Shafter City Council
December 6, 2022

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT

3.9 Flood Hazards
Potential Impacts. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.10-4, implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in exposure of people or structures to the impacts of fiooding through the placement of structures in the 100-500 year floodplain. Future development under the proposed General Plan would likely result in a net increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, parking lots, buildings). An increase in imperrrious surfaces reduces the amount of rainfall that can infiltrate into the subsurface.

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

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

Build out of the proposed General Plan will increase the number of impervious surfaces throughout the Planning Area. Currently, the majority of the Planning Area is covered with permeable surfaces.

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

Facts in Support of Findings. Flood hazards are limited within the Plar¡ring Area due to the absence of streams, creeks, and iakes. The AnnexationTT utdPrc-Zoning Area, which includes Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, is not located within a flood hazard zone as it is located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. General Plan Poiicies 4.5.1, and 7.3.1 through 7.3.4 requke evaluation of human-habitable structures within the 100-year floodplain to ensure their safefy as well as conskuction and dedication of needed drainage and flood conkol faciiities and the construction and maintenance of necessary retention basins. With the implementation of the proposed General Pian policies, the irnpacts related to flood hazards would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The natural materials in the Planning Area are relatively susceptible to erosion. Development within the Flanning Area will increase the potential for soil erosion. I¡rcreased rates of erosion will likely accelerate sedimentation of drainage channels and flood control features, which may impact the J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA'aNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA¡TER EIR findings.DOC (6121/2005) 28

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
effectiveness of these features. Development which encompasses 1.0 acre or more is required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NTPDES), which regulates the pollutant discharges from developed sites. The City will continue to require existing and new development to adhere to the applicable provisions required by existing permits.

With implementation of General Plan Policy 4.5.l-which requires dedication and improvement of stormwater detention, retention, and conveyance facilities as a condition of approval for new development where needed to protect on-site and downstream development from flooding-and General Plan Policies7.3.2 through 7.3.4-wlnch require construction, dedication, and maintenance of drainage and flood control facilities and existing stormwater discharge requirements, potential stormwater drainage impacts resulting from build out of the Plaruring Area (including Annexation 77 and the Pte-Zoning Area along with the Coberþ West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans, and the Suburban Williamson Act contract cancellation properfy)-will be reduced to a less than significant leve1.

3.10 Noise
Potential Impacts. As stated on page 4.1I-14 in the DEIR, noise 1eve1s from grading and other construction activities would potentially result in noise levels reaching 91 dBA I-nu^ at off-site locations 50 feet from the site boundary, potentially impacting off-site sensitive receptors adjacent to individual construction sites. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in potential long-term vehicular noise that would affect sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses along and adjacent to major h'ansit corridors, could be exposed to excessive traffic-related noise levels. New development associated with the proposed General Plan and Related Actions could expose existing and/or new sensitive uses to stationary noise sources, such as those generated by industrial and/or commercial uses. Noise generated by existing and proposed operations at Shafter Airport/lVfinter Field Airport could create noise impacts to the new development proposed by the General P1an. This is a potentially significant impact.

Findings. As stated on page 4.lL-14 in the DEIR, implementation of projects allowed by the proposed General Plan and Related Actions would result in construction at various sites throughout the Shafter Planning Area. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to these project sites would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to these sites.

Noise generated during excavation, grading, and building construction on development sites would result in potential noise impacts to off-site uses while construction occurs. While the proposed General Plan policies provide guidance and standards for reducing noise impacts due to construction, additional measures are necessary to fi.rrther ensure that the impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The impacts of noise during construction would be short-term in duration and the policies in the proposed General Plan and the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts from construction noise to less than significant level.

As stated on page 4"t1-ti of the DEIR for the General Plan, new developments within the Shafter Planning Area and regionai g¡owth will result in an increase in haffic in the Plaruring Area. Existing sensitive receptors in the Planning Area would be potentially affected by noise associated with these ^^--, L^CE^ Li-^ '|rL^ ^-^:^^+^Å c',a,-^ L.,jlJ ^.,r
ç^CC:^
-^:-^
.:- +L^ f1:*- 1,-^- ^^)^-^+^ L^ L:^L
rrçw lIilllru [rrpù. Illc pIrlJ('Urtru tululç uLrtl\¡ uuL Ll<¡rlru lrulòL rr1 rrr! \,ttJ riatrËl'ù llultl lrtuLlçtd'tç tu 1..llgll., with the 70 dBA CNEL confined within the roadway right-of-way for about half of the surface st¡eet J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Repo¡ts\Final SHAFTER EiR findíngs.DOC (6/2l/2005) 29

JUNE 2OO5
SIIAFTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED ACTlONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
segments analyzed.Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and the stated mitigation will reduce potential kaffic-related noise impacts to a less than significant level.

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

As stated on page 4.11-26 of the DEIR, historically, the isolated location of the Shafter Airport4vlinter Field has protected it from concerns regarding noise incompatibilify. The mixture of agricultural and industrial uses in the airport's vicinity has provided a high level of noise compatibility. The principal concern in regard to airport noise is generally created outside the typical noise contours in the overflight area of the airport environs. The ideal strategy for limiting overflight noise impacts is to avoid residential or other noise-sensitive development in the affected locations.

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

Facts in Support of Findings. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with excavation, grading, and erecting buildings during construction of individual projects allowed through the implementation of the proposed General Plan. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project areatoday, but would cease once construction of the project is completed. TVhile the proposed General Plan policies provide guidance and standards for reducing noise impacts due to construction, additional measures are necessary to further ensuÍe that the impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Conskuction impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan wouid still occur with the implementation of the General Plan policies and proposed mitigation measures. However, the impacts would be short-term in dnration and General Plan Policies 7.7.3 tkaoudh 7.7.5 and 7.7.10 and Mitigation Measures

4.11.3.IA through E would reduce the impacts from construction noise to less than significant level.

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

The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted.

Long-term noise impacts would be associated with mobile and vehicular noise sources, as well as stationary industr-ial and commercial noise sources. The 65 dBA CNEL contour is confined within the roadway rights-of-way along Tulare Avenue, Poplar Avenue, Shafter Avenue, and portions of Rjverside Street, Snow Road, and Zerker Road. The 60 dBA CNEL contour is confined within the roadway rights-of-way along portions of Poplar Avenue, Snow Road, and Shafter Avenue. State Route 99 generates higher traffic noise due to higher traffic voiumes and higher kuck percentages than the surface streets. The 70 dBA CNEL contour extends to 311 to 355 feet from the freeway centerline. The 65 dBA CNEL contour extends to 666 to 762 feet from the freeway centerline.

Proposed General Plan Policies 7.7.1 through 7.7.9 provide guidance and standards for reducing J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 30

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTTONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measures 4.I1.3.2A through C are necessary to further reduce noise impacts. These mitigation measrres require buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and exposed to significant traffic noises be equipped with air conditioning and incorporate upgraded building facades. Additionally, outdoor active use areas would need to be protected by sound wal1s. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted. Irnplementation of the proposed General Plan policies and the stated mitigation measuïes will reduce potentiai traff:rcrelated noise impacts to a less than signifìcant level.

The use of heavy trucks on private properties (e.g., making deliveries to commeroial and indushial uses) will result in noise levels of 73 dBA at 50 feet from the source of the noise (e.g., truck's engine). The use of multiple trucks on a site, such as might occur at a warehouse, could generate noise levels of about 80 dBA L"o as measured at a distance of 50 feet. Industrial processing equipment and conducting outdoor industrial activities could also generate increased noise levels. New projects developed under the proposed General Plan would be subject to the City's noise ordinance and Policies 2.8.12,2.8.13, and7.7.2 through 7.7.9 of the proposed General Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies will reduce potential stationary noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Aircraft overflight impacts are potentially a concern anywhere along the standard aircraft traffic pattem tracks. The proposed land uses identified in the Shafter General Plan for the area surrounding the airport includes agricultural, industrial, business park, and commercial uses. No sensitive noise receptors, such as residences or schools, are proposed to be located ìn that area. Even with the proposed future configuration of the airport runway system, sensitive noise receptors will not be in the overflight pathway. Policies 2.9.5 and7.4.l tbrough7.4.3 in the proposed General Plan guarantee that the proposed General Plan land uses and the Airport land uses wil1be compatible, thus ensuring noise impacts that are less than significant.

