable, creative, recreational
environments serving all ages while minimizing the use of potable water and natural resources
Figure 5-5a
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
- "" ncllKcRovt
... - 'Plcll¡€¡Htlün
srrüc^nEAWlrH COI{Cim
¡lrl(HE,SlxEi cf t -. -
DRltl Kltl6 FrolrlfrAlt¡
9nc'ÎllxPIAY
mlsnilG tϡTlota
lASt(gT8Àt¡'COU11
<oïcRllttnÀL -
Pr¡TGßOUilO OAillS
l+sQUAne ¡ HoP'(of(Hl
TOtPI¡v ÉxrnQtÉ5' noll
lal?l^ccs ' ---- '- sr¡o¡ ¡¡tts
orcotPot[o
Gn ilffE?AÌH--- -
PLAzA
I¡[(Etnâcl
t{Â1wEGnA33¡t., -
COÍ{CßGÎÊ SEIICHË3
IOUT,DÊNP!^Y
(alP|,ACE5 -' - . ñAïVÉ6¡t3tÊ5Al¡oBE¡M5
DÉCOllFOtËo
cR ßlttt lll
Sketch
not to scale
Flight Park Con
Figure 5-5b
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
\r"
\
I
f
,
(
I
\
I
irect
ormal
Residential
Access
unity Trail
ô
o
r¡¡t
o¡
I
o
I Seating Area
a4
o
¿
ft
d
¿ù
Direct Residential Access
"V¡okee<
t Sketch
not to scale
Pathway Park Conc
Figure 5-6
Gossamer Grove - SPecÍfic Plan

5.3.4 Tnnls, PRseos Rtrto GneeNeelr
A natural trail system sl'rall be established around the Gossamer Grove community and along the Calloway and Friant-Kern Canals. A system of paseos, as illustrated in Figure 3-8' Pørks and ReÛeøtion Pløn, srlallbe established interlinking with the natural trail system and community parks' The trails and paseo system is essential to promoiing a "walkable" community by providing an alternative mode of transportation throughout the community. The parcel developer shall be responsible for constructing any portion of the trail/paseo system u, ,hown in Figure 3-8 that lies adjacent to their parcel' Construction of trails/paseo, ,hull coincide with construction of the adjacent development and bc completed before the àmpletion of the phase the project is in. A landscape and maintenance district shall be established and be responsible for the maintenance of trails and paseos and associated greenbelts' A plant palette for the natural trail system and paseos shall be established by the master developer to ensure harmony and consistency throughout thå Specific Plan' The connection between the natural trails and the paseo system should occur at the open end of a cul-de-sac' Lots at the end of the cul-de-sac shall be arranged to provide this connection and not obscure the entrance to the natural trail' A" NIATLIRAITRAI.

The natural trial shall be located within a 30 foot wide landscaped area with a 6-foot-wide meandering path made of decomposed granite or similar soft surface material except along the southern portion of CommuniÇ Drive where the trail will be an 8-foot wide concrete pathway within a 26 foot wide landscaped area. Additionally, the natural trail at Seventh standard Road shall be 30 feet wide with a 12- foot-wide sidewalk. A pedestrian bridge will be constructed over the Friant-Kern Canal' adjacent to the north side of seventh standard Road, in coordination with development to the west' The natural trail along the eastern perimeter shall be planted with groves of trees as described in Section 3'7' Lønilscape plan and shall have a sound wall constructed at the edge to protect against the noise of the nearby railroad, freeway and adjacent residential development. The wall treatment and design of the natural system varies, as shown in Figure 5-7, depending on location'

B, PASTG
PrimaryandsecondaryPaseosshallbeestablishedalongthestreetswhereindicatedinh1rlePørksand Recreation Plan. TypicilÇ, u pur"o is located on one side of the street only' Section 5'3'1' Streetscøpe' describes and illustratu, th" i"lutionship of the paseos to the street right-of-way' A typical primary and secondary paseo are shown in Figure 5-8. Additional landscape easements may be required to implement the paseo system on certain streets. Landscaping of the paseos shall be coordinated with the Løndscnpe Plan. Theprimary paseo shall be 30 feet wide' secondary paseos shall be 15 feet wide except adjacent to the North Kern water storage District Property along stone Creek Drive, where the paseo may be 14 feet wide.

OcrogrR zozl
5-28

5.O DESCNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
ruN9RAn^t
nlpg
Natural Trail at 7th Standard ROW
(See M.O.U)
Ll¡,8
TfH IâALL ?oAo
é,ROVE
vltvB
PATI{
Natural Tþail at Canal FRPTJ€HT IRON FEI{¿E LII{E
¿AI{AL ¡LO¡I.

AC/DC/Concrete
Note: Arcas in excess of Strcct Cross Scctions will rcquire a landscape cascmcnt Trail Cross Sections
ta'
not to scale
Figure 5-7
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
R.O.N. LINE
(VARIEg)
Ò'nlDE
9IPE"iALK
Primary Paseo
ø'
VARIE9.
5'MlN.
26' - 30' ? AãEO lOREENBELT
t^{.l9Ê
grpE tAL<*
R.O.hl. LINE
es)
Secondary Paseo
ARIES-2' MIN.
13, PAãÊO/EREENBELT
* To be located ar¡nvhere wilhin the paseo/grecntrelt area' Notc: Areas in exiess of Strect Cross Sections will rcQuire a landscape easement.

Paseo Cross Sections
Ò'
VARIES5'MIN.
not to scale Figure 5-8
Gossamer Grove - Specífíc Plan
C Gnm.rmr
A 100-foot greenbelt buffer shall be established along the northern border of the Specific Plan to provide a separation between residential areas and existing agricultural areas. The natural trail shall be located within the greenbelt buffer adjacent to and within 30 feet of the residential development. This greenbelt buffer shall be planted with native, non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials and maintained to prevent Í;:rehazard.

5.3.5 GENERAL LANDSCÁPE STANDARDS
All areas required to be landscaped will be planted with groundcover, shrubg or trees selected from the plant palette contained in these guidelines. The use of turf shall be minimized, except in active recreational areas. The neighborhood parks, commercial center, public facilities, and common landscaped areas are permitted to be planted with a hydroseed mix. A combination of hydroseed mix and flatted groundcovers and mulch shall be used to cover areas between shrubs and trees to prevent erosion and assist in maintaining soil moisture and lower temperatures at ground level.

Plants with similar watering requirements shall be planted together in order to simplify the irrigation systems and increase water use efficiency. Low water use irrigation systems are strongly encouraged. Priority use of water shall be considered, meaning that visually sensitive areas are entitled to use more water than low visual irnpact areas. Visually sensitive areas include entries, highly traveled street frontages, and recreational areas.

A DnoucrnTorsr¡lvc
The landscape palette for the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan shall promote selective drought tolerance through the use of native and naturalizing species. All common landscape areas shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems. Drip or bubbler irrigation shall be provided where feasible. Automatic controllers shall be equipped with automatic rain-shut-off devices and provide for various type of water management options.

B. MnrurnNerucE
All landscape maintenance shall conform to project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). hr general, the overall appearance of landscape shall be neat healthy, and free of weeds and debris. All new construction shall be landscaped in accordance with a City approved Landscape Plarç and subject to City inspection of adequate maintenance levels. Gossamer Grove shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common landscape areas within each planning area, except within individual private lots. Individual homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance of landscaped areas on individual lots. CC&Rs will set forth requirements for front yard landscaping and maintenance and in no case shall be less restrictive than requirements found in Chapter 2, Section 2.80 of the Shafter Zoning Ordinance. A maintenance district shall maintain public trails, paseos, landscaped areas and detention basins.

OcroerR zozl
5-3t

5.O DLTGNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan
C. PLANT MATERIAL GUIDELINES
Conceptual planting guidelines have been established througl'r this Specific Plan. More detailed plant material guidelines and plant palette shall be established by the master developer that will be no less restrictive than requirements found in Chapter 2, Section 2.80 and will provide flexibility and diversity in plant material selectiory while maintaining a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the community. The plant material lists will be selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions, soil conditions, and concern for maintenance and shall be made available to the City of shafter Planning Department. wherever possible, overall plant material groupings shall have compatible drought resistant characteristics' Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water application for the entire landscape setting. Consiáeration must be given when locating trees to avoid potential long-term problems with tree roots, but the City will have final approval for clearances when public facilities may be affected'

5.3.6 WALLSAND FENCES
All walls and fences within Gossamer Grove shall be designed as integral elements of building architecture or complementary to the architecture and landscape character. Walls and fences will be used throughout the community io establish community identity, provide protection from roadways and recreation areas, and allow privacy and security in residential and commercial areas' Construction of walls and fences shall coincide with construction of the adjacent development and be completed before the completion of the phase the proiect is in. Four types of walls and fences, excluding walls associated with entry monumentation, will occur within the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan: 1) Perimeter walls, 2) Corridor walls, 3) North Kern Water Storage District Walls and 4) Bureau of Reclamation walls, or fence or a combination of both' These are located where indicated on Figure 3-10. A fifth type of wall neighborhood walls may be developed to distinguish individual developments within the specific Plan, however solid walls separating individual neighborhoods are discouraged. Neighborhood walls may also be used where corridor walls are indicated' A. mß/ß'rgtwAlr
perimeter walls establish the overall community identity or theme and shall be located where indicated in Figure 3-10. The perimeter walls shall be constructed by the master developer prior to development of any phases. Details are shown in Figures 5-9 and 5-10' B, CCT{ImÛVAII
Corridor walls shall be 6-foot split face block walls or precision walls as shown on Figure 5-10 and are located along major arterials where residential development backs onto the arterial. These walls will form the back or side of a residential loi. Regular breaks should occur along these walls where cul-de-sacs intersect (as shown in the bottom illustration on page 5-14) to avoid monotony and provide pedestrian access, but shall remain the same style for the entire length of the blocks shown on the Lønd use Pløn' where such walls tie into entry monumentatiorL the transition shall be made from the entry wall to the corridor Ocroarn zozl
5-32

5.O DESGNGUIDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
wall with a pilaster. Pilasters shall be provided at an average of every 200 feet, which may vary, depending on the location of the wall or property lines but shall include changes in elevation or direction.

C BunsAu op RscLeuArloN-¡RLrnnNArrvss
Wrought iron open fence walls shall be located along the Friant-Kern Canal as part of the natural trail.

This wall type is illustrated in Figure 5-11. Chain link fencing or other open fencing shall be required along the Calloway Canal. The developer shall be responsible for installing the appropriate fencing along the Calloway Canal per the specification of the canal company.

D. NoKrrrKErrTWATutSroRAcED¡srRrcrBrcc(WArr
A 6-foot high block wall is required around the North Kern Water Storage District property. An example of this edge condition is provided in Figure 5-12. This wall will utilize the same materials as other block walls throughout the community.

OcroerR zozl
5-33

5.o DECNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
\'ì
t\Èl+l I
Ë
(5
=(/:

Rl¿l
o(
6 =5()6
l-()
q
o
&
N?'fE: lß' fO
^rEÂRESf
HàME*
Southern Edge - PA 1
COAMUNITY ÐRIW 6, CONC, TRAIL
q
ci
ã
a
t-()
ä
ft
Eaetern Edge - ?A 2
Condition Sections

5.¿1".<ë<¿:{1:<".<:411<1:/.a<<¿:{4':<:/1:<t':1'{;*r*iYiìì:{i!'ri\¿\v¡\3:14' 3A' ilN. LANDSCAPE BUTFES- 34' ACCESS C1RR|DW
TRAIL
RESIÐENNAL LOT
REAR YARD llín. t5'
not to scale
PA-l Er 2 Ed
Figure 5-9
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
l1 lar'¡rt' Loo( ællr v rat
@ ro'.rl lremr ¡¡tr(
ô ¡t¡trf æ Dil -ñ
liì .ìf'rf ¡s (r)
-n
t1 ør¡rr ilar trÆlrt a
" 2oo'e I ^l oúrË -
. a'-¡tf ¡.oO( ¡
cq'n Þ xtoa 3¡ 4.
. ôd-d trrlt ,lf-ctl crt
]-?-+
r¡.
6' PRECISION BLOCK WATT
Corridor or Neighborhood Wall
6'BLOCKW L[
( COITIÀ{UNITY THEI{E wAl.t )
tIE¡ s
lî ra.\!a'tG æDr
- irr
@ $rrtr rn ¡t¡
11\ flrñ De¡t r¡ ¡nr a
- 200'ú r
^r
0Ç6 -
. a1j¡lf ¡.æ( ¡
cûtt l0 gtgr r¡ c¡t.
. 6,C q¡aa¡lt lif-c¡at c¡P
o
o tË-€ltt ooa. crt
l0.

PerimeterWall Detail NOTE:ACTUAL DESIGN MAY VARY.

DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY

THE CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR
Wall - Detail A
II
not to scale
Figure 5-lO
Gossamer Grove
Specific Plan
Condition A
V
HIQHI3I.OCKWNL
?A2
RE9IPEA'TIAL

DEWLOPMWT
ARø.

N.KI^/S.D RDWKTY
uAt?tAt3LEWøfi4
?43
I?FSIPENTIAT
ÐEW)-OWEî{r
AREA
5't^{lpE

BAJI'IDARY
Condition B
HûHB'.æKWþ&L
Stone Creek
MIN.
14'
"A9,EO/OREENÞELT
North Kern Water Storage District
Conditions
5'
VARIE9-
4,MIN.
not to scale
Ed
Figure 5-tt
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan
D. NscrßoRHoooWAus
Neighborhood walls shall be designed as an integral componenti and extension of the building design and surrounding
landscape. Periphery walls can be integrated into the adjacent.l; structure and extended into the landscape to help integrate the building into its environment and shall have a maximum height of 6 feet. Walls shall be constructed of materials, colors, and textures that are similar and harmonious with the architecture. Particular importance shall be given to railing and cap details. Walls may be offset occasionally to avoid visual monotony. Walls shall be used to define the limits of property ownership, as well as for the creation of exterior privacy.

E Wan¡NoFnNc¡Gunnr¡lvss
The following guidelines should be used for all walls and fences:

1. Appropriate materials include stone, stone veneer, split face/ precision block, tubular steel, concrete, stucco
pilasters and cap, aluminum, and wrought iron.

2. Solid walls which are visible from public roadways shall incorporate design elements to reduce monotony. These elements shall include pilasters placed at average intervals of 200 feet.

3. The placement of a wall shall minimize the visual impact of the wall and maximizes its effectiveness as mitigation for noise and privacy.

4. Wall materials and patterns shall be compatible with adjacent building materials.

5. Walls shall be treated as extensions of the residential and commercial structures and use materials and colors complimentary of the overall architectural design.

The use of full dimension caps, pilasters, and changes in wall surfaces (staggering) is required where walls are visible from public rights-of-way. r'3 ?J
Ocroe¡n zozt
5-37

5.O DË9GNCUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

5.3.7 SrcNs
Appropriate sigrage is important in maintaining the community design theme, as well as providing a ,yri"* for identifying community and commercial development and giving directional information to residents, shoppers, and visitors. Unless noted within this Specific Plan, all signs shall comply with the requirements of the City of Shafter Sign Ordinance (Division 4 of the Shafter Municipal Code)' Individual sign programs will be submitted at the time of site development permit review for each planning area.

The following basic principles shall be considered in the provision of signs within this Specific Plan:
l. The design and architectural elements of the pro
posed signs shall be compatible and consistent
with theme elements of the Gossamer Grove Specific
Plan.

2. Signs shall relate to human scale, especially along
pedestrian corridors.

3. The design of signs shall be compatible with and
complement the architecture of the adjacent
buildings.

4. Signs shall be designed to create a unifying theme within the community' Signs utilized in the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan include both temporary and permanent types:

A Iã{vIANEVTSIGNS
' SheetSigns
. Projectldentification
. Fire Lane Signs
. Community/Gated EntrY Signs
. Community and Neighborhood Monumentation
. Commercial-Retail Tenant Signs
B Ttslnon qRY$cNsû'RtsHrrrUNm-Ti+,CoÀ/trt-ElIoNOFkoIEcrCo¡{sIRUcrIoN) . Marketing and subdivision sale signs
. Future facilitY signs
. Directional signs
. Banners and flags
lr
:ch
#
#
* #'
Ocroern zozl
5-38

5.O DESKNGUDEIINES
Gossamer Grove - SpecifÍc Plan

5.3.8 Lrcnrrruc
The design issue of "lighting" includes street lighting, as well as building and landscape accent lighting, and sign illumination. Unless noted within this Specific Plary all lighting shall comply with the requirements of the City of Shafter Sign Ordinance (Division 4 of the Shafter Municipal Code). The following basic principles shall be considered in the provision of lighting:
l. Street lights shall provide a safe and desirable level of illumination for both motorists and pedestrians without intruding into residential areas.

2. Lighting fixtures shall relate to the human scale, especially in pedestrian areas.

3. Lighting and lighting fixtures shall complement the design and character of each planning area in which they are placed.

4. All lighting shall be pedestrian oriented and füendiy but shall not be obtrusive or offensive.

5. All street lighting may be decorative and conform to City standards or an approved theme lighting program/ and shall be approved by the City Engineer.

6. Illuminated entries shall consider direct lighting low to the ground and be timited to only the immediate vicinity of the entry.

7. Lighting of entries shall not be distracting, create visual hot spots, or glare.

8. Lighting of the private recreation areag parþ and commercial areas shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

9. Light fixtures shall be decorative and located throughout the project.

OcroeEn zozl
5-39

5.O DESKNGUDEUNES
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

6.0 SpeclRc Pl¡ru Aonnlru¡srRATloN

6.t Aonnlru¡srRATloN

6.t.t OvERvtEvv
The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan (GGSP) provides for a unique mix of residential and commercial uses in the City of Shafter. This Specific Plan represents a framework of development for the Gossamer Grove community. Implementation of the project requires the approval of numerous additional discretionary entitlements over the life of project build-out.

The methods and procedures for implementation and administration of this Specific Plan document are contained in this Chapter. This section sets forth the procedures needed to implement the approved Specific Plan and the procedures required for amendment of the Specific Plan, if necessafy' Customized regulations are specified in this document, derived partially from the specific Plan provisions in the City of Shafter Development Code'
The intent of this Administration section is to consolidate all requirements into a single review process as much as possible. The other regulatory plocesses required include compliance with subdivisiorV parcel map laws where land or air rights parcels are being created, or a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) where called for in the Specific Plan to establish a new use' The site is expected to contain a variety of uses for which impacts and implications will be an integral part of the site planning and review plocess. Consequently, sepaÏate procedures related to the Specific Plan and Variance pro."r, are generally not required. For example, the variance procedure will generally not be applicable because modifications to site development standards þeyond interpretive limits available to the Planning Director) would constitute an amendment to the Specific Plan' The provisions of this plan offer a degree of interpretive flexibility thorough the Development Review process that should accommodate most adjustments that are likely to be sought'

6.t.2 EtwRotr¡ueurnt Rrvlnunruo lMPtEfvlENTAroN
Section 21159.21. of the Califomia Govemment Code provides that once an EIR has been certified and a specific plan adopted, any residential development project, including any subdivision or zone change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the specific plan is exemPt from additional CEQA review. This exemption does not apply if, afler the adoption of the specific plan, any of the events which OcroerR zo2t
FI

6.o Sprclnc Pnru ADMlNsrRAroN
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan
would trigger preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR occur, including substantial changes in the project or circumstances under which the project is being undertaken requiring major revisions in the project, or new information becomes available which was not known at the time the EIR was certified. Flowever, if a supplemental EIR is prepared covering the changes, new circumstances, or new information and is certified, the exemption will apply to the projects that then follow the specific plan.

6.r.3 AeenovAl AurHoRrrY
The Planning Director's responsibilities shall include administering, interpretin& and enforcing all requirements and standards of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan, including the acceptance and processing of all land use permit applications. The Planning Director or designated representative may approve development permits that meet the requirements of this Specific Plan and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny minor requests for waiver of Specific Plan standards. The Planning Director and Building Official (or their designees) hold final approval authority for, and enforcement of: building permits, certificates of occupanry, home occupation permits, minor variance modifications, minor precise plans of development, sign permits, similar use determinations, and temporary use permits.

The Director may impose conditions of approval or make interpretations of the Specific Plan (City of Shafter Development Code, Section 1..70, Clanfication of Ambiguities), which may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director may also make a Determination of Similar Use in accordance with Section 1.90 of the Development Code, for any proposed use of a property is not expressly authorized as a permitted or conditional use by the Specific Plan. The Planning Director may refer matters involving development issues to the Project Assistance Team, or the Planning Commission, and may consult with the City Attorney on questions of interpretation.

The following policies guide the administration of this plan:

The title of this plan shall be Gossamer Grove Specific Plan (GGSP) and shall be so designated on the City's Zoning Map for this property.

2. The Gossamer Grove Specific Plan shall be adopted in accordance with Title 77, Chapter 15 of the City of Shafter Development Code.

3. Permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses shall be as indicated in this Plan. The site development and design regulations, as specified in Sections 4 andS of this plan are adopted by ordinance as zoning regulations for the property located within the Specific Plan boundaries.

4. Administrative procedures are provided in this Chapter. The Shafter Development Code shall be referred to for any topics that are not presented here, especially the Development Agreement (Section 1.90), Non-Conforming (Section 2.720), and Specific Plan (Chapterl5) sections of the City of Shafter Development Code.

5. Content of the Development Review application or CUP shall include content according to the following checklist:

OcroeeR zozl
6-2

6.o Speanc Pnru AonrurusrnRrorrr
6 Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
a. A site plan, at a scale no smaller than 1' = 50
"
that delineates the location, amount and
relationship of proposed uses and supporting improvements, including a statistical summary that ide;tifies acreage by use, dwelling unit counts and non-residential square footage as appropriate to the proposed uses' The plan shall show:
i. The location and size of proposed planning areas;
ii,Thelocationandsizeofproposedbuildingsandstructures;
iii. The location, size and improvements of all driveways, parking areas, walkways, bus fumouts, drainage ways and means of ingress and egress, including the number parking spaces to be provided;
iv. The loca-tion and size of proposed public and private open space, including recreation facilities and sPaces;
v. General landscaping and lighting concepU
vi. Location and type of project identification signs; and vü. Project conceptual elevations'
b. Either concurrent or subsequent to the development plan submittaf depending on proposed phasing, additional detail on the above components shall be provided' consisting of:
i Dimensions of buildings and structutes, including walls and fences; ü. Dimensions of drives, access ways and parking spaces; iii'Dimensionsofproposedpublicandprivatespaces/including imProvements;
iv. Improvement plans for infrastructure and utilities; v. A landscaping plan, including plant palette and sizes; and vi. Illustrative elevations of structures and improvements' c A phasing plan showing how the remainder of the property (for which immediate approvalisnotbeingsought)willbedevelopedandhownecessaryimprovements will be made in conjunction with future phases'
d. Provisions for business owrler/ property owrlef, or homeowner association(s) where that method of management responsibility is proposed'
Documentation and justification of the method for providing for the following unifying features of the SPecific Plan:

Access;
Entry Points;
Intemal Circulation;
Landscaping;
o Architectural Theme;
' Signs; and
. Infrastructure.

Documentation shall be in the form of a conformance document that has been reviewed by the master develoPer.

Ocroern zozt
6-3

6.0 SPEOFK PI.AI.I ADMINISTRATON
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan

7. My new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is subject to the provisions of the GGSP in addition to the findings and potential conditions identified in Section 2.50, Conditional Use Permits, of the City of Shafter Development Code.

8. Administrative interpretation of proposed plans may be made for the following:
a. Adequacy of application submissions and documentation; b. Residential unit counts and mix within the designated density ranges; c Commercial square footage;
d. Compliance with design requirements;
e. Variations in landscape concept for location of landscape features, but not the total amount of landscaping;
f. Variations in setback that do not exceed 10% of the prescribed dimension; and g. Land use designation boundary modifications not to exceed a 10% change in area.

9. The Planning Director has the authority to make interpretations and approve modifications to this Plan, including the determination that a proposed project exceeds the flexibility rules and intent of the Plan. In the latter case, an amendment to the Specific Plan would be necessary. The Director's determination shall be rendered within 15 working days of a request for interpretation. This determination may be appealed to the Planning Comrnission and, subsequently, the City Council. However, under no circumstance shall a modification under this provision be allowed that cannot substantiate the required Specific Plan findings.

6.2 Requrneo Frruowcs
Findings shall be made in accordance with this section of the Specific Plan:

An application for a Development Plan Review (for a permitted use) or Conditional Use Permit (for a conditionally permitted use) may be approved or conditionally approved if, on the basis of applicatiory plans, materials, and/or testimony submitted that the following findings can be made:
l. The Project is consistent with the Shafter General Plan and the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan;

2. The project's uses and design are compatible with projects adjacent to the Specific Plan;

3. The project contributes to the design qualities expected of this Specific Plan area;

4. The project can provide the appropriate infrastructure and resources for water, sewer and electrical service; and

5. The project has demonstrated compliance with the Mitigation Measures identified within Ocroe¡n zozt
6-4

6.o Spronc Pnn AonnnsrnRrox
Gossamer Grove - SPecífic Plan
the General Plan Update Environmental lmpact Report'

6. Failure to make all the required findings shall require denial of the application

6.1 lmpleuenrATloN
The Gossamer Grove Specific plan will be implemented through the processing of tract mapq parcel maps, and site plans. The implementation process, as described below, provides the medranism for reviewing precise development pi*, *d ensuring development consistency with the Specific Plan objectives' An implementation process for the amendment åf tnit Specific Plan and for findings of Substantial conformance to this specific Plan is also provided below. All development within the Gossamer Grove community is subject to the implementation procedures described herein.

6.3.t DrvrloPMENT Pl-Rt¡ R¡vl¡w
A. PunPosE
The purpose of this section is to provide a process for the implementation and review of all site plans that will be required to implement the development and construction of this specific Plan' An application for design review is required prior to the issuance of any residential or commercial building permit within the Specific Plan area'
B. Th/ßIÀ,frrArroNs
Each design approval granted through the Development Plan Review process shall become null and void two years after the date of approval, unless:

1. Building permits have been obtained and successful completion of the first building and safetydivisioninspectionhascommencedwithinthisperiod.

2. Any valid design review in effect at the date of adoption or amendment of this Specific Plan shall remain rru"lid fo, a period of two years from the date of that design review approval or design review amendment. No further extension of time shall be granted for such design review upon expiration of that two-year period'
C lls-AlrrroqrrcnlCoNutr{grlc
Prior to the fiting of an application for Development Review, the applicant or the applicant's representative may hold a pre-application conference with the Planning Director and other designated staff from other departments and divisions to review the procedures and criteria for the design review Process'
OcroeEn zozl
6-5

6.o Sprcnc Pm¡lAoiutNIYnRlott
Gossamer Grove - Specífic Plan
D. Awucatox
An application for Development Review shall be filed with the Planning Department in compliance with Chapter 2 of the Development Code. Submittals will include, but are not limited to, plans and elevations. Further, any improvements that are depicted on any colored rendering, elevation, or drawing which is presented to the Planning Commission in conjunction with a development application, shall be installed pursuant to their appearance in that colored rendering, elevation, or drawing.

E. NoTIcE
Notice of hearings for design review shall be as set forth in the City of Shafter Development Code.

63.> DescNREuEvv
No building permit for residential or commercial development shall be issued until the proposed development has received as part of the building perrnit review procest design review approval pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.80 of the City of Shafter Development Code.

6.1,1 SpeclRcPuruAn¡eruonneurs
Approval of this Specific Plan indicates acceptance by the City Council of a general framework for community development. Part of that framework establishes specific development standards that constitute the zoning regulations for the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan. It is anticipated that certain modifications to the Specific Plan texf exhibits, and/or project may be necessary during the development of the project. Any modifications to the Specific Plan shall occur in accordance with the amendment process described in this section. These amendments, should they occur, are divided into two categories.

The first category, "Substantial Conformance," as defined below, allows for minor changes to the Specific Plan without a public hearing and may be approved by the Planning Director. All other proposed changes are considered Formal Amendments and are required to be reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In all cases amendments must be found to be in substantial conformance with the goals and standards of the Gossamer Grove specific plan.

Amendments may be requested at any time pursuant to Section 65453(a) of the Govemment Code. If the Amendment is deemed major by the Planning Director, it will be processed in the same marrner as the original Specific Plan. Proposed amendments deemed to be minor modifications by the Planning Director, as defined hereirç will be processed administratively by the Administrative Review process.

Depending upon the nature of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, a supplemental environmental analysis may be required, pursuant to the California Environmental euality Act (CEeA) Guidelines, Section 15162.

OcroseR zozt
6-6

6.o Spranc Pun AonnltsrnRlo¡l
Gossamer Grove - SPecific Plan

6.1. + llvtpl¡tvl¡lrltRtloru Acnorus
lmplementation of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan will require property assembly and complete redevelopment of existing land uses. Because of the complexity of the land use mix' it is likely that development wilt ocfllr.-in phases. The following actions have already been taken to facilitate implementation.
l. The subject property was required to be annexed into the City of shafter city limits' The annexation has alreadY occurred'
z. The Shafter General plan was amended to reference the Specific Plan Area as a Specific Plan Land Use Designation. This was a technical change that was included with the General Plan update in 2005. It should be noted that any reclassification of the General Plan Land Use designation is a separate General Plån action and would be part of a separate planning process.

3. The g¡ty of Shafter Development Code was amended to include the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan as aZoneDistrict. Any Zoning District classifications for this site are longer needed as they have been superseded bY this SPecific Plan'

4. This Specific plan was adopted in its entirety by Ordinance and incorporated in the appropriate sections of the City of Shafter Development Code'
The following actions must continue to occtlf as the Specific Plan is implemented' l. Encourage and collaborate with private property interests to assemble the existing land parcels ,à thut the concepts in the plan can be implemented.

2. Condition projects within the Gossamer Grove specific Plan to comply with the mitigation measures specified in the General Plan update Environmental Impact Report'

6.4 PnRslt¡c Pmn
Construction of the Gossamer Grove Specific Plan will be phased in a logical sequence, in response to market demands. It is anticipated that phasing will occur from Seventh Standard northward and outward along Gossamer Grove Boulevard and Community Drive. Perimeter walls shall be established in the first phase. ultimate phasing by recordation of phased final tract maps will be finalized at time of sale to merchant builders based on market demands. Adjustments to the phasing sequence are permitted provided that utilities and public facilities are available to service the phase in question' Ocroern zozt
6-7

6.0 SPEOHC PIANADMINISIRATON
Gossamer Grove - Specific Plan

6.4.t Annenr¡¡s Trurrrrc
Although the project will be phased over a period of time, certain amenities, such as local parks, must be constructed prior to the issuance of a certain percentage of certificates of occupanry for a proposed project. Completion of these amenities on a parallel track with proposed residential development helps to ensure that the quality of life of the residents is in place on a timely sdredule. Where ever public parks occur within a given Planning Are4 sudr as PA-1, PA-¿ PA-3, and PA-Ð parks must be completed before the issuance of 75% of the certificates of occupancy.

Ocroe¡n zozl
6-8

6.o SpEoRc Pt¡r¡ Aon¡nsrRRlotrt

EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS OF FACT F'OR THE CITY OF'SHAFTER ?ÃO'GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE AND RELÄTED ACTIONS EhI-VIRONMENTAL

IMPACTREPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 1509 I of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quaiity Act (CEeA) provides that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agerLcy makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationãle for each finding."
The Shafter General Plan Environmental Impacl Report (State Clearínghouse No. 2004i01029) identified significant or potential significant environmental impacts which, prior to mitigation, may occur as the result of the proposed project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEeA Guidelines, findings are enurrerated in Section 3.0, below.

7.1 Project Description
The Shafter General Plan study area encompasses all of the Cify of Shafter, its sphere of influence, and additional lands that the City has determined are integral to the planning of Shafter's fuh'e. The total Plannin g Area covers approximately 46,583 acres. Of this area, approiimate ly ll,40l acres are currently within the City limits. State law permits the inclusion of spheie of influence and other lands within a communify's General Plan. However, the Shafter General Þlan asserts land use control only over lands actually wiihin the corporate limits of the City. Until such time ,
if ever, that land currently
outside of the City of Shafter is incorporated into the City, the Kem County General Plan will remain the lead land use planning document for unincorporated territories.

The primary goal of the City of Shafter General Plan Update is to provide the residents of the Cify with a "blueprint" for public and private development. The General Plan will function as Shafter's "Constitution" for development and environmental management, and serve as the foundation upon which City leaders make all land use and new development-related decisions. The proposed General Plan is an attempt to promote a more focused and balanced pattern of growth that accommodates the demand for housing, employment opportunities, and public facilities and services while minimizing the potential adverse impacts that may result from inc¡eased urban development. ih" p.opor"ã J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Updare\Staff Reporrs\Final SHAFTER EIR 1 findings-D OC {6/2l/2005) .lftNE ?005
SHASTER GENERÀL PLÀN ÀND RELATED ACTfONS ETR

FINDINGS OF FACT
project is a comprehensive revision and update of the 1993 Shafter General Plan. The proposed General Plan update encompasses several changes in the existing General Plan. The primary changes set forth ìn the General Plan Update include:
. Update of existing conditions, with200217003 serving as base year. . Update of development projections to the year 2030, corresponding to the anticipated build out year of the updated Generai P1an. These projections include population, employment, residential development, and non-residential development'
' Expansion ofthe General Plan study area to reflect an expanded sphere ofinfluence and areas of interest.
. Amendment of the General Plan Elements to reflect update of conditions, projections, and land use changes.
. Modifîcations to the Land Use Element, including:
o Establishrnent of building intsnsitics for all land use categories inciuding commercial, industrial, and residential.
o Creation of a new Land Use Map reflecting expansion of urban development at the periphery of the City's original townsite, proposed expansion of Minter field, and development along the north side of 7th Standard Road, west of State Route 99' . Amendment of the Circulation Element, including:
o Creation of a new Circuiation Map to better manage local and regional traffic flow, including potential routes for the proposed relocation of State Route 58 and the "!Vest Beltway." o Inclusion of a BicYcle Route MaP.
. Amendment of the Noise Standards to reflect a 65 dBA standard for residential development' . Revisions to the Housing Element to reflect curent and projected housing needs and provide a detailed program to meet those needs.
. Incorporation of an explicit Statement of Community Vision' , Modification to General Plan Elements to reflect Shafter's emergence as a ma'jor industrial employment centet.
. Modifications of General Plan goals, objectives, policies, implementation programs, and other provisions to reflect cur¡ent conditions and Shafter's vision for its futwe.

The General Plan addresses immediate and long-term issues including traffic, expansion of the local employment base, provision of public services, and environmental constraints. The goal of the Ceneràt plan is to provide a consistent policy guide, which incorporates public health, safety, environmental and "quality of iife" considerations.

The DEIR also covers the adoption of wo Specific Plans located along the 7th Standard Road Corridor (Coberly W-est and Mission Lakes), armexation of lands within the southeastem portion of the General Plan Sf.rdy area, pre-zûning of the proposed annexation alca, cancellation of certain Williamson Act contracts within lands proposed to be annexed to the City, and expansion of the North of the River Municipal Water District.
2 JfUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final S¡IAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612l/2005) JUNE 2OO5 SHAI¿TÊR CENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED A.CTIONS EIR r¡ND¡NCS OÍ' FÁ.CT The Coberly West Specific Plan area enoompasses approximately 830 acres, 764.g of rvhish are to be devoted to the development af 3,432 dwefing un¡ts. a totat à15,334 residentiat Jwelling units is proposed in the Mission Lakes Specific Plan on 1,347 aues. The City of Shafter piopor", to annex approximately 5,000 acres of land in the southeastem portion of the General plan area. All of the acteage proposed to be annexed is currentþ witl.rrn the Òity's sphere of influence, as adopted by the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission parcci¡. concurent wiíh adoption of the city's General Plan update, shafter proposes to pre-zone parcels within the proposed annexation area. Pre-zoning of lands is a prerequisite for LAFCO review and action on th" proposeã Annexation 77. The entire Annexation 77 arca witl be pre-zoned consistent with the propo."a C"*tur plan land use designations for the area. Two landowners have sent letters to the City of Shafter requesting cancellation of lVilliamson Act contracts pwsuant to Section 5I28a et seq. of tn" cã,r"rnment Code. Both of these applications affect lands withrn the proposed Annexation 77 area, which will be designated "Specific Plan" by the proposed General Plan ànd pre-zoning. In addition, the North of the River Municipal Water District is proposing to expand its service ãrea to include the proposed Annexation 77 area.

2.0 BACKGROUND FINDINGS

2.7 Initial StudyÆ.{otice of preparation
To further the basic purposes of CEQA, the environmental review process requires the preparation and public circulation of a Notice of Preparation (NoP) and an kritlal study (is¡ in addition to the General Plan Program EIR. An NOP is a brief notice that the Lead Agency'1in ttris case, Cify of shafter) plans to prepare an EIR for a project. The purpose of the NoÈis tá ìoiicii guidance from agencies and individuals as to the scope and content òf the environmental informatìon ìo be included I the EIR' The City of Shafter formally initiated the environmental process with circulation of an NOP, which was sent to responsible agencies and interested individuals for a 30-day review period from October B to November 8, 2004. An IS for the proposed General plan was presented to the public on october 8,2004, and was circulated with the NoÞ. m, as here, it is larown that an EIR will be prepared, an IS, although not required, is helpful in identifying the likely potential enr¡ironmental impacts that should be studied in the EIR. The full range of poi"triiul *oironmental effects associated with the implementation of the General PIan, as identified inthe IS, is contained in Afpendix A to the Fínal EIR for the Shafter General plan.

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Shafter General Plan addressed potantial environmental impacts reiated to the General Plan and found that those indicated below *olt¿ result in potentially significant impacts that needed to be evaluated in an EIR:
. Aesthetics;
. Air Quality;
. Biology;
. Cuitural Resources;
. FlooclingHazards;
. Geology and Soils;
. Hazards andHazardous Materials;
. Water Resources;
. Land Use and Agriculture;
. Noise;
. Population and Housing;
. Public Services and Utilities;
. Transportation/Traffîc; and
. Mneral and Energy Resources
J:\USERS\ING-PLAN\wAYNE\Gene¡'al Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA-FTER EiR findings.D oC {6/2l/ZO}s) 3 SHAFTER GtrNERAL ¡¡LAN ¡\ND RCLATED ACTIONS ETR
FINDf NCS OF'SACT JUNG 2OO5
Based on the IS, it was determined that potential impacts associated with the aforementioned issues required further evaluation in the Program EIR for the proposed General Pla¡r and Related Actions' Additionally, the IS determined that an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan and related actions be included in the EIR' In compliance with CEeA b,rid.1itr.., the City of Shafter has taken steps to optimize opportr-rnities to participat" in the envtonmental process. Oûring the preparation of the Draft EIR, various Federal, 'State, iegional and local government agencies, and other interested parties were contacted to solicit ,o,oá"nî, on potential enlronmental impacts and to inform the public of the proposed General Plan' public meetings were held to solicit pubiic comment on the General Plan and its EIR. Additionally, several individuals and agencibs sent lvritten comments in response to the NOP. Those oomments are presented in Appendix A-to the Draft EIR for the General Plan and Related Actions'

2.2 Draft EIR
A Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse along with the ,.q"i*¿ number of copies of the document for circulation to various state agencies' copies of the Draft EIR were also *å1.¿ directþ to locai agencies, groups, and individuals for the required 45'day public review period (April 13 through May 27,2005)'

2.3 Final EIR
For the purposes of GEQA, and the findr:rgs herein set forth, the administrative record for the Final EIR projeciincludes but is not limited to the following documents:
. The DrafI Environmental Impact Report for the Shafter General Plan and Technical Appendices (4pri12005);
. All comments submitted by agcncies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the D-aft EIR (April 13-through Mray 27,2005) and téspottt., to those comrnents (June 2005); . Draft General plan (April 2005) as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Cily Council;
. Coberly 'West Specific plan (March 2005) as recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted bY the CitY Council;
. Mission Lakes Specific Plan as recommended by the Plarming Commission and adopted by the City Council;
. All records related to A¡nexation 77 andthe related proposed Pre'zontng; . All records related to cancellation of 'williamson Act contracts within the Mission Lakes specific Plan area;
. All records reiated to the Expansion of North of the River Municipal Water District; . Ail records relating to the study sessions and public hearings of the Planning Commission from October 2004 through MaY 2005; and
1 J:\USERS\ENc-pLAN\WA1¡NE\6enerai Plan Update\Staff Repo*s\Final SHAFTER EIR tìndings'DOC (6171/20A5) JTJNE ?OO5 SHAFTER CONERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS EIR FINDf NGS OF I¡ACT
' A1l records related to the study sessions and public hearings of the City Council from October 2004through June 2005.

