Shafter City Council
June 7, 2022

EAST SHAFTER .PROPOSED FRANGHISE COLLECTION RATES

FOR SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING SERVICES
The City has franchise agreements with American Refuse and Varner Bros for the collection and handling of Solid Waste Service in certain portions of the City known as East Shafter. Commercial customers are billed directly by the haulers, while the City bills residential customers individually through the property tax roll. The rate structure for monthly Solid Waste Service rates has three customer classes: residential, commercial, and roll-off. The rates imposed on each customer class are determined by the size of the container (in cubic yards or gallons) serving the property; the type of container (e.9., solid waste, recycling, or green/organic waste) serving the property; and the frequency of pickups. The franchise agreements need to be amended to comply with the SB 1383 mandates and organic waste requirements. The rates listed in this notice reflect the rates proposed for the updated franchise agreements.

EAST SHAFTER PROPOSED RATES TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1.,2022 COMMERCIAL RATESffi

MIXED RECYCLING CONTAINERS MIXED RECYCLING MONTHLY RATE

CONTAINER SCHEDULE
96 GAL BI-WEEKLY
]-.5 YD WEEKLY
3 YD WEEKLY

ORGANICS CONTAINERS
CONTA¡NER SCHEDULE

1..96 GAL ]-X PER WEEK

1.3YD lX PER WEEK
1- - 3YD 2X PER WEEK
ADD - 96 GAL ].X PER WEEK
ADD - 3YD ].X PER WEEK

CONTAINER
1_.5 CY/300 cAL
3CY

CURRENT PROPOSED
$16.37 $17.10 $62.s9 $6s.36 $99.72 $104.r-3
ORGANICS MONTHLY RATE cuRRENr ":iis:if"
$562.34
$43.47
$365.80

REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION RATES
IX'WK 2X,WK

CURRENT PROPOSED CURRENT PROPOSED
$123.r_6 $128.62 $1_91.87 $200.36 $1_87.40 $1_95.69 $279.55 $291.92

CONTAINER

1.5 cY/300 GAL
3CY
4X,WK
CURRENT PROPOSED $329.27 $343.84 $463.86 $484.39
5X'WK
CURRENT PROPOSED $397.97 $415.s9 $ss6.01 $s80.62
$26.62
$r-3.s3
$9.48
$s.20

CURRENT
$292.41
$247.93
$r.34.99
$162.90
$357.60
3X,WK
CURRENT PROPOSED $260.s6 $272.rO $37r_,70 $388.15
6X,WK

CURRENT PROPOSED
$466.66 $487.32
$648.r-6 $676.8s
$1.71
$29.s0
$14.1_3
$9.90
$5.43

PROPOSED
$30s.3s
$2s8.90
$140.96
$r-70.1_1
$373.43

RESIDENTIAL RATES
CONTAINER* SCHEDULE
THREE.CART SET BASE RATE REFUSE WEEKLY

ORGANICS WEEKLY

MIXED BI-WEEKLY

RECYCLING SURCHARGE
TOTAL

ADDITIONAL REFUSE CART WEEKLY

ADDITIONAL ORGANICS CART WEEKLY

ADDITONAL MIXED WASTE CART BI-WEEKLY
*All tes¡denl¡al conta¡ners arc 96 gallons

ROLLOFF SERVICE
Per Dump*
Rental Per Month**
Delivery
Per Hour Charge
Compactor Dump*
*Add¡t¡onal per ton gate Íees apply at county lildl¡ils. * Monthly rcntal may be prcrcted fot petiods iess than one month. # Rates lisled do not ¡nclude county gate fees collected lot d¡sposed or d¡version prcgÍams.

MONTHLY RATE

CURRENT PROPOSED
$26.62 $27.79

CORE CITY RESIDENTAL .PROPOSED FRANCHISE COLLECTION RATES

FOR SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING SERVCES
The City Council authorized awarding an exclusive franchise agreement for Core City Residential services to American Refuse to collect and handle Solid Waste Service for single-family households in a portion of the City known as the Core City, as depicted in the Service Area Map included with this notice. Most single-family properties in the Core City service area currently receive refuse or trash collection services from City crews, with trash charges included with service billing for water and wastewater services. A "síngle-family property" assumes service to a one-unit residential dwelling. The current trash collection rates are flat and based on the container collection location, either in an alley or street.

All residents must now receive three carts for specific types of waste - trash, mixed recyclables, and organics. ln addition, the new Solid Waste Service rates with the annual adjustment will cover the cost of implementing state-mandated programs and services, including the SB 1383 mandates.

The City will continue to provide trash collection services until American Refuse is ready to provide Solid Waste Service. The City anticipates that all residential customers will switch from a trash-only service to a three-cart service by American Refuse within one year, with the rates set forth in this notice applying at that time. Once residents receive new containers from American Refuse, their City utility bills will be updated to include the new service rates.

CORE CITY RESIDENTS PROPOSED RATE INCREASES MONTHLY RATE SERVICE

MINIMUM SERVICES
SINGLE.FAMILY

DWELLING SERVICE SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Refuse Collection Twice Weekly
Alley Service 90-Gallon Street Container
300-Gallon Shared Alley Container
Refuse & Organics Once Weekly
Street Service Bi-Weekly Mixed Recycling
All 96-Gallon Containers

SPECIAL SERVICES
Extra 96-Gallon Refuse Cart
Extra 96-Gallon Recycling Cart
Extra 96-Gallon Organics Cart

ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Return for Missed Collection
Cart Replacement

PER DWELLING

EXISTING PROPOSED
To Be
$16.74 Discontinued
$28.96 $26.ss

MONTHLY SERVICE RATE

PER DWELLING
$8.1L
$6.44
$8.11

FEE PER OCCURRENCE
$L7.25
$86.25
CORE CITY COMMERCIAL.PROPOSED FRANCHISE COLLECTION RATES

FOR SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING SERVCES
The City has an exclusive franchise agreement with American Refuse for the collection and handling of Solid Waste Service in a certain port¡on of the City known as the Core City for commercial customers. Commercial customers include businesses and multi-family residential complexes classified as commercial accounts by the State of California. The monthly Solid Waste Service rate structure within the Core City has three primary customer classes: multi-family residential, commercial, and roll-off.

The rates imposed on each customer class are based on the size of the container (in cubic yards or gallons) serving the property, the type of container (e.9., solid waste, recycling, or green/organic waste), and the frequency of pickups. American Refuse bills its commercial customers directly while some multi-family residential units are billed for service by the City. The franchise agreement needs to be amended to comply with the SB 1383 mandates and organic waste requirements. The rates listed in this notice reflect the rates proposed for the updated franchise agreements.

Cot'tt'd CORE CITY COMMERCIAL-PROPOSED FRANCHISE COLLECTION RATES FOR SOLID WASTE & RECYCL¡NG SERVCES

CURRENT COLLECTIONS PER WEEK & MONTHLY RATES PER UNIT
MULTI.FAMILY WEEKLY REFUSE &
BI.WEEKLY MIXED RECYCLING
$24.s0

CURRENT

CONTAINER
96-Gallon Cart Refuse
L.5 CY Refuse
3 CY Refuse
96-Gallon Cart Recycling

1.5 CY Recycling
3 CY Recycling
6 CY Recycling
96-Gallon Cart Organ¡cs

1.5 CY Organics

EFFECTIVE DATE
JULY L,2022
MULTI.FAMILY WEEKLY REFUSE & ORANICS

PLUS BI-WEEKLY MIXED RECYCLING

COMMERCIAL & ROLL-OFF
JULY L,2022

CONTAINER
96-Gallon Cart Refuse

1.5 CY Refuse
3 CY Refuse
96-Gallon Cart Recycling

1.5 CY Recycling
3 CY Recycling
6 CY Recycling
96-Gallon Cart Organics
l-.5 CY Organics
COLLECTIONS PER WEEK & MONTHLY RATES***
L23456

COLLECTIONS PER WEEK & MONTHLY RATES PER UNIT
$25.07
COLLECTIONS PER WEEK & MONTHLY RATES*
$23.21
$69.6L
$r-39.23
$10.4s
$3r-.37
$62.74
$r.2s.49
$31.37
$94.12
L
$24.00
$7r-.97
$143.9s
$10.80
$32.43
$64.87
$L29.74
$32.43
$97.31-
$46.41-
$133.48
$247.69
$20.92
$62.74
$12s.49
$250.96
$62.74
$188.22
2 $47.98
$138.00
$2s6.09
$21.63
$64.87
$L29.74
$2s9.47
$67.87
$194.60
X
X
$329.34
X
X
$r.88.22
$376.4s
X
$282.34
X
X
s4LL.77
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$494.4s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$s78.08
X
X
X
X
X
X
3 X
X
$340.s0
X
X
$194.60
$389.21
X
$29r-.91
456
XXX
XXX
s42s.73 $5r-r-.2L $s97.68 XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

PROPOSED RATES AND EFFECTIVE DATES

ROLL OFF & SPECIAL SERVICES
Account Restart Fee
Bin Delivery Fee (Except New Service)
Cart Replacement
Cart Redelivery Fee
Certification (Customer Required)
Gravity Bin Service Fee (Per Month)
lndividually Dispatched Bin Service (Per Visit)
Extra Cart Service (Per Pickup)
lndividually Dispatched Bin Service (Per Visit)
lnstallGravity Lock
Manually Rolling Bins (Per Month)
Packer Truck Rental (Per Hour)
Residential Walk-in Service Per Visit
Bulky ltem (Per Pick-up)
RollOff Per Dump
RollOtf Rental Per Dump
RollOff Delivery
RollOff Per Hour Charge
RollOff Compactor Dump

CURRENT
$28.7s
$57.s0
$r.09.2s
$28.75
$46.00
$8.45
$4r_.40
$23.00
$86.25
$172.50
$8.0s
$178.2s
$3.74
$s.7s
$262.49
$222.s6
$r-21.18
$146.23
$32L.01
JULY 1.,2022
$29.72
$s9.45
$112.9s
$29.72
$47.s6
$8.74
$42.80
$23.78
$89.1-7
$178.3s
$8.32
$184.29
$3.87
$5.94
$27r-.39
$230.10
$r.25.29
$15L.19
$331.89 Page 4

SERVICE AREA MAP
N
**'
$
sltAftEn #
Trash Fee Areas
ff stratter City Limits
City Core
I eastShafter
-
Road
g
g
t¡
rRESt{O
LOS
d, f
ê
o
À
7T}I SÍAI{DARD
r,0Ì
TTII sTA'TOARD

PROPOSED RATE ADJUSTMENT POLICY
The proposed annual adjustment, excluding special charges, will be subject to a "Rate Adjustment Fadof' based on a "Consumer price lndex for Trash and Garbage Component" which is annually adjusted. The RAF will be assessed every f¡scalyear and based on the previous calendalyear as noted-æLthe fqllowing methodologyj.

STEP 1: Determine the "Rate Adjustment Factor" or "RAF". The RAF shall be the annual percentage change of the CPI for Garbage and Trash Collection, rounded to the nearest tenth percent. The Rate Period will be a l2-month pe¡Sd-basetl on calendar yg'commencing Jan uary-! conclgdilg Decem ber 31. . Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI for All Urban Consumers, Garbage and Trash Collection, Series lD:
cuuR0000sEHG02 (https://data.bls.govitimeseries/cuu R0000sEHG02) STEP 2: Calculate the adjusted Rate, rounded to the nearest cent, for each Rate as follows:
. Adjusted Rate = Current Rate x (L + RAF)
Rates for Solid Waste Service will also be annually adjusted for changes in tip fees charged by the solid waste facilities that receive and process waste generated in Shafter. These formula adjustments will occur beginning July 1, 2023, and every July 1 thereafter, through and including July L, 2026.ln no event will the annual adjustment resulting from the pass-throughs discussed in this paragraph exceed 100/o in any year.

CITY OF
S}IAFTER

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Regarding Proposed Increases to Rates for
Solid Waste Collection Service

CITY OF SHAFTER
336 PACIFIC AVENUE
SHAFTER, CA 93263
RESOLUTION NO.2867

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER ADOPTING RATE INCREASES FOR SOLID \üASTE COLLECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Shafter (the "City") is authorized to fix and collect charges for the provision of solid waste services, and currently provides such services through the combination of the City and franchises; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary to impose new, increased or modified rates for its solid waste service charges (collectively herein, the "Charges") to comply with new state organic waste diversion mandates pursuant to regulations implementing Senate Bill (SB) 13S3 and expand franchise services to Core City residents; and WHEREAS, the City has exclusive franchise agreements with Varner Brothers, Inc., and American Refuse, Inc. to provide solid waste services in East Shafter, and an exclusive franchise agreement with American Refuse, Inc. to provide solid waste services to commercial customers in the Core City and the service areas are depicted in Exhibit A; and \ilHEREAS, the new rate structure for solid waste collection in East Shafter has three customer classes - residential commercial and roll-off; and the Core City Shafter has two customer classes - single-family residential and commercial (including multi-family residential, roll-off, and special services); and
WHEREAS, the rate structure for refuse, recycling and organics collection is based on the container size, type ofservice, and frequency ofcollection; and \ilHEREAS, the City Council now desires to establish and impose the Charges as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, and to further approve annual Pass Through Adjustments to the Charges , commencing July 1,2023, and each July 1 through and including July 1,2026, pursuant to the formula set forth in Exhibit B hereto, provided that: (1) any increase in the rates as a result of any Pass Through Adjustment shall be based on the formula set forth in Exhibit C; (2) any such increase shall not exceed l0o/o per year; and (3) in no event shall such rates increased as a result of any Pass Through Adjustment be more than the cost of providing solid waste collection services; and
WHEREAS, the revenues derived from the Charges will not exceed the funds required to provide the solid waste services and shall be used exclusively for the provision of solid waste collection services; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the Charges will not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to each parcel upon which they are proposed for imposition; and \ilHEREAS, the Charges will not be imposed on a parcel unless the solid waste services are actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the parcel; and WHEREAS, the City, has determined that this Resolution is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") review under Public Resources Code section Shafter City Council Resolution 2867
June 7,2022
Page2
210S0(bX8) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15273 because the Charges are necessary and reasonable to fund the administration, operation, maintenance, and improvements of the solid waste collection system as required to maintain existing services; and WHEREAS, California Constitution article XIII D, section 6 ("Article XIII D") requires that prior to imposing any increase to the Charges, the City shall provide written notice (the "Notice") by mail of the proposed increases to the rates for the Charges to the record owner of each parcel upon which the rate increases to the Charges are proposed for imposition and any tenant directly liable for payment of such Charges (collectively herein referred to as "customers"), the amount of the rates for the Charges proposed to be imposed on each parcel, the basis upon which the rates for the Charges were calculated, the reason for the rate increases to the Charges, and the date time and location of a public hearing (the "Hearing") on the proposed rate increases to the Charges; and
\ilHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIII D such Notice is required to be provided to the affected customers not less than 45 days prior to the Hearing on the proposed rate increases; and WHEREAS, the City did provide such Notice to the affected customers in compliance with Article XIII D; and
\ilHEREAS, the Hearing was held on this day, June 7,2022; and \ilHEREAS, at the Hearing the City Council heard all oral testimony, and considered all written materials and written protests concerning the establishment and imposition of the proposed rate increases to the Charges, and at the close of the Hearing the City did not receive written protests against the establishment and imposition of the proposed rate increases to the Charges from a majority of the record owners or property upon which the Charges are proposed for imposition or any tenants directly liable for the payment of the Charges (i.e., a customer of record who is not a property owner); and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to establish and impose the proposed Charges; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution shall supersede all other previous resolutions and ordinances that may conflict with, or be contrary to, this Resolution respecting the rates for Charges described more particularly herein.

NO\il THEREFORE, THE CITY COTNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Incorporation of Recitals: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

2. Inconsistencv with other Rates or Charges: To the extent any Charges established by this Resolution are inconsistent with any Charges previously adopted by the City Council, it is the explicit intention of the City Council that the Charges adopted pursuant to this Shafter City Council Resolution 2867
June 7,2022

Resolution shall prevail

3. CEQA: The City Council hereby finds that the administration, operation, maintenance, and improvements of the refuse system, which are to be funded by the Charges, are necessary to maintain solid waste services within the City's existing service area. The City Council further finds that such Charges are necessary and reasonable to fund the administration, operation, maintenance, and improvements of the solid waste collection system. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby determines that this Resolution is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(S) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15273(a). The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at 336 Pacific Avenue, City of Shafter, California 93263. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City.

4. Rates for Solid Waste Service Charges: The City Council hereby adopts the Charges for solid waste services within the locations and at the maximum rates, and on the effective dates set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

5. Pass Through Adjustments: The City Council hereby approves and authorizes and directs the City Manager to annually implement any Pass Through Adjustments for a five-year period commencing July I,2023, and each July I through and including July 1,2026, pursuant to the formula set forth in Exhibit C hereto, provided, however, that: (l) any increase in the rates as a result of any Pass Through Adjustment shall be based on the formula set forth in Exhibit C; (2) shall not exceed l\Yo per year; and (3) in no event shall such rates increased as a result of any Pass Through Adjustment be more than the cost of providing solid waste collection services.

6. Notice ofExemption: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to file aNotice of Exemption with the County Clerk for the County of Kern within hve (5) working days of the date of the adoption of this Resolution.

7. Authorization: The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to implement and take all actions necessary to effectuate the rates for the Charges set forth in this Resolution.

8. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, ineffective by a.,y court of competentjurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

9. Effective Date: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Shafter City Council Resolution 2867
Jlune7,2022

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June,2022
Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST:

Y azmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Martinez,City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2867

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE AREA MAP
N
*+
Trash Fee Areas
fJ strafter City Limits
Ci$ Core
I EastShafter
-
Road
S}IAFTER #
\
\
l- L
\
TRESNO
qU
g
a¡
IU[ARE
\
Los
al{GEtËs
lôÞ^ñaF
c
À
I
d
ry
G
I
6 7ÏH STAÍ{DÂRD
t!t
7TH STÂÍIDARD
RESOLUTION NO.2867

EXHIBIT B

MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES
East Shafter Commercial Rates
East Shafter Roll-off Rates
*Additionøl per ton gatefees apply at County landfills. **Monthly rental may be proratedfor periods less than one month.

COMMERCIAL REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION RATES

CONTAINER SCHEDULE AND MONTHLY RATES
1X/WK 2XlWK 3)(/wK 4XAilK 5)VWK 6X/WK
I.5 CY/3OO GAL s128.62 $200.36 s272.t0 s343.84 s415.59 s487.32 3CY $19s.69 s291.92 $3 88.1 5 $484.39 s580.62 $676.85

COMMERCIAL DIVERSION SERVICE COLLECTION RATES

MIXED RECYCLING

CONTAINER SCHEDULE MONTHTLY RATE
96 GAL BI-WEEKLY $r7. l0

1.5 YD IWEEKLY $6s.36
3YD WEEKLY $104.13

ORGANICS

CONTAINER SCHEDULE MONTHTLY RATE
I- 96 GAL lX PERWEEK $48.97
I-3YD lX PER WEEK s376.80
I-3YD 2X PER WEEK 8s62.34
ADD-96 GAL IX PER WEEK s43.47
ADD- 3YD IX PER WEEK s36s.80

ROLLOFF SERVICE MONTHLY RATE
PER DUMP* $305.3s
RENTAL PER MONTH** s258.90
DELIVERY $140.96
PERHOURCHARGE $l70.ll
COMPACTORDUMP* s373.43
East Shafter Residential Rates

THREE-CART SET BASE RATE
CONTAINER* SCHEDULE

MONTHLY
RATE

REFUSE WEEKLY
ORGANICS WEEKLY $27.79

MIXED BI-WEEKLY
RECYCLING SURCHARGE $ 1.71
TOTAL 829.s0
ADD REFUSE V/EEKLY $14.l3
ADD ORGANICS WEEKLY $9.90
ADD MIXED BI-WEEKLY $s.43
*All residential containers are 96 gallons
Core City Commercial Rates

SERVICE MONTHLY RATES PERUNIT

MULTI-FAMILY WEELKY

REFUSE & ORGANICS PLUS

BI-WEEKLY MIXED

RECYCLING
s2s.07

SERVICE

COLLECTIONS PER WEEK & MONTHLY RATES
1 a 3 4 5 6

96.GAL CART REFUSE $24.00 $47.98 x x X X
I.5 CY REFUSE 971.97 $138.00 X X x X
3 CY REFUSE $143.95 $2s6.09 $340.s0 $42s.73 $s11.21 $s97.68 96-GAL CART RECYCLING $10.80 s21.63 x x x x
I.5 CY RECYCLING s32.43 $64.87 x x x X
3 CY RECYCLING $64.87 st29.74 $194.60 X X X
6 CY RECYCLING $129.74 s2s9.47 s389.2r X X x
96-GAL CART ORGANICS s32.43 $64.87 x X x x

1.5 CY ORGANICS $97.31 $194.60 s29t.9t x x x

ROLL-OFF & SPECIAL SERVICES RATE PER SERVICE
ACCOLINT RESTART FEE s29.72
BIN DELIVERY FEE (EXCEPT NEW SERVICE) s59.4s
CARTREPLACEMENT $112.95
CART REDELIVERY FEE 829.72
CERTIFICATION (CUSTOMER REQUIRED) s47.s6
GRAVITY BIN SERVICE FEE (PERMONTH) $8.74

INDIVIDUALLY SCHEDULED BIN SERVICE
IPER VISIT) $42.80
EXTRA CART SERVICE (PERPICKUP) $23.78

INDIVIDUALLY DISPATCHED BIN SERVICE
æERVISIT) $89. l7
INSTALL GRAVITY LOCK s178.35
MANUALLY ROLLING BINS (PER MONTH) $8.32
PACKER TRUCK RENTAL (PER HOUR) $184.29
RESIDENTIAL WALK.IN SERVICE PER VISIT s3.87
BULKY ITEM (PERPICKUP) $s.94
ROLL-OFF PERDUMP 9271.39
ROLL-OFF RENTAL PER DUMP s230.r0
ROLL-OFF DELIVERY s12s.29
ROLL-OFF PER HOUR CHARGE $ls 1.l9
ROLL-OFF COMPACTOR DUMP s331.89
Core Citv Residential Rates

SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING SERVICE

BASE SERVICES

MONTHLY SERVICE RATE

PER DWELLING

WEEKLY REFUSE & ORGANICS

BI-WEEKLY MIXED RECYCLING
(ALL 96-GALLON CONTAINERS)
$26.55

SPECIAL SERVICES

MONTHLY SERVICE RATE

PER DWELLING
EXTRA 96-GALLON REFUSE CART $8.1 1
EXTRA 96-GALLON RECYCLING CART s6.44
EXTRA 96-GALLON ORGANICS CART $8.1 1

ADDITIONAL CHARGES FEE PER OCCURRENCE
RETURN FOR MISSED COLLECTION st7.2s
CART REPLACEMENT $86.2s
RESOLUTION NO.2867

EXHIBIT C

PASS THROUGH ADJUSTMENT FORMULA

RATE ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY
The adjustment to the Rates will be made using the following methodology:

Step 1: Determine the "Rate Adjustment Factor" or "RAF". The RAF shall be the annual perôentage change of the CPI for Garbage and Trash Collection, rounded to the nearest tenth percent and measured on a calendar year basis.
o Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI for All Urban Consumers, Garbage and Trash Collection, Series ID: CUUR0000SEHG02
(https ://data.bls. gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEHGO2)
Step 2: Calculate the adjusted Rate, rounded to the nearest cent, for each Rate as follows:
o Adjusted Rate: Then-current Rate x (1 + RAF)
Rates for Solid W'aste Service will also be annually adjusted for changes in tip fees charged by the solid waste facilities that receive and process waste generated in Shafter. These formula adjustments will occur beginning July 1, 2023, and every Julyl thereafter, through and including July 1, 2026.In no event will the annual adjustment resulting from the pass-throughs discussed in this paragraph exceed l0%o in any year.

SHAFTER
"# City of Shafter

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June7,2022
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez,City Manager
Prepared By: Suzanne Forrest, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 6613, 661 4, 67 04, 67 83, 69 10, 7 007, 7 052, 7 07 2, and 7 207

RECOMMENDATION
Council conduct a public hearing; find the City of Shafter adopted the applicable Negative Declarations and/or CEQA exemptions were approved for the maps when they were initially approved, therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; adopt Resolution 2865, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter approving a two (2) year Legislative Extensions of time in accordance with Government Code Section 66452.26, for Tentative Tract Nos. 6613, 6614,6704,6783,6910,7007,7052,7072, and7207 at various locations within the City of Shafter as illustrated in Exhibit A; and subject to the applicable conditions approved by the City Council on the respective approval dates for each map.

BACKGROUND
Government Code Section 66452.26 became effective on January l, 202I and authorized a 24- month extension of time for active residential subdivision maps approved between January 1,2006 and July II,2013. Unlike previous extensions oftime approved by the State Legislature that were effective without additional action required by the local jurisdiction, implementation of the current extension requires approval by the local legislative body before the qualiffing subdivision maps can be extended.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
Shafter currently has the following nine maps that meet the criteria for the legislative extension:

Tentative Map # Original Map Approval Date Current Expiration Date July 7,2007
September 19,2006
March 7,2006
July 1,2008
November 7,2006
November 21,2006
July 17,2022
March 19,2023
March 7,2023
July 1,2023
Ill4ay 7,2023
}l4ay 21,2023
Expiration Date with Gov
Code $66452.26
Extension
July 17,2024
March 79,2025
March 7,2025
July 1,2025
li4ay 7,2025
Ill4ay 21,2025
6613
6614
6704
6783
6910
7007
PUBLIC HEARING 2
Legislative Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map Nos. 6613,6614,6704,6783,6910,7007,7052,7072, and 7207
7052
7072
7207
September 18,2007
July 17,2007
August 18, 2009
September 18,2022
Ju.ly 17,2022
August 18,2023
September 18,2024
July 17,2024
August 18,2025
Although the legislative extension went into effect in January 2021, the maps that qualified for the legislative extension were not due to expire until2022. Several maps are now approaching their expiration dates and rather than require the individual map owners to request Council approval of the extension, Staff has initiated a request to approval all the extensions as a single project. If any of the above-listed maps has not been recorded by the new expiration dates, the owners would be able to apply for any remaining discretionary extensions of time applicable to the individual map prior to the map expiring.

The Planning Commission considered the proposed extension of time at the May 10,2022 hearing.

After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the two-year legislative extensions of time for Tentative TractNos.6613, 6614,6704, 6783,6910,7007,7052,7072, and7207 located at various locations within Shafter, subject to the applicable conditions approved by the City Council on the respective approval dates for each map.

CEQA
The environmental impacts of the individual subdivision were addressed at the time the original map was approved. The approvals were as follows:

Tentative Tract 6613 - Negative Declaration adopted on July 17 ,2007 per Resolution No. 07-1935
Tentative Tracts 6614 (residential lotting map) and 7007 (financing map) - A residential project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), i.e., exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, pursuant to Califomia Government Code Section 65457. The project is within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified for the 2005 City of Shafter General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029) and the Addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report per Resolution No. 06-1889. The certified Program EIR adequately describes the activity of the residential development proposed in Tentative Tract Nos. 6614 and 7007 as adopted in the Orchard Park Specific Plan per Ordinance 06-583. Tentative Tract No. 6614 was approved on September 19,2006 per ResolutionNo. 1890 and Tentative TractNo. 7007 was approved on November 1 1, 2006 per Resolution No. I 898.

Tentative Tract6704 -Negative Declaration adopted on March 7,2006 per ResolutionNo. 06-t823
Tentative Tract 6783 - Negative Declaration adopted on July 1, 2008 per Resolution No. 08-1994
Tentative Tract 6910 - Negative Declaration adopted on November 7 ,2006 per Resolution No.06-1895
Tentative Tract 7052 - Negative Declaration adopted on September 18, 2007 per Resolution No. 07-1946
Tentative Tract7072 - Negative Declaration adopted on July 17,2007 per Resolution No. 07-1936
o
a
a
a
o
Legislative Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map Nos. 6613,6614,6704,6783,6910,7007,705207072' and 7207
a Tentative Tract 7207 - Negative Declaration adopted on August 18, 2009 per Resolution No.09-2056
Therefore, no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for an extension of time for the respective maps.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact directly resulting from the extension of the tentative maps. The approval may allow the development of the residential developments in the future. Development of residential projects typically result in increased one-time building related revenues and annual property tax revenues. These revenues are generally offset by the increased ongoing costs of providing services to the newly developed properties.

ALTERNATIVES
If approval of the legislative extension of time is not approved by your Council, the owners of the maps will not receive an additional two years to keep the maps active and available for development. All of the maps have at least one additional two-year discretionary extension of time available, however, once all discretionary extensions have been exhausted, the maps will expire.

ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT
Tentative Tract Location Map
Tentative Truct 6613
Tentative Tract 6614
Tentative Tract 6704
Tentative Tract 6783
Tentative Tract 6910
Tentative Tract7007
Tentative Tract7052
Tentative Tract7072
Tentative Tract7207
Resolution No. 2865
I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
ll
VARIOUS TRACTS - EXTENSION OF TIME PER GOV CODE SECTION 66452.26 4t21t2022,2.47"33 PM 1"36,112

0.25 0.5 'I mi
0 0.4 0.8 1.6 km
Copyright nearmap 2015 City of Shafter, California State Parks, Esri, HERE,Garmin, Safecraph, GeoTechnologies. Inc, |\/ETUNASA, USGS, Bureau of City of Shafter
EXHIBIT 1
Road Centerlines Highway
Arterial Shafter City Limits ^r tçr ror Local
-
Collector
6407
6614i
I
&
7072
7007
i,.jl :;
L
I
cf) r(o(o
CO@f-(o
ft
t
q\
I lLÆ:l 'úA I
IflIIITE
ruffi
FryF ffiFMIIIIIF f]]]]]ru
N.r
rïn
ffiffi f,ffiffi ffiffiffi+ilútr1--r-Tr
b#(\- F*ml
\
L
ffiEr{Jo tt
ll
{_
Thr
L] t
m
;j
-]
L
7072
IEIE
-l
ll
t
.l
L
t{

TENTATIVE
TRACT No.6613
1G1SHEft
PORTER. ROBERTSON
ENGINERIre & $RVEYIG IXC.