3.11 Population and Housing
Potential fmpacts. Build out of the Shafter General Plan will increase the study area's population, both directly as the result of residential development, and indirectþ through commercial/indush-ial development. This growth will exceed the housing and population projections for the Planning Area, as shown in Table 4.12F on page 4.12-5 of the DEIR.

As stated on page 4.12-4 of the DEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not resuit in the displacement of a substantial number of residential units and persons. Upon build out of the proposed General Pian, approximately 28,548 residential units are projected to exist within the Planning Area. Deveiopment wiil occur on vacant or agricultural land and would not displace residentiai units or persons; therefore, no impact would occrrr.

As stated on page 4.12-5 of the DEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in employment growth \Mithin the City exacerbating the jobs-to-housing balance. Even though the City of Shafter is expected to have many more jobs than households by 2030, other cities within Kern County are expected to have a much lower
jobs-to-household ratio. Because Shafter's
numerous jobs wiii heip to baiance the numerous househoi<is in surrounding cities, abaiance between the number of jobs and households will exist within the region by 2030, and the jobs within Shafter
wili have a beneficial effect on the'region. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed General J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6121/2005) 31

JUNE ¿OO5
SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS E¡R

FINDINGS OF FACT
Plan will help to balance land uses regionally and no adverse impact associated with this issue would occur
Findings. Projections for population, employment, and residential dwellings were identified to reflect the theoreticalbuild. out of the Shafter General Plan Planning Area, utrliz:rrrg land use designations and assumptions detailed in the proposed General Plan. A General Plan is, by definition, growth inducing in that it provides a plan for accommodating future increases in population, housirig, and employment. The proposed General Flan includes areas outside the Shafter City limits and the land uses proposed permit extensive development within the southeast portion of Shafter's sphere of influence. The General Plan policies limit the number of units and, therefore, the potential population growth within the Specific Plan areas in the AnnexationTT andPre-Zoning Area, which includes the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and the Specific Plan designated area south of Lerdo Highway; however, no limitations are placed on dwelling units other than the general land use categories in the remainder of the Planning Area. Because the proposed General Plan assumes build out in 2030 that exceeds the currentiy adopted regional projections for 2030 and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the General Plan population build out, exceeding the regional population and housing projections would be considered a signifîcant unavoidable impact.

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

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

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

To the extent that this adverse impact will not be eliminated or lessened to an acceptable (less than significant) level, the Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project as modified, despite unavoidable residual impacts. 3"12 Fublic Services and Utilities
Potential trmpacts" The future development envisioned by the Shafter Planning Area will increase the demand for public services and facilities. Demands on fire and police protection will increase as the result of residentiai, commercial, business park, and industrial development proposed in the General Plan and Related Actions. In locations where new development occurs, additional fire protection services w'ouid be needed.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WALNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\.Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 32

JTJNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
At build out, there could be an increase in student enrollment within the Richland Union School District, Norris School District, and Rosedale Union School District, Rio Bravo-Greeley Union Elementary School District, Maple School Diskic! Kern High School Diskict, and Wasco Union High School District.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in increased demand for sewer services within the Plar¡ring Area. The increase in development would result in increased demand for solid waste seryices and an increase in the demand for landfill capacity.

Build out of the proposed Shafter General Plan will result in a substantial increase in population, requiring additional parldand and recreational facilities. The increased demand for recreatronai facilities may result in the need for increased park maintenance and recreationai programs and services.

Findings. According to the DEIR on page 4.13-4, based on increased population figures and cr¡rrent staffing levels, development associated with the proposed General Plan would require additional oncluty firefighters and a new fire stalion Iâcility. The Kern Counly Fire Dislrict's ability to provide fire protection services to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to construct, stafl and equip this new fire station as the need for fire protection serrices increases with development. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and City requirements would reduce potential impacts related to the effects of future development on fire protection services by reducing the threat of fire, improving firefighting infrastructure, and ensurin g that future growth does not exceed acceptable levels ofserrice.

The Planning Area is served by the Shafter Police Deparfment, Kern County Sheriff s Deparfment, and the California Highway Pah'ol. With the increase in businesses and industries, the daytime population would also increase and require new police services. The use of community arterial roadways, inciuding 7'h Standard Road, Lerdo Highway, and Santa Fe Way would also increase, which would impact enforcement of traffic laws. The proposed General Plan includes goals that address the ievel of police seryices to be maintained to accommodate long-term growth and a requirement to continuously evaluate the provision of police services provided. With implementation of these policies, potential impacts to police protection services would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

For additional discussion of the impacts to police protection, see DEIR Section 4.13.2.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the number of dwelling units in the Planning Area and, therefore, the number of students attending local schools would also increase. The greatest residential growth in ihe Planning Area is projected to occur in the southeastern corner of the Planning Area, north of 7'h Standard Road. The Richland Union School District, Norris Elementary School District, and Kern High School District would all need to build new schools with build out of the General Plan. The Generai Plan is not anticipated to affect the Maple School District, Rio-Bravo- (a.oo1ov Q-h^^l fìiofrìnt \Ã/ocnn T fninn TJi-tr Q.'[.^^l Tlici-rinf ^.

P^oo.]olo TT-i^- Q^h^^l Tlia$¡i^+ TLê v¡uçrlv!, !¡¡õr^ vv¡¡vvr lJ¡ulrrvÙt proposed General Plan includes policies to address the need for school facilities and provide the maximum mitigation aliowable under State law. The maximum mitigation is a development fee based J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6121/2005) -) -)

JUNE 2OO5

SHAF'TER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
on the particular school district's need and this fee will be imposed on all new development. Because the Government Code states that compliance with Senate Bill 50 will provide full and complete mitigation, no significant impacts will qccur.

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

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

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

As stated in the DEIR on page 4.L3-26, implementation of the General Plan is forecast to generate a population of 89,173 at General Plan build out. Based on the City's parkland ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people, the population increase would create a total demand of approximately 222.93 acres of parkland within the Planning Area. As specified in the General Plan policies, nev/ development shall be required to meet the City standard of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Implementation of the performance standards contained within the proposed General Plan policies related to parks and recreational facilities would minimize the impact of growth and development on parkland.

The Cify of Shafter currently provides only park maintenance services and no recreational programs are offered. As the City population gfows with the implementation of the General P1an, the demand for recreational services would increase. Also, as more parks are constructed, the demand for park maintenance will also increase. The proposed General Plan policies anticipate and address the need for increased park maintenance and recreational services in the future. General Plan Policy 4.7.6 requires the City to recognize that high quality maintenance and upkeep of park facilities is necessary for the economic health of the communify and to place appropriate priority on park maintenance.

General Plan Policy 4.7.4 requires the City to develop athletic fie1ds and specialized recreation areas to accommodate the growing community needs for such facilities. V/ith the policies covering recreational services and the maintenance of parklands and facilities, the impact to these recreational resources will be reduced to less than significant.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\wAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\,Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 34

JUNE 2OO5
SHAI."I'¡JR GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR

FINDINCS OF FACT
Facts in Support of Findings. The Kern County Fire Deparlment is planning for a nelv fire station (Station 68) near the intersection of 7'L standard Road and Allen Road. fir" fCnn's ability to provide fire protection services to support the needs of future growth is dependent upon its ability to construct, staff, and equip this new fire station as the need for fire protection serrices increases with development. The Coberly West Specific Plan allocates 9.8 acres for police and/or fîre facilities. The funding for the construction of the necessary facilities, as specifîed in the policies of the General Plan, will be provided by development served by the facilities which inciude the Coberly West and Mission Lakes projects in the short term and potentially projects in the Arurexation 77 andPreZoning area in the long term, including properties under consideration for Williamson Act contract cancellation.

Implementation of proposed General Plan Policies 2.8.16,2.10.3,4.8.i through 4.8.8, 4.i0.1 through

4.10.6, 4.II.I, 4.71.2, and Cify requirements would reduce potential impacts related to the effects of future development on fire protection services by reducing the threat of fire, improving firefighting infrastructure, aîd ensuring that future growth does not exceed acceptable levels of serr¡ice. The aforementioned General Plan policies also provide for timely assessment of emergency services to ensure the levels of service are being met and provide for fi-rnding of the necessary services by requiring new development to pay its fair share. Therefore, potential impacts related to fire protection services will be reduced to a less than significant 1evel.