The official custodian of the Final EIR is the Shafter Community Development Depafiment:

City of Shafter City Hall
Communify Development Deparbment
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, Califomia 93263

2.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
According to CEQA Guidelines Section I5097(a), "...the public agency shal1 adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and thå measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The Final EIR for the Shafter General Plan and Related Actions contains mitigations measures to avoid significant environmental effects. The mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR for the Shafter General Plan and Related Actions each require actions not covered in the policies contained in the General Plan. Therefore, the mitigation measures are included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included with the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2708I.6, the Shafter Cily Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shafter General Plan, attached as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth hersin and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shal1 control.

2.5 Program EIR
Program EIRs are typically prepared for an agency plan program, or series of actions that can be charactertzed as one large project, such as a general plan. Tiering refers to the concept of a multilevel approach to preparing environmental documents (CEQA Guidelines, ç 15i52).

A General Plan EIR, addressing the impacts of cifywide policy decisions, can be thought of as a "first tier" document. It evaluates the large-scale impacts on the environment that can be expected to resuit from the adoption of the General Pla¡, but does not necessarily address the site-specific impacts that each of the individual development projects that will follow and implement the General Plan may have. CEQA requires each of those subsequent development projects be evaluated for their particular site-specific impacts. These site-specific analyses are lypicalty encompassed in second-tier documents, such as Project EIRs, Focused EIRs, or Negative Declarations on individual development projects subject to the General Plan, which typically evaluate the impacts of a single activiqy undertaken to implement the overall plan.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, a State or local agency should prepare a "Program" EIR, rather than a "Project" EIR, when the lead agency proposes the following:
. Sedes of related actions that are linked geographically; J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plar Update\Staff Reports\Final 2 SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2l/2005) ,tuNE 2005
SHÀFTER GSNOIIAL PLÀN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR

FINDTNGS OF FACT
a Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, ot plans that govem the conduct of a continuing program; or
Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways (CEQA Guideiines, $ 15168(a)).

In this case, the Program EIR addresses the General Plan and Related Actiotts. The Final EIR anticipates a series of actions that willbe undertaken over time to rmplement the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. Further actions or procedures required to allow implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions include the processing of zone changes, specific p1ans, tentatìve tract maps, development plans, building permits, and grading permits.

In a Program EIR, CEQA allows the general analysis of broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgment that subsequent site-specific environmental review may be required for particular aspects of portions of the program at the time of project ìmplementation. The Program EIR serves a valuable purpose as a first-tier environmental analysis. The Program EIR can be incorporated by reference into subsequently prepared environmental documents to address issues, such as cumulative impacts and growth inducing impacts, allowing the subsequent documents to focus on new or site-specific impacts (CEQA Guidelines, !i i51Ió8(d)).

Although the legally required contsnts of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, in practice there are considerable differences in level of detail. Program EIRs are t¡,pically more conceptual and abskact. They contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. The analysis in ihe General Plan and Related Actions EIR is not intended to be a substrtute for site-specific environmental analysis for future development projects (e.g., determining the level of seryice for intersections within the Cify or specific biological inrpacts for future development projects).r The EiR for the Shafter General Plan and Related Actions provides a macroscale anaiysis that can be used to focus environmental review for future development projects on sitespecific, project-reiated issues. The parameters by which a lead agency can determine the need for additional environmental documentation are contained in the CEQA Guidelines ($ $ 1 5 1 60 to I 5 i 70).

2.6 Growth Inducernent
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed General Plan and Related Actions could be growth inducing. CEQA Guidelines Section 1.51.26.2(ó) identifies a project as growth inducìng if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment, New employees from commercial and industriai development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional eçonomic activity in the area. Examples of development that would indirectly facilitate growth include the installation of new roadways or the construction or expansion of water delívery/treatment facilities. Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of growth induoing impacts of the General Plan and Related Actions. Based on the defìnition of grorvth inducement, a Where site-specific information is available that provides insight into cumulative citywide impacts, such information was incoçorated into the General Plan EIR. An example of the incorporation of site-specific information is the land use plans for the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans. 3 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Generai Plan Update\Staff Repo¡ts$inal SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC $nVZ0A5) JUNE 2OO5
SHÀFTER CÊNERAL PLAN AND RELATOD ACTf ONS ETR
F¡ND¡NGS OF FACT
General Plan is inherentþ growth inducing leading to certain significant unavoidable impacts; it is the indirect impacts of the growth that the General Plan will induce that are addressed in the detailed impacts sections of the Final EIR.

2.7 Cumulative Impacts
"Cumulative impacts can result ûom individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time" (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15355(b). Section 15130 of the CEeA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumuiative impacts of a proposed project.

Cumulative impacts are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15355). "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related pas! present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future projects" (CEQA Guidelines, $ 15355(b).

Due to the broad project objectives associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions; the cumulative analysis presented in this Program EIR does not evaluate the site-specific impacts of individual projects. Projectlevel analysis will be prepared on a project-byproject basis. The proposed Generai Plan addresses cumulative growth anticipated to occur in Shafter and its General Plan study area resulting from build out of the proposed General Plan in combination with growth throughout Kern County. The cumulative impact analysis is based on the anticipated population growth within Kern County. Population growth is a major factor contributing to direct impacts on habitat housing, job markets, transportation, and development. Additionally, these direct impacts can cause secondary impacts to biological resources, air quality, density, and the overall quality of life within Shafter. For this reason, using population growth as a measure to determine cumulative impacts is applicable when examining a iarge-scale policy action such as a General Plan.

2.8 SignilicantlrreversibleEffects
Section 5.3 of the DEIR examined "significant ìrreversible environmental effects." Approval and implementation of actions related to the proposed General Plan and Related Actions would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energ'y supplies and other construction-related materials. The energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, kansportation of people and goods, heating and refrigeration, lightin g, and, other associated energy needs. Envíronmental changes with implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions would occur as the physical environment is altered through continued commjtments of land and construction materials to urban development. There would be an irrekievable commifment of labor, capital, and materials used in construction and a permanent loss of open space. Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. The consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources would result from the development of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions, including, but not limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, and water. Because alternative energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind energ"y are not currently in widespread local use, it is unlikely that real savrngs in non¡enewable energy supplies (e.g., oii and gas) could be realized in the immediate future. i:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffRepods\Final SHAFTER 4 EIR findíngs.DOC(62t/2005) SHÂFTER CENENÀL PLAN AND RELÀTED ÁCTIONS Sf R

FINDINGS OF FACT
JUNS 200s
Deveiopment within Shafter, as envisioned by the proposed G_eneral Plan and Related Actions, would result in the construction of structures, facìlities, and/or infrastructure on lands that are currentþ undeveloped, resulting in their future and permanent commjtment to urban uses,

2.9 Consistency with Regional Plans
CEeA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that any inconsistencies between a regionally significant projèrt (e.g., General plan) u"a ì"gtonul plans be díscussed' Kem Council of Govemments (Kem COG) and San louq,,rin Vá¡ey AirÞoilution Control District (SIVAPCD) regional plans cover the ùãpórr¿ General plan study ãrea. The proposed General Plan is consistent v¡ith the SJVAPCD's air q,ruiit' management plan, as discussed in Section 4.3 of the General Plan EIR.

As shown in Table 4.LZ.G of the General Plan EIR, build out of the proposed General_Plan in 2030 would result in u *,rrh larger population and a much Tatget employment base than coG has projected. The populati* õtojà"iio"s of.KERN COG, as shown in Table 4'12'E of the General Plan EIR, show the City gt"*åguv approximately 215 persons aruruaþ ot l'2 percent through 2030' Between 1990 and ZOô0, A""popr¡àiion of Shafter increased from 8,409 to 12,757, an aYerage of 435 f"..on, per year çS.lV" áro*åt19, according to the Califomia Department of Finance' The Kem COG data indicate that the ur"u', popltiation is góing to grow at arale that is slower than occurred between 1990 and 2000. Even wit¡où ih" propor"ã G"ãetalplan, hovvever, the projected growth rate for 2003 and,2004is higher t¡* titú;ons årrnuully as projected b{ {PN CoG' Therefore, projections for 2A30 maybe exceeded wheiher or not the proposed G9n91al Plan is implemented' The General Pla¡r and EIR both explicitþ acknowledge that thá General Plan would result in a substantially greater population base t-han runN coG projects. Additionally, the KERN COG projectiol: do not cover irrËrr"øv adopted shafter sphere oilnhrr".t"" Area in the southeastern portion of the Plarming Area' one of the objectives of the shafter General Plan is to cfeate alarger loca1 employment base, thereby p*,rifing a balarrcebetween local employment and housing opportunities' This balance is sought to reduce the long home-to-work commutes and traffic "ottg".iiot, along major commute routes' such as
state Route 99, andresuliing air quality impacts- Because KERN COG projections are based on an area smaller than the Shaftãr General Plan area, the proposed Shafter General Plan provides lor considerably *or. to"ui*mptoyment than is reflected in-KERN CoG projections' hrcreasing local the employment base in relation to the local population provides greater opportunities for residents to live closer to their places "i "*pfoyt11""t
anå may lessen future impacts related to air quality and t¡affic within the regíon.

3.0 3.1

FINDINGS OF THE SIIAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED
ACTIONS EN}TRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Potential Impacts, Implementation of the shafter General Plan and Related Actions will increase development of urban an¿ rurat residential uses resulting in the convetsion of open space areas and agricultural lands to urban and rural residential land .tr"., th.rt changing the visual character of the land withrn areas desigiui.¿ t* urban development on the General Plan's land use map' The existing and future public vierís will be altered. Expansion of areas developed for urban and rwal residential 5 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GenemlPlanupdate\StaffReports\FinalsHAFTEREIRtìndings'Doc(6/21l?005) JUNE ZOO5 SHASlER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RtrLATED ACTIONS EIR FINDINGS OF FACT use may also conflict with the City's existing small town visual character and qualities. Í: addition, new development within the General Plan study area will introduce new sources of light and glare.

Findings. While the Cify of Shafter has no officially designated scenic yista or views, the proposed General Plan policies recognize the importance of open space and public views Àd provio" for the protection of land designated for agricultwal use anà opell space. V¡itit" the propose'J General plan policies address the aesthetic impact of new develofmeng they do not åduce the impacts of converting open space and agricultural lands to urban land uses tó a less than significant level and signifìcant unavoidable impacts would remain. The Coberþ West and Mission Lai<es Specific plans s-et f_orth landscaping plans and design guidelines aimed at ensuring the visual quality of new development. These provisions wrll not reduce the loss of views of opâ space and ågnculture that will result from the development of the two Specific Plans, It is anticþat"d t¡ut future-development within Annexation 77 outside of the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific plans will include provisions for landscaping plans and design guidelines. While such provisiãns will address the visual quality of the built environment, they will not mitigate loss of views of existing open space and agricultural land.

The General Plan retains a large permanent agricultural buffer around. Shafter's central cor6 area, maintaìning the small town size and character of that area.In addition, development policies in the proposed General Plan are specifîcally directed toward maintaining and enhancing the downtown,s visual environment and character. 'With the implementation of the-General plan p-oli"i"r, the vísual impacts of new development would be less than significant. Both the proposed.'Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans propose large-scale urban development; however, the proposed General Plan preserves a large buffer between these Specific Plan areas and Shafter's core area. Thus, development of these Specific Plan areas will not affect the small town visual character of Shafter,s existing core area. It is anticipated that future development within Annexation 77 outside of the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specif,rc Plans wr1l also encompass large-scale urban development; however, the proposed General Plan preserves a large buffer between the area of Annexati on 77 and Shafter's core area' Thus, development within the area of AnnexationTT wíltnot affect the small town visual character of Shafter's existing çoÍe atea.

The proposed General Plan recognizes the impact of light and glare on sensitive receptors and provides guidance to reduce impacts of light and glare; hol'ever, it does not provide development design standards which would enswe that aesthetic impacts related to light aná glare would be less than significant. Because these policies do not provide performance standards tã address light and glare, Mitigation Measures 4.2.3A, 4.2.38, 4.2.3C, 4.2.3D, anó, 4.2.38 were proposecl to provide performance standards to reduce the impacts of light and glare. Therefore, the Councit herebydirects that these mitigation measures be adopted. Both the proposed Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans propose large-scale urban development which will create light and glare sources. It is also anticipated that future development within Annexation 77 outside of Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans will create lightning sources. The performance standards found in the above mitigation measures will be applied to all development within Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and within Arurexation 77. The Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects of light and glare on the environment will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

JiUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR hndings.D OC (6/21/2005) 6 SHÀFTER CENERAI, PLAN AND RELATED ACT¡ONS EIR
F'INDINCS OF F'ACT .tuN¿ 200s
Facts in Support of Findings. New development can alter surrounding visual qualities through increased densities and intensities and loss of open vistas and views of agricultural actii¡ities within porlions of the Planning Area. Any new development that may cause the loss of natural resources, ägricultural, and open ,pu." u."u* would alter the existing quality and sense of open space that the pianning Area now exhibits as the result of large expanses of agricultural land use. No feasible mitigadón measures exist to address the loss of open vistas that will result from conversion of open spaci und agricuitrual lands to urban and rural residential uses, other than those that are included in the General plan. The Council therefore finds that changes or alterations which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment have been required in or incorporated into the project; however, the loss of open space remains significant and unavoidable. The Council fui1her flinds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that the Council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impaãt of the loss of open space to a less than significant level' To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to a less than signifrcant level, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations supporl approval of the project as modified, despite unavoidable residgal impacts. For additional discussion regarding the project's impacts to open space and aesthetics, see DEIR, Section 4'2'
The General plan impacts to small town visual character and qualities have been substantially reduced to a less than significant level by virtue ofGcneral Plan policies addressing a buffer around Shafter,s central .or. ulr"u and policies providing development guidance to the downtown area (policies 2.3.1-3,2-3.5,2.3.g-L1,;..5J,2.5.4-5,2.6.1,2.8.7,2.8.10,2'8.19,2'9.8,4.6.6,4-7.6,4'7'6-7, ànd 6.6.7). In addition, all of the development in both the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific plans and the developáent outside thesJplans within Annexation 77 is separuted from the downtown core by not only agricultural buffers but also by distance so as not to affect the small town visual characier. Therefore, the General Plan policies provide guidance to reduce impacts to small town visual character and qualities, particularþ with regard to agricultural buffers and compatible new development in the downtown core, including development design standards that would ensure that aestheiic impacts relating to small town visual character and qualities would be less than significant' Specifically, ttr" C"tr"*l Plan states in Policy 6.2.3 that tl" Clty will maintain a permanent aþi"utturitiopen space buffer around central 3huft.t, including a broad buffer between central Siafter and lánds mthin the southeastan portion of the Planning Area' In Policy 2.8.2A, the Cíty will develop an attractive, but natwal-appearing landscape at communify entries and along arleriais and collecfor roadways planted with grðves oÌ keer, ãafih tone walls, and drifts of flowering shrub materials.

General pian policy 23 .3 related.to mitigatíon of light and glare impacts was found in the Draft EIR to not provide development design standãrds that would ensure that aesthetic impacts relating to light and glare would be iess than sìgnificant. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 42.3A through E were propõs"d to fgrther reduce this impact. These measures provide additional performance standards ,"tut"¿ to mitigation of light and glare impacts to be incorporated into the proposed General Plan' The mitigation measures ,"qüit"d tnãt tt " Cìty provide the minimum lighting required to ensu¡e safe circulation and visibility; limit street lighting to intrrr".tions and other locations that are needed to maintain safe access; límit exterior tthtint of buildings to lowarofile intensity; and require that lighting in new development be confinea tã t¡e areas to be lighted with no spillover lighting. The Cã,rr,.ii hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. The implementation of General 7 ItltsERS\ENc-pLAN\WA\îÍE\Generul Plan update\stalf Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR tindings.DOC (612112005) JUNE ZOOS SHÀFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RSLATED ACTTONS EIR F'INDINGS OF FACT Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified above will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

For further discussion of the impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, see DEIR Section 4.2 beginning on page 4.2.1 -

3.2 Air Quality
Potential fmpacts. Air pollutant emissions including fugitive dust and gases which could affect air quality would occur during conskuction-related activitíes associated with individual projects permitted by the General Plan and Related Actions. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut and fil1 grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project-by-projeci basis, depending on the level of actlity, the specific operations, and weather rotditior,* at the time of construction. Because the number, sizes, and locations of ìndividual construction projects that might be undertaken concurrently at any grven time following implementation of ths General plan and Related Actions cannot be known, it is not feasible to quantify accurately the proposed daily fugitive dust emissions that will result from the proposed projeci; however, there are a number of feãsible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantþ reduce PM¡p emissions from construction. The SJVAPCD approach to CEQA analyses of construction PMle impacts is to require implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than to require ¿etãiled quantification of emissions. These control measures are generally grouped together under Regulation VItr of the SIVAPCP. Therefore, as detcrmined by the SIVAPCD, compliance with Regulation VIII for all sites and implementation of related control measures (as appropriate, depending on the size and location of the project site) will constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce PMle impacts to a level considered less than significant. The proposed General Plan provides Policy 6.7.1, wltich is directly related to mrtigation of particulate emissions and, through this policy, all development projects are required to minimize the generation of particulate emissions during construction by implementing appropriate dust abatement actions.

As the result of new development that will occur consistent with the Shafter General Plan, stationary and mobile source air pollutant emissions associated with land uses within the City will occur.

Althôugh some of the future pollutant emissions will occur as the result of previously approved development projects, there will also be pollutant emissions occurring as the result of additional development allowed by the General Plan and Related Actions beyond those which currently exist or are approved. 'l'he use of electricity by new homes, businesses, institutions, and other uses within the Shafter Planning Area will result in area sowce emissions from increased demand for electrical energy that will be generated at power plants utilizing fossil fuels. Industrial water heaters, fireplaces, wood heaters, lawn maintenance equipment, and application of paints at individual sites within The Shafter Planning Area will each emit small quantities of air emissions, which, depending upon the number of industrial users and residences, are generally the main stationary pollution sources in Shafter, Based on the latest IIRBEMIS 20AZ model, emission factors for future build out year (2030) were determined. The proposed General Plan and Related Actions would generate ROG and NOx emissions that would exceed the project level operations threshold established by the SIVAPCD.

Additionally, the rate of increase in VMT and annuai growth percentages resulting from the implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in significant impacts. It is anticipated that J;\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final I SHAFTER EfR findings.DOCGTU200S) SHAFTER CENERAL PLÀN AND RELATED ACTTONS BIR
F'TNDINGS OF FÀC1 JUNE ¿OO5
the total new vehicular tnps and associated VMT of the General Plan and Related Actions would result in criteria pollutant èmissions which exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by the S¡VAPCD. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies would reduce long-term increase in air poilutants due to vehicle emissions; however, significant unavoidable impacts would remainFindings. During construction of the projects permitted under the General Plan and Related Actions, fugitive"dust (pMr') will occur. The proposed daily fugitive dust emissions that will result from the prõposed project cannot be quantified; hòwevet, the SWAPCD has determined that compliance with iregulation VIII for all siæ; and implementation of all other conhol measures indicated in Tables

4.if and 4,3.G (as appropriate, depJnding on the size and location of the project site) will constitute sufficient mitigation to t"du." PMlp impacts to a level considered less than significant' Implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions would generate ROG and NOx ernissions that would eì"eed the project leve1 operations threshold established by the SJVAOCD' Additionally, the rate of increasè in \rIVIT and annual growth percentages resulting from the implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in sigrrifîcant impacts. Implementation of tt
"
ptopor"d General Pian policies would reduce impacts associated with the proposed General Plan; howevãr, significant tmavoidable impacts would remain'
An anaþsis has been conducted of the consistency of the proposed Shafter General Plan and Related Actions with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Plan (SWACP) and has concluded that the General plan and Related Actions would not conflict or obstruct the SIVACP. with the addition of a mitigation measure requiring ihe City's support of the revised SIVAPCD Plan, implementation of the Genãral plan and Relaied Aðtions would have a less than significant impact on the SJVACP' Facts in support of Findings. The proposed General Plan covers the cify, its sphere of influence and an area ãxtending beyonithese b-oundaries, encompassing a total of approximately 46,583 aores' The impacts of builJ oui of the General Plan are thus actually a summary of ihe individual actions and development permits that will be rmdertaken throughout the Shafter Planning Area, as opposed to an individual project with project-specific construction information occurring in a single location' pMro emitte¿ ãwing construction can vary greatly depending on the ievel of activity, the specific op"iätior* taking plu"", the equipment bãing operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other fåctors, making quantification åifficult. Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that there are a number of feasible conffol measures that can be reasonably implemented to signifrcantþ reduce PMle emissions from construction. The SfVAPCD has determined that ,o--*ptiurr." with Reguluti* Vm (as detailed in the DEIR on page 4.3-L5) for all sites and rmpt"m"ntution of aliother control measures indicated in Tables 4.3.F and 4.3.G (as appropriate, depending on the size and location of the project site and as presented on page 4-3'16 of the DEIR) wiil corrrãt rte sufficient mitigation to reduôe ÞM,o i*pu"ts to a ievel considered iess than significant' As an exampie, Regulation itrI íncludes watering before and during grading. The PMro emission generation oi a 50 Jcres of graded area, vmth a six-month grading cycle and an estimated two-year ãonstruction period would reìdt in an avemge estimate of 184 pounds of PMro per day and a daily peak estimate of 735 poiurds of PM¡' whiãh would double without watering before and dunng þading. Compliance with these rules would also reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors to ã"to,"ã ievel ðf significance as all appropriate mitigation would be applied and, under the SJVAPCD' 9 t:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WA111E\General Pi¿n Updåte\Staff Reports\Final SHAFIER EIR frndings.DOC (6121/2005) JUNE zO0s- S¡IAFlÊR GBNERAL PLAN ÀND RELATAD ACTTONS DIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
compliance with these regulations mitigates the impacts to a less than significant level. For additional discussion regarding the short-term construction impacts to air qualit¡ see DEIR, Section 4.3. As discussed in this section, the impacts to air quality áuring short-term construction, with the control measures included in Regulation VIII, and as determined by the S¡VAPCD, would reduce short-term construction impacts to less than signifîcant.

Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any growth-related change. The proposed General Plan would result in both station ary and mobile source increases. The stationary source emissions from the various uses would come from the consumption of natural gas. Table 4.3 .H in the DEIR shows that buiid out of the General plan and Related Aclions would produce 2,423 lonslyear of ROG and 830 tons/year of NOx. These emissions would significantly exceed the operational 10 tons/year ttreshold for itOC and NOx established by SIVAPCD. An estimate of the increase in vehicle usage within the Shafter planning Area was undertaken by comparing average daily traffic volumss at General Plan and Related Actions build out, as modeled, with the existing average daiiy traffic volumes contained in the Kem COG model.

Based on a comparison of fuhue faffic volumes, it is estimated that existing land uses account for

27.5 percent of the emissions in Table 4.3.H, andthat future land uses will accõunt for 72.5 percent of total emissions, exceeding SVACPD thresholds for ROG and NOx (the only two criteria air pollutants with operational thresholds). Thus, air quality impacts of the propor"á General plan are considered to be significant. The proposed General Plan provides policiäs io reduce the effects of vehicle emjssions tn General Plan Policies 6.7.1-7,6.8.6,2,.3.I-4,2.i.7,2.8.IL,2.g.14d.,3.2.I,3.2.7-

9.,3.3'3-4,3.4-I-4,3-3-6-13,3-5.2-7, and3.6.l-3.Implementation of the policies provided in the proposed General Plan will reduce the projected long-term increase in mobile air pollutants; however, significant impacts would remain. The proposed General PIan does not contain pbü.i.* which would reduce stationary air quality impacts caused by residential uses or other possible stationary sources.

Therefore, Mitigation Measrues 4.3.4.3A-E were proposed to reduce this impact, In addition, general approaches from SJVAPCD's Guide for Assessing and Mitígating Air Qualífy Impacts, January 10, 2002, Sections 6.5.2 and 6-5.3 were recommended. However, "rrJtt
with imptementation of the best
available mitigation measures, stationary and vehicular emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Council further finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that the Council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impact to a less than signifìcant level. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less than significant) level, the Council fînds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, alitd other considerations identifìed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project as modified, despite r¡navoidable residual impacts. For additional discussion regarding the project's impacts to air quality resulting from stationary sogrces and increased vehicular emissions, see DEIR, Section 4.3.

3.3 Biological Resources
Potential lmPacts' Future development consistent with the Shafter General Plan will result in the alteration of existing biotogícal habitats and, in some portions of the study area, the loss of some natural habitat areas. As a result, there could be a decrease in biological diversity, including loss of species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, as well us iiparian, wãtland or other sensitive natural communities. Implementation of the proposed Generai plan could also J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR Iindings.DOC (6t21/ZO0S) 10 SHÀFTER GONERAL PLAN AND RELA'I'ED ACTIONS ETR
tI(NDINGS Of'FACT JUNE ?OO5
constrict, ínhibit, or eliminate wildlife movement within portions of the Planning Area.

Implementation of the General Plan and Related Actions could affect existing and proposed Habitat Conservation plans. Implementation of the General Plan would not result in the direct loss of oak trees as oak hees are not forurd in the Planning Area.

Finetings. Implementation of the proposed General Plan and Related Actions wrll expand urban and rural dJvelopment into lands that are currently natural or in agricultural production- Listed species lcnown to oõcur within the planning Area could be impacted by the development into ruderal and agricuitwal areas. Currently, biological impacts and applicable mitigation measures are determined oã a prolect-by-project Uasis ln consultation with natural resource agencies. General Plan policies focus on-avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources and habitats. Additionally, the policies ensure that when biological rrr*"ys are undertaken,_ established USFWS and CDFG protocols, specific to the species iriquestion, a-re followed. To fi¡rther reduce the impacts to biological i".o*."r, a¿ditional mitigation measures are proposed. With the implementation o{ the-General Plan policies and complian." *lth the mitigation measures and applicable State and Federal laws, impacts ielated to the losJ ofcandidatc or listed species would be less than significant.

According to the DEIR on page 4.4-1.5, implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in the directloss of sensitive nàUilat. The potential for such impacts to be significant would depend upon various factors including but not timite¿ to, site conditions at the time of project evaluation, the extent of the area poteritially affected, quality of the habitat being affected, and the value of the affected habitat af local and regional ìcales. The Generai Plan policies focus o¡ avoidancs, preservation, and minimiza1ton oi impacts to biological resources and habitats' Additionally, the policies ensure that when biological rr'rru"y* are undertaken, established protocols, specific to the species in question, are observed-. However, the policies do not specify parameters for compensatrng for the loss of habitats when avoidance or minimization of impacts is considered to be infeasible.

Therefore, the policies do not fully rnitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat. In conjunction with the pràpo."a'Genåral plan policies,-additional mitigation measuïes are recoülmended which when combined with the impleåentation of the Gene¡al Plan policies reduce the impacts related to the loss of plant and wildlife habitat to a less than significant level' There are no natural corridors in which wildlife can move freely through the Plarming Area, although common and listed wildlife is known to utilize and move through agricultwal lands and cross highways within the planning Arca. Within the eastem half of the Planning Area, east-west wildlife movement is restricteJ;t tl* BNSF rail line, Calloway and Fri¿nt-Kem Canais, tIP rail line, and State Route 99. The subsiantial development planned north of 7th Standard Road within the Shafter planning Area and also south of 7'h standard Road within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan will further restrict wildlife movement' However, broad areas will remain in open space and agricultural use to the west of Shafter's core area, providing for regional wrldlife movement. Because tli.r" ur" no natural corridors in which wildlife can freely move through the Planning Area, there are no specific policies regarding natwal corridors. Also, because sensitive wildlife is known to move through agnculturai faã¿s anã cross highways within the Planning Area and the proposed Land Use program proposes u fr*uo*nt agricultmaÙopen space buffer around central Shafter, the proposed polñies will ieduce irnpacts to a less than significant level' J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\ceneral Plan Update\Staff Reports\Fìnal SHA¡TER EIR findings.DOC (6/21n005) 11 JUNE
'O05
SHA.F'TER CENERÀL PLAN ÀND RELÀTED ACTfONS EIR F'INDtNGS OF FACT Tl" !!tr1?lanning A¡ea covers,,the portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservatjon Plan (MBHCP) located north of 7'h Standard Road. The porrion of the MBHCp within the planning Area is generally in existing agricultural use and will be converted to urban use under the Coberl| Ïfest and Mission Lakes Specific Plans. This future urban area is not designated as an area to be preserved within the MBHCP. The City of Shafter is not a signatory to the MBHCp and, therefore, is not technically bound by the MBHCP. Implementation of the proposed project could., however, impact the MBHCP. Development in the Plaru:ing Area does not affect tire aUitrty of the t<ern Water Bank Authorify to sell mitigation credits for its conseryation bank. The Váttey Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (VFHCP) is in the planning process and the City would participate in the VFHCp when it is adopted. The_General Plan policies are directed towárd establishin! a comprehensive system of open space and thereby creating areas for habitat conservation. Howeier, the iolicies do not address existing Conservation Plans within the City's Planning Area. Therefore, a mitigation measure covering existing Conservation Plans is recommended. With the implementation of the proposed General Pian policies and the mitigation measure, the General Plan will have a less than signifrcant impact on Conservation P1ans.

Facts in Support of X'indings. According to the DEIR on page 4.4-13, build out of the proposed Generai Plan will result in the conversion of approximately 35 percent (14,024 acres of deveiop*enq of the existing open space and agricultural land within the Shafter Planning A¡ea to urban and rurai use. Five species which are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the Califomia andlor the Federal Endangered Species Act were identified as having a moderate to high likelihood of being present within the Planning Area. Because each potential habitat fype identified within the plannin! Area would be impacted to some degree by implementation of the proposed General plan, its implementation could result in the direct mortality of listed, proposed., ot-rut didut" species or loss of habitat occupied by such species. Currently, undisturbed habitat remains due to habitai loss as a result of agricultural operations and petroleum production uses. The Environmental Management program of the proposed General Plan includes Policies 6.4.1-4, which address effects of prospeitive development on biologrcal resources. These General Plan policies will directly or indirectly åddress the listed, proposed, or candidate species or the loss ofhabitat occupied by such species. Adâitionally Mitigation Measures 4.4,4.IA and B are recommended to fi.rrther red.uce impacts to sensitive species and their habitats. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation meãslr"s be adopted^. The implementation of General Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified above will rèduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Development permìtted under the proposed General Plan and Related Actions may result in the direct loss of sensitive habitat. Determining if the impact to sensitive habitat is significant at the current level of planning would require site-specific surveys and analysis that would normally be mdertaken as part of the subsequent evaluation of such specific development projects as would be proposed to implement the General Plan. In the absence of such on-site analysis, impacts of the proposed project are considered to be significant subject to the implementation of any measures contained in the General Plan, Coberly 'West Specific Plan, and Mission Lakes Specific Plan that would require avoidance or provide mitigation of impacts. The Rio Bravo North Oit Field is designated as resouïce management zone in the Proposed General Plan Land Use. The salt scrub habitatmay be impacted by construction of new facilities in the oiIfield, but the land would most likely remain undisturbed as ii has been in the past. Policies 6.4.I-4 related to loss of habitat are located in the Environmental .Management Program of the proposed General Plan and ensr¡re that when biological surveys are J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR fìndings.DOC (6/2InA05) l2 SHÄFTER CEN6RAL PLÀN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FACT JUNE 2OO5
tmdertaken, established protocols, specific to the species in question, are observed. However, the policies do not specifu parameters for compensating for the loss of habitats when avoidance or núnimization of impacts is considered to be infeasibie. Therefore, the policies do not fully mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat. In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policies, an additional mitigation measure, 4.4.4.2.A, is recommended which establishes baseline ratios for the loss of habitat. The Council hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. The implementation of General Plan policies and the mitigation measure identified above will reduce this impact to a less than sigrrifi cant level.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.4-76, certain species, including many plants and birds, are able to pass over, around, or through urban barriers, and may be somewhat less restricted by habitat Þagmentation. Other species,"such as deer, smail mammals, and larger carnivores are more restricted byîrban barriers, and^require corridors of usable habitat between habilat patches in order to thrive.

Tîere are no nahral "ooido., which wildlife can use to move freely through the Planning Area, although common and listed wildlife is known to utiiize and move through agricultural lands and "ror, ñighways within the Planning Area. Wildlife lcrown to traverse agricultural lands includes the burrowiãg owl Q4.thene cunícularii hypugea), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), badger (Taxidea taxus),uni .pud"foot toad (Spea hammlndii).As land use d_evelopment proceeds under the proposed cerreii plan, wildlife movèåent would be increasingly inhibited and furureled through thc rcmaìning agriculhgal and open space lands. As proposed, there is a_ band of agriculttral land that will be pieserved around frr. ciiv of shafter wtrich wilt allow for wildlife movement. within the area east of ^State Rorrte 43, wildlífe movement would be restricted south and east of Shafter's core area' However, broad areas will remain in open space and agnculnf1l use to the west of shafter's core ur"u, pro.riding for regional witdlife movement. General Plan Polices 6-2-3 and 6.4.t'4 indirectly "¿¿r"r.
impacls to wjldlife movement. Because there are no natural corridors in which wildlife can fleely move through the Planning Area, there are no specific policies regarding natural corridors' Also, becaur" .".rJiti r" wildlife ii known to move through agricultural lands and cross highways withín the Planning Atea and the proposed Land Use Program ploposes a permanent agricultural/op"r ,poã" buffer around central Shafter, the proposed policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Based on a review of available documents O{BHCP, August 29,1994),1ands that are now within the shafter planning Area were never contempiæed as preserve lands, but were identified as available fot "ontin.rr¿
agriciritoral use or for development and subject to the paynent of mitigation fees' There are two permittees under the MBHCP, the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. Since the City of Shafter i, "Jt u permin"e under the vrgl{'cp, shafter could not collect the required mitigation fees under the MBHCp. As developers' needs to compensate for the loss of certain specíes and their habitats increase with the implementation of the General Plan and Related Actions, the ability of the Kern Water Bank Authorify to se|l mitigation credits may increase. The DEIR policies related to preservation of open.iu"" ur"u, are øZ,t,aîd6.2.3-4. The poiicies are directed toward establishing a comprehensive system- of open space and thereby creating areas for habitat conservation. As there is no existing approved Countywide Conservation Plan, the City has shown through policies its *ìffi"grr"ríto plarticipatå it, .rr"l plans, should they be createcl. Howevet, the policies do not address existirig consårvation plans witÈin the city's Plarming Area. Therefore, a mitigation measure'

4.4.4.4.A. covering existing Conservation Plans is recommended- Under this mitigation, if an ugÉ";mt is reachãd with ñe City of Bakersfield and Kern County, the City would collect fees and pãss them on to the appropriate uj"r"y for the Planning Area .,vithin the MBHCP. If no agreement is J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\General Plan Update\Staff Repo*s\Final SHAFTER EIR findings'DOC (6/21l2Û05) 13 J{JNE 2OO5 SHAFTER GENERA.L PLAN AND RELÁ,TED ACTTONS EIR FTND¡NçS OF FACT reached, then the area within the MBHCP would follow the City's adopted habitat preservation replacement ratio of 1:1. With this mitigation measure, compensation woulã be made for the loss of biological species and habitats. The Council hereby directs ihat this mitigation measure be adopted.

The implementation of General Plan policies and the mitigation measure identified above wili reduce this impact to a less than signifîcant level.

Further discussion of impacts to Biological Resources is located in the DEIR beginning on page 4,4-L

3.4 Cultural Resources
Potential fmpacts. As determined in the DEIR on page 4-5-9, build out on vacant or open areas permitted by the General Plan and Related Actions would require disûrbance of vacant lands and open lands and could cause the destruction or loss of significant paleontological resources, dishlrbance to buried human remains, buried archaeological resources, and the possible conversion of existing structures to new uses (e.g., historic homes into office space). Development allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could cause the destruction of or loss of an historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.

Findings. The proposed General Plan would a1low development of structures within areas tlat contain high sensitivity for paleontological resources and this includes the area within Arrnexation 77 andPre-Zoning Area, Coberþ'West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plaa, and the properties within the proposed 'W'illiamson Act contract cancellations. Although no reports of fossils from within Planning Area were identified during a records search conducted through the LACM and the Universify of California, Berkeley (see Appendix A of the Paleontological Resowces Technical Study), significant vertebrate fossils have been found in the same sediments outside of the Planning Area a¡d are, therefore, likely to occur within the Planning Area when exposed by excavation. The proposed General Plan includes Policy 6.6.3 tl:ø;t requires, as a standard condition of development, that ifpaleontological resources are encountered during site grading that grading is to be halted until a qualíflred paleontologist evaluates and records the find. This policy applies to development within the Planning Area which includes the AnnexationTT andPre-Zorung Area, Coberþ West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties in the V/illiamson Act contract cancellations. With adherence to the proposed General Plan policies, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

While only two prehistoric resources have been discovered vv"ithin the Planning Area, less than onefifth of the Planning Area has been surveyed for cultural resources (LSA Associates, Inc. 2005). Due to the small percentage of the Planning Area which has been sr.rveyed for prehistoric resources, pending a cultural resources survey of the balarrce, the majority of the Planning Area should be considered sensitive for the presence of prehistoric resources. The proposed General Plan includes poiicies which require developments to analyze archaeological resources in accordance to CEQA guidelines. However, the policies do not determine what should be done should human remains be encountered and Mitigation Measure 4.5.4.2A rñ/as reconrmended to cover that situation. Mitigation Measure 4.5.4.2A requires that if human remains are found, no further disturbance shall occur until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human remairfs. If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric,ìhe Native J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Updåte\StaffRepons\Final SIIAFTER EIR findings,DOC 6ntn¡OS) t4 SHAFTOR GENERAL PLAN AND ROLATED ACTTONS ÊfR
FINDf NGS OF FÀCT JUNE 2OO5
American Heritage Commission must be contacted to determine the most likely descendant for the area. This process establishes a procedure to handle human remains and document any historic significance. With the proposed General Plan policies and mitigation measure, impacts to añhaeological resogrces ut d àisturbunce to buried human remains w<¡uid be less than sìgnificant' Implementation of the proposed General Plan may disturb or deskoy existing historic structures and ,..rãur.., through the cônstruction of new residential, commercial, instittttional or industrial buildings, and/oin"w infrastructure such as roadways and utilities. Research conducted as part of the Cultural Resource Assessment (LSA Associates, Inc- 2005) indicates more than 100 residences and other buiidings were constructeà pnor to 1954 within the Planning Area (USGS 7953, 1954)''lhe Cify of Shafter has had a long{erm interest in kistorical preservation and is committed to historicai preservution as evidenced Uy ltre inclusion of historical prèseivatiol policies in the proposed General plan which reduce the impäcts of implementation of the General Plan and Related Actions to less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings. Sign'ificant paleontological.resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, l.ur", ,rr,"o*mon, díagnostically or stratigraphically important' and those that add to an existing boáy of knowledge in speóific areas, stratigraphically, taxonomically, or rãgionaily. Two fossil muni*oths have been lãcated in Pleistocene sediments similar to those within the Planning Area at six feet of depth" The concept of reducing impacts to levels below significant involves removal of nomenewabie paleontological resources from the field of evacuation as they are "*po..a and, if possibie, prior to damage bi excavation. Although not all fossils present will be reåovered by thå progru* of excavation monitoring and salvage, it is important to recover a significant fossil aiseräblage that would not have been recovered if the monitoríng and recovery nr"*u* had not been in p1ãce. The proposed General Plan Policies 6.6.1-3 require new development to provide a paleontological *onitoting and recovery program thus reducing the impacts of impìementation of the Geãeral Plan and Rãlated Actions to a less than significant level' As determined in the DEIR on page 4.5-11, the two recorded rsolated prehistoric arttfacts mentioned above are not considered represãntative samples of prehistoric fesoulces' Given the amount of undisturbed land or ugri"uft*ut land that remains available for deveiopment, there remains the fossibility that cultural"resources may be disturbed through grading activities. General Plan Policies

6.6.I-3 provide g,nauo." regarding archaeologicai resources and, as a standard condition of development, indicate that iiarchaiological 'esources
afe encountered during site grading, that
g"dr^;is to be halted uttit u qualified ãrchaeologist evaiuates and records the find. In accordance with state law regarding the discovery of human remains, Mitigation Measure 4'5'4'2A is recommended. The Couîcil hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted' The implementation of General plan policies and the mitigation measure identified above will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

White many of the histonc buildings and structures identified from research have likely been removed, some remalning historical structures may still exist within the Planning Area. The proposed General plan provides po'licies which protect historic rcsor¡rces in Policies 6.6.4-7 . lmplementation of the proposed GeneraiÞlan policies will r_eQuire evaluation of new development in relationship to u*l.iirrj historical structures as well as the identification and presewation of existing significant histoncal structures with various alternatives to demolition of these structures considered, including j:\USERS\ENC-pLAN\WAyNE\ceneral Plan Update\StatTReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings-DAC $l21l20OS) 15 JUNE ZOO5 SHA['TER GENERÀL ¡LAN AND RELATED A,CTIONS EIR FINI¡INGS OF FACT
adaprive reuse of historic buildings for contemporary uses. V/ith new development required to adhere to these policies and the focus on preservation of existing historical structurés, future äevelopment in the Planning Area, the City, the A¡:rexation 77 andPrc-Zoning Area, Coberly West Specific plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the area in the 'lVilliamson Act contract cancellations will have a less than significant impact on historical structures or resources.