FüSî3tiM
ff a1 d*É MAPOFlNSSl@WNlæN,rN ÊgMA'3MI3.FMDINTÆædft @WEffi, NærñrNffst5,rcNHPZffi,reãW.M 0&o leRoN, tNf E cd G sffiäffi 6R, gÂE OF 1¡
¡!
16 I
46'
I
þ
MINERAT RIGHIS OV/¡IERSHIP
I
II
IIII
W re&M wl ¿lÐß6sfüLM
NMRßM IMMM muqw $v5&
PMR,ffi ql6lÆ¡^w wÀú3w 9'&W{snwÆ&tr lÉæSWIdEçmM I¡¡M.CANI ros #slOAW¿J¡]N Tß*mÂW sm û 963 7{.ffi
l5
LUT ] I OI SÀLES
OT KIRN COUN'II IANO COMPÁNY ''IAP
{ÀPN. No.2ao-290-O2)
fRÀCf õr;90
W&ATd S&kNAW s mM0 ca 90 Þ6ÈW
?frôMAM EN. O 9l&
cm* mE 5m &M msl NÉ ffimcs3
{M[M&rdIN)
sMAmÞffi P,tû4M ffiu q 9lu
m2m v úlM vAmÀ ú gts 8-2Sm
5$S PF Þ,t1. ño. l@96
MMSSINÆ
¿ür*dlñ s6¡MLm
[ntwm9t6{æ-¡tm, ù s73 {mNl¡ÆþrÚN}
r dmrñF 9M'MÌÉSW
¿B3
o 3Ì
-d:
2 1r. d3ilo M ffi ¡ffi 6 E !Oß(S,ú íS)
l5 r
ooRdfR
- át!, el'e: ffi(t(fr6sD.) ß(ffiNsJ ¿i w/ 5.C \{Dl 92'RIGHT-OF-WAY (Ð--¡sslNcElfssrBEÅi-sEc!** I LEGÉNT)
c/L
\2
+ rsmrMEs
M "a'@ è@ñ8 f/ td w sEaLK
52, RIGÈIT-OF-WÂY ffi
@ Roæsürfd{
KERN
EUZÆE'IH
MMMY AßN
ÀNNISÍ'í]N NO- 79 ÀNt T:MÀTIIT ]]I;\CT MAP 67¿3 Pl,^ññtN(ì Dttfl Dr{c M¡p Ápphtcd |ty Clly Coús.il D¡rc fJ! J? 2æ+ WÞACT ûDER @M,
{-Nil
I
T
46'RIGHT-OF-WAY
-'"*-f-""x;"¡;; **:¿ ry.? ñ-1ã
@_sBeH--sBEEI-sEaq#
SCALã: 1 ":1 OO' :

MCINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 2r ' ','
1J
11Ê!
ti"ltåa
IãllI:¡!r
d

ORCHARD
PARK
ALTERNATIVE STREET NAMES: 1. APRICOT 2. PLUM 3. MAHOGANY 4. RG 5. SEQUOIA 6. ORCHARDjl OF LOTS: 432fOF BUILDABLE LOTS: 431APPROX. LOTS/ACRES: 3

TENTATIVE
TRACT
ôô14
ffiNUm
cs-1
ç16$m
Æ&ffi
uT8013700
3t
o
É^<t
É,--L<H
t'2
=zez
I
=
Åt
L_
7 1"¡100'

SITE PLAN
)
_l
W
ßEYOt¡D
IADEÀ C e$97
ttf¡rd.rEcfl
DATE SUBMITTED: 8/17106PRËPARED FOR:

SAGE SHAFTER I, LLC

INDEX OF SHEETS
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 6614

ORCHARD PARK
TO B€ SITPLETC¡{TED BY STAIDARD PLAI{8 ATO
8TA¡ùARD SPECãCAÎoiß oF n€ cffY oF Stl FTERDAÎED .tiE, 200C GENERAL NOTES¡
1O3 ACRES)
GÊ{ËRALÐosnt{G
sP - SPECÍ|C Pt r{
SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.SHEET NO.SHEET NO.

SHEET NO.

1. 2.3.

4.5.6. 7.

8.9.10.11. 12.'t 5.

14. 15.

16. lIlLE AND LOCAÏONSITE PLAN (NW CORNER)
SIÌ€ PLAN (NE CORNER)SITE PLAN (SW CORNER)

SITE PLAN (SE CORNER)

GRADING PLAN (NW CORNER)GRADING PLAN (NE CORNER)

GRADING PLAN (SW CORNER)GRADING PLAN (SE CORNER)UTILITY PLAN (NW CORNER) uTrLrTY PLAN (NE CORNER)UTLITY PLAN (SW CORNER)
U1ILITY PLAN (SE CORNER)LINE AND CUR\€ TABLESDETAIL SHEET #IDETAIL SHEET #2 POIJCE SIIAFIÊR P.O. FRE KERN COI'{TY F.D.WAIER OTY OF S}IAFIEn sÊxR olY oF SlllFlER FOER PAC¡RC G S ¿ì EllClRC GS ll€GScop^ñY caBr.E T¡r: gfiúGlltHct SE tErrPHor{E sacSCHOOL DISIRICIS KtnI{ HIGH SCI{OOL - SHAFIER HGü SCHOON- Íücfï.^ND scHooL ttslRcr - sf(uo^ ËI"EI¡Ð¡TARY Rtcltl t{D rlrNroR H|GH sc¡100L LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

OAIEI)sourH,OfRCE
RA¡{GE f THÊ .IHER€FRo|¡ tNtERESf lil
AI¡Y KND fr crP
SUBDIVDER:

SAGE SHAFTER I, LLC3 CORPORAÍE PLAZA. SUIIE IO2NEWPORT 8EACH, CA 92660(949)644-3s14 ENGINEER:NOLIË ASSOCIA"IES, INC.
1930 HOVYARD ROAD, SUI'IE 125MADERA, CA 93637(ss9)661-s220 LESSEES OF RECORD:

TEXACO EXPLORATON ANDPRODUCTON, INC.111 BAGBY, SUITE 31OO HOUSTON, rX 77002.IEXAS CRUDE ENERGY, INC,2EO3 BUFFALO SPEED"{AYHOUSTON, TX 77098 OWNER:DENNIS & JANICE HANDEL
413 CEN'ÍRAL A\ENUESHAFTER, CA 93263(661)746-3939
MINERAL RIGHTS OWNERS:CAMP AND LACHENMAIER FARMS
c/o s.A. CAMP CoMPANTESP.O. BOX 82575BAKERSFIELD, CA 93380 ATTN: MARK PARKERJANICE RUIH VANNATTAP.O. BOX 249
GRATON, CA 95444
CARMEN V. SELFRIDGE94 W. GRANT STREETHEATDSBERG, CA 95488 25 TO

RTID IN
Iï{Ë
11, 19tr
( (Ì\1\il,\ll\ (.ll()l l'
SAC
E
EXHIBIT 3
TffiNffiT
ES1'#=ìlsuFw yoRs/r
\fffi.51 w_/./wrær mmM:675-F.KM{N|
OWE¡/SUBDIVIDËË & üNERd, OWR:JAUM C & DONA Rd ECKMN. MUSMESO[ JÅMES C. ECruNN ilUNC TAWLY MUST173' 16TH STreET -D'BmRSnEm. CA 9æ01 (661) 32?-8ã61 INGryEERDEWARTER & DITEL2901 Il SÎßEATBreRSFIED, C!, 93301 (681) 32?-,r48ô LECI ÐESCUPIION:
a suaD{vlstoN oF sr r/¡ or THE sv l./4 or SECTION ?. I 28 5., ß. 25 Ê, úD.M. N lgE CtTt O¡ SnÀmF COUNTY OT reRN, STAM OF CMRMA MAP MAY BE PSÆED
coNTÀrNrNc 39.A6 ACIùS, MORS OÊ tËSS GROS ?9.31 ÀCnES NrT 102EmTS&1SUilPrcT rcT DENSüY = 2.54 þF/^CRE (GRoSS) = 3.51 l0rs/acRE (tr)ILNÏAI1VL IRA¿T NO, 6704 üG 'Jæ_ffiôs' J--- *fu-tLtUeL / JÀMES K. ceLMÁpEF
-_/ E\P5Ð200/
50 s
35 22
7 51
23 6
JA
J4 \..j3
24 53 52
UNE
4C
l1
POSSrÊLE
26 26'
27 4i
4?
' r e,si"o s¡ 30
5i 56
69 81
102
'5A
-.
82 94
r0l
59 7-c
90 60
65 72
a9
99 6{
85 6a
_-98
37 46 47
I
COUF.[.
26 DONNA RAN
I
48 11 .,2
t6
J 5
r 10
19 2t 25
2 1l
15 2a
l¡
rälvto
lqIti*
9J
92 95
JOAN
i00
83 COUR?
25 I
1 63
74\
75 -A\rÍ¡¡ÙD-*'- -æ
- r,l
1'l
I
68 80
70 ì9
71 t3
7õ

JILLIAN
66 67
E6
97 a7
tl
I
ll
I
.1,
,LÅ
TUNrcæI1
Å
ñc
?r!piå*?

GRAFHTC SCAI,E
#
(INM)
LEGEND:
it N ZJ- \PROPOSTD CROSS GimR * DreCTPN OF DMAC!. ü SþPÊS O O,2Z MN, -A¡TNËRAI }:IQÏES: zoNrNG, I (39.A6 ÀCRF)
^PN:
69-ô10 04
CNERI PW DESICNÂII0N: u& - lEkY 6r DENSIn RESIDENTTÀL EXSMG LAND 6E VACNT TARM IÁND VAMR CITY OT SHAryER sDreR: CM OT SMER POMR PACtr{C, AS & EHCTRIC GN: mE CAS COWNCAB¡J T,/Y BilCHÎIIOUSE MEPHON! SBCScHoOL DISTRICTS: ruRN s¡cH SCHooL * strTER HeH SCHooL RICH],ND SCUOOL DETHCT.- SEQUOh ËI¡UNTÆY '///,/////z vÛwp or ¡ccws RICHND JOMon frrcH ScFoOL N
cioa
TKSTNG STMII-NAUn5;BOOCH ÀWNUETRMNO AWru[
ÎRACT NO.
ß704 PROPOSnD STREET NAltESj. MNNÀ N COURT

JLUAN AVINUE
DORTfiY COUM'
JOAÑ LUCIUE COWT
DCffiSN DBWJ]MES DRIIT
a
Eo vtclNfl MAr UNPþÏTAÈTE--I¡SNMENIS
6 CÉNRA CAAI¿ ÊÆ{sr ÞÊR 3x
LOî DRNAGE SHM B8 ÁS PER CITY SIND@S rRËNO & BEECH ÀWDS lq ilW Wü & NDSCfISG EXHIBIT4

TENTATIVE
TRACT No.6783
æ^IffiÆl@flE86LOßrtrNEsml# øgü14]WãW,æãW.Mo@ MN*ffiGffiffiülæsÂEs tãSJONJigt
Rä4ròra9R
aoÍ 2þ cl :)L¿s_ì MÀ a ÛF KEÊN COUMY i-ÄN' 10 iÀ?N NC O?ô-29C-!31 s
*
2 :r- Í
I
2l
â
û
s
s
É
21 l2
L.r\ 2È ca s;i¿g i4.P
aa KlRt:ctsrr aND ct
iaPN NC t?t-?ú-i5t
i.ti !5 Çí 9ÀLÍ5 ì41Ê
or Ì(iÊN toiiMv tìN, co iÄiN Na a2a-2æ-15)
.i:
c5
zI
I
f

CENERAL NOES
i) 1¡Ws.¡¡6wGÌ6 i r..*
I
-l
I t.a/i 2: :r¡ 5iia5 MÁ/
,¡ liEtiN ç,1\lNlY üNt co. tLr':i NO 12õ-it9ù'-a2) s ry. r 7o7Í Mß 1:Ni?-TJ\': ).7PRCttt i,7 77 r. ñr: ¿rr wE/ ¡ñ
D 4d w wni H,s (@ 6 s..)
¡,ærß9@*úûÞ(w5!,1
.tñÍ--Ì
NO fÊS:

MINERAL R¡GHTS OWNERSHIP
w
3 :

Ë
È1
c¡ûæsÍ^ru¡ *ÑNIrc DEF
hr! t{ ^Wd Bt ey C,oR¡t hr. \krt t /¡.,ó.

LE€ND
o t-ti
ÂT1ERNAIÊ SIREET NAM€S {
T.
il
+
e
r_ ¡@ffit
s wAr tffi5 úæSM
scaLE:1"-100' æ RCAD
EXH IBIT 5

PFEMIERE HOMES
.IENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 6910
LOT 9 0F SECTON 16,, T,28S., R.25E., M.D.M.
ctïY oF CALIFORNIA
ahfar4âbtu1930 22nd sn&f aaxet9rlD. c^. oJst
I DEWALÎ
Pf, (6dt) J2J-4ô0O tÁr (601) Jæ-4074
f;r
tËixv)
ro
-{
(!
Fq
P
r\)
ã
s
iu
{
$.

J_
I
s
rñ
ÍåÊ
nt¡þ
t;,
gr
i¡IÊ
;t¡s
N*9¡
ËtËi
gì
(ji
I
't
{
-Nil
t!
3 85
i
-ì
a)
íì
.-l
(-,r
ts
l0
lz
¡l'l
1:
lt
Ès
Èt
ïRAC]. Fr? ? 2
Pi-t.Àsf I
-IRACT 1,2?¿ Pli.r\'3E t'l
ltlËi¡ln
iiitfif
¡lËil qÌ 1Ì
tñ
IE
9l
nr
lr
ç
n
T
¡
t
I
f
t
q
¡
E
à
I
n
$
Ë
¡
F
F
I
ffitã
ü!iå
iËg
ú1
ÍE
Ìl
ã¡
Ë¿
ß
i;;
l:ãgs
f;;i nr
üìíit
ol Ël
l¡&
lr
s¡l
t¡
¡F
Ët
Fü
ËË
ì
s
i
8 I
i
I
¡
[ãiiil
¡i¡Ëil
¡iff$
iii¡[
firtil
'åf El
rËl
|¡
tF
Ei
f,!
lg
tñ
!r
ln
ñ;
Í
4 I
ÉY
ol
o:
{Jr-
!å
tT9
lrt
g
L,,
it

LLYWOOD
VÉÑÛE
ãâ
r¡
gF
IT
pã
Frri
åååË
Ë!¡
E
u
o
I
fi
iit
*åå
99c
;B i
:f; I
ËãH
nËH
E
irrfl* HUH
-1
Ë
i)
*i
b
(tl
Úi
Úl
-8-
AÈ
¡g _.
-â,:.
|;
'ã
s
l\
I r€)
€r t
dl
()
$flP ri>
1Ë;
"
"à,
>
fl;i
'll ñz
Þ' c gr n
0r
!ì
siTr f$¿r!)
Q
tos ANGELES AVTNUE
--\-
tä
l¡
$t
IL\
cttF{
"cl¡
p
:f
Èl
åþ
r8
n!äË
ã;Ëffi
ägllËs
Ëäãååä
$:l
Ë!Ë
TH
Bü
ååår
lffs
ã¡
t3õ
;äi
tÂ
iú
8:
t
f
t
ËFiit
E'Ëð
;
m
x
=@
+
o)
E r.Ðo ltlL
Ë
ú
I
¿
Êü EArf.
mþ AYÍ.
d
,
I
SHEETSHEETSHEEÏ

SHEETSHEET

INDEX OF SHEETS
NO.

NO.NO.NO.

NO.

TT'I.E AND LOCATON
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7OO7

FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES

ORCHARD PARK
1O BE 8I.FPI..EÞITED BY STAIDARD PLAIB ATO STAIOARD
8PEcf,þAf,oil8 OF flC dlY OF 8HT,flER DATED .TJDE, 2OOC 't.

2.3.4. 5.

SITE PLAN (NW CORNER)SITE PLAN (NE CORNER)

SITE PLAN (SW CORNER)SITE PLAN (SE CORNER)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
rol5 5. a z a 9, 'lo, ll
^l@
12 ç sEcrlo{ ll, lon¡sHP 2E Srtl{. 84!ç 23 E Sr' raql!1 tx!\ao Brë ¡¡þ'rÊRiúÀ¡¡ iÍ ¡{E ctrnrrY r l<¿Ril, sr^E <r c¡rlQ!À lççolglF-.ro l}€ slLe; l¡aP õlno'rerur¡rv ¿ int F u¡os (r xEnil cût{lY utro col¡P{!Y' l¡!Éqlq{ ll' lmærn 2a säiñ-'ilü=-rs Ëasi. l¡d¡rr oua¡ EASE Aro lmlut{, KEÍû{ ctrNTY' c ¡foRltÀ tlttD ll ll€ citcÉ ç îE ocrr[ry REcmE Ç xERil c(lnÍY, FBITARY ll. lglr GENERAL NOTES:
zr} tc sP (r1{¡.J rcnEs)
^Frù @-{t9(Þ01 GÐ|ER¡L PLÆa ¡ESlGa{ 1l(ll¡ SP - S?ECflC Pt¡ll q¡$f,ß l.^tl, t!iÉ â6ñqlnmPCICE S}IIFIB P¡. FfÉ t(E{ c(tfiTY F.D. ÍAIER GlY (F $IAFIER ffi Cl1YçSüFIER PoE PACnCGS&EECIf,C GS IHEGSO(læ^rY c¡g'E 1¡Ê BnGtltHOJSE lE.EPlt(lt S8C sct(xÌ- oEtRcrt xErr¡ neg sgroc - SHAFIER Hlcll sctlod- f,lcfl.A¡{o scfldr- olíRcr -sEqro a-EÆil1ARY ñcll-At¡D .l¡{oR l{GH satlo(t ïrrtl
^aRE
GE (cRñÌ tol.27 ÂcREs
IoIAL
^CRE
GE (rGfÌ r18&l ACfiES ,(rPARCAsCñÉ lÐ tP¡RCAS
P RCEL oESCnpnOÊ PÂRCA.'A" B, ?,',Þ'¡ qfutAE"-E LOI!;P RCEI ?. 'd: PrsEoPrßc€L 1t: P ñ(P RCA- Ï': r lER nglEl{l¡ct{ B^sûl PtnCEL 1'! oll ¡tRtl- Elr¡t
SUBDIVIDER:SAGE SHAFIER I, LLC 3 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUIIE 102NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949)6¿14-3514
ENGINEER:NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC.1930 HOWARD ROAD, SUITE 125 MADERA, CA 95637(ss9)661-5220LESSEES OF RECORD:ÌEXACO EXPLORATON ANDPRODUCTON, INC. 111 BAGBY' SUITE 31OO
HOUSTON, IX 77OO2
TEXAS CRUDE ENERGY, INC.2803 BUFFALO SPEEDIVAYHOUSION, TX 77098 OW\.IER:DENNIS 1} JANICE HANDEL413 CENTRAL A\ENUEslrAFTER, CA 93263 (661)7¡16-3939
MINERAL RIGHTS OW\ERS:CAMP AND LACHENMAIER FARMSc/o s.A. CAMP COMPANIES P.O. BOX 82575BAKERSFIELD, CA 93380
ATTN: MARK PARKERJANICE RU'TH VANNATÏA
P.O. BOX 249
GRATON, CA 95,+44CARMEN V. SELFRIDGE94 W. GRANT SIREETHEAL.DSBERG, CA 95488 L_
ltTS
Fó
$ó
F?
PÁæE-g
R 25 [
PrrcE-Ìr
Lc4r
Ptrca- a
PÆ
P¡EE.iA'
MDB
T2

CITY OF SIIAFI'ER
PI,ANNIN(; I)DPT
DatcD¡(c
Approved By C¡ty Council
EXHIBIT 7
SHAFTER 88, LLC
TENTATIVE TBACT NO. 7052

CALIFORNIA
a
1930 22.d SrÂÊÉt
gAkÉCsflULC, C^- gj¡t1
4t, (661) 323-4600 lÀX (n6t) 323-4674
hræraf¿t tDEWALT
0 1 O)
T
m
m
{
8u ùq Ë. Ë0i 8o È" t{
*>
I
T.
ì+ !n
¡: È. ÈN
I
g
I
I
!;
Ê* Þ!z Ë;
I
E
Êe Eà fre Èà
È
Ëa !E
ÈËo îg
è
99 È- È. È-
¡
I
È-
'Éo
ür ¡â
$¡
Èu È¿ Èr
È
¡!
È.
üs
tu
Èp Fu ù*
sà
!
¡
z
Þq
Þ
ßf;
&{
àI
7 I
s
I
f
È
*
d
ñ
g
dlß
ã[ñ
!13
ËËËån
6õAl
BkAl
ill
Ëisl
il
r
Ëã äg llã
{l Iä
i;E
ñdxrt
ÈX
!t
¡;
Q^o
=
* 5Ëä:ä
lijË,b*9o
s9!äsE"?
;:if;lEsi Ê
;iEggä¡i ,,ãa
*¡Ë¡äi¡it**
13 Fgñ:t*f:E¡i z>
;åiËiiËi,*,33
EËËãIËEÌ $
4 Ëñ1ãÈe;
=åãÊgâi
ã
E
Íriäãärtl
Tå¡:18 | â E
F!'sËlgig
*tt À
¡3Í
d E-Ë
ü¡i
ñ
È
q
ò
I
å
ã
ë
h
t
Í
t
d ir"ËdËa lcé4r
Eã F
dd 6
rx *
åå å
cã
8!
Êc
¡å
li
TN
!t
HÈ
c
Ê
{
q
m
w)
c
å
I
à
ç
I
n
¡
g
¡
ø
E,
¡å
¡¡
¡f
Yl
c;
Á5
ËË
t
!
Ê
I
å
I
g
t
n
I
Ë
E
I
ã
åñt
4Fx
¡lË8
¡Ítr
4t
q
åËirifrls
"fiå!ålä
àntÌ¡
!!i!å
i:¡ir
Elïii
å:i'¡
r<
l0
lz
;11
t;
11,
@
ËËtålË
ãrt*tå
fË fitå
pã ãl
äü tl
çfr ll
tg ål
¡! nl
Ërä
úl¡
]< I
Êß
t
g
fì
I
+------r--
c-
*
þ
I
*
t.,
I
,i tû rrn
I PopFr
{9,JìJ,
3 ts
5 a
9 --_-..?
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
!
*¡_
I
I
TI
I
i
I
II
I
lr
FJ
I
L
t_
I
rl
I
!i'lEl¡ril*
^Pt¡,
0S5-l0c-Í I
Ë¡åilË
;g;ilfi
Eil
Ell
lu
Ëååãål|ä
IûrûãM.ttut
H*glä
lã
lñ
ÀPu: 089-16?-52
iñ
g
H
ÉFË
;ÉÞ
9Ã F4 R4
n4 ¡¡ 6!
!ã åÈ :È
l{ lI :$
$g !Þ FÞ
Fg
Íã 19
? Ë- s"
-Ê
fi:fr
F'
ll ¡
*f,
lãåã¡Ër;ËãiãËåärãi
ÊËäEF¡¡ä¡
ñçãÊñÈñ¡Á
FEËË$E
Èt
x
¿
õ
-{
o
Ì
cnt orsD^r¿¡ fhNNINCDEN
:1
DES¡GNATTD REMAINDER \.. r,e:0,+rs sr
')lqs
I
I
I
r
"r.ä
26 ¡J
Æ
25 I
32 JI
þ
2a
6t
1A 20 2l
0 i1
Þ
æ
\ ¡c¡¡cuLtun¿
4z,'
8l
¡æç¡NI___._
&M¡!¡lm6ffi trdM*@,2ø
NÆÉSmrilAffiNü
.-lW MffiE'ffiüI.Kts \
õ
,;*-i ,Æ ôRÐffi
ffid@ùhüb rÆw@Rtrl sw2n@HNgW
I lM{ru) tlL__J
f ìtoL_
[ffiffiffiffi-f-urÞ*32 rEffi@ffi,(fEffi264ræ0gWSW9æçWruo:0æ ffiÐro1#ffidw ;q. 'ÉSIGMÍ¿D 16âINDÉR
Pffi/AffiN6Dlsffim
PT D¡T¡
Effi ¡l& ñ
N
1-S {i ßß Ñ!]*^@-.."."..-@@sLd ,iFrs 4¡Mffi m{ffi (f@) æ¡lwsMr 3.-.Jffi9Æ/Mc æ@9w D.-%ÉúMd¿,-,-.........-eD @ es/lM M r4lwffirc s__--ÆRNN/NMa
ÆP.f,MffilMø'T Ni@6@m ts bT w¡Rv þr[
!{N0drw!ffi@0) 40ffi mmseaos@ PÞM9@DffiP66SaVLM lqlÇIryryv_MAP ñtt0M *¡.IFBüÁ:E-ÛM.N¿ÚESÐ ffiuY ffi= TRACT lTO. 7A72 ffi! TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ffiAùlwo ffiW&ÌY 1f,r2@@ 7swrmffiaY srMcow¿ U ,¡.tî'/ *'l6mqeM1 ffic{No ffiffistP-ffitrr.ryi\ _1L,-./71Á_ zl,E", ffier-,ffiÃó--* il"' niwv.M6¡?61, 0E 2r, !, a M 2¡ rN slm 11. Iffi A M. ¡W ã N, W lN NM lM ilft m6sll¡@ W ü rc& 9¡E S ÈrRf ffi & sÆ W FÆG ffi ffi N ffi NS$M il @ ¡Éw t1. re15aEffiE ææ @ ffi úffi 6M CNq &. trq'¡olZ r|¡'l..e k 4@r*ç ¡g:e4 *\úa b b\æ*!ôø4 rre t¡r$Æ6 ffiMÈrudM&WM RsM@ÐWlûffi&@E- W,\üACË CROUP

EXHIBIT I
lå1Ëã#
tlt8 süilffn0 YÀY
mtlB$ftxtl, c|[il0R][a
(6ót) ó64-4806 t¡tD
(888)260.75t7 I¡t
PRoJEcr r'rLE
TENTATTVE TRAcr MAp No. 7207
I
RE-us_o\s
ic{'o
ByiDÁrE S'9.1 oor, o7/to/pÐ
I .. 1 ¡ l*¡u. ÀsNor¡o
I I l - l m¡mpr ¡s
| . I I qosr, cgs
| ;
, ll^lEcK'o'o7/ia/vs
DAVARY GROUP, INC.
ctfY

SHEET DESCRIPTION
I
'[:l
'J
q
F{
h
3 'lñ
â
þl
z
0 -,
l\)
o\¡
''H ;,È iI ,:I il,',ii',i,,''1' ,i
,,'t:t,i'.'1;lr;iifi
,
.',t' ;i¡* il;Ë
!i,;ä
,,,,1..
,r;''.'
;'
,,
:i;,".,'''1.1ã
,,,
'ä'lä';4
t,," r: .,i ;..
'.. ,Il :lÏ lz ,' ; .
.,'
;l*
iit
it
';
ì ' ',,"
; ;-
8Ë
gã
ão
r=
9A
ú2
9c
?6J< ':ÉÞ
ño
O
O
z
-l
{n
{
i
. .'"..'.'.,.ì
' Tr:
i:ii
'jr':irl l.
¡::lt
iri:;-
iìii
'r,
ii".,ii t.
;ç"..'.,;r '
'1. 2
-ÌSr ;
.. -
',:1",
;., iÈí:J
tr:r¿---il
.
.: i:",
,i. i i:,
. li
:
r,
-t:

T,l
'1.'.

RIVIRSIDË SÌRf:TT
r i!
.-i r i --
.l Yì :i r: ;i i ,:'
;:ág;rir¿,::

Ì;:l:tì::.:i
:r.,,.;.:;
'::lar:
,:
':,
,:
i:
,i
!':
:
i
'1,ii
i
WIST
tz l. ll
.,
',riO
'li
i la
r'nti,:
.jr
¡,illñ ,i.I !å
.¡l ,; ',',¡'. lif4
i
.lt
'-,i .','i.:.'i Ìli r,.:,
:;''Ìll,::ìrTr ij;ì,
t ,'.r:.,,¡¡ ..i;,
t..:,
ì,:
, .:¡ .;
lli ;f :-i,,1
, .,-j:: :
;
'.,
!..:
.';a;iÌ . ì ;
.: j,y:," ¿
Ì
.." t-: ¡< 4 '.
ì
'
'r : ..
::l
:
: r,: -'
-'
. :..
,1 ii; tr
,l
:'¡.,,:.,,1Ç
.:.' r :
,:
i.l,i z ":,1;'l9lo
.i:i.t tiip
-..,aA
,, ñ
'r
i: lñ ;' <
..
:-.o
l¡
:'t :iô
' :lr
: ti¡
!m .'ô.o
t tn
l: 19
I -,i"
:,*
.,
P iU)
.,.,.t! tô
'
r,';1ilõ
-¡:5ilô
.._'!.:[r
' ',
:.
'. iit
,: ìi l:; ¡ ,.:i::
"!'rq'-
,ìo
;i ¡ ¡iiã
,'"11 ç -.ll¡
;,t!.::h.
:
r 'ii>
Irrr;ii!
aì I ', ',ll!
' ltE
lÌc)
rl>
ltz
li{
i-1
tx
rE
tt
o
¡
l:t ii î
r¡;:lì
.-'l
:; ::

I Ï9i
!,1í
::
ji;,
d
i*
!:;
¡l'
*[:
:íj
s¿
ëì
,j::ali
r :jtri¡.
;:l;r¡;,.,ì;'
-:'! ,,á¿
T;ìl:. i¡l:l
'-1,<r. '--l:
í 1;:Ì
'",
=z
m
7 r
7¿
c,
f+Ø
r
o
Ë
m
1 I
ri ,.ìim
,*r, ,l-: ltà
'i.{r ='l ' i<
'":::.11ltim .. .,:l.,.iLz
,-:f- =.íilUt
,:1,,. .a,-.
i*:l sq
^: ìç
Ì-"t :î
jlll
,i;1
;; :.,
'! '.ti
'.
jÌ'"'r:.:iÌ
,- il;, ;;'rË
,"':. i.lËq r:
tfl.ì , :i::ri
:: : .:2
i¡ Ii.'.
i; .. rí
¿q
li
9T.l t ¡.',
.t.i
"
:;t:
';
¡l_r:iii
i' ¡;.
ül
,:]
i
ii
ìi
'ri rJi
;
rii
.,i
,:,
I
'i
:iì
I
m
x
=@
-{
o
RESOLUTION NO. 2865

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER APPROVING A TWO (2) YEAR LEGISLATIVE EXTENSION OF TIME IN ACCORDANCE \ilITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66452.26, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 6613, 6614, 67 04, 67 83, 6910, 7 007, 7 052, 7 07 2, AND 7207 AT VARTOUS

LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAFTER AS ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, on January I, 2021, Government Code $66452.26 became effective and granted a two (2)year extension of time for active residential subdivision maps approved between January I , 2006 and July lI , 2013 , with the provision that the extension of time be approved by the local legislative body; and
WHEREAS, within the City of Shafter, Tentative Tract Nos. 6613, 6614, 6704, 6783, 6910,7007,7052,7072, and7207, as shown in Exhibits B through J, meet the criteria required to qualifu for the legislative extension of time; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 6613 on July 7,2007 (Resolution No. 07-1935), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and \ilHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 6704 on March 7,2006 (Resolution No. 06-1823), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 6783 on July 1, 2008 (Resolution No. 08-1994), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 6910 onNovember 7,2006 (ResolutionNo. 06-1895), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 7052 onseptember 18,2007 (ResolutionNo. 07-1946), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and \ilHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 7072 on July 17, 2007 (Resolution No. 07-1936), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter adopted a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 7207 onAugust 18,2009 (ResolutionNo.0g-2056), therefore no additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required for the extension of time; and \ilHEREAS, Tentative Tract Nos. 6614 and 7007 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, i.e., exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, pursuant to California Govemment Code Ç65457; and
EXHIBIT 11
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2865
June 7,2022
Page2
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Nos. 6614 aîd7007 are within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified for the 2005 City of Shafter General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029) pursuant to Resolution No. 05-1738 and the Addendum that was certified for the final Orchard Park Specific Plan pursuant to Resolution 06- 1889; and
\ilHEREAS, the certified program EIR and Addendum adequately describes the activity of the residential development proposed in Tentative Tract Nos. 6614 and 7007 as adopted in the amended Orchard Park Specific Plan under Ordinance No. 06-583; and \ilHEREAS, Tentative Tract No. 6614 was approved on September 19, 2006, per Resolution No. 1 890; and
\ilHEREAS, Tentative Tract No. 7007 was approved on November II, 2006, per Resolution No. 1 898; and
\ilHEREAS, Tentative Tract Nos. 6613, 6614, 6704, 6783, 6910,7007,7052,7072, and 7207 were all approved with a condition requiring the final map to be recorded within two years; and
WHEREAS, between 2008 and 2019, the State Legislature approved multiple extensions of time for existing residential tract maps; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on May 10,2022, approve ResolutionNo. 22- 399; aresolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Shafter recommending that the City Council approve a two-year legislative extension of time per Government Code $66453.26 for various qualifring tentative tract maps located within the City of Shafter; and WHEREAS, the request for approval has been initiated prior to the expiration date of any of the maps to which the extension applies in accordance with Title 16, Section 4.080.8 of the City Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and Government Code $66452.6(e); and WHEREAS, the City Council through the City Clerk, did set Tuesday, June 7, 2022, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council on said proposal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the malìner provided in Title Sixteen of the Shafter Municipal Code; and
\ilHEREAS, at said City Council meeting held on June 7,2022, the proposed extension of time granted through Government Code $66452.26 for Tentative Tract Nos. 6613, 6614,6704, 6783, 6910,7007 ,7052, 7072, and 7207 was duly presented and considered and the City Council determined that the listed residential tract maps are eligible to receive a two-year extension of time for recordation of the final map.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shafter, in a regular session assembled on the 7rh day of June, 2022, resolved to approve two-year extensions of time for Tentative Tract No. 6613, 6614,6704,6783,6910,7007,7052,7072, and 7207, subject to the respective conditions approved by the City Council for each map, with each map to expire as follows:

Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2865
June 7,2022

Tentative Map #
6613
6614
6704
6783
6910
7007
7052
7072
7207
New Expiration Date
July 17,2024
March 19,2025
March 7,2025
Iuly 1,2025
I|iÍ.ay 7,2025
l.!./lay 21,2025
September 18,2024
JuIy 17,2024
August 17,2025
PASSED AND ADOPTED THrS 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.

Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST
Y azmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney
6407
6614
&
7407
7072
c)(o(o
f-O
C\¡ l'-
co@l-(o
.U
5 L.l ;
=
-l
t
7072
1ÊE
-'l
L]
r-
_i

1..
(
VARIOUS TRACTS - EXTENSION OF TIME PER GOV CODE SECTION 66452.26 4 t21 t2022, 2"47
"33
Pl\A 1.36,112 0 0.25 0.5
Road Centerlines -....' -- l_lighway
Arterial Local
Collector
1mi
0 0.4 0.8 1"6 km
Copyright nearmap 2015. Cily of Shafte( California State Parks, Esri. HERE,Garmin, Safecraph, GeoTechnologies, lnc, I\,4Eï|/\ASA, USGS, Bureau of City of Shafter

EXHIBIT A

TENTATIVE
TRACT No.6613
1S l SFS
ffi ry++Ht+l+ PORTER. ROBERTSON
LOr ?1 0F $S ü^P ff N6 F kBN COUW Um@ñ, rN 5ffN6 15N lTFLEÞ JÑIEffiÊGE@W@@. ñãÉrNffidr5, rcNüPã$ñ,MZñ.W onüo úËtRrdail, NrÆ cñG ffiff colMç16, 9ÁE oF OWNER:IgENIìRMAìÑÉ
LEil
1 16
!
J5
18 8
5 tl
I
þ
I
MINERAL R¡CHTS OWIIERSHIP
W ti
c^noüa c6E
M
#62-W
(HNilW&r6rM0)ñ-2S@9t6-@-267M t^ 9597¡ (Rft üÆ ilor ærÆD) W ¿l)ffiÁM
ÍAMNNM IruMffi ùß{ùw sw
PM& J,\iÐ ûì ñl[t Atr sud9t& s&¡Í4sww.Á]W l7sæffsm fWWc& l¡rM,6SS s-st0Àw I Jffi¡ 1719 I@ 9m c¡ 9s¡ ^M 76-ú LÙI J ì OT SÀLãS MAP
çF KT-RN COUN]'I I-AND qOMPANY {ÀPN. No. 2êO-?90-rr2) 7z TRACÍ õ49O t, $l 6' coNcffiE MduMilt sÆ(ÊD 'R,tÊ' g€ PÊi P.!. No. 10996 ã.vsT 5l*e^EAø€
z
Uå
17, Exsüc N P@S ¡N& $ar !06 ({,m r {ilJ
r cwuilry û Du./e)
Í:ô
ñ d:
'É:3
92' RIGHI-OF-|¡VAY @**"s{ry I LÊGÊND
: 1'19
t¡'
+ sse¡¡MÉs m '8" dB & GUlfÉR
w/ 5.d woE sDtuÀL(
52' R|GHT-oF-WAY W rr
@
EUZAAElH
-l* gr
ÀNNCStlltN ¡lO- 7ç) ÀN¡ T:NTÀff/[ l]ìr\cl MÁP 5783
ctTv otrst^ft¡:R
Drac M¡t A¡pmtrd lly Cily ( oùñdlDrrc SJq l? 7a-?
{-Nil {1 46,RIGHÍ-OF-WAY e_$9H-sr8EgtsËqqk
SCALT: æ 1 '¿1 oO'

VCINITY MAP
EXHtBtT Br r:r-
,lJ
ïl c =il3ã_5
ll1l
Áa
l

ORCHARD
PARK
ALTERNATVE STREET NAMES: 1. APRICOT 2. PLUM 3. MAHOGANY 4. RG 5. SEQUOIA 6. ORCHARD¡fi OF LOTS: 432#OF BUILDABLE LOïS: 431APPROX. LOTS/ACRESI 3

TENTATIVE
TNACT
6614
$trT NÛ!ffi
cs-1
18 $rm
üruFR
uTB013700
.t
É"
? ì-J
<t
&.
,:Ë
q2
^zvz¡<
Ê LÐo lllllL_
Æ¡þ AVÊ
I
ã
n
¿
E lu¡ËAVE
vþNr
T
Al
ILt--
1"400'

SITE PLAN
_l
W
8EY0[0
f00 H0lm0 no¡D, r[tlE
"5
IrEÀ C ¡gas7
trttttEcor
DATE SUBMITTED: 8/17106
PREPARED FOR:

SAGË SHAFTER I, LLC

INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 1. T'ÍLE AND LOCAÏON
SHEET NO. 2. SIIE PLAN (NW CORNER)SHEET NO. 3. SI'IE PLAN (NE CORNER) SHEET NO. 4. SITE PLAN (SW CORNER)SHEET NO. 5. SllE PLAN (SE CORNER) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 6614

ORCHARD PARK
TO EE SI.PPIãÞIÍED BY STAIDARD PLAil8 A,TO
STAID RD SPEGtlCATlOllS 0F n€ (Iw oF Stl FTERDATED JAE. 2OOT GENERAL NOTES:
zoiül¡G sP (r/t0.5 AcREs) ÁFN¡ oE&-Ogo-olCIIER^L Pt¡lt 0€S¡GilAïON; SP - SFECfIC PLÆ{E)0SNNG UilD USÊ AGRICULIURÊPollcÉ $lAFlER P.D. FIRE: KfR}{ CqfiTY F.D. wAIER: CITY OÊ SHlFltì S€ïER¡ OTY OF S¡t¡nfn POE PAORC GAS T E..FCTNC GS ll€GSCûlPllY cAg.€T^/! B6üG+llH0USt 'fElrPllo¡É sac
scfloù ÐNslRlcls K:nN HGlt scllool- - stlAFtER Hlctl scHooL ROILÁND SCIIOOL DISI¡üCT . SIQUOA E".EI¡ENTARY
Rlctü. t{D.lrNK¡R HIG+I sctlooL
NO. 6.

NO. 7.NO. 8.N0. 9-NO. 10.

NO. 11.N0. 12.

NO. 13.NO. 14.N0. 15.NO. 16.

ENGINEER:NOLTE ASSOCIA"IES, INC.1930 HOWARD ROAD, SUITE 125MADERA, CA 93637(sss)661-5220 LESSEES OF RECORD: .IEXACO EXPLORATION ANDPRODUCïON, INC. 111 BAGBY, SUI-IE 31OOHOUSTON, rX 77002
TEXAS CRUDE ENERGY, INC.28OJ BUFFALO SPEED\T'AY
HOUSTON, TX 77098

GRADING PLAN (NW CORNER)

GRADING PLAN (NE CORNER)

GRADING PLAN (SW CORNER)GRADING PLAN (SE CORNER)UTILITY PLAN (NW CORNER)UTUTY PLAN (NE CORNER) UTLITY PLAN (SW CORNER)UTIUTY PLAN (SE CORNER)LINE AND CUR\E TABLESDETAIL SHEET #1 DETAIL SHEET #2
SHEET

SHEETSHEET

SHEETSHEET

SHEETSHEET

SHEETSHEETSHEETSHEET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
tlOÎS 5,6, ¿ 8,9. to,'11 ANo f2 oF SEctt(x ll' TohtlsllP 26 SolJlH, RÂNGÊ 25 E sf. l¡ü',NT tx¡g.O õüÉ ñtü úË¡üãÃr ir¡ nir cotlxw c Kñ{, srÁlE oF c uRnNtÀ Acconürc To lHE s rrs r¡^P üñ'iËbru-Aäy'ó, iàt3 c uños æ xi¡r¡'co.l¡w lrut cor.Plr{f lN sgcllol tl' rornqlp 4l éäJñ- R ric€ zs isr. ucr.nr üABLo a^sE Al{D tGRlDlAtl. xgRN co$lrY' c uF0R!0À RI-ED lN rHE cnce ç nrÈ cuÀTy RgcoÐm oF KEnN coulü FÍSRuARY ll' 1913. giúplne nmÈinO¡ 5/r8Ìts NìEREST N Ar oF THE Ot c s, ôSq{^Lrura A¡{, olHa HìORoc RBON stiEsrñi:ts"¡¡p ntñmÁs ç ¡¡¡v rc¡li on crtrnrcrm' û{' ol' q!-MEl,iþER As RESERIED BY ü¡É'À{D üc¡ro¡i¡' B}rnus À p¡nnERstlP lN GR Nr o€Ð REconD@ ü^Rcrl 14. 197s N Bm< iË l-iä-r'sl-i# úúAt REatRDi *Ä\,8 tr SURF E Rqrrs ^Êo\G ^
nenx oF rxr' REcof,[EL äffim re 2m4 as Docr.n¡ENf NG o2(x26,+253 ¡¡o 020,126,+25.t, tHE s ¡ñ BEING @RnÊsIED aY oiÍu¡a{iñc. o205069029 ^ttD o2o5o69æq AID ¡r^Rcll 2¿ 2q}5 ^s oooJlF{T No. 02oso69o2E 0f ofno^L RECÍROS SUBDIVIDER: OWNER:

SICE
'ÈÀTTEN

I, LLC OENNIS & JANICE HANDEL
5 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 102 413 CENTRAL A\ENUENEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SHAFIER' CA 93263 (s4e)644-3514 (661)746-3939 MINERAL RIGHTS OWNERS:

CAMP AND LACHENMAIER FARMSc/o s.A. CAMP CoMPANTESP.O. BOX 82575BAKERSFIELD, CA 93380 ATIN: MARK PARKERJANICE RUTH VANNATÏAP.O. BOX 249GRAToN, CA 95444 CARMEN V. SELFRIDGE94 W. GRANT SIREETHEALDSBERG, CA 95488

EXHIBIT
C
EmsuRwYoRs/
-€fl--/RWæ14llmI
lffi üG -- t?-]¡-¡r I ÌÉ
^ l_ . mB' _-e__l
æ¡-u {flAtøz* l- -
- / laMEskcaMÀFEFI--- 1. /.*å""'J,l'lJ", I--
þ 14071
IffiNffiI I rd¡nß¡Æùañ t
Oh-ER/SUBDIIUBR & MN¡M OWR:JAMNS C. & DONNÀ RÆ ICKMAN, TRUSTEESOtr JMES C. ¡CruNN ilUNC TAUIT TRUST xNclMnÊ
ÐEHÀMTR & DEITTL?90r E slrEfl ÊÆRSnEþ, CA.93301 (881) 32?- l€6 1?31 16TH STREET ''D' BffiMF'ED, CA. 9330] (661) 32!-85c1 UCAL DßCRPTIÔN'
A SUBDIVISìON OF SW ! /4 OF THE SI 1,'¿ OF SECTON ?. -. ?8 S.. T ?5 E., M.D.M, N 'TH[ CITT OF SflAflER COUNTY OF reNN, STAM OF CMOHIÀ
MÀP MAY BE PIIAS¡]D
coNT^rN¡NG 39.86 ACIÈS, UORE OR mSS çROSS 39.34 ÀçRES NET 10?EbTS&ISUMPrclrcT DÈNSITY.' ¿.54 þß/ÂCRE (çROSS) = 3.5r mTS/ACRÐ (Nm) 'tËNTATlVÉ IFACf NO. ô704 á**ffi
J5 15,2S Sf
36 22
51J/
48 I
23'
6 41
24 19
5¡ 52
32 PHNE UNE
f8
.r54O
J1
POSStsLE
24 25
J
,6 26
JO
2;
I6
45 4229
It
5/
a2
94 tot
Ð0 59 sa
ô5
72 99
--.ôì
64 a5
8a
34 38
.i3
46 I
lu
l'I
l
j'
80 68
70 19
71 1õ 7S

JILI,IAN
DONN,A.
66 COURT
15 1/
81 2A
90 9
26',
lz
lk
l8lã
26 -iðÁN --
s 11,?6\sF
1oZ 1 100
'bã COURT
5 .l
2 1.1 12 T1 . 10
95 9J
63 97
75 a6
87 i
I
II I
*i:

I
I
I
I
Å
--t.L.'v-'
mû
Å
CRAFHIC SCALE hæ'jÊj;-i
$:
:iiÞi5
¡3
*" LEGEND:
¿:\p'oposrD CROSS CUMER
-- DÌruCTION OT DRNaGE. ü SþPES o O.?z MN.

Ç_ENEH¿1, ¡¡prgs. ZONING: E (3S.86 ACRffiJ
^PN.
6S-0rO 04
CilEMI PhN DESICNATION: nR - VERÌ pw DENSITY RESTDINTI^L EXSTINC kND USE: VACNT FARM LÂNDVAT¡R CITY OI SHAMER SUWER: CITY OF SWTER POreR PâClr¡C. çAS & EUCTRTC GAS: lEf CÀS COMPñ cÂBm T/u BRGHTHoUSX TEGPflONB: SBCSCHOOL DFTRICTS: ruRN SICH SCfooL * SH$TER mcg SCHOOL RICH],ANÐ SCIIOOL DßTHCT - SEOUOU '////,/,/z snwn or ¡ccnss nlÇHßD 'MMTÆT JUMOR HrCH SCHOOL N
ciÕ IKSTINO STro4I'NAüES:

BEECH AWNUE
ITßNO AVENUE
PROPOSED STRnnT NÀMEslDONNA RÆ COUNîüLUAN AVüNUEDORTHY COURTJON LLÍCILM COWTACruNN DN1W

MACT NO
6704

JIMES DRIW
OE
e
\4CINITY MAI -!INPI.Ofr A8.IE E¡SiMENß
IOT DRIINAGE SEAI 8[ AS PNR CITY STÑÀÐS FR$NO & BmCF AWUES 1! ruW W& & NSCæÌNC .l:
-
'. - - F'ÊEñö-AvEñliÈ-[aió.

EXHIBIT D

TENTATIVE
ïRACT No,6783
PORT€R
'ÌJÆni{q|l# -H¡EIJ fæffi PoRTER'ROBERTSON *-=ffi
OmER: SUADMOER: c*rN@rs 1S.OAS6M&A@E ISæTfuæÀW ffiRTOßNÉ*@ ARrcYô@rcE,C¡.MLËOAL DESCRIPTION:

Ærre4ffi@a@fts@rvrsrsoF Læ2?räNms@4Ê øsæra 15, TMS,Þã SOUri.reãaf ffio& CffitrKRÍAÈtr )¿5 itA:it-r
RitAiNrriiR
t-oT 2ã aT 3;\iíS òlÀ, OI {fÊN CCUN]'Y LÀND CC lÀPfl No !?¿-290-. I rìr s
¡7
$
11,16
2e
5 5¡
J]
I .|',ts
a¡
s
31 !
'1?f i
6 t5
)..C"t 2t: Oi SÀL'S ilÁ¡ 0i r(iç¡t iì0utiíY ßNo itì iÂÞ\ ND U24,.¿9C .. I 5l r.çf It oí sÅ1,a5 tta? !ìr KiÊN í;oL,N',fY !,Nt CC tÃtt No D22-r90-j5) ¡:' g
05 z
II
f,
;l
11i
i;
'-l
I
... , -. _...i
I
t- - - _.. ... ¡ - ... -_ -..- ',)
I a- - -- ^"i -- -.
li
GENERAL NÕTËS
i/ i l\*
I
¡l
\a.51
.{- ,_ _ _._ _, --ì.*, _l
)lll)
La ' 22 .'t ü) a: r|\? ii K[iN aior¡ÌiÏ úNr iìo.
s&'rt Q2e .- 2 24.,A?l
¡ m4¡€ r{ c4r@¡M *ß ar ø $^FER
rt. e$ñ ¡ilo ÞrydÐ eñr É cr^E)
rt. Hrd sM *FrÞ i,s {(a r@ iù)
H,i (@^{Ò so) æ0ú@ (ifuþ s.ol
Nôt€s:
al i uMisjffi.
f
"j

MINERAL RIGHTS OWNERSHIP
W
ã
þ
E
sE
q ctrYoPsÍamR PNNtñCOtn
IEçEND
o
+
o
4 i
û
f
il
ALERNA]Ê SIRÉE'T NAMES
l- w@úÉ@m
\
sÌ.
lL.
)I
RìV[
r, tcN srerf, c@[f s@ls s N SrREr
SCALE:1"*1OO'--¡::-=t
iOA¡
EXH IBIT Ë

PREMIERE HOMES
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 6910
LOT 9 0F SECION 16., r28S., 8.25E., M.D.M.

CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA
a
x
m
m
-{
DEWALT
a
19J0 22nC sFaÊI aAreRsFrED. cÂ. o$ol
Pr. (6Gt J2I,46CO FAX (66i) 5?3-4674
3r.
a
l
gÕ
3 e
8N
I
I
s
äN
lrr
ÞJ
å
q
I
i:ì[ iìi
i ii¡\1-'i
iir.
i.i.A:,¡_
'i
i;\ i
jti:'?
-,
:L
r3
¡B
;;
õ
R'
{".
€i
I
åFËåËËl;
lgËi¡ãlÊ
gri¡;;l
rqi9'¿:l
4ã¡iÍEf
;Ëri
rui
*.d ,Jt
cEr i ll
ñ;e '
il
cå'ü
;å åå
q5
,* u¡ gr
¡å ËË:6
;;:È ì
ùgäõ c
i Ër ¡
;; e
tr3 I
r; I
ðÊ
lä
!r
flcr
etF{
Jl¡
frle
*IC\
ÈÞ.-
_n
Ë[
9t
.t
:&
,"
rg
rt
9ø
gâ
rif;
'ã
E
ã
t
I
?
I
ë
t
I
,
n
å
È
F
i
:
**l
¿!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
ì
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
N
t\
i.o
9i ¡ cal T
1ìÞ
rs; -
;.9r Þ
ts^l <
Eii n 'á) z
ã' c
l<
lo
lz
.t1
l*
t<
ll
-A
Í 1..
ì'
A
ryil
t:
rF
8B
9ó
-i
t!
#E
e-'ir
sq Ë;
É;t?
ii¿ li
FfSe
ËeëÈflÊì
I
È
94 l¡
rä
sË
¡;
€
9SË
çhà
çl'
E8
qg
ES0Í
Flåe
Ë ¡Ën
gãÉË
:llg
ãtä
ild
clã
ufi,
>P
.ã äë! H à1 ëfg a\]
ãi^gËi.-A
"
äËä95: år-r P
Ei;ä::l*rzï
3Eã¡Ël
--shô- sì H Fqv t{
,i ;H;' ' <
ff
h fi:{'
f:3 ero H
EcEE O
'
t'F
-E-
¡Ë.-
ta"
eâ
I
(-l
= t-.ì
8È pl
õ8 :$
rà;!
¡¡Ê
&d
o'l
ÊË
Èà
!s
g
så
6g
*ü
=.
in
x!
5 à
a
I
l*---r
ll':¡ i:l
ll": .¿l
ti : all
Ì e c¿l
lt ¡ idl
|: I
lt ; i
L-I
.lr
i:l
qå
tc
c-¿ã
¡$:
åiÈ
,:-)
çlsaË
h:Ê
Él¡'
rflÊ
åËñ
F
å
A
5 nl
Ll.¡ri
ZÁ Þa
¡x ll
gE
É
f E
Y
à
a
g
h
I
r
Ë
I
a
å
JTIt
È{ =8
F'ËååË
tE
"Ë
leËá:
åHEE;
;s;
i
,:i
.rì
=-,
t
¡.
"Eìt
sãå¡¡
nãddÈ
cc9åE
i¡üËE
-_l _-
ËË ÊÊ
3à !ä
ls ¡E
ÊåËË
Ë' .F6'
E
tOS ANGËLES AVINUE
*-\'
ËgËã¡
Ê¡äã9
e'Ëã
Êtg
glË
üËä¡
åã9
9A
ãt
Fã
Þil?
ils
þ
ä
m
x
¿
E
-{
at
F r-Ðô¡il.
rffi lú¡.
d
ú
I
¿
E il.âË arr.
d
I
I

INDEX OF SHEETS
NO. 1. T'ILE AND LOCATIONNo. 2. sllE PLAN (Nw coRNER)
No. 3. SITE PLAN (NE CORNER)NO. 4. S|TE PLAN (SW CORNER)NO. 5. S|TE PLAN (SE CORNER) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7OO7

FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES

ORCHARD PARK
TO BE 8I'PP|'åÞ{TED BY gTATDARD PLÆIs AIÞ STAIÞARD
SpECñCAnO{8 0F T}C CITY OF 8}rA,FrER D IED .UE, 2006
SI{IFÌÊN PD. xm{ cctt{TY F.D, qfY C SflTFlER 6fY æ S¡{TF¡R PA¡rFrCGSôE.ECrflC ll{E cts cûPAt{Y Pq.rce FRÊ rAlEfu GAS SHEET

SHEETSHEETSHEETSHEET
SUBDIVIDER:SAGE SHAFTER I, LLC
5 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 102NEIVPORT BEACH, CA 92660(9,19)6¡[¡t-551¡+ ENGINEER:NOL'IE ASSOCIATEg INC.19JO HOWARD ROAO, SUIÏE 125 MADERA, CA 93637(559)661-s220LESSEES OF RECORD:TEXACO EXPLORATION ANDPRODUCÍION, INC.111 BAGBY, SUrlE 3100HOUSTON, TX 770021EXAS CRUDE ENERGY, INC.2803 BUFFALO SPEEDWAYHOUSTON, TX 77098 OWI.IER:DENNIS & JANICE HANDEL
415 CEN'IRAL A\ENUE
SHAFTER, CA 93263(661)7+6-J939
MINERAL RIGHTS OW\ERS:CAMP AND LACHENMAIER FARMS
c/o s.A. CAMP CoMPANIESP.O. BOX 82575BAKERSFIELD, CA 93380ATTN: MARK PARKERJANICE RUTH VANNATTAP.O. BOX 249GRATON, CA 954¡14CARMEN V. SELFRIDGE94 TV. GRANT SÏREETHEALDSBERG, CA 95¿+EE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
lOrS 5' c. ¿ E, g lO, 1l ¡¡{D tZ C SECllO{ ll, rcnütt 2a Sq,1Hr-!{!GE..25 ÊAS1' ¡¡0!,Ñf D|¡8LO BASE Áó-ì¡ÉnrDn¡t il ft€ Cdttw oF tGlr( Sr lE (t C uFoRiXÀ ACCmO{c 10 l}E S tES y¡P óÀ1Ð ämu^Ry 6. i$r c uNDs (r xE¡t{ cctt{1Y LA¡{o co¡PÆ{Y, n sEcllcl{ tl' Îo*{s¡F 2E sErjtl{. R ¡cE 2s ÈÄsf, t¡djxf ot^g-o 8 s€ At¡D EDt¡¡t, Æm{ cqf,{û' c uFoRtlÀ FI.'ED il DE crlc€ (f tlt oqrilfY REc(nDm G XE¡¡{ OqrilTY. FEAf,UÁRY l'1, lglL GENERAL NOTES:
zoorc sP (r1r5 AGRES) l'l{: (E&{9HlG€llER l PlAl DESlGil rXil¡ sP - SPECnC Pl¡r¡ EXÉlNtC Lt¡tO USe AGÊq¡-Î.nEsÉk Þok c EE 1¡É SñGHTHCUSÊ lE.Ft{öE SAC sctl(x¡L ¡rFlñc¡s KE¡û{ HIG}I sc+lo(I- - sll^FlEn HrcH scflo(I- ñctl¡rú scH(n- uslRcf -sÊclrd^ E.EC¡{TARY ECHI¡{) ,tt{ld }lcil sclþdnÍáL ToRE GE (GR6Þ l6t.2|' lcnÉs totâL Ac¡E c€ (l{El} t,ta8¿ rcRe; ,fP RCA"S CRE lÐ 0 PâRCE.SP naÐ- D€scñPnöÊPÁRGA-'4. B,'d, b': qn¡ g.E Lots P RCEL Ë,'d: PÁSEOPARCEL ì': PâßPARCAIfT r îm RElÐ{Î(t{ BASI{P FCE- ì'¡ dl H.[ rl.^to Þ.ßt
$ó
F?
P¡EE- g
R 25 E
PrÉû
S
1 4
Plmã- t
PÆ'f
\i DB
T2
_) L_
a

SITE PLAN
ilTg
CITY OF SIIAFT'0R
I't.ANNtN(; t)ttPT
DetcDåtc
Approved By City Counc¡l

EXHIBIT
G
SHAFTER 88, LLC
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7052

CALIFORNIA
DEWALT
1950 22¡d S:REEI B^KERS|€10, CÂ. gJJql
È. {r€1) J2l-460o FÀx (661} 323-4674
a
0 a
I
m
m
I
-æ+
Þ
E ê19,
ññå*lõ
::; i ln
¡aRdn
åånRl
r
{
ËäåFt
nFiSl
CFåãI
r!
ï
Í
r
fi
119
Ë
äa¡-l
z>ôts VH
>.1EJ
L¡r
N)
F
Ef
9ç
ä
Íq
4g
R
g
â
ã
i
¿ g +l
: tÈ iq;: lE t
ëiJ fl''rqü-:
a&1,rrêlrfr
sü s5 aF
zZ ã
åå å
?,!t¡f;iì*iðeå
ã¡iãI!IäEìø
-r3;rÀ;;q:hì
;TåÇ0içøftre
tÀËå{ å¡3Ëi -sã [:l
¡ õüñ
'ãË
ã
È
cÈ
qá
39 È9
!È
3Ë
is
È¡
9é
Í
I
Ll
I
3 Ë
q
gÃ
"J
c;
mY
øè
qs
ãê
t;
¿E
EE
!F
si
Êi
ã
F
oaH
çE;ES=
õrrEirí
äÊ;Ëiãi ã
>z<4¿8ê2
ä*àl!irs
aøÃz a
ATozi<9.å
ç rEgY z. n
el*iã4h,
-àösuY-il
rFiÉ dsi*B
¡gñiiãiir
i lü r- EoçI
=eîã
lgn:=
n'^ô1áA<a
Ël!+Ê"1ã
lãrna!^m
É^9ziÁ¡6
ËËËË;Hgi
*Hñc*ôc¡
=¿¡ÊÊa:
*'*-
0 ;
ä
a
ü
rãÅriit9
ãiiÉ¡Hti
r:iiãlä
iåil:
i¡iï¡
ü;:lN
qi tç
-*cë x
:{j !
r<
lõ
lz
"l+
'l*
t<
l>
lll
ÊËËÍlË
ËãiElg
*3 fi19
?Ëil
lç ål
EËÊI
¡! sl
sã d'
Í3;
SË¡
8fi
a
f
i!
.'-.p
./ ûci -rrN
q
-l
PCPÞr >
-
g
ai
s3 id
-;*
J
!ä
9 ---t---
I
I
l
I
I
I
¡
i
:-::

I
I
I
*
-1
-l*
tsL____
(
ti
FJ
ri
li
ri
,¡
ir
Ì
{
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
",,åtig
ÊÈËi3
i;:ëliñ !tidI8
?p:ãli:u'li
;*
slr
!rt
E
lo Él¡
l5 :
lã
iååå:ËËåËåiñËËËåË3
¡Pìll 03s.'l0t-1 I
E¡r
åÌ5liË
;ç:ilÊ "iil
I
!FtËåilä
Ëoll
t! tç t1
lHãqlä
iñ
i14
lãlã
ÂPN; ç89.1È?-t¿
It
t2
tã
t:
¡fl
Ê
g
fl
*
ã
BÅ
ÞÈ
tú
ãã
ls
3i
Ë
I
fi:f;
Þ
-s
:irtËlili
Èrã¿¡*;EÁ
Êglq*
ilr
x
=EO
=¿
ij
:

D¡r. M¡¡
^ÞÞevd
Ay CtS Cd¡d
?

DESI GNATED REMAINDIR
1,6J0,+r5 sf
rl(E)
-l
I
I
t

2.-
2 ï
æ
52 21
þ
17 l6 m 2
I
d0
¡6
l5
11 æ
\ ¿cticuL¡Lrçr
I
fi
^! I
il
rd
qr:;.'. fø æ
J,¿çnòn._...._...__._.....__
,t' trAMWMf W MWUtW.2ùd
tì
ümætMpÂffiã ffiP¡[m
r1.
tf
o
(@lW
__lR*')
sw2FR&relscMLM I I mffi{mì ltL___t
rqüiewMNsMffi-6-uYm* Irüffil@(ffi.(ssg2s
er ,Wc 9ffi Ùru cft ruo r0 E mÐrctÆfr6ffimúFmÉdaffif)ÆaÉ P@Y*ffiYMftS'RMSA md@a0ñtaffiNËw MMm&€L6W(ffil@ri(ro D¿SßÉfÉD iTÂNDft '''tt :'' ,..J
W DIÎA
w Ì¡rb- €
Pffi/A6mmñusru r{_-r1 m WÆø lÞrs Ê¡MffiE@(Pæ) /. {ffiEs@@ B.'*---Sffie,¡æ c mwff]4.tM D qûmúMd (...-... u -tuReÆ/trc ,¡çE@æ æ_ wM^affi ]W
ÆFÑWMHW WS&Jc]w06 l&g t$ 14T Sl]ffi Ûtr i1þE { lwcþl ptNûtrmæff@) ?@w t ermg.e],l¡xM Þ@ m$Æ!/¡M I ruffimsP0D m*ævNWvÆ6 YICINIIY_MAI ñ{]mN^M [lmÁryffiNffi _ t 2) ¡)1'5)
TRACT NO. 7072
m TE]VTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP &AWo 1¡r2@w ffi@8@ 7&ñ|m}wY fficom¿ _ (tl ,t l/ sr6@6*1 wG&ó 1ffiffiruT#ffi-î,.,q&"? J;*tjl-Ø õm':''iËfuäri "L4,, * &nwtrreru4761, oia' @ 21, 4 ¡N ?4 Nsffi 11,]W ¿ffi. MãW. M MO N&11@XftdSW Mdm,9ÆSwriMffi DWì ptr lstr @ M mm* S slm 11 ffi l:ÉM fl. s¡]trtot¿
5'
12' ]J'
ffiWMEMffiffiN{)@ RseEffiÁ9É@@&¡,,fM.
ffi=

EXHIBIT I
eo.0.
a7/ta/-qg..... -
07/19/9.P.
å5_ t{01E0
DRAW gY: SS
*'o Bf
oAT[ Ck'o;
oÂn:

SCALT:

PRoJEcr T'ïLE
TtNrATrvË TRAcr MAp No. 7207

SHEET DESCRIPTION

CITY OF
DAVARY CROUP, INC.

SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA
I flr8 $üilffn0 tÀY
8üfißftxtJ, mfiOnilA
(ú60 6ó4.{806 tÀl{0
(888) 26å-7537 lor
i
..-'-l
i+
| .,2'
L.:'
:rN
¡'Ì.
i
,i?
i:
': -..Jr
,
'- -i1i
'---....
-.-:.:rl:- N.

LJ
a
tr
:l'
:ii
,il
tl
]
rri
ijl
ii
i,i
ri
'' . - -.:-.. i.:- . .. ._ . _
;r
i:{
:.o
jO
i¡ ¡; iì
''-i -ì
;{
,:o
ít
sÞ ïo
i DRAINÀGT BASIN
N
I
Fl
tf
z
F¡
Ii
3 l{
fr
ä
FJ
z
0 "
l\)
o
{
.ôm
¡i2
im
Ð
r
;iz
io.l{ñ
Ìø
E
2 ô
I
3 IA
9 ç
6 Þo
ìlra1, a;. ll::
:,:--.- i, ,
'I :.,:.,,:.;
l
::i:;14-::fï:
.rl:
iO
lo
,z
'Ð
È
a
6 trl
2õ
s2
3 'A2
î
I
r
,:I
t-.
:l: l ! ¡ï'
'lÌì! ì.:: -lì
it;È ,,'
"i
f i.:ì': l;t ¡
.ìi:rì'..iÌ:
.
,,
,,:1.
: r:tr :
,:.,-.ì.'-"1:.- r
r_:).: ._: . r!! .:
.:; :i:i
;iiir.:.; -',i ,
.'1
j ¡:!: -. 'r:¡l'': ::
':'.:1.'::: .'1,",.,
l"'rr 1.,
'Í'.:'r ;:i¡,1
:: ri: ri:
.: ,a ì. :1. :
.:
, I
.t
ì
,ì: ,ì
,'-
'".,]
,:'<
.r¡
L À'¡í.: rj litr ' ,ì rrr
'
:g
¡,F,gi,ä
';ä
'lä
.li
r*ñ iñ
:
w[sl ,1(, RlvtRSIDÊ sTR[tT
¡{
i'
i"j.
..i
'.
l'
j
.t I
:: i I
ii':i-
:;tl!
..:
.l
i:ll
li l 1?
li,'ll,<,,
I il
ì"
i11 -
.'ì ).
j :, : j: i:ì :1
''::'.j.1
'..,
ìii''i, ;
:¡' , l-l l
.:.-
-'i.: !
ìl
t'
..
'"itz
.- ., .." ,iÌo
,
',,,i,lñ ' , i .;.,,i:,1f4
-l
';
:.í.'<. ,:i¡
,-, {! 1l::
i ; .ì',. ir; n
'.:
:: 'i
j;il
iì.. '' é
,::':
"ì '
r-'
':ì1.:
r:.
:
' :i .ì
:r
|.)z
,ç
iìiì., .,6
';i-
"il¡
::ñ: i<
,.o-tiú
:io
,inI
:i :0
m
,C,
::Ð
'ìlc,
I
:]
:\
;::li
ì',1ìi';
iA ¡'
f i.:'
o 'f- O i'i,
-
Ì!,1
tû4.
i
'r i lllo
,Ìl;ii= ì:r,itm
l, ':'r . llio
.iËK
'
li>
r'j ¿Ì¡!
-i t!
Ic,
il>
t2
ll{
:,.si
.. ;i
:i l. ì
:,;
'.4
iì
ii
I
tt
l-3
Ë1 ¡9
[t t:
bòe zs
h: Ëã
E5
.tg
lî
i
r:ìj
>."rì
.,il
''
i,:
::..
+¡
i.
::..;. i.:
".l,
.'t
'
-'1 ,':,- ã , .
)11!¡ ¡;i.;_1,.
. ?:.'g. ì. .!
':1,.
'"., '
^..:
.¿ ¡i.i:. ,.!
''i: l.
''õii '
':::
'-
," . iif
.. .- lr>
rr,¿,. i:¡
'
ì1<
, rl | '..1 iFl
,l,i'ì.1(z
!1,::. -,¡'"
::-. '-_
"
''ir: ?ì
. i 'ìr
': i.!:
:i;, :,¡:
i,l
:li
r¡ .!
-:l
!i
t:i
'í
¡ì
:i.
)
i-;
';
ir
fi
I
!
";
i
m
x
I
@
-{
g
¡
"#,-
SI{AFIER
City of Shafter

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
I
Meeting Date: June 7,2022
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez,City Manager
Prepared By: Michael James, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF NEV/ LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLOOI-2022 FOR TRACT 6490

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the requested action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; conduct a public hearing; and adopt Resolution 2868, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter Ordering the Formation of Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. LL001-2022, Confirming the Diagram and Assessment for Said District, and Levying Assessments on Assessable Lots and Parcels of Land in said District for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

BACKGROUND
At its ll/lay 17,2022 meeting, Council adopted Resolution 2864, which declared intention to levy and collect assessments per a new City landscape and lighting district to serve new residents within Tract 6490. The resolution authorized a ballot process so affected property owners can vote to accept or reject the proposed property tax assessment that would fund the district's operations and maintenance work. It also authorized a public hearing on the proposed district formation for tonight's meeting.

State law allows up to a 45-day notice of a public hearing for the affected property owners but, in this case, there is one owner of all 107 lots, Summit Capital Ventures, Inc., that has specifically requested to waive that right in order to have the formation approved as quickly as possible.

Establishing the district is one of several conditions Summit Capital Ventures, Inc. must meet in order to sell lots and completed homes to prospective owners. This waiver has been provided in the ballot package they have received from City and they have already voted to approve the district's formation and assessment for all of the affected lots.

The City has published Notice of the Public Hearing for tonight's meeting on the formation of the new district. After conducting the public hearing, Council can adopt Resolution 2868 which approves the district to take effect during Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

PUBLIC HEARING 3
Formation of New Landscape and Lighting Assessment District LL00l-2022 for Tract 6490

CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed activity 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. The action is organization or administrative activities of governments that does not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this item because the new district should take effect during Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Staff will include the district prior to recommending a budget to approve for this fiscal year.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council can waive the requirement to create a new district if it prefers to reduce the property tax burden on future homeowners within this planned development or avoid certain types of public improvements typically funded by a district. However, public improvements without district funding would likely place the operations and maintenance burden on the General Fund.

Further, the public improvements enhance the appearance and safety of a much-needed residential development in the Core City. Therefore, altemative action is not recommended.

ATTACHMENT
Ballot Assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. LL00I-2022 and Waiver of Notice for Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Formation.

Resolution 2868
1 2.

PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENT BALLOT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2023.2024 FOR THE CITY OF'' SHAFTER LANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. LLOO\-2022
TRACT 6490 (PHASE l-rr)
(suMMrr cAPrrAL VENTURES, rNC.)
To be counted, this ballot must be returned to the City Clerk of the City of Shafter prior to the conclusion of the public hearing which is to be held at the Shafter City Hall Council Chambers, 336 Pacific Ave., Shafter, California at 6:00 p.m. on June 7, 2022. In compliance with AB 361 and the Resolution Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Relating to the COVID-l9 Pandemic, adopted by the City of Shafter City Council, public meetings are currently Teleconference/Video Conference Meetings aligned with local and federal guidelines and social distancing recommendations for the containment of the Coronavirus. You are strongly encouraged to observe the City Council meetings live via YouTube
https://www.voutube.com/user/CitvofShafter/. If you wish to make a comment on a specifìc agenda item or public commento please submit your comment via email by 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday, June 7,2022 to the City Clerk at [email protected]. If you wish to make a written comment please submit your comment to the City Clerk, 336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, CA 93263. If you wish to make a comment during the live meeting, by joining the conference using Zoom (including making live comments during the public comment period), callers must first register with the City Clerk at [email protected] before the meeting begins to receive instructions and the call-in number and code. All public comments are provided to the City Council and applicable Staff, for review and consideration by the Commission prior to taking action on any matters listed on the agenda and are incorporated into the official record of the City Council meeting. In order to vote, you must indicate your support for or opposition to the following proposition by placing aî "X" in the appropriate box below, insert the name(s) of the property owner(s) and the street address or County Assessor's parcel number of your property in the appropriate blanks, and sign the ballot.

PROPOSITION A: Shall assessments be levied on the
parcels of property within City of Shafter Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. LL001-2022 for fiscal
year 2023-2024 in the amounts set forth in the Engineer's Report presented to the City Council on May 17, 2022,
and shall such assessments to be levied in future fiscal years be subject to adjustment or increase based on the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Anaheim, CA but not by more than 4Yo for any
such fiscal years?

PROPERTY OWNER(S)
Summit Capital Ventures. Inc.

Print Name(s) of Owner

SUPPORT
OPPOSE
By:

Name Title
By:

Name
DE,SCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:

Title
Assessor Parcel Number 028-f80-07

WAIVER OF NOTICE FOR CITY OF SHAFTER LANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. LLOOI-2022 F'ORMATION
SUMMIT CAPITAL VENTURES, INC. ("Owner")o the owner of the parcels of property desuibed in the attached Exhibit "4", which is proposed to be formed into Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LL00l-2022 in the City of Shafter (the "Þistrict"), understands that state law sets forth a procedure for conducting an assessment ballot election, and that said procedure provides property owners the opportunity to vote whether their property will be subjeot to the proposed assessment. In particular, state law requires that the City conduct a public hearing not less than 45 days after providing notice to thc owners of property that will be subject to the assessment.

In order to avoid any delay in formíng the Owner's property into a District, and with full awareness of Owner's legal rights to receive notice of the proposed assessmentso Owner hereby waives Ownerns right to have 45-days' notíce of the public hearing on the proposed assessments and agrees that the City of Shafter may conduct the public hearing on the proposed formation and levy of assessments on any date deemed advisable by the City Council, which may occur on a date earlier than would otherwise be permitted by state law. This waiver shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the Owner. Owner shall provide notice of this waivcr, the proposed District, and the projected annual assessment cost (along with the CPI inøease calculation) to all purchasers of real property within the area described in Exhibit A prior to the close of escrow:

Furthero Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless in connection with from any and all claims, demands, causes of aotiono costs, cxpenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to propcrty or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, erors or omissions of Owner, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents in connection with this waiver, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneyso fees, and other related costs and €xpenses.

SUMMIT CAPIT RES,INC.

Signature
û,æb
Print Name
Ctr."
Date
-4 r Ilt¡¡r_
Title
E)üIIBIT 'úA'

DESCRIPTION OT' PROPERTY
BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MDB&M,

CITY OF SHAFTER, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6490 _ AS APPROVED BY THE SHAFTER CITY COUNCIL ON May 3,2405
(APN: 028-180-07)
notary public or other offïcer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of State of Cali la
County of
On before me, personally appeared
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subsoribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ics), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the pcrson(s) acted, exesuted the instrument.

I certiÛ under PENALTY Ol" PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is lrue and correct.

TYITNËSS my hand and official scal
coMM, fæ6ft169
[ûfrûY Pllltlo t CALlFolù{
KERN OOUNÎY
Signature (Seal)
)
)
RESOLUTION NO.2868

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER ORDERING

THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. LL00t-2022, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR SAID

DISTRICT, AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS ON ASSESSABLE LOTS AND PARCELS OF LAND IN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, on May 17,2022, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of Shafter ("City") adopted Resolution No. 2864 declaring its intention to form LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. LL00l-2022 ("Assessment District") and scheduling a public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2864 the City Council approved the report of the District Engineer, the Engineer of Record ("Report") which contained, among other matters, the proposed assessments to be levied for fiscal year 2023-2024 upon assessable lots and parcels of land proposed to be included within the Assessment District; and \ryHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2864, and pursuant to Section 53753 of the Government Code, the City Council directed the City Clerk ("City Clerk") to cause notice of the proposed formation of the Assessment District and the proposed assessments and of the time and place of the public hearing thereon to be mailed to the record owner of each parcel of property identified in the Report and fuither directed that each such mailed notice contain an assessment ballot upon which the property owner could indicate his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessments; and
\ilHEREAS, the record owners of all property within the Assessment District have waived the notice period required under Government Code Section 53753; and \ilHEREAS, the City Council has conducted the public hearing with respect to the formation of the Assessment District and the proposed assessments and, at the conclusion of the public hearing, received a report from the City Clerk regarding the tabulation of the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in support of or opposition to the proposed assessments advising that the ballots which were received were voted in favor of the proposed assessments and that a majority protest does not therefore exist.

NOW, THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Shafter as follows:

SECTION 1 Findings. The findings recited in the preceding paragraphs are true and correct
SECTION 2. Assessment District. The Assessment District is LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. LL00l-2022 of the City of Shafter. The tenitory which is proposed to be included in the Assessment District as described in the Report is generally located North of Los Angeles Avenue, South of East Ash Avenue and East of Mannel Avenue in the City of Shafter, County of Kern.

Shafter City Council Resolution 2868
June'7,2022
Page2
SECTION 3 Improvements. The improvements within and for the Assessment District and which shall be provided for the Assessment District through the assessments levied annually on property therein shall include the following:
(a) the installation or construction of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and traffic signals;
(b) the installation or planting of landscaping, including, but not limited to, street trees, parks, parkways, and median islands;
(c) the installation or construction of park or recreational facilities; (d) the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) through (c) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and
(e) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing SECTION 4 Designation of Assessment District. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTzuCT NO. LL00l-2022 of the City of Shafter is hereby formed and shall include the property described in the Report and Section 2. The diagram of the Assessment District as contained in the Report is confirmed.

SECTION 5. Lev.v of Assessments: Annual Increases: Duration. The assessments proposed to be levied on the lots and parcels within the Assessment District for fiscal year 2023- 2024 in the amounts set forth in the Report and in the assessment ballot mailed to and returned by the owners of the property included in the Assessment District shall be and are confirmed and levied. As specified in such ballot, the assessment amounts contained in the Report shall be subject to an annual adjustment or increase in an amount equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA but not to exceed 4Yo, provided however that the amount of the assessment to be levied on any assessable parcel in any fiscal year shall not in any event exceed the actual total cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. The assessments shall be levied annually on assessable lots and parcels of property in the Assessment District so long as the assessments are necessary to finance the cost of the operation, maintenance and servicing of the improvements specified in Section 3 within and for the Assessment District.

SECTION 6. Filins With the Countv Auditor. The City Clerk shall cause the diagram and assessment for the Assessment District as confirmed and levied hereby to be filed with the County Auditor of the County of Kern as required by Section 22641of the Streets and Highways Code.

SECTION 7. Compliance with State Law. The City of Shafter certifies that these assessments comply with the requirements of Articles XIIID of the State of California Constitution.

Shafter City Council Resolution 2868
June 7,2022

SECTION 8. That the Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certifr to the passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED' APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June,2022.

Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST:

Y azmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Martinez,City Attomey
Í?# City of Shafter

SHAFTER COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 7,2021
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
Prepared By: Marco A. Martinez,City Attorney
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CREATING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

AND ADMINI STRATIVE PROCEDURES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing; and waive further reading, read by title only and introduce:

ORDINANCE 738, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 18 TO TITLE 16 OF THE

SHAFTER MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATION

BACKGROUND
The City of Shafter's Municipal Code does not contain provisions that provide administrative guidance for the adoption, collection and administration of development impact fees. Although most of the legal requirements for the adoption and collection of development impact fees are detailed in the Califomia Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq.), it is standard practice to supplement these requirements with local administrative procedures. The pu{pose ofthis ordinance is to create such procedures'
A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to impacts created by the development project. (Gov. Code $ 66000(b).) The City of Shafter recently commissioned a Development Impact Fee Study or o'Nexus Study" that details (1) projecting the future growth that will be served, (2) identifies the current and projected levels of iervice for certain public facility categories, (3) identifies any facilities or improvements that will be needed to accommodate future growth, and (4) allocates the costs ofproviding the needed public services between the existing population (existing development) and new population (new development). This Nexus Study provides the justification for the types and amounts of development impact fees that are imposed. The City Council will consider the adoption of the Nexus Study and Fee Resolution in separate actions. The adoption of this ordinance merely creates administrative regulations to guide City staff once the fees are collected. It includes the following components:

1. Defines the purpose of the fees and the applicable exemptions; PUBLIC HEARING +
Ordinance Creating Development Impact Fee Program and Administrative Procedures

2. Defines certain terms to assist staff in the administration of the fee program;

3. Establishes fee categories and funds for the collection and placement of monies collected;

4. Establishes when an applicant will pay the fees and the circumstances under which they may be entitled to credits;

5. A process to allow developers to be reimbursed for constructing facilities (or donating land) that exceed their requirements; and

6. A process to consider fee deferrals and waivers to promote fairer financing mechanisms.

As new fee categories are developed in any subsequent Nexus Studies, the chapter created by this ordinance will be amended to include these as separate funds.

FISCAL IMPACT
No Fiscal Impact.

CEQA COMPLIANCE
Adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Regulation 1 5061 (bX3). Under Regulation 15061(bX3), the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the project is exempt from CEQA. This ordinance will not affect the physical environment by permitting a new use or intensifuing an existing use. The ordinance establishes administrative policies for the collection and administration of development impact fees. There is no potential for the changes to result in a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Administer the fee program without specific guidance

ATTACHMENT

1. Ordinance No. 738
-2-
ORDINANCE NO. 738

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 18 TO TITLE 16

OF THE SHAFTER MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE

CITY'S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND

ADMINISTRATION
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Shafter finds as follows:
(A) The provision of new and expanded facilities and infrastructure is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the City of Shafter by reducing the adverse effects of urbanization and development. (B) It is necessary to enact and implement certain development impact fees to assure that all development within the City pays its fair share of the costs of providing necessary public facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such new development. (C) A proper funding source for the costs associated with new development is a specific development or facilities fee for each type of facility related to the specific need created by the development and reasonably related to the relative cost of providing such necessary public facilities.
(D) The development impact nexus reports adopted by the City justiff the imposition of each development fee on new construction by analyzing the City's General Plans and Master Facility Plans, and assigning impact fee costs on a fair-share basis to the various types of development, and assigning the resulting fee per dwelling unit andlor commercial/industrial square footage, based on the anticipated burden of such new dwelling unit and/or commercial/industrial area on City facilities and infrastructure and the need created by such dwelling unit and/or commercial/industrial area for new and expanded facilities and infrastructure.
(E) The City anticipates that much of the funding for facilities and infrastructure attributable to commercial and industrial development will be provided through mechanisms such as property tax, sales tax, Measure A funds, community development block grants, gas tax, and conditions of entitlement approval. Nevertheless, the development impact nexus reports identiff that commercial and industrial development do generate a portion of the need for certain facilities and infrastructure.
(F) The primary purpose of the development impact fees is to mitigate the impact on City facilities and infrastructure caused by increased demand for facilities and infrastructure from persons generated by new development.
(G) The fees will be used to finance public facilities and infrastructure, including law enforcement and fire protection facilities, and animal control facilities and infrastructure. (H) The use of the fees to fund such public facilities and infrastructure is reasonably related to the impacts of residential development and other development, on the City as more fully described in the development impact nexus reports adopted by the City Council.

Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June21,2022
Page2
(I) The need for development impact fees to fund such public facilities is reasonably related to impacts on the City of residential development and other development as more fully described in the development impact nexus reports adopted by the City Council. (J) To assure fair and legally sound implementation of the development impact fees established in this chapter, such fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be set by Resolution of the City Council following notice and hearing, in accordance with California law. (K) To assure fair implementation of the development impact fees established in this chapter, the City must have the latitude to defer or waive such fees in special sases, after notice and hearing, where better or more fair financing anangements would result from such deferral, or where imposition of such fees would cause inequities. (L) To assure fair implementation of the development fees established by this chapter, provisions must be made for extending such fees to subsequently annexed land that benefits from the public facilities funded by these fees.
(M) The provisions of this chapter are in addition to all other provisions of the Shafter Municipal Code and all new residential and other development, as defined in this chapter, and shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and to all other provisions of the Shafter Municipal Code.
(N) The provisions of this chapter are intended to provide administrative guidance for certain existing fees that pre-date this chapter, as well as any new fees adopted after the effective date of this chapter.
(O) Certain provisions in this chapter are adopted in accordance with California Government Code, Section 66000 et. seq. and are intended to be interpreted consistently with that authority.

NO\ry, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein, are made findings and determination of the City Council, and are an operative part of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CEOA Compliance. The City Council of the City of Shafter finds the adoption of this ordinance to be statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Regulation 15061(bX3). Under Regulation 15061(bX3), the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the project is exempt. This ordinance will not affect the physical environment by permitting a new use or intensifring an existing use. The ordinance establishes policies for the collection and administration of development impact fees. There is no potential for the changes to result in a significant effect on the environment.

Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June 21,2022

SECTION 3. New Chapter 18. Chapter 18 is hereby added to Title 16 of the Shafter Municipal Code to read as follows:
"Chapter 16.18 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATION
Sections:

16.18.010. Purpose,Applicability&Exemptions.

A. The City Council declares the purpose of this chapter is to provide an administrative mechanism for the collection of fees that are collected to finance adequate infrastructure and other public improvements and facilities made necessary by the impacts created by new development in the City of Shafter in order to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Shafter. This chapter shall apply solely to development projects that propose construction of new dwelling units or additions to existing dwelling units in the City of Shafter.

B. The following are specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
(l) Projects for which a final map, as described in City of Shafter Subdivision Ordinance, has been duly approved by the City Council and recorded as of the effective date of this chapter, provided the project is built in conformance with the final map and provided the project has paid all applicable development impact fees previously imposed. (2) Secondary residential units, as defined herein, constructed on developed residential property meeting all state and city requirements for such units. (3) Additions or improvements to dwelling units after construction is complete, unless such additions or improvements (a) increase the number of dwelling units on the property, as defined herein, and (b) are not secondary residential units, as defined herein. (4) Government/public buildings, public schools, or other public facilities. (5) The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit.
(6) The rehabilitation andlor reconstruction of any non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage of the structure. Any increase in square footage of the structure shall pay the current applicable development impact fees for such increase. (7) Development projects that are the subject of a Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65864 et seq., prior to the initial effective date of this chapter, wherein the imposition of new fees is expressly prohibited or already authorized pursuant to its terms; provided, however, that if the term of such Development Agreement is extended after the initial effective date of this chapter, the development impact fees shall be imposed.
(S) Development projects with an approved vesting subdivision map(s) or recorded lots that are vested pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66498.1 through 66498.9 or other applicable law vesting the development project and affecting the collection of development impact fees.

Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June21,2022

16.18.020. Definitions
A. "Affected Area" means the corporate boundaries of the City of Shafter as these may be amended from time to time.

B. "CommerciaVretailloffice or industrial/manufacturing development project" means the construction of new or additional gross square footage of building area for commercial, retail office, industrial or manufacturing purposes.

C. "Development impact report" or "Nexus Study" is the report containing the analysis justifuing the adoption and amount of development impact fees to be imposed on development within the City of Shafter prepared in compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act.

D. "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development of residential, industrial or commercial land uses. "Development project" means and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, remodeling, or any work requiring any permit under the ordinances of the City of Shafter, as the same presently exist or may be amended from time to time hereafter. The term "development project" shall also include permits for erection of manufactured housing or additional or structures, and structures moved into the City.

E. "Effective Date" means the date that the fees in this chapter are eligible for collection, that date being sixty (60) days after adoption of any Resolution establishing the development impact fees.

F. "Fee" means a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by the City to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include fees specified in Section66477 of the California Government Code, fees for processing applications for govemmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65564) of Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the California Government Code. Fee also includes any connection fees adopted pursuant to resolution of the City Council and California Government Code, Section 66013.

G. "Public facilities" means and includes public improvements, public services and community amenities to be funded by development fees and identified in an approved nexus study adopted by the City Council.

H. "Secondary Residential Unit" or Accessory Dwelling Unit" means a second dwelling unit on the same lot as an existing primary residential unit, as described in Title 17, Section 1 1.200 of the Shafter Municipal Code.

16.18.030. Establishment of development impact fees.

A. In addition to any existing fees previously adopted, the City Council is hereby authorized to adopt and impose on all development projects seeking the issuance of building permits and/or Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June2l,2022

certificates of occupancy for development, fees to accommodate the infrastructure needs of new development. Such fees shall be imposed in accordance with the Nexus Study adopted by the City Council.

B. Any person who, after the effective date of a resolution establishing new or revised development impact fees, that, seeks to develop land within the City by applying for a building permit or applying for any discretionary land use permit for development within the Affected Area, is hereby required to pay the appropriate development impact fees established pursuant to the Resolution adopted to establish such fees in manner, amount and for the purposes therein referenced and in accordance with the provision of this chapter.

C. The fees authorized by this chapter and any Resolution adopted to establish and impose such fees shall be cumulative such that each person seeking a permit for a development project shall be charged each applicable fee.

16.18.040. Adoption of development impact fees by resolution The City Council shall, by resolution, set forth the specific amount of the development impact fees for the Affected Area, describe the beneht on which the fees are imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed and describe the estimated cost of these facilities and infrastructure to be financed.

16.18.050. Accounting and Disbursement of Fees
A. Each of the fees paid pursuant resolution establishing new or increased development impact fees shall be placed in a separate fund, each of which may be further segregated by specific project. These funds shall be known, respectively, as:

Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fund
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fund
Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fund
B. These funds, and interest earned thereon, if any, shall be expended solely for construction andlor acquisition of the corresponding public facilities shown in a Nexus Study justi$ing the fees or a capital improvement or similar master facility plan, or for reimbursement for construction and/or acquisition of those public facilities or as provided in the resolution establishing such fees.

16.18.060. Payment of fees.

The fees established pursuant to authority of this chapter shall be paid for the property on which a development project is proposed at the time of the issuance of any required building permit, except as otherwise provided below:

A. Fees imposed on residential development shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 66007 and 66013, as the same presently exists or may hereafter be amended from time to time.
1 2
a
J
Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June21,2022

B. Unless otherwise stated in this chapter, applicants shall pay fees at time of certificate of occupancy.

16.18.070. Development Impact Fee Credits.

A. The owner of a parcel of property otherwise required to pay a fee under this chapter may receive a credit for the corresponding development impact fee when that owner constructs or donates a facility, equipment or a portions thereof, identified in a Nexus Study justifuing the fees or a capital improvement or similar master facility plan, regardless of how it may be financed, that serves the owner's parcel or parcels. The development impact fee credit shall offset, on a proportionate basis without interest, the corresponding development impact fee to be paid pursuant to this chapter. The facility must be built in compliance with all applicable laws governing the construction of public improvements.

B. The amount of the development fee credit shall equal the City's most recent estimated cost of constructing and/or furnishing the facility, or the portion of the facility actually completed or purchased, by contract or utilizing City forces.

C. The owner of a parcel of property may be further entitled to a development impact fee credit where the City determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the construction of the facility, or a portion thereof, or equipment donation will be necessary to provide basic services to the entire City even though it does not directly serve the owner's project or is of greater capacity than that required to serve the owner's project adequately.

D. The amount of the development impact fee credit shall be determined after inspection and acceptance of the facility or equipment at the time of payment of the corresponding facilities fee.

E. To the extent that an owner is granted a development impact fee credit, such owner shall not be entitled to a future reimbursement for such facility or equipment, as applied to a different development project.

F. A development fee credit is an obligation of the City that runs with the land and inures to the benefit of each successor in interest of the original landowner until full credit has been received.

G. A developer shall also be entitled to a credit if the City and developer have executed an agreement or there is a preexisting ordinance which specifically exempts the developer from the payment of one or more of the fees enacted under this chapter. The availability of the credit and its amount shall be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis based on the provisions of the applicable agreement.

16.18.080. Reimbursement.

A. The owner of a parcel of property otherwise required to pay a development impact fee will be entitled to enter into a reimbursement agreement to reimburse from subsequently collected development fees the direct and verifiable costs of installing or fumishing public improvements, or portions thereof, identified in the Nexus Study justifuing the fees or a capital improvement or similar master facility plan where all of the following conditions are satisfied:

Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June 21,2022

l. The owner has constructed a public improvement, or portion thereof that is identified in the appropriate Nexus Study justiSing the fees or a capital improvement or similar master facility plan.

2. The City required that the public improvement be constructed to contain supplemental size, capacity, number or length for the benefit of property not within the owner's project.

3. The City approved, prior to construction or fumishing, the proposed budget for the project and hnds any change to that budget fair and reasonable.

4. The public improvement, or portion thereof, has been dedicated to the public.

5. The public improvement, or portion thereof, has been built in compliance with all applicable laws goveming the construction of public works.

B. The City shall not reimburse the owner for costs related to financing any public facility C. An owner shall only be entitled to reimbursement to the extent that any public facility project benefits property not within the owner's project. Thus, an owner may receive a development impact fee credit for the portion of a public facility that serves the owner's project and reimbursement for the oversized or extra-capacity or extended portion of a public facility that benefits subsequently developed property.

D. In no event shall an owner receive a development impact fee credit andlor reimbursement in excess of the City's most recent estimated cost of constructing the facility, or the portion of the facility actually completed, by contract or by utilizing City forces.

E. Any reimbursement agreement entered into under this chapter shall require the City, for a period of up to fifteen (15) years, to reimburse the owner from the proceeds of the development fees collected from owners of new projects that directly benefit from the facilities financed by the fees and which are the subject of the reimbursement agreement. Reimbursement shall only be made from fees actually collected to fund improvements which are of the same type as the improvement constructed by the owner, and from no other source. The terms of the reimbursement shall be set forth in the reimbursement agreement.

16.18.090. Deferrals&'Waivers.

The City Council is empowered to grant deferral, waiver or reduction of any development impact fee imposed. Such deferral, waiver or reduction may only be granted after the conduct of a public hearing if, in the opinion of the City Council, properly supported by specific findings, deferral would allow a better or fairer financing arrangement to be developed and imposed, or where waiver or reduction is required because imposition of such fee or fees in full would cause inequities. Findings must be based on written and other evidence submitted by the property owner, substantiating the owner's contention that the fee should be deferred, waived or reduced.

Findings must include facts supporting deferral, waiver or reduction including, without limitation, findings that in the case of deferral (1) other properties to be benefited by any fee will not be burdened by the review and delay in fee imposition, or, (2) alternative financing methods Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June21,2022

involving more than one owner have been proposed for review, or (3) delay will result in a more fair funding alrangement; and, in the case of waiver or reduction, the owner will receive insufficient or no benefit from the fee imposed and would therefore be required, if the fee were imposed in full, to pay more than his or her fair share for the benefit received.

16.18.100. Refund of fees paid
A. If a building permit expires without coÍrmencement of construction, then the fee payer shall be entitled to a refund, without interest, of the development impact fee paid as a condition for its issuance, except that the City shall retain one percent (1%) of the fee to offset a portion of the administrative costs of collection and refund. The fee payer must submit an application for such a refund to the City's Finance Director within thirty (30) calendar days of the expiration of the permit. Failure to timely submit the required application for refund shall constitute a waiver of any right to the refund.

B. In the event any fee collected pursuant to this chapter remains unexpended or uncommitted in any fund established pursuant to this chapter five or more years after deposit of the fee, the City shall make findings once each fiscal year to identiff the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged.