The City of Shafer's Police DeparLment's desired police officer to population ratio is 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. The population within the City limits at build out is anticipated to be 33,781. Based on this population, the City would need a total of 51 swom officers to seryice the City at build out. Currently, the City employs 19 swom officers. The Kern County Sheriffs Deparlment and Caiifornia Highway Patrol would also need new sworn officers and equipment to serve growth occurring in areas under their jurisdictions. The City of Shafter has identified protection from crime as one of its goals. The proposed General Plan includes Policies 2.8.L6,2.10.3,4.9.1 tlvough 4.9.4,

4.10.1, 4.10.2, 4.t0.4, 4.10.5, 4.ll.l, and 4.11.2 that address the level of police services to be maintained to accommodate iong-term growth and a requirement to continuousiy evaiuate the provision of poiice services provided. These policies also require new development to fund the facilities and serr,.ices necessary to maintain General Plan goals pertaining to level of service which includes Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area within which the Coberly 'West
and Mission Lakes
Specific Flans are located, With implementation of these policies, potential impacts to police protection services would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan would increase the number of dwelling units in the Planning Area and, therefore, the number of students attending iocal schools would also increase. The greatest residential growth in the Planning Area is projected to occur in the southeastern corner of the Planning Area, north of 7th Standard Road. This area, which is generally designated as Specifìc Plan in the General Plan, is projected to contain IL,4l0 new residential homes at General Plan build out.

Both,the Norris School District and the Richland School District serve this area for elementary and middle schools. The Kern High School District provides high school education. The dwelling units forecast at Generai Plan build out in the remainíng Plaruring Area (outside the proposed Annexation area) total approximately i5,510. This totai includes both existing and proposed housing units. The growth in dwelling units wili occur mainly in the Richland School District service area and the Kern High School Service Area.

State law limits the power of the City to impose mitigation for development impacts on schools. The proposed General Plan includes Policies 2.8.I7,2.10.3,2.I0.4,4.6.1 through 4.6.7,4.10.5,4.1IJ, J:\USERS\ENG-PLANW/A\îlE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 35

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELÀTED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
afld 4.1L.2 to address the need for school facilities and provide the maximum mitigation allowable under State law. The proposed General Plan policies require mitigation of impacts on school facilities and services be provided as development occurs. Because Government Code 65996(a) and (b) state that compliance with payment of maximum school fees provides ful1 and compiete mitigation, no significant impacts will occur.

For adrlitional discussion regarding the project's impacts to schools, see DEIR Section 4.13.3 and revisions to DEIR provided on page 3-4 of the FEIR.

The projected wastewater flow at build out of the proposed Generai Plan is 14.4I mgd. trVith a current treatment capacity of 6.2 mgd and plans for build out of the NORSD wastewater treatment facllíIy capacily at 12.9 mgd, General Plan projected build out wastewater demand would be greater than NORSÐ capacrly by 1.51 mgd. However, NORSD is considering expansion beyond the 12.9 mgd, according to the City of Shafter, and fi¡rther expansion to a maximum of 24 mgd can be implemented.

The City of Shafter's capacily is based upon yearly contracts with NORSD and Shafter's capacity will increase as demand increases and as the wastewater treatment plant expands. As the Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area-which includes Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans-is included in the General Plan Planning Area, the projected demand for wastewater senrices at build out of the Annexation 77 Area can be met. Proposed General Pian Policies2.7.9,2.8.16,2.8.18,2.9.1,

2.10.2, 4.3.1 through 4.3.8, 4.10.1 through 4.10.6, and 4.11.1 through 4.11.2 ensure that new development provides adequate infrastructure for average and peak wastewater conditions.

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

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

2.8.16,2.10.2, 4.4.1 tbrough 4"4.5, 4.t0.1through 4.L0.4, 4.71.1, and 4.1.1.2 recognize both the need to reduce solid waste and the need to limit the locations of solid waste transfer stations.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, in addition to continued compliance with the State-mandated 50 percent reduction in solid ra/aste, would reduce solid waste impacts to iess than significant.

With approximately 18 acres of parkland, the City of Shafterhas an existing parkratio of i.41 acres per 1,000 residents (based on 2000 Census population of 12,757). This is less than the standard of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents set forth in current City ordinance and contained in the proposed General P1an. Currently, the Cify is in the process of designing a 2}-acre park, as indicated in previously referenced Table 4.73.L, which will increase the park ratio within the City limits to above

2.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Implementation of the General Pian is forecast to generate a population of 89,173 at General Plan buiid out. Based on the Cfy's parkland ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people, JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 36

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINCS OF FACT
the population increase would create a total demand of approxim ately 222 .93 acres of parkiand within the Planning Area.

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

The Mission Lakes Specific Plan proposes a public park consisting of 24.1 acres constructed to Cify standards that will provide multi-use courts, ball fìelds, and a children's play area among other amenities. The proposed Mission Lakes Specific Plan also provides a total of 43.1 acres of privately maintained recreation areas. With an anticipated population at build out of 16,224, the Specif,rc Plan would need to provide approximately 40 acres of parkland to meet the Cify of Shafter required parkland ratio. With 24.I aqes of public parkland provided, the Mission Lakes Specific Plan has a shortfali of 15.9 acres of parkland to meet the City's park standard. By ordinance, the 15.9-acre shortfall of public parkland must be made up by either designing privately maintained parks within the Specific Plan to be accessible to Lhc gencral publiu, paymcn[ of in-lieu .[ees, or a combination of the two. With the neighborhood parks and the small pocket parks, the Coberly.West Specific Pian provides 13.1 acres of public parkiand. At build out, Coberly'W'est Specific Plan is anticipated to generate a population of t0,432 persons which would require 26 acres of parkland. Existing City ordinance requires that the proposed Coberly West Specific Plan make up for this shortfall of I2.9 acres of parkland by designing private recreational facilities to provide for public access, payment of in-líeu fees, or a combination of the two. Thus, compliance by Mission Lakes Specific Plan and Coberly West Specific Plan with existingCity ordinance will avoid significant impacts with regard to the provision of parkiand.

As more parks are constructed, the demand for park maintenance will also increase. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park Dish-ict and the County of Kern also provide park maintenance and recreational programs to portions of the Planning Area. The Mission Lakes and Coberly West Specific Plans will be providing privately maintained parks as well as publicly maintained parks within their respective boundaries. Proposed General Plan Policies 4.7.1 through 4,7.6, 4.7.8, 4.10.2,

4.10.4, 4.10.5, 4.11.1, and 4.11.2 anticipate and address the need for increased park maintenance and recreational services in the future.
'W'ays
to fund these necessary programs are also covered. The
performance standards for maintenance of the parkland and facilities are established within the proposed policies. With the policies covering recreational services and the maintenance of parklands and facilities, the impact to these recreational resources will be reduced to less than significant.

For additional discussion regarding impacts to parks and recreational resources, see DEIR Section

4.t3.6.

3.13 Transportation/Traffic
Potentia"l Impacts. Implementatíon of the proposed Generai Pian wili facilitate the development of residentiai, commercial, ìnduskial, institutional, and other types of projects that wili result in J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 31

JUNE 2OOS
SHÀFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
increased kaffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes could, in turn, result in congestion aiong area roadways and highways.

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

The Generai Plan and related actions are not expected to result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. The General Plan Circulation map (Figure 4.14.4) provides for alternative access, and the existing Cify requirements for the provision of emergency access to development projects will continue to be implemented. In addition to the Circulation Program map, implementation of the following Circulation Program policies would avoid impacts to the emergency access system: Skeets and Highways Poiicies 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 would require the management and development of the area's local roadway system to support the Land Use Program; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.I0,3.2.1I, as well as Commodities Movement Policy 3.2.3 would rrnnimize local cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.1 tbroudh 3.2.3 wouid maintain adequate 1eve1s of service for all areas of the City.Implementation of these policies will maintain the City's level of senrice standard throughout the City, ensuring the adequacy of access routes for emergency vehicles. It is not expected that future congestion will significantly affect emergency vehicle access due to the availability of alternate routes and improvements to key roadways to maintain standards. A1so, the Cify will implement kaffic signal system upgrades that help to facilitate more efficient emergency vehicle access and give priority to emergency vehicles.