For additional discussion regarding the project's impact to cultural and paleontological resourses, see DEIR, Section 4.5.

3.5 Geology and Soils
Potential fmpacts. The Cify of Shafter has and will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from activit5r on local and regional faults. As stated in the DEIR page 4.6-72, future development permitted by the proposed General Plan may increase The potential for properry loss, injury, or death resulting from this ground shaking hazard. Soils susceptible to subsidence may be affected by a variely of natural or human activities, including earthquakes and the withdrawal of substrrface fluids. Future proposed General Plan development within the City would increase the potential for the placemant of structures and facilities in areas susceptible to subsidence. Areas exposed during developmart activities would be prone to erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. Future development within the Planning Area would increase potential placement of residential and nonresidential structures within areas susceptible to damage resulting from collapsible and expansive soils. Impacts to these issues are potentially significant with the implementation of the General Plan and Related Actions.

Although the Planning Area is located within a seismically active region of the State, it does not contain any active faults. Some older, inactive faults run through the western and southwestern portions of the Plan:ring Area; however, because these faults are inactive (they have not moved within the last 3 million years), they are not considered a source of potential hazard forrupturing. Future development permitted by the General Plan will not result in the exposure of people or structures to fault rupture hazards. Likewise, development permitted within the Armexafion 77 and Pre-Zoning Area-which includes the Coberþ'West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and the W'illiamson Act contract cancellation properties-will not result in the exposure of people or skuctures to fault rupture hazards as no known active faults are located within the boundaries of the A¡nexation Area

77. Tterefore, impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault in the Planning Area, which includes the Arurexation Area, are less than significant.

Liquefaction is a deskuctive secondary effect of strong seismic shalcing, which occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine-to-medium-grained soils in areas where the grormdwater table is within 50 feet of the surface. Shaking suddenly increases pore water pressure, causing the soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Liquefaction-related effects include loss ofbearing strength, ground oscillations, latcral spreading, and flow failures or slumping. Although soil conditions exist that might be conducive to liquefaction, groundwater is deep enough that liquefaction potential does not occur in the Planning Area, which includes the A¡nexation7T and Pre-Zoning Area of which Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties considered for Williamson Aot cancellation are apart. Therefore, impacts associated vdth this issue are less than significant.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Fin¿i SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2t/2005) T6 SHAFTER CENERAL PLÀN ÀND RELATED ACTIONS Ef R
F'INDf NGS OF FACT J0NE 2005
Landslides and slope stability are a relatively minor hazard within the Planning Area, which includes the Annexati on 77 and Pri-Zomng Area bor.ndaries of which Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and the proposed Williamson Act contract cancellation properties are a part. The slope hàzards are minor since there are only minor changes in topography and no steep slopes- Future proposed General Plan development within the Planmng Area would not increase the potential for the piaåement of structures and facilitics in areas susceptible to slope failure. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are less than significantFindings. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.6-!2, the Shafter General Plan A¡ea will be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking associated with earthquakes on the nearby regional fault system througho.t the study area. This ground shaking can be expected to result in substantial damage to indivúual buildings within Shaftãr, even though earthquake epicenters may be located outside of the study area. The Cìty of Shafter has ìdentified minimizing the risk of property damage and personal rnjury resulting from seismic and geologic hazards as one of its guiding policies in the Environmental na"ir¿" program of the propor.i' Genãral Plan. With the implementation of the proposed General plan policies, the impacts retåte¿ to grotrnd shaking will be reduced to less than significant.

Duc to thc thick scdimcntary deposits, the Planning Arca-which includcs thc Arurcxation 77 and pr:e-ZoningArea where Coberly'West and Missíon Lakes Specific Plans plus the properties under consideration for removal from Williamson Act contract-is susceptible to ground subsidenceAdditionaily , úte area is susceptible to subsidence due to the pumping out of water and oi1' The Environmen tal Hazards progruå of the proposed General Plan includes Policies 7 -2.1' tktough 7 '2'B to reduce the potentíal imiacts associated with development in areas where soils susceptible to subsidence are present to a less than significant level' Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be associated with groundbreaking excavation activities, such as gruãirrg or cut and frll fór new development and plowing of agricultural fields. An incrsase in ioputu:tio' anticipated by the City's proposed Generai Plan would cause an increase in residential and non-residential structures, and aliow new and continued agricultural activities resulting in alteration to and loss of existing topsái1. Proposed General Plan Policy 7.2.4 covers the strength, expansion, and settlement of soil; however, it does not specifically address soil erosion or topsoil. Additional mitigation measures covering soil erosion are ïccommended. With implementation of the proposed General plan policy, the Caliiomia Building Code, and the mitigation measures, the impacts from soil erosion will be reduced to a less than significant level in the General Plan Planning Area which includes Armexatron l7 andPre-Zoning Area, coberly west Specific P1an, Mission Lakes specific Plan, and the properties covered by the proposed Wrlliamson Act contract cancellations' Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in the construction and occupation of shuctwes \Mithin ur"u, undårlain by expansive soils. Expansive soil condihons (as defined in Table lg-1-B of the IJBC, Igg4),if not piopeily mitigated by site preparation and./or foundation design, can cause substantial damage'ío struciures uttd othèt improvements oveï time. Most of the Planning Area is made up of soils thaúave a low shrink-swell potential, with the exception of an area in the rvestern portion of th" plun ring Area. Build oul ofproposed General Plan will increase the number of persons, iesirlential r_rnits, ancl ãon-residentìal deveiopmert tftat woul<l ocçur on these soils; therefore, polieies are identified in the General plan to ensure ihat potentially significant impacts associated with future development within the Planning Area remain less than significant' J:\1, SERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR tindings.ÞOC (612V2A05) 17 JUNE ZOOS SHAFTER GENCRAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS ÉIR [.INDINGS OP FACT Facts in Support of FindÍngs. The Cify of Shafter Planning Area-which encompasses the Annexafion 77 and Pre-Zoning Area along with the Coberly 'Wist Specific plan, Missíon Lakes Specific Plan, and proposed Williamson Act contract cancellation propËrties-is located in Seismic Zone Classificafion 4, an atea that is subject to moderate to severe-gróund shaking as a result of its proximity to several active faults and the alluvial soils that underlie the Planning Area. Development within the Planning Area must conform to design and construction requiremãnts set forth in the Uniform Building Code (IBC) for development within Seismic Zone 4 and City or State seismic safety requirements. The General Plan includes Policies 7.2.1 rl:r:ough 7.2.8 which reduce or minimize the effects associated with ground shaking and on residences and habitable structures. The policies minimize the effects of ground shaking by requiring all new development to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code's seismic design standards, ancouraging retrofitting of highoccupancy structures to meet existing code requirements, and requiring geologic and soils reports with appropriate project development standards for all development. The General plan policies ústed above ensure that new developments adhere to the IIBC, ensure that the proper studÈs take place prior to development, and encourage safeguards from fault hazards. V/ith the implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, the impacts related to ground shaking will be reduced to less than significant.

The Plar:ning Area is located in the San Joaquin Valley where water users have been pumping large amounts of groundwater for irrigation at much greater rates than the water is replaced by rainfall and percolation according to the DEIR on page 4.6-14. \¡/ith the construction of irigation canals for farming use and the creation of the water spreading grounds to replenish the aquifer, the rate of subsidenee appears to have slowed. The San Joaquin Valley is also a large producer of oil and the Planning Area contains an oilfield. Although most of the oilfields exkact oi1 from fields too deep to cause subsidence, pumping out oil from shallow reservoirs can also cause subsidence. Proposed General Plan Policies 7.2.1through 7,2.8 provide requirements to identiff, evaluate, and mitigate potential impacts associated with ground subsidence within the Plannin g Area, which includes Annexation 77 andPre-Zoning Area, Coberly TV-est Specific P1an, Míssion Lakes Specific p1an, and the properbies under consideration for Williamson Act contract cancellation. Therefore, implementation of the aforementioned policies would reduce sigaificant adverse impacts resultrng from this issue to a less than signifìcant level.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.6-15, an increase ín population anticipated by the City's proposed General Plan wor¡ld câtrse an increase in residential and non-residential structures, and allow-new and continued agricultwal activities resulting in alteration to and loss of existing topsoil. úr addition, exposure of underlying soils during landform modifications substantially increases the potential for soil erosion. The General Plan includes Policy 7.2.4 whreh covers the strength, expansion, and settlement of soil; however, it does not specifically address soil erosion or topsoil. Additional rnitigation measures are necessary with regard to soil erosion and are recommended and provided. in Mitigation Measures 4.6.4.3.A and B. These mitigation measures provide that new development fo11ow erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain the capacity of area storm drains, reduce erosion and the loss of topsoil, and protect water quality. The contïol measures used to minimize erosion and sedimentati,on are the BMPs. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. The implementation of these mitigation measures and the General plan policy will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Council therefore finds that chunges or J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2U2OO5) 18 SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN ANÐ RELÀTED AClIONS Ef R
Ff NDINGS OF FACT JUñ0 Z00s
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

Expansive soils are those soiis with a significant amount of clay particles that have the ability to give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). When these soils shnnk or swell, the change in volume exerts significant pressures on loads (such as buildings) that are placed on them' Implementation of the propãsed Genàral Plan may resuit in the construction and occupation of struchrres within areas undårlain by expansive soils. The proposed General Plan requires, in Policy 7.2-4, soil reports witttil ur"u. ,rrrp"rtelof havíng problems with collapsible and expansive soil conditrons. The findings of these repàrts will be incorporated into the project development standards to ensure that strucfures designeå for human o"",rpáo"y wrll not be in danger of coilapse or significant sfructurll damage' In addiîion to the requirement for a soil report, projèct development requirements of the UBC will be enforced as stated in General Plan Folicy 7 .2-.1. Wíth implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, the impacts related to collapsible and expansive sorls will be reduced to a less than signrficant level.

Additional information on geology and soils is located in the DEIR beginning on page 4'6-1'

3.6 Hazardous and Hazardous Nlaterials
Potential Innpacts. As was anaTyzed in the DEiR for the General Plan on page 4'7-II, implementation of the proposed General Plan may rssult in uncovering previously unl¡rown haåardous materials ,orrtulrtinut"d from historical use of properly and exposure- of persons to ,grr"ut*A chemicals. As new commercial and industrial uses locate within Shafter and as new residenti¿l uses are constructed pursuant to the General Plan, the potential for storage, use, generation, and transport ation of hazardous materials will increase, with associated inçreases in health ãnd safety hazards.iluild out of the proposed General Plan may also impair implementation of or ptrysicatty interfere with an adopted emergency response plan of emefgency evacuation plan' In addition, implementatiàn of the pioposed Gãneri PlJn may be incompatible with the Shafter/Minter Field Airport Safety zoncs and thereby expose persons to unsafe conditions.

Findings. Many properties in the Planning Area were developed prior to lhe existing hazardous materials standards. As these properties Jre redeveloped, there is the likelihood that hazardous materials such as asbestos-containing materials and/õr lead-based paint could be encountered, fatti",rtarty in buildings constructed piiol to 1978. The improper handling and disposal of asbestos änilor leaä-based paiãt associated with demolition could pose a potential health risk to people, as stated rn the DEIR on page 4.7-12. There are many vacant parcels wiihin the Planning Area which could be sites of earlieidãv"lopm"nt or unknown dumping of potentially hazardous materials' Many acres in the plaruring Area *hi.h are designated for development in the General Plan-including Annexatíon 77 andpie-zoning Area, Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties proposed for Williumson Act contract ðancellations-are currently or v/ere previously ,rr.¿ fo, agriculture urã, ur a result, have the potential to contain concentrations of agricultural chemicals ãue to long+eim application of pesticiáes. These agricultural chemicals may contaminate ihe soils; however, ií is unlitely that any such contamination or disturbance wouid be extensive t.v*¿ íhe capabilities tf typicai remediation measures which are covered in the Kern County and Incorporated cities Hazardous'¡/aste Management Plan or the city's source Reduction'and J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAytiÉ\ceneral Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR {indings DoC (612t12005) 19 JUNt ¿005 SHÀFTER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Recycling Eiement. The potentiat risks to human health due to urban development near agricultural uses have been reduced by the requirement for buffers between the uses in thè General phã policies. In addition, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.1-14, generally, the largest users and generators of hazardous wastes are industrial businesses. Also, industrial uses are commonly the largest transporters of hazardous materials. Therefore, the greatest risk of exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, or emissions is in the industrial areas and the areas immediately adjacent to them. The proposed land uses in the General Plan generally separate the industrial uses from the sensitive land uses, such as residences and schools, with a skeet, railroad tracks, or intervening land use. The sensitive land uses (residential and schools) within Annexafion 77 and. Pre-zoning A¡ea, Coberly West Specific Plan, and Mission Lakes Specific Plan are separated from proposed industrial uses by intewening land uses and,/or sheets. These buffers lessen the risks of exposure to hazardous materials by increasing the distance from the possible sources. Recognizing the importance of protecting public safety relating to the handling and exposure of the communify to hazardous materials, the proposed General Plan policies address this issue through monitoring compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations. The poiicies also seek a reduction in hazardous materials users and generators through the encouragement and assistance in the reduction of hazardous waste from businesses and homes in the City. With the implementatron of the proposed General Plan policies, the impacts to the community of new hazardous users would be reduced to less than significant levels.

The new residential and non-residential structures which would be constructed with the implementation of the General Plan-which includes A¡nexation 77 and Pre-zoning Area, Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties within in the proposed Williamson Act contract cancellation area--aÍe not cr¡rrently included in adopted emergency response plans. The increase in population and resulting potential kaffic congestion could cause emergency response delays. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.7-L7, as the new structures and roadways are constructed in the area covered by Kern County, the County emergency plans would be updated to reflect the new developments. Adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation procedures within the Shafter Cily limits are also regularly updated to reflect new and existing development. The proposed General Plan policies ensure that emergency preparedness programs are maintained and properþ coordinated throughout the Planning Area. W'ith the implementation of these policies, the impact of new development on emergency plans would be less than significant.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.7-19, the Shafter AirporVMinter Field Master Plan Upclate provides compatibility zones for the one-mile radius around the airfîeld. Uses within the various zones are limited by the Airport Plan to developments compatible with airport operations. The Shafter General Plan proposes induskial, commercial, or agricultural iand uses within these compatibility zones, which arc land uses compatible with the Airport Master Plan. The proposed General Plan policies ensure that airporl compatibilify is managed to ensure the safety of both the airport and surrounding area. With the implementation of the General Plan land uses and these policies, the impact of development on airport safety would be less than significant in the Planning Area, which includes the Annexation and Pre-zoning Area, Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, and the properties within the prop osed'Williamson Act contract canc ellations.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/ZOOS) 20 SHAFTER GENERAL FLAN AND RELATED ÀCTTONS EIR
E'f NDINGS OF Í'ACT JUNE 2005
Facts in Support of F'indings. General Plan Policies 2.4.2, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.70, 7.5.1, anó 7.5'13 cover the t*nito.ing of hazardous materials in existing development which would assist in the discovery of hazardõus materials should redevelopment or new developments occur. In addition, should óontamination be found or disturbed, existing Federal, State, and local regulations and procedures would require the delineation and remediation of sites containing hazardous substances to the satisfaction of the designated local enforcement agency. Moreover, it is unlikely that any such contamination or disturbance would be extensive beyond the capabilities of typical remediation measures which are covered in the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management plan or the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The reason that extensive contaÃination is unlikely is because agnculture is generally the existing and former use of the areas to be developed under túe General Plan and agriculturally induced contamination responds to typicai remediation measures. In addition, Mitigation Measures 4.7.4.7^ through C will further reduce the impacts of potential hazardous materials associated with development. In these mitigation measures, all new discretionary projects are subject to site assessments for hazardous materials as required by the Counfy Departmånt of Environ-mental Services; soils will be tested for concentrations of agriculturai chemicals and treated according to local, State and Federal standards; and fugitive dust will be controlled as set forth by the SIV¡pCP. These measures further ensure that potential hazardous materi.als contamination is identified and remediated before it creates a health risk' Thc Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted' The implementation of General plan policies ánd the mitigation measures identified above will reduce this impact to a less than significant level,
Haeardous materials are commonly used by all segments of society inciuding manufacturing and seryice industries, commercial enterprises, agriculture, military bases, hospitals, schools' and households. If improperly handled, stoied, or disposed of, these materials can have substantial health and en¡¡ironmental conåqrr"n""r. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, adherence to Gèneral plan Policie s7.5.Zthrough 7.5.13 plus compliance with regulations, standards, and guidelines relating to storage, use, and disposal ofhazardous materials established by the Environmental Protection Agäcy, state, county, and loca1 agencies will reduce the potential risk of hazardous matenals "^poruå to- a less than signifrcant level within the Planning Area, which includes An¡exation ll and Pre-zoning Area, Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properlies under consideration for williamson Act conkact cancellations. proposed General plan Policies 7.6.1 through 7.6-5 ensure that emergency preparedness programs are maintained and properly coordinated throughout the Plaruring Area. The policies also address the regular review oi thãse progru-, to further Jrrr*" the safety of the City and areas within the General plan planning Area-wlrrch includes Annexation 77 and Pre-zoning Area, Coberly West Specific p1an, Missioã luk", Specific plan, and properties within the 'Vfilliamson Act contract cancellation area--during and aftei disasters. With ihe implementation of these policies, the impact of new development on emeÍgency plans would be less than significant.

The safety of people and property near an airport is the fundamental objective of airport/land use compatibility. Þroposed Géneral Pjan Policie s 7 .4.1through 7.4.3 ensure that airport compatibility is rnanagea to ensurá the safety of both the airport and surrotrlding area. The policies reqrri¡s the city to ^unuf" the uses *,rr,ro.*áirrg anport facilities at Shafter Airport/ivfinter Field and Meadows FieldÆ{ern County consistent with the airport compatibility zones surrounding the airports' The J:\USERS\ENG-pLANW/AYNE\General Plan Updâte\Stzff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612l|2OAS) 21 JUNE ZOO5
SITA,FTER CENERAL PLÁ,N AND RELATED ACTTONS E¡R FIND¡NGS OF FACT policies also address the regular notification of area businesses and residents regarding akcraft activities in overflight areas and adherence to State regulations regarding airport land issues. T[ith the implementation of the General Plan land uses and these policies, the inrpact of development on airport safety would be less than significant in the Planning Area, which includes the Annexation and Pre-zoning Area, Coberly'West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, and the properties within the prop osed'Williamson Act contract cancellations.

Additional discussion of hazards andhazardous materials is located in the DEIR begiruring on page

4.7-r.

3.7 Water Resources
Potential Impacts. Implementation of the Shafter General Plan may increase the demand for water a/:d may contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies. New development permitted pursuant to the General Plan will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and result in the loss of water recharge areas. Build out of the proposed General Plan may increase the demand for water services such that it exceeds the existing and planned facilities. During future conskuction activities and postconstruction uses associated with build out of the General Plan, water quality or v/aste discharge requirements may be violated. The increase in dernand for water due to General Plan permitted uses may affect water avalTability for emergency fne flow.

Findings. Urban water services will be provided within the Planning Area by two water purveyors:
the Cify of Shafter and Oildale Mutual 'Water Company. The City of Shafter will be the water purveyor for the area within the existing 1993 General Plan Study area. W'ater uses and sources are not anticipated to change substantialiy within the City of Shafter lV'ater Purveyor area over those provided in the 1993 General Plan. Shafter's proposed General Pl¿n land uses will result in a 59 percent reduction in groundwater demand. This positive change is made possible through the reuse of 70 percent of a1l wastewater and the reduced demand that industrial uses have over agricultural uses.

A dual water systern will be used in the Oildale Mutual Water Company Service Area. One system will provide irrigation water while the other will provide water for all potable uses attached to each bttilding unit (residential, industrial, commercial, etc.). The total demand for groundwater in the Oildale Mutr-ral Water Company Service Area will be less than cr¡rent demands for agriculfural purposes. The potable water supply to be delivered to structures witfun the Oildale Mutual Water Company Service Area will come from naturally recharged sources and replenished groundwater within the service area of Oildale Mutual .Water
Company. The existing capaeily of both the City of
Shafter 'TVater Serrrice and Oildale Mutual Water Company, including Oildale Mutual's use of a dual water system, ensures a sufficient water supply for the land use proposed under the General Plan Update. The impacts to water resources from development within the Shafter sphere of influence will be less than significant with implementation of the General Plan Update. Because availability of water for urban areas outside of the Shafter sphere of influence-but within the Shafter Plaruring Area-has not been demonstrated, trban development outside of the City's sphere of influence would result in a significant unavoidable impact on rvater resources.

The groundwater pumped by the City comes from the Kern County'Water Basin, which is replenished mainly from outside surface suppiies and rainfall. Efficient groundwater recharge {epends on a variety of conditions including permeable surfaces. Increased development reduces the amount of J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 22 SHÀF'TER GENERAL PLÀN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR
¡.INDINGS OT FACT JUNE 2OO5
permeable surfaces suitable for recharge, incteases the rate and volume of runoff and the subsequent flow of water in streams, and increases the amount of oil and grease and other non-point source pollutants that enter streambeds and recharge areas. The proposed General Plan policies protect ãxisting water recharge and promote the use of surface water resources, thereby reducing the potenhal impacts of the proposed General Plan below a level of significanoeNew development within the Planning Area pursnant to implementation of the proposed General Plan will require the installation of additional water h'ansmission and distribution lines' Much of the proporù new development is located outside of existrng public water service areas and, therefore, water kansmission and distribution lines have not been installed. New pipelines required for new development will be installed and/or financed by the developer which includes the developers of the Coberþ West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans. The City may also levy impact fees in accordance with Govemment Code Section 660b0 for the development of water facilities. 'With the General Plan policies in place, the impacts associated with the distnbution of water would be reduced to less thart a significant leve1.

Future construction, grading, and excavation would cause temporary disturbance of surface soils which would iikely pioduce- silt and debris during runoff, resuiting in a short-term increase in the sedi¡¡e¡t luaú uf úre sto¡ri.r drain systenr servirg the City. Federal 1aw retluires the City of Shafler lo implement the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal and private projects to protect groundwater reehatge areas from construction runoff and other potential sources ofpo[utant runofi. Therefore, adherence to the General Pl4n policies and impleåentation of Federal ùw will reduce impacts related to lvatff quality to less than significant' The volume of water allocated for emergency uses is fSpically detsrmined based on the historical record of emergencies experienced and olithe amount of time expeoted to lapse before an anticipated emergfllcy ,* b" "orr""ied.

The Cify of Shafier recognizes the importance of maintaining adequate fire flow ín a General Plan policy. Wittr th" General Plan policy in place, the impacts on fire flow from the implementation of'the iroposed General Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Facts in Support of F'indings. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.8-15, the City of Shafter will be the water purveyåt for the arealithin the existing 1993 Generai Plan Study Area' This is a large area comprising il,q1g acres, of which a major portion is currentþ in agricultural use and is proposed to ,"-åirr ro. Of th" 17,46á total acres, over 6,000 acres will remain in agricultural use and 5,598 acres are proposed for ináustrial uses. Well over 50 percent of the total water demand in the area will ,"*åinägricultural. According to the DEIR on page 4.8-11, the total demand for groundwater in the Oildale Mut*al 'Water Compãny Service Area will be less than current demands for agricultural p*poses. Curently, total agricultural demand is estimated at 15,678 acre-feet of which àppioximately rc,àø9 acre-feËt are provided by North Kern 'Water storage District through råplenished groundwater. Total demand for proposed iand uses in this portion of the Shafter Plan::ing Area is estimated at 12,329 acte-feet of which 8,840 acre-feet are for irrigation purposes and3,489 are for potable domestió purposes. Approximat ely 4,799 acre-feet of replenished groundwater will be p*p"á from within the-North Kern Water Stcrage Disfict area lo rnset irrigaticn needs, which is subsiantially less than the estimated. 10,269 acre-feet of replenished groundwater currently being pumped foi agriculture. The above analysis demonstrates that Oildale Mutual lV'ater Company, with J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Updâte\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR fîndings.DOC (6/2112005) 23 JUNE 2OO5
SHAF'TER GENERÁ.L PLAN AND RELAlED ÀCTfONS ETR
F¡NDINGS Of'¡'ACT
its dual water system, will adequately provide water service to the entire southeast plan Area or proposed North of the River Municipal W'ater District expansion area. The City of Shafter has existing capacily for its service area. The General Plan policies identified provide provisions that will adequately protect watet resources throughout the Planning Area. Based on the above analysis, the GeneralPlanUpdateasproposedwithPolicies4.2.l through 4.2.3,4.2.5,4.2.6,6.3.1-5,6.3.7,and

6.3.9 would not have a significant impact on water resources. Because availability of water for urban areas outside of the Shafter sphere of influence-but within the Shafter Planning Area-has not been demonstrated, urban development outside of the Cip's sphere would result in a significant unavoidable impact on water resources. The Council fuither finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that the Council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impact to a less than significant ievel. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less than significant) level, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project as modifred, despite unavoidable residual impacts.

The groundwater pumped by the City comes from the Kern Counfy Water Basin, which is replenished mainly from outside surface supplies and rainfail. Typicai groundwater recharge programs artificially replenish groundwater in wet years with surplus imported water. 'Water is withdrawn from groundwater res€rves during periods of drought or during emergency situations. Proposed General Plan Policies 6.3.8 and 6.3.11 protect existing water recharge and promote the use of surface water resources, thereby reducing the potential impacts of the proposed General Plan below a level of significance.

The sphere of influence is generally currentþ served by agricultural water senrices which use canals for dishibution. Therefore, the current water users do not require water transmjssion or dishibution lines. New pipelines required for new development wil1be installed and/or financed by the developer which includes the developers of the Coberþ West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans. Policies 2.70.6,

2.10.7, and 4.2.7 through 4.2-6 in the proposed General Plan address the issue of Shafter's water diskibution in the Planning Area. 'With these policies in place, the impacts associated with the distribution of water would be reduced to iess than a significant level.

Pursuant to Kern County requirements, new development would be required to provide for its own on-site retention or show that existing facilities have sufficient capacify to carry the additional runoff.

In addition, sowce-confol Best Management Practices are required by the Regional 'Water Qualrty
Control Board in its water discharge permits. Al1 new development, including the development proposed in the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, would be required to comply with these lega1lregulatory requirements. Adherence to General Plan Policies 4.5.4,6.3.6, and 6.3.10 and implementation of Federal law will reduce impacts related to water quality to less than significant.

Because the occurence and magnitude of an emergency situation is not subject to accurate evaluation, the volume of emergency storage is generally based upon engineering judgment and/or utility policy. Through implementation of General Plan Policy 4.8.5, adequate fire flow will be ensttred for all new and existing developments which include the Coberly ïVest and Mission Lakes Specific Plans. Under General Plan Policy 4.8.5, provisions to provide for adequate fire flow must be demonstrated in the development review process. With the General Plan policy in place, the impacts on fire flow from the implementation of the proposed General Plan would be reduced to a less than sigrrificant level.

JfUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DAC 6U/2005) 24 SHÀf'TER CENERAL PLAN AND RELA'TED ACTIONS EIR
FINDTNGS OF FACT JUNA 2005
Further discussion of the impacts to Water Resources can be found in the DEIR beginning on page

4.8-i.

3.8 Land Use and Agricultural Resources
potential Impacts. According to the DEIR for the General Plan on page 4.9-10, implementation of the proposed
-General plan would result in changes to existing land use designations in certain areas whiåh åould negatively affect the existing pattern of development as well as the surrounding uses.

These land useiesignations would result in conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses, as stated in the DEIR on page 4-9-17 '
Impiementation of the propìsed General Plan could conflict with existing zoriflg for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

Findings. One of the pnmary purposes of land use planning in the General Plan is the generation of a land usã plan which ,"pr".*tr the City's vision of its f*t*". The City is proposing to expand the urban core with mainly residential land uses in the western section of the City limits and create two large industrial areas: one in the southeast sectìon and one around the Shafter/Minter Field' The chiracter of the sphere of influence will also change. The predominant pattem in the sphere of i;il;;; iorrrt oi 7,r' Standard Road will be residential communities with commercial services created through the implementation of Specific Plans. These proposed land uses are shown in Figure

4.9.4 inthe DEIR. Cunently, that arcais predominantly agricultural and, with General Pian buiid out, the existing agricultr-gal putt"^wouid chãnge to a large residential community. Agricultural land use patterns *în -rtitt predominate in the remalning Planning Area of the General Plan' The proposed General plan policies provide for growth whilã protectrrg the existing land uses' Lr addition, the General Han poticie, furth", the vision of the Cityas the location of diverse employment and housing opport "iti"sihro.rgh
the expansion of the industrial areas and ttrough the designation of Specific plan areas lor new residentij communities. The proposed General Plan recognizes the City's unique economy through designation of large areas forãgricultural and industrial land uses. The proposed policies in the
-G"nerai plan cover possibie land use conflicts whíle addressing standards for new ä"velopment. wlth the implementation of the General Plan policies, the impacts to land use changes will be reduced to less than significant'
The majorify of the land within the Planning Area is either Pnme Farmland or Farmland of Statewide l*po.tunr". The lands that are planned to bã converted to urban uses in the proposed General Plan are diràctly adjacent to dweloped urr^*. Additionaliy, there are lands in the southeast section of the planning Área that 1¡/ere re"entþ annexed to the bity of shafter and under the jurisdiction of Kem County were apploved by the Couniy for residentral development' The proposed General Plan designates appråiimatery íS,Vtø acres for agricultural use by build out; a reduction of 14,024 acres' The planning Area's lánd use designation! are anticipated to result in the direct removal of a substantial amount of prime agricuitriral land from production. The proposed General Plan includes pãli.i", that will .n"ò*ug" ih" .onr"*ation of productive agncultwal lands and maintain the viability of commercial ãgricultural operations. However, these policies do not set specific requireäents that will limiithe "orrr.rrior of agricultwal lands to non-agriculturai uses. Impacts resr,ltirrg from the conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses would remain significant and unavoidable after implementatìon of the proposed General Plan policies.

J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\Gene¡al Pl¿n Update\Staff Reports\Finai SHAÍTER EIR fìndings.DOC (612l/2045) 25 JUNE 2OO5 SHAF'TER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FIND¡NGS OF'FACT
The majority of the farrnlands in the Planning Area are under either a V/illiamson Act or Farmland Secunfy confract. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would convert both agricultural land under a Williamson Act contractand agriculturalland under a Farmland Secwity coìrtractto urban uses. The designation of new areas for development within the Planning Area almost could not occur without the conversion of W'illiamson Act land. Although the policies in the General Plan specifically prohibit the conversion of agricultural land subject to a V/illiamson Act contract, the d.esignation o1 such land for uses other than agricultural encourages the non-renewal of 'Williamson Act contracts.

Even with the implementation of a right-to-farm ordinance and the policies in the General plan, the impact to farmland under a Williamson Act conhact or a Farmland Security contract would remain signifi cant and unavoidable.

X'acts in Support of Findings, As stated in the DEIR on page 4.9-72, the proposed General Plan land uses change noticeabiy from the existing land uses in three categories. Land designated for agricultural uses decreases by about 30 percent from existing uses although agriculture remains the largest land use in the proposed General Plan with over half of the Planning Area designated agriculture/open space. The proposed General Plan increases by 12 percent the land designated for industrial uses. A new land designation, Specific Plan, accounts for an increase of 10 percent and is not one of the existing land uses. The percentage of change in the remaining land uses is very small with the existing land use categories basically continuing in the proposed General Plan. Policie s 2.3.1 through 2.3.9,2.3.Ll,2.3.I2,2.5.1 through 2.4.4,2.6.7 through 2.6.4,2.7.7,2.7.3,2.8.1,2.8.2,2.8.5,

2.8.12 through 2.8.14, and 2.10.1 of the proposed General Plan support the vision of the City to retain its small rural community roots with agriculture as the main land use. The policies provide for growth whiie protecting the existing land uses. úa addition, the General Plan policies firther the vision of the Cify as the location of diverse employment and housing opportunities through the expansion of the industrial areas and through the designation of Specific Plan areas for new residential communities.

The proposed General Plan recognizes the Cify's unique economy through designation of large areas for agricultural and industrial land uses. The proposed policies ín the General Plan cover possible land use conflicts while addressing standards for new development. V/ith the implementation of the General Pian policies, the impacts to iand use changes will be reduced to less than significantAs a mitigation for the loss of agricultural land, the City could requíre developers to purchase agricultLral easements ard/ot replacement agricultural land either within (on-site) or outside (off-site) the Planning Area; however both of these options are infeasible for several reasons. First of all, onsite agricultural land use designations within the Planning Area are already protected under General Plan Policy 2.4.1, which states that the General Plan land use map is a pian for the ultimate build out of the City and the agricultural land use designation is not a temporary "holding zone." Therefore, "replacement" agricultural land is not available within the Planning ArEa as the ultimate acreage of agricuiture has already been determined. In addition, purchasing land presentþ designated for uses other than agriculture within the Planning Area and converting it to agricultural uses is not economically viable as reducing the Planning Area's ability to develop would impede the City's General Plan goals of providing an appropriate range of housing opportunities and expanding local employment. Furthermore, the loss of residentially designated land to agriculture would limit the City's abrlity to meet its fair-share housing needs. In addition, the designated land uses in the General PIan were determined to achieve "fiscal balance" as the Cify builds out. Changing these land uses would affect the abilify of the City to provide infrastructure and services to achieve and maintain the J:\USÊRS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Ceneral PIan Update\Stalf Repo*s\Final SFIAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6121/2005) 26 SHÀF"TER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EfR
FINDINGS OF FACT ,luNE 2005
General plan goal of a vibrant community in which all residents enjoy a wide range of employment, shopping andlecreational opporh:nities. Off-site mitigation is infeasibie in the long run because of in.reusiãg land prices due to þwing urbanization. Also, the City does not have any control over the land use ãesignàtions outsidelts corporate limits or sphere of influence. Therefore, agricultwal land purchased o.rlri¿. the City's jurisdiciional area could be at some date be changed to another land use without input from the CitY.

Assuming all land designated for agricultural use under the proposed General Plan was actively farmed. at build out and"all lands proiposed for conversion to other uses were converted, the loss of L4,024 acres repïesents a 35 percãnt-reduction in agricultural lands- Because most of the Plarming Area consists of prime Faimland or Farmland óf Statewide rmportance, it is apparent thlt lÃpf"*"rrtution of tt. propor.d General Plan would result in significant loss of thrs farmland; however, Policies 2.3.3,2.4.I through 2.4.11,2.5.6,2.8.2, 6.2.2, and 6'2.3 included in the proposed General plan help reduåe impacts ,ãlut"d to implementation of the Plan' Impacts resulting from the conversion of agriculturat lan¿ to urban land uses would remain significant and unavoidable after rmple;entation
-ot the proposed General Plan policies, Th9 Council further finds that there are no additional feasible nuuËatiån measures or alternatives that the council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impåt to a less than signí{icant level. To the extent that this adverse impact will 'ot be elir¡ú'aterj or. lessene,J to al acceptable (less than significant) level, thc Cuu¡ruil fintls ihal specific economic, legai, social, technological, anà other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Consl¿"raãån, suóort apprÑal of the pro¡ect as modified, despite unavoidable residual impacts.

Approximat eiy 9,246 acres of farmland presently under a Wiiliamson Act of Farmland Security contract will be converted to urban us"s ui build out of the General Plan as shovm in Table 4'9'F on page 4.9-2L of the DEIR. Property may be converted to urban uses either at the conclusion arid nonrenewal of a wiltiamson Act contract or upon early cancellation of a contract' Removal of land from either williamson or Farmland security contracts tifts trre restrictions speciflrcally aimed at avoiding the conversion of agncultural lands to
-other
uses- Wíth this barrier removed, the pressure to develop placed upon neighboring farmland,contract lands is further increased' An example of this pressure is evident in the southeasi area of the Planning Area, where farmland under contract is adjacent to farmland not under conkact and the farmlaãd und.er contract has applied for non+enewal of the contracts. Although Policies 2.4.5, 2.4.6,2'4.8, 2.4'10, and 2'8'2 in the General Plan specificailyprohibit the conversiorriiugrt.nltural land subject to a'Williamson Act contract, ihe desigrration of such iand for uses ottrer tnaã agricultural enconrages the non-renewal of a 'Williamson Act contract'
With adherence to the General Plan policies, imfacts to land zoned for agricultural uses and land under a
.williamson Act contract woulà remain significant and unavoídab1e. The council further finds that there are no additìonal feasible mitigation *"ãrr,r"r or altematives that the council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impact to a less than significant level' To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated. ãr lessened to an acceptable (1ess than signi{icant) level, the Council finds that specifrc economic, legal, social, technologiãa1, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Ovemding Conslaeiations support approval of the project as modified, despite unavoidable residual imPacts'
Further discussion of the impacts to Land uses and Agricultural Resources is located in the DEIR beginning on Page 4 -9-1.

J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAITER EIR {ìndings'DOC (6/21/2005) 21 JUNE 2OO5 SHAI'TER GENERAT PLAN AND RELÀTED ACTfONS ETR

FINDINGS OF'FACT

3.9 Flood lfazards
Potential Impacts. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.10-4, implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in exposure of people or structures to the impacts of flooding through ìhe placement of structures in the 100-500 year floodplain. Future development under ttre proposed General plan would likely result in a net increase ín impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, parkinglots, buildings). An incrcase in impervious surfaces reduces the amount of lainfall tlnt uan innratã into the subsurface.