C. The unexpended or uncommitted portion of the development impact fee, and any interest accrued thereon, for which need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to subsection B of this section shall be refunded to the then-current record owner or owners of lots or units of the development project or projects on a prorated basis.

D. The provisions of California Government Code Sections 66001(d), (e) and (f) shall apply fully to any refund of fees remaining unexpended or uncommitted in any such City fund for five or more years after deposit, and the provisions of subsections B and C of this section shall be subordinate to the section and shall be applied consistent therewith.

16.18.110. Application to Subsequently Annexed Land
As areas not presently situated within the City boundaries seek to annex to the City, the City Council shall determine the benefit to such land areas of the public facilities and infrastructure identified in this chapter. The City Council shall impose development fees, in whole or in part, as established by this chapter, upon such annexed areas to the extent necessary to assure that such areas pay their fair share of the actual costs of all necessary public facilities and infrastructure benefitting their projects, unless the City Council determines that such an imposition would cause inequities or that a better or fairer financing arrangement can and should be developed."
Shafter City Council Ordinance 738
June2l,2022

SECTION 4. Publication. This ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase ofthis ordinance, or any part thereofis for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereol irrespective ofthe fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the coÍìmencement of the thirty-first (31st) day following the adoption date.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June,2022
Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST:

Y azmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Martinez,City Attorney
SI{AFTER
"# City of Shafter

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June7,202l
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
Marco A. Martinez, Cíty Attorney
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION & NEXUS REPORT AND

ADOPTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

FEES AND INTERIM POLICIES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Open the public hearing and take public testimony regarding the Nexus Study and proposed Public Safety Impact Fees;

2. Close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 2869:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER

ADOPTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE

CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT, INCLUDING THE FINDINGS
CONTAINED THEREIN; ADOPTING PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; AND ADOPTING INTERIM POLICIES FOR

THE PAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES BY CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

BACKGROUND
A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to impacts created by the development project. (Gov. Code $ 66000(b).) The City of Shafter recently commissioned a Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report or o'Nexus Study" for public safety service fees that details (1) projecting the future growth that will be served, (2) identifies the curent and projected levels of service for certain public safety facility categories, (3) identifies any facilities or improvements that will be needed to accommodate future growth, and (4) allocates the costs of providing the needed public safety services between the existing population existing development) and new population (new development). The Nexus Study was prepared by Revenue Cost Specialists LLC, and is attached to the proposed resolution as Exhibit "A."
PUBLIC HEARING 5
Resolution Adopting Public Safety Services Development Impact Fee Calculation & Nexus Report and Adoption of Public Safety Service Development Impact Fees and Interim Policies The Nexus Study provides the justification for the types and amounts of public safety development impact fees that are imposed. In addition, it includes the findings required to be adopted for each type of fee. The Nexus Study proposes the following fees (see Table 2-5 ofNexus Study & Exhibit B of Resolution):

Taþle 2-5
Summary of Proposed Development lmpact Fees
for the CitY of Shafter
Detached Þwelling Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit
Commercial Lodging (Keyed) Unit
RetaillServicei0ffice Uses Square Foot
Business Park Uses Square Foot
lndustrial Uses $quare Foot
lnstitutional Use Square Foot
$2,91O/Unit
$2,265/Unit
$2,547/Unit
$1,024/Unit
$3.012/S.F
$1.3741S.F
$0.250/s.F
$t.B83lS.F
If adopted, the Resolution will take effect immediately and the approved fees will be effective 60 days later as required by law.

Interim Policies
The proposed Resolution also adopts interim policies to assist staff in administering the fee program (See Exhibit C of Resolution). Under certain land use laws, including the California Subdivision Map Act, fees that can be imposed are those that are in effect at the time the map application is submitted. In order to avoid a'orush to the counter" scenario, the interim policies make clear that:

1. The development impact fees to be paid are those that are adopted by this resolution, despite its effective date (since notice has been provided of the amounts); and

2. Describes the types of projects that are exempt from these requirements, due to state laws (i.e. SB 330 residential projects, vesting maps).

The interim policies would only affect map applications fhatare made between the adoption of the Resolution and their effective date - 60 days later. They also affect already approved subdivision maps that are not otherwise vested by state laws.
-2-
Resolution Adopting Public Safety Services Development Impact Fee Calculation & Nexus Report and Adoption of Public Safety Service Development Impact Fees and Interim Policies

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the proposed public safety impact fees are expected to generate (over time) sufficient revenue to fund the facilities and/or improvement and equipment described in the schedules attached in the Nexus Study (See Schedules 3.1, 4.1 e,5.I).

CEQA COMPLIANCE
The City, as lead agency underthe CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of adopting the public safety impact fees.

The City Council finds that the impact fees are intended to fund as-yet unknown, future projects, programs, and capital improvement projects related to the City's need to finance public safety capital improvements to provide adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs from new development. Any activities, including infrastructure improvements, to be funded by these public safety impact fees will be subject to future environmental review under CEQA, as applicable, prior to City approval.

The City Council therefore finds that the impact fees are not subject to environmental review under CEQA. First, the impact fees, in and of themselves, do not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore are not considered a "project" under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, $ 21065, 14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15378, subd. (a).) Second, the impact fees are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; here, there is no possibility that the impact fees, in and of themselves, may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15061, subd. (bX3).) And third, the impact fees are considered a govemment funding mechanism that do not involve any commitment on behalf of the City to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15378, subd. (bx4).)

ALTERNATIVES

1. Decline to adopt the Public Safety Impact Fees and absorb the costs to provide the facilities and services needed to provide services to new development with other funds (i.e. general tund).

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 2869
-J-
RESOLUTION NO.2869

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER ADOPTING

THE PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT,INCLUDING THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN; ADOPTING PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; AND

ADOPTING INTERIM POLICIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY

SERVICES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shafter wishes to ensure that new development within the City mitigates its impacts on public safety services, including the following public safety facilities :

Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fee
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fee
Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Fee
\ilHEREAS, the City has identified the need for new and/or expanded facilities to accommodate expected population growth and new development; and, WHEREAS, it is the City's policy that future new development should pay its fair share of public facilities and services in accordance with good fiscal management as determined by the City Council, including the current costs for providing the facilities in direct proportion to the demand for these facilities generated by new development; and \ilHEREAS, the City retained Revenue & Cost Specialists LLC (RCS) to conduct a comprehensive review of the public safety facilities needed to accommodate growth and prepare a Public Safety Services Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ("Study") in accordance with California Government Code $$ 66000 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Study provided the City with information and data regarding the nexus between the planned public safety improvements and the benefiting land uses that would pay the impact fees at time of issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, the Study provides the City with the findings necessary to establish the City's proposed public safety impact fees in accordance with Government Code $ 66001; and, WHEREAS, on June 7,2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed public safety development impact fees identified in the Study with an opportunity for the public to be heard, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code $$66016--66018; and WHEREAS, the Study prepared by RCS, an independent consultant, has been available for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code $66016 and $6062a; and
\ilHEREAS, the City Council also realizes that there is a tendency on the part of some developers and builders to rush their tentative map, building permit, and other entitlement Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
June 7,2022
Page2
applications to avoid paying the proposed development impact fee increases, thus causing significant administrative burdens on City staff and the public; and \ilHEREAS, the City Council wishes to create certainty for developers, builders, and the City by adopting policies concerning the payment of proposed developer impact fees and fee increases; and
WHEREAS, in addition to this Resolution the City Council is considering by Ordinance No.738 which amends the Shafter Municipal Code to adopt certain requirements relating to the administration of development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shafter desires to adopt the Study, including the findings justifring the public safety development impact fees identified therein as shown on the attached Exhibit "4" incorporated herein by this reference, and desires to adopt the fees public safety development impact fees attached hereto as Exhibit "8" and incorporated herein by this reference; and
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Shafter does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Shafter finds and determines that the Study complies with California Government Code $66001 by establishing the basis for the imposition of the impact fees on new development. The City Council hereby adopts the Study and the findings set forth in the Study attached hereto as Exhibit "4" as the findings of the City Council, which contain the following findings with respect to each public safety development impact fee, which are by this reference incorporated herein as iffully stated herein. (a)
(b)
(c)
Identifies the purpose of the fee;
Identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

SECTION 2. Thafthe City Council hereby determines that the public safety development impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the public improvements described or identified in the Study or such other public facility master plans or capital improvement program as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council.

Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
Ilurl'e7,2022

SECTION 3. The City Council has considered the specific project descriptions and the cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project descriptions and cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing the development impact fees.

SECTION 4. That the City Councit finds that the projects and fee methodology identified in the Study are consistent with the City's General Plan.

SECTION 5. That the City Council adopts the schedule of public safety development impact fees contained in and attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (From Table 2-5 of Nexus Study). The public safety development impact fees shall be imposed upon property owners or developers when applying for a building permit, and shall be due at final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first.

SECTION 6. Interim Fee Policies. According to the Califomia Mitigation Fee Act, the public safety development impact fees adopted by this Resolution shall become effective 60 days after their adoption. As a result, it is prudent to adopt certain policies to provide certainty to property owners and developers and mitigate the tendency on the part of some developers and builders to rush their tentative map, building permit, and other entitlement applications to avoid paying the proposed development impact fee increases, thus causing significant administrative burdens on City staff and the public. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the policies contained in the attached Exhibit "C" incorporated herein by this reference, for all subdivision map, building permit or other entitlement applications filed prior to the effective date of the public safety development impact fees; and
SECTION 7. Within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year during which the first deposit of fees into a Development Impact fee account has occurred and every year thereafter as required by Government Code Sec. 66006, the City shall make available to the public and the City Council shall review:

The amount of the fee;
The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; The amount of the fees collected, and interest earned;

4. Identification of each public improvement on which fee revenues were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fee revenues;

5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will coÍìmence, ifthe City determines sufficient funds have been collected financing of an incomplete public improvement;

6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvements on which the transfer or loan will be expended.

I
2 J
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
June 7,2022

SECTION 8. At least once every fîve years as required by Government Code Sec. 66001(d), the -ity Co,rncil shall review the basis for the impact fees to determine whether the fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new development and make the following findings for any fee revenues that remain unexpended:
l. Identifu the purpose to which the fee will be put.

2. it is charged.

Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the pu{pose for which

3. Identifu all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which the impact fees are to be used.

4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited in to the appropriate account of fund.

SECTION 9 CEOA Compliance. The City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of adopting the public safety impact fees. As the decision making body for the City, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the adoption of the impact fees.

The City Council finds that the impact fees are intended to fund as-yet unknown, future projects, programs, and capital improvement projects related to the City's need to finance public safety capital improvements to provide adequate infrastructure to meet growth-related needs from new development. These impact fees do not commit the City to approve any particular project, program, or capital improvement, but will be placed in separate funds for potential future projects. These impact fees are in response to the City's projected need for additional facilities and infrastructure to provide services to new development. Any activities, including infrastructure improvements, to be funded by these public safety impact fees will be subject to future environmental review under CEQA, as applicable, prior to City approval.

The City Council therefore finds that the impact fees are not subject to environmental review under CEQA. First, the impact fees, in and of themselves, do not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore are not considered a "project" under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, $ 21065, 14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15378, subd. (a).) Second, the impact fees are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; here, there is no possibility that the impact fees, in and of themselves ,may have a significant effect onthe environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15061, subd. (bX3).) And third, the impact fees are considered a govemment funding mechanism that do not involve any commitment on behalf of the City to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs., $ 15378, subd. (bx4).)
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
June 7,2022

The City Council has considered any cofiìments received at the public meeting on June 7,2022, prior to adoption of this Resolution. The determination that the impact fees are not subject to CEQA review reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis.

The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at Office of the City Clerk ,336 Paciftc Avenue, Shafter, California 93263. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 10. That the new fees attached hereto shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June,2022.

Cathy L. Prout, Mayor
ATTEST:

Y azmina Pallare s, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marco A. Martinez, City Attomey
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
June7,2022

Exhibit "Ao'
[Final] Public Safety Services Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ("Study") Proposed
Public Safety Services
Development lmpact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report
for the
City of Shafter, California
May 1 1,2022
i
l-,
,.; t.-
t
May 1 1,2422
Honorable Mayor and City Gouncil
Via Mr, GabrielA. Gonzalez, Qily Manager
City of Shafter City Hall
336 Pacific Avenue
ShaftEr, CA 93263
RE: 2021.22 updata to the Development lmpact Fee (DlFs) Calculatlon and Nexus Report Honorable Mayor, Councll and City Manager Gonzalez:

ThE City recently committed to a major effort to identify all of the City's public safety (Police, Fire_ and Animal Coritrol) capltal needg through General Plan build-out and calculate a Echedule of development lmpaci fees (henceforth referred to as D/Fs)with which to finance the acquisition of the long term development-generated publlc safety capital needs' Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L,C., was contracted to provide their technical expertise both in the ldentlfication of capital projects and acquisitione as well as nexus distribution effortE, These capital addltions are necessary in order to preserve the existing Leuels of SaruÍce (LOS) cuirently offered to and enjoyed by the existing community from the díminution of those existing LOS duâ to the addition of new residential and business development in Shafter and calculate the DlFs necegsary to finance those required projects. All of the identified project costs contained within these Råport were limited to growth-generated public safety capital need intended to: 1.) Accommodate the new public safety calls-for-service and 2,) Maintain the existing level of public safety serviceE currently enjoyed by the City's current citizens and businesses, City Council and staff, responsible for providing serviceE to a continually expanding residential and businesE community, must recognize that the magnitude of the DlFs is a direct function of the nearly S162,6 million cogt of the capital projects that are identified in the Report's infraEtructure chapiers, Since this Report lE limited to address only growth generated demands at the current levels of eervice, virtually all of the $162.6 million in identified proiect costs could be financed by the impoeition of these impact fees, No analysis or judgment has been made regarding the existing levels of Eervice, they simply are what they are and impact fees are to be based upon them,
The adoption of the proposed DlFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Courrcils, to continue to ensure that the City will þe able to meet the þasic infrastructure needs of new growth, without unduly burdening the existing population and þusiness community for these development-generated capital costs, Adoption of the maximum DlFs contalned herein and imposiiion upon the remaining development opportunities in Shafter would generate about$161 ,3 m¡il¡on in a comþination of puþlic improvement dedications and DIF revenues limited for uEe on the many development generated capital expansion projects.

A major element in this Report is the propo rtionat analysis, or comparison of what is being asked of futüre residents and busìnesses, in the form of dedicated public improvements or in lieu impact fee payments, with the replacement cost of the City's existing infrastructure (land, improvement, fac¡lit¡es, and equipment), contriþuted by the existing population and business community. The City's inventory of existing infrastructure is important because it determines the limits of the City's puólic safety service levels to its residents and businesses, The dedications, taxes and ässessmentä contributed to date by the existing community over numerous decades of development have generated just under $29.5 million (at current replacement costs) in major public safety infrastructure/capital improvements for the City' lnfrastructure
Type
Existing Capital
lmprovements
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $16,067,289 Fire Supp ression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $10,162,329 Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $3,253,888 Total Public Safety Assets $29,483,506
The recommended DIF schedules will not address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per Government Code 566000 et. seq. and fairness, DlFs cannot address existing capital deficiencies. The proposed DlFs will recognize and accommodate the needs generated by the City's growing population and business community' However, with the adoption of DlFs, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated needs for expanded services and facilities will remain avaitable for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects.

The DlFs contained herein calculate only the costs of infrastructure required to support the public safety services provided only by the City of Shafter. They do not include development impact fees imposed by the school district(s) or any other government agency.

The information required to identify the City's various public safety level-of-service and develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the Shafter staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete, ln addition to your assistance in direction and in communicating to staff of the highest priority of this project, we wish to extend our appreciation to the management and technical personnel who were instrumental with RCS to generate the information and data so critically necessary for the legal support of the DlFs. They include:

Diana Barnett, Assrsfanf Potice Chief provided RCS with both the police and animal control existing facility, vehicle and equipment inventories and other needed police data in a very timely manner.

Suzanne Forrest, Senior Planner assisted in compiling the City's existing and future potential development land use database (Appendix B) based upon the City's GIS information received from:

Jason Martln, GIS Coordínator, in addition to the land uee database efforts, he also generated the much needed and very relevant Shafter twelvE month actual police and fire calls'for-service, by land use, His effortE were greatly appreciated and the quality of that information and the resulting calculations wEre directly improved þy hiE efforts, Cary Wrlght, Kern County Operations Diviston Chief,'A'th'É nJovld9d RCS with the asseta of the ãxbtinþ station, vehicles and epecialty equipment within the City's limits' We appreciate the timellnees of their responses to our many inquires, Without their hard work anO w¡íttngness to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy that ít has.

This Devetopment lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report is now submitted for your review and coneldération, RCS is prepared to aesist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of thie very signlficant part of the City's revenue structure.

Sincerely,
Scott Thorpe, Gregory Brown
Senior Vice RCS Associate
CITY OF SHAFTER. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Background and lntroduction
Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings..........

Proposed Development Impact Fees/Summary Schedules....

Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment.' Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression/Rescue Facilities, Vehicles and Equi Chapter 5 - Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment..'." 1 ..10
20 pment
21 30
43 Appendix A - Summary of Recommendations
Appendix B - Expanded Land Use Database.........'..,
Appendix C - Police and Fire Station Construction Cost Estimates ... '. ' '.

Appendix D - Calculation of ADUs as a Function of Detached Dwellings End of Report,......

Gommonly Used Report Terms, Acronyms and AKA's
52 54
57 60
62 Attached Dwelling Unit
.... AI(A Single FamilY Dwelling
..AKA Apartment, Condominium or Duplex
lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
...State Department of Finance
Geographic I nformation SYstem
......... lnstitute of Transportation Engineers
..,.........Thousand Square Feet
.....Levelof Service
Mitigation Fee Act or 481600 ..... Government Code S 66000 Quimby 4c1............
....Development
Government Code 66477
Chapter I
Background and Introduction
ln 2022 the city of shafter retained Revenue & cost specialists to undertake a comprehensive cost calculation to create Public Safety Development lmpact Fees. The City has not calculated or charged Development lmpact Feeé for the Fire Department, Police Department, or Animal Control Services prior to this report.

RCS has identified $162.6 million in capital improvement projects to accommodate the 60,758 new residents estimated to be living in ttre City at general plan build-out. Without public safety Development lmpact Fees to mitigate these costs, the City would likely be unable to financially suppori these giealy needed capital improvement projects while still maintaining its current levä¡ of Servicé (Lo'S) for their existing residents and businesses. ln point of fact, if the City allows continued develôpment but cannót fund these needed public safety capital additions, The City could be creating public peril, which it simply cannot do. For a reference point, the City cuíren¡y has g2g.S m'illíon in replaceable infrastructure dedicated to these three services. The importance of the investment in existing assets will be fufther explained in subsequent Chapters.
ln 2016 the City annexed 11.02 square miles of land located southeast of the original City.

Annexation of tf¡is land into the City was made in two separate annexations, the first consisting of 6,g84 acres and the second conlisting of 70 acres, bringing the City's total. size to 38 square miles. The addition of 7,054 acres, or ll.OZ square miles, only further exacerbates the need for Development fmpact Fees to help mitigate the growing needs required from the Fire Department, Police Department, and Animal Control Services.

The City's land use database (see Chapter 2 and Appendix B) identifies 8,950.06 undeveloped acres with¡n the City that have been zoned. There are an additional 2,147 acres within the City limits that have noi been zoned and thus are not included within the impact fee calculations contained within this Report, with a minor demand calculation exception in the fire services.

The development impact cost calculations are intended to identify the cost of .accommodating continued d'evelopment in both areas in such a fashion as to not decrease the levels of service currently enjoyed by the City's existing residents and businesses.

Examples of the need for increased capacity to support demands from new development may include infrastructures outside of this Report
The lmportance of Capital lnfrastructure
The Levels of Service (LOS) of any one City infrastructure are based (or limited) upon the capacity of that infrastructure.to support the users, residents, or businesses. The design of any múnicióal project has a finite capacity, such as a four{ane road, a 30" storm drainage pipe, or a l0,O0O sqüarê foot library. Each is designed to meet the needs of a defined number of users. A street segment can only handle so many vehicles per hour, especially at a speed that makes it worth using for driving over longer distances'
city of shafter 2021update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 1 street segment can only handle so many vehicles per hour, especially at a speed that makes it worth using for driving over longer distances.

A storm drainage pipe that is 30" cannot handle storm flows twice its capacity. A library can hold just so many cãllection items and serve only so many residents; all the librarians in the world cannot make up for limited library space. A municipality with 0,40 square feet per resident of library space will be able to serve more residents than a municipality with only a 0.10 square feet itandard per resident of library space. The following is a more precise example using law enforcement.

Consider the labor-intensive service of law enforcement; regardless of the quality and capabilities of the City's sworn police officers, the Department remains highly dependent upon its infrastructure capacity. A police station of 7,500 square feet will have capacity to support roughly thirty sworn polìce officers at about 250 square feet per officer. lf the station size remains the same at 7,500 square feet but the sworn complement doubles to sixty police officers, the station will become increasingly dysfunctional. The same holds true for police response vehicles and law enforcement specialty equipment. lf a City adds thirty additional officers but cannot add station space, vehicles, and specialty equipment, the City has dealt with only half of the service equation. They have achieved little.

Furlher, if you add 30 police officers:
a But do not add police response vehicles, the response time to a call-forservice request will be very poor. r But do not add station space, the calls-for-services responses will make for dysfunctional management capabilities.
r But do not provide the sworn officers with the required personal and specialty equipment; the calls-for-services responses will be dangerous, certainly for the police otficer.

On the opposite side, if you add all of the above capital needs, but do not add additional sworn officers, the result would probably be limited to a minor improvement in response times.

Good municipal service takes a balance of staff and infrastructure. However, make no mistake about it, the amount of and complexity of any infrastructure defines (all or in paft) of the level of service (LOS). This makes the one{ime DIF financing of any City's infrastructure that much more important.

It takes a balance of infrastructure and staffing to accommodate the demands of new development with the police responses within the actual standard of service. lt will take additional properly equipped officers, law enforcement station space, response and support City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 2 Chaoter One Backqround and lntroduction
vehicles, and specialty equipment. The importance of having a properly calculated and documented DIF schedule in order to accommodate development-related demands cannot be over-stated, Of course, the DlFs can only be used for the capital acquisitions; the ongoing labor staffing costs will need to come from other sources.

PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS
A helpful, if not required, component of this Report is the proportional analysis of the infrastructure needs required to accommodate continued development of the City as compared to the existing infrastructure that has been generated through years of taxes and other contributions and currently serves the existing community. This proportional analysis is intended to recognize and reconcile the difference between the City's desired level of service required of new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the defacto or aciual level of service provided to the existing community. The inclusion of the proportional analysis will assist the City Council in adopting a DIF structure that recognizes inter-generationai equity and assists the Council in making the dlfficult policy decisions regarding the required capital additions needed to accommodate new development by increasing the lay-person's understanding of faÍness.

The proportional analysis is important, if for no other reason, than for community intergeneiational equity, i.e-, fairness in the infrastructure investment that has been made by existing iesidents and businesses with those of new residents and businesses that wish to use the existing infrastructure. As an example, new development will be required to expand the number of arteiial and collector lane miles in the City but new development also benefits from the immediate use of Shafter Avenue constructed so many years ago just as an existing citizen can use a newly constructed afierial street segment. ln short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a similar amount of capacity towards completing the various infrastructure systems.

It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. lt is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects will be replacements of the existing infrastructure while others will be capacity increasing projects, Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories;

1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e,, projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal. 2, Projects required as a result of the need to accommodate future development. An example of this would be a signal that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in the near and downstream areas will ultimately need to be signalized.

City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 3 and I
ln fact, there is small amount of excess capacity available in the animal controlfacility.

This Report provides the documentation of the City's costs which serve as the basis for calculating DiFs. The DIF Schedules and related information can be found in Chapters 3 through 5 and Appendices A, B, C and D of this Report.

RCS staff has worked with Administrative Services, Police, Fire, and GIS staff to generate and review the supporting data which forms the calculation of Development lmpact Fee schedules.

The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter.

Development lmpagt Fee Struçture. The General Plan provides for a range of potentìal densitles for residential development, as such, the DlFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts from a specific development. For example, a property zoned as detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six units per acre. lf fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six uníts per acre. Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage basis for business (retail/service, office and industrial, etc.) parcels to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for these types of development, Some of the infrastructures have an optional fee structure recommended for unusual developments, such as a parking structure, which in itself does not create demand beyond additional storm drainage run-off.

A second reason for the proposed DIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves the issue of building expansion or intensification of retail, office and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of commercial or industrial property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a building square footage basis simplifies this calculation.

CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
ln California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as 481600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.

Government Code 566000 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development lmpact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of direct benefit to the development which paid the fees.

Many states have such controlling statutes. Specifically, Government Code 566000 requires the following process:

1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee.

City of Shafter 2A22 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 4

1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee,

2. Determination of the USE of the fee

3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee.

4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. NOTE: Numbers 2 & 4 will be reversed throughout the chapters in this Report because it is apparent that need should be identified before use.

5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project.

This Reporl, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of Government Code 566000. Briefly, the following steps were undedaken in the calculation of DlFs for the City:

1. Define the level of service desired within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. ln some areas, certain statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "4" to "F" developed by transportation engineers. Most agencies adopt a LOS of "C.u

2. Review the City's land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning needed infrastructure. The summarized inventory can be found in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and is detailed in Appendix B.

3. ldentifv all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions.

4. ldentifv a level of responsibilitv, identifying, as termed in this Report, the relative need (or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as "PERCENT NEED") for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate "growth" as defined, and as opposed to current needs.

5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative use, or nexus, of the Capital system. For example, future street City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 5 Chanter One round end lntroduction
costs were distributed to each land use based on the¡r trip generation characteristics.

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
ln addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:

Land Acouisition Cosls. Land acquisition cost estimates have been developed after discussions with City officials over recent appraisals, acquisitions and/or current negotiations, Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, the herein contained $275,000 per acre amounts appears to be the most appropriate current figure for the purposes of this study. The estimates is based upon a recent (11130121) appraisal of a two acre parcel (at $261,000/acre) adjacent to the water treatment plant along Resnick Way, WO Express Way. The slight 5.4% increase is warranted because fire and police stations are typically located adjacent to major arterial and collector roadways as opposed to a parcel basically surrounded by the existing water treatment plant. (Valbridge Property Advisors, CA08-21-689).

OTHER ISSUES
There are those who claim that the addition of DlFs unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing residences. The argument is that if the public agency adopts a $25,000 to $30,000 development impact fee per detached dwelling, then the price for an existing dwelling is aftificially increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a detached dwelling detached unit that cost the developer $250,000 to construct and complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved.

Full Cost of a Residential Dwellinq. The $250,000 represents only the above ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling is the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary gove.rnment approvals and permits, construction éupplies, labor, debt service on the above, on-site 1 public improvements, and the cost of extending public services to that dwelling.

While this Report is limited to the three public safety services, these public service extension costs include (but are not limited to):
. The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police station, response vehicles and specialty equipment.
. Additionalfire stations, response vehicles and specialty rescue equipment. . Additional animal control kennels, response vehicles and specialty equipment. 1 On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and gutters, sewer l¡ne$, water lines, streetl¡ghts, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the City's developmenl code on privately-held developments, hence, the reference of "on-site".

City of Shafter 2Q22 tJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Repoft Page 6 . Constructing or widening arterials and collectors segments, bridge and additional signals. . Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage collection pipes and the treatment of storm water.
. Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage, and delivery. . Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment, and disposal. . Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. . Additional library, public meeting and developed park space for recreational/social purposes.

Thus, while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling unit may be $250,000, the previously identified "downstream" costs may be in the area of $25,000 to $3O,0OO per detached dwelling unit or in the area of 1O% lo 12o/o of the above ground cost. lf this argument is not clear, picture a 2,800 square foot detached dwelling, costing $250,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control, and no recreationalfacilities. What is the market value of this detached dwelling? Probably not even the $250,000 that it cost to construct the structure. All of a sudden, the $25,000 to $30,000 impact fee for the infrastructure needed to support that one residential unit seems like a bargain. ln short, new development needs an existing system of municipal infrastructure to hook up to.

Thus, the true and complete cosf of a new detached dwelling unit is the cost of constructing the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the dwelling regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infiastructure costs have been recognized, the only question remaining is who should for pay them, existing or new residents?
Effect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative $25,000 to $30,000 impact fee irnposed upon new detached dwelling construction increases the market price of an existing deiached dwellíng unit. Wouldn't this just be the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the municipal services? A slightly different way of looking at this aigument is that the existing family residences each have a "share" in a municipal corporãtion2 and the share is valued at the cost of the connection to the various municipal utiliiies, transportation system, flood protection and public safety. lt is a logical step then to require any newly constructed detached dwelling to purchase a "share" at an equal cost. 2 Not unlike a private corporation.

City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report PageT CHAPTER ORGANIZAT¡ON
Each of the three public safety Chapters will have three costlfee tables, They will be:

Altocation of project Cost Estímafes - identifies the projects, their costs and the relationship, in an altocation percentage, to future development. These schedules will begin with the number x.1 as in 3.1,4.1,5.1 etc.).

Minimum Needs-þased lmpact Fee - This schedule will calculate the DIF schedule that would need to be adopted to meei the minimal capital needs identified in the Report (on the second schedule at the end of the Chapter, i.e.,3.2, 4.2 and 5.2.) Íor that infrastructure but limited to the General Plan needs. Strictly speaking this schedule is a calculation of the development impact costs, suitable to be adopted as development impact fees, by the legislative body, in this case the Shafter Gity Council
With adoption of this level of DlFs, one could claim that new development is occurring without any addiiional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, necessarily claim that new development is paying its fair share.

Existing Community Financiat Commitment Comparison This schedule, while not an impact fee calJulation, identlfies the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements, and capital equipment. The distribution of this replacement value equity total over the existing developed community is the average amount that has been investéO bV the current community of residents and businesses and is a good indication, or comparison, with what could be imposed upon new development. This financial commitment will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current replacement costs. Significant differences between this schedule and the Minimum Needsbásed DIF rate schedule would certainly be worth additional analysis. These Schedules would be numbered 3.3, 4.3 and 5.3.
lf the average equity (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Exrsfing Commitment Financial Cõmmitment Comparison Table is greater than the average cost on the prevìous Minimum Needs-þased Table, then that infrastructure system is front-ended with more of the system, say 80% of it has been constructed while only at 50% of General Plan build-out and it likely has excess capacity at that point in time, The excess capacity is the result of earlier residents and businesses-of the community having put more of the system into place than will be necessary by the remaining un-built portions of the community. The existing community has advanced mônéy to build capãcity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there. This table is intended to be instructive rather than legal.

Distribution of Existino lmpact Fee Fund Balance, The City currently does not have DIF fund ffintservices,firesuppression/rescueservicesoranimalcontrol services,
Once these DlFs are calculated and
beyond the restriction that they be u
and described in the Chapters within
applied there will be no specific restrictions on the monies, sed on improvements listed on Schedule 3.1, 4.1 and 5'1 the infrastructure title and must be committed within a fivecity of shafter 2o22update Development lmpact Fee calculation and Nexus Report Page I Chapter One Backqround lntroduction
year time frame. Since these impact fees will collect over time, perhaps longer than five years, the City will need to re-commit any fund balances to these purposes, likely through the City's annual Development lmpact Fee Collection and Use report as required on Government Code 566,000 et. seq.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Shafter 2O22lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page g Ghapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter represents the beginning and end of the DIF calculation process. lt begins with an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and under-developed units and acreage within the City and concludes with a summary of recommended DIF schedules with detailed infrastructure explanations in the following chapters of this Report.