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

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

Findings. Fuflre growth associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan and related actions wiil result in a substantiai increase in the traffic that is generated throughout the Shafter Planning Area. This traf{ic will affect not only Shafter, but also surrounding lands within unincorporated areas. Future traffic conditions at the anticipated maximum build out of the City of Shafter, inciuding a cumulative analysis of future development throughout Kern County, were analyzed by through traffic model runs undertaken by Kern COG, who maintains a regional traffic model. The analysis of cumulative future traffic that will be generated at build out of the General Plan and following implementation of related actions indicates that level of service standards will be met.

Thus, the General Plan will reduce h'affic impacts to a less than significant level.

JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA¡TER EiR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 3B

JUNE 2OO5

SIIAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
Facts in Support of Findings. The analysis conducted by Kern COG evaluates the impacts of the proposed Shafter General Plan, including the Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and build out of lands within Annexation 77 and lands subject to proposed Williamson Act contract cancellations. Land use input to the traffr,c model for the Shafter Planning Area was consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Program, as well as the proposed Coberly West and Mission T,akes Specific Plans. The roadway nefwork within the Shafter Planning Area that was ultimately used for the traffic analysis encompasses build out of the City's planned roadway network as shown in the proposed General Plan Circulation Map. The results of the technical traffic modeling showed that roadways and highways in Shafter will operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out with the exception of State Route 99. The roadway network included a variely of roadway infrastn-rcture improvements in the City to enable the network to accommodate kavel demand produced by the City's land use plans. Improvements to State Route 99 arc planned and controiled by the State. The anaiysis of cumulative future traffic impacts that will be generated at build out of the General Plan demonstrated that, foliowing implementation of General Plan Policies 3.2.1through

3.2.19,3.5.I, 3.5.2,3.5.6, and 3.5.7, the General Plan will reduce kaffic impacts to a less than significant level. The policies in the Transportation Program set City roadway performance standards to implement the Circulation Plan shown in Figure 4.14.4. This planned roadway network was used ín the Traffic Analysis contiucled by Keru COG. Thc roadway uetwor-k inciuded a variefy of roadway infraskucture improvements in the City to enable the network to accommodate travel demand produced by the City's General Plan land use plan build out. The resuits of the technical traffic modeling of the Circulation Plan showed that the roadways and highways will operate at an acceptable level of service at General Plan build out with the exception of State Route 99, which is under State control, as stated on page 4.14-8 of the DEIR. V/ith the implementation of the Circulation Plan through the performance policies in the General Plan, the necessary infrastructure improvements for General Plan build out will be provided and, thus, impacts to t¡affic wi1l be less than significant.

For additional discussion of the project's impacts to transportation and circulation, see DEIR Section 4"14.

3.14 Mineral and Energy Resources
Potential frnpacts. Build out of ihe General Plan may result in the loss of petroleum, natural gas, sand, or gravel resourçes that would be of value to the residents of the Pianning Area and the residents of the State. Build out of the General Plan will increase the population in the area and thìs growth increase would resuit in an expanded need for electricity and gas.

Findings. The proposed General Pian designates about 710 acres within ihe Planning Area as Resource Management. Other oilfields within the Planning Area are protected through proposed General Plan policies which provide for their continued operation and the operation of any other mineral resources which may be discovered. As stated on page 4.15-l of the DEIR, there are no icrown sand and gravei resources within the Plaruring Area. With the implementation of the General Plan policies and the mitigation measures, the impacts to mineral resources are reduced to less than signifîcant. PG&E provides both eiectrical and gas services to the Planning Area. A sma11 substation facility is located within the Planning Area. According to the DEIR on page 4.15-6, the additional growth anticipated with the proposed General Plan will require that natural gas and electrical services J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 39

JUNE 2OO5
SHAÍ'TER GENERAL PLÀN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
¡'INDINGS OF F¡LCT
expand existing facilities or increase supply, According to a comment letter received from PG&E, (see Comment Letter I in the FEIR), service to the southwestern portion of the Planning Area will require a new substation.

Facts in Support of Findings. The designation of 710 acres as Resource Management provides for the continued extraction of oil at the Rio Bravo North Oil Field, one of the largest oil reserves in the Counfy. Designation of this area for Resource Management ensures that this large productive pekoleum field, which is valuable both locally and Statewide, will continue to provide this resource.

Oil resources are known to exist within the Annexation and Pte-Z;anrng Area, the Mission Lakes Specific Plan as detailed in each Specific Plan, and the 'Wiliiamson Act contract cancellation
properties. Cahfomia Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources records reveal the presence of nine abandoned exploratory oi1 wells and nine producing oil wells on the Mission Lakes properfy.

The Coberly West properfy contains a smail oilfield consisting of three wells and three small aboveground tanks located on the eastern side of the properly approximately one-half miie north of 7th Standard Road. General Plan Policies 6.5.1 through 6.5.4 protect the mineral tesources within the Plaruring Area and provide for the protection of the environment around these resources. The policies do not address the compatibility of new development around existing or abandoned oilwe1l sites. To further reduce the impacts to mineral resources and nearby development, Mitigation Measures

4.15.5.14 through C are proposed. These mitigation measures provide performance standards for development located near abandoned we1ls by requiring well access, requiring leak tests with repairs according to Califomia Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources standards, and a well vent in any building constructed over a well site. The Council hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted.
'With
these policies in place, the mineral resources can continue to be produced and impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.15-9 determined that implementation of General Plan Poiicies 5.1.3 and 6.8.1 through 6 would assist in reducing the effects of new development on energy resources. However, additional mitigation measures lvere recommended to minimize the additional demand for and consumption of energy resources. Mitigation Measures 4.15.6.14 and B require the City to review all development proposals prior to the approvai ofdevelopment plans to guarantee that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses. In addition, the measures require review of ail development proposals by the City to gaarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 24 are met and are incorporated into the design of ftiture development.
'With
the General Plan policies, which, among other requirements, encourage the installation of energy-efficient lighting facilitate the installation of environmentally acceptable forms of small-scale electrical generation, provide incentives to new development to exceed its energ"y efficiency standards, and facilitate the installation of new utility infrastructure including an electrical substation plus the aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to energy supplies and facilities would be less than significant.
i:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 40

JUNÉ 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS EIR
f.TNDINGS OF FACT

3.1.5 Summary of Environmental Impact Findings
Table A (following page) presents a sunrmary of the environmental impact findings of the Shafter General Plan and Related Actions. The table displays the impacts according to three categories: less than significant impacts, less than significant impacts with mitigation, and significant unavoidable impacts aft er mitigation.

ThÍs Space Intentionally Left Blank
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 4T

JUNE 200s
Table A * Summary of Environmental Finclings
SHAFTÐR GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Visugl,lCþøtøctet
Impact 4"2"3,2, Expansion of areas developed forurban and ntral residential use, increased residential densities, and industrial and business parkdevelopment may conflict with the City's existingsmall Íown visual character and qualities.

Land Use Program Policies 2.3.1,2.3.2,2.3.3 2.3.5,

2.3.9" 2.3.10, 2.5.1,2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.6.1, 2.8.7, 2.9.10,2.8.19,2.9.8 Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.6.7
Public Services Program Policies: 4.6.6, 4.7.6,4.1.1
Less than Significaut Impacts
Otlors and Toxic Air Contaminants
The proposed General Plan, Spect-fìc Plans,
annexeúion and pre-zoning, and agricultural
preserved contrutct cancellations will not, in anel of
themselves, generate odor or toxic air contaminants;howe-ver, the specific uses and activities lhat may be Conflìct wíth Reeional Air Ouølitv Plans
Impact 4.3.4.4 Implementation of the proposed General
Plan may conflict or obstruct implententation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Plan (SJVACP) or the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) of the Kern Council of Governtnents.

Líght und Glare
Impact 4,2.3.3. Implententation of the proposed .General Plan tvould increøse the effects of light and glare upon Øcisting residential uses and upon wildlife (especiallynocturnal species) within the Planning Area. New light and glare would be created by the addition of residences,
commercial establishments, inù,tstrial uses, and public facilities wiÍhin the proposed General Plan Planning Area.