Increases in runoff can amplifo drainage volumes and velocities causing storm drainage facilities that are at or near capacity to fail during peak events. This excess runoff may result in localized ponding and/or flooding. Therefore, the implementation of development in accordance with the pioposeã Generai Plan may result in significant impacts related to existing drainage facilities.

Findings. Flooding represørts a potential hazard within the Planning Area. The majority of the area potentially subject to flood hazards is located along Santa Fe Way both in downtown and in the south of the Planning Area, as shown in Figure 4.10.1 in the DEIR. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the City's population and total açreage of development. 'Whiie the potential for flood hazards is minimal, new development in the flood zones could be affected by flood hazards during storm events. The implementation of the proposed General Plan policies would require new projects to not only evaluate stormwater runoff from their project sites but also require construction of needed drainage and flood control facilities. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies will reduce potential flooding impacts that may result from the build out of the Planning Area (as envisioned in the proposed General Ptan) to less than significant levels.

Build out of the proposed Gcneral Plan will increase the number of impervious surfaces tkoughout the Planning Area. Cuffently, the majority of the Planning Area is covered with permeabie suriaces.

Therefore, new development would increase the volume and rate of stormwater entering the current drainage system, which may exceed the capacity of the system. Development will increase and concenfrate runof{ which, if not controlled, may accelerate the rates of erosion of unprotected surfaces. The implementation of the proposed General Plan policies would require new projects to not only evaluate stormwater runoff from their project sites, but also to control the surface waste runoff created by the project. With the implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, the impacts related to flood hazards would be reduced to a less than significant levei.

Facts in Support of Findings. Flood hazards are limited within the Planning Area due to the absence of streams, creeks, and lakes. The A¡mexattonTT mdPre-Zoning Area, which includes Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, is not located within a flood hazard zone as it is located in the southeastem portion of the Planning Area. Gøreral Plan Policies 4.5 . 1 anó. 7 .3 .1. tkough 7.3.4 require evaluation of human-habitable structures within the 100-year floodplain to ensure their safety as well as conskuction and dedication ofneeded drainage and flood control facilities and the construction and maintenance of necessary retention basins. \Mith the implementation of the proposed General plan policies, the impacts related to flood hazards would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The natural materials in the Planning Area are relatively susceptible to erosion. Development within the Planning Area will increase the potential for soil erosion. Increased ratcs of erosión will likely accelerate sedimentation of drainage char¡rels and flood control features, which may impact the J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA-FTER EiR findings.Ð OC (6/21/Z0OS) 28 SHAfTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR
FINDTNGS OF FACT JUNE 2OO5
effectiveness of these features. Development which encompass€s 1.0 acre or more is required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NIPDES)' which-regulates the pollutant discharges from developed sites. The City wlll continue to require existing olnd new development to adhàre to the appiicable provisions required by existing permits' With iãrplementation of
'General plan Policy 4.5.i-which requires dedication and improvement of stormwaìer detentiono retention, and conveyance facilities as a condition of approval for new development where needed to protect on-site and downstream development from flooding-and Generál plan policie s 7.3.2 throùgh 7.3. -.wïttch require constructìon, dedication, and maintenance of drainage and flood control facilitiss and existing stormwater discharge requirements, potential stormwatá drainage impacts resulting from build out of the Planning Area (including Annexation 77 and the pre-ZoningAråa along wlttr-the Coberþ West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, and the Suburban Williamson Act conËact cancellation property)-will be reduced to a less than significant levei.

3.10 Noise
Potential Impacts. As stated on page 4.11-14 in the DEIR, noise leve1s ûom gradíng and other construction activities would potentially result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA Lno* at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary, potentially impacting off-site sensitive receptors adjacent to individual construction sites. Implementaiion of the proposed Gencral Plan would result in potentiai long-term vehicular noise that would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, purti"oiurty r"sidentiai uses ulong and a-djacent to major transit corridors, couid be exposed to excessive traJfic-related noise levels. New development associated with the proposed General Plan and Related Actions could expose existing and/ornew sensitive uses to stationary noise sources' such as those generated by industrial and/or commercial uses- Noise generated by existing and proposed operationî at Shafter Airportnøirrt.t Field Airport could create noise impacts to the new development pioposed by the General Plan. This is a potentialiy significant impact.

Findings. As stated on page 4.ll-I4 in the DEIR, implementation of projects allowed by the o-*rJ¿ General plan and ñ."tut"¿ Actions would result in construction at various sites tluoughout the shafter Planning Area. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to these project sites would incrementalþ increase noise levels on access roads leading to these sites' Ñãir*^g"rr"rated durini excavation, grading, and building construction on development sites would r"srilt In potential noii" l-pu.ts iJoff+ite uses whíle construction occurs' While the proposed General pian policies providå guidance and standards for reducing noise impacts due t9 construction' additional measures år" n"rri.uty to further ensure that the impacts are reduced to less than ,iøn"*, levels. rhe imfacts of åoise during construction would be short-term in duration and the policies in the propor"d ð"r.r"1 Plan and the mitigation measuïes would reduce the impacts from construction noise to less than significant level'
As stated on page 4.LL-r7 of the DEIR for the General Plan, new developments within the Shafter planning er"å aão regional growth will result in an increase in traffic in the Plar¡ring Area. Existing sensitive receptors ini¡e ptuotting Area would be potentially affected by noise associated with these new traffic tr-þs. The proj"*"¿ fuäre build out traffic noise in the Ciff ranges from moderate to high, with the 70 dBA Cr\rÉr óonfined within the roadway right-of-way for about half of the surface street j:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\çeneral Plan Upd¿te\StalÏReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings'DOC (6/21/2005) 29 JUNE 2O05 SHA.F'TER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR T'INDINCS OA f ÀCT segments anaTyzed.Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and the stated mitigation will reduce potential traffic-related noise impacts to a less than significant level.

The development of new industrial and commercial uses pursuant to the proposed General Plan and related actions may increase noise levels in their vicinity due to the establishment of new stationary noise sources. Although vehicular noise is exempt ûom local regulation when operating on publit streets, cities can regulate vehicular noise while operating on private properfy. New projects developed under the proposed General Plan would be subject to the City's noise ordinance and the provisions of the proposed Ganeral Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies will reduce potential stationary impacts to a less than sigaificant level.

As stated on page 4.11-26 of the DEIR, historically, the isolated location of the Shafter Airport/Ivlinter Field has protected it from concems regarding noise incompatibility. The mixture of agricultural and industrial uses in the airport's vicinity has provided a hJgh level of noise compatibility. The principal concern in regard to airport noise is generally created outside the fypícal noise contouls in the overflight area of the airport environs. The ideal strategy for limiting overflight noise impacts is to avoid residential or other noise-sensifive development in the affected iocations.

The policies in the proposed General Plan guarantee that the proposed General Plan land uses and the Airport land uses will be compatible, thus ensuring noise impacts that are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation, grading, and erecting buildings during construction of individual projects allowed through the implementation of the proposed General Pian. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project areatoday, but would cease once construction of the project is completed. While the proposed General Plan policies provide guidance and standards for reducing noise impacts due to construction, additional measures are necessary to firrther ensure that the impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Construction impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would still occur with the implementation of the General Plan policies and proposed mitigation measures. However, the impacts would be short-term in duration and General Plan Policies 7.7.3 through 7.7.5 and 7.7.1,0 and Mitigation Measures

4.1.1.3.1A through E would reduce the impacts from construction noise to less than significant level.

The proposed mitigation measìres provide performance standards related to noise which must be followed at all construction sites. These performance standards regulate the hours of construction, the timing of pile-driving, the location of stationary noise sources, the use of best available noise control techniques for equipment and tn-rcls, and a method of tracking and responding to noise complaints.

The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted.

Long-term noise impacts would be associated with mobile and vehicular noise sources, as well as stationary industrial and commercial noise sources. The 65 dBA CNEL contour is confined within the toad'way nghts-of-way along Tulare Avenue, Poplar Avenue, Shafter Avenue, and porlions of Riverside Skeet, Snow Road, and Zerker Road. The 60 dBA CNEL contour is confined \¡/ithin the roadway rights-of-way along portions of Poplar Avenue, Snow Road, and Shafter Avenue. State Route 99 generates higher traffic noise due to higher kaffic volumes and higher kuck percentages than the surface streets. The 70 dBA CNEL contour extends to 311 to 355 feet from the freeway centerline. The 65 dBA CNEL contour extends to 666 Io 762 feet from the freeway centerline.

Proposed General Plan Policies 7.7.L through 7.7.9 prowde guidance and standards for reducing J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Gene¡al PIan Update\Staff Reports\Final SÍIAFTER EIR fìndings.DOC (6/2t/20A5) 30 SHAFTER GÊNERAL PLÀN ÀND RELATEÞ ACTIONS ETR
TINDINCS OF FÀCT JTJNE 2OO5
traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measures 4.IL.3.2A through C are necessary to further reduce noise impacts. These mitigation measures require buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and exposed to significant traffic noises be equþed with air conditioning and incorporate upgraded buìtAing facades. Additionally, outdoor active use areas would need to be protected by soun¿ wai1s. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. Implementation of the proposed General plan policies and the stated mitigation measuïes will reduce potential trafficrelated noise impacts to a less than significant level' The use of heavy trucks on private properties (e.g., making deliveries to commerciai and industrial uses) will resuli in noise levels of 73 dBA at 50 feet from the source of the noise (e'g., kuck's engine¡. The use of multiple trucks on a site, such as might occur at a warehouse, could generate noise lãvels of about B0 dBA L.o as measured at a distance of 50 feet. Inclustrial processing equipment and conducting outdoor industrial activities could also generate increased noise levels' New projects developed ,rnã'"r the proposed General Plan would be subject to the City's noise ordinance and policies 2.g.I2,2.8.13, and.7.7.2 through 7.7.9 of the proposed General Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Planpolicies will reduce potential stationary noise impacts to a less than significant 1evei.

Aìrcraft overflight impacts are potentialiy a concern anywhere along the standard aircraft traffic pattem tracks. th" propos"d land uses identified in the Shafter General Plan for the area surrounding ihe airport includei agricultural, industrial, business park, and commercial uses. No sensitive noise receptórs, such as ,"r"id"nr"* or schools, are proposed to be located in that area' Even with the proposed'future configuration of the airporl run\ilay system, sensitive noise receptors will not be in iheïverflight pathwaf policies 2.9.5 and7.4.1 through 7.4.3 in the proposed General Plan guarantee that the prõpos"A General Plan land uses and the Airport land uses will be compatible, thus ensuring noise impacts that are less than significant'

3.11 Population and Housing
potential Impacts. Build out of the shafter General Plan will increase the study area's population, both directly
-as
the result of residential developrnent, and indirectþ through commercial/industrial development. This growth will exceed the housing and population projections for the Planning Area, as shown in Table 4.72F onpage 4.12-5 of the DEIR'
As stated on page 4.12-4 of the DEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in the displacement of a slbstantial number of residential units and persons. Upon build out of the proposed General Plan, approximately 28,548 residential units are projected to exist within the Þtur*irrg Area. Development wiil ociur on vacant or agricultural land and would not displace residential units or persons; therefore, no impact would occrlr' As state d on page 4.12-5 of the DEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in employment growth within ihe City exacerbating the jobs-to-housing balance. Even though the City of Shafteiis expected to have many more jobs than households by 2Q30' other cities within Kern County are expectèd to have a much lower jobs-to-household ratio. Because Shafter's numerous jobs wìii heip to baiance the numerous househoids in surrounding cities, a baiance between the numbei of jobs aná hous"holds will exist within the region by 2030, and the jobs within Shafter will have a beneficiai effect on the'region. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed General J:\t SERS\ENG-pt-AN\WAyNE\General Plan Updåte\Staff RepoIts\Final SHAITER EIR findings.DOC (612112005) 3I
JUNE 2005 SHAtrTER GENCRAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS ETR FINDINGS OF FA.CT
Plan will help to balance land uses regionally and no adverse impact associated with this issue would occur.

Findings. Projections for population, employment, and residential dwellings were identified to reflect the theoretical build out of the Shafter General Plan Planning Area, utilizing land use designations and assumptions detailed in the proposed Generai Plan. A General Plan is, by definition, grotú inducing in tll it provides a plan for accommodating future increases in poprrlutiotr, housirig, and employment. The proposed General Plan includes areas outside the ShafteiCìf limits and thã land uses proposed permit extensive development within the southeast porlion of Shafter's sphere of influence. The General Plan policies limit the number of units and, thárefore, the potential pópulation growth within the Specific Plan areas in the AnnexalionTT andPre-Zoning Area, which includes the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and the Specific Plan desìgnated area south of Lerdo Highway; however, no limitations are placed on dwelling units other than the general land use categories in the remainder of the Planning Area. Because the proposed General Pian assumes build out in 2030 that exceeds the currently adopted regional projections for 2030 and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the General Plan population build out, exceeding the regional population and housing projections would be considered a significant unavoidable impact.

Facts in Support of Findings. The proposed General Plan includes areas outside the Shafter City limits and the land uses proposed permit extensive development \ r'ithin the southeast portion of Shafter's sphere of influence. This southeast area includes Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area, the Coberly trV"est Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties included in the Williamson Act cancellation. Kern COG's projections do not include this area in Shafter's projections or anticipate the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts and the development of this area.

Therefore, Kern COG's projections do not anticipate this growth and show much lower numbers at 2030 than the General Plan build out estimates. The proposed General Plan and the EIR use the build out year of 2030 as an assumption for analysis purposes. Build out of the proposed General Plan by 2030 would be a worst*case scenario. Regional economics and the markeþlace will dictate the build out of the General Plan and dictate how accwate projections are. Because the proposed General Plan assumes build out in2030 that exceeds lhe currently adopted regional projections for 2030 and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the General Plan population build out, exceeding the regional population and housing projections would be considered a significant unavoidable impact.

The Council frtther finds that there are no additíonal feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that the Council could adopt at this time which would reduce this impact to a iess than significant level.

To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less than significant) level, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technologicaT, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project as modified, despite ru:avoidable residual impacts.

3.12 Public Servíces and Utilities
Potential Impacts. The future development envisioned by the Shafter Planning Area will increase the dernand for public services and facilities. Demands on fire and police protection will increase as the result of residential, commercial, business park, and industrial deveiopment proposed in the General Plan and Related Actions. In locations where new development occurs, additional fîre protection services wbuld be needed.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLr\N\'ür'AYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR {indings.DAC 6nVZ00S) 32 SHAF'I'ER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RE'-AT6D ACTIONS €TR
FINDTNGS OF'FÀCT JUNE 2OO5
At build out, there could be an increase in student enrollment within the Richland Union School District, Norris School District, and Rosedale Union School Dishict, Rio Bravo-Greeley Union Elementary School District, Maple School Diskic! Kern High School Diskict, and Wasco Union Fligh School District.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in increased demand for sewer services wiihin the plarrning Arãa. The increase in development would result in increased demand for solid waste services and an increase in the demand for landfill capacity.

Build out of the proposed Shafter General Plan will result in a substantial increase in population, ..q,rl;rrg additional parkland. and recreational facilities. The increased demand for recreational fucìlities- may result ìn the need for increased park maintenance and recreational programs and services.

Findings. According to the DEIR on page 4.13-4, based on increased population figUres and current staffinflevels, develofment associateà *itfr the proposed,General Plan would require additional onduty fiiefighLers ancl a rre* hr" stalion facilil.y. TÎre Kern counly Fire DisLrict's ability to provide fire priection-seryices to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to construct, staff and equip this nãw fire station as the nãed for fire protection services increases with development. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and city requirements would reduce potentiai impacts related to thã efflects of future development on fire protection services by reAucin! the threat of fir", improving firefighting infrastructure, and ensuring that future growth does not exceed acceptable levels ofserviceThe Planning Area is served by the Shafter Police Department, Kem County Sheriff s Department, and the California Highwuv patrol. With the increaie in businesses and industries, the daytime fopulation would also"increase and require new police services' The use of community arterial ioåd*uyr, including 7th Standard Road, Lerdo Highway, and Santa Fe 'Way would also increase' which would impact enforcement of traffic laws. The proposed General Plan includes goals that address the level of poU." seryices to be maintained to accommodate long-term growth and a req.rirement to continuàusly evaluate the provision of police sa-vices provided. 'WithÌmplementation of these policies, pote*iaí impacts to põ1ice protection services would be reduced to a less than sigrrificant impact.

For additional discussion of the impacts to police protection, see DEIR Section 4'13'2' Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the number of dwelling units in the elaruring Area and, tt "råfoi.,
the number of students attending local schools would also increase' Thc greatest residential growth rn the Planning Area is projected to occur in the southeastern comer of the Flur*r"g Area, norih of 7,h standard Roád. The Richland union School District, Norris Elementary School Distnct, and Kern High School District would all need to buiid new schools with build out of the General plan. The General Plan is not anticipated to affect the Maple School District, Rio-BravoGreeley Schocl Drstrici Wur.o Union High School District, or Rcsedale Union School Diskict' The pr"p"rä¿ General plan includes policieslo address the need for school facilities and provide the maximum mitigation allowable under State law. The maximum mitigation is a development fee based J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\General Plan Updâte\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR flrndíngs'DOC (612112005) 33 JUNE 2OO5 STIAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RETATED AClIONS ETR FINDINCS OF FÀCT
on the particular school district's need and this fee will be imposed on all nev/ development. Because the Government Code states that compliance with Senate Bill 50 will provide fuù and complete mitigation, no signi{icant impacts will qccur.

Future wastewater flows are based on ultimate build out of the City based on land uses identified in the General Plan. The City of Shafter's capacity is based upon yearly contracts with North of the River Sanitation District and Shafter's capacity will increase as demand increases and as the wastewater treatment plant expands. The City is a co-o!üter of the NORSD and thereby is guaranteed a share of the facility and futr:re capacity. The proposed General Plan policies ensure that new development provides adequate infrastructure for average and peak wastewater conditions through Poiicy 4.3.1 which states that the Cify will enswe that adequate infrastructure is in place and operational prior to occupancy of new development, such that new development will not negatively impact the performance of sewer facilities serving existing developed areas. Irnplementation of these policies and the continual updating of the Master Plan for sewer facilities would ensure that adequate wastewater facilities are in place to accommodate existing and future development, thereby reducing effects associated with future development to a less than significant level.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan will increase the nurnber of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses within the City and, therefore, the demand for solid waste services wlll increase.

The ability to dispose of solid waste in Shafter is tied to available landflll capacity and compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) diversion rate of 50 percent. The General Plan policies recognize both the need to reduce solid waste and the need to limit the locations of solid waste transfer stations. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, in addition to continued compliance with the State-mandated 50 percent reduction in solid waste, would reduce solid waste impacts to less than significant.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.13-26, implementation of the General Plan is forecast to generate a population of 89,173 atGeneralPlanbuildout.BasedontheCity'sparklandratioof 2.5 acresper 1,000 people, the population increase would create a total demand of approximately 222.93 acres of parkland within the Plarning A¡ea. As specified in the General Plan policies, new deveiopment shall be required to meet the City standard of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Implementation of the performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies related to parks and recreational facilities would minimize the impact of growth and development on parkland.

The Cify of Shafter currentþ provides only park maintenanoe services and no recreational programs are offered. As the City population grows with the implementation of the General Plan, the demand for recreational services would increase. Also, as more parks are constructed, the demand for park maintenance will also increase. The proposed Geneml Plan policies anticipate and address the need for increased park maintenance and recreational services in the future. General Plan Policy 4.7.6 requires the City to recognize that high quality maintenance and upkeep of park facilities is necessary for the economic health of the community and to place appropriate priority on park maintenance.

Generai Plan Policy 4.7.4 requkes the City to develop athletic fields and specialized recreation areas to accommodate the growing communify needs for such facilities. With the policies covering recreational services and the maintenance of parklands and facilities, the impact to these recreational resources will be reduced to less than significant.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\V/AYNE\General Plan Updâte\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21l2005) 34 SHA}''I'!]R GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTf ONS EIR
FINDINGS OA f, ACT
JUNE 2OO5
Facts in Support of Findings. The Kem County Fire Department ís plaruring for a new fire station lsão"" 6sf äe"r the íntersãction of 7'r' Standard Road and Allen Road. The KCFD's ability to provide fire protection services to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to construct, staff, an¿ equip this n"* f* station as the need for fire protection services increases with development. The Cob}iy West Specific Plan allocates 9.8 acres for police and/or fire facilities' The funding for the constructiån of the necessary facilities, as specified in the policies of the General Plan, *ltt UJp.o1,ided by development servedbyihe facilities which include the Coberly West and Mission Lakes projects in ihe short^term and potentially projects in_theårurexationTT and Pre-Zoning areain the long ierm, inciuding properties under consìderation for V/illiamson Act contract cancellation' t*pt"*întution of propãsËd è"rr"r"l Plan Policies 2.8.16, 2.10.3,4.8.1 through 4.8'8, 4'10'1 through

4.10.6,4.11.1, 4.1L.z,and City requirements would reduce potential impacts related to the effects of future development on ft "
prät."tion services by reducing the ttneat of fire' improving firefighting infrastructure, and ensurini that future growth does not exceed acceptable levels of serr¡ice' The aforementioned General ilãn poli"ies als=o provide for timely assessment of emergency services to ensuÍe the levels of seryice are being mei and provide for fixrding of the necessary services by iãq*ri"g ,r"* a"rr"toi**t to pay its fãir share. Tùerefore, potential impacts related to fire protection r"-i"r.ïillbe reduced to a less than significant level' The city of Shafer's Police Departrnent's desired police office,r to population ratio.is 1'5 sworn officers per 1,000 ,esiã"rrts. The population within ìtt" City limits at build out is anticipated to be 33,1¡l.Based on this populutiorr, ihe City would need a total of 51 swom officers to service the City at build out. Currentlv, tire Crty employs 19 swom officers. The Kem County Sheriff s Deparfment and Califomia High;áV patroiwoul¿ älso need nev/ sl¡/om officers and equipment to servs growth occurring in areas under their jurisdictions. The city of Shafter has identified protection from crime as one of its goals. ftt" propot.d General Plan incùdes Policies 2'8'16' 2'70'3' 4'9'l ttrough 4'9'4'

4.10.7, 4.10.2, 4.10.4, 4.10.5, 4.11.1, and 4.11.2 lhat address the leve1 of police services to be maintained to accommodate long-term growth and a requirement to continuously evaluate the provision of police **tr* pro.Ld"d. tþt" policies also require new development to fund the facilities and services .r"""r"ury to maintain General Plan goals pertaining to leve1 of serwice which includes Annexation 77 andPre-zoningArea within wniðh the coberly'west and Mission Lakes specific Plans are located. with impiementation of these policies, potential impacts to police piotection ssrvices would be reduced to a less than significant level' Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the number of dwelling units in the pianning Area and, theråfoie, the nurnber of students attending loca1 schools would also increase' The greatest residential growth rn the Plar¡ring Area is projected to ott* in the southeastern corner of the planning Area, north oi ilt stun¿ard Roaã. This area, which is ganerally designated as Specific Plan in the General Plan, is projected to contain 11,410 new residential homes at General Plan build out' Both the Norris Schooinistrict and the Richland School District serve this areafor elementary and middle schools. The Kern High school District provides high school education. The dwelling units forecast at Gsneralplan build out in the remaining Plarming Area (otrtside the proposed Armexation area) total approximately 15,510. This total incluães both existing and proposed housing units' The growth in dwelling *itr *rí occur mainly in the Richland School District sewice arca and the Kern High School Service Area.

State law limits the porñ/er of the City to impose mitigation for development impacts on schools' The propo*a General Pian includes Poùcies 2.g.t1,2.10.3,2'10.4,4'6'1 through 4'6'7, 4'10'5' 4'11'1' J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan update\staff Reports\Final sHAFTER EIR fìndings'Doc (6/2112005) 35 JUNE 2OO5
SHATTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EfR
FTND¡NGS OF FACT
anð' 4.L1.2 To address the need for school facilities and provide the maximum mitigation allowable under State law. The proposed General Plan policies require mitigation of impacts on-school facilitiss and services be provided as development occurs. Because Govemment Code 65996(a) and (b) state that compliance with payment of maximum school fees provides full and complete mitigation, no significant impacts will occur.

For adclitional discussìon regarding the project's impacts to schools, see DEIR Section 4.73.3 and revisions to DEIR provided on page 3-4 of the FEIR.

The projected wastewater flow at build out of the proposed General Plan is 14.41 mgd. 'With a current
treahnent capacity of 6.2 mgd and plans for build out of the NORSD wastewater treatment facility capacity at 12.9 mgd, General Plan projected build out wastewater demand would be greater than NORSD capaciÍy by 1.51 mgd. However, NORSD is considering expansion beyond the 12.9 mgd, according to the City of Shafter, and further expansion to a maximum of 24 mgdcan be implemented.

The City of Shafter's capacity is based upon yearly contracts with NORSD and Shafter's capacity wíll increase as demand increases and as the wastewater treatment plant expands. As the Annexation 77 and. Pre-Zoning Area-which includes Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans-is included in the General Plan Planning Area, the projected demand for wastewater seryioes at build outoftheAmexationTT Areacanbemet.ProposedGeneralPlanPolicies2.7.9,2.8.16,Z.8.l8,2.9.l,

2.1A.2,4.3.1 through 4.3.8,4.10.1 through 4.10.6, and 4-11.1 through 4.11.2 ensure that new development provides adequate infrastructure for average and peak wastewater conditions.

Implementation of these policies and the continual updating of the Master Plan for sewer facilities would ensure that adequate wastewater facilities are in place to accommodate existing and futr-ue development, thereby reducing effects associated with future development to a less than significant level.

The ability to dispose of solid waste in Shafter is tied to available landfill capacily and compliance with the CIWMB diversion rate of 50 percent. As stated previously, the Shafter/Wasco Landfill is planned to accept a 3 to 4 percent increase per year of solid \¡¡aste. As shown, the Shafter Wasco Landfill will remain opan until 2030, which includes the yearly increases in solid waste. The Bena Landfill's phases I and2 are planned to remain open until 2039, and additional phases of this landfill are planned. Therefore, the capacity of the Bena Landfiil will be able to accommodate solid waste disposal needs for the Planning Area through build out of the General Plan. General Plan Policies

2.8.16,2.1.0.2,4.4.1 through 4.4.5,4.10.1through 4.),0.4, 4.11.7, and 4.L1.2 recognize both the need to reduce solid waste and the need to limit the locations of solid waste transfer stations.

Impiementation of the proposed General Plan policies, in addition to continued compliance with the State-rnandated 50 percent reduction in solid waste, would reduce solid waste impacts to less than significantWith approximately 18 acres of parkland, the City of Shafter has an existing parkratio of 1.41 acres per 1,000 residents (based on 2000 Census population of 12,757). This is less than the standard of 2.5 acres ofparkland per 1,000 residents set forth in current City ordinance and contained in the proposed General Plan. Currently, the City is in the process of designing a 2}-acre park, as r:rdicated in previously referenced Table 4.13.L. which will increase the park ratio witldn the City limits to above

2.5 acres per 1,000 rosidsnts. Implementation of the General Plan is forecast to generate a population of 89,173 at General Plan build out. Based on the City's parkland ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people, JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6121/?:005) 36 SI¡AFTER GENERAL PLAN ANO RELATEO ÀCTIONS Df R
FTNDINGS OF FACT .tuNE 2005
the population increase would çreate atotal demand of approxim ately 222 '93 acres of parlda¡d within the Planning Area.

Developers will be required to comply with the city's parkland acreage requirement (2.5 acres per 1,000 iesidents), pursuant to Section 10.200 of the Municipal Code, by one of following three methods: (f ¡ deáióation of 2.5 acres of parkiand per 1,000 persons; (2) payment of in-lieu fees if the amount of land to be dedicated is iess than the amount required to be dedicated; or (3) obtainingcredit for privately maintained parkland that is open to the public up to a maximum of 50 percent of the required land dedication.

The Mission Lakes specific Plan pl.oposes a public park consistng of 24.I acres constructed to city standards that will provide muiti-use courts, ball fields, and a children's play area among other amenities. The proposed Mission Lakes Specific Plan also provides a total of 43'l acres of privately maintained recreation areas.
'With an anticipated populaiion at build out of 16,224, the Specific Plan would need to provide approximately 40 acres of parkland to meet the city of shafter required frrnurra ratio. with 24.{åcres of puúlic parkland piovided, the Mission Lakes specific Plan has a shortfall of 15.9 acres of parkland to mest the City's park standard. By ordinance, the 75'9-acre shortfall of public parkland must be made up by eitirer ãesigning privately-maintained parks within the Specific Plan [o be acccssiblc [u Lhe gfl]äaipubliu, payurcn1 oiitt-1i"u lees, or a combinalion of the two. With the r"ighb;;;d parks uid th" small pócket parks, the Coberly'West Specific Plan provides 13.1 acres oi prtti" paiklana. At build out, Coberly 'TVest Specific Plan is anticipated to generate a population of 1,0,4i2 persons which would require 76 acres of parkland' Existing City ordinance requires that the propoå"a Coberly West Specific Plan make up for this shortfalT of t29 acres ofparkland by designing private recreátional facilities to provide for public access' payment of in-líeu fees, or a combiriation of the two. Thus, compliance by Mission Lakes Specific Plan and Coberly West Specifi. pt"n with existin g CiW oráinuo.è wili avoid signifîcant impacts with regard to the provision of Parkland.

As more parks are constructed, the demand for park maintenance will also increase' North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District and the co,rnty of Kern also provide park maintenance and recreational progr** to portions of the Planning Area. The Mission Lakes ancl Coberþ 'west Specific plans will U" pt*l¿*g privately maintai]red parks as well as publicly maintained parks within their respective boundaries. Proposed General Plán Policie s 4'7 'I through 4 '7 '6' 4'7 '8' 4'10 '2'

4.10.4, 4.L0.5,4.11.1, and4.ll.2 anticipate and address the need for increased park maintenance and recreational services in the future. 'w-ays to fi¡nd these necessary programs ut" -4t9 covered' The performance standards for maintenance of the parkland and facilities are estabiished within the proposed policies. Witft ifr" policies covering recåational.¡grvice¡ and the maintenance of parklands and facilities, the impact to these recreationafresources will be reduced to less than significant' For additional discussion regardtng impacts to parks and recreational resources, see DEIR Section

4.r3.6.

3.13 TransPortation/Traffic
potential rmpacts. Implementation of the proposed General Plan will facilitate the development of residential, "o*-"rrii, ìnduskial, institu;io;41, and other types of projects that wi|l result in J:\USERS\ENG.PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAITER EIR findings'DoC (6i21l2005) 31 JUNO 2r05 SHÀFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FIND¡NGS OF T'ACT
increased haffic volumes. This increase in traftic volumes could, in turn, result in congestion along area roadways and highways.

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.14-6, the General Plan and related actions are not expected to result in an inadequate parking supply because the General Plan and related actions do not modify current parking standards. Future developments will continue to supply parking according to City code requirements.

The General Plan and related actions are not expected to result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. The General Plan Circulation map (Figure 4.14.4) provides for altemative access, and the existing City requirements for the provision of emergency access to development projects will continue to be implemented. In addition to the Circulation Program map, implementation of the following Circulation Program policies would avoid impacts to the emergency access system: Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 would require the management and development of the area's local roadway system to support the Land Use Program; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.70,3.2.17, as well as Commodities Movement Policy 3.2.3 would minimize local cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 would maintain adequate levels of service for all areas of the City. Implementation of these policies will maintain the Cify's level of service standard throughout the Cify, ensuring the adequacy of access routes for emerg€ncy vehicles. It is not expected that future congestion will significantþ affect emergency vehicle access due to the availabilify of alternate routes and improvements to key roadways to maintain standards. Also, the City will impiement traffic signal system upgrades that help to facilitate more efficient emergency vehicle access and give priority to emergency vehicles.

As stated on page 4.14-6 of the DEIR, the General Plan and related actions are not expected to result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation of existing City requirements and the provisions of Section 3.4 (Altemative Modes of Transportation) of the proposed General Plan would avoid significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing for a bicycle and trails network and supporting the safe and convenient movement of pedestrians. The Cif,y will continue to require development projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities according to City codes, and as a result of the development review process.

The General Plan and related actions are not expected to result in conflicts with regional transportation policies on altemative transportation, since Section 3.4 of the proposed General Plan objectives and policies support alternative transportation and increased use oftransit seryices.

Findings. Future growth associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan and related actions will result in a substantial increase in the traffic that is generated throughout the Shafter Planning Area. This traffic will affect not only Shafter, but also surrormding lands within unincorporated areas. Future traffic conditions at the anticipated maximum build out of the City of Shafter, including a cumulative anaþsis of future development throughout Kern CountSr, were analyzed by through traffic model runs undertaken by Kern COG, who maintains a regional trafhc model. The analysis of cumulative fuhre traffic that will be generated at build out of the General Plan and following implementation of related actions indicates that level of senrice standards will be met.

Thus, the General Plan will reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Iinal SHA¡TER EIR fìndings.DOC (6/2112005) 38 SRAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELÀTED ACTIONS E{R
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
JUN0 2005
Facts in support of Findings. The analysis conducted by Kern coG evaluates the impacts of the proposed Shafter Cenàral P1ãn, includin! ti* Coberly'Wãst and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and build out of lands within Annexation 77 and,lands subject to proposed Williamson Act contract cancellations. Land .,"" ir,-p* to the traffic model for the Shafter Planning Area was consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Program, as well as the proposed Coberly West and Mission T,al<es Specific Plans. The roadway netwotk within the Shafteì Pianning Area that was ultimately used for the traffic urruty=i, *.orr.purr"s build out of the City's planned roadway network as shown in the propos"d G"rr"r"í plan Circulation tvtap. The results oi ttrã tecttnical traffic modeling showed that roadways an¿ rrigl*uv. in Snan"r will operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out with the "*.iftion of State Route 99. The roadway network included a variety of roadway rnfrastructure rmproveàenß in the city to enable the nã¡¡¡ork to accommodate travel demand produced by the city's land use plans. Improvements to state Route 99 are planned and controlled by the State. The analysis of cumuiative future traffic impacts that wlll be generated at build out of the General Plan demonstrated that, followitg ;pi"*""iutio"-of General Plan Policies 3'2'l through

3.2.19,3.5.1,3.5.2, l-.i.6, and'3.5.7, the-Generat Plan will reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. The policies in the Transport"tlon Program sei crty roadway performance standards to implement the Cìrculation Plan shown i" nig*" 4J4:4.This planned roadway network was used in the ïtaffic Analysis conJucrc,lby Kcr'cocl rtre'oacrway r.etwo'k i'cludeú a varìety of roadway infrastructure improvements in the City to enable the nltwork to accommodate travel demand produced by the city,s General plan land .'* pr"" build out. The results of the technical h"affic modeiing of the Circulation plan showed thaf the roadways and highways will operate at an acceptable 1evel of service at General Plan build out with the exception of state Routg 99' which is under State control, as stated on page +.t+-g oithe DEIR. Wrth the implementation of the Circulation plan thro*gh the perfáräã"" potirî"* in the General Plan, the necessary infrastructure improvements for General plan build out will be provided and, thus, impacts to traffic wil1be less than significant.

For additional ciiscussion of the project's impacts to transportation and circulation' see DEIR Section

4.r4.

3.14 Mineral and EnergY Resources
potential Lnpacts. Build out of lhe General Plan may result in the ioss of petroleum' natutal gas' sand, or gravel ,"ro*"", that wouid o" oi value to'the residents of the Pianning Area and the residents of the State. Build out of the General Plan will increase the population in the area and this ;;;ül;;;"áse would result in an expanded need for electricity and gas' Findings. The proposed General Plan designates about.710. acres within the Planning Area as Resource Munug"m"nt. other oilfieids *ithä the plar¡ring Area are protected through proposed General Pian policies which provide for their continued operation uod th" operation of any other mìneral resourÇes which may be discovered. As stated on page 4'15-1 of the DEIR' there are no lmown sand and gru*i ;rúces within trt.-pioÀing erea. wrth the implementation of the General Plan policies and the mitrgation measufes., the impacts to mineral resources are reduced to iess than significant. pG&E pro",riJå both electric ut anAgas servi"es to the Pianning Area' A small substation facility is located within the Planning e.""' Ããtátding to the DEIR on page 4'15-6' the additional growth anticipated ",ilH
tn* proposedbeneral Plan wilirequire that natural gas and electrical services J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan update\staff Repo*s\Final sHAFTER EIR findings'Doc 6nl /2005) 39 JUNE 2OOS
SHAF'TTR CENERAL PLÀN AND RELATED ACT¡ONS EIR
f.IND¡NGS OF FACT
expand existing facilities or increase supply. According to a comment letter received from PG&E, (see Comment Letter I in the FEIR), service to the southwestern porlion of the Planning Area will require a new substation.

Facts in Support of tr'indings. The designation of 710 acres as Resource Management provides for ihe continued extraction of oil at the Rio Bravo North Oil Field, one of the largest oil reserves in the County. Designation of this area for Resource Management ensures that this large productive petroleum field, which is valuable both locally and Statewide, will continue to provide this resourceOil resources are known to exist within the Annexation and Pre-Z;aning Area, the Mission Lakes Specific Plan as detailed in each Specific Plan, and the Williamson Act contract cancellation properties. California Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources records reveal the presence of nine abandoned exploratory oil wells and nine producing oil wells on the Mission Lakes property.

The Coberly West properly contains a small oílfield consisting of three wells and three small aboveground tanks located on the eastern side of the properry approximately one-half miie norlh of 7th Standard Road. General Plan Policies 6.5.1 through 6.5.4 protect the mineral resources within the Planning Area and provide for the protection of the environment around these resources. The policies do not address the compatibility of new development around existing or abandoned oil well sites. To fuither reduce the impacts to mineral resources and nearby development, Mitigation Measures

4.15.5.14 through C are proposed. These mitigation measures provide performance standards for development located near abandoned wells by requiring well access, requiring leak tests with repairs according to Califomia Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources standards, and a well vent in any building constructed over a well site. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. 'W'ith these policies in place, the mineral resources can continue to be produced and impacts would be less than significant.

In response to the comment letter received from PG&E, a ne\¡/ policy (Policy 6.8.7) was added to the General Plan which states the City ïrill facilitate the installation of new utility infrastructure as needed to serve the Planning Area and ensure that an electrical substation is located in the vicinity of 7tr' Standard Road. Furthennore, the City in the FEIR on pages 2-64 through 2-72 determined that construction of the necessary nev/ substation will be less than significant with the standard protection and avoidance measures as detailed on the aforementioned pages. Furthermore, the DEIR on page

4.15-9 determined that implementation of General Plan Policies 5.1.3 and 6.8.1 through 6 would assist in reducing the effects of new development on energ"y tesources, However, additional mitigation measures were recommended to minimize the additional demand for and consumption of enerry resources, Mitigation Measures 4.15.6.14 and B require the City to review all development proposals prior to the approval ofdevelopment plans to guarantee that sufficient energ] resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses. [r addition, the measures require review of all development proposals by the City to guarantee that en€rgy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 24 are met and are incorporated into the design of future development- V/ith the General Plan policies, which, among other requirements, encourage the installation of energy-efftcient lighting facilitate the installation of environmentally acceptable forms of small-scale electrical generation, provide incentives to new development to exceed its energ-y efficiency standards, and facilitate the installation of new utility infrastructure including an electrical substation plus the aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to energy supplies and facilities would be less than significant.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAyNË\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAfTER EIR ñndings.DOC (6121120A5) 40 S¡¡AF'ÎER GENERAT, PLAN ÀND RELATED ACItONS EIR
F¡ND¡NGS Otr PÂC1 JUNE !OO5

3.1.5 Summary of Environmental Impact Findings
Table A (following page) presørts a swnmary of the environme,lrtal impact findings of the Shafter General plan and netatea Acüons. The tabie displays the impacts aocording to three categories: less than significant impacts, less than significant impacts with mitigation, and significant unavoidable impacts after mitigation.