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report contains an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and underdeveloped land within the City limits of Shafter and is based upon the City's most recent General Plan update.

The lJndeveioped and the lJnder-devetoped delta land inventory, identified as Potential Development, combine to form the base for the distribution of the estimated costs of the serviceexpanding capital projects necessary to accommodate that same anticipated development, Without ihe expansion projects, the City would be unable to accommodate that new development, effectively halting it. The developed land inventory forms the base for distributing the replacement cost of the existing infrastructure. This action provides the basis for comparison with the proposed DIF schedules and for the de facto identification of the many existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently provided by the City's Law Enforcement Services, Fire Department (managed by Kern County Fire Department), and Animal Control Services.

The combined replacement value of these assets is conservatively valued at $29.4 million.

Table 2-1 is the resulting inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City and are based on the General Plan's land use inventory. Table 2-1 follows:

Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use lnventorY
Total - Land-use Database
s ofA&BBelow
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Gommercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses S F
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
Iotal - All City Land-use Databasel
Residential Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging
Business Uses
Summary Sub-total
Existing Development
Acres # of Units
1,521.63 4,838

21.88 350

14.58 175

2.29 80
446.56 1,675,000
2,667.90 2,090,880
327.44 7,130,772

38.00 1,075,932
Potential Development
Acres # of Units
4,962.32 16,491

73.15 2,319
2,00 32

2.00 70
267.69 4,081,271
3,369.80 58,715,395
269.1 0 5,860,998
5,00 141,570
TotalG. P. Build-out
Acres # of Units
6,484.O 21,329

95.0 2,669

16.6 207

4.3 '150
714.3 5,756,271
6,037.7 60,806,275
596.5 12,991,770

43.0 1,217,502
1,558.1 5,363

2.3 80
3,479.9 11,972,584
5,040.2
5,037.47 18,842

2.00 70
3,91 1.59 68,799,234
8,951 .06
6,595.56 24,205

4.29 150
7,39'1.45 80,771,818
13,991.30
5,040.24 8,951.06 13,991.30
City of Shafter 2021 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 10 DIF Land-use Tvpe-s Definitions. This Report classifies private development into one of three roneoffivedifferentbusiness-basedDlFLand.useIypes'For
purposes of the Repoft, thé term DIF Land-use Type will refer to one of the eight broad types ,nd"r which the City's specifically defined zoning code land-uses will fall into. These DIF Land' use lypes are defined following:

Residenti al Land Uses.'
Detached Dwelling Units - This DIF Land-use Type is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's land-use designation of Rurat Residentiat (RR), Rural Community (RC)' Very Low Resldentiat (VLR), Low Density Residential (LR), and Medium Density ResidentiaL This category would include the construction of the unusual detached condominium or detached townhome and a manufactured unit on an individual lot.

Attached Dwelling Units - This larger category consists of apadments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is attached to any other unit. lt generally corresponds to an allowable land-use designation o! Loyv' Medium-Density Resídentiat (MR) and Medium'High Density Residential (MHR).

Mobile Home Dwelllng Residential Units - This DIF Land-use Type encompasses potlions of Medium Density ResidenfÍal (MR) land-use designation in the Zoning Code. No applications for this type is anticipated, but giveñ the number of existing mobile home parks, the calculation was included for purposes of the proportional analysis.

It is important to note that the removal of one existing manufactured unit (or existing mobile home dwelling) and the replacement with a similar dwelling does not constitute a DIF imposition event, it is merely a replacement of existing demand, The construction of the mobile unit pad is the DIF imposition event.

B usí ness/Com m erce Land Uses
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units - This DIF Land-use Type is found in the Commercial/Professional Office (CPO) designation.

Retail/Service Uses - As utilized in this Report, Commercial uses include the general type of retail services and thus includes outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category includes GommerciallProfessional Office (CPO) and Business Park (BP) designation.

Business Park Uses - This DIF Land-use Type is largely limited to the single Busrness Park (BP) land-use zone.
a
City of Shafter 2A22Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 11 . fndustrial/Manufacturing Uses - This DtF Land-use Type contains all businesses engaged in ñeavy manufacturing or industrial development in the single lndustrial (l) zone.
. lnstitutional Uses - This DtF Land-use Type, based upon the specific use, may be approved in just about any of the City's previously mentioned zones' lt consi'sis of privaté schools, private meeting places, places of worship and similar private facilities
Definitions of DIF Application Cateoories Status. For each of the DIF land-use categories detailed above and on faOte 2-2, acreage is categorized as either Exísting Development or Potentiat Developmenf. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:

Existing Development Acres/Units - This column title reference identifies land in the City which iJdeveloped or land which has received a building permit but may not yet be constructed' Acreage in this category may include non-conforming use areas of the City which contain extens-ive developmeñt prior to an annexation or before changes to the General Plan were made.

Development Opportunities Acres/Units - The title refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City. This category includes the acreage any underutilized parcel.

Table 2-2 provides a summary of the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, provided on Table 2-1. Staffls land use inventory reveals that there are presently 'S,OqO.i
acres of privately-held deygloped land within the'City's current City boundaries.

Conversely, there remain tj,gSt.OO áCres of vacant or substantially undgveloped land in the City, with most of it, some 5,512.2 acres, in Shafter Eastern Area Annexation. Acreage designated for residential development constitutes the greatest amount 56% oÍ the City's vacant acreage' Potential business uSeS account for the remaining 44o/o of vacant acres. [This page left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].

City of Shafter 2022lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 12 DIF
Land-use
Type
Existing
Developed
Parcelg
% of Total
Private
Acres
Potsntial
Development
Parcels
% of Total
Private
Acres
Total
Private
Acres
Detached Ðwelling Units 1,521.63 10.90% 4,962.32 35.5% 6,484.95 Attached Dwelling Units 21.88 0.20% 73.15 0.50olo 95.03 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 14.58 o.100/o 1.00 0.00% 15.58 Commercial Lodging Units 2.29 0.00% 2.OA 0.00% 4.29
Retai l/ S e rv i celOffi c e Uses 446.56 3.2Qo/o 267,69 1.9Oo/o 714.25 Buslness Park Uses 2,667.90 19.10o/o 3,369,80 24.10o/o 6,037.70 lndustrial Uses 327.40 2.30% 269.10 1.90% 596.50
lnstítutional Uses 38.00 0.30% 5.00 0,00% 43.00
Total Acres 5,040.24 36.10olo 8,950,06 63.90%o 13,990,30 s u m ma ry "ttîiJi'-Í or s h arte r's
Developed and Potential Development Acreage

POPU LATION PROJECTIONS
Although none of the impact fees included in this are population-based (such as park acres per 1,000 residents), RCS finds it instructive to include an estimate of the General Plan build-out population as it helpful to understand the magnitude of the amount of development the City will ultimately see, or in other words, it should help us all "wrap our heads around it", with ft being the amount of residences (and its inherent population). This is not meant to discount in any way, the potential 68,8 million square feet of business uses.

A second component in determining the magnitude of impact of future development and the facilities necessary to mitigate that impact is a realistic assessment of the build-out population of the City. Many of the facilities contained in this Report are sized according to either the estimated population at theoretical "build-out" or upon service levels which are based in part upon an estimation of the population to be served.

There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City: (A) past growth trends projected foruvard and (B) population holding capacity based on the General Plan land-use element. Each of these methods can be useful even though both possess certain limitations.

There are several serious flaws in projecting the build-out population of a community using the past growth trends methodology. While this method is relatively simple and therefore easy for the general public to understand, it does not give consideration to when an area is actually built out. Eventually there comes a point in time where the amount of available land to build on is negligible. This technique does not help explain when that point is reached.

City of Shafter 2022lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 13 Also, the past growth trends approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Council or land use issues contained in the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this technique is more useful in projecting shoft{erm population levels and should not be used to forecast the built-out population of an area.

This Report employs the methodology of holding-capacify (described in the following section) to provide the City Council, staff and public with a projection that will help all to understand the magnitude of the service population that will require public safety services on a daily basis. This only refers to residential demand and does not address the magnitude of business square feet that will also need to be served, or accommodated. lt is only provided for that collateral information purpose. The impact fees for the three public safety services will each be based upon individual unit (dwellings or business square feet) demands as calculated based upon existing Shafter existing demand.

Holdino Capacitv Analvsis. The methodology used in this Report to forecast the built-out population of Shafter is the current holding capacity approach. This method calculates the sum of existing development and potential development allowable under current land use regulations, using average densities found in the City, The first step in projecting the City's population using the holding capacity approach is to inventory the remaining undeveloped acres within the City limits, which was previously accomplished in Tables 2-1 and 2-2of this Chapter. The next step is to estimate the potential dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average number of residents per unit.

The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 3.917 and 3.982 persons for detached dwellings and attached dwelling respectively. Mobile Home dwelling units have 3.401 persons per unit. The 2000 Census data was selected over the recently released 2020 Census due to a change in reporting the data, eliminating the same calculation and some conflicting data.

Based on these 2000 Census dwelling density data, future residential develo"pment can be expected to generate somewhere from 87,869io 94,371 additional residents (t)to the City of Shafter, joining the 20,448 citizens already living in City, resulting in a total estimated population at build-out (based upon the inclusion of existing City limits) of approximately 91,025 residents.

The higher number is based upon full occupancy of all new dwelling units and the lower figure is based upon the historical occupancy levels at the time of the census count. The 91,025 is the average of the two.

The estimated General Plan build-out population of 91,025 (average between high and low) or more residents using this holding capacity approach is typically lower than the population forecasts based on the mathematical models described previously. This implies that either the City's period of residential build-out will actually take 25 to 30 years or that the City's growth rate will increase from recent historical levels. Given that the City has some 8,950 net acres to 3 Depending upon the vacancy factor based upon the average of 91.6%r all residences.

City of Shafier 2Q22Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 14 develop that are currently zoned and an additional roughly 2,OOO acres that remain un-zoned (therefäre not included), t-fris latter scenario is probably more likely to occur. As the residentially zoned fand remaining io be developed continues to be built on during the next thirty years, the City is likely to see thè number of new dwelling units developed decrease each year' Table 2-3 following employs the additional housing projected in the Land-use Database and estimates the additionat potential population for the City of Shafter through General Plan buildout. The number of potbntial new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use zone by the average densities (i.e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City's General Plan.
[This space left vacant in order to place this following table on a single page] City of Shafter 2O22lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 15 Table 2-3
Gity of Shafter
Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type
(2000 United States Census Data)
Existing Residential
Total
Units
Vacant
Units
Occupied
Units
Total
Occupants
Average
Occupancy
Percentage
Occupied
Detached Units
Detached Dwellings 2,724.00 240 2,484 9,730 917 91
Attached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units 177.00 7 170 730 4.294 96,05%
Duplex to Quadplex Units 281 26 255 1,072 4.204 9Q.750/o Five to Forty-nine Units 220 40 180 616 3.422 81 .82o/o FifW or More Units '18 2 16 55 3.438 88.89%
Average 696 75 621 2,473 3.982 89.22%
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 191 19 172 585 3.401 90.

Other Dwellinq Units
NA Other Dwelling Units 20 20 0 0 0.000
20 - State of Finance 01101121
G.P. Build-out PoPulation
At Historic Occuqancy Rates
Anticipated
Uníts
Occupancy
Rafe
Probable
Occuoancv
DwellÍng
Densítv
Anticípated
Pooulation
Potential Detached Dwellings 16,49'l 91.19%o 15,038 3.917 58,904 Potential Attached Dwellings 2,319 89.22% 2,069 3.982 8,239 32 90.05% 29 3.401 99
to be Added Via at Historic Occu Rates
rrent of California ent of Finance lation
Potential "Build-out" at Historic Vaca Rates
67,242 67,242
20,488
87,730
Dwelling
Densitv
Anticipated
Population
G.P. Build-out Population
At 100% Occupancv Rate
Anticìpated
Units
Occupancy
Rafe
Probable
Occupancv
Potential Detached Dwell ings 16,491 100.00% 16,491 3.917 64,595 Potential Attached Dwellings 2,319 100.00% 2,319 3.982 9,234 Potential Mobile Dwellings 32 100.00% 32 3.401 109
7 73 938 lation to be Added Via at 100%
20 488 Current State of Ca of Finance
94 426 Maximum " lation.
87,730 n at General Plan Build-out Low r Dwelli Resident Densities 94,426 at General Plan Bui Hi h Dwell Resident Dens¡t¡eg 91,078 n at Genera Build-out
(1) Summary File 3 (SF3), at http : //f actfinde r. ce n s u s. g ov (2) Cunent population based upon State of California Department of Finance data City of Shafter 2Q22Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 16

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
City staff and RCS have identified over $162.6 million in needed and planned capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan build-out, including both projects relãteO to exist¡né deficiencies and tñose needed solely to support future growth. Roughly 91% or about $147.9 million of the total project list is required as the result of accommodating development that is currently zoned. The remaining $14.7 (estimated) will come from Fire Suppréssion impact fees imposed on parcels that are currently un-zoned, but only as they are become zoned at the parcel owner's request and there are development applications. Table 2-4 indicates the capital project costs by infrastructure.

Table 2-4
Tota! City-wide General Plan Build-out
Capital Requirements
lnfrastructure
Type
Project Costs
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $83,638,988 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 674,422,441 Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $4,532,340 Total - All Projeclq $162,593,729
DlFs Summarv. Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of each of the remaintng chapters of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per unit basíð for residential land uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for business land uses.

Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of the recommended DIF schedules for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The total recommended maximum DlFs for each of the eight DIF Land Use Types within the General Plan area are summarized as following.
[This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page] City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 17 Table 2-5
Summary of Proposed Development lmpact Fees
for the CitY of Shafter
DIF Land Use Type
Recommended
Development
lmpact Fees
Detached Dwelling Unit $2,910/Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit $2,265/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit fi2,547lUnil
Commercial Lodging (Keyed) Unit $1,024lUnit
Retail/Service/Office Uses Square Foot $3.012/S,F.

Business Park Uses Square Foot $1.374lS.F.
lndustrial Uses Square Foot $0.250/s.F.
lnstitutional Use Square Foot $0.883/S.F.

Specific DIF schedule rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 al the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.9. fire).

Schedules 2.1 summarizes the three infrastructures, identifies the individual lnfrastructure DlFs and combined DlFs by DIF Land-use Type and provides a calculation of the potential collection through build-out at the proposed Minimum-Needs-based D/F schedules and the cost of the total infrastructure needs.

FORMAT OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this Report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation of DlFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter with a chapter devoted to each of the Three sets of cost schedules, listed following, and three appendices, one of which contains a summary of DIF recommendations.

CHAPTER 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 - Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 5 - Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment APPENDIX A - Summary of Recommendations.

APPENDIX B - Expanded Land-use Database.

APPENDIX C - Police and Fire Station Construction Cost Estimates APPENDIX D - Application of Development lmpact Fees on Accessory Dwelling Units City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 18 NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMAIICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculatíons to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when inctuded in text and supporting textual tables, has often been rounded to usually no more than two or three decimals for clarity and thus may not be replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules atthe end of each chapter. tf questions arise between the tables and schedules, the scåedules at the end of the chapter will prevail as the more accurate. The schedules af the end of the Chapter are instructive as to recommendations, The tables within the chapter texts are summaríes of the schedule at the end of the chapter and are illustrative.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Shafter 2Q22 Update Development lmpact Fee Galculation and Nexus Report Page 19 Schedule 2.1
Gity of Shafter Public Safety Needs at General Plan Build-out CostsSummary of Development lmpact Fees By Type of Fee (continued on next page) (Costs/Fees per Residential Type Dwelling Unit, or Business Type Square Foot) Animal
Gontrol
Faôilities et al.

Schedule 5.2
Fire
Suppression
Facilities et al.

Schedule 4.2
Law
.Enforcoment
Facilities et al.

Schadule 3,2
lånd{¡seCaêgqry
Devàlopment
lmpac'tFeeTÒtâl
Per Unit or Squere Fes't
$124
$13
$46$21
$0.041
$0.036$0.029$0.021
$2.044.884
$30.147
s1.472
$1,470
$167.332
s2.113.7U
$169,969
$2,973
$4.532.001
$1,136
$684
$1,494
$682
$0.293
s0.642$0.062
Private lnstitutional SF $0.627
Collection with lm Fee Schedule
$18.733.776
$1,586,196
$47,808
s47.740
$1,195,812
$37.695.284
$363,382
$88,764
$59.758.762
$1,650$1,568
$1,007
$321
$2.678$0.696$0.15e
s27,210,150
$3.636.192
$32,224$22,470
$10.929.6¿14
$40,865.9'15
s931.899
$33,269
$83,661,763
Land-use Designation
Detached Dwelling UnitsAttached Dwelling UnitsMobile Home Dwelling UnitsCommercial Lodging Units RetaillService/Office Uses SFBusiness Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SF
Detached Dwellinq UnitsAttached Dwellino UnitsMobile Home Dwellinq UnitsCommercial Lodqinq Units Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SFlnd./Manufacturino Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
Total Potential DIF Receipts
$2,910 per Unit$2,265 per Unit
$2.547 per Unlt$1 ,024 per Unit$3.012 per S.F$1.374 per S.F $0.250 per S.F
$0.883 per S.F
$47,988,810
$5.252.535
$81,504$71.680
s12.292.788
$80,674,953
$1.465.250
s125.006
s147.952.526
$4,532,001
$0
s0
$4,532,001
$59,758,762
$0
$14,676,103s74.434.8ô5
$83.661.763
$0$o
$83.661.763
DIF Fund Balance (None)
Currentlv un-zoned parcels)
Resou
Other
s147.952.526
$0
$14.676.103
$158,096,628
s34.900
Total 1 ;162.593.729
Over or $22,775
N) o
Chapter 3
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existin Svslem of I aw Assets or The Shafter Police hly one acre at 201 Depañment currentlY oPerates
Central Valley HighwaY.
out of a 12,600 square foot facility on roug
The Department also has a significant inventory of:
. Vehicles (official and undercover) some with various added extra equipment; . Assigned officer equipment such as various leathers, armament, clothing, and safety apparel;
. Communicationsequ¡Pment;
. Specialty and computer equipment
Dema.nd Upon Infrastructgfe Created bv the Developmçnt of UnderdçveloPed or Vacant ffibusinessesbenefitfromlawenforcementservicesinthreeWayS:
drecflL indirec¡y and through standby availability. Direct services are those where a resident or business owner requires á direct response, usually as a result of being the victim of a crime' Direct service results in the form of a law enforcement officer contacting the victim. lndirect benefits, such as crime prevention programs, free patrol time and other law enforcement services that serve all businesses, citizens, and visitors, are impossible to calculate for a specific beneficiary. An example of indirect benefit would be the apprehension of a burglar in ybur neighbor's résidence yesterday. Had the burglar not been arrested he/she may have -broken iñto your dwelling tõmorrow. Most residents and businesses may go for many years þefore ever iequiring a cáil-for-service. However, these fortunate residents and businesses still benefit from law erforcerent services, if in no other way than by the knowledge that a law enforcement officer is available, through adequate planned stand-by, to respond if required.

The addition of new residential units and new businesses will increase the demand upon the law enforcement service level by creating more direct calls-for-service, more areas requiring preventive patrol, and in general, more opportunities for crimes to be commítted.

The development of vacant or underutilized parcels into residential or business units will also generate more calls, The residents and business owners occupying those residences and Éusinesses will create the increase in law enforcement calls-for-service. More residences and businesses will mean more responses to the burglaries, domestic disputes, noise complaints, shoplifting and miscellaneous incidents that will occur in the new residences and businesses, lf the iaw eñforcement force capabilities (the base) are not expanded, then the increasing number of calls-for-service (the rate) will reduce the number of "free" hours available for preventative patrol. This inability to expand the capabilities would ultimately drive the Department into a reactionary mode. The additional calls-for-service would limit the amount of time for training, planning, pro-active crime prevention and other non-direct services.

The Purpose of the Fee. Additional law enforcement calls-for-service are expected, and the @ersneceSSarytorespondtothosecallscanbedetermined.Those new costs can be translated to a fee, or an amount, necessary to be collected to otfset the City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 21 added costs of the required additional staffing. These costs include equipping and housing the additional officers. próviding that the fee is aãopted and imposed, new development willfinance its proportional capital costJof expansion of the Law Enforcement facility. The continued costs of ifre annual salary and benefits for those additional officers will need to come from increases in property and salés tax generated by the new residences and businesses and their occupants.

The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally-supported Law ffiFeewouldbelimitedtocapitalcostsrelatedtothatgrowth'Thefees would be used to expand the law enforcement station, increase the number of response and investigator's vehicles, acquire specialty equipment and properly equip additional officers' Conveisely, the Law Enforcement DIF receipts cannot be used to replace existing vehicles or replace nóimat vacancies. Rehabilitation of the former large retail building created additional sp""e at a cost less than the new construction of space. The projects include:

LE-001, police Station Space Expansion - The project consists of the land acquisition and construction cost to build a 65,670 square foot station. The current police station wifl not be able to handle the additional ds,603 calls-for-service that will be generated by the additional 16,4g1detached dwellings, 2,319 attached dwellings and 68.7 million square feet of commercial space expected at Geneial plan build-out. Since the future needs are based upon the existing lévels-of-service then there are no deficiencies, and all of the capital expansions can be fully funded from DlFs.

LE-002, Additional Patrol/Detectives/Specialty/Staff Vehicles This project is t!" acquisition of 167 assorted law enforcement vehicles in order to maintain the existing 0'970 vehicles per officer standard,
LE-003, Additional police Officer Assigned Equipment - Officers in the field will require p"rsonálly assigned equipment of leathers, handgun, helmet, and assorted protection. The costs are included at $16,246 per otficer'
LE-004, Additional Specialty Equipment - This project is the acquisition of specialty equipment such as laptop computers, servers, specíalty printers. lt also includes costly special armåments, non-lethãl
'weapons and tactical equipment, bicycles, and other specialty equipment.

Department records were used to demonstrate that differing land uses generate differing numbers of calls, Police staff prov ided extremely accurate calls-for-service data by over-laying the Departm ent's computerized response records with the City's zoning map thus allowing 100% of the calls-for-service to be categorized Table 3-1, following, summarizes an analysis of the calls-for'service received by the Police Department over a recent twelve month period. The breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of develoPed units (during the same period) generated a calls-for-service ratio, factor or nexus.

City of Shafter 2O22lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 22 F
Table 3-1
Law Enforcement calts-for-service Generated by DIF Land-use Type (Over a 12 Month Period)
As an example, there were approximately 8,173 calls-for-service that generated a response to one of the ¿,Agg detached Oweiting units in the City. The resuft indicates that, on average, each dwelling will generate just over 1.Ogg calls per year, The same analysis was undedaken for all the othér eight land uées. Since these calls-for-service by land use are an average, they were used to proþct the number of additional calls that could be expected by multiplying the calls per residential unit or business acre by the number of anticipated number of new residential dwellings or business acres. To determine the number of additional officers necessary to meet this increase from future developments, the number of increased calls-for-service (or responses) resulting from new development was then divided by the average number of responses that an existing officer responds to.

These calls-for-service rates are then applied to (multiplied by) the undeveloped land-use database anticipated units to extrapotate the number of calls-for-service expected in the future.

The additional calls-for-service, in this case 85,620, were then divided by the number of callsfor-service that a single officer can absorb.

The existing complement of 33 sworn officers currently absorbs the 16,439 annual calls by responding-to.¡usi over 498 calls-for-service each to privately-owned and developed parcels annually, Þ"réO upon the addition of 85,620 calls-for-service, the City will need to successfully recruit
'j7Z
additional officers to maintain the same response capabilities that are currently provided by the existing 33 officers. The existing 12,600 square foot station affords an ädequate and sufficient standard of 381.8 square foot per each of the 33 officers. This is not to ¡mply ttrat the existing level of services or the ratio of officers to calls-for-service is the desired leveÍof service, it merely means that it is the currenf level of service. To adequately mobilize lhe172 new sworn offiiers, the City will need to add 167 response vehicles at a total cost of $10,24g,458 to maintain the existing ratio of 0.970 vehicles per sworn officer (167 vehicles diviáed by 172 officers) and for the personnel recruitment and equipment at a combined cost of DIF Land-use Type
Developed
Owellings or
Square Feet
Actual Calls
For Service
Over 12 Months
TotalCalls per
Dwelling or
1,000 sF (Ksr)
Detached Dwelling Units 4,838 8,173 1.698/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units (a) 350 562 1.606/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 175 178 1.017/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 80 26 0.325/Unit
Retail/Service Uses 1,675,000 4,592 2.741|KSF
Business Park Uses 2,090,880 1,488 0.712lKSF
lndustrial Uses 7,130,772 1 ,165 0.163/KSF
lnstitutional Uses 1,075,932 255 0.237lKSF
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 23 E
g2,7g4,g12 (172 oîlicers X $'16,246 in assigned equipment costs). The existing standard of specialiy equipment is g20,839 per officer based upon the existing inventory investment of $687,689 + 33 officers.

Again, use of the fee is a similar argument to the need for the fee. As the development occurs, the impact is generated and the impact fee would be col ected as the development occurs, The collected DIF receipts would be put to use to acquire equipment for additional officers, vehicles and additional building space necessary to respond to those additional calls, all without reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community The Relationshio Between the Amount of fhe Fee and.thç Cosf of fûe.P.orfioF of the Facilitv iect.Therequiredadditionalbuildingsizeat65,670Square
feet will rneet the needs for operat¡ôns space through General Plan build-out of all zoned parcels, The build-out complement of 205 sworn officers, (33 current and 172 projected) will be afforded the same average of about 381.8 square foot per officer.

Basic Needs-based Fees. Table 3-2, following, summarizes the resulting DlFs (from Schedule @ntribute$83,638,98BtowardstheexpansionoftheLawEnforcement capabilities of ine City in order to allow the City to extend the same level of service to the City's newest citizens and businesses.

Table 3-2
Minimum Needs-based Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development lmpact Gosts
by DIF Land-use TYPe
DIF land-use Type
Allocation
of Development
Gosts
Development lmpact
Cost Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $27,214,419 $1,650/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $3,867,837 $1,568/Unit
Mobile Home Units $32,236 $1,007/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $22,468 $321/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $10,928,163 $2,678/KSF
Business Park Uses $40,837,747 $0.696/KSF
lndustrial Uses $932,904 $0.159/KSF
lnstitutional Uses $33,213 $0.23s/KSF
Existino Financial Commitment Comparison Costs. The City invested about $12.9 million in the @epartmentstaffuses32assortedvehicleswithvariousaddedextra equipment costing a total of $1,963,982 for an average cost of about $61 ,374 per vehicle. The City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 24 Enfo SA
inventory of 32 vehicles consísts of 24 standard response vehicles, five unmarked vehicles, two travel vehicles and one truck. The existing 33 sworn officers each have assigned equipment such as various leathers, armament, clothing and safety apparel costing some $16,246 per sworn officer or a combined $536,118. Lastly, there is $687,689 invested in electronic and communications equipment, station armory, specialty equipment and computer and intergovernmental connection services/workstations, Combined, the City has invested, at current dollars, some $16,067,289 into the law enforcement services.

The future calls-of-service will be five times higher than the current number of calls-for-service.

Given this dramatic increase in the calls-of-service it is important to note that the existing community's financial commitment per unit/square foot and the DIF for future development are almost identical, This can be explained by the level of growth that is anticipated, allowing the $82.4 million needed to accommodate future development to be spread out over 18,826 anticipated dwelling units and 69.7 million square feet of commercial space. ln short, although the existing community has invested $16.1 million into the existing police department, proportionally it will be almost identical to the DIF that will be asked of future development.

Table 3-3
Existing Law Enforcement Community
Financial Commitment Comparison Data

RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Since the Minimum Needs-based lmpact Cosfs (necessary for expansion indicating the City's investment in Police capabilities) are less than the Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison, the Minimum Needs-based Development lmpact Fee schedule identified in Taþle 3-2 and Schedule 3.2 would be the most equitable DIF schedule to adopt.

DIF Land-use Type
Allocation
of Development
Coets
Development lmpact
Cost Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $7,988,196 $1,651/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $549,292 $1,569/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $173,975 $994/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $25,412 $318/Unit
Retail/Service Uses $4,488,168 $2.680/KSF
Business Park Uses $1,454,354 $0.696/KSF
lndustrial Uses $1 ,138,658 $0.16o/KSF
lnstitutional Uses $249,234 $0.232lKSF
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 25 E
a
t

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LAW ENFORCEMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPAGT FEES Create a Development lmpact fee Fund titled "Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment".

Adopt Schedule 3.2.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 26 Schedule 3-1
City of Shafter
202A-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cosf Esfimates
Law Enforcement FacìlÍtìes, Vehicles & Equipment
Construction fVeeds
Supported by
OflrerResources
Apportioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
Âleed
$0
$o$0
$0

0.00%

0.00%0.00%0.00%

0.00% $0
Infrashucture lVeeded
to Accommodate
lncreased Development
Apporlioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
lVeed
$o$o
$o
100.00%

0.00%0.00%
$83,638,988
Forward to Schedule 3.2
100.00%
$0
s0
$o
Total Mitigating Financial Resources
Existing Development Fee Fund Balance
Other Financial Resources
N) \t
Estimated
# Cost
$67,010,910
$10,249,458
$2,794,312$3,584,308
Police Station Space ExpansionPolice Response/Staff Vehicles Police Officer Assigned Equipment
Specialtv Equipment
LW-001LW-o02
LW-003
LW-004
$67,010,910$10.249,458
ç2,794,312
$3,584,s08
100.00%100.00%100.00%
100.00%
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs 0.00% $0 100.00% $83,638,988 $0
$0$0
0 0 00%0.00%
Total Net General Plan Costs 988
Schedule 3.2
City of Shafter
202A-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Âleeds-based lmpact Costs
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment
Call
Generation
Rate
Anticípated
NewCalls
for Service
Percentage
of Additional
Se¡vice Calls
Allocation of
ExpansÍon
Costs
Average
Acres Uniß Distribution
Per Acre
or Sguare
FeetlAcrc
lmpact Fee per Unit
Land Use or Foot
Detached Dwel Units 4,962.32 ,| 1.689 27,859 32.54% $27,2't4,41 3.32 $t 650 Unit $t,568 per Unit81 ,007 per Unit
$321 per Unit

82.678 per S.F,
$0.696 perS.F,$0.t59 per S.F.$0.235 perS.F.
31 .70

16.00 35.00
15,24617,424

21.78028.314
$49,731$16,1 18$11,234
$40,824
$12,119
$3,467$6,643
$3,637,837
$32,236
ç22,468
$10,928,163
s40.837.747
$932,904
$33,213

4.35o/oo.04%

0.03%

13.O7o/o

48.83o/o

1.12%

0.o4%
3,724
3323
11,187
41,805
95s
34 1.6061.O17

0.3252.741

0.7120-163

4.237
2,319
32 70
4,O81,271

58.7't5.395
5,860,998
141,570

73.15 2.00

2.00 267.69
3,369.80
269.10

5.00 Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling UnilCommercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office UsesBusiness Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SPrivate lnstitutional Uses S
.06 1 Master Plan Needs
l\l@
Schedule 3.3
City of Shafter
2020-21 Ðevelopment Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehícles & Equipment
Current Financial
Commit¡¡tent per Unit
or Foot
81,651 Unit81,569 per Unit
$994 per Unit
$318 per Unit

82.680 perS.F.
$0.696 perS.F.
$0.160 perS.F.$0.232 perS.F,
Ãvenge Units
or Square
FeeVAcre

3.r 8

16.00 12.40
35 3.751
784
21,780
28,314
of 'Equity"
Acre
250
$25,'105$11.932$11,097$10,051
$545
$3,478$6,s59
lnlrastructure
$z 196
$549.292$173,975
$25,412
$4,488,168
$1,454,354
$1 ,1 38,658
9249,234
Percentage
of Existing
Servíce Calls

49.72o/o

3.42o/o

1.08%
O.160/o

27.93%

9.05%

7.O9o/o

1.55%
Elcisting
Cails for
Service
173562
178
26 4,592
1,4881,165
255
Call
Genetatîon
Rafe

1.689

1.606

1.O17

0.3252.741

0.712

0.163
o.237
Developed
Units
4,838
350
175
80 1,675,000
2,090,880

7.130.772
1,075,932
Acres

1.521.63

21.88 14.58

2.29 446.56
2,667.90
327.40
38-00
Land
Detached Un
Attached Dwellinq Units
Mobile Home Dwellinq UnirCommercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Off ice UsesBusiness Park Uses SFlnd./Manufactur¡nq Uses S Private lnstitutional Uses S
1 $16,067,289 Total lnfrastructure Master Plan Assets
$12,879,500 in law Enforcment Facilities Assets
$1.963.982 in Law EnforcementVehicles Assets
5687.689 in Law Enforcment Specialtv Equipment Assets$536.1 I I in Law Enforcement Assiqned Equipment $0 in Law Enforcment DIF Fund Balance (none)
N(o
Chapter 4
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existinq Svstem.. The City is served by the Kern County Fire Department which has ffiteandsúff¡c¡entsystemoffirefacilities,reSponsevehiclesandspecialty equipment. The Kårn County Fire Department responds to calls-for-service in Shafter from a singie existing station with as needed back-up from other nearby Kern County Fire stations.