Land Use Program Policy: 2.7.3
Mrtigatiotl Measures

4.2.3A. The City shall require that sources of lightingprovide the minimum lighting required to ensure safe circulation and visibility.

4.2.38, The City shall require street lighting to be limited to intersections and other locations that are needed to maintainsafe access (e.g., sharp curves).

4.2.3C. The City shall require exterior lighting for buildingsto be of a low profile and intensity.4.2.3D. Require that lighting provided for new developmentbe designed so as to be confined to the areas that are intended to be lit.

4.2.3E' Require that access to non-residential uses adjacentto residential neighborhoods be designed so as to provide adequate separation and prevenf spillover of night lighting from the non-residential use into the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation
Stqjüonørv S aurce4ud Vehiculør EmiÊsialLs
Impact 4.3"4.2. Development associated withimplementation of the proposed General Plan will result ín an overall increase in sÍalionary and mobile source
emissions within the City which may exceed SJVAPCD
Air Quality Standards.

Affecte¡l Views to Sceníc Vìstas and Scenìc Resources
Impact 4.2.3.1. Build out of the proposed General plan
would increase de,-elopment of urban and ruralresidential uses within the Planning Area, resulÍing in theconversion of open space areas and agricultural lands wíthin certain areas to urban and rural residential landuses. This would eause a substantial loss of open spaceand scenic tesources within the City, substantiallyaltering existing andfuture public views.Land Use Program Policies: 2.4.9,2.8.20Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.2.1,6.2.2,6.2.3 Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures exist to address the loss of open vistas that will result from conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban and rural residential uses, other than those that are included in the GeneralPlan.

4.2 AESTTTITICS AND ROSCIIJRCES
Signilicant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAnqE\General Plan Update\StaffRepoÉs\Final SHAITER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 42

JUN!t 200s
Table A - Summary of Environmental F'indings

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS EIR
FIND¡NGS OF FACT
permitfed pursuant to these actions can rentlt in air
emissions that would raise odor concerns on the partof nearby uses. Major potential soLtt'ces of odorsinclude resÍaurctnts, manufacturing plants, and agrÌailtural operations. I(hile sources that generateobjectionable odors must comply with applicable air quality regulations, the public's sensitivity to locally produced odors can exceed regulatory thresholds.

Though ofensive odors from stationaty sources rarely
cause any physical harm, they remain unpleasant and
can lead to public distress, generating citizen
conpløints to local governments. The occurrence and
severity of odor impacts depends on the nature,
frequency and intensity ofthe source; wind speed and
direction; ønd the sensitivity of receptors. Individualdevelopments that have the potential to generateodors or üír contaminants will be evaluated when project-specific information is available. Inzpacts to
sensitive receptors are considered for any proposed
new odor ,source located near existing receptors, aswell as any new sensitive receptors located nearexìsting odor sources. Generally, increasing thedistance between a receptor and the source to anacceptable level will mitigate odor inxpacts.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan would
ensure that sensitive receptors (e.g., residences,
schools, and hospitals) were adequately bufferedfrom
industries that generate toxíc emissíons by not
allowing the construction of residences near heavyindustrial uses or, conversely, the consÍruction near sensitive receptors of heavy industries that may emittoxins. Implen'tentation of these policies would reduce potenÍial impacts associated with odors and toxicemissions to a less than signiJìcant level and ensure consistency with the regional air quality plan.

C o nstructio n-Relatetl Pafticulate (PM ¿!) E mis sio n s Impact 4.3.4.1. Air polluÍant emissions, including
fttgitive tlust and gases, could occur during
Less than Significant lmpacts
The proposed General Plan contains policies in the Land Use Program, the Transportation and Circulation program,and the Environmental Management Program and thesepolicies have been listed under Impact 4.3.4.2.

Mitigation Measures

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

Less than Significant Impacts With lVfitigation
Land Use Program Policies: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.4, 2.5,7,

2.8.1t,2.8.14d
Environmental Management Program policies: 6.7.1,6.1 .2, 6.7 .3, 6.7 .4, 6.7 .5, 6.7 .6, 6.1 .7, 6.8.6 Transportation/Traffrc Program Policies: 3.2.1, 3 .2.j
, 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.4.1,3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4,3.4.6,

3.4.7, 3.4.8, 3.4.9, 3.4.t0,3.4.r1, 3.4.12, 3.4.13, 3.s.2,3.5 .3, 3.5,4, 3. 5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures

4.3.4.34. Encourage the use of buildingmaterials/methods, whích reduce emissions.

4.3.4.38. Encourage the use of efficient h,:atingequipment and other appliances, such as water heaters,swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators,firrnaces, and boiler units. 4,3.4,3C, Encourage cenrrally heated facilities to r¡tilizeautomated time clocks or occupant sensors to ccnfrolheating,4.3.4.3D. Require residential building construction tocomply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 ofthe California Administrative Code.

4.3.4.38. Adopt incentives and./or regulations to enact energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.The following general approaches from SWApCtr (see Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impøcts, January 10, 2002, Section 6.5.2 for the details;), as appropriate, are necessary:t Reduce vehícle frþs. These measures reduc.e air pollution emissions by enfirely eliminating sorne of
the vehicle frips associated with a project. An
example is the provision of bicycle faciliti,:s to
encourage bicycle use instead ofdriving.
: Reduce vehicle miles trøveled. These measures
reduce emissions by reducing the length of vehicletrips associated with a project. An example is Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
J:\USERS\EhlG-PLAN\WAAnE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA¡TER EIR findings.DOC (62112005) 43

JUNE 2OO5
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
Direct Loss of Oak Irees
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would
not result in the direct loss of oak trees. This is
considered a less than significant impact.

Wiltllife Movement
Impact 4.4.4.3. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would cause fragnenÍation of habitat that constricts, inhibits, or eliminates wildlife nlovemenf within portions of the Planning Area, butwould not ¡mpact a regional natural conidor.Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.2.3,6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 Impøc'ts to Sensitive Species and Sensitive Nøturøl
Communitíes
Impact 4.4.4.I. Implementation of the proposed General
Plan cnuld have an adverse irnpact on listed, proposed, or candidate species and other sensitive or special status species or the loss of habitat occupied by such species.

Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.4.1, 6.4.2,6.4.3,6.4.4 MitigaÍion Measures

4.4,4.1^. Ar a mínimum, a wildlife/plant habitar suirability assessment shall be part of the impact analysis for any development project located within the Planning Area. If acovered species has been observed in the vicinity of the

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FINDINGS OF FACT construction-related activities associated withindividual projects pernitted by the General Plan, Coberly llest Specific Plan, and Mission Lakes
Specifc Plan, as well øs by future development within
Annexation Area 77. Impacts from fugitive dust and emissions generaxed by constntction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as
by disturbances from grading could affect air quality.

Environmental Management Program Policy: 6.7. I
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures beyond the policy identified
in the proposed General Plan and implementation ofSJVAPCD Regulation VIII are necessary.

Less than Signilìcant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation satellite offices/telecommuting centers provided toreduce the length of employee commute trips. c Use of low emission vehicles. These measures do
not aim to reduce trips or VMT, but rafher promotethe use of fì¡els that are less polluting than gasoline o¡ diesel. Examples are the conversion of a vehicle
fleet to operate on compressed natural gas and thepurchase of an electric vehicle. c fmprove trøfJìc Jlows/redace congestíoz. These
measures reduce emissions by reducing traffic
congestion and/or reducing stops and starts. Thisallows vehicles ro operafe al steady and moderatespeeds, and thus lowers pollution per mile traveled.

An example is timing the traffic signals on an arterialto facilitate unínterrupted fravel.

Support meøsurcs. These measures may not directly
reduce emissions, but rather support and faciliiate other emission reduction strategies. An example is a guaranteed ride home program implemented at a worksite in order to encourage employees to use coûrmute altematives byallayrng concerns over being without a vehicle in case ofemergency.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
i:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAyNE\Genelal Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/Zt/2005) 44

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.
project area or the site has suitable habitat conditions, then afocused species survey shall be completed. If a covered species is found to be present, then appropriate mitigation measures will be determined by the applicable lead agency. A "covered" species is any plant or animal listed asthreatened or endangered by CDFG or USFWS, a nonlisted species that requires mitigation under Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or a species that is protected under local ordinances.4.4.4.18. In the evenr thar the Valley Floor HabitatConservation Plan (VFHCP) is adopted, then any projectwithin the Planning Area will be a VFHCp participant and would comply with FESA Section l0A permit conditions
and mitigation measures adopted in the plan.