This Space Intentionalþ Left Blank
J:\USERST\ENG-pLANW/AyNE\ceneral Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 4t
JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SHAFTER GENERAL }LAN AND RELATED ÀCTTONS EIR
FTNDINCS OF FACl
and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Signifìcant
Impact 4.2.3.1. Build out of the proposed General planwauld increase development of urban and wal residential uses withìn the Plqnning Areø, resulting in the conversion of open space areas and agriculnral landswíthin certain areas to urban and rural resídential land uses. This would cawe a substantial loss of open space and scenic resol4rces within the Ctty, substaniialty altering existíng andfuture publíc views.

Land Use Program Polici es 2.4.9, 2.8.20Environmental Management Program policies: 6.2.1,

6.2.2,6,2.3
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures exist to address the loss of open vistas that will result from conversion of openspace and agricultural lands to urban and rural residential uses, other than those that are included in the GeneralPla¡r.

Statíonørv Source ønd Yehicular Emissíons
Impact 4.3,4,2. Development assocíated with
implementatinn of the proposed General plan will result in an overall increase in støtionary and. mobíle source emissions withín the CW which may exceed SJVA?CD
Air fuality Standards.

Less than Significant Impacts lVith Mitigation
Lísht an.l Glare
lmpact 4.2.3.3. Implementation of the proposed.General Plan ytould increase the effects of light ind glare uponØcßting residential uses awl upon witdtife (especially nocturnal species) within the PlanningArea. New light and glare woultl be created by the addition of residences,commercial establishments, industrial uses, and public facilities within the proposed General plan planning Àrea.

Land Use Program Policy: 2.7.3
Müigafion Measures
4,2,3A. The City shall require that sources of lighting provide the minimum lighting required to ensure safecirculation and visibility.4.2.38. The City shall require street lighting to be limited to intersections and other locations that are needed to maintainsafe access (e.g., sharp curves).

4.2.3C. The City shall require exterior lighting for buildingsto be of a low profile and intensity.

4.2.3D. Require that lighting provided for uew development be designed so as to be confined to the areas that areintended to be lit.

4.2,38. Require that access to non-residential uses adjacentto residential neighborhoods be designed so as to provide adequate separation and prevent spillover of night lighting ffom the non-residential use into the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Conflìct with Ree¡onøl Air Oualitv plans
Impact 4,3.4.4 Implementation of the proposed General
Plan may conflict or obstruct implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollutíon Control Plan (SJVACp) or the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) of the Kern Council of Governmenls.

Less than Significant Impacts

4.2 AND VTSUAL R,ESOURCES
Visual Charøcter
Impact 4,2,3.2. Expansion of areas developed þr urban awl rural residentinl use, increased residential densities, and. industrial and business parkdevelopwent møy conflict with the City's exist¡ng small town vßual character and Emlities.

Land Use Program Policies 2.3.1,2.3.2, 2.3.3 2.3.5,

2.3.9, 2.3.1,0, 2.5.t,2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.6.1, 2.8.7, 2.8.t0,

2.8.19,2.9.8Environmental Management Program policies: 6.6.7 Public Services Program Policies: 4.6.6, 4.j .6,4.7 .l
Odors 4ry1 Toxic Air Contaminailts
The proposed General PIan, Spectfic plans,
annexatian and pre-zoning, and agricultural
preserved contract cancellatiow will not, in and of
themselves, generate odor or toxic aìr contaminants;howe-ver, the specific uses and activities that may be J:\USERS\ENG-PLAM'ür'AYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Fir:at SHAITER EIR find.ings,D AC 6/Z1D0AS) 42 SHÀFTÊR GENËRAL PLÀN á,ND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FINDINCS OF FACT JUNE ZOO5 Table A - Summary of Environmental Findíngs
Signilicani and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
Land Use Program Policies: 2.3.1, 2.3,2, 2.3.4, 2.5.7,2.8.1 l,2.8.14d Environmental Management Progmm Policies: 6.?.1,6.1 .2, 6.7 .3, 6."1 .4, 6.7 .5, 6 :t .6, 6.7 ;1, 6.8.6Trânsportation/Traffic Program Policies: 3.2.1, 3.2;Ì,

3.2.8, 3.2.9, 1.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4,3, 3.4.4, 3.4.6,

3.4.'7, 3.4.8, 3.4.9, 3.4.10, 3.4.11, 3.4.12, 3.4.13, 3.5.2,

3.5.3, 3.5,4, 3.5.5,3.5.6, 3.5.7, 3.6.i, 3.6.2,3.6.3
Mitigatian Measures

4.3.4.3r'.. Encourage the use of buildingmaterials/methods, which reduce emissions.

4.3.4.38. Encourage the use of efficient h,:ating
equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters,
swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators,fumaces, and boiler units.4.3.4.3C. Eacourage cenfrally heated facilities to utilize automated time clocks or occupãnt sensors to c,cntrol
heafing,

4.3.4.3D. Require residential building conshucti'rn tocomply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 ofthe Califomia Administrative Code.

4.3.4.38. Adopt incentives and/or regulations to enact
energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.The fotlowing general approaches ûom SJVAPCLT (see Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, January 10, 2002, Section 6.5.2 for the detail:r), as
appropriate, are necessary:
¡ Redace vehicle trips. These measures reduc'e air
pollution emissions by entirely eiiminating sorne of
the vehicle ùrips associated with a project. An
example is the provision of bicycle faciliti':s toencourage bicycle use instead ofdriving. . Redace vehícle míles trøveled- These measures
reduce emissions by reducing the length of vehicletrips associated with a project. An example is The proposed General Plan contains policies in the LandUse Program, the Transportation and Circulation Program, and the Environmental Management Program and these
policies have been listed under Impact 4.3.4.2.

Mitigation Measures

4.3.4.4^. The City of Shafter shall cooperate in thepreparation of a revised SJVAPCD Plan and supportregional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the San Joaquin Valley Basin.

Less than Significant Impacts With lVfitigation
permitted pursuant to these actíons can restdt ín air
emissions that wouhl raise odar concerns on the part
of nearby uses. Møjor potential sou'rces of odars
inclutle restauranls, manufacîuring plants, and
agriculfi,tral aperations. lYhile sources that genera'teobjectionable odors mwt comply with applicable air Enlity regulations, the publtc's sensitivity to locally prorlured odors can exceed regulatory thresholdsThough offensive odors from stat¿onary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they remain unpleasant and
can lead to public distress, generdting citizencomplaints to local governments. The occurrence øntlseverity of odor ùnpacts depends on the nature, frequency and intensity ofthe source; wind speed ønd
direction; ønd the sensitivity of receptors- IndivùIualdevelopments that have the potential to generate odors or air contaminants will be evaluated when
project-specirtc inþrmation is available. Intpacts to
sensitive receplors are considered for any proposednew odor ,¡ource located near existing recePtors, as well as dny new sensiÍive receptors located near
existing odor sources. Generally, increasing the
distance between a receptor and the source to an
acceptable level will mitigate odor impaets.

Inplem.enturion of the proposed General Plan would
ensure that sensitive receplors (e.g-, residences,
schools, and hospitals) were adequately bufferedfrom
industries thbt generette loxíc enTissions by not
allowing the construction of residences near heavy
industrial uses or, conversely, the constrilction near
sensítive receptors of heavy industries that may emít
toxins. Implernentation of these policies would reduce
potential impacts associated with odors and toxic
emissians to a less than stgnificant level and ensure
consistency with the regional air quality plan.

C ø nstruclio n-Relst¿d Pa¡,tic¡r,late (PM,gì Emíss ¡o n sImpact 4.3.4-1- Air pallutant emßsions, includíng fugitive dust and gases, could occur during
Less than Significant lmpacts
JfUSÊRS\El.¡c-pLAN\WAYNE\Geneml Plan Update\Staff Reporrs\FinaL SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 43 J UNt 2005
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
Direct Loss of Oøk Trees
Implementation of the proposed General plan would
not result in the direct loss of oak trees. This is
considered a less than significant impact.
llildlife Movement
þnact !.!.4.3. Implementation of the proposed General Plan woulcl cause fragnentatton of iabitat that constricts, inh¡bns, or elíminates witdliþ movement within portions of the planning Area, Lwtwould not impact a regianal natural corriior.Environmental Management Program policies: 6.2.3,6.4.t, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 Impact 4.4.4.L, Inplementation of the proposed General
Plan could have an adverse inpact on listed, proposed, or candidate species and other sensitive or special støtus species or the loss afhabitat occapied by such species.

Environmental Management program policies: 6.4.1, 6.4.2,

6.4.3,6.4.4
MitigaÍion fuIeasures

4.4.4.1^. At a mínimum, a wildlifVplant habitar suitabilìty assessment shall be part of the impact analysis for any development project located within the planning Area. If a covered species has been observed in the vrcinity of the SHÀFTER GENERAL OLÀN ANO RD,L4TED ACTIONS ETR FINDINGS OF FACT Communìtics
Unavoidable Impacts Af'ter Mitigation Significant and
t Use of low emission vehicles. These meæures do
not aim to reduce trips or VM! but rather promotethe use of fi¡els that me less polluting than lasolineo¡ diesel, Examples are the cônversìõn of a'vehicle fleet to operate on compressed natural gas and thepurchase ofan electric vehicle. t fmprove trøffic flows/reiluce congestion These
measures reduce emissions by reducing kaffic
congestion and/or reducing stops and starts. This
allows vehicles to operate at stiady a¡rd moderatespeeds, and thus lowers pollution per mile traveled, An example is timing the traffic signals on an artedalto facilitate uninterrupted travel.

Support meqsures. These meesures may not directly reducc emissions, but rathe¡ suppoü and iacilitate other e.ry¡ion reduction strategies. An example is a guaranteed ride home progmm implemented at a worksiteL order to
etrcourâge employees to use commute alternatives by allaying concerns over being without a vehicle in case of emergency.
provided to
Trips
Less than Signifìcant Impacts With Mitigation Less than Signiticant Impacts construction-related activities assoeiated withindividual projects permitted by the General plan, Coberly lttest Specific Plan, and Mission Lakes
Specific Plan, as well as byfuture development withìn
Annexation Area 77. Impacts from fugitive dust and emissions generaÍed by constnrction vehicles ancl equipment travelíng over exposed surfaces, as well asby disturbances from grading could ifect atr qualtty.

Environmental Management program policy: 6.7. I
Ìulitigation Measures
No mitigation measures beyond the policy identified
in the proposed General PIan and implementation of
SJVAICD Regulation VIII are necessary.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAyl'lE\Genelal Plan Update\SraffReports\Finat SHAFTÊR EiR furdings.DoC (612112005) 44 SHAÉTER CENÊRA,L 9LAN AND RELÀTED ACTIONS f,IR
JUNE ZOOs FINDINCS OF FÁ,CT
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Mitigation Meastres
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.
project area or the site has suitable habitat conditions, then a focused species suwey shall be completed. If a covered
species is found to be present, then appropriate mitigation measures will be determined by the applicable lead agency.

A "covered" species is any plant or animal listed asthreatened or endangered by CÞFG or USFWS, a non-listed species that requires mitigation under Migratory Bird TreatyAct, or a species that is protected under local ordinances.4.4.4.1B^ trn the event that the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (VFHCP) is adopted, then any project
within the Pianning Area will be a VFHCP participant and would comply with FESA Section l0A permit conditions
and mitigation measures adopted in the Plan.

Loss of Critìcal Habítat
Impact 4.4,4.2, Implementation of the proposed GeneralPlan may cause direct loss of sensitíve pløn! communities, but na loss of federally designated øitical habitat. Direct loss of sensitive habitat and open spdce occapied by
covered species ís considered a significant impact.Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.4.1' 6.4.2,

6.4.3,6.4.4Mitigation Measures

4.4.4.2.^. The City esiablishes baseline ratios for mitigating the impacts ofdevelopment related uses to rare, threatened and endangered species and their associated habitats as thefollowing:

Preserve habitat occupied by covered species at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in locations that provide long-termconservation value for impacted resources. Habitat isdefined as where a plant or animal completes its life cycle.

Habitat in the Planning Area can include native plant
communities, annual grasslands, oilfields, and agrÍcuìturalland. Habitat mitigation could involve dedication of conservation easement on the occupied on-site habitat,
acquisition of off-site habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in a missing link orgap in an HCP reserve that provides conservation for the Less than Signilicant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable lmpacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Qene¡aI Plan Update\Staff Rcports\Final SI{AFTER EIR findings.DOC (ó/2112005) 45 JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SIIAFTER GENERA,L PLAN AND REL,4,TED ACTIONS ETR F¡NDINGS OF FACT Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Aft er Mitigation
species, or acquisition of credits(endorsed by the USFWS and./orestablished to provide conseryation Implementation of the mitigation
in a mitigation bank
CDFG) that has been
value for the species.
measure shall include
provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.

Conllîc¡ wíth Ailopted HsbÍtut Conservatian pl¿,n
Impact 4.4.4.4. Implernentation of the General plan could afect existing Habitat Conservaîion plans and the proposed Kern County VFHC?, which is in the initialplanning stage.

Environmental Management program policies 6.2,1, 6.2.3,6.4.4 Mitigation Measures

4.4,4.4.L. The City of Shafter shall collect the mitigation fees upon the development of the area within ttre À¿gHCp which is located north of 7th Standard Road and within thesphere of influence of the City of Shafter. The City shatl forward the MBHCP fees to the County of Kern. Altemativel¡ developmenr within the VnUCp snatt provide equivalent mitigation in the form of habitat acquisition or payment of fees into an established mitigationbank.

CIJLTURAT,
De&lactìon of s Uil¡qae Pøleontol,osìcal Re{ource
or SiteImpact 4.5.4.1. Development associated with the
proposecl General Plan would requíre disturbance of
vaca_nt lands. Therefore, development as a result õf
implementation of the proposed General plan coukl
pot-entialþ destroy direcþ or indirectly a uniqttepaleontologtcal resource or site.

Environmental Management Program policies: 6.6. 1,

6.6.2,6.6^3
Mítigation Meast¿res
No mifigation required beyond the poticies included
in the General Plan.

Unknawn Burþd l{amøn Remains
Impact 4.5.4.2. Developnent allowed by implemenÍation of the proposed General Plan coukl have lhe patential to
elisturb buried hu,man remains, including thàse interreil outside of þrmal cemeteries, and buried archaeological
resources.Environmental Management Program policies: 6-6. I ,6.6.2, 6.6.3 Mitigation Measures4.5,4.2A.If human remains are encountered during a public or private const¡uction activity, State Health and SafetyCode 7050.5 states that no fì¡rther disturbance shall occuruntil the Kern County Coroner has made a determination of Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Less than SignifÌcant Impacts J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAh{E\GeneraI Plan UpdateLstaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.D oC {6tzl/2005) 46 SHASTER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RELATED ACTIO¡¡S EIR
F¡NDINGS OF F.4.CT JUN0 2005
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
Rupture of a Kttown Eatthauake Fault
Atthough the Planning ,4rea ß located with¿n a
seismically active region of the State, it does noî
conÍa¿n any active faults' Some older, inactive faults
run through the western and southwestern portions of
the Planning Area; however, because these faults are
inactive (they have not moved within the last 3 míllíon years) tie.v are not considered Q source af potential -hazard for rupntring. Future dewlopment permitted
by the ôeneraÌ Plan will not result in the exposure of
peaple or stnrctures to fault rupture hazards -Lilcewise, development permitted within the Annexatiot'r 77 and Pre-Zoning Area-which includes
the Coberly llest ønd Mission Lalces SpeciJìc Plans
anrl the ll/illiamson Act contract cancellaîion
propert¿es-will not result in the exposure of people
or slntctures to fautt ntplure hazards as no known
active faults are locatetl within the boundaries of the Annexâtio,t Area 77. Thereþre, impacts associated
Soil Erosion/Los-s of ToPsoil
Impact 4.6.4'3t Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil'Inþlernentation of the Genetal Plan may rewlt in impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Areas exposed during developmenl activities would be prone to soi!
erosion and loss oftoPsoil.Environmental Hazards Program Policy: 7.2.4Mitigation Measures

4.6.4,3.A, New developments shall provide erosion ¿nd
sedimentation contol measures to maintain the capacity of area storm drains, protect water quality, and to reduce erosion and the loss oftoPsoil.4.6,4,3,8. New development shall use BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

Significant and Unavoid¿ble Impacts After Mitigation Less thau Significant Impacts With l\{itigation origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Kern County Coroner must benotified within 24 hours. If the coroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Comnrission (NAHC) must be contacted to
determine the most likely descent (MLD) for this area' TheMLD may become involved with the disposition of the burial following scientific analysis.

Less than Significant ImPacts
Adv.ercq¿-C!$nse ia the Siæ!ûcanc¿ of qn ÍIÍsto¡ical
Rescurce
Impact 4"5.4.3. Development assaciatetl with the
pràposetl tleneral Plan would require distutbance of
vacant latldß and possible conversion of exßtingstrtrctLres into various land uses (e.g., historic homes into off;ce space), Development allovved b7
implemlntation of the proposed General Plan could.ciuse the tlestruction of or loss of a hßtorical rcsoilrce, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section
I 5064.5.

Environmental Management Program Policies: 6'6'4,

6.6.s,6.6.1i, 6.6.7Mitigatían Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the Gen,:ral PIan.

J:\USERS\E¡IG-PLAN\W.A.YNE\Geneml Pìan Update\StaffRepons\Firial sHAFTER ËiR findings'Doc (6/21i2005) 4"1
JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
with the rupture of a lmown earthquake fautt in the
Planning Area, which includes the Annexation Area,
are less than signiJìcant.LiøuefactionLiquefaction is a destr'uctive secondary ffict of strong seismic shahng, which oceurs primarily insaturated, loose, fine-to-rnedium-grained soils inareas tvhere the groundwater table is within 50 feet ofthe surface. Shaking suddenly increases pore water pressure, causing the soils to lose strength and behave as a liquíd. Liquefaction-related efects include loss ofbearing strength, ground oscilløtions, løteralspreading, and flow failures or slumping. Although soil conditiow exist that might be condueive to liEtefactíon, groundwater is deep enough thatliquefaction potential does not occar in the Plannìng Area, which includes the Annexation 77 anÅ PreZoning Area of which Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Speeific Plan, and the properties
considered þr Williamson Act cancellation are a part. Thereþre, ùnpacts associated with this issue are less than signi/ìcant.

Lan dslides/S lop e Failur eLandslides and slope stabílity are a relafively minor hazard wìthin the Planning Area, which includes the
Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area boundaries of
which Coberþ West and Mission Lakes Specific plans and the proposed Williamson Act contractcancellarion properties are a part. The slope hazards are minor since there are only ninor changes intopography and no steep slopes. Future proposed General Plan develapment within the Planning Area
would not increase the potential for the placetnent of
structutes and facilitíes in areas susceptible to slope failure. Therefore, iÌnpacts associated wíth this issue are less than significant.

S¡l¿{,FTER cENERÄL PLAN AND Rtr}LATED ÀCTIONS ErR FINDINGS OF ¡'ÀCÎ Significant and Uuavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Less tha¡ Signilicant Impacts tilith Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts J:\USERS\ÊNG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\.Staff Reporrs\Fiual SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21l2005) 48 SHÀFTER GENERAL PLAN ÁND Rf,LATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FACT JUNE 2OO5
Table A- Summary of Environmental l'indings
Grouild SlzakineImpact 4.6.4.1: Ground Shaking. The City of Shafter has and will continue to be subiect to ground shaking
resulting from activity on local and regianal faults.

Future developmenl permitted by the proposed
General Plan may increase the potentralfor property
Ioss, injury, or death resulting front this ground
shaking hazard.

Envíronmental Hazards Program Policies'. 1 .2.1, 7 -2-2,7 .2.3,'1 .2"4,'l .2.5, 7.2.6, 1 .2.7, 7 .2.8Mitigation Measures No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Ground Subsùdence
Impact 4.6.4.22 Ground Subsidence. Soilssusceptible to subsidence may be affected by a. varíety of natural or human activities, ineluding earthquakes
and the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Future
proposed General PIan developtnent within the
Planning Area woald íncrease the potential for the
placement of structures and facilities in areas
sus ceptible to subs id ence.

Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 ,2'1,7 .2.2,7.2.3, 7 .2.4, 7 .2.5, 7 .2.6,'l .2.7, 7 .2.8 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Colløosìble and Exoansíve Soils
Impact 4.6.4.4 Collapsible and Expansive Soils.Future development within the Planning Area would increase patential placernent of resiclential and nonresi.dential strilctures within areas susceptible todamage resulting from collapsible and expansive soils. This is a potentially significant impacl.

Envùonmental Haeards Pro gram Polici es '7'2. l,'1'2.4
Less than Signlficaut Impacts With Mit¡gation Signilicant ¿nd Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Less than Significant lmPacts J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\ceneral Plan Update\Staff Reports\final SIIAFTEREIR ftìdings.DOC (6/2112005) 49 JUNE 2OO5
Table A * Summary of Environmental F,indings
SHÀFlER GENERAL PLAN ANÐ RELAlED ACTIONS E¡R FINDINGS OF FÁ,CT Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigatiotr Aún ow n Hazanlo us M at er ìals
Impact 4,1,4.1, Implementation of the proposed General
Plan could result, duríng the development process, in
uncovering previously unknown hazardous materialscontamination from historical use of property and expontre af pers ons to agricultural chemicals.Land Use Program Polici es: 2.4.2,2.4.5,2.4.6,2.4.10Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7.5.1, 7.5.13 Mitigation ltleasures

4.7.4.I.^. On a site-specific, project-by-project basis, allnew discretionary development projects shali be subject to an assessment to determine whether haeardous materials are present as required by the County Department of
Environrîental Services.4.7,4.1.8. Soils shall be tested for concentraTions of agricultural chemicals prior to gradirig permit approval where appropriate, as determined by local, State, or Federal agencies. Contaminated soils shall be feated and/orexcavated and disposed of at certified hazardous waste facility.4.7,4.1.C. Fugitive dust on construction sites shall beconfrolled by inigation, paving of construction roads,limiting grading activities during periods of high winds, andother applicable methods as set forth by the San JoaquinValley Unified Air Pollution Conrrol Þishict.

Less th¿n Significant Impâcts
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the Genelal Plan.

4.7 HAZ¡IRDS AND HAUARDOTiS MATüR|AI-S
Ilqzar dous M aterinls Ex o osur e
Impact 4.7.4.2. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would introduce new land uses to the
Plannìng Area that may result in addítional sources af
hazardous ìnaterials and potentially increase
expostûe of residens and employees ta hazardous
materials and hazardous waste.Environmental Hazards Program Polici es. 7 .5.1, 7 .5,2,7.5.3, 7.5.4, 7 -5.5, 7.5.6, 7.5.7, 7.5.8, 7.5.9, 7.5.t0,7 .5.tl,7 .5.t2,7 .5.t3 Mitigatian MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Impair an Emergencv Response PIøtt
Impact 4.7.4.3. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan could interfere wíth an adopted
emergency response plan or etnergency evacuation
plan.

Environmental Hazards Program Polici es: 7 .6.1, 7 .6.2,

7.6.3,'7.6.4,7.6.s
Mítigation Meøsures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Aírport Safetv Zones
Impact 4.7,4,4 Inplernentetton of the proposed
General Plan may be incompatìble with the
Shafter/Mínter Field Airport Safety Zones and thereby
expose persons to unsafe conditionEnvironmental Hazards Program Polici es: 7 .4.1 ,7 .4.2,7.4.3 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI plan Update\SraffRepor"ts\Finat SHAFTER EIR tindings.DOC (6/2\/2005) 50 JUNE Zû0s
Table A - Summary of Environmental Finclings
Gto tuldte at et Recha rp e
Impact 4.8.4,2" Implementation of the proposed
General Plan may result in the loss ofwater recharge
areas dtæ to increased imperv¡ous surføces caused bynew developnent.

Environmental Management Pro gram Policies: 6. 3' 8,

6.3. I I
Mitígation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in thg General Plan.

Demand fo! ll/øter Setvíces
Impact 4.8.4.3: Im.plementation of the proposed
Generøl Plan will increase the demand J'or water
sewices s.a,2h lhat it exceeds the acisting and planned facilities.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.10.6,2.I0.'lPublic Services and Facilifies Program Policies: 4.2.I,

4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6Mitigation Meanrre
No mitígation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

ImDa,cts to Water Ouølin
Impact 4.8.4.4: Irnplementation af the proposed
General Plan may, during funre constntction
activitíes and post-construction uses, violate waterquality standards or wusle tlischarge requirentents' Environmental Management Program Policy: 4. 5.4.

Public Sen'ices and Facilities Program Policy: 6.3.6,

6.3.i0
SHÀFTER GENERAL }LAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FINDINCS OF F'ACT Imøaas n Grou¡ylwøtcr Supplíes
Impact 4.8.4.1. Build out of the General PIan may
increase the existing demand for waler and may
eontribute to the depletion of grcundwater xrpplîes.

Public Services and Facilities PÌogram Policies: 4.2.1,

4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.5, 4.2.6
Environmental Malagement Program Policies: 6.3.1,

6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5, 6.3.7, 6.3.9
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are proposed.

Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Mitigation Mea$tes
No mitigation requiled beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

4.û WA'|ER&Ê$OURCES
Less than Signilicant Impacts
JTUSERS\ENG-PLAN\VyA\{ lE\General Plan Update\SraffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612112005) 51 JUNti ¿005
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SH.A,FTER GENER.4.L TLÁ,N ÀND RELATBD ÄCITONS E¡R FINDINGS OF rÀCT and Unayoidable Impacts After Mitigation Significant
$Ract 4.9.4.2. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in conversion of'prime Farnland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Impartance
to non-agr icultur al us es.laad Use Program Policiesl 2.3.3, 2-4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3,2,.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.'1, 2^4.8, 2,4.9, 2.4.10, 2.4.1 i, 2.5.6:, 1R' Environmental Management program policies: 6.2.2,6.2.3
Mítigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

Affect lItíllíamson Aø Conttscts
Impact 4.9.4.3. Implementatíon af the praposed General
Pløn would conflict wíth existing zoniig þr agricultural use, or a lfilhanson Act contract.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.4.5,2.4.6, 2.4.9,2.4.10,

2.8.2. Mitigøtion Measures
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

Affect ExistÍns Fam lan d
Le*s than Signitìcant Impacts With Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.ilut¿¡ Avaìl¿¡bÍlitv før Fi¡e Flotp Impact 4.8.4.5: Ihe new demandfar water may ûlect
the water availableþr emergencyJìreflaw. Th*-* a
p otent ially sign¡rt cønt imp¿tct.

Public Services and Facilities Program policy: 4.g.5
Mítigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies includedin the General Plan.

Mitigation Measures
Chanses,inth¿Paüera of Ldnd Llse
þp¡cf 1:9.4.1. Implemenøtian of the proposed General PIan woald rewlt in chønges to ú¿ existing land use de$gnations in certai¡r areas whi"h couidnegalively affect the existing pattern of developmentas well as the surrouncling usesLand Use Program Policies: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4,2.3.5, 2.1.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.9, 2.3.9, 2.3.t1, 2.3.t2, 2.5.1,2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.7.1, 2;1.3, 2.9.t, 2.8.2, 2.8.5, 2.9.12, 2.8.13, 2.8.1 4, 2.10.1 Mítigation Measures
No mitigation r-equired beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

JTUSERS\ENG-PLAN\wALlvE\General Plan Updae\Staff Reports\Iinal SHAFTER EIR ñnctings.DOC (6/21l2005) 52 JUNE 2OO5
Impact 4.11.3.3:

Impacts. New
Long-Term Stationary Noise
development associated with
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Long-Terrr. Støtionaw Noise Impacts S hort-Term CongFuction N ois e Impacts Impact 4.11.3.1: Noise levels from grading and other
constn¿ction activities would patentially result in noise SHÀTTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED.4.ClIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable lmpacts After Mitigation 4"r I

4.t0 trLooD ilAz,ARDSExposure of Sttuctures to Flood Hazards Impact 4.10.4.1. Impleftientatiort of the proposed
General Plan may result in øcposure of people or
structltres to the incpacts of flooding through the
placement of stractures in the 100-500 year
floodplain.

Public Services and Facilities Program Policy: 4.5. 1
Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .1.1,'7 .3.2,7.3.3,"t.3.4 Mrtigation Measures
No mitigation is required beyond the policies included
in the Ceneral Plan.

I ncr ea se d St o rmw øtet Ru n o-ff
Impact 4,10.4,2. Fufure development under the
proposed General Plan would likely result in a net
increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., ronds, parking
lots, buildings). An increase in imperviotts surfaces
reduces the amount ofrainfall that can infltrate into
the subsutface. Increases in runoff can amplifydrainage volumes and velocities causing stormdrainøge facilities thdt ave al or nea.r capacity to fail during peak events. This excess runol may rexdt in
localized ponding and/or floodíng.Public Services and Facilities Program Policy: 4.5. I Environmental Hazards Program Polici es'. 1 .3 .2,1 ,3 .3,

7.3.4 Mitigation .Measures
No mitigatíon required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less than Significant lmpacts
JTUSERS\g.-G-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2A05) 53 JUNf, 2OOS
Table A * Summary of Environmental tr'indingsimplementation of the proposed General plan couldex,pose existing and/ar new sensitive uses to stationary noße sources, such as those generated by industrial
and/or commercial us es.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.12,2.8.13.Environmental Hazæds Program p olici es 7 .7 .?, 7 .7 .3,7.7.4, 7 .7.5, 7.7.6, 7.7.7, 7.7.8,',|.1.9 Mitigation Measttres
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Long-Ternt AírooÍt Noíse Impacts
Impâct 4.11.3,4: Noise generated, by exßting and
proposed operations at the Shafier Aírport/Minter
Field Airport could create noise impacts to the new
development proposed by the General Plan.

Land Use Program Policy: 2.9.5Environmental Hazards Pro gram Polici es 7 .4.1, 7 .4.2,

7.4"3
Mifigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.
levels reaching 91 dBA at site locations 50 feet front an actíve construction arca. This wotùd result in potentialllt significant noise impacts to of-site sensítive receptorsadjacent to the intlividual construetion siles.Environmental Hazards Program policies: 7.'l .3, ,7.j.4, '7.7.5,?.7.10 MitigaÍion Measures

4.11.3.14. Standard construction actiyities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.No construction activíties shall be allowed on weekends andholidays until after the buildings are enclosed without prior authorization of the City.

4.11,3.18. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to
construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the City shall ask all project applicants to develop a site-specific noise reduction progranl subject to the City's approval, which includes the following measures:. Signs shall be posted at the consfuction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a dayand evening contact number for thejob site, and a dayand evening contact number for the City in the event ofproblems, . An on-site complaínt and enforcement manager shall
be posted to respond to and track complaints.
. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project
manager to confirm that noise mítigation and practices
are completed prior to the issuance of a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notiñcation, posted signs, etc.).
. Equipment and trucks used for project construction
shall utilize the best available noise control techniques(e.g." improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever
feasible).

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RNLAÎED ACTIONS EIR FINDINCS OF FACT Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After MitigatioD Less than Signifrcant Impacts With Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffRepor"ts\Final SHAFTER EIR ñnctings.DOC (6/2112005) 54 JUNE ?OO5
¡ Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers,
and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tc'ols. However,where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall beused; this muffler can lower noise levels frompr¡eumatic tools where feasible, which could achieve areduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever
feasible.
. Stationary noise sotuces shall be located as far ûom
sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be
muffled and enclosed within temporæy sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measu¡es shall beincorporated to the extent feasible.

4.11.3.1C. If pile-driving occurs as part of the project, it shall be limited to between 8:00 am. and 4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday, with no pile driving permittedbetween 12:30 and l:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.4.11.3.1D. To furthe¡ mitigate potential piledriving and/or other extreme noise generating cofistruction irÍpacts, a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures shall be
completed under the supervision of a qualiñed acoustical consultant. This plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved. These attenuation measures shallinclude as many of the following conaol strategies asfeasible and shall be implemented prior to auy required piledriving activitiesl r Implement "quiet" piledriving technology, where
feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structuralrequirements and conditions; ¡ E¡ect temporary plywood noise barriers around the
entire construction site;
SlIÀFTER GENERÁ.L PLAN ÀND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDTNGS OF FACT
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Less than Significant lmpacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigatiou JIUSERS\ÊNG-PLAN\WAYNE\Ge¡eraI Plan Updaæ\Staff'Reports\Final SHÂFTER EIR findings.DOC (6,21/2005) s5
JUNE ZOO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SHATTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RILATED ACTIONS EIR ¡'INDTNCS Of Ëá,cr SignifÍcanú and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Less tlan Signifìcant Impacts With Mitigation . Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as it is erected to reduce noise emission from ìhe site; r Evaluate the feasibility ofnoise control at the receivers by temporæily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
¡ Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation
measures by taking noise measurements,

4.11.3.18. A process with the following components shall be established for responding to and tracking complaintspertaining to pile-driving construction noise: . A procedure for notifling City staff and police Deparfment;
r ,4' list of telephone numbers (during regular
constuction hours and ofï-hours);
. A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to complaint procedures and who to notiSr in the event of aproblenr; ¡ Designation of a construction complaint manager for
the project; and
' A requirement to notify of neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-drivlng activifies.

Lons'Term Vehìculør Noße Impøcts
Impact 4.11.3,2. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in potential long-term vehicular noße that would afect sensitive land uses along the roads. Newdevelopment, pcrtiatlarly residential uses ølong andadjacent to rnajor tratxit corridors, could be exposed toØecessive traffic-related noise levels.Environmental Hazards Program Policies: '7.j.1, '7.j.2,7 .7.3, 7 .7.4,'7 .7.5, J .7 .6, 7 .1.7, 7.7 .9, 7 .7 .9 Mitigation Measures

4.11,8.24. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 57 Less than Significant Impacts
JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Ptan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 56 SHAFTOR CENERÀL PL¡rN AND RELÀTED ACTIONS EIR FINDTNCS OF FA,CT JUNE 2OO5 Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Exce¿d Housíne and Poøulation Proiedions
Impact 4.L2.4.1 Build out of the City of Shafter dte to implementation of the proposed General PIan will result in a substanlial increase in population and resid¿mtial and non-residential which will exceed the housing and
populatinn projections for the Planning Areø.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.4, 2.8.5"2.9.4
Mitigation Measures
There are no additional mitigâtion meåsures that u'ould reduce the build out estimates below the cunently
adopted projections for the CitY.

Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Signifìcant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigrltion dBA CNEL should be equipped with air conditioning or
mechanical ventilation to allow the windows and doors to remâin closed for prolonged periods of time, thus reducing noise levels below the level of signiäcance (45 dBA
CNEL).

4.11.8.28. Buildings æsociated with noise-sensitive uses and directly exposed to t¡affic noise levels exceeding 69dBA CNEL should incorporate mitigation measures such as building fagade upgrades4.11,8.2C. Outdoor active use areas, such as backyards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected by
freestanding sound walls along the property boundaries
where exposed to noise levels above 70 dBA.

Ðisnløletnent of Resídenlial Anils or Persons
Implementation of the proposed General PIan would
not resuh fu the displacement of a substantial number
of residential units and persors. Upon build out of theproposed General Plan, approximately 28,548 residential units are projected to exist within thePlanning Àrea. Development will occur on vacant or agricultural land and would not displace residential
units or persons; therefore, no impact would occur.

Jobs to Housins Balance
Implementatíon of the proposed General PIan will
reiilt in an incredse in employment growth wíthin the
City exacerbating the jobs-to-housing balance.Even though the City of Shafter is expected to havemany more jobs than households by 2030, other cítieswithin Ke¡r County are expected to have a much lo\¡/er jobs-to-household ratio Because Shafter'snumerous jobs will help to balance the numerous households in surrounding cities, a balance befween
the number of jobs and households will exist within
the region by 2030, and the jobs within Shafter will
have a beneficial eflect on the region. Therefore' the
Less than Signitìcant Impacts
J:\USERS\LNG-pLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR tindiugs.DOC (6/2112005) 5'7
JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Fire Protection
Impact 4.13.1.1. Build out of the proposed City of Shafier General Plan will result in a substantial increase tn populatían and the development ofresidential and non-residentiol structures, thereby increasing the need for fire enNergency services and
facilÌties.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8. 16, 2. 10.3
Public Services and Facilities program policies: 4.g.1,

4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.5, 4,9.6, 4.8.7, 4.g.8, 4.10.1,

4.10.2, 4.10,3, 4. 1 0.4, 4, I 0.5, 4.t0.6, 4.t l.l, 4.1 1.2 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Police Proþaion
Impact 4.13.2.1. fncreases in population and
employment resvlting from implementation of the
General Plan would increase the need þr poltce personnel, facilítìes, and,/or support servires.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.16, 2.10.3
Public Services and Facilities program policies: 4.9.1, 4.9.2, 4.9-3, 4.9.4, 4.ß.1, 4.10.2, 4.10.4. 4.10.s,

4.1t.1,4.1.1.2
Mitigation MeasresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Pu b lic E d u catio nal Facilifies
Impact 4.13.3.1. Implementation of the proposed
S¡IAFTER GENER¿{,L PLAN á,ND RELATED ACl¡ONS ETR FINDINGS OF'Fê,CT Unayoidable Impacts After Mitigation Signiffcant and Less than Significant Impâcts \ryith Mitigation Less than SignifÌcant Impacts implementation of the proposed General plan wi[ help to balance land uses regionally and no adverse impact associated with this issue would occur.

Potentiøllv Sienìfrcant Intpøcts
JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA.FTER EIR findings.DOC (6/212005) 58 sHA¡rER GENÊRAL ELAN aND ""tîif3,å8it"";, ìJ¿ï JUNE 2OO5 Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
General Plan Update would result in the need forødd itio nal s chool facilit ies.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.17, 2'10-3,2.10,4Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.6-1, 4,6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, 4.6,6, 4.6.7, 4.10.1, 4.10"2,

4.10.3, 4.10.4, 4.10.5, 4.11.1, 4.1 1.2
MiÍigaîion MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.
,Yestewøter
Impact 4.13.4.1. Implernentation of the proposed
General PIan would result ín increased demand þr
sewer service within the CitY.

Land Use Program Policies: 2!/.9, 2'8'16' 2'8.18,

2.9.1,2.10.2Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.3-1,4.3.2, 4.3,3, 4.3.4, 4.3,5, 4.3.6, 4.3.1,4.3.8, 4.10.1,

4.rc.2, 4.ß.3, 4. 10.4, 4. I 0.5, 4.10.6, 4.rl.l, 4'l l -2Mitigøtian Measures No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Sohd lføstu
Impact 4.13.5.1. Implementation of the General Plan
would, result in inereased demand þr solid wasteservices and landf.ll capacitY.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.16,2-10.2Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.4.1 ,

4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.10.1, 4.10-2,4. 10.3, 4. 10.4,

4.tt.r,4.11.2
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less than Signilicant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Less than Significant lmPacts J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\GenaaI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2Ì12005) s9
JUNE 1OO5
Table A- Summary of Environmental Ftntlings
Pa¡kine
The General Plan and related actions ore nol
expeeteel to result in an inadequate parhing supplybecause the General Plan and related actions do notmodify current parktng standards. Future developments will continue to npply parkingaccording to City Code requirernents.

Emergencv Access
The General Plan and related actions are not
SIIAFTER Gf,NERAL PLAN AND REL.A,TED ÀCTIONS EIR FINDfNCS O¡.trACT and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Significant Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts Impact 4.13.6.1. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan may result ín significant impactslo the
availability of adequate parkland and/or recreational
facilíties within the City.