Fire Station #{ is a 6,950 squere foot facility on a 23,150 square foot parcel located at 325 Sunset Avenue. lt would costs about $8,008,829 to replace this facility.

The land and replacement construction cost of the existing station is approximately 7,879,615' Not surprisingly, the Shafter Station also has a requisite fleet of vehicles consisting of:
. Two fire engines, one fully equipped front line and one back-up; and, . One fire patrol "quick response" vehicle'
The total investment in the vehicle compliment is about $2,073,500. State or County vehicles and equipment are not included in the financial commitment figure. Specialty equipment, such as basiclrudimentary rescue gear and other specialty equipment account for an approximate $BO,O0O investment. There is no existing Fire Suppression Facility, Vehicle and Equipment lmpact Fee thus there is no existing fund balance.

The current financial commitment or investment, in fire station facilities, response fleet with specialty equipment and fund balance is $10,162,329. This figure represents what it would cost to establish t.he existing fire/rescue response capability at current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and construction costs. The relevance of this figure will be established later in this Chapter.

Demand Upon Infrastructure Created bv the Dqvelopment of Underdeveloped 9r Vacant @iotnatnumerousfactorsareconsideredwhendeterminingthe
ñ-umuer and location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that all new private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire, rescue and emergency calls-for-service. The affect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. lnitially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls-for-service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for-service.

Additionally, as developmént spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale developmént is often tife! to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing fire companies out-of-service for greater periods of time.

The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits (through call frequency and total time).- Whdn that capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be greatly reduced. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire sfations, the existing stations could be oven¡rhelmed in terms of callsfor-service, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. That is, will the existing fire compãnies be available to respond to your needs or will they most likely be ouþofservice on a call in a different part of the community? City of Shafter 2021Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 30 Chaoter 4 Fire Sunoression Facilities. Vehioles. and Eouioment A common and respected standard for fire responses, simplified, is to locate the required fire stations in order to meet a five minute engine response within five minutes, slightly longer for aerial and specialty responses, approximately 90% of the time, The Municipal Technical Advisory Serurce states it as follows (a):

Travel time is one of the components of total response time for an incident. On most emergency incidents, fire apparatus respond from fixed locations (fire stations) rather than from somewhere within the response district, so the ability to predict travel time has value for planning and evaluating fire protection in a community, and for evaluating the ability to deliver needed fire flows using tankers in areas without sufficient fire hydrants.

ISO Evaluation of Travel Time
The ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) has always evaluated the distribution of fire resources through the community based on a fixed travel distance of 1.5 miles for an engine company anO Z.S miles for a ladder/service company. ln the recently revised ISO FSRS, under Section 5'10A and 540, as an alternative to the fixed distance used in Section 560, ISO will credit the results of a éystematic performance evaluation of travel time using "computer-aided dispatch (CAD) history to demonstrate that, with its current deployment of companies, each fire department meets the time constraints for initial ariiving engine in accordance with the general criteria of in NFPA 1710, Standard forthe Organizatiõn and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Depat1ments." The RAND lnstitute Travel Tíme Equation
Over forty years ago, the RAND lnstitute conducted research on the travel time of various types of fire apparatus. One of the results of this research was the determination that the average speed of a fire engine on an emergency response was 35 miles-per-hour (MPH) over average terrain, with average traffic and weather condition, and slowing for intersectionõ. Another result was the equation commonly referred to as the Rand travel time equation.

The number of stations requ¡red to meet adequate and sufficient responses is based upon two factors, response distance and calls-for-service frequency. The former relates to the desired ¡ve minute response to calls within 1.5 miles at Rand Corporation-suppofted 35 MPH. The latter is based upon an estimated average o'f 2,178 calls-per-serv¡ce per year per station for the added five stations. The five proposed stations are based upon these factors which are similar to the NFIRs and NFA data. The 2,178 average annual calls-for-service per station is based upon the anticipated calls-for-service for lhe 8,741 calls-for-service anticipated from zoned parcels and an additional estimated 2,148 calls-for-service from the currently un-zoned parcels for a total of 10,889 = 5 additional stations.

The Purpose of the Fee. ln order to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing ngmOèr of expected calls, the City staff has determined the need for the addition of five stations to join the existing station to maximize coverage throughout the City. Having the right type, sìze and numþer of fiie stations in the right locations will enable policy makers, the Ghief and City Council to house fire fighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of capital resources at the lowest annual operations cost' 4 "Est¡mated Travel Time of Fire Apparatus", Municipal Technical Advisory Sevice, Reference #MTAS-1936 City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Galculation and Nexus Report Page 31 Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible for poor fire station location or a lack of one. Adverse effects are felt by the City staff, the council, and possibly by the existing taxpayers. With poor location or no additional locations, response times via great distance or out-of-service due to a previous call can become excessive, and if a tragedy occurs, the incident would be well publicized.

Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first-in unit, and this can be a grave error. lnstead, response time must consider a//the forces necessary to place the incident under control. lf the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus, an increase in the number and type of response vehicles is alsõ necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls-for-service' The Use of the Fee. The revenues generated from a properly calculated and legally-supported fficilitiesandEquipmentlmpactFeewouldbelimitedtocapitalcostsrelated to that éiowth. The fees would be used to construct new stations or expand existing stations (to increasé the response capacity of that station) and increase the number of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression Facílities DIF receipts would not be used to repair the existing fire statión or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facilities are planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the capability (volume or calls and distance) of the existing stations.

The capital expansions include:

FS-001, FS-007, FS-011, FS-OI8 and FS-022 - Land acquisition and construction of five new square foot stations, each of which would likely be located in the Eastern Area Annexaiion area of the City where approximately 18,826 detached, attached and mobile home dwelling units and 68.8 million square feet of retail/service/office, business park, industrial/manufacturing and institutional uses and 70 commercial lodging rooms are expected to be constructed. Two of the five stations would be three bays wide by two vehicles deep (3X2), One (3X2) would be approximately 10,205 square feet. The other one (4X2), at 18,805 square feet wouíd ultimately act as the local area headquarters station with, in addition to the tO,ZOS square foot fire operations space station, would include an additional 8,645 administraiive facility for management including space for a battalion chief's quarters, fire construction plan check and inspection, annual safety inspections and a larger training/conference room (or rooms) for the ultimate six station operation. The first station has an estimated land acquisition/construction cost of approximately $11.9 million while the larger headquarters station would cost approximately $22.0 million, The remaining three fire stations would each be a basic two bays wide by two vehicles deep (2X2) al about 6,755 square feet with the capacity to house, while unlikely, a maximum of four large vehicles. Each of these three basic'2X2 stations has estimated land acquísition/construction cost of approximately $Z.g million each.

FS-002, FS-008, FS-0012, FS-019 and FS-023 - Each of the previously referenced stations would need a basic but fully equipped response engine at $875,000 with a 30% equipment ratio cost for a total of $1 ,137,500 for a fully-equipped Type I response engine, A basic engine is the heart of every station.

City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 32 FS-009 and FS-013, Aeriat Response Truck - The Land-use dataþase anticipates 68.8 million square feet of business acres. Many of the business developments will require a department's capability of multiple response aerial vehicles for the over-width and over-height structures that cah be änticipated to be constructed. Aerial response vehicles also respond to residential structure incidents.

FS-004, HazMat Response Vehicle - Given the nature of industrial and manufacturing operations, there is a high likelihood of the need for hazardous materials response capability.

FS.OOS, FD-009, FD-016, FD-O2O and FD-024, Medic Response Vehicles - Medic responses represent the greatest number of general rescue calls-for-service, and each station would require one to 6e able to accommodate the 8]41 annual calls-for-service anticipated from new development in the zoned areas.

FS-006, FS-010, FS-017, FS-021 and FS'025, Utility Pick-up Truck 'These handy vehicles are used to reduce unnecessary mileage on heavy expensive response vehicles by providing an inexpensive alternative for simple or routine non-emergency or supply errands.

FS-014 and FS-015, Ghief andlor Battalion Ghief(s) Response Vehicles - The 8,741 additional calls-for-service anticipated from new development within the City of Shafter will require direct management via a combination of multiple battalion chiefs (or whatever operation management staff Kern County Fire chooses to employ)'
FS-026, Basic Training Facility (Tower/Pits and Various Apparatus - ln order to keep the various fire companies serving Shafter in the vicinity, construct a local training component adjacent to FS-011, the local headquarters station. The facility would consist of, at a minimum, a multi-story training tower, a drafting pit and space for miscellaneous training apparatus.

FS-027, Brush Engine Type llt - The fire depaftment's response capability would need to include at least one Type lll brush engine.

FS-028, Fire Marshalt/tnspection Staff Sedans - Give the magnitude of business structures to be constructed many of them will have new or changed conditional use permits or will require routine inspections to ensure the public's safety, Many continuing uses will generate annual safety inspections and re-inspections.

FS-029, USAR Heavy Rescue Truck - This type of vehicle would be necessary to be able to respond to specialized incidents such as trench failures, collapsed buildings, and a host of other suih maior incidents. Given the significant amount of business square feet anticipated in the future, such incidents can be expected.

FS-O3O consists of the Two Reserve Response Engines needed to maintain the Department's one to three ratio of one reserve engine per three active engines standard.

FS-031, Specialty Equipment for Five Stations - This allots $40,000 per station for specialty equipment not typically stored on vehicles,
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 33 Chaoter 4 Fire Suonre Facililies Vehicles. a Fouinment
The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and previously described. The total cost of compÍeting the fire infrastructure system is a net $73,201,416. There is no existing Fire Suppression Facilities DIF impact fee therefore there is no fund balance.

The project costs are split 8O.2Bo/o to land uses that have identified zones. The remaining amount,-roughly 19.72% of the future calls for service will come from parcels within the major annexation that have yet to be zoned and thus are treated as an average calls per acre. The $73,201,416 in project costs represents the fire needs for the entire City's limits, because station location practices are based upon a recommended urban area standard response recommendation of arriving at 90% of all calls-for-service within five minutes at 35 miles per hour, thus are station locaiion derived as opposed to locating police station(s) anywhere (and any size) within the agency's boundaries.

The Relation io Between the Need for The Fee and The Tvoe of Ðeve enl Proiect. Fire service response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or else the result will be in the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City of Shafter. lt follows that it is appropriate to a
fire facilities,
ssess future development to contribute additional
To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantìfy the'cuirent impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities.

While the majority of these requests for service were made by Shafter citizens from their residences, a iarge percentage of requests were generated from new commercial and industrial uses within the City. A survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for calls-forservice was conducted to project the impact of future development on fire services. The callsfor-service survey was undeftaken in a similar manner and concurrently with the process used to determine law enforcement demand (specifically descriþed in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement et al ). Only requests for fire and rescue services to privately held property were counted.

Requests for service to public propefty, such as City parks and public right-of-way or intersections, were excluded thus distributing these calls pro-rata through the requests for service from privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held land in some manner.

Table 4-1, following, identifies the number of calls-for-service received by the Fire Department during the past calendar year by the previously identified DIF categories. The information, similar to the process used in e law enforcement, was generated by the City's lT/GlS staff and considered all of the response to privately held land. The results were very detailed. The number of requests for service received by the Department during the year was then divided by either the developed (1,000) square feet, the existing number of dwelling units to determine the number of requests generated per business square foot, per dwelling unit or commercial lodging unit.
t |
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 34 Table 4-l
Fire Suppression Calls-for'service Generated by Existing Land Uses (Over a l2 Month Period)
Of residential land uses, a detached dwelling unit is just slightly more likely to require an emergencyfire service response at 0.166 annual responses per unit thanan attached dwelling unit aI 0.1ÓO annual responses per unit. Business Park use development is shown to generate the highest business use demand at 0.094 responses per 1,000 square foot of building space, while industrial development generates the least demand of 0.009 calls per 1,000 square feet' The lower demand by indultrial uses shoutd be expected given the greater density of emptoyees and patroni ¡n a commercial use establishment when compared to an industrial business of similar square feet, However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant training is required to be prepared for industrial responses, (i,e., trenching response and hazardous materials training).

Based upon these calls-for-service and the anticipated development, future demands in the City will increase from the 1,317 annual calls-for-service to private developmentby 7,424 to a total 8,741 calls-for-service per year at General Plan build-out. Continued development will benefit from the existence of the station and the fact that it may have some existing capacity.

Resultino DIF Schedule" The collection of the resulting DlFs through build-out on currently @wouldallowtheCitytoacquireorconstruct8o,28o/ooftheproposed expansions and required equipment. The remaining 19.72o/o would need to be collected at a latär date when parcels currently un-zoned become zoned. Should these un-zoned parcels remain un-zoned forever then there would only be the need for four additional fire stations and the proposed fees would supporl that. This generally indicates that the City's expansion of the fire infrastructure/capital has maintained pace with the increases in calls-for-service from new development and that there are very few if any deficiencies in the infrastructure dedicated to fire suppression/medic services. Table 4-2, on the following page, indicates the impact fee ne'cêssary to finance the cost to the additional stations, response equipment and fire-fighter equipment.

DIF Land-use Type
Developed
Dwellings
or Square Feet
Actual Calls
For Seruice
Over 12 Months
TotalOalla per
Dwelllng or
1,000 sF {KsF}
Detached Dwelling Units 4,838 803 0,166/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units (1) 350 35 0.100/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 175 41 0.233/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 80 I 0.105/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses 1,675,000 72 0.043/KSF
Business Park Uses (SF) 2,090,880 197 0.094/KSF
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (SF) 7,13A,772 64 0.009/KSF lnstitutional Uses (SF) 1,075,932 97 0.090/KSF
¡
city of shafter 2022lJpdate Development lmpact Fee calculation and Nexus Report Page 35 4 Table 4-2
City of Shafter's
Basic Needs-based Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development lmpact Costs
bY DIF Land'use TYPe
DIF Land-use ïype
Allocation
of Development
Costs
Development lmPact
Cost Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $18,708,301 $1,136/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $1,585,218 $684/Unit
Mobile Home Units $47,830 $1,494/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $47,830 $682/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $1,195,746 $0.293/S.F
Business Park Uses $37,710,414 $0,64215,F.
lndustrial/Manufacturing Uses $362,140 $0.061/s.F.
lnstitutional Uses $88,827 $0.627lS.F.

The Relationshin Between the Use of tbe Fe.e- and thg Type of DeveloP,n]9nt PaYino the FÇefor the fee. The DIF would be collected as the development occurs (generally at building permit or sgme predetermined point in the process).

As the development oõcurs, the impact is generated. The collected DIF receipts would be put to use to acquire additional fire-fighters assigned and specialty equipment, emergency response vehicles and an additional fire station necelsary to respond to those additional calls-for-service, without reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community' nt
Attributed to the Development Proiect. The
identified on Schedule 4.1 are attributed to n
The current community benefits from the existing single station and response vehicle compliment. To allow future residents to benefit by use of all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets, would be clearly unfair to the existing residents and would reduce their current level of service. Table 4-3, following, summarizes the distribution of the g10,162,32g in replacement costs to the existing residents and business owners (Schedule 4.3 details this distribution).

The replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure consisting of the single station, ¡.".ponå" fleet and related specialty equipment of $10,162,329 represents the current equity invòstment or County financiat commitmenf towards fire suppression capability within the existing community. When this inventory replacement figure is distributed over the existing commùnity in the same manner as the future costs, by the land use demands, an investment, or financial "commitment" (or equity for that matter) per unit can be determined. As an example, .
@ãDevelopmentlmpactFeeCalculationandNexusReportPage36
new land, facilities, vehicles and equipment project
ew development in the CitY.
each attached dwelling unit has invested about fi772 into fire suppression capital while the proposed DIF is about 11.4% less at $684 per attached dwelling. This indicates thatthere are no proportionality problems with this calculation, or stated slightly differently, the development community is being asked to invest in the fire system of assets and a lesser rate.

Table 4-3
Existing Fire Suppression/Rescue
Gommunity Financial Gommitment Comparison Data
DIF Land'use Type
Allocatlon
of Developmênt
Costs
Asset/Equity
lnvestment Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $6,197,651 $1,281/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $270,098 $77ZlUnit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $314,664 $1,798/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $64,823 $810/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $555,823 $0.332/S.F
Business Park Uses $1,516,736 $0.725lS.F.
lndustrialiManufacturing Uses $495,259 $0.069/s.F
lnstitutional Uses s747,275 $0.695/S.F.

RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
The Existing Financial Commitment Comparison (Schedule 4.3) is 13% greater than the General City nlinimum Needs-based lmpact Costs (Schedule 4.2), which are necessary and sufficient to maintain the established fire suppressions system in that area. Schedule 4.2 would be the most equitable fee schedules to adopt for the General Gity.

OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES

1. Newly constructed industrial developments, initially charged the lower industrial use impact fee, are often converted to retail/service uses and generate greater demands than those of the industrial land uses. lf this trend is left unrecognized, the Department, as well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from commercial uses, but will be left only with the collection of the lower industrial impact fee rates. To avoid this under-collection, the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference between the retail/service DIF and the previously paid industrial land-use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a commercial use in an industrial zone' City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 37 4 RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION IMPACT FEES
Create a Development lmpact fee Fund titled "Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment."
Adopt Schedule 4.2 and place all proceeds into the above referenced Fund

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 38 Schedule 4.1
City of Shafter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Proiect Cost Esfimafes
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment tt eêds
SøppoñedåyParcqls
,n
Apportioned
ÐollarCost
Fel.cent
t{eed
lnftasfructura l\le€ded
to Ácôomrtodate
lncreasedDevelopment
Appartioned
DolfarCost
Perèent
l{eed
F.slimated
Cosf
$825,000
$1,137,500
$168,750
$45,000
$7,909,131$1,137,500
$168,750
$45,000
$2,500,000
$1,293,750
$77,500
$125,000$135,000
$45,000
$7,909,131
$7,909,131
$1 ,137,500
$'168,750
$45,000
$1,',I37,500
$1 1 ,934,516
$1,137,500
$1,293,750
$833,750
$1ô8,750
$45,000
Station #4 - 3 Bays Wide X 2 Deep Headquarters Facility Station ff6 - Type I Response EngineStation 16 - Medic Response VehicleStation #6 - Ut¡lity Pick-uP Truck Basic Training Facility flower/Pits and Various Apparatus) Type lll Brush Engine
Station #4 - Battalion Chiefs Vehicle WElectronicsStation #4 - Medic Response VehicleStation fl4 - Utility Pick-up TruckStation #5 - Basic 2 Bays Wide X 2 Vehicles Deep Facìlity Station #5 - Type I Response Engine
Station #5 - Medic Response VehicleStation #5 - Utility Pick-up TruckStation lÍ6 - Basic 2 Bays Wide X 2 Vehicles Deep FacilitY #3 - Medic Vehicle
Station #3 - Utility Pick-uP TruckStation #4 - Type I Response Engine Station #4 - Aerial Response VehicleStation #4 - Chiefs Vehicle Station #2 - Aerial Response VehicleStation it2 - HazMal ResPonse VehicleStation #2 - Medic Response Vehicle Station #2 - Utility Pick-uP Truck
Station #3 - Basic 2 Bays Wide X 2 Vehicles Deep FacilityStation #3 - Type I ResPonse Enqine Station #2 - Basic 3 Bays Wide X 2 Vehicles Deep Facility Station lt2 - Fype I ResPonse Enoine
F5-024FS-025
FS-026
F5-027
FS-017FS-018
FS-o19
F5-020FS-021F5-022
FS-023
FS-011FS-o12
FS-o13
FS-o14FS-015
FS-016
FS-o04
F5-005
F5-006FS-007
F5-008
F5-009FS-010
FS-001F3-002
F5-003
$2,353,487
$224,315
$255,128$164,416
$33,278
$8,874
$1,559,681
ç224,315
$33,278
$8,874
s4,342,614
$224,315
$255,128
$15,283$24,650
$26,622
$8,874
$r,559,681
$224,315
$33,278
$8,874
$1,5s9,681
$224.315
$33,278
$8,874
$493,000
$162.690

19.720/,
"t9.72%

19.72o/o

19.72%

19.72o/o19.72o/o

19.72o/.19,72o/o

19.72Ya19.72Y:o

19.72o/o

19.72%19.72o/o

19.720/,19.72o/o

19.72"/o19.72%

19.720/o19.72%

19.72%

19.72%19.72o/o19.72o/o

19.72o/o19.72%

19.72%19.72o/o
$9,581,029
$913,185
$1,038,623
$669,335$135,473
$36,126
$6,349,450
$913,185$135,473
$36,126
$17,678,753
$91 3,1 85
$1.038,623
$62,217
$100,350$108,378
$36,126
$6,349,450
$913,185$135,473
$36,126
$6,349,450
$913.185
$135,473
$36,126
$2,007,000
$662,310

80.28o/o80.28o/o

80.28%8O.28o/o80.28o/o

80.28o/o

80.28%
8O.28o/o80.28%
8O.28o/o80.28Yo

80.28%

80.28%

80.28%

80.28%8O.29o/o80.28%

80.28o/o80.28o/o
8O.28o/o80.28Yo

80.28%

80.28o/o8O.28o/o

80.28o/o

80.28%

80.28%
Schedule 4.1
City of Shafter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
Allocatíon of Proiect Cost Esf,'tnates
Fire Supptession/Medíc Facilities, Veäicles & Equipment Construction Âleeds
Supported by Parcels
To be Zoned in the Future
Apporfioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
ffeed
$17,082
$203,363$345,100
$39,440

19.72%

19.72o/"19.72o/o

19.72o/o
I nf rastru ctu re Âleeded
to Accommadate
lncreased Development
Apportioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
IVeed
$69,543
$827,888
$1,404,900
$160,560

80.28%

80.28o/o80.28Yo80.28%
$0$0

0.00%0.00%0.00%

19.72o/o $14,676,103
$0
$o$o
100.00%

0.00%0.00%
$59,746,306
Fonrard to Schedule 3.2

80.28o/o
NOTES:

Each response vehicles is estimated as fully equipped.

Station requirements/locations are based upon anticipated call volumne and NFIRS Standard 1.5 miles at 35 MPH response Ào
Linø,# Cost
$86,625
$1,031,250
$1,750,000
$200,000
Fire Marshall/ln Staff Sedans
SAR H Rescue Truck
wo 1/3 ratì
FS-031
FS-028F5-029
F5-030
Total lnfrastructure Master Plan 19. $'14,676,103 80.28% $59,746,306 $0$0
$o
Total Financial Resources
Deve Fee Fund Balance
Other Financia
otal Net General Plan Costs 874,422,401
Schedule 4.2
City of Shafter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based lrnpacú Cosfs
Fire Suppression/Me'díc Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Development
lmpact Fee per Unit
orsqtrars Foot
$1.136 per Unit
8684 per Unit
$1,494 per Unit
$682 per Unit
$0.293 per S.F.
$0.642 per S.F,$0.062 perS.F$0.627 per S.F.

Avenge Uniß
or Square
FælAcre

3.32 31.70

16.00 35.00
15,246
17,424
21,780
28,314
Cosf
Distibution
Per Acre
$3,770
$21,671
$23,915$23,915
$4,467
$11,191
$1,346
$17,765
Allocation of
Es<pansion
Costs
$18,708,301
$1,585,218
$47,830
$47,830
$1,195,746
$37,710,414
$362,140
$88,827
Percentage
of Additional
Service Calls

31.31%

2.650/o

0.08%0.08%

2.00%

63.12Yo
o.61%
O.15o/a
Anticipted
NewCalls
for Sewice
2,738
232
7 7
175
5,519
53 13
Call
Genention
Rate

0.1660.100
0 2330.1050.043

0.0940.0090.090
Units
16,491
2,319
32 70
4,081,271
58,7'15,395
5,860,998
141,570
Acres
4,962.3

73.2 2.0

2.O
267.7
3,369.8
269.1

5.0 Land Use
Detached Dwelling UnitsAttached Dwelling UnitsMobile Home Dwelling Unil Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office UsesBusiness Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses S
Private lnstitutional Uses S
TOTALI 8,744 r00.00%l $59 Total lnfrastructure Master Plan Needs 8,951.06 ÀA
Schedule 4.3
City of Shafter2O2A-21 Development Impact Cost Calculation Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparíson
Fr're Suppress i o n/M ed i c F aci I iti es, Ve h i c I es & E q u i p m e n t Cu¡rent Fínancial
Commitment per Unit
or Foot
$r Unit
$772 per Unit
$1,798 per Unit
$810 per Unit
$0.332 per S.F.

90.725 perS.F.
$0.069 per S.F.
$0.695 perS.F,
arsguare
3_18

16.0012.00

34.93 3750.90
784
21,780
28,314
of 'Equity"
Acre
$4,073
$12,345$21,582
$28,307
$1,245
$569
$1,513
$19,665
Allacation ot
lnbastructure
197,651
$270,098
$314,664
$64,823
$55s,823
$1,516,736
$495,25e
s747,275
Pertenåge
oî Et<isting
Seruice Calls

60.99%

2.66%

3.10%a.64%

5.47o/o

14.93%

4.87%
7 35%
tuistÍng
Catls for
Service
803
35 41
8 72
197
64 97
Genantion
Råfê
00-100

0.233

0.1050.0430.094

0.0090 090
Developed
Units

4.838
350
175
80 1,675,000
2,090,880
7,130,772
1,075,932
Acres
1,521.63

21.88 14.58

2.29 446.56
2,667.90
327.40

38.00 Land
Detached Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling UnilCommercial Lodqinq Units
Retail/Service/Offìce UsesBusiness Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SPrivate lnstitutional Uses S
TOTALI 5,0¡10.24 1,317 r0o.o0%l $10,162, Total lnfrastructure Master Plan Assets $8,008,829 in Fire Supptession Facilities AssetsS2,073,500 in Fire Suppression Vehicles Assets $80,000 in Specialty Equipment Assets
S0 in Fire Supprcssion DIF Fund Balance (none)
ÀN)
Chapter 5
Animal Gontrol Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existiryg Svstem of Animal Control Assets or infrastructure. The Shafter Animal Control operation, managed by the Police Department, operates out of a 6,600 square foot temperaturecontrolled building with two smaller buildings located at the rear of the main building. All three buildings have a ðombined size of 7,100 square feet and were built on a two-acre parcel. The AnimafÇontrol Facility includes 2,702 square feet dedicated to administration, 3,898 square feet devoted to kennels, which includes 37 dog kennels, and three interior cat rooms with cages.

Three hundred twenty-eight square feet has been reserved for the storage of food and supplies.

The Department also has an inventory o1.
o Animal control vehicles with various added specialty equipment; and, r Specialty and computer equipment.

The combined replacement value of these assets is approximately $3.2 million Demand Upon lnfrastructur.e Created blr the Development qf Underdeveloped or Vacant Parcelç, Residents and businesses benefit from Animal Control services in three ways: directly, indirectly and through standby availability. Direct services are those where a resident or business owner requires a direct response, usually as a result of having to deal directly with an animal control issue. Direct service results in the form of an Animal Control officer contacting the victim. lndìrect benefits, such as spaying and neutering programs that indirectly serve all businesses, citizens and visitors, are impossible to calculate for a specific beneficiary. An example of indirect benefit would be the apprehension of a wild or ill animal in your neighbor's residence yesterday. Had the dangerous/ill animal not been collected, it may have been in your yard the next day as a direct issue. Most residents and businesses may go for many years before ever requiring an animal control call-for-service. However, these fortunate residents and businesses still benefit from Animal Control services, if in no other way than by the knowledge that an Animal Control officer is available, through adequate planned stand-by, to respond if required.

The addition of new residential units and new businesses will increase the demand upon the Animal Control service level by creating more direct calls-for-service, more areas requiring preventive patrol, and in general, more opportunities for more animal problems to be created.

The development of vacant or underutilized parcels into residential or business units will also generate more calls-for-service. The residents and business owners occupying those residences and businesses will create the increase in Animal Control calls-for-service.

Additionally, residences and businesses will generate a call-for-service when a stray animal, not related to that residence or business, creates a nuisance for that caller. More residences and businesses witl mean more responses to loose animals and miscellaneous related incidents that will occur in the new residences and businesses. lf the Animal Control response and holding capabilities (the base) are not expanded, then the increasing number of calls-for-service (the City of Shafter 2O22Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 43 rate) will reduce the number of "free" hours available for preventative effort. This inability to expand the capabilities would ultimately drive an otherwise effective operation into a reactionary mode. The additional calls-for-service would limit the amount of time for training, planning, proactive free patrol prevention and other non-direct services.

It was difficult to acquire local (Shafter) historical call data by zone. Ceftainly, many animal control otficer responses are to homes and businesses relating to an animal that may reside there. However, there are also a number of animal control calls-for-service where the loose animal may have little to do with the area that they were found and recovered. ln short, any given response is for the good of the animal but also to ensure of the public's safety.

RCS has undertaken a number of impact fee studies for other agencies that provided such services. We have applied average calls-for-service data from those agencies in this calculation.

The calls-for-service data is limited to the location of the response, to residential or business areas. The average calls-for-service for these public agencies was 0.282 responses per residential dwelling and 0.427 responses per acre for business uses. This was applied to the existing City as well as the future development for consistency.

The Purpose of the Fee. Additional Animal Control calls-for-service are expected from new development, and the cost of adding animal control officers necessary to accommodate these call demands can be determined. These new costs can be translated to a fee, or an amount, necessary to be collected to offset the added costs of the required additional animal control staffing equipment. These costs include equipping the additional staff. Providing that the fee is adopted and imposed, new development will finance its proportional capital costs of expansion of the Animal Control facility capacity. The continued costs of the annual salary and benefits for any additional officers will need to come from increases in property and sales taxes generated by the new residences and businesses and their occupants.