Loss of Criticøl Høbít¡tt
Impact 4.4,4.2. Implementation of the proposed General
Plan may cause direct loss of sensitive plant communities, but no loss offederally designated critical habitat. Direct loss of sensitive habitat and open space occupied by
covered species is considered a significant impact.Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.4.ï, 6.4.2,6.4.3,6.4.4 Mítigation Measures

4.4.4.2.A. The City esiablishes baseline ratios for mitigatingthe impacts ofdevelopment related uses to rare, threatened and endangered species and their associated habitats as the following:Preserve habitat occupied by covered species at minimumof 1:1 replacement ratio in locations that provide long-termconservation value for impacted resources. Habitat is defined as where a plant or animal completes its life cycle.Habitat in the Planning Area can include native plantcommunities, annual grasslands, oilfìelds, and agricultural land. Habitat mitigation could involve dedication .ofconservation easement on the occupied on-site habitat,acquisition of off-site habitat occupied by the affectedspecies, acquiring a key parcel that fills in a missing link or gap in an HCP reserve that provides conservation for the

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Significant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 45

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
SHAFTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT

CULTUNAL
Destructíon of ø Unique Paleontolosícøl Reso¿¿rce
or SiteImpact 4.5.4.1, Developntent associated with the proposed General Plan would requíre disturbance of
vacant lønds. Thereþre, development as a result ofimplementation of the proposed General Plan could potentially destroy directly or indirectly a uniquepaleontological resource or site.

Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.6. 1,6.6.2,6.6.3 Mítigtttion Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Unknown Buried Hutuqla Remaìns
Impact 4.5.4.2. DevelopmenÍ allowed by implementation of the proposed General Plan could have the potential todisturb buried human remains, including those interredoutside of formal cemeteries, and buried archaeologicalresources.

Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.6.1, 6.6.2,6.6.3 Mitigation Measures
4,5,4,2A.If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and SafetyCode 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occuruntil the Kern County Coroner has made a determination of Less than Significant Impacts
species, or acquisition of credits in a mitigation bank(endorsed by the USFWS and/or CDFG) that has beenestablished to provide conservation value for the species.Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity.

Conflict with Adopted Habitat Conservatíon Pløn
Impact 4.4.4.4. Implernentation of the General Plan couldaffect existing Habitat Conservation Plans and the proposed Kern County VFHCP, which is in the initíalplanning stage.

Environmental Management Program Policies 6.2,1, 6.2.3,6.4.4 Mitigation Measures

4.4.4.4,L. The City of ShaÍter shall collect the mitigation fees upon the development of the area within the MBHCP
which is located north of 7th Standard Road and within the sphere of influence of the City of Shafter. The City shall forward the MBHCP fees to the County of Kern.

Alternatively, development within the MBHCP shallprovide equivalent mitigation in the form of habitat acquisition or payment of fees into an established mitigation bank.

Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNIE\General Plan Update\Staff Repoús\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21l2005) 46

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
Rupture of' a Known E4tthquake Fault
Although the Planning Area is located within a
seismically active region of the State, it does not
contain any aclive faults. Some older, inactive faultsrun through the western and southwestern portions ofthe Planning Area; however, because these J'aults are inactive (tltey have not moved within the last 3 million years) the;v are not considered a source of potential
hazard for rupÍuring. Future development permittedby the General Plan will not result in the expowe of people or stntctures to fault r'upture hazards.

Likewise, developmenf permitted within the
Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area-,rvhich includes
the Coberly Iüest and Mission Lalces Specffic Plans and the I(illiamson Act contract cancellation properties--will not result in the exposure of people
or stnrctures to fault rupture hazards as no lotownttctive faul,ts are located within the boundaries of the Annexatio¡t Area 77. Thereþre, impacts associated
Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoíl
Impact 4.6.4.3: Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil.

Implementation of the General Plan may result in impacts related Ío soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil. Areas exposedduring development activities would be prone to soilerosion and loss oftopsoil.

Environmental Hazalds Program P olicy: 7 .2.4
MitigaÍion Measures

4.6.4.3.A. New developments shall provide erosion and
sedimentation control measures to maintain the capacity ofarea storm drains, protect water quality, and to reduceerosion and the loss oftopsoil.

4.6.4.3.8. New development shall use BMPs to minimize
erosion and sedimentation.

S¡IAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIO¡¡S ETR FINDINGS OF FACT Less than Significant Impacts
4dverse Chønge.in the SiEnificance of an Historical
Rescurce
Impact 4.5.4,3, Developntent associated with the
proposed tieneral Plan would require disturbance of
vacant lands and possible conversion of existing
structures into vat ious land uses (e.g., historic homes into ffice space), Development allowed by intplementøtion of the proposed General Plan could
ca¿tse the destruction of or loss of a historicalresource, as defined ln CEQA Guidelines, Section I 5064.5.

Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.6.4,6.6.s,6.6.6,6.6.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the Genreral Plan.

Less than Signifìcant Impacts With l\{itigation
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Kern County Coroner must benotified within 24 hours. If the coroner determines that theburial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native AmericanHeritage Commission (\IAHC) must be contacted todetermine the most likely descent (MLD) for this area. TheMLD may become involved with the disposition of theburial following scientific analysis.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Miti¡¡ation
JIUSERS\EI\IG-PLAN\WA\1{E\Geneml Plan Update\Staff Repons\Final SHA-FTER EIR f,rndings.DOC (612112005) 47

JUNE ?OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental FindingswiÍh the ntpture of a known earthqualce fault in the Planning Area, which includes the Annexøtion Area,
are less than significant.

Liquelføaìon.Liquefaction is a destructive secondary ffict of strong seisnxic shabing, which occurs primarily insaturated, loose, fine-to-medium-grained soils in areas whet'e the groundwater table is within 50 feet ofthe ntrface. Shaking suddenly increases pore water pressure, causing the soíls to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Liquefaction-related effects include loss ofbearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and /low failures or slumping. Althoughsoil conditions exist that might be conducive to liquefaction, groundwater ls deep enough that
liquefactíon potential does not occur ín the Planning
Area, which íncludes the Annexation 77 and PreZoning Area of which Coberly West Specific Plan, Mission Lakes Specific Plan, and the properties
considered þr lVilliamson Act cancellafion are a part. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are less than significant.

Løn dslides/S lope Faihtr eLandslides and slope stability are a relatively minor hazard within the Planning Area, which includes the
Annexation 77 and Pre-Zoning Area boundaries of
which Coberly West and Mission Lakes Specific Plans and the proposed Willíamson Act contract cancellation properties are a part. The slope hazards
are mínor since there are only minor changes intopography and no steep slopes. Future proposed General Plan development within the Planning Area
would not increase the potential for the placen'tent of structures and facilitíes in areas susceptible to slope failure. Therefore, irupacts associatecl with this issue are less than significant.

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Signilicant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC 6ntnOyS) 48

JUNE 2()O5
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
Grault4 SltLkiagImpact 4.6.4.1: Ground Shaking. The City of Shafter has and will continue to be subject Ío ground shakingresulting Jt om activity on local and regional faults.

Futrtre development permitted by the proposed
General Plan ntay increase the potential for property
loss, injury, or death resulting from this ground
shaking hazard.

Envïronmental Hazards Program Policies: 7.2.1,'l .2.2,'7 .2.3, 7 .2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6, 7 .2.7, 7 .2.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Groultd Subsfulence
Impact 4.6.4.2: Ground Subsidence. Soils
susceptible to subsidence rnay be affected by a varíety of natural or human activities, including earthquakesand the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Future proposed General Plan developrnent within the
Planning Area would increase the potential for the
placement of structures and facilities in areas
susceptible to subsidence.

Environmental Hazards Program Polic ies: 7 .2. !, 7 .2.2,7.2.3, 7 .2.4, 7 .2.5, 7 .2.6, 7 .2.7, 1 .2.9 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.Colløpsíble and Expansive Soils
Impact 4.6.4.4 Collapsible and Expansive Soils.