Land Use Program Policies: Z.lA.2, 2.1Q.3, 2.10.4Public Services and Facilities Program policies: 4.5.3,

4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4;7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.-t.8,4.7.9, 4.r0.t, 4.t0.2, 4.10.3,4.10.4, 4.10.s, 4.11.1,4.T1,2 Mitigatíon Meantres
No mitigation required beyond the policies inciuded
in the General Plan.
la¡le. Mqlntensnee aüd Rccrcation P'r¿grams and
Services
Impact 4.13.6.2. Implementation of the General plan
may resuh in the need þr increased parlc rnaintenance and recreaîional programs and servi¿es.Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.7.1,4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.1.5, 4.7.7, 4.7.8, 4.t0.2, 4.10,4,4.10.5, 4.1 r.1, 4.t1.2 Mitig¿ttion MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond ihe policies included in the Geaeral PIan.

Pørks and Recreatíon
4,r {, ïþÑ$POA.üA¡I'ION/rRAF
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAY|¡E\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reporrs\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC6nl/2005) 60 JUNÈ 2OO5
SHÀFTAR CÉNERAL PLAN AND RËLAlED ACTIONSi EIR
ñINDlNGS OF !¡ÀCT
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
aeected to result in inødequøte emergency vehicle
access- Tlze General Plan Ctrculation map provides
þr alternative access, and the existing City
requírements þr lhe provision of ernergency access to
development projects will continue to be implemented.In addition to the Circulation Program map, implementatíon of the þllowing Circulation Progrant
palicies would avoid impacts to the emergency access
system: Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.5 anel 3.2.6
woukl require the management ancl d.evelopment of
the area's local roadway system ta support the Land
Use Program; Streets and Htghways Poltcies 3-2.10
and 3.2. t 1 , as well as Commodities Movement Policy

3.5.2 woulrl minimíze local cut-through traffic inresidential neighborhoods; Sfreets and HighwaysPolicies 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 would maintaín adequate levels of service for all areas of the City.Implementation of these policies will maintain the City's level of service standard throughout the City,ensuring the adequacy af access rautes þr emergencyvehicles. It is not expected that future congestion willsignijicantly affect emergency vehicle access due to the availability of alternate routes and improvements
to key roadways to maintain standards' Also, the Citywill inplement traffic signal system upgrades thathelp to facilitøte rnore efficient emergency vehicle access and give priority ta ernergency vehicles.

P¿destinn and Bicvclist TruveI
The General PIan and related actions are not
expected 10 result in unsafe conttitions þr pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation of existing City requirements and the provisions of Section 3.4
(Alternative Modes of Transporîation) of the proposed
General Plan would avoitl significant impacts to
pedestrian and btcycle travel by províding for a
bicycle and trails network and supporting the safe and
convenient movement of pedestrians' The Cffy will
continue to require development proiects to provide
Less than Significaut Impacts With Mitþation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation tr-ess than Significant ImPacts J:\USERS\ËNG-pLAN\WAYNE\cenelal Plan Update\Stâff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR ñndings.DOC (6/2112005) 6T
JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental f indings
SHAF.TER GENERAL PLAN Á.ND RELATED AcTIoNs EIR FINDTNGS OF FACT Signilicaut and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation bicycle and pedestrian facilities and anxenities according to City cades, and as a res.ult of the
develop menf r ev iew p ro c es s.&eeíorrûl T¡attsøorutìon Pol¡cÍe,s on ¿4.ltemoÍíX Trønsportatíon
The General Plan and related actions are not
expected to result ín conJlicts with regionaltranspartation policies on alternative transportation since the Section 3.4 of the proposed General plan
objectives and policies that support alternative
transportation and increased use of transit servíces,
Increased Traffrc Volum¿s
Impact 4,14.4.1, bnplenenÍation of the proposedGeneral PIan will facilitate Íhe development ofresidential, comnzercial, industrial, instítutional, andother types of projects that will result in increased trffic volumes, Thß increase in traftc volumes could,in turn, result in congestíon along area roadways and State Routes 43 and 99.

Land Use ProgramPolícy: 2.8.15
Transportation Program Policies: 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,

3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2:7, 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 1.2.10, 3.2.11,3.2 -t2, 3.2.13, 3.2.1 4, 3.2.15, 3.2.1 6, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1 8,3.2. 19, 3.5. l, 3.5.2, 3.5.6, 3.5.7 Mitígation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

4.15 Míneral Resources
lmFact 4.15.5.1. Build out of the General plan may result in the loss of petroleum, nøtural gas, sand, or gravel resources thøt wot¿ld be of value to the residenls of the Planning Area and the residents ofthe State.

Environmental Management Policies: 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3,

6.s.4
Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Less than Significant Impacts JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAY}IE\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reporu\Final SIIÄFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21n005) 62 JUNE 1OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SHÀFTER OENERAL PLÂN AND RELAîED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF ¡ÀCT
Less than Significant Impacts \üith Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation Mitigation Measures

4.15.5.14. Prior to the construction of any structure within ten feet of an abandoned well, a leak test shall be performed in accordance with the standards of the California Divisionof Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) standards, Shoutd a leak be detected, it shall be repairedaccording to CDOGGR guidelines.

4.15.5.18. Well access must be provided for all abandoned wells according to CÞOGGR standards.

4.15.5.1C. The construction of any structure over an
abandoned well site is not recommended; however, should abuilding be allowed over a well site, a vent system must be constructed as per CDOGGR guidelines,Enerm Resoarces
Impact 4.15.6. L. Build out af the General Plan will result in an increase ùz population, and resident¿al ãnd non'
residential structures, potentially increasing the use of andneed for electricity and/or natural gas. Due to the growth resulting fram implementation of the praposed General
Plan, this increase would result in impacts on existing electrical or naturøl gas generatinn/transtnission þcilíties Population and Housing Program Policy: 5. L3
Environmental Managemenf Program Policies: 6. 8. l, 6.8.2,

6.8.3, 6.8.4, 6.8.5, 6.8.6Mitigation Measures
4,15.6.14. The City shall review all development proposals prior to the approval ofdevelopment plans to guarantee that sufücient energy resources and facilities a¡e available tosupply adequate energy to the proposed project andassociated uses.4.f5.6.18. The City shall review all development proposals prior to approval to guarantee that energy conseryation ând efficiency standards ofTitle 24 are met and ar€ incorporated into the design of future development,
Lcss than Signilicant Impacts
jIUSERS\ENC-Fl-A.N\WAYNE\ceneral Pla¡ Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER ÞIR frndings-DOC (6/2112005) 63 JUNE 2OO5
SI¡AFTSR GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACT¡ONS EIR
FIND¡NGS O F FACT

4.0 ALTERNATTYES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmentaT advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful maflier within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable altematives to a project whjch could feasibly attain most of the project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In a1l cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the project and (l) through the imposition of mitigation measures the en¡¡ironmental effects of a project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.

Nearly every significant effect identified in the FEIR has been at least substantially lessened, if not fully avoided, by the provisions of the proposed General Plan and the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. There remain six impacts, however, that were identiñed as significant and unavoidable and which cannot be substantially lessened. Specifically, the proposed General Plan had significant unavoidable adverse impacts on scenic vistas, stationary and mobile source air pollutant emissions, water resources, farmland, 'Williamson Act contracts, and housing and population projections. The DEIR examined the project altematives in detail, exploring their comparative advantages and disadvantages with respect to the proposed General Plan in Section 6.0. As the following discussion demonstrates, howevet, although some of the alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to certain impacts, none of the altematives is feasible in light of project objectives and other considerations.

The objectives of the proposed General Plan are to be a city that meets the needs of new families who move into the communily, a cily atkactive to industrial and commercial businesses, a communify achìeving reasonable growth with intelligent planning to meet the fi.rture, a city the retains desirable qualities of a small town while expandrng housing stock and employment base, and a city that is a responsible steward of the area's environment. These objectives are set forth in greater detail in each Section of the General Plan EIR and are listed below:

Orgarize Shafter's physical environment into a logical, firnctional, and visually pleasing pattem, defining the amount, location, and distribution of various fypes of land uses wrthin the City and its General Plan study area.

Recognize and retain commercial agriculture as a desirable land use and as a major segment of the community's identity and economic base.

Provide a vanely of housing types suitable to a broad range of socioeconomic groups and a residential environment that enhances residents' qualify oflife and reinforces those characteristics of a rura1, small town that make Shafter a desirable place to live.

Provide convenientþ located, efficien! and attractive commercial areas to serve regional, communit¡/, and neighborhood functions and meet the retail and commercial sen¡ice needs of Shafter residents and businesses, as well as those of highway travelers in a manner compatrble with Shafter's rural, small town character.
a
t
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\wAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2OOS) 64 SfTAFTER GÉNERAT PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTf ONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
JUNE 2OO5
I Expand employment opportunities, increase the personal income of local residents' and strångthen S'huit.r,, *"#o*i. base through a weli-defined pattem of industrial developmelt, including rail-served facilities'
To provide an amenify-rich, master-plarmed urban enclave with a broad range of housing oppåra.-iti"s, includini move-up houiing, south and east of Shafter's existing industrial areas whose yisual characteî is defined pnnðipally by suburban densrty residential and low-rise commercial uses, aloog *ith industriál u."t .hi.h provide a transition between the Specific Plan area's residential neighborhoods and industrial areas to the north and west' To provide a master-planned residential community east of Shafter's cole area in close proximity to lat'ge-scale industrial areas.

Provide ample area for the conduct of public business and the operation of individual institutions within the community, reinforcing shaiter's vision of a community that values civic involvement' Maintain a road'way and highway system that:
o Operates at Level of Service C on a daily and peak hour basis, except in the vicinity of fråe-ay interchanges where Level of Serrrrce D is acceptable; and o Balances the neetl L, mr¡ve vehicles with the need to plotect environmental and aesthetic resouÍces, and the City's quality of life'
provide a baTancebetween the supply and demand for parking, while recogni nng the desirability and availability of alternatives to the use of automobiles' support and encowage the use of transportation modes which provide an alternative to travel by private automobile.

Accommodate the safe movement of commodities within and through the city of shafter in such a way as to minimize i-p"*. to adjacent land uses, environmental resources' and quality of life' promote the expansion of air transportation services for both cargo andpassengers' Maintain a waler system capable of providing the daily and peak water needs of existing and future residences, businesses, and other u*ri ittrlnding the provision of adequate fire flows, maintenance of adequate service pressur€s, and sbrage for drought and emergency conditions' provide a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system capable of meeting the daily and peak sewer service needs of existing and future resiiences, businesses, and other uses during peak use conditions without exhibiting restricted flow (except for force mains) or exceeding the rated ;ör;;;i;t; Shafter-North of tfre River Regional'Wastewater Treatment Facilitv.

Reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal at landfi1ls, enhancing the potential for recycling of the City's solid wastes'
Protect structures for human occupancy and roadways identified as evacuation routes from inundation during the 100-year flood event'
provisíon of schools in locations that aro readily accessible to student populations' along with sufficient facilities to provide educationai services without overcrowding' Maintain a system of parks, specialized recreational facilities, and natural open spaces of s¡¡fficient size and varíety,and in the appropriate locations, !o sgrve the needs of Shafter residents of all ages, "nro*pu.rinþ'2.5
u"r"" of imprôved public parldand per 1,000 population' a
a
a
I
a
a
I
a
a
,
I
.r:\usERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneralPlanupdate\staffReports\FinalS!{AFTEREIRfindines'Doc6nl12005) JUNE zOO5
SfIAF'TER GENERAT PLAN A,ND RÊLATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS O¡'[,ÀC'T
a Maintain competent and efficient fire prevention and emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials response services with first responder capability in order to minimize risks to life and properly by responding to 80 percent of all emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials calls within five minutes on a citywide basis.

Reduce the risk of crime and provide security to Shafter residents and businesses through maintenance of an active police force of t.2 to 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, physical plarming shategies, and a high level of public awareness and support for crime prevention.

To enswe the expansion of public faciiities occurs in an equitable manner, and that new development pays for the facilities required to supporl the development without impacting sen¡ices provided to existing residents and businesses. 'fo maintain coordinated implementation of Shafter's planning and development review programs with the expansion of services and facilities provided by outside agencies within the CþProvide a diversity of housing opporhrnities to enhance the City's living environment and to satisff the shelter needs of Shafter residents.

Provide housing that is affordable to all economic segments of the community.

Provide equal housing opportunities for all residents of Shafter.

Maintain and preserve a comprehensive open space system and its associated nahual resowces by protecting agricultural and oil production lands where appropriate; providing parks for active and passive recreation; and by preserwing natural, scenic, and other open space resources.

Provide adequate water supplies to meet present and future needs for domestic consumption and emergencies, while obtaining maximum benefit from limited water resources.

Protection of remaining important biological resources within the General Plan study area.

Provide for the proper management of mineral resources within the General Plan study area.

Preserye archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources withjn the Shafter Planning Area for the benefit and education of fi.rture residents.

Minimize air pollutant emissíons so as to assist in achieving State and Federal air quality standards.

Reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy sources in existing and new commercial, industrial, and publíc structures.

Minimize the potential for loss of life, physical injtxy, property damage, and economic disruption resulting from an earthquake and other geologic events.

Minimize the potential for loss of life, physical injury, property damage, and social disruption resulting from a 1O0-year flood.

Ensure that the land uses surrounding Shafter Airport/lVfinter Field are compatible with airport operations, and do not pose a safety hazard.

Minimize the negative impacts associated with the storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Maintain a level of preparedness to respond adequately to emergency situations to save iives, protect properry, and facilitate recovery with minimal disruption. a
a
a
a
I
o
o
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
I
a
J:\USERS\ENC-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR fìndings.DOC (612112005) 66 SHAF'TER GENERAL PLAN AND RBLÀTED ACTf ONS IIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
JUNE 2OO5
r Achieve and maintain exterior noise levels appropriate to planned land uses throughout Shafter, as described below.
o Residential
Single-Family: 60-65 dBA CNEL within rear yards
Multifamily:60.65dBACNELwithininterioropenspaceareas
o Schools
Classrooms: 60 dBA CNEL
Play and sPods areas: 70 dBA CNEL
o Hospitals, Lrbraries: 60 dBA CNEL
oComnrercial/brdustrial:65.T0dBACNELatthefrontsetback.
where a significant impact can be substantiaþ lessened (i.e-', mitigated to an "acceptable ievel") solely by the adoptiorroilf," proi..t and mitigation measures, the lead agency' in drafting its findings' has no obligation to "ànsi¿å
the feasibiliry"of alternatives with respect to that impact' even if the alternative would rnitigate the impact to a greater degree than the-proposed project (Public Resources Code, $ 27002; Lour"íHills Hom"o*ners Associafiln, supra' 83 Ca1'App'3dalp' 52I; see also Kíngs cor,tnty Farm Burea"- " ctty of Hanf\r( (1990) 2ZI CiLlrpp'3d 691,730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Associati,on r,'n"þ*u L7lr"'Uniu"rsity of Ca,iforniø (1988) 47 Cal'3d376' 400-403)' The Draft EIR and the Final EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project to determine whether urry of *r"r" alternatives could meet most or all of the project's objectives' while avoiding or substantiaíglss"ning its significant, unavoidable impacts (DEIR' p' 6-1)' Four aiternatives that could potentiaþ meet the project objectives were considered as part of the environmental review for the project:
. No Project, No Build Alternative. lvith this altemative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted and no áotfr., t"¡¿ing would occur within the City of Sh"ft"t. This prohibition would compel any subsequent development to occur in the unincorporated areas of the County or in adjacent cities, reËdting in any incremental growth in population, housing, or employment opporhmities to occur in-these areas. The No guit¿ alternative represents a baseline against which thË impacts of the proposed General Plan can be measured' . No Project, Existing General Plan. alternative' As required by section 15126'6(e) of the CEeA Guidelines,îiirtittgG"neral PlanAltemative describes build out of Shafter in accordance with existing "orirã""ã Cfu"rut Plan land use designations under the policies and implementing strategies of the "rrä"nt
General Plan. Implementation of thrs Alternative assumes that ultimate buildãut of the existing General Plan would oçcur'
. No specific Plan. under the No Specific Plan Alternative, the Gsneral Plan would be adopted; hov/ever, the two areas desigaated as ';spe"ific Plan"-would instead be designated "Agricultwal open spaee." The coberþ'west ancl'Missìon Lakes Specific Plans' Annexalion 77' and cancellation of agricultural presewe contracts would not be approved' Implementation of this Alternative assume€ the ultimate build out of the proposed General Pl¿n would occur with the exceptions noted above.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan update\staff Reports\Final sHAFTER EIR findings'DOC (ó/2112005) 67 JUNE 2OO5
SIIAFTER CENERAL PLÀN AND RELÀTED ÀCTIONS EIR

F'INDINCS OF TACT
I Reduced Specific PIan Build Out. Under this alternative, the proposed General Plan would be adopted; however, the residential build out of the two areas designated as "specifîc Plan" would be reduced by 50 percent, as would industrial development within the Specific Pian area along 7t1 Standard Road. The Coberly W'est and Mission Lakes Speciflrc Plans would be adopted at lower densities; however, cancellation of agriculhrral preserve conkacts would not occtu and the contracts would be permitted to expire pursuant to existing notices of non-renewal. Thus, land use designations under the Reduced Specific Plan Build Out alternative would be the sam.e as for the proposed General Plan.

Of the four project aiternatives evaluated, one would result in no physical changes to the en¡rironment on the project site (No Build Alternative); one would allow the development according to the density established in existing plans (No Project Altemative); and fwo would lower the General Plan's densify pattems (No Specific Plan and Reduced Specific Plan Build Out). Relocating the proposed project to an altemative site is not feasible, as the proposed General Plan addresses the Cify of Shafter and its planning area, and is not transferable to another location. Therefore, no alternative site was considered. Each of the four altematives would result in a combination of similar, avoided or decreased, and increased environmental impacts as compared to the proposed General P1an, as summarized in Draft EIR Tables 6.4" 6.8, and 6.C.

4.1 No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative
The alternative with the least envìronmental impact is the No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative, which has fewer or reduced environmental impacts compared to the other altematives, and, thus, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Under the No ProjeclExisting General Pan Alternative, land uses in the Shafter Planning Area would change consistent with ihe City's existing General Plan. The existing General Plan land use designations do not reflect the current goals of the City to provide more very 1ow dansity residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in addition to a mix of employmeni-generating uses. The existing General Plan does not provide land use designations for all areas within the City's sphere of influence. Although the existing General Plan would retain more agriculturally designated land, it does not provide a mix of uses necessary to help maintain City services. The existing General Plan provides less dírection for new development and the General Plan policies are less clear than the policies in the proposed General Plan. Therefore, impacts created by development design would be greater under this alternative because the existing General Plan does not provide as much direction as the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan build out would covert more open space/agricultural land to u¡ban development than the existing General Plan, thus eliminating more of the wide-open viewsheds. Because this altemative would not allow urban development on large areas of land iocated ìn the southern portion of the Planning Area, impacts associated with aesthetics, biological resources, and cultmal resources would be less than the other alternatives.

The proposed General Plan and related actions will result in a total of 3,488,080 daily trips with 41,323,056 vehicle miles traveled at build out. By comparison, the existing No Project, Exishng General Pian Alternative would result in a total of 1,160,350 daily trips with 16,995,190 vehicle miles traveled at build out. Thus, vehicle air emissions resulting from the No Project, Existing General Plan Altemative would be approximately 39 percent of the emissions resulting from the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. However, air quality impacts under this altemative would remain significant and unavoidable since the emissions would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds and the J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Gener¿l Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (ó/2 l/2005) 68 SHÀFTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTTONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FACT .IIJNE 2OO5
emissions ì¡/ould be emitted into an air basin which is currently designated as "non-attainment" or worse for ozone and particulate matter, constituting a cumulative impact to air quality.

The build out demand for water associated with this alternative would exceed current contracted water supplies; however, the City has idsntified and plarured for future water sources. Although the magnituåé of impacts under this alternative would be expected to require fewer water resowces than those associated with the proposed Genelal Plan, an adcqual.e water supply has been identified for both plans that would satisfy ihe projected demands in the urban areas and the sphere of influence of the pianning Areas. Therefóre, watei supply impacts under this alternative wouid be the same as the proposed Gäeral P1an. Population growth that would occur as part of the No ?roject, Existing b"rr"ral plan Alternatrve wôuld be cõnsistent with existing population patterns in the City and Kern coG projections and would not quaiify as unantioipated population growth.

The No project, Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet the General Plan objectives' The No project,-Existing Geieral Plan Alternative rrssumes that development would occul.as established in the City,s existing General Plan. The existing General Plan does not meet project objectives in that if ¿o", nát provide
"tãat
poti"y direction for futwe development w'ithin the southern portion of the Cify,s spheà of influence und þoposed Annexation 77 arca. The objectives of the proposed General plan include a broad rang" of housing that will enable the City to meet its *fair share" of the housing need as determined by ñern coG. ñnplementation of the No Project, Existing General Plan would result in substantially fewer dwelling units at build out than what would be developed as part of the proposed project. alihãugir developãent that would occur as part of the No Project, Existing General þr* elt"*uiive could eãable the city to meet its "fair share" housing allocation in the near-term t"."t S-f S years), the long-term provision of sufficient housing would be less likely due to the lower numb"r olhousing unitJconstructed at build out. Another objective of the City is to promote economic vitality, provide loca1 employment and entrepreneurial opporhrnities, and diverse shopping and commercial services. with the iedúction of upper end housing opportunities, an irnportant part of the City's economic development strategy *outã be eliminated. Thus, the No Project, Existing General plan could "on.t uitt ttt" city's uuiiltv to achieve the objective of a better balance of housing close to expanding job opportunities.

In rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the city council makes the following findings:
. The proposed General Plan provides for a comprehensive and updated plan with policies which are inteneaily consistent andiover the City's entire sphere of influence. The No Project, Existing General Plan has been amended several fimes since 1993 and, as a resttlt, there are inconsistencies among the General Plan policies. Furthermore, the General Plan does not cover or provide policies for all of the City's sphere of influence area' . The proposed General Plan incorporates a Housing Program which conforms to State Law and is consistent with the remainder of the General Plan. The No Project, Existing General Plan may not be ìn compliance with State Law.
. The proposed General plan is based on the most recent data available to the City and reflects the ,rroàt policy of the City Council. The No Project, Existing Generai Pian is out of date, is based on old information, and does not reflect current policies of the city council' J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\V/AyNE\General Plan Update\St¿fl Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR fìndings'DOC (612112005) 69 JUNE U OO5
ST¡AFTER GENERÂL PLAN AND RELâ.TED,I,cTIoNs EIR
FINDINCS OF FÀCT
a
The No Project alternative will not substantially rcduce any remaining significant impacts associated with the Proposed General Plan and will constrain the City's ability to achieve housing and economic objectives.

4.2 No Build Alternative
Because the No Build Alternative would prohibit the construction or expansion of structures and facilities within the Ci!y, no new additions io the City's housing would occur and the City would not be able to meet Kem COG housing requirements or provide a fair share of housing for all economic segments of the commrmity. The alternative would not meet the goal of providing housing for new families and atlact commercial and industrial businesses as no new development would occur.

Additionally, no improvements to Cify, public, or private facilities, including roadways, flood control features, public safety and service facilities, or utility systems would be permitted. Thus, the No Build Alternative would not accomplish the objectives of the City, which include providing a fair share of housing for all economic segments of the communify, promoting economic vitality, provrding 1ocal employment and enkepreneurial opportrurities, and providing diverse shopping and commercial services.
fr rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the City Council makes the following findings:

The proposed General Plan increases the amount of land designated for residential, commercial, and industrial development, providing additional tax revenues and substantially more housing and employment opporhmities than the No Build Alternative.

The proposed General Plan allows the City to satisfy regionai goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of all economic levels which would not be satisfied under the No Build Altemative.

The proposed General Plan allows the City to improve and maintain public services such as roadways and public safety. The No Build Altemative would not permit the construction of new roadways or public seryice facilities.

4.3 No SpecÍfÏc Plan Alternative
Under thc No Specific Plan Alternative, land uses in the Shafter ',vould change consistcnt r,vith thc City's proposed General Plan, except that lhe areas designated Specific Plan would remain in agricultural open space. Comparing the No Specific Plan Alternative land uses with the proposed General Plan land uses, the percentage of change is notable in that the No Specific Plan Alternative prescrves a Targer amount of agricultural land than does the proposed project, cutbing the loss of agricultural land in half. This alternative would also avoid canceilations of existing agricultural preserve contracts, Under the No Specific Plan Alternative, land uses in the Shafter would change consistent with the City's proposed General Plan, except that the areas designated Specific Plan would remain in agricultural open space. Development undsr the No Specific Plan Alternative would not reflect the current goals of the City to provide more low density residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in close proximity to expanding employment-generating uses. Although the No Specific Plan Alternative would retain more agricultural land, it would not improve economies of a
I
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Þ-inal SHAFI'ER EIR {ìndings.DOC (6121/2005) 7Q SI{AFTER GENSRÀL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS ATR
FINDINGS ÛF F'ACT JUNe 2005
scale for infrastructure and services being provrded to urban development in the southern portion of the Shafter's planning Area. Overall, the No Specific Plan Altemative is considered to be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed General Plan.

The No Specific plan Altemative would provide equivaient direction for the protection of visual r€sources as would be proposed General Plan. Impacts created by development design would be less under this altematiu" bä"our" the proposed General Plan would convcrt more open space/agricultural land to urban development, thus eiiminating more of the wide-open viewsheds' The No Specific Plan Altemative would be enviionmentally supèrior to the proposed General Plan as there would be less development and loss of open viewsheds. The No Specific Plan Alternative would result in a total of 1,g4g,åg0 daily trips with 21,g01 ,220 vehicle miles traveled at build out. Vehicle air emissions .ésúting from the No Specific Plan Altemative would be approximately 53 percent of the emissions resultin! from the propoìed General Plan and related actions. However, air quality impacts under this alternative would r"*uin significant and unavoidable since the emissions would exceed SIVAPCD thresholds and the emissions would be emitted into an air basin which is currently designated as ,,non-attainment" or worse for ozone and particulate matter, constituting a cumulative impact to air qualify.

The build out demand for water associated with the No Specific Plan Altemative would exceed curTent contracted water supplies. Although the magnitude of impacts under this alternative would be expected to require fewer tvater resources than those associated with the proposed General Plan, an uàãqrrat" watei suppþ has been identified for the proposed General Plan that would satisfy the proSå"t"a demandsìn ihe u.ban areas and the sphere oiittflu"*" which would exceed the water needs of this alternative. Therefore, water supply impacts under this altemative would be less than the p-for"a General pr*; rro*ríer, tlrey ;;1d remaín significant and unavoidable because availability of water for urban areás outside of tùe shafter sphere of influence-but within the shafter Planning Area-has not been demonstrated, urban development outside of the Cify's sphere. Both the proposed General plan and the Ño Specific plan Alternàtive exceed Kern CoG projections for g¡owth and provide greater opportrnityio meet "fair share" housing requirements, although the No Specific Plan alternative is closer to Ke; coG projections. overall, ihe No specific Plan Altemative is considered to be neither superior nor inferior to the proposed General Plan' le rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the city council makes the following findings:
. The proposed General plan provides for a large Specifîc Plan area which will assist in the regional^need for a more balanced ratio between jobs and housing. Under the No-specific Plan Altemative, the number of housing and employment opporfunities would be reduced and the ability of the citv to provide ho.,s-ing for il economic levels near employment opporruruties would be reduced-
. The proposed General plan provides for new development in a cohesive manner through Specific plans (Mission Lakes and ioberly V/est) which plan for an- entire community rather than smal1 individual pro¡"cts. The No Sp"cific Plan Altemátive would allow previously approved projects (Kem Counryj and would not provide for necessary services' J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\Gene¡al Plan úprlate\StaffRepo*s\Final SH,A'FTER EiR findings'DOC (6nU7005) 7T JUNE 2OO5
SI{AFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS ETR FINDfNCS OE FÀCT o The proposed General Plan allows the City to satisfy regional goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of all economic levels. The No Specific Plan Altemative would reduce the potential for residential development in the City and in the region.

4.4 Reduced SpecifTc Plan Alternative
The Reduced Specific Plan Altemative land uses would change consistent with the proposed General Plan except that the areas designated Specific Plan would be developed at a lower intensity, ultimately resulting in the loss of agriculture lands and Williamson Act contracts equivalent to that of the proposed General Plan. Development under the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would reflect the current goals of the City to provide more low density residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in close proximity to expanding emplo¡rment-generating uses, only to a lesser degree than the proposed General Plan. This alternative would provide equivalent direction for the protection of visual resources as the proposed General Plan, and would result in an equivalent loss of open vistas.

The Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would result in a total of 2,662,570 daily trips with 31,543,265 vehicle miles traveled at build out. Thus, vehicle air emjssions resulting from the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would be approximately 76 percent of the emissions resulting from the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. However, air quality impacts r¡rder this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable since the emissions would exceed SIVAPCD thresholds and the emissions would be emitted into an air basin which is currently designated as "nonattainment" or r,r/orse for ozone and particulate matter, constituting a cumulatiye impact to air quality.

The build out demand for water associated with this alternative would exceed cur¡ent contracted water supplies. Although the magnitude of impacts under this altemative would be expected to require fewer water resources than those associated with the proposed General Plan, an adequate water supply has been identified for the proposed General Plan that would satisfy the projected demands in the urban areas and the sphere of influence which would exceed the water needs of this alternative. Therefore, water supply impacts under this alternative would be less than the proposed General Plan; however, they would remain sígnificant and unavoidable because availability of water for irban areas outside of the Shafter sphere of influence-åut within the Shafter Planning Area-has not been demonst¡ated. Urban development outside of the City's sphere would result in a significant unavoidable impact on water resources.

Population growth and employment would be approximately 30 percent less under the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative than under the proposed General Plan. Both the proposed General Plan and the Reduced Specific Plan Altemative exceed Kem COG projections for growth and provide greater opportunity to meet "fair share" housing requirements, although the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative is closer to Kem COG projections. The cost of housing is drivan by supply and demand.

Therefore, knowing that the demand is increasing and having less supply, the cost of housing will increase. Hence, it would be more difficult for the City of Shafter to meet the needs of all economic segments of the communify.

In rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objeciives, the City Council makes the following findings:

The proposed General Plan provides greater opporh.rnities to meet the City's goal of provrding housing for a1l econom.ic levels close to emplol'rnent opporfunities. Under the Reduced Specifîc JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR ñndings.DOC (6121/2005) 72 ,f UNE 2005
Sf{AFTER CENERAL PLÀN AND R6LATED ACTIONS EIR
Ff NDINGS OF'FACT
I
Plan Alternative, the abiliqy to have all levels of housing opportunities would be reduced, as a smaller number of housing units would lessen the supply and increase the costs to buyers.

Furthermore, the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would provide fewer housing units near emp loyment opp orhrnities.

The proposed General Plan allows the City to satisfy regional goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of all economic levels. The Reduced Specific Plan Altemative will reduce the potential for residential development in the City and the reglon.

The proposed General Plan provides for Specific Plans that would support commercial develåpment and public seryices. The Reduced Specifrc Plan Altemative could reduce the abiliff of the project to support nearby commercial developmant and public services, thus creating longer trips for necessary goods and services'
a
J;\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Finat SHAFTER EIR findings.ÐOC (6/2112005) 73 EXHTBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDI¡{G CONSIDERATIONS FOR TTTE CITY
OF SHAF'TER 2OO5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND RELATED

ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

1.0 TNTRODUCTTON
The General Plan is the product of a thorough planning and public comment process that involved issues identification, interagency coordination, plan formulation, and multiple public hearings providing for public input and comment. As set forth in the preceding sections, the City Council's approval of the proposed General Plan will result in significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. All feasible mitigatíon has been proposed to reduce or avoid potentially signifrcant impacts identihed in the EIR, and no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts without creating new significant adverse impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the Cify Council chooses to approve the proposed General Plan (Project) because, in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.

The following statement tdsntif,res why, in the Council's judgmen! the benefits of the Project as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the entire Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding frndings, which are incorporated by referenÇe into this section.

2.A SOCIAL, ECONOMTC AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Council finds that the General Plan would have the following economic, social, and environmental bene fìts :

2.1 Improving the Jobs-Housing Balance in the Region
A jobs-housing ratio is the relationship between the total number of jobs and the total number of employed residents in a region. The lower the jobs/housing ratio, the fewer local jobs available for residents, which results in workers being forced to commute out of the area for work. A higher jobshousing ratio means a greater number ofjobs would exist in the area. A balance ofjobs and housing can benefit the environment of an area by reducing commute times and distances between residentiai areas and employment centers. Longer commutes.result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates environmental effects associated with transportation, air qualily, and noise. One of the objectives of I
J:\USERS\ENC-PLAN\wAYNE\Gene¡al Plan UpdÂte\Staff Repôrts\Final Sh¿fter EIR Oveniding considemrions-doc (612In00S) the Shafter Gsneral Plan is to improve the jobs-housing balance within the region, reducing the need ià, rr* County residents to travel long distances to work. The City of Shafter is considered a 'Jobs rich,, community and undsr the existing General Plan, Kem COG projected Shafter's job-tohousehold ratio would be 5.30 by 2030. at uuit¿ out, the jobs-housing ratio in the city of shafter, with the Annexation 77 andPre-zoning area, would be 2.43jobs for every household' Even though the City of Shafter is expected to have many more jobs than households by 2030, other cities within Kern County are expectËd to have a much lówer jobs+o-household ratio. For cxample, Bakersfield is expected to have u i.Oj jobs-to-housing ratio in ãO¡0. Because Shafter's local employment base will rreîp to balance the numérous householãs in surrounding cities, a closer balance between the number oi:"t. and households could exist within the region by 2030, and the jobs within Shaft9r would have a beneficial effect on the ,.gion. The land use dãsignations and policies ofthe proposed General Plan have been tailored to impåve the balance between local employment and housing opporhrnities, thereby reducing "o**.ri. times and distances between residential developments and employment centers, and assðciateci environmental effects such as noise' air quality, and traffic' JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERÀL PLAN ÀND RELATED ACTIONS EfR
STÂ'TEMENT OF OVERRTDING CONSIDERATIONS

2.2DiversificationandExpansionoftheCity'sHousingStock
The prçposecl General. Plan cr:ntains a ntlmher of policies which,-when implemented' would serve to ¿iversi¡¡ and expand the City's housing stock. Fór example, within the Housing Program' there are policies that encourug; 6oth rrousing ãffordable to lower income households, seniors' and other special needs groups=who often hav! diffrculty obtaining and-keeping housing, and housing for moderate and above moderate-income households. A General Plan Land use Program Policy addresses a speciar needs group through requiring the city to faciiitate the development of adequate housing for farm workersl shäfter is un iåpattãd area wrtl 59 percent 9f l!: h3u{nc within the planning Area in tire very low- and low-income categories- Thus, over half of shafter's new housing needs were detannined þ f"* COG to be needed for moderate- and above moderate-income households. Additional piovisions of the Elousing Progtam pr_ovide specific action programs to facilitate the provision of no,rrlrrg for all economiã segments of the community' aimed at meeting Shafter,s fair share orr"gio.tui hoising needs. (See Section 5.5 of the Housing Program for the City's five-year action ptan ãor housing). The Generai Plan also provides for la-rge-scale plarrned communities in the furrJ Ur. nrogrãm which will provide high l9vel amenities and move-up housing (Mission Lakes and cot".ry wesi¡ ln close proximity t" 1"t1i1the City and the region' The planned commurities will thus assist in reducing travel time *tri.tt will lower vehicle emissions that cause air pollution.
2,3 ImProvement to RoadwaYs
'While the regron as a whole is expected to grow significantþ over the life of the planning period' improving the jobs-houri"e b"1"*Ë within *rã ctty, ,iill i*pto.u. projected trafüc within the city and along the region's roadway system, even as the ntrntei of vãhicles on the road increases with population growth. Witfr."í the polici"s of the proposed_General Plan promoting these benefits, the condition of roadways within the flururlng Aréa could be expected to becomE much worse as the inevitable population growth occurs. circulation Program policies, for example, aim to reduce reliance on automobilei thercby reducing the burden on*ut"u rãadways, w-hile Land use policies seek to improve t¡" *"u'r 3åU.Àot tittg balaãce. The adoption of a Bicycle Plan is one example of the Gernerar plan poricies aimed at rãducing reriance on the automobile. other examples inclüde the 2 J:\usERs\ENC-pLAN\WAYNE\Gener.al Plan update\stafîRepo*s\Finat Shafter EIR Overriding consider¿tions'doc (6121/2005) JUNE 2OO5 SI¡AFTER GENERAL PLAN ANI' RELÀTED ACTIONS E]R srarEMENT oF ovERRrDrNc corvslocnarroñs estabiishment of an inter-modal rail facility which would reduce long-distance truck travel and the City's active participation in regional traf,fic solutions including the lVãst Beltway and improvements to 7tr'Standard Road2,4 Protection of Significant Environmental Features The proposed General Plan contains several policies that focus on preserving agriculhre as a significant environmental feahrre. The General Plan identifies the permanent natt¡Jofihe agriculturat land use designation and further emphasizes that agriculture is not a ternporary ,,holdii g zone.,, Ensuring these benefits now, before population pressures become even greater, and the political wiil to avoid developing these areas perhaps weakens, is especially important. The General pian sets forth policies that will function as environmental performance-shnàards to ensure the protection of significant environmental features, such as open space, biological resources and mineial ïesources.

These polìcies also address certaìn specific environmental feátures such as the need to maintain a permanent agriculturallopen space buffer around central Shafter, including a broad buffer between central Shafter and the lands within the southeastem portion of tne ntannin! Area. The Gsneral plan also requires the development projects be directed away from lands with sensitive biological resollrces to the extent feasible. Additionally, the General Plan provides for the proper management of mineral resources by protecting the environment around mineral processing op"rutiìrrr.

2.5 Provision for Public Services and Facilities
The General PIan ensures that the expansion of public facilities will occur in an equitable manner, and that new development provides the on- and ofÊsite facilities needed to support the developmant in a manner that avoids increased costs for and reductions in the level of public seryices piovided to existing residents and businesses.

2.6 Fiscal and Economic Considerations
The General Plan supports the retention and development of agriculturally related industries and support services to assist in maintaining the long-term economic viabilify of agriculturally designated land. AdditionalTy, the General Plan promotes regulations that allow farmers to manage their operations in an efficient economic manner. The General Plan also provides for economic growth through encouraging nerü/ uses in the downtown by promoting professional offlce, mixed-use and residential projects, which conkibute to the vitality of the area. Other areas where nelv uses are encouraged include the Shafter Airport, central Shafter, and the ITTC. By encouraging growth in these areas, municipal serrrices can be efficiently provided. As a means of financing infrastructure for future development, tJre General Plan considers the use of a special assessment or participation in a land-based financing district; both programs are aimed at ensuring new development funds necsssary for public infrastructure and public facilities.