The Use the Fee The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally-suppoÉed Animal Control DIF schedule would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand the Animal Control facility, increase the number of response and investigator's vehicles, and properly equip additional officers. Conversely, the Animal Control DIF receipts cannot be used to replace existing space, vehicles, or equipment.

AC-001, Animal Gontrol Facilities - The existing facility currently meets the needs of the existing community with an average capacity demand of 75o/o of the existing kennels. However, the kennel capacity will need to be expanded by an additional 8,000 square feet of kennel space as required to meet the additional demands of about 3,100 additional calls-for-service a year, that are expected from the substantial new development at General Plan build-out. The existing 25o/o available capacity has been factored into the calculation of future kennel facility needs.

AC-002, Animal Control Vehicle - This City will need to acquire two additional fully-equipped animal control response vehicle to maintain response capability and current level of service afforded to the existing community.

AG-003, Animal Control Officer Assigned Equipment - The acquisition of assets necessary to equip an additional animal control officer. The items include (but not limited to): a badge, belt, cell phone, boots, shirts, trousers, winter jacket and other protective gear/clothing, City of Shafter 2022lJpdate Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 44 AC-004, Animat Gontrol Specialty Equipment - The list of required equipment includes additional specialty equipment including (but not limited to): come-a-longs, snares, tranquilizer equipment, traps, carts, leashes/halters, grounds and kennel equipment. The amount is consistent with the existing specialty equipment per call-for-service.

AC-005, One Ton Utility Pick-Up Truck with Hitch - Depending on the needs generated from new development, this multipurpose pick-up truck with a heavy duty hitch can be used to tow horse or utility trailers. lt can also be used for feed and supplies needs. Given the magnitude of the anticipated calls-for-service, it could prove likely that the existing utility truck would be in use on a simultaneous call.

AC-006 Utility Trailer - This versatile trailer can be used to transport anímals, supplies, or equipment. Again, given the magnitude of the anticipated calls-for-service, it could prove likely that the existing utility trailer would be in use elsewhere or on a simultaneous call.

The Relationship Between the Need for lhe Fee and lhe fvpe of Development Proiect.

Oepartment records were used to demonstrate that differing land uses generate differing numbers of calls. Animal Control staff provided extremely accurate calls-for-service data by over-laying the Department's computerized response records with the City's zoning map thus allowing 10}o/o of the calls-for-service to be categorized. Table 5-1, following, summarizes an analysis of the calls-for-service received by the Animal Control Department over a recent twelve monih period, The breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of developed units (during the same period) generated a calls-for-service ratio, factor or nexus.

Table 5-1
Estimated Animal Control Calls-for-Service Generated
by DIF Land-use Type
(Over a l2 Month Period)
DIF Land-use Type
Developed
Dwelllngs or
Square Feet
Total Calls per
Dwelllng or
Acre
Average Calls
For Servlce
Over 12
Monthe
Detached Dwelling Units 4,838 0.282lUnil 429
Attached Dwelling Units 350 O.292lUnit 6
Mobile Home Dwelling 175 O.282lUnil 4
Commercial Lodging Units 80 0.427lUnit 1
Retail/Service Uses 1,675,000 A.427lAcre 191
Business Park Uses 2,090,880 Q.427lAcre 1 ,139
lndustrial Uses 7,130,772 O.427l\cre 140
Private lnstitutional Uses 1,075,932 0.427lAcre 16
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 45 m
Using these average statics, there were approximately 1,926 calls-for-service per year that gene-rated a respoñse to one of the residential dwelling units or businesses in the City. This ãstimate is based each dwelling generating just over 0.282 calls per year, on average. Calls to business acres were based a 0.427 annual calls-for-service per acre of business uses. When the same statistics are applied to future demands, for consistency, an estimate of 3,092 additional calls-for-service at General Plan Build-out is generated" The RelatioJrship Between the Use of fhe Fee and the Lype of Developrnenf Pavinq the Fee.

Ag"¿in, use oi ine fee is a similar argument to the need for the fee. As the development occurs, thé impact is generated, and the impact fee would be collected as the development occurs' Ïhe collected DlÈ receipts would be put to use to acquire equipment for additional facilities, equipment and addiiional facilities/holding space necessary to respond to those additional calls, without reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community.

The Relationship Between the Amounf of fhe Fee and the Cosf of fhe Podion of the FacilitY Attributed to tne Dwàlopment Proiect. The existing facilities meet the needs of the existing quateatGeneralPlanbuild-out.Thecostoftheadditional
animal control capital improvements/acquisitions is distributed proportionally between the land uses that will generate the calls-for-service
Minimal Needs-based Fees. Table 5-2, following, summarizes the resulting DlFs (from @e1opmenttocontribute$4.5milliontowardstheexpansionoftheanimal control kennei capacity/capaþilities in order to allow the City to extend the same level of service as is afforded to the City's existing citizens and businesses' Table 5-2
Minimum Needs-based Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development lmpact Costs
by DIF Land-use TYPe
5 DIF land-use Type
Allocatlon
of Development
Costs
Development lmpact
Cost Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units $2,050,693 $124lUnit
Attached Dwelling Units $30, 782 $13/Unit
Moþile Home Dwelling $1,466 $46/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $1,466 $21iUnit
Retail/Service Uses $1 67,1 04 $0.041/s.F
Business Park Uses $2,109,326 $0.036/s.F.
lndustrial Uses $168,570 $0.029/s,F.

Private lnstitutional Uses $2,932 $0.021/s.F
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 46 Existino Financial Commitment Comparisgn Costs, The City dedicated approximately Sg253BgA in animal control assets in support of animal control services, Approximately 92,975,000 has been invested in the land and structural facilities. The response fleet of animal control trucks, trailers and utility trucks is about $96,000. The existing specialty equipment represents about $1 70,884.

Similar to the Law Enforcement Services DlF, the future calls-of-service for animal control will increase by over 250% over the current number of calls-for-service. Given this large increase in the calls-of-service, it is vital to note that although the DIF requires approximately $t.0 million greater than the existing community's financial contribution, the resulting impact fees are still less per unit/square foot than the existing community's financial commitment per unit/square foot.

Again, this can be explained by the level of growth that is anticipated, allowing tfre $4.5 million needed to accommodate future development to be spread out over 18,826 anticipated dwelling units and 69.7 million square feet of commercial space. ln short, although the existing cornmunity has only invested $3.2 million into the existing animal control services, proportionally it will still be more than the DIF that will be asked of future development indicating no problems with proportionality.

Table 3-3
Existing Animal Control SYstem
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
DIF Land-use Type
Allocation of
Existing System
Assets
AsseUEquity
lnvestment Per Unit
or Square Foot
Detached Dwelling Units 9724,776 $150/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $1 0,1 37 $29/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling $6,758 $39/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $1,689 $21lUnit
Retail/Service Uses $322,686 $0.193/S.F,
Business Park Uses $1,924,288 $0.920/s.F
lndustrial Uses $236,524 $0.033/s.F,
Private lnstitutional Uses $27,031 $0.025/s.F
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 47 S Ve

RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Since the Minimum Needs-þased lmpacf Cosfs (necessary for expansion indicating the City's investment in Animal Control capabilities) are less than the Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison, the Minimum Needs-þased Development lmpact Fee schedule identified in Table 5-2 and Schedule 5,2 would be the most equitable DIF schedule to adopt.

RECAP OF RECOMMENDED ANIMAL CONTROL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Create a Development lmpact fee Fund titled "Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment".

Adopt Schedule 5.2 and place all proceeds into the above referenced Fund.

END OF CHAPTER TEXT
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 48 Schedule 5.1
City of Shatter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost CalculationAllocation of Project Cost Estimates Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles & Equípment
Construction lVeeds
Suppofted by
OtñerResources
Apportioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
IVeed
I nîrastru ctu re lVeeded
to Accommodate
lncreased Development
Apportioned
Dollar Cost
Percent
IVeed
$o$0
$0

0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% $0
$0
s0
$0
100.00%

0.00%0.00%
$4,532,340
Forward to Schedule 5.2
100.00%
Estimated
# Cost
$4,000,000
$170,000
$9,000
ç274,340
$56,500$22,500
Animal Control Facility Kennel Expansion (8,000 Square Feet)Animal Control Response/Staff VehiclesAnimal Control Officer Assigned Equipment Animal Control Specialty EquipmentOne Ton Utility Pick-up Truck with HitchMiscellanous Trailer AC-001AC-002AC-003AC-004
AC-005
AC-006
$o$0
$0$0$o
$0

0.00%0.00%0.00%

0.00%

0.00%0.00%
$4,000.000
$170,000
$9,000
$274,340
$56,500$22,500
100.00%100.00%100.00%'t00.00%
100.00%
100.00%
lnfrastructure Master Plan Needs $¿, 0.00% $o 100.00% $4,532,340 $0
$0$0
otal Financia
Existing Development Fee Fund BalanceOther Financial ResourcesTotal Net General Plan Costs 340 À(o
Schedule 5.2
City of Shafter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
General PIan Minimal Äleeds-Þased lmpact Costs
Animal Control Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment
Call
Genention
Percentage
of Addítional
Se¡wíce Calls
Allocation Average
Acres lVew Calls
for Seruice
Expansion
Cosús
Díst¡ìbution
Per Acre
orSquare
Feet/Ac¡e
lmpact Fee per Unit
Land Use or Foot
Detached Units 962.32 16,491 1,399 45 $41 3.32 24 Unit
$13 per Unit$46 per Unit$21 per Unit
$0.041 perS.F.$0.036 per S-F.$0.029 per S.F.

50.021 per S.F.

31.70 16.00

35.00 15,246
17,424
21,78028,314
$421$733$733
$624
$626
$626$586
$30,782
$1,466
$1,466
$167,104
$2,109,326
$168,570
$2,932

0.68%0.03%

0.03%3.690/o

46.54%

3.72%

0.06%
21 1'l
114
1,439
115
2 0.282o.282
o.427o.4270.427

0.427

0.427

2.319
3270
4,081,271
58,715,395
5,860,998
141,570

73.15 2.002.00
267.69
3,369.80
269.10

5.00 Attached Dwellinq UnitsMobile Home Dwellinq UnilCommercial Lodging Units Retail/Service/Office Uses
Business Park Uses SFlnd./Manufacturing Uses SPrivate lnstitutional Uses S .05 r00. 340 Needs
(tl o
Scàedu/e 5.3
City of Shatter
2020-21 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
Ex isti n g Co m m u nity F i n e n ci a I Co m m itm ent C o m p a ri s o nAnimal Control Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Current Financial
Commitmentper Unit
or Foot
50 Unit
$29 per Unit$39 per Unit$21 per Unit

80.193 pers.F.
$0.920 per S.F
$0.033 perS.F$0.025 per S.F
Average Units
or Square
Feet/Acre

3.18 16.0012.0O
35 3,751
784
21,780
28,314
Dist¡ibution
of 'Equity'
Acre
$476$463$463
$738$723$721$722
$71 1
Allocation of
Infrastrucfiire
s724,776
$10,137
$6,758$1,689
$322,686
$1,924,288
$236,524
$27,031
Percenþge
of Existing
Sen¡ice Calls
o.31%0.21o/o0.05%

9.92o/o

59.14o/o

7.27o/o0.83%
Ettisting
Calls lor
Servíce
429
Þ4
1 191
I,139
140
16 Cat,
Genention
Raúe
a_282

0.282
o.2820.427

0.4270.4270.427

4.427
toped
Units
4,838
350
175
80 1,675,000
2,090,880
7J30,772
1,075,932
Acres
1,521.63
2t.88

14.58 2.29
446.56
2,667.90
327.44

38.00 Land Use
Units
Attached Dwelling UnitsMobile Home Dwelling UnilCommercial Lodging UnitsRetail/Service/Ofiìce UsesBusiness Park Uses SF lnd./Manufacturing Uses SPrivate lnstitutional Uses S
f 100.00% $3 Master Plan Assets TOTALI 5,040.24 ,926
Assets
Fee Fund Balance
in Animal
Other
tn
in Animal Control Officer
in Animal Control Assets
(¡
Appendix A
Summary of Recommendations
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 52 Summary of Recommendations
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities and Equipment
o Create a Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development lmpact Fee Fund.
r Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 28, MinimalCapitalNeeds-based lmpact Costs Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment o Create a Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and equipment Development Impact Fee Fund.
o Adopt Schedule 4.2, page 41, Minimal CapitalNeeds-þased lmpact Cosfs.

Chapter 5 - Animal Gontrol Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment o Create an Animal Contrat Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development lmpact Fee Fund.
o Adopt Schedule 5.2, page 50, Minimal CapitalNeeds-based lmpact Cosfs.

City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 53 Appendlx B
Expanded Land-use Database
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 54 Appendix B
City of Shafter
circulation (streets, signals, Bridges) Facilities Development lmpact Fee Expanded Land-use Database
202'l-22 Development lmpact Cost Galculation
Total - Land-use Database
ofA&BBelow
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Offíce Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
Exlsting Development
Acres # of Units
1,521,63 4,838

21.88 350

14.58 175

2.29 80
446.56 1,675,000
2,667.90 2,090,880
327.40 7130,772

38.00 1,075,932
Potential DeveloPment
Acree # of Unlts
4,962.32 16,491
73,15 2,319

2.00 32

2.00 70
267.69 4,O81,271
3,369,80 58,715,395
269.'10 5,860,998

5.00 141,570
TotalG. P. Bulldout
Acres # of UniB
6,484.0 21,329

95.0 2,669
16,6 207

4.3 150
714.3 5,756,271
6,037.7 60,806,275
596.5 12,991,770

43.0 1,217,502
Residential Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging
Business Uses
Summary Sub-total
A. Suþtotal - From Core C
B. Devslopinent
wlthln Eastern Shaftsr Area E
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
I,558.1 5,363

2.3 80
3,479.9 11,972,584
5,040.2
Existíng DeveloPment
Acree # of Units
Exlsting Development
Acrcs # of Unlts

18.7 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0
336.7 0
2,547.9 0

0.0 0

0.0 0
5,037.47 18,842

2.00 70
3,911.59 68,799,234
8,951.06
Potential DeveloPment
Acres # of Unlte
Potential DeveloPment
Acres # of Units
6,595.56 24,205

4.29 150
7,391.45 80,771,818
13,991 .30
Total G. P. Build-out
Acres # of Unlts
4,393.1 14,557

21.9 350

15.6 191

2.3 80
222.8 3,39ô,273
285.7 4,978,037
596.5 12,991,770

38.0 1,075,932
5,575.8 0.0
TotalG. P. Bulld'out
Acreg f of Unltg
2,890.2 9,719.0

0.0 o

1.0 16

0.0 0
112.9 1,721,273
'165.7 2,887,157
269.1 5,860,998

0.0 0
2,136.9 0.0 3,438.9 0.0
2,090.8 6,772

73.1 2,319

1.0 16

2.0 70
491.5 2,359,998
5,752.0 55,828,238

0.0 0

5.0 141,570
B. Subtotal - East Shafter Area 2,903.3 0.0 5,512.2 0.0 8,415.5 0.0 8,951 .06 13,991.30
Development Opportunlt¡es
ln 0ore, c&D
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Gommercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
I nd./Manufacturing Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
1,502.9 4,838.0

21.9 350

14.6 175

2.3 80
109.9 1,675,000
120.0 2,090,880
327.4 7,130,772

38.0 1,075,932
2,072.1 6,772

73.1 2,319

1.0 16

2.0 70
154.8 2,359,998
3,204.1 55,828,238

0.0 0

5.0 141,570
55 Appendix B
Gity of Shafter
Circulation (Streets, Signals, Bridges) Facilities Development lmpact Fee Expanded Land-use Database
2021-22 Development lmpact Cost Calculation
C, Parcóls wllhln the Core CltY
wâBt of Goldla Avenga
Detached Dwel ling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
lnd.lManufacturing Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
C. Sbttl - Core Area WlO Gold's
D. Parcels within the Gore CltY
Between Gold's Ave and CherrY
D. Between Gold's/Cherry
Existing DeveloPment
AcrEe # of Units
1,502.9 4,838

21.9 350

14.6 175

2.3 80
109.9 1,675,000
120.0 2,090,880
289.0 6,294,424

38.0 1,075,932
2,098.5 0.0
Existing Development
Acres f of Units

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

38.4 836,352

0.0 0

38.4 0.0
Potential Development
Acras # of Units
2,583.4 8,998

0.0 0

1.0 16

0.0 0
112.9 1,721,273
165.7 2,887,157

0.0 0

0.0 0
2,863.0 0.0
Potential Development
Acres # of Units
306.8 721

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0
0,0 0

0.0 0
269.1 5,860,998
0,0 0
575.9 0.0
Total G. P. Build-out
Ac¡ee # of Units
4,086.3 13,836

21.9 350
'15.6 191

2.3 80
222.8 3,396,273
285.7 4,978,O37
289,0 6,294,420

38.0 1,075,932
4,961 .5 0.0
TotalG. P. Build€ut
Acres # of Units
306.8 721

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0
307.5 6,697,350

0.0 0
614.3 0.0
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SF
Business Park Uses SF
lnd./Manufacturing Uses SF
Private lnstitutional Uses SF
56 Appendix C
Police and Fire Station Gonstruction Gost Estimates
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 57 Construct
Station
See LE-001
City of Shafter
Police Station Facilities
Land uisition and Construction Cost Estimate
d
215,528
Foot $6.31
Land s1.359,982
$67,999

81.427,981
S n
$71,843
1 stze 161.646
lot size $43'1,056
acre 148,435
Extend All Utilities $25,000
Site Preparation @ $3.00/SY of Lot $837,980
istration
$921,778
eel 65
slruction Cost $50,894,250
=urnishinos @ 10% of Buildinq Cost $5.089.425
ruction $55,983,675
Þro¡ect Adm'rnistration @ 10% $5,598,368
Subfofal Construction $61,582,043
102 5%
Sub-total - Proiect Administration $5,682,170
i1.427.980
Sub-total- on 1
$3,079.100

5.089.430
Total -
58 City of Shafter
Fire Station Facilities
Land and mate
Feet uired for re:
2X2Fire
Station, FS-007
FS-o18, FS-022

33.775
3 2
Stat¡on
FS-001
5'l
4X2Fi¡e
Headquarters
FS.0fi
94 Land CosUSouare Foot $6.31 $6.31 $6.31
Subtotal Land Cost $213,120 s321.968 $594.718
Accuisition Manaoement t@ 5% $10,656 $16.098 $29,736
Subtotal - Land Acquisition $223,776 $338,066 $624,453
Site Preparation @ $3.00/SY $18,764 $28,347 $52,361
Landscaoino @ $5.00/SF @- 15% lot size $25,331 $38,269 s70.688 Hardscaoe {A $5.00/SF (û 4Ùo/o lot size $67,550 $102,050 s188.500 Gradinq @ $30,000/acre $23,261 $35.141 $64.910
Extend Utilities @ $25,000 Flatrate $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Subtotal - Site Preparation s159.906 $228,807 $40'1,459 Proiect Administration @, 1oo/o $15.991 $22,881 $40,146 Suþfofal Site Preparation $175,897 $251,688 $441,605
Structure Square Feet 6.755 '10,205 18,850
Cost oer Souare Foot $750.00 $750,00 $750.00
Sub-total Construction Cost $5,066,250 $7,653.750 $14.137.500 Desiqn @-15% $759,940 $1.148.060 $2,120,630
Sub-total Construction Cost $5.826.190 $8,801,810 $16.258,130 Furnishinos @,7.5% of Bldg. cost $379,970 $574,030 $1.060,310 Subtotal - Construction s6.206.160 $9,375,840 $17.318.440 Proiect Administration @. 10% $620,620 $937,580 $r.731.840 Subtoúal Construction $6,826,780 $10,313,420 $r9,050,280 Gonstruction Contingency @ 10% $682,678 $1,031,342 $1,905,028 Sub-total - Proiect Administration $620,620 $937,580 $1 ,731,840 Sub{otal - Land Acquisition $223,776 $338,066 9624,453
Sub-total - Station Construction $6,002,087 $9.053,498 $16,699,735 Sub{otal - Contingency $682,678 $1,031,342 $1,905,028
Sub{otal - Other (Equipment/Furnishings) $379,970 $574,030 $r,060,310 Total Station Cost $7.909,131 g1 I ,934,516 922.021.367 59 I
l.
¡
Appendix D
Application of Development lmpact Fees
Upon Accessory Dwelling Units
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 60 Application of Development lmpact Fees Upon Accessory Dwelling Units Application of Develop.ment lmoact -tee on Accegsory Dwellino Units. Th9 approach that is r€commended for the ðálculation of DlFs for application to the construction of ADUs is to make it a function of the demand of one detached dwelling unit as is consistent with current State statutes. One can assume that the State identified them as function of a detached dwelling DIF as they more closely resemble detached dwellings, albeit smaller in size, as they are largely located within detached dwelling neighborhoods and will likely function as such.

The application of an ADU DIF as a function of a Detached Dwelling is consistent with the recently Chaptðied Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2 (attached as Attachments A to E).

Section 65852.2, (f) (1 ).
(3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee udoi.l ine develoþmeñt of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 sguare feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwetting unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged propottÍonatelv in relation ta the Åqu.are footaqe of the nrimary dwelling unit.

The following Table is an example of a proposed 750 square foot accessory dwelling unit to be constructed nLn¡nO a 3,000 square foot primary dwelling unit. The 750 square feet ADU represents 25'0% of the 3,000 sguare foot primary unit (750 SF/3,000 SF = 25.0%). The City will also receive a spreadsheet application enábling staff to make other such calculations depending upon the facts presented within the ADU application.

Existing Mitigation Fee Act Findinos. The five required Government Code $66000 findings within each @eimþosition/collectionofADUDlFs.Thefeescollectedwouldbeusedto finance the same piojects limited for use in that DlF-defined area in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2021-22 Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report.

Square Feet of Attached Dwelling Unit (ADU) 750
Square Feet of Primary Dwelling Unit 3,000
Ratio of ADU to Primary Unit 25.Oo/o
Detached Dwelling Unit lmpact Fee $2,910
ADU lmpact Fee $727.50
City of Shafter 2022 Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 61 I
I
l,
End of Report
City of Shafter 2022Update Development lmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 62 Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
hne7,2022

Exhibit ú68"
Development Impact Fee Schedule
Table 2-5
Summary of Proposed Development lmpact Fees
for the City of Shafter
Detached Dwelling Unit
Atteched Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit
Commercial Lodging (Keyed) Unit
Reteil/Service/Office Uses Square Foot
Business Park Uses Square Foot
lndustrial Uses Square Foot
lnstítutional Use Square Foot
$2,91O1Unit
$2,265/Unit
$2,547/Unit
$1,024/Unit
$3.012/S.F
$1.374/S.F
$0.250/s.F
$0.883/S,F
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 2869
June 7,2022

Exhibit "Co'
Interim Public Safety Development Impact Fee Policies for Subdivision Map, Building Permit & Other Entitlement Applications Submitted after the Adoption of the Resolution Adopting the Final Public Safety Development Impact Fees and Before their Effective Date (60 Days After Adoption)
DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY - A. The development impact fees that are due and payable for each applicable development project shown on Schedule 2.1 of the [Final] Public Safety Services Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ("Study") shall be based upon the rates in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit, not to exceed the maximum amounts shown on Schedule 2.1 lor each public safety category and land use type.

DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY - B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Development Fee Policy - A: These public safety development impact fee policies shall not be applicable to development projects that have submitted a preliminary 38330 application, as those projects are only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary S8330 application is submitted.

DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY - C. These public safety development impact fee policies shall not be applicable to approved tentative subdivision maps or recorded lots that are otherwise vested pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 66498.1through 66498.9 or other applicable vesting laws affecting development impact fees. Such recorded lots and/or approved tentative subdivision maps shall pay the applicable development impact fees based upon the rates in effect at the time the subdivision map application was deemed complete. The Public V/orks Director andlor Planning Director or their designees are hereby empowered to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such tentative subdivision maps or recorded lots are vested for purposes of determining the applicable development impact fees. Further, although this Policy shall not be applicable to existing approved and recorded maps creating residential lots, this Fee Policy shall be applicable to any further subdivisions of such approved and recorded lots.

AlI"" "ì
City of Shafter
SI.1A,t=f,tR COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 7,2022
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez,City Manager
Prepared By: Kevin Harmon, City Engineer
SUBJECT 2022 ZERKER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AV/ARD OF

CONTRACT

RE,COMMENDATION
Council find the requested action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; accept the bids received for the 2022 Zerker Road Reconstruction Project; authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed to Griffith Company; and authorize a budget appropriation for a new project in the Capital Improvement Program in the amount of $820,000 that is based on $496,000 Federal Transportation Improvement Program funding and $324,000 in either Gas Tax or Transportation Development Act balances.

BACKGROUND
The Council previously authorized staff to release the 2022 Zerker Road Reconstruction Project for bidding purposes. A total of five (5) bids were received and publicly opened on May 6,2022.

The bid results are as follows:

BIDDER BID
GRIFFITH COMPANY 8767,735.00
BOV/MAN ASPHALT $776,105.00
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $819,800.00
BURTCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $849,103.00
RC BECKER & SONS $910,623.36
Griffrth Company submitted the confirmed lowest responsive bid. They have completed several street and pavement improvement projects within the City and the surrounding region. Their total bid price is within the pre-bid construction estimate range of $725,000 - $800,000. However, because of the volatility in the price of asphalt products, the contract includes language that allows for price fluctuations. The fluctuations may increase the project cost beyond the bid amount by 4Yo. Staff also plans to issue a professional services contract to a materials testing firm for quality assurance. Considering contingencies for construction and support services, an appropriate budget for this work is $820,000.

The project received a funding allocation through the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) of up to $496,000. The balance of the project costs would represent the local funding match.

MANAGEMENT REPORT
2022 Zerker Road Reconstruction Pro.iect Award of Contract

CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not defined as a "Project" pursuant to Section 1537S(bX5) of the CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not listed in the current fiscal year Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, a budget amendment is required to fund the estimated total of $820,00 in expenditures, including $496,000 in FTIP participation and $324,000 in local matching funds. The typical sources of local matching for FTlP-funded projects are the balances for either the City Gas Tax or Transportation Development Act allocations.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council may reject all bids to defer the project or pursue other uses of funding for local road improvement projects. However, postponing the project will likely not result in more favorable bid outcomes because the construction material price volatility is not likely to change anytime soon. Secondly, the FTIP funding is programmed for a particular stretch of Lerdo Highway and cannot be reprogrammed for other roadways. Finally, investments in Zerker Road are needed because the current pavement conditions cannot sustain the local and regional traffic demands.

Therefore, alternative action is not recommended.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Bid Results Summary

2. Vicinity Map
-2-
2f}22 ZERI(ER ROAÞ RECONSTRUCÍION PROIECÍ RC EÊCKCRAND SON' ¡NC Totel Cost
408.492.00
q )7n 9S) OO
136_416.00
s 24.224.O0
7roOOO7.490_00
s 3,128.33q

10.800.00
s 500.005 29,215.18
s10.52?_t6
suas:

IRUCKING BTÎRUCKING INC
COI.D PLANE CINDY ÍRUMP, INC

STRIPING SUPER SEAL & S-TRIPE
Unit Cost
s 773.47
6t 5a

1.16 s o.24
o07

1.07 3,128.33
7 565 a5

10.800.00
5 500.005 29,21s.18
TOÍALBID PRICE:

BURTCH CONSTRUCTION
lotâl cosl
5 379,800.00
724 aoo oo149,352.00
S 42,336.00
5 600 00
3,500.00
S 2,ooo.oo
70 000 00
12,215.00
S soo.oo
5 000 00
849.103.OO
suss:

SURVÊY DPSI

STRIPING HARI(ER
LJn¡t Cost
s 105.50
5).OO
r.27
s 0.36
00sû.50
s 2,000.00s 20.ooo 00

12.215.00
s 500.00s 5 000 no
TOTAL BID PRICE:

GRANITE CONSTRUCf ION @MPANY
Totãl coçt
s 349,200.00
242.OOO.OO
117,600.00
s 47,040.OO

2.240.OO
5,250.00
5 1,500.00

10.000 0010,000.00
5 500.00
?4 470 00
s 819¡O0.00
SUBS:

COLD PLANE PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYS

RUMELE STRIP PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYS

STRIPING SUPERSEAL&STRIPE
SURVEY T3&ASSOCIATÊS
un¡t cost
s 97.OO

55.00 1.00

0.400.02

0.75 1,500.00

10.000.0010,000.00
5 500.00
14 470 00
IOIAL BID PRICE:

EOWMAN ASPHALT
Tota¡ cost
331,200.00
189.200.00
5 88,200.00
5R ROo 00

4.480.OO
5 10,500.005 3,000.00
27-400.00
5 5,300.005 500.00
57 175 00
775.105.00
SUBSI

COID PLANE PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYS
RUMBI¡ STRIP PAVEMENT RECYCLIN6 sYS
STRIPING CENTRAL VALTEY STRIPIN6

TRAFFIC CONTROL AVIU IRAFFIC SAFETY
unit cost
s 92.00

43.00 o.75
q o50

0.04 1.50
5 3,000.00

27.800.00
5,300.00
5 500.00
57 115 00
TOTAL BID PRICE:

GRIFFlTH COMPANY
Total cost
) 381,600.00
140_400.00
5 105,840.005 23,520.00

4.480.00
s 8,750.00s 2,650.00
1q.500.00
9,925.00
$ 500.00
30 570 00
767.7tS.OD
suBs:

COLD PIANE PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYS

RUMBLE STRIF PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYS

STRIPING HARKER
Ur¡t Col
s 106.00

41.00 0.90
5 0.20

0.04 1.25
2,650.00
19 SOO OO

9.925.00
s 500.00
?o 570 00
TOTAT BID PRICE:

OTYI UNITS
3,600lTONS4.4001d
117,600tSF117,600 ISF
112.000 lsF
7,000t1F
1 IEA1 ltsl lLS1 ILS
1 lr-s
DESCÌIPTIONHOT MIX ASPHALT,3/4 IN PG64-10!IASS II AGGREGATE BASÉFULL DEPTH GRIND & REMOVE SECTIONSUBGRADE COMPACTIONFOG SÊAIRUMBTE STRIPADJUsT MONUMENTTO GRADE ÍSMALTIIRAFFI"ONTROITMFFIC STRIPINGPERMITAND INSPECNON FEE ALLOWANCEMOBILIZAIION f TULL PROJECI) ITEi,/l
A1
A)A:AiA6
A'1
AAA9
410All

SITEOT'
wontr
a
sÊ(
ff
ñ
I
WAXDEßFIIL
ÛIÛ,,ITSTßIAL Pnß GfiSS/fMEß GNO.t{E
7th ROÅD

KEY MAP - NO SCALE NTS
.6s.. City of Shafter
SFIAI=TER COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 7,2022
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
Prepared By:Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF ruLY 5,2022

RECOMMENDATION
Council cancel the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of July 5,2022.

BACKGROUND
It is a coÍlmon practice of cities to cancel one regularly scheduled city council meeting during the summertime. This time of year is typically considered to be not as busy mainly due to several factors: usually the annual city budget has been adopted; city council and city staff may have planned summer vacations with family; and our counterparts at the local, regional and State level also tend to be out of the office. To this end, staff is proposing the cancellation of the regular City Council meeting of July 5,2022.

Currently, there are no business matters that require immediate action by the City Council at that meeting. A special meeting can be scheduled in the event business matters requiring immediate attention arise prior to the next regular council meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2022.

MANAGEMENT REPORT L