Future development within the Planning Area would
increase potential placement of residential and nonresidential structures within areas susceptible to damage resulting from collapsíble and expansive
soils. This is a potentially significant impact.

Environmental Hazards Program Polic ies:- 7 .2. l, 7 .2.4 SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATEÐ ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Signifìcant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitig.ation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Repots\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612112005) 49

JUNE ?OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FTNDINGS OF FACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less th¿n Significant Impacts
H azar do a s M øt erinls Åxppf We
Impact 4.7.4.2. Implementatíon of the proposed
General Plan would introduce new land uses to the
Planning Area thøt may result in addítional sources of
hazardous materials and potentially increaseexposure of residents and employees to hazardousn'taterials and hazardous waste.

Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .5.1,1 .5.2,7.5.3, 7.5.4, 1.5.5, 7.5.6, 1.5.7, 7.5.9, 7.5.9, 7.5.10"7 .5 .11,7 .5.12,7 .5.t3 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Impair an Emergencv Responsg.Pløn
Impact 4.7.4.3. ImplemenÍation of the proposed
General Plan coild interþre with an adopted
emergency response plan or ernergency evacuation
plan.

Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .6.t, 7 .6.2,7 .6.3,7 .6.4,7 .6.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Airport Safetv Zones
Impact 4.7.4.4 Implenxentation of the proposed
General Plan may be incompatible with the
Shafter/Minter Field Airport Safety Zones and thereby
expose persons to unsafe condition.

Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .4.1, 7 .4.2, '1.4.3
Less than SignilÏcant Impacts With Mitigation
Un known lløzardo us Muteriøls
Impact 4,7.4.1. Implementation of the proposed General
Plan could result, during the developnent process, in
uncovering prevíously unknown hazardous. ntaÍerialscont anxinaÍ ion from hìstorical use of property and exposureof persons to agriculhtral chemicals.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.4.2, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4. L0Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .5.1 ,7 .5 .13 Mitigation Measures

4.7.4.1,4. On a site-specific, project-by-project basis, allnew discretionary development projects shall be subject to an assessment to determine whether hazardous materials are present as required by the County Department of
Environmental Services.4.'7.4,I.8. Soils shall be tested for concentrations of agricultural chemicals prior to grading permit approval where appropriate, as determined by local, State, or Federal agencies. Contaminated soils shall be treated and/orexcavated and disposed of at certified hazardous wastefacility.

4.7.4.1.C. Fugitive dusf on construction sites shall be controlled by inigation, paving of construction roads,Iimiting grading activitíes during periods of high winds, andother applicable methods as set forth by the San JoaquinValley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Significant and Unayoidable Impacts After Mitígation
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StatïReports\¡inal SHAFTER EIR tìndings.DOC (6/21/2005) 50

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Finclings
Grouulaqle! Åeeþup
Impact 4.8"4"2. Implementation of the proposed
General Pl,nn may result in the loss of water recharge
areas due to increased irnpervìous surfaces caused bynew develo,oment.Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.3.8,6.3.1 I Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in thç General Plan.

Demønd far ll/qter Seryiee$
Impact 4.8"4.3: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan will increase the demand Jbr water
services sta:h that it exceeds the exísting and planned facilities.

Land Use l'rogram Policies; 2.10.6,2.10.7Public Serv'ices and Facilities Program Policies: 4.2.1,

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

Impacts to ll/ater Ouølitv
Impact 4.8.4.4: Implementation of the proposed
General Plan may, during future consttaction
activities and post-construction uses, violate waterquality standards or waste discharge requ¿ren,ents.Environmental Management Program Policy: 4.5.4.Public Services and Facilities Program Policy: 6.3.6,6.3.10 Impacts to Groundwøter Supplies
Impact 4.8.4.1. Build out of the General plan mayincrease the existing demand for wafer and nzaycontribute to the depletion ofgroundwater supplies.

Public Services and Facilities Program policies: 4.2.1,4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.5, 4.2.6 Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.3.1,6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5, 6.3.7, 6.3.9 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation measures are proposed.

SHAFTER GENERAL ¡LAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation lequired beyond the policies included
in the General PIan.

Less than Significant lmpacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNIE\General Pla¡r Update\Staff Reports\Final SHA¡TER EIR findings.DOC rcU/2005) 51

JUNË ZOOS
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings

SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR FINDINGS OF FACT Chanses in the Pøttern.of'Land Use
Impact 4,9.4.I. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would result ín changes to the existírxg
land use designations in certain areas which could
negatively afþct the existing pattern of developmentas well as the surrounding uses.Land Use Program Policies: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4,2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.9,2.3.tt,2.3.12" 2.5 1,2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2,6.4, 2.7.1,

2.1.3, 2.8.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.5, 2.9.72, 2.9.13, 2.g.14, 2.10.1 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Wøter AvaÍlaþilìtv for Fire Flow
Impact 4.8.4.5: The new demandfor water nay affect
the water available for emergency fire flow. This ß a
potentially significant inpact.

Public Services and Facilities Program policy: 4.8.5
Mítígatíon Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less than Significant Impacts Less thau Signifìcant tmpacts With Mitigation Affe ct E xtslin s F flrm la n d
Impact 4.9.4,2. Implementation of the proposed General
Plan would result in conversion of prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
to non-agricultural uses.Land Use Program Policies: 2.3.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3,

2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.i, 2.4.8, 2.4.9, 2.4.10, 2.4.1 t, 2.5.6, ) ?,)Environmental Management Program policies: 6.2.2,6.2.3 Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

Affe ct _WillÍøm s o n A ct C o ntr act s
Impact 4.9.4.3, Implementation of the proposed Generøl
Pløn would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a. Ililliatnson Act contracÍ.Land Use Program Policies: 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.10,

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

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\1{E\General Plan Update\Staff Reporrs\Final SFL{FTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 52

JUNE 2OO5
Table A.- Summary of Environmental Findings
Lo n g-T erm Støtion arv No i s e I m pacÍs
Impact 4.11.3.3: Long-Term Stationary Noise Impacts. New developrnent assocíated with Short-Term Constructíon Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.3.1: Noise levels from grading and other
constrltction activities would potentially result in noise

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Exposure of StrtlcÍures to Flootl Hazøtls
Impact 4.10.4.1" ImplementaÍíon of the proposedGeneral PIan may result in exposure of people or structlffes to the impacts of flooding through the placement of stt"uctures in the 100-500 year floodplain.

Public Services and Facilities ProgramPolicy: 4.5.1Environmental Hazards Progranr Polic ies: 7 .3.1, 1 .3 .2,1.3.3,7.3.4 Mítigation .Measures
No mitigation is required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Increased Stormwater Runoff
Impact 4.10.4.2. Future development under the
proposed General Plan would likely result in et net
increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, parkinglots, buildings). An increase in imperviolts surfacesreduces the amount ofrainfall that can infiltrate intothe sttbsu1face. Increases in runoff can amplify drainage volumes and velocities causing stormdrainage facilities that are øt or near capacity to failùtring peak events. This excess runof may renùt inI o c aliz ed p onding and/o r fl o o din g.

Public Services and Facilities ProgramPolicy: 4.5.1Environmental Hazards Program Polic íes 7 .3.2, 7 .3 .3,

1.3.4 Mitigation .Measures
No mítígation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less than Signilicant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts AlIer Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Repots\Fínal SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2l/2005) 53

JUNE 2OOS
Table A * Summary of Environmental Findings
implententation of the proposed General Plan could
expose ex¡sting and/or new sensitive uses to sÍatíonarynoise sources, such as lhose generated by industrial and/or commercial uses.Land Use Program Policíes: 2.8.12, 2.8.13.Environmental Hazards Pro gram Polic ies 7 .7 .2, 7 .l .3,7 .7 .4,7 .7 .5,7 .7 ,6,7 .1 .7 ,7 .7 .9,7 .1 .g Miügafion Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Long-Term Airport Noise Impøcts
Impàct 4"11.3.4: Noise generated by existing and
proposed operations at the Shafter AirporÍ/Minter
Field Airport could create noise impacts to the new
development proposed by the General Plan.

Land Use Program Policy:2.9.5Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7 .4.1, 7 .4.2,

7.4.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.
levels reaching 91 dBA at site locations 50 feet from anaclive construction area. Thís would result in potentially significant noise impacts to offs¡, sensitive receptors adjacent to the indívidual constructton sites.