3.0 ADDITIONALOVERRIDINGCONSIDERATIONS
Following is a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project and a d.escription of the overriding considerations for each of the unavoidable, significant impacts, 3 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffRepons\Final Shafter EIR Overriding consid.erarions.doc (6/2llz11s) SHATTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS E¡R
STATEMENT OF' OVERRTDING CONSf DDRATTONS JUN6 2005

3.1 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Significant IJnavoidable Adverse Impact. Conversion of open space and agriculh.n'al lands to urban USCS.
overriding considerations. The Plarming Area currentþ contains 39,940 acres of open space and agriculturailands. With the implementation of the proposed General Plan, T4,A24 acres of open space aiJ agric,rrt*al lands would be converted to variõus urban and rural residential uses representing a loss of 35 percent ofthe existing total. The Crty of Shafter is surrounded by open space/agricultural land and, in ordsr for growth to occur, "ome
of these lands will need to be converted to urban uses' 'while it is not possible to mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance, approval of the proposed General plan would ".r¡i i" piotecting anä pr"serrin g alatge portion of the open space/agricuitural land through maintaining a permanent aþculturaVotel spl:e buffer arorurd central Shafter' including a broad uuirer ietwå"n central sãafter and lãnds within the southeastem porlion of the pi"""rrã et"". Other benefits of the proposed General Plan related to protecting open space/agricultwal land include the following:
. working with Kern county to protect lands designated for agricultural use, minimiztng the influence of speculative 1anã transactions on the price of farmland and providing incentives for long-term agricuitural use;
. Developing attractive but natural-appearing landscape at communíty entries and along arterials and collector roadways, thus improving the visual resorrces of the community; and . Establishing a comprehensive system of open space that is available to the public' including facilities for organized recreation; active informui play; passive recreation; and ørjoyment of the natural environment'
ConclusÍon. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the-'rrq""t *¿ tt " additional overriding considerations descnbed above, the benefits of the propor"¿ c"n"rul Plan outweigh the impact related to the loss of open ,pu."/ogti""1tural
^lanï and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be accePtable'

3.2 Air QualitY
significant unavoidable Adverse Impact. Exceeding local and regional air qualrty standards for Ju:tio*r and mobile source emissions resulting in a worsening of air quality' overriding considerations. The San Joaquin va!l1 Air Basin is the second largest basin in the State and has been ¿".ig"ut"¿ by the Environmental Protection Agency as no:r-attainment for 8-hour ozone and pMz.s. 1'fr"*,î*ignifråant air qualrty probiem exists now in Kern Counþ wtrich will persist for a number of years Çnrtiro or not thãre ís sìgnificant gto-tl]" the Shafter Planning Area' Also' urban growth øff mefv ãc..r, in comm.rrrities sinorndittg tir" Shafter Planning Area irrespective of 4 J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\ceneral plan update\staff Reports\Final shafre¡ EiR Oveniding considerations.doc (6/21i2005) JUNE 2OO5 SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS EIR STATEMENT OF' OVERRIDINC CONSTDERATIONS the adoption of the proposed General P1an. Air quality is a regional problem that does nor respect jurisdictional or planning area boundaries. Continuing urban gro-wth, whether it occurs in the Shafter Planning Area or in other areas, will contribute to the regional air quality problem in roughly the sâme manner.
a
I
¡
The adoption of the proposed General Plan, which includes policies that provide positive actions toward a comprehensive strategy dealing with air quatlty and. arè provided bel,ow, willie beneficial to the regional air quality program. These policies incorporate the majority of the goals, policies, and programs identi{ied by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The beneficial General Plan policies include the following:
. Promoting land use pattems that provide close proximify between residential neighborhoods and empioymeníshopping areas to reduce vehicular trip lengths and facilitate walking and the use of bicycles;
. Encouraging developers of large residential and non-residential projects to parbicipate in programs and to take measures to improve traffic flow and./or reduce vehicle trips resulting in decreased vehicular emissions;
. Supporting and facilitating employer-based trip reductions programs by recognizing such programs as mitigation for traffic and ak quality impacts where their ongoing implementation can be ensured;
Facilitating the development of an inter-modal rail yard serving both BNSF and IIP rail lines as a means of reducing diesel anission from long-haul tucfts; Cooperating with State and regional agencies to coordinate the provision of parking facilities with regional transportation needs (e. g., park-and-ride lots); and Promoting the use of fixed-schedule fransit service within the City and encourage transit connections between Shafter and other parts of the region.

Conclusion. Based upon tlre previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the ímpact related to air quality and any adverse environmental effects associated \ rith this impact are considered to be acceptable.

3.3 Water Resources
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. Lack of demonstrated availability of water resources for urban development in Planning Area outside city limits and sphere of influence.

Overriding Considerations. A large groundwater basin, covering over 1,500,000 acres underlies most of the southern San Joaquin Vaiiey and has been providing water for the Planning Area since the early 1900s. Build out of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in the demand for urban water supplies. The potable water supply necessary for build out of the General Plan within the City limits and the sphere of influence has been calculated and wili be provided by eiTher the City of 5 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\,Final Shaftc¡ EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/2t12005) Shafter or oildale Mutual Water Service Company. The proposed General Plan land use plan and water seryice by the Oildale Mutual Water Service Company and the City of Shafter will resuit in a net reduction of watei for the City of Shafter and the sphere of influence through the use of reclaimed water for landscaPed areas'
The groundwater basin from which Shaftsr and surrounding communities withdraw water is not adudìcated. Thus, even though it has been demonstrated that water supplies necessary to serve urban deïelopment within the Shafter Water service area and the revised oildale Mutual Water Service area, ithas not been demonstrated that water will be available to serye urban development in the ."*áirrirrg planning Area. Adoption of the proposed General Plan would provide policies to protect the availability of water suppliås and en"ourugè water conservation. Even with these policies' which are listed below, the avaiiafility of water for ihe area outside the city limits and sphere of influence would still remain rigninru"i and unavoidable. Specific General Plan policies related to water resouÍces include the following:
. .periodically evaluating iocal water consumption patterns, the adequacy of existing facilities, and the need for new facilities;
. promoting water conservation throrrgh application of appropriate landscaping and site planning techniques;
. Ensurin g that land use changes wili not adversely affect the groundwater basin by requiring a factual statement from new dãvelopers related to water demand and water conservation; . Requiring new dev-elopment to be equipped with water. conservation devices' including dual *ut", .Vi"*s where reclaimed wastewateican be economicaily provided; and . working with the North of the River sanitation District to facilitate the use of reclaimed wastewater.

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER CBNERAL PLAN ÀND RELATÉD ACTIONS ElR
STÀTEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of trr" Þro¡eci un¿ ttr* additlonal overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of trr" ptopår"¿ G"neral Plan outweigh the impact related to the availability of water fesources in the plandn;'Ar"" outside of the cify limits a¡d the sphere of influence and any adverse environmental effects asËociated with this impact are considered to bs acceptable'

3.4 AgriculturalResources
significant unavoidable Adverse Impact. conversíon of Prime Farmland to urban uses' conversion of"farmlandundera.WilliamsonActcontracttourbanuses.
overriding considerations. Projected urban growth will- result in the reduction of productive agricuitural land. Conversion of agricultural tan¿ wittrin the future g¡owth areas will not occur immediately as the Gsneral Plan is i-ntended to provide land- for development over the next 25 yeats' Also the development of urban uses will depend on the supply and demand. Therefore, it is likely that a substantial amount of land within the future growth areâs will remain in agricultural production for many years.
6 J:\''ERS\ENG-pLAN\ryAyNE\General plan update\StaffReports\Final shafrer EIR overridíng considerations.doc (6/2112005) JUNE 2OO5
SHAF'TER çENERAL PLAN AND RELÄT8D AClIONS EIR STATEMENT OF OVÊRR¡DTNG CONSIDERATIONS a
a
Williamson Act contracts are for 10 years and are annually autornatically renewEd for an additional one-year period. The Williamson Act contains limited provisions for cancellation of conkacts and there are penalties for early cancellation. Therefore, the development of agricultural land under a Williamson Act conkact requires special considerations which may not be atkactive to the farmland Foperly owner. Thus, not all development on farmland with'TV'illiamson Act confacts may occur in lhc propusetl General Plan.
'While it is not possible to mitigate the loss of agricultural land andlor farmland under a W'illiamson Act contract, adoption of the proposed Generai Plan provides positive local action in regard to this issue. Specific beneficial General PIan policies associated with retention of agricultural lands include the following:

Protecting lands designated for agricultural use by providing a distnct boundary between lands intended for urban and rural use and those intended to be preserved in long-term agricultural use; Limiting the extension of urban seryices into or through areas that are designated for agricultwal uses, and avoid their inclusion in assessment districts and other financing mechanisms intended for the provision ofurban services and facilities;
Pursuing an Agricultural Conservation Easement program pursuant to the California Farmland Conservancy Program (PRC $ 10200 et seq.); and
Supporting efficient management of local agricultural production activities by encouraging the provision of adequate farm worker and farm family housing within and adjacent to agricultural areas,
Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to the loss of agricultural land and farmland under a Williamson Act contract and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be acceptable.

3.5 Population and Housing
Significant Unavoidable Adverse fmpact. Exceed regional housing and population projection.

Overriding Considerations. Projected growth in the Planning Area will exceed the Kern COG projections for housing and employment. Kern COG's projections are based on the existing General Plan and do not include all the land area in the proposed General Plan. In addition, the projections do not reflect the new boundaries of the City of Shafter sphere of influence. Projections for housing and employment in the build out of the proposed General Plan assume that all development that is aliowed is built. Regional economics and the markeþlace will dictate the build out of the General Plan and also determine the accuracy of the projections. a
J;\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Shafter EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/21/2005) 7 SHÀFTER CENARAL ¡LAN AND RELATED ÀCTTONS ETR
STÀTEMENT OT' OVERRTDING CONS¡DÊRATIONS
'W1ile it is not possible to mitigate incongruent housing and population projections, adoption of the proposed Geneål plan would piovide policies that limit the number of dwelling units and, therefore, itre^potential population g¡owth. The specific beneficial General Plan policies are provided below. . Detemining that the maximum allowable residential density for development within the 71h Srandard Rõad Specific Plan area shall be 4.25 dwellin_q,.u1its per gross lure within each Specific plan, excluding áoreag" within the rights-of-way for 7il' Standard Ro¿d and the existing canals, thus limiting population growth; and
. permitting a mærimum of 13,954 dwelling units throughout the Specific Plan area (16.61 persons per acre), which further limits population growth'
JUND 2OO5
conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Þroject and the aidrtional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of th" proptsed General Plan outweigh the impact related to exceeding the regional population and housini projections and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are consideredto be accePtable.
8 J:\USERS\ENG-pLAN\WAyNE\General plan update\staffReports\Fi¡al shafrer EIR Overriding considerations'doc 6nv2005)

EXHIBTT D
CITY OF SIIAFTER 2OO5 GENERAL PLA¡I UPDATE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MITIGATION MOI{ITORING AND COMPLTANCE PROGRÁ.M
This mitigation monitoring and compliance program has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Environmental lmpact Report (EIR) for the Shafter General plan and Related Actions (State Clearinghouse No. 2004101029). The program has beèn prepared in compliance with State law by the Cify of Shafter.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring prograa shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. [n some instances, one action may be used to veriff implementatÍon of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be t¿ken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3) The program contains a separate Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Record for each action.

On each of these record sheets, the pertínent actions and dates will be logged, and copies of permits, correspondence or other relevant dat¿ will be attached. Copies of the records will be submitted to the Planning Division.
4) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program.

As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAÌ'NE\General Ptan Update\SratrReporrs\Final Exhibir C - MMCp.doc (6/2 l/2005) LSA ASS()CIATES, INC JUNe 10ûs
Project File No./Name:

Date:

4.2.3C. The City shall require cxterior lighting for building to be ofa low profile and intensiry.

4.2.3D. Require that lighting provided for new development be designed so as to be conf¡ned to the areas that ate intended to be lighted.

CTTY OF SUAFTER 2OOS GENERAL PLÀN UPDATE
FINA.L ENV¡RONMENTAL Illf PACT REPORÎ MITIGATION MONIlORING AND COMPLIÀNCE PROCRA,M

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
City of Shafter General Plan Applicant: City of Shafter June 21,2005
213
214
213
213
A/CiD
NCID
NCID
NCID
Project proponent
shall submit lighting
plan with building
construction plansfor review and
approval by City,
The project proponent shali incorporate
a building lighting
plan with the construction plans for
review aod approvalby the City,
All roadway plans
shall incorporate alighting plan for
review and approval
by the City.

The project proponent shall incorporate
a lighting plan with the building constuction plans fo¡review and approval by the City.

AIB/D
A/B/C
A/B
A/B
CDD/BO
CCD/BO
BOICE
BO/PO

4.2.38. The City shall require street Ughhiling to be limited to intersections and ottre¡ locations that are needed to maintain safe access (e.g, sharp curves).

4.2.3A. The City shall require that sources of lighting providethe minimum lighting required to ensure safe circulatiou and visibility.
:\l itig¡ri6n Ilr""r\u rt \()
I nr ¡rlemtnting -\ c¡t{}rì
Rrrpnnsilrlc lhr
Llr¡n itoring
\l on iloring
F r-r:t¡ tr en cr
Tinring ol
\ rr-i1ic:ltinn
i\lethorl ol
Vrrilì t¡ t irr n
\ elilit'tl
[]arr, lnitials
\i¡nctlr¡ns f-or'
\,: n-C o r¡l Flil nrr
2 JIUSERS\lENc-PLA¡nWAYNE\ceneral Plan Update\Staff Report$,Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/2112005) LSA ASSOC¡ATE5, TNC
J UN E 2005 C]ÎY OF SHAFT FINAL EN VI RONMENTAL IMPACT R!PORT ER 2OO5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IVIITIGÀlION N IT O RING AND COMPLIÄN CE PROGRÀM fru5
213
2/32t3
213a3
Non-cornpliance
in arurual General
Plan implementation review.
3 NC
NCID
A/C
NC
NC
D
BID
Project proponent
shall submit site planand lighting plan
with building construction plans for
review and approvalReview of BuildingPlansReview of BuildingPlansReview of BuildingPlansReview of BuildingPlansrü/ithin 5 years of certification of DEIR.

City review of new
development tafficstudies, and site
plans.
n:

A,/B
A/B/D
A/B
AA
A
NE
BO
CDD/BO
BO
BOBO
CDD

CDD/CE/BO
that access to non-residential uses adjacent to be designed so as to provide adequate separation andfrom the non-residentíal
neighborhood.
prevent spillover of night lighting
use into the adjacent residential

4.3.4.3A. Encourage the use of building maærials/methods, which reduce emissions.
residential neighborhoods

4.2.38. Require

4.3.4.38. Encourage the use of efficient heating equipmeut and other appliances, such as water heaters, swimming pool
heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, firrnaces, and boilerunits.4.3.4.3C. Encourage centrally heated facilities fo utilizeautomated time clocks or occupant sensors to conûol heating.

4.3.4.3D. Require residential building corstruction to comply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 of the Califomia Administrative Code.

Adopt incentives and/or regulations ûo enact energy
conservation requirements for private and publicdevelopments.4.3.4.3F^SJVAPCD Measures. Reduce vehicle frþs. These measures reduce air pollution emissions by entirely eliminaring sorre of the vehicle trips associated with a project. An exauple is the provision of bicycle facilities to çncourage bicycle use instead of driving. . Redace vehicle miles trsveled. These measures reduce
by reducing the length ofvehicle trips associated
o ffi cesr'telecommuting
emrsslonswith a project. An example is satellite
3 J:\usERS\ENG-PLáN\wA\n{E\ceneral plan update\Staff Reporæ\Final Exhibir c - MMCp .doc (6/2uz0a5) LSA ASSOCIATAS" INC
¡uNE X005
ClTY OF SHA.F'TER ZOO5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FTNÀL ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPONT
I}IITIGATION MONI?ORIN G AND CO MPLIÂNCE PROGRÄÙf
cçnters provided to reduce the length of employee comn¡ute ovef without a vehicle in case of emergency
trips.
. [Jse ol low etnßsion vehicles. These measures do not aim to reduce trþs or VMI, but rather promote the use of fuels that are less polluting than gasoline or diesel. Examples are the conversion of a vehicle fleet 1o operate on conpressednatural gas and the purchase ofan electric vehicle- . Inprove traffic tlows/reduce congestio¿. These ûrcasures ¡educe emissioas by reducing traffic congestion and/or
reducing stops and starts. This allows vehicles to operate at steady aud moderate speeds, and thus lowers pollution per mile traveled. An exarrple is timing the haffic signals on an arterial to facilitate unintemrpted travel.

Suppott Meøsures. These measules rnay not directly reduce emissions, but rather suppof and facilitate other emissionreduction stategies. An example is a guaranteed ride hor¡eprogram irrylemented at a worksite in order to encouÍage employees to use comrnute altematives by allaying concerns

4.4.4.1A. At a minimun¡ a wildlifi:/plant habitat suitability assessment sball be part of the irrpact analysis for anydevelopment project located within the Planning Area. If a covered species has been observed in the vicinity ofthe project area or the site has suitable habitat conditions, then a focusedspecies survey shall be completed. If a covered species is fowtd to be present, then appropriate mitigation measures will be determined by the applicable lead agency. A "coverçd' speciesis any plant or anirnal listed as tÌ¡reatened or endangered by CDFG or USFWS, a non-listed species that requires mitigationunder Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or a species that is protected under local ordinances.

A Review of Plans CIDIA 7/2/3 CDD
Nlttigirfir'n Nlta¡tlt'e N¡r
IrnplcfirrnItng \r'lllìn
RrsJron.thle for
ù,1rn tl¡l-tng
Nl orr ¡l ol-¡ng
F rer¡trt'nt:1
Timing ol
\ er tlir'¡lirin
ÍVlefhorJ ol
\ ertlica¡ir¡n
\'c ril'ir¡l
f)a t e'l n ¡¡ i;¡ ls
\:rircli,rn. frrr
\r,n-( onrJrliznre
4 J:\USERS\ENC-PUN\WAYNE\Gener¿I PIan Update\StaffRePoÉs\Fin¿l Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/2112005) LSÀ ASSOCTATIS, rNC JUNE 2OO5

4.4.4.2A. The City establishes baseline ratios for mitigating the impacts of development rclated uses to rare, tlreatened andendangered species and their associated habitats as thefollowing:

Preserve habitat by covered species at minimum of l:1
replacement ratio in locations that provide long-termconservation value for impacted resource. Habitat is defined as where a plant or animal completes its life cycle. Habitat is the Planning Area can include native plant cornmunities, arurual grasslands, oilfields, and agrículhual land. Habitat mitigationcould involve dedication of conservation easement on the ì occupied on-site habitat, acquisition of off-site habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in amrssing li::k or gap in an HCP reserve (endorsed by theUSFWS and/or CDFG) that has been esrablished to provid.e conservation value for the species, Irrylementation of the mifigation measure shall include provisions for the of such a¡eas in perpetuity

4.4.4.4.A, Should an agrcement be reached with the signatories of the MBHCP for authorization to use this prograrn, the City of Shafter shall collect the mitigation fees upon the development of the area within the MBHCP which is located north of 7ù Standard Road and within the sphere of influence of the City of Shafter. The City shall forward the MBHCp fees to the County of Kern and/or the City of Bakersfield.

Alternatively, development within the MBHCP shall provide equivalent mitigation in the form of habitat acquisition or payment offees into an established mitigation bank.

M
C¡1Y O¡'SHAI'TE R 2OO5 GENERå,L PLÄN UPDA.TE FINAI. EN VI RONMENTAL IIVIPACl REPORl tGÀTION IV¡ONITORING A. ND COÙIPLIANcE PRoGRAM T t/2t3
u2t3t4t6
t/2
CID/A
C/D/A
B/D
Review of PlansReview of Plans
Review of Plars
A
A
A/B
CDDCDD
CDD

4.4.4.18. In the event that the Valley Floor Habitat
Conservation Plan (VEHCP) is adopted, then any project within the Planning Area will be a VFHCp participint ând would comply with FESA Section l0A permit conditions andmitigation measures adopted in the plan.

Nlitigation Nleasure No. /
lmplementing Action
Rr:sponsible t'or
Nlonilrr ring
Nlonitoring
Frequenc¡
Timing of
\/erific¿ tion
Nlethr¡d ol'
Verific¿ tir¡n
Verified
Da tell nitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
5 JrusERS\ENG-PLAN\wAYNE\Generat plan updare\SraffReports\Final Exhibir c - MMcp.doc (6/2tf2p5) LSA aSSOCIATES, INc JUNÊ ¿OO5

4.5.4.2A.If human rcr¡:aius ars encountered during a public or but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Comrrission (NAHC) must be cont¿cted to determine the most likelydescent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involvedwiththe of the burial following scientific analysis.

4.6.4.3.^. New deveþments shall provide erosion and
sedimentation control ¡neasrues to ¡naintain the capacity of area storm drains, protect water quality, and to reduce erosion andthe loss oftopsoil.

4.6.4.3.8. New development shall use BMPs to nunrmrze
erosioo and sedimentation

4.7 .4.1.A. On a site-specific, project-by-project basis, all new discretionary deveþrnent pr jects shall be zubjed to an assessment to determine whether hazardous materials are present as required by the County Department of
Environmental Services.

CITY O¡'SHA,FTER 2OO5 GENERAL PI-AN UÞDATE ÍTNAL ENVTRONMENTÀL IIVIPÂCT REPORT ÙTITIGAlION MONIlORING ÀND COMPLIANCE PROCRAM private construction actÌvity, State Health and Safety CodeÌOSO.S states that uo further disturbance shall occur until the Kern County Coroner has made a deterrnination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Rcsources Code Section
5097.93. TheKem County Coroner must be notified within 24hours. Ifthe Qoroner determines that the burial is not historic,

4.7 .4.1.8. Soils shall be tested for conccntations of
agriculhual chemicals prior to grading permit approval where appropriate, as determinedby local, State, or Federal agencies' ioìtu*iout"¿ soils shall be treated and/or excavated anddisposed of at cerlified hazardous waste facility v6n
2 21314
213t4/617
4 A/B
AJBID
NBICID

AIBICID
A
Review of Plans
Review of Plans
Review of Plans,
During Construction
Review of Plans,
During Construction
During Construction
A/B
D/E

NBICIDIE
NBICID4ß
C
BO
CDD/BO

CDD/CEIBO

CDD/CE/BO
BO
ìl itigation ¡¡",,.¡¡t No, i
Inplemtnting .\ction
,t i, ,,. i: I
Rrsponsihle l'rrr'
ll on it oring
Ilon itoring
F req uencr
Sa nctir¡ns lor
\ on-f¡¡¡ n¡t"t,..
;n. -.*- -.. ¡ ¡¡ *.*
\ cril'ie¡l
f)ir I r;l ll it i¡ ls
i\lethod nf
Vcrrf ic¡ t ion
Tirning r,f
\ crilic¡tion
6 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP"doc (612112Cf5) LSa assoct¿,TEs, rNc. JUNE
'OO5 CITY OF SHÀFTER 2OO5 FTNAL ENVIRONM GENERAL PLAN UPD MITIGATION ENTÀL TM}ACT REP NITORING D COMPLT NCE PRO ATA ORT RAM

4.7.4.1.C. Fugitive dust on constuction sites shall becontolled by inigation, pa\¡ing of construction roads, limiting grading activities during periods of high winds, and otherapplicable methods as set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Uniñed Air Pollution Contol Disnid. .A New development located within the vicinþ of
shall provide fencing to protect the public and the canals

4.9.4.1 canalsas by the City of Sbafter

4.9.4.1.8 Grading plans as reviewed by the City for new development near canals shall take into account the prevention ofcanal failures by percolation and piprng due to lowering of the adjaceut surface.

4.9.4.r C The developer shell noti$ new owners of homes located adjacent to canals ofpossible noise and odor created by tü.e operation and maintenance of the canals.

4.11.3.14. Standa¡d constuction actiyities shall be limited tobetween 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction actiyities shall be allowed on weekends and holidays until after the buildings are enclosed without prior authorizatiou of the City.
4,11.3.18. To reduce daytime noise impacts due tocoustucfion, to the rnaximum feasible extent, the City shall ask all project applicants lo develop a site-specifi.c noise ¡eduction 4/7
3 2
2/3
214t7
2/4t7
A
A/C
c
D
NC
NC
Review of Plans
Review of PlansReview of Grading
Plans
Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measure4.9.4.1.C in disclosures to new honreowners.Project proponent shall incorporate
Mitigation Measure

4.11.3.1.4 in grading and constructionplans submitted forreview and approval City
Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measwe
c
A
AAc
c
BO
CDD
cE, BO
CDD
CDDIBO
CDD/BO
illitigation Nle¿s¡rre Nr¡. /
I mplementing,,\crirrn
Responsihle I'or
N'lon rloring
iVlonitoring
Freq rre n c.1
Timing of
\1e rilica tion
Nlethod ol
V e rifìca ti¡¡n
\lerilied
Dute/lnitials
Sanctirrns tìrr
Non-( ompliance- J:\USERS\ENG-PLAMWAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffRepons\Final Exhibit C - MMC p.doc (6f¡tÍ2005') LSå, ASSOCfÀTES, r.NC
JUNE 2005
prograÍ\ subject to the Cþ's approval, which includes tle following measurrs:
. Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact nur¡ber for the job site, a''d a day and evening contact number for the City in the eveut of problems.
. An on-site conplaint and enforcement managil shall be posted to respond to and tack cornplaints.
. A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site projectmaúager to confirm that noise mitigation and practioes are completed prior to the issuance of a building permit(including construction hows, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).
. Equipment and tucks used for project construction shall utiliae the best avail¿ble troise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, cquipment redesigr¡ use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attemrating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.
. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall behydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise assooiated with compressed-air exhaust from pneurnatically powered tools. However, where use ofpneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exlaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from pneumatic tools where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures
shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment whenever feasible.
. Stationary noise sorxces shall be located as fat from sensitive roceptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and CITY OF SHÀFTER 2OO5 GENERá,L PLAN UPDATf, FINAL ËNVIRONùIENTAL IÙf PACT ROPORÎ EfITIGATION M ITORING AN C OÙIP LIA¡¡CE PROCRAItt

4.11.3.1.8 in grading and constructionplans submitted for reyiew and approvai
by City.

Nlitigttton illeasure Nrr
lmplemcnting \ction
Rcsprrnsihle I'or
Nlr¡n it ¡rring
i\,loniloring
Freq tten cr
Tinring ol
Verilic¿tion
i\letl¡¡rd ol
Verilir¿tion
\j erified
Da tei ln itir ls
\a ncfit¡nr fìrr
Non-Compliance
J:\USERS\ËNC-PIAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan UpdatelSøffReports\Final Exhibif C - MMCP.doc (6/2il2005) 8 LSa Assoc¡ÀTES, INC. JUNE 2OO5
enclosed within temporary sheds or insulation barrie¡s, orother measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

4.1 1.3.lC. If pile-driving occurs as part of the project, it shall be limited to between 8:00 a.rn and 4:00 p.rn, Monday through Fridaf, with no pile driving permitted between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.

4.11.3.lD. To ñrther mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction irrpacts, a set of site-speciüc noise attenuafion mçasures shall be coryteæd under the supervision of a çaliñed acoustical consultant. Itis plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved.

These atteuuation mêasures shall include as rurny of the following contol sûategies ari feasible and ,t att be implemented prior to any required pile-driving activities:. In¡plement "quiet" pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and struõtural requirementóand conditions; ¡ Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire consfuction site;
. Utilize noise control blankets on the building stuchre as ít is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
. Evaluate the feasibility of noise contol at the receivers by æmporarily the noise reduction capabilþ of adjacent buildings ; and
. Monilor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measu¡ements.

MTTIGATI
C¡TY OF SITAf'TER 2O05 GENERAL PTAN UPDATE F'INAL ENV¡RONM DNT AL IMPACT REPORT ON MONTTOR ING .A.ND CO MPLIANCE PROCRAM 4 214
A
A
Project proponent shall incorporatemitigation Measure4.11.3.l.C 0n construction drawings for revie\ry and approval by City.

Project proponent shall incorporate
Mitigation Measure4.11.3.1.D. on grading and construction drawings for review
and approval by City.
c
B/C
CDDiBO
CDD/BO
Nlitigation Nlea.sure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsihle for
lVlon itor-ing
Nlonitoring
Prequencl
Timing of
Verification
[Vlethr¡d ol'
\lerific¿tio n
\/erified
D¿te/l n itia ls
S¿ nctir¡ns for
N on-Compliance
9 J:\usERs\ÊNc-PLANwAyNE\General plan update\Staf Reports\Final Exhibir c - MMcp.doc (612u2005) Ls ÀssoctÀTEs, INC
JIJN E 2OO5
CTlY OF SÍAFlER 2OO5 GENERAL IILAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONIVIÉNTAL IMPACT RÊPORT
ÞI¡lTGATTON MONTTORTNC A.ND COMPLTANCA PROCRÀM

4.11.3.18. A process with the following components shall be establíshed for responding to and tracking complaintspertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
. A procedu¡e for notifying City staffand Police Department; . A list of telephone numbers (during regular constuction horns and off-hows);
. A plan for posting signs on-site pertai:ring to couplaint proledrues aud who to notifl in the eveut of a problem; . Designation of a consüuction complaint manager for the project; and
. A requirement to notify of neighbors within 300 feet of the projeðt construction area ar least 30 days in advance ofpileactivities.

4.11.8.24. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses aud tbat are directlY exPosed to taffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL should be equipped with aû conditioning or
mech¿nical ventilation to allow the windows and doors to rernain closed for prolonged periods ofnoise levels below the level of significance time, thus reducing
(45 .lBA CNEL).

4.11.8.2R Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and that are directly exposed to traffic noise levcls exceeding 69 dBA CNEL should incorporate urrtþation measwes such asbuilding façade upgrades.

4.11.8.2C. Outdoor active use ateas, such as backyards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected by
freestanding sound walls along the propeÛy bormdaries whereexposed to noise levels above 70 dBA. 4,15.5,1,{. Prior to the construction of any strucûue within ten feet of an abandoned well, a leak test shall be perforrred in accordance with the standards of the Califomia Division of Oil 2 ,)
2 2
214
C
A/B/C
C
C
A/C/D
Review of Building
Construction Plans.

Review of site and
construction plans
Review of Building
Construction Plans.

Review of Building
Construction Plans.

Project proponent shall include procedure established
under Mitigation
Measure 4.11.3,1.8.
with grading and
constructions Plansfor approval by CitY.

B
B
B
B
B/C
CDDIBO
CDD¡BO
CDD/BO
CDD/BO
CDD
\l,tig:rtir'n i\lt,l.t¡t't \rr.

Im¡letncntttrg {ction
Rcspnnrihle for
[U{roi¡r¡rlng
ùl rrn tloring
Fre<¡trenc.t
Tinring ol'
V erifit¡tlon
l\'lc¡hod ol
\'e rilìca tion
Velifird
D¿ te/l nitia lr
San rti¡in¡ for
ùi r rn-,{_ om plil n cr
J:\USERS\5NG-PLAN\WAYNE\Gene:aI Plan update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibil c - MMCP.doc (6/2112005) 10 LSa ASSOCTATES, INC JÙNÊ 2OOS CIlY OF SII.A,FlER ZO05 G ENDNAL PLAN U¡DATE NT¿,L TMPACT REPORT r¡NÀL ENVIRONME MITI ÀTION MON TORING AN I} COMÞLTA NCB PROGRÀM 2 2
2 2
NBIC
A]BIC
BC
Review of site and
construction Plans.

Review of site and
construction Plans.

Review of
development plans.

Review of building
construction plans.

A/BA/B
A
AÆ
it shall be repaired according to CDOGGR
guidelines.
(CDOGGR) standards. Should Gas and Geothermal Resor¡rces a leak be detected,4.15.5.18. Well access must be provided wells according to CDOGGR standards.
for all abandoned CDD
BO
CDD
CDDiBO
as
be
abandoned
bnildrng
an
be consfucted
over
should
must
stuctuÏe
system
however
of any
site, a vent
recorunended;
well
consEuction
a
not
The
rs
over
5 Ic.
site

15. wellallowed

4. per CDOGGR guidelines.

4.15.6.14. The City
prior to the approval tbat
supply
uses.
to
proposals
to guârantee
availableassociated
are
and
developmmt
plans
ect
all
prol
facilities
r€vrevt
and
of developmcnt
shall
the
resources
to
energy
energy
sufficient
adequaüe
and
proposals
are incorporated
conservation
and
developrnent
energy
met
all
are
that
24 rev¡.ew
Title
shall
guaranfee
of
to
firture
City
of
The
st¿ndards
approval
design

18. to
.6.
the
4 1 5pn"or
efficiency
into
N,litigation Nleasure No. /
lmplementing Action Responsible for lVloniloríng Nlonitoring Frequencl Timing of Veritication ùlethod ol Verifìca tion Verified D¿ te/l n itia ls Sanctions for Non-Compliance Key to Checklist Abbreviations
A On-site InspectionB Other Agency Permit / Approval
C Plan Check
D Separate Submittal @eports / Studies
/ Plans)
1 Witlihold Recordation of Final Map 2 Withhold Grading or Building permir 3 WithÏold Cerfificate of Occupancy 4 Stop Work Order 5 Retain Deposit or Bonds6 Revoke CUP
7 Citafion
A lVith EachNew
Development
B Prior To ConstructionC ThroughoutConstruction
D On Completion
E Operating
CDD Community Development
Director or designee
CE City Engineer or designee
BO Building Official or designee
PO Police Captain or designeeFC Fire Chief or designee
JTUSERS\ENG-PL-4N\WAYNE\GaneraI Plan Update\StaffRepons\Final Exïibit C - MtvfCp-cloc (6/2tl2005) 11 A
l1 ," oIl
City of Shafter

SHAFTER COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 15,2022
FROM Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
Prepared By: David Franz, Education Partnership Director SUBJECT: APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF NETWORK HARDWARE AND

SERVICES FROM SENTINEL ENGINEERING IN THE AMOTINT OF
$30,121.99 TO UPGRADE WIFI INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE SHAFTER

LIBRARY AND LEARNING CENTER

RECOMMENDATION
Council approve purchase of network hardware and services from Sentinel Engineering to upgrade V/iFi infrastructure at the Shafter Library and Learning Center for $30,121.99.

BACKGROUND
At the regularly scheduled meeting on November 16, 2021, the City Council approved proposed project priorities using Federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021(ARPA) funding. One of the priority projects was to "Enhance the Shafter Learning Center as a Critical Community Hub for Internet Access and Outdoor Recreation and Socialization." This project includes upgrades to the public WiFi at the Shafter Library and Learning Center to increase the speed and range of connection inside and outside the building.

Staff conducted informal bid procedures consistent with City and Federal ARPA policies. GHA Technologies, Inc. and Sentinel Engineering, two qualified vendors contacted, responded with a proposal. Sentinel Engineering submitted the lowest responsive proposal with a cost of $30,121.99. This vendor has also worked for the City in the past and is familiar with our network and are prepared to complete the work in a timely manner.

ANALYSIS
The quote from Sentinel Engineering meets project specifications and would achieve the goal of this project to improve V/iFi internet access at the Shafter Library and Leaming Center and is the lowest price quoted. This project would be funded with ARPA funds and fits within the approved priorities for ARPA funding.

FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with updating current and new policies is covered by existing operational budget.

Therefore, budget action is not required.

CONSENT CALENDAR B
Purchase of Network Hardware and Services - Shafter Library and Learning Center

1. 2.

J.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve purchase of network hardware and services from Sentinel Engineering to upgrade WiFi infrastructure at the Shafter Library and Learning Center for $30,121.99.

Recommended

2. Approve purchase of network hardware and services from GHA Technologies, Inc to upgrade WiFi infrastructure at the Shafter Library and Learning Center for $37,537.50.

Not Recommended

3. Not approve purchase of network hardware and services to upgrade V/iFi infrastructure at the Shafter Library &.Leaming Center. Not Recommended

ATTACHMENTS
AMS.Net Unable to Provide Quote
GHA Technologies Quote
Sentinel Engineering Quote
-2-
John Rubio
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Hello Johnny,
We have tried several times with Mist/uniper to get you competitive pricing for this.

It is not available to us currently.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, we won't be able to get you a quote for this.

I do appreciate you considering us for this project
Thanks,
Sean Harrington
Accounl Manager
[email protected]
559-547-2867
www.ams.net
Sean Harrington <[email protected]>
Wednesday, December 29,2021 2:21 PM
Johnny Rubio
RE: Quote / Network project
^AIIils.HET &AlCop fCu hr Fr.¡¡ri l¡a
From: Johnny Rubio <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 8,2O2! 3:49 PM
To: Sean Harrington <[email protected]>
Cc: David Franz <[email protected]>
Subject: Quote / Network project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good Afternoon Sean,
Would it be possible to get a quote for the line items below. I would also like for you to include the line item of the block of hrs for config/setup onsite,
Line Aty Description
I
2 ¡
4 5
6 7
I
s
to
5 ¡
Áfcttt otl
2 Lcarning CÊntÊr Switehiqg &UY¡-¡
l,ilsTAps2 WtTt{lStrC FOR 3y? ritRLS
AF63 PREMIUM FERFORI,IANCE OUTÍ)ûOR WRLS ¡,lULTlGlGABlT ttftFl ACCESS rolilT
ISVC FORSYR WnLS
EX3¡IOO 48-port tOflOO OOOBaseT roE+, 4 x t/tOG SFF/SFP+, 2 x 4OG GtSFp+, redrndantfanc, fort-to-backnlrflow,l AC PSU JPSü-92O-AC-AFO tnctuded {rpfl6 cold ¡Bparâtely)
3 Ye¡r ïtllred Assu¡ãnce Sub:crlptlon for EX48 port swltches; hrclud€c Junlper Caæ l{ext Day Support for E¡flCOO, EX34OO, EX43OO {A port devtcec.

SOCl'l {OGlg Vlrhnl CfiacÊh DAC
EX230{' t2-trORT POE+
3 Year Wlred Assurflrâe Subccrlptlon Íor EXl2 port swltches; lnctudes Junlper Care l{ext flay Support for EX2itOO, EX34OO, EX4ilOO t2 port devtces.

SFP+ lf
'GE
85()Nll,l Ofi+Ollll, 2(ll,l{}{2,l00l+Oil¡
Setup & Confl$¡rätlofi Of Jmlper Networklng & Mtst ffiFt System lohnny Rubío
tf systerns Manøger / City øf ShaJter
336 Pacific Ave.

ShoJTe6 CA.93263
office: 661,746.5074
2 2
I
I
2 Thonk you,
StlAFJ:ER
Click here to upload files.
2 --i"-.- Gl'lA. ", \ :f; chnc lt:gi cs, Inc
GHATechnologies, lnc.

Dept. #2090
PO Box 29661
Phoenix, Arizona 85038
United States
http ://www. g ha-associates.com
(P) 480-951-6865
(F) 480-e51-6e56
Date
Dec O8, 2021 05: I 7 PM CST
Modified Date
Dec 08, 2021 05:22 PM CST
Quote #
2475082 - rev 1 of I
Description
None
SalesRep
Manley, Jon
(P) 262-518-7642
(F) 480-ss1-6956
Customer Confact
Wiggins, Scott
[email protected]
Ship Via:

FedEx Ground
Carrier Account #:

Customer
City of Shafter (CO108572)
Wiggins, Scott
336 Pacific Ave
Shafter, CA 93263
United States
Customer PO:

Special lnstructions:

Bill To
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Ave
Shafte¡ C493263
United States
Ship To
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Ave
Shafter, CA 93263
United States
Terms:

Undefined
I Learning Center Switch¡ng and Wifi WIFI
Note: (3) M¡st AP32 with lSVC for 3YR WRLS
(3) AP63 Premium Performance Outdoor WRLS MultiGigabit WlFl Access Point (2) EX3400 48-port 10/100/1000 BaseT POE+
(2) 3 Year Wred Assurance Subscription for EX48 port switches - lncludes Juniper Care (2) 50CM 40cig Virtual Chassis DAC
(1) EX2300 12-port POE+
(1) 3 Year Wire Assurance Subscription lor EX12 port switches (2) SFP+ 10G8, 850NM,10M-OM1, 20M-OM2, 100M-OM3
Yes $35,000.00 $35,000.00
$35,000.00
$2,537.50
$o.oo
$0.00
$37,537.50
Subtotal:
fax ?.25OOo/o\:

Shipping:

Misc:

Total:

Sales tax calculation is estimated and subject to change. Terms Definition: Unless agreed upon otherwise; Net 30 terms, cash in the GHA bank 30 days from the date of shipment. Lease payment calculations are estimated and may include sales tax in the payment amount. You can obtain an accurate lease quote from our leasing company. Rates are subject to change without notice.

GHA is an authorized and leading supplier for Microsofr, HP, Apple, Dell, Lenovo, VMWare, IBM and Cisco. GHA does not source any of these products from the gray market. lf you have a pending quotation from a competitor that is significantly less in price, that may be a strong indication of gray màrket involvement. please immediately bring this to the attention of your sales professional who can veriff with the manufacturer for your benefit and protection. Your sales representative can also talk to you about the risks associated with doing business with a gray market supplier. The prices quoted may change due to market conditions beyond our control.

GHA cannot be responsible for manufacturer availability or delays. No verbal quotations or promises can be honored unless set forth herein. Due tó many people working from home, GHA will not be responsible for the boxes if lost or stolen after the delivery has been made, and if they are lost or stolen, you still agree to pay your GHA invoice. Signature will be required on all shipments. Hândling Fees: Handling fees charged on shipments are ¡n add¡tion to the freight and insurance cñarges and vary. Returns Policy: Cloud Service Provider CSP o¡ders for Microsofr require at least 30 days of cancellation notice from Buyer. Buyer agrees to pay for any cloud subscription usage incurred. For all other CSP s, GHA will pass through and honor the cancellation policy as stated in the original contract wñether 30, ó0 or 9d days of cancellation notice is required. Custom computers and technology orders are non-cancellable and non-returnable. No retum will be accepted after 30 days from the invoice date. Goods accepted for credit upon return will be subject to handling/restocking charge, which shall be not less than 15Vo ofthe price of Goods. Custommade Goods are not subject to cancellation or return under any circumstances. ln no case are Goods to be retumed without first obtaining Seller,s written permission.

Goods must be securely packed in the original packaging and delivered to Seller in an undamaged condition with Buyer being solely responsible for paying all return freight expenses and keeping the GHA invoice current within 30 days from the date of shipment regardless of the reason for a return, All returns must be accompanied by an authorized RMA numbe¡ which is valid for 15 days afrer date of issuance. GHA Technologies makes NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY oR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE with respect to the goods described hereon. lntemationâl shipments/returns: Customer ls responsible to pay all VAT, duties, customs charges, fre¡ght forwarding services, storage, handling, foreign exchange rates/fees, miscellaneous fees from any country, expedited or return freight expenses. Customer shall be liable; GHA is NOT responsible. GHA ¡s not responsible for any retum shipment expenses. --Supplier represents and wanants that it is an equal-opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability,mar¡tal orveteranstatus,oranyotherbasisthatisprohibitedbylaw. Thisdocumentshall begovernedbythelawsoftheStateofArizona.Youmayviewall Terms & Conditions at: http://gha-associates.com/Ierms_and_Conditions/index.html. - .THIS QUOTE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR CLIENTAND GHA PURPOSES ONLY* CORPORATE OFFICE: (REMIT PAYMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT NUMBERAND PO BOX LISTED ABOVE; NO PAYMENTS SHOULD BE MAILED TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE) cHATechnolog¡es, lnc. 8998 E. Raintree Drive Scottsdale, FZ85260 N. -t0b'
NEL I
RING I
AUOTE
SENTI
ENGINËE
l515 20th st
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Main: 661.616.3333
City of Shafter
Shafter
USA
Phone
Fax
661-746-6365
Here is the quote you requested
Return to: orders@sent¡nel.engineering
City of Shafter
Shafter
USA
Phone 661-746-6365
Fax
David Comelli
dcomelli@sent¡nel.eng¡ neer¡ng
661.616.3530
Number
Date
svFo3823-A
Dec 7,2021
Sold To Ship To Your Sales Rep
Terms P.O. Number Ship Via
Net 30
Line Qty Descri tion Unit Price Ext. Price
Learning Center Switching & W¡F¡
MIST AP32 WITH ¡SVC FOR 3YR WRLS
AP63 PREMIUM PERFORMANCE OUTDOOR WRLS MULTIGIGABIT WIFI ACCESS POINT
ISVC FOR 3YR WRLS
EX34OO 48-port 1OllOO/lOOOBaseT PoE+, 4 x1/lOG SFP/SFP+, 2 x 4OG GSFP+, redundant fans, front-to-back airflow, I AC PSU JPSU-92O-AC-AFO included (optics sold separately)
3 Year Wired Assurance Subscr¡ption for EX48 port switches; lncludes Juniper Care Next Day Support for EX23OO, EX34OO, EX43OO 48 port devices.

SOCM 4OGig Virtual Chassis DAC
EX23OO I2.PORT POE+
3 Year Wired Assurance Subscription for EX'12 port switches; lncludes Juniper Care Next Day Support for EX23OO, EX34OO, EX43OO 12 port dev¡ces.

SFP+ lOGE,850NM,lOM-OMl,20M-OM2,lOOM-OM3
to 1 Setup & Configuration Of Juniper Networking & M¡st WiFi System Shipping charges w¡ll be invoiced based on amount b¡lled from manufacture to Sentinel Engineering.

Prices above reflect a 3.5% cash discount. ltems will be invoiced at full price if an alternative payment method is used.
3 3
I
2 3
2 2
4 2
'l
1 2
6 7
I
9 5
$91o.39
$1,77s.O3
$6,161.40
$1,188.OO
$t45.26
$r,315.sr
$397.OO
$531.24
$2,400.oo
$2,731.17
$s,32s.o9
$12,322.80
$2,376.OO
$290.52
$1,3'ls.sl
$397.OO
$1,o62.48
$2,400.oo
$28,220.57
$1,901.42
$o.oo
SubTotal
Tax
Shipping
îHIS QUO'IF i.'S BOUND BV; îH= Aî'I-ÀCHE} TERMS Af\D CONDITIONS ON îIIE IASI PAGE, PLTASE REVì=W T-= FINAL T¿\GF Otr TH]S Total $30,121.99

CUSTOMER INITIALS
1of 2
The êiicve describecj Cusiomer'¿grees io purcnâse from Serrirriel Fngineerini; (hereafier ieíerred lo ðs Seritrirei Englr-;eerinç) equ¡pment ðnd services in ille qLiâtltti¡eS êtlci rliocjeis llstecl above, in accordairce r¡¡ith ihe terms êrtd coaCiiiorls sei f(-ìrtiì on lhrs page, ihe ¡,.rey;4.'a tata ancj;cr pages.
(1) ApPROVALS. The unciersigned âçrees tc aii cf the iei'ms and co.lcri;ons set torth herellr this êEreerrent, end. rn vr¡itness hereof. irerei:¡i exeautes ihis no¡-cancelable Açreemeni. ihe persorl srgning iils Agreemeni lof the Customer recresents rhel, ai'e aulirorizei tc s;gn cn beh¿ i f oilhe alr; 5'r i-ìììer clescri bec here.
(2) 'DAYI"lENT TERMS: NFT terms rnay be appl;ecÌ as stê¡ec ôt ïhe ïop of the quote. lf NIT terms äre lrci staled, Sentrrei ãngir:eer- ng's stð.darc terrns eppiy.
(3) STAI.\DARD iERMS: 5C9ã cí iire tctð¡ purchase prrce is due p'-rortc' commencemeni of tlre FrojeciT'cirder. îhe renainier of the procuct quoie. the reryìâ;i-1der of the services ccsi \¡/i¡¡ Lre due upcn pioject ccmpletron es Cefrne,J rn if :e approved projeci sci-.pe. (4) ERFACH OF AGRËEN4=NT, Custo.ner êni Serìirrei f nçrrreering aqree lhal lf Cuslonrer Lrreaches this aEreeilent by ætternptrng io ter¡'nêie, cancel or rescrrrcl tnis agreenrent prior to the Ceiivery cf ecu¡prnent cr perlcrmance of servrces. Sentrnel Ëngineenng may lrrstrÍiably the âcll¡a: ilamage sustarrred Sentinel Ëngineer'rnç by reason of Cuslcmer's breach, (b) that a sum equal lo 25o/a cf ihe eniire purchase pr;ce shail be oresl¡;"nei to be [he ar¡ourìi of clanrage sustai¡rei by Sentinei fngineerrnE by reascn oi Clistor¡er's breach. and (c) tirai Senlrne¡ EngineerinE may retêr!-r si:ch ¿rnount from any cJeposii held by Sentinel Fngineerrng, as iiquiclaleC Camages ðnd rìot as a penaliy. io cornpensãie Sentinel Errç¡rneerll-rç for CamðCes.
(5) EXP:RATiON: Ihis cruot*. w,rii expire in 3C-cjêys of lhe date lrsted ab¡ove.

Customer Name Signature Date
Customer T¡tle Acceptance Signature
THIS AUOTE IS SOUND BY THF ATiACHE) TERMS AND CCNDIT¡ONS ON THE LAST PAGE, PLFASE RTVIEW THT FINAL PAGE OF THIS

CUSTOMER INITIALS
2oÍ2
A
11 ,'' oIl

SHAFTER
City of Shafter

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:

FROM:

February 15,2022
Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
Prepared by: Bob Meadows, Business Development Director

SUBJECT APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHAFTER AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC FOR USE OF THE CITY-OWNED CONTAINER YARD AT 35OI SO.

DRIVER ROAD

RECOMMENDATION
Council rati$ the execution by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement by the City Manager on behalf of the City of Shafter with Amazon.com Services LLC for use of the 4.02-acre Container Yard owned by the City of Shafter and located at 3501 So. Driver Road, Shafter, CA 93263.

BACKGROUND
City of Shafter (Lessor) and Amazon.com Services LLC (Lessee) have agreed to a First Amendment of the original Lease Agreement executed November 17,2021, to lease the City Container Yard for use as overflow trailer parking during Amazon's peak season, ending January 31,2022. Lessee has a continued need for overflow trailer parking and requested that the term be extended through April 30, 2022 and would continue to pay $4,000 monthly for the use of the yard with appropriate liability insurance to protect the City's interests, but not occupy the modular building on site.

An amendment to the lease agreement was prepared and approved by City Attomey, plus the Acting City Manager has executed it to ensure that there is no disruption of Lessee's use of the site. Either Lessor or Lessee can cancel the lease with a 30-day notice. The amendment does require Council ratification.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not defined as a "Project" pursuant to Section 15378(bX5) of the CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
No budget action is required with the negotiation and execution of a City Lease Agreement. The adopted Fiscal Year 2021-2022budget contains suffrcient funding for the nominal legal costs.

CONSENT CALENDAR 1
Ratification of Lease Agreement with Amazon.com Services LLC for City Container Yard

ALTERNATIVES

1. Reject approval of the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS OPTION.

ATTACHMENTS

1. First Amendment to Lease Agreement - Signed by all parties

2. Original Lease Agreement
-2-
Docusign Envelope lD: 3347E974-994445,f 1-BS0C-061 l74Dt6ZO3 cc RPR 00057005 2022TR

F'IRST AMENDMENT TO
REAL PROPERTY LEASE AGREEMENT BET\ryEEN

THE CITY OF SIIAF'TER AND
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
This First Amendment to the Real Property Lease Agreement (the "First Amendment") between the City of Shafter ("Lessor"), a California municipal corporation, and Amazon.com Services LLC, a Delaware limited liabilíty company ("Lessee'), is entered into this 28th day of January, 2022.The above parties may be individual referred to as "Party" and collectively refened to as the "Parties."

RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into that certain Real Property Lease Agreement ("Agreement") on or about November 17 ,2021for lease of Lessee's container yard locaied at 3501 So. Driver Rd. in the city of Shafter, California.

B. The Agreement terminates by its own terms on January 3l,2OZZ.

C. The Parties now wish to extend the term of the Agreement by 90 days, to April30, 2022.

AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual obligations in this First Amendment and the Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

Section l. Section 3.2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
*3 '2 Term- Unless modified in writing by the Parties or terminated earlier as provided in the Lease, the term of this Lease shall end on April 30,2022. Either Party may terminate this lease by delivering to the other party written notice of termination 30 days prior to the date on which the Leased Premises is to be vacated."
Section 2. Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

ISTGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGEI
-tlegal
I 723ó.00000\34758656.2
Docusign Envelop€ lD: 33478974€SA4-¿5t I €50C-061 j7 4O1O7O1 cc RPR 00057005 2022TF(
IN WITNESS \ryHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment as of the date fïrst herein written above.

LESSOR:

City of Shafter,
a California municipal corporation and charter city
By:

Michael James, Acting City Manager
ATTEST:

Pallares,
LESSEE:

Amazon.com Services LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By:
cAo3F7993Ê0C¡02._
Name: Mâ Fl¿ ëFi ffì ñ
Title: ¡uthnri-ert sign¡tnry
January 3L, 2022
-2-
by:

I 723 6.00000\3475E656.2
te=,]

CONTAINER YARI)
LEASE
between
THE CITY Of,'SHAX'TER
a California municipal corporation
and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
a l)elaware limited tiability company
I 7236.00000\3,144461 8"3

1. Parties and Date. This Real Property Lease ("Lease")o effective November 11 . Z0Zt ("Effective Date"), is between the City of Shafter, a California municipal corporation and charter city ("Lessor"), with its principal place of business at336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California 93263, and.Amazon.com Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessee"), with its current principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. The Lessor and Lessee are each sometimes referred to individually as a"Paút" and collectively as the "Parties."

2. Recitals.

2.1 Lessor Property. Lessor is the owner of that real property located at 3501 So.

Driver Road, Shafter California 93263, in the County of Kern ("Property"). The Lessor Properly is cunently improved with an approximately 400 square foot modular offtce building, paving, and fencing, as described on the attached Exhibit A. During the Lease Term, Lessee will not occupy the modular office building and will not be responsible for any maintenance or repair related to the modular office, except to the extent that Lessee causes any damage.

2.2 Purpose of Lease. Lessee desires to lease the Property from Lessor and Lessor agrees to lease the Property to Lessee for due and adequate consideration, the receipt and suffrciency of which are acknowledged by the Parties and further described and set forth in this Lease, for Lessee's use as a trailer parking yard or other use approved by the Lessor in Lessor's sole and absolute discretion.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the rent, covenants and agreements contained in this Lease, Lessor and Lessee hereby covenant and agree as follows:

3. Terms.

3.1 Description of Leased Premises. Lessor hereby leases to the Lessee and Lessee leases from Lessor, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease, the Property, which consists of a modula¡ building of approximately 400 square feet ("Offiee") and approximately 4.02 acres of fenced pavement area. ("Yard') as more specifically shown on the diagram attached as Exhibit A. Together the Office and Yard may be referred hereinafter as the "Leased Premises."

3.2 Term. Unless modified in writing by the Parties or terminated earlier as provided in this Lease, the term of this Lease shall begin on the Effective Date and terminate on January 31,2022 ("Lease Term"). Either Parfy may terminate this lease by delivering to the other party written notice of termination 30 days prior to the date on which the Leased Premises is to be vacated; provided, however, and so long as I
| 7 23 6.00000\3 44M61 8.3
Lessee is not in default under this Lease, that Lessor may not terminate during the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on January 31,2022.

3.3 Lease Payrnent.
(A) Payment. The Leased Premises are leased to the Lessee for the sum $4,000.00 a month ("Lease Payment"), payable to the Lessor on the first of each montl, provided Lessor has delivered all information to Lessee in order to fulfill such payment with first month's payment made within thirty (30) days from the Effective Date. Lease Payments shall be paid to Lessor at the address to which notices to Lessor are given, or to such other person or such other place as directed from time to time by written notice to Lessee from Lessor. Lessor shall issue invoices for such monthly lease payments due to the Lessee address in this document. In the event this Lease Term commences or ends on a date other than the first or last day of a calendar month, the Lease Payment for that month shall be prorated to reflect the actual number of days during that month in the Lease Term. (B) Triple Net.It is the purpose and intent of Lessor and Lessee that the Lease Payment payable under this Section 3.3 shall be trþle net to Lessor and Lessee shall pay all costs, charges and expenses ofevery kind and nature whatsoever against the Leased Premises which may arise or become due during any term and which, except for the execution and delivery of this Lease, would or could have been payable by Lessor.

Use. The Leased Premises are leased to Lessee solely for the purpose of parking trailers or other use approved by the Lessor in Lessor's sole and absolute discretion. (A) Compliance with Lnvs. Lessee shall, at Lessee's own cost and expense, comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, md requirements of all governmental entities, both federal and state and county or municipal, including those requiring capital improvements to the Leased Premises, relating to any use and occupancy of the Leased Premises (and specifically not limited to any particular use or occupancy by Lessee), and, to the extent applicable, the Lessor Property, whether those applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and requirements are now in force or are subsequently enacted. If any license, permit, or other governmental authorization is required for the lawful use or occupancy of the Leased Premises or any portion of the Leased Premises, the Lessee shall procure and maintain it throughout the term ofthis Lease. The judgment of any court of competent jurisdictionz or the admission by Lessee in a proceeding

3.4 2
I 723 6.00000\344446 I 8.3

3.5 3.6
brought against Lessee by any government entity, that Lessee has violated any such statute, ordinance, regulation, or requirement shall be conclusive as between Lessor and Lessee and shall constitute grounds for termination of this Lease by Lessor.
(B) Prohibited Us¿s. Lessee shall not use or permit the Leased Premises or any portion of the Leased Premises to be improved, developed, used, or occupied in any manner or for any pu{pose that is in arry way in violation ofany law, ordinance, or regulation ofany federal, state, county, or local govemmental agency, body, or entity. Furthermore, Lessee shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance as now or hereafter defined by any statutory or decisional law applicable to the Leased Premises or any part of the Leased Premises.

Additional Uses. The Leased Premises may not be used for any other purpose without first obtaining the written approval of Lessor.

RenewallExtension, At or before the end of the term of this Lease, this Lease may be renewed or extended by written agreement of the Parties, provided however, nothing contained herein shall be construed as obligating either Parry to renew or extend this Lease Term.

Payment of Taxes. Lessee acknowledges that this Lease may create a taxable possessory interest in Lessee. Lessee shall pay all current, but not past due real properly taxes and assessments, general, special, ordinary, or extraordinary and improvement bond or bonds, if any (collectively, "Real Property Taxes") applicable to the Leased Premises during the term of this Lease. Lessee shall pay any and all Real Property Taxes, if any, levied or assessed and which become payable during the term hereof upon all leasehold improvements, equipment, furniture, flxtures, and any other personal property located in or about the Leased Premises. Any and all taxes and assessments and installments of taxes and assessments required to be paid by Lessee under this Lease shall be paid by Lessee at least 10 days before each such tar<, assessment, or installment of tax or assessment becomes delinquent.

Lessee shall deliver to Lessor the official original receipts that evidence the payment of any taxes, assessments, and other charges required under this Section or Lessee shall retain at its sole cost and expense for the term of this Lease a tax service to noti$ Lessor whether the taxes, assessments, and other charges have been paid by Lessee as required under this Section.
(Ð Tax Returns and Statements. Lessee shall, as between Lessor and Lessee, have the duty of attending to, preparing, making, and filing any statement,

3.7 J
I 7236.00000\3¿14446 I 8.3
retum, report, or other instrument required or permitted by law in connection with the determination, equalization, reduction, or payment of any taxes, assessments, or other charges that are or may be levied on or assessed against the Leased Premises, and any improvement located on the Leased Premises, personal property located on or in the Leased Premises or any improvements, and the leasehold estate created by this Lease. (B) Tax Hold-Harmless Clause. Lessee shall indemniS' and hold Lessor, the City of Shafter, their officers, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and volunteers and the property of Lessor, including the Leased Premises and any improvements now or hereafter located on the Leased Premises, free and harmless from any liability, loss, or damage resulting from any taxes, assessments, or other charges required by this Section 3.7 to be paid by Lessee and from all interest, penalties, and other sums imposed thereon and from any sales or other proceedings to enforce collection ofany such taxes, assessments, or other charges.
(C) Pøyment by Lessor. Should Lessee fail to pay within the time specified in this Section 3.7 any taxes, assessments, or other charges required by this Section 3.7 to be paid by Lessee, Lessor may, without notice to or demand on Lessee, pay, discharge, or adjust that tax, assessment, or other charge for the benefit of Lessee. [n that event, Lessee shall within five days of written demand by Lessor reimburse Lessor for the full amount paid by Lessor in paying, discharging, or adjusting that tax, assessment, or other charge together with interest thereon at the then-maximum legal rate from the date of payment by Lessor until the date of repayment by Lessee.

3.8 Utilities and Janitorial Services. Lessee shall pay for all utilities serving the Lessor Properfy, including all corurection fees, and related monthly service and usage charges associated with the Lessor Property. Lessee shall also pay for all janitorial services for the Lessor Property. Lessee shall pay all charges for electricity, gas, water, sewer, refuse disposal, alarm service and any related expenses relating to the Lessor Property.

3.9 Signage. Lessee may provide, with Lessor's prior written approval, at its own cost and expense, signage in a manner consistent with all applicable local laws, rules and regulations. The form and substance of the signage shall be subject to the Lessor's approval in Lessor's sole discretion.

3.10 Abandonment. The Lessee shall not vacate or abandon the Leased Premises at any time during the term of this Lease. Vacation or abandonment of the Leased 4 1 7236.00000\344446 t 8.3
Premises in violation of this Section 3.10 may be treated by Lessor as a material breach of this Lease.

3.11 Acceptance; Surrender. Lessee accepts the Leased Premises as being in good condition for Lessee's above-stated use. On expiration of the term of this Lease or earlier termination of this Lease, Lessee shall surrender the Leased Premises and al1 improvements in or on the Leased Premises to Lessor in as good, safe, and clean condition as practicable, with Lessor to determine if damage to "Office" and "Yard" is deemed above and beyond reasonable wear and tear excepted, calling for additional compensation.
3-12 No Partnership or Joint Venture. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed to render the Lessor in any way or for any purpose a partner, joint venturer, or associate in any relationship with Lessee other than that of lessor and lessee, nor shall this Lease be construed to authorize either to act as agent for the other.

3.13 Maintenance and Repair. Lessee shall maintain in good repair the Offrce. Lessor shall not be required to repair or maintain the Office or any other part of the Leased Premises. If notified by Lessor, Lessee shall complete any and all such needed repairs, maintenance and replacements within a reasonable period of time at no cost or expense to the Lessor. Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, keep the Leased Premises (including any and all improvements, alte¡ations, fixtures and fumishings not otherwise covered herein) in good ordero repair and condition at all times during any term of this Lease, provided, however, the Leased Premises is delivered to Lessee in good order. Under Lessor's supervision, subject to Lessor's prior approval, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, promptly and adequately repair all damage to the Leased Premises that occw during the Lease Term and shail replace or repair all damaged or broken fixtures and other improvements. At Lessor's option, or if Lessee fails to make such repairs or maintain the Leased Premises, Lessor may, but need not, make the repairs and replacements. On receipt of invoice from Lessor, Lessee shall pay Lessor Lessor's out-of-pocket costs incurred in connection with such repairs or maintenance plus l0 percent of such costs, to reimburse Lessor for all overhead and general conditions, fees and other costs and expenses arising from Lessor's involvement with such repairs and maintenance.

Lessee waives and releases its rights, including its rights to make repairs at Lessor's expense, under California Civil Code sections 194l-1942 or any similar law, statute or ordinance now or hereinafter in effect.
(A) Option to Terminate Lease þr Destruction Either Party shall have the right to terminate this Lease if the Leased Premises, including all improvements thereto, are destroyed by a casualty. For purposes of this Section, 5 t7 23 6.00000\3 4444 6 L 8.3
"destroyed" shall mean that the estimated repair cost of the Leased Premises, even though covered by insurance, exceeds 50 percent of the full replacement cost of the Leased Premises, including improvements thereto. (B) Application of Insurance Proceeds. Nofwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Lease, any and all fire or other insurance proceeds that become payable at any time during the term because of damage to or destruction of any improvements on the Leased Premises shall be paid to Lessee and applied by Lessee toward the cost of repairing and restoring the damaged or destroyed improvements on or about the Leased Premises.

3.14 'Waste and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment. Lessee shall not commit, or allow to be committed, any waste upon the Leased Premises, or any nuisance or other act which may disturb any other lessee or occupant of the Lessor Property. Subject to Lessor's rights following an event of default, Lessor covenants that dwing the Lease Term Lessee shall peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the Leased Premises subject to the terms, covenants, conditions, provisions and agreements contained in this Lease without interference by any persons lawfully claiming by or through Lessor.

3.15 Insurance. Lessee will carry commercial general liability insurance with a per occuüence limit of not less than $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, naming Lessor and its affiliates as additional insureds. Visit http://ualvw,amazon.corn/moi to view a memorandum of insurance as proof of Lessee's insurance coverage and limits. Additionally, Lessee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance to Lessor within two (2) weeks of the Effective Date.

Lessor and Lessee each waive any rights, of subrogation or otherwise, each may have against the other or any insurance company on account of any loss or damage occasioned to Lessor's or Lessee's respective property or any part of the Yard, arising from any risk to the extent covered by, or would have been covered by, such party's insurance.

3.16 Assumption of Risk; Exculpation of Lessor. Except as specifically provided in Section 3.18 below. Lessee assumes all risk of loss to itself, which in any manner may arise out of the use of the Leased Premises, including, to the extent applicable, the Lessor Property, under this Lease. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in this Lease other than Section 3.18 below, neither Lessor nor any of Lessor's offrcers, officials, employees, afftliates, attomeys, advisors, or agents shall have any personal liability directly or indirectly with regard to this Lease or the transaction described in this Lease, or any agreements made or entered into under or in connection with this Lease or any amendment or amendments to 6 I 723 6.00000\344446 l 8.3
any of the foregoing made at any time. If Lessee asserts any claim arising out of or in connection with this Lease or the transaction described in this Lease, Lessee's sole recourse shall be limited to an award or awards against the Lessor not exceeding the fair market value of the estate and interest of Lessor in and to the Leased Premises, as such fair market value may be determined at the time of the entering of such judgment or award. No other properties or assets of Lessor shall be subject to lely, attachment, execution, or other enforcement procedures for the satisfaction of any judgment (or other judicial process) or for the satisfaction of any other remedy of Lessee arising out of or in connection with this Lease or the transaction described in this Lease. Neither Lessor nor Lessor's ofFrcers, offrcials, employees, agents, contractors, advisors or affiliates shall have any personal liability or obligation whatsoever in connection with this Lease.

3.I7 Condemnation
(A) Total Condemnation. If during the term of this Lease, fee title to all of the Leased Premises or to all of the improvements, or the entire estate of the Lessor is taken under the power of eminent domain by any public or quasipublic agency or entity (including Lessor) ("Total Taking"), this Lease shall automatically terminate as of 12:01 AM. on whichever of the following first occurs: the date legal title becomes vested in the agency or entity exercising the power of eminent domain, or the date actual physical possession is taken by the agency or entity exercising the power of eminent domain. Thereafter, both Lessee and Lessor shall be released from all obligations under this Lease, except those specified in Section 3.17(C) below. (B) Termination for Partial Taking. Lessee may terminate this Lease upon the occrrrence of less than a Total Taking by serving written notice of termination on Lessor within 30 days after Lessee has received from Lessor or from the condemning authority written notice of an intended taking that sets forth the extent and scope of the intended taking. If Lessee elects to terminate this Lease, the effective date of termination shall be the earlier of the date of termination specified in the Lessee's notice to Lessor or the date the condemning authority takes physical possession of the portion of the Leased Premises taken by eminent domain. On termination of this Lease pursuant to this Section 3.17(B), all subleases and subtenancies in or on the Premises or any portion or pofions of the Premises created by Lessee under this Lease, if any, also shall terminate and the Leased Premises shall be delivered to Lessor free and clear ofall such subleases and subtenancies; provided, however, that Lessor may, at Lessor's option, by mailing written notice to any subtenant, allow the subtenant to attorn to Lessor and continue 7 l 7236. 00000\344446 I 8.3
its occupancy on the Leased Premises as a tenant of Lessor. On termination of this Lease pursuant to this Section 3.17(B), both Lessee and Lessor shall be released from all obligations to the other under this Lease except those specified in Section 3.17(C) below.
(C) Condemnation Award. Any compensation or damages awarded or payable because of the taking of all or any portion of the Leased Premises by eminent domain shall be allocated between Lessor and Lessee as follows:
(1) Ali compensation or damages awarded or payable for the taking by eminent domain of any land that is part of the Leased Premises or any improvements shall be paid to and be the sole property of Lessoro free and clear of any claim of Lessee or any person claiming rights to the Leased Premises through or under Lessee; provided, however, that in the event and to the extent Lessee is required under Section 3.17(CX3) below to replace any improvements or facilities or do any other acts to make any remaining portion of the Leased Premises fit for the uses specified, such compensation or damages shall be payable to Lessee and not to Lessor.
(2) Any severance damages awarded or payable because only a portion of the Leased Premises is taken by eminent domain shall be the sole and separate property ofthe Lessor.
(3) If title and possession of only a portion of the Leased Premises is taken r¡nder the power of eminent domain by any public or quasipublic agency or entity dwing the term and Lessee does not under Section 3.17(B) terminate this Lease, then this Lease shall terminate as to the portion ofthe Leased Premises taken under eminent domain as of 12:01 A.M. on whichever ofthe following first occurs: the date title is taken, or the date actual physical possession of the portion taken by eminent domain is taken, by the agency or entþ exercising the eminent domain power. Furthermore, ffiy Lease Payment payable under this Lease shall, as of that time, be reduced in the same proportion that the value of the portion ofthe Leased Premises taken by eminent domain bears to the full value of the Leased Prsmises at that time; provided, however, that Lessee shall replace any improvements or facilities with equivalent new facilities on the remaining portion of the Leased Premises and do all other acts required by the eminent domain taking to make the remaining | 7 23 6.00000ß 4444 6t 8.3
I
portion of the Leased Premises fit for the uses specified in this Lease.
(4) A voluntary conveyance by Lessor of title to all or a portion of the Leased Premises to a public or quasi-public agency or entity in lieu of and under threat by that agency or entþ to take it by eminent domain proceedings shall be considered a taking of title to all or any portion of the Leased Premises under the power of eminent domain subject to the provisions of this Section 3.17.

3.18 Indemnity
(A) Duty to Hold Harmless. Lessee shall indemniS', defend and hold Lessor, its offrcials, offrcers, employees, agents volunteers, and the property of Lessor, including the Lessor Property and any improvements now or hereafter on the Lessor Propefy, free and harmless from any and all liability, claims, loss, damages, or expenses resulting from Lessee's occupation and use of the Leased Premises, and to the extent applicable, the Lessor Property, including, without limitation, any liability, claim, loss, damage, or expense arising by reason of:
(1) The death or injury of any person, including Lessee or any person who is an employee, agent, licensee, invitee, or guest of Lessee, or by reason of the damage to or destruction of any property, including propefy owned by Lessee or by any person who is an employee, agent licensee, invitee, or guest ofLessee, from any cause whatever while that person or property is in or on the Leased Premises or in any way connected with the Leased Premises or with any of the improvements or personal property on the Leased Premises; Q) The death or injury of any person, including Lessee or any person who is an employee, agent, licensee, invitee, or guest of Lessee, or by reason of the damage to or destruction of any propefy, including property owned by Lessee or any person who is an employee, agent, licensee, invitee, or guest ofLessee, caused or allegedly caused by either (l) the condition of the Leased Premises or some building or improvement on the Leased Premises, or (2) some act or omission on the Leased Premises of Lessee ot any person in, on, or about the Leased Premises with the pemlission and consent of Lessee; 9 l 723 6.00000\3444461 8.3
(3) Any work performed on the Leased Premises or materials fumished to the Leased Premises at the instance or request of Lessee or any person or entity acting for or on behalf of Lessee;
Lessee's failure to perform any provision of this Lease or to comply with any requirement of law or any requirement imposed on Lessee or the Leased Premises by any duly authorized governmental agency or political subdivision; or
(5) Damage or injury to the Lessor Property, including the Leased Premises, and any improvements on such property, caused by Lessee or any person who is an employee, agent, licensee, invitee, or guest ofLessee.
(B) Limitation of Liabiltty. The term "Lessoro' as used in this Lease so far as covenants or obligations on the part of the Lessor are concemed shall be limited to mean and include only the owner or o\ilners at the time in question ofthe fee ofthe Leased Property and in the event ofany transfer or transfers of the title to such fee Lessor herein named (and in case of any subsequent transfers or conveyances the then grantor) shall be automatically freed and relieved from and after the date of such transfer or conveyance from all obligations on the part of Lessor contained in this Lease to be performed thereafter, provided that any prepaid rent or trust funds in the hands of such Lessor or the then grantor at the time of such transfer, shall be transferred to the grantee or transferee, who shall expressly assume, subject to the limitations of this subsection, all of the terms, covenants and conditions in this Lease contained on the part of Lessor thereafter to be performed, it being intended by this Section 3.18.1 that the covenants and obligations contained in this Lease on the part of Lessor shall, subject to the provisions of this subsection, be binding on Lessor, its successors and assigns, only during and in respect to their respective successive periods of ownership.

Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee for the satisfaction of any judgment or other award against Lessor related to this Lease to the extent such judgment or award, together with any such prior judgments or awards, exceeds the fair market value of Lessor's interest in the Leased Property at the time of the entering of such judgment or award.
(C) Indemnification of Lessee from Acts of Lessor. Lessor shall indemniff, defend, and hold Lessee harmless against, any and all liability, claims, loss, damages, or expenses for personal injury, death and property damage caused by the Lessor or its employees, offtcers, officials or agents arising (4)
I 7236.00000L344¿146 I 8.3
10 from Lessor's failure to perform its obligations under this Lease. Lessor's obligation under this Section 3.18(C) shall be limited to an amount of a judgment or award against Lessor related to this Lease that, taken together with any such prior judgments or awards against Lessor related to this Lease, does not exceed the fair market value of Lessor's interest in the Leased Property at the time of the entering of such judgment or award.

3.19 Claims or Liens. Lessee shall not suffer or permit any liens to be made or filed against the Leased Premises by reason of labor forces, services or materials supplied (or claimed to have been supplied) to Lessee, and Lessee agrees to indemniff and hold harmless the Lessor and the Lessor's property, including the Leased Premises and any improvements now or hereafter on the Lessor Property, against any such liens. If any such lien shall at any time be filed against the Lessor Property, Lessee shall, within 30 days afternotice to Lessor of the filing thereof, cause the same to be discharged of record; provided, however, that Lessee shall have the right to contest the amount or validity, in whole or in part, of any such lien by appropriate proceedings. In the event ofsuch protest, Lessee shall first notiff the Lessor and, if requested by the Lessor, Lessee shall promptly bond such lien in the manner authorized by law with a responsible surety company licensed and qualified to do business inthe State of Califomia. Lessee shall prosecute the contest of such proceedings with due diligence and at no cost or expense to the Lessor.

3.20 Encumbrances. Lessee acknowledges that Lessee shall not have the right and Lessee shall not assign, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer any portion of this Lease or any interest herein, sublet the Leased Premises or any part thereof or permit the use of the Leased Premises by any party other than Lessee without the prior written consent of Lessor, which consent may be withheld at Lessor's sole and absolute discretion. Any ofthe foregoing prohibited acts shall be void and shall, at the option of Lessor, terminate this Lease. This Lease shall not, nor shall any interest of Lessee herein, be assignable by operation oflaw without the priorwritten consent of the Lessor, in Lessor's sole, absolute and subjective discretion. Nothing, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Lease, shall prevent Lessor from exercising Lessor's right to assign, encumber, hypothecate or otherwise transfer any portion of the Leased Premises, the Lessor Property, this Lease or any interest in the foregoing.

3.21 Default and Remedies.
(A) Continuation of Lease in Effect. Should Lessee breach this Lease and abandon the Leased Premises prior to the natural expiration of the applicable term, Lessor may continue this Lease in effect by not terminating ll
I 7236.00000\34444 61 8.3
Lessee's right to possession of the Leased Premises, in which event Lessor shall be entitled to enforce all of Lessor's rights and remedies under this Lease, including the right to recover any Lease Payment specified in this Lease as it becomes due under this Lease.
(B) Termination and Unlawful Detainer. In the event of a default by Lessee under this Lease existing beyond any applicable cure period, Lessor may terminate this Lease by written notice to Lessee and:
(1) Bring an action to recover from Lessee:
(a) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid Lease Payments that had been earned at the time of termination of the Lease; (b) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid Lease Payments that would have been earned after termination of the Lease until the time of award exceeds the amount of rental loss that Lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided;
(c) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid Lease Payment for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of rental loss that Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and
(d) Any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all detriment proximately caused by Lessee's failure to perform Lessee's obligations under this Lease; and
(2) Bring an action, in addition to or in lieu of the action described in Section 3.21(BX1) above, to reenter and regain possession of the Leased Premises in the manner provided by the laws of r¡nlawful detainer of the State of California then in effect.
(C) Breach and Defoult by Lessee. All covenants and agreements contained in this Lease are declared to be conditions to this Lease and to the term hereþ leased to Lessee. Should Lessee fail to perform any covenant, condition, or agreement contained in this Lease and the default not be cured within 30 days after written notice of the default is served on Lessee by Lessor, then Lessee shall be in default under this Lease. In addition to Lessee's failure to perform any covenant, condition, or agreement contained in this Lease I 7236.00000\344446 I 8.3
T2
within the cure period permitted by this Section 3.2l(C),the following shall constitute a default by Lessee under this Lease:
(1) The appointment of a receiver to take possession of the Leased Premises, or of Lessee's interest in, to, and under this Lease, the leasehold estate or of Lessee's operations on the Leased Premises for any reason, including, without limitation, assignment for benefit of creditors or voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, when not released within 60 days;
(2) An assignment by Lessee for the benefit of creditors; or the voluntary filing by Lessee or the involuntary filing against Lessee of a petition, other court action, or suit under any law for the purpose of adjudicating Lessee a bankrupt, extending time for payment, satisfaction of Lessee's liabilities, or reorganization, dissolution, or arrangement on account of, or to prevent, bankruptcy or insolvency; provided, however, that in the case of an involuntary proceeding, if all consequent orders, adjudications, custodies, and supervisions are dismissed, vacated, or otherwise permanently stayed or terminated within 90 days afterthe filing or other initial event, then Lessee shall not be in default under this Section.
(3) The subjection of any right or interest of Lessee to or under this Lease to attachment, execution, or other levy, or to seizure under legal process when the claim against Lessee is not released within 90 days.
(D) Early Termination by Lessee; Prior Notice Required. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, Lessee may terminate this Lease at any time during the Lease Term, or any extension thereof by giving Lessor no less than 30 days' prior written notice of Lessee's intention to terminate. In the event ofthe exercise ofsuch option, Lessee shall surrender the Leased Premises to Lessor and Lessee shall pay Lessor the Rental Payment, prorated on a daily basis, up to and including the termination date set forth in Lessee's written termination notice.
(E) Breach by Lessor. Lessee's sole remedy on Lessor's default, after 30 days written notice to Lessoro and failure of Lessor to cure such default within a reasonable time as provided in Lessee's written notice, is an action for actual damages or injunctive relief.

I 723 6.00000\344446 1 8.3
13 3.22 Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder ofthe provisions hereof shall remain in full force and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.

3.23 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any action or proceeding (including, without limitation, any bankruptcy proceeding) to enforce or construe any of the provisions of this Lease, the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.

3.24 Waiver. The waiver by either Party of the breach of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of that or any other provision.

3.25 Binding on Successors. This Lease shall apply to and be biding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of the Parties hereto.

3.26 Captions. The various headings contained herein and the grouping of the provisions ofthis Lease into separate paragraphs are for the purpose ofconvenience only and shall not be considered in interpreting the provisions of this Lease.

3.27 Notices.
(Ð Any and all notices which are required under the terms and conditions of this Lease or which either Lessor or Lessee desire to serve upon the other, shall be in writing and shall be deemed served when (i) deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (ii) deposited into the custody of a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, addressed to the party to be notified at the address for such party as specified below, or to such other address as each party may designate from time to time no less than thifty (30) days' advance written notice of such change in address.