Environmental Hazards Program Policies: i.i.3, 'l .j.4, 7 .7 .5, 7 .7 .10
Mitigation Measures

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

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

SHAFTER GÊNERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Signilicant lmpacfs Less than Significant lmpacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612112005) 54

JUNE 2OO5
. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers,
and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or elecfrically powered whereverpossible to avoid noise associated with compressed-airexhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However,where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall beused; this muffler can lower noise levels from pneumatic tools where feasible, which could achieve areduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, wheneverfeasible. r Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be
muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measures shall be
incorporated to the extent feasible.

4.11.3.1C. If pile-driving occurs as part of the project, it shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, wiih no pile driving permittedbetween 12:30 and 1:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.

4.11.3.1D. To further mitigate potential pile-driving and/orother extreme noise generating consfruction impacts, a set of site-specific noise âttenuation measures shall becompleted under the supervision of a qualifred acousticalconsultant. This plan shall be submitted for review andapproval by the City to ensure that rrìaximum feasible noiseattenuation is achieved. These attenuation measures shallinclude as many of the following control strategies asfeasible and shall be implemented prior to any required piledriving activities:¡ Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions;
¡ Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the
entire construction site;

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Table A- Summary of Enyironmental Findings
Less than Significant Impacts Less than SignifÌcant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unayoidable Impacts After Mitigation JfUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\n{E\Genelal Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHA-FTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 55

JUNB 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings

SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Significant Impacts
r Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as it is erected to reduce noise emission from the site; r Evaluate the feasibility ofnoise conTrol at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
r Monito¡ the effectiveness of noise attenuation
measures by taking noise measurements.

4.11.3.1E. A process with the following components shall be established for responding to and fracking complaintspertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
r A procedure for notifying City staff and Police
Deparfment;
r d list of telephone numbers (during regular
construction hours and ofT-hours);
. A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to complaint procedures and who to notifu in the event of aproblem;
r Designation of a construcfion complaint manager for
the project; and
¡ A requirement to notify of neighbors within 300 feet of the project consfruction arca at least 30 days in
advance of pile-driving activities.

Long-Term Vehìcttlør Noise Impacts
Impact 4.11.3.2. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in potential long-term vehicular noise that would ffict sensitive land uses along the roads. New development, particularly residential uses ølong and
ødjacent to rnajor transit corridors, could be exposed toexcessive trffic-related noise levels.Environmental Hazards Program Policies: 7.7.1, '7.7.2,7 .7 .3,7 .7 .4,7 .7 .5, I .7 .6,7 .'1.7 ,7 .7 .9,7 .7 .g Miligøtion Measures

4.11.8.24. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 57 Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR ñndings.DOC (6/2112005) 56

JUNE ?OO5
Table .{ -- Summary of Environmental Findings
SHAFTER GENERAI" PLAN AND RELATED ACT¡ONS EIR FINDINGS OF FACT

4.12 Dìspløcemtpt of Residential Uníts or Perso!1sImplementation of the proposed General Plan would not reszilt in the displacement of a substantial rutmberof residential ttnits and persons. Upon build out of theproposed General Plan, approximately 28,548residential units are projected to exist within the Planning drea. Development will occur on vacant or
agricultural land and would not displace residentialunits or persons; therefore, no impact would occur.

Jobs to Hot¿sing ßølanceImplementation of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in employment growth within the
City exacert5ating the jobs-to-housing balønce.

Even though the City of Shafter is expected to have
many more jobs than households by 2030, other citieswithin Kern County are expected to have a much lower jobs-to-household ratio Because Shafter's
numerous jobs will help to balance the numerous
households in surrounding cities, a balance betweenthe number of jobs and households will exist withinthe region by 2030, and the jobs within Shafter willhave a beneñcial effect on the region. Therefore, the Less than Signiticant Impacts
should be equipped with air conditioning or
ventilation to allow the windows and doors to
remain closed for prolonged periods of time, thus reducing noise levels below the level of significance (45 dBA
CNEL).

4.11.8.28. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive usesand directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 69dBA CNEL should incorporate mitigation measures such asbuilding façade upgrades.4.11.8.2C. Outdoor active use areas, such as backyards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected byfreestanding sound walls along the property boundarìes where exposed to noise levels above 70 dBA.dBA CNELmechanical Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation
Exceed Hoasing and Population Proiectíons
Impact 4.L2"4,1 Buíld out of the City of Shafter d,ae toimplementation of the proposed General Plan will resultin a substantial increase in population and residential and non-residential which will exceed the housing and
population projections for the Planning Area.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.4, 2,8.5,2.9.4
Mítigation Measures
There are no additional mitigation measures that u,ouldreduce the build out estimates below the currently adopted projections f'or the City.

Significant and Unavoiclable Impacts After Mitigation
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Genelal Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EiR findings.DOC (6/2112005) 57

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental FindingsFire Prctection Impact 4.13.1.1. Build out of the proposed City of
Shafter General Plan will result in a substantial
increase in population and the developnent of
residential and non-residential strucÍures, thereby
increasing the need for fire emergency services and
facilities,
Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.16,2.10.3
Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.8.1,

4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.4, 4.9.5, 4.9.6, 4.8.7,4.9.9, 4.10.1,

4.10.2, 4.10.3, 4. 1 0.4, 4. I 0.5, 4.10.6, 4.1 l.l, 4.11.2 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Police Prutectiou
Impact 4.13.2.1. Increases ín population and
employment resuhing from implementation of the
General Plan would increase the need for police
personnel, facilities, and/or support services.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.16,2.10.3
Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.9.1,

4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.9.4, 4.10.t, 4.t0.2, 4.10.4, 4.10.5,4.11.1,4.1r.2 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

P u b lic E du catio n øl F a cÍlitÍes
Impact 4.13.3.1. Implementation of the proposed
SHA,FTER GÉNERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS E¡R FINDINGS OF FACT implementation of the proposed General Plan will
help to balance land uses regionally and no adverse
impact associated with this issue would occur.

Less than Significant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Potentiøllv S ignifìcant Im pøcts
SignifÌcant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EiR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 58

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findings
General Plan Update 'vvould rezult in the need for
ad d itio nal s cho ol facilit ie s.Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.17 ,2.10.3,2.10.4Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.6.1,

4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.6.5, 4.6.6, 4.6.7, 4.t0.1, 4.t0.2,

4. 10.3, 4. 10.4, 4.10.5, 4.11.1, 4.11.2
Mrtigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General PIan.

ÍI/ústewøter
Impact 4.X3.4.1. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan would resuh in increased demand for
sewer service within the City.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.7.9, 2.8.16, 2.8.18,2.9.1,2.10.2 Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.3. I ,4.3.2, 4.3,3, 4.3.4, 4.3,5, 4.3.6, 4.3.7,4.3.8, 4.10.1,4.t0.2, 4.10.3, 4.tQ.4, 4.t0.5, 4. 10.6, 4.1 I . t, 4.t 1.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Solid llaste
Impact 4.13.5.1. Implenentation of the General Pløn
would result in increased demand for solid waste
services and Landfill capacity.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.8.16,2.10.2
Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.4.1,4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.10.1, 4.10.2, 4.10.3, 4.10.4,4.tt.t,4.1t.2 Mitigatíon Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

SHAI'TER GENERAL PLá,N AND RELATED ACTIONIS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
Less than Significant Impacts Less than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Fûral SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2112005) s9

JUNE ?OO5
Table A- Summary of Environmental Findings
Parkins
The General Plan and related actions are not
expected to result in an inadequate parhing supplybecause the General Plan and related actions do not modify current parking standards. Futuredevelopments will continue to suppþ parkingaccording to City Code requirements.

Emergencv Access
The General Plan and related actíons are not

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTTONS EIR
¡'INDINGS ON FACT
Parks and Recreation
Impact 4"13.6.1. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan may result in significant impacts to the
avai lability of adequat e p arltl and and/o r recreat ional facilities within the City.

Land Use Program Policies: 2.10.2, 2.1 0.3, 2.10.4Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.5.3,

4.1 .1, 4.1.2, 4.1 .3, 4.1.4, 4.7.5, 4.7 .6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8,4.7.9, 4.r0.1, 4.10.2, 4.10.3, 4.10.4,4.10.5, 4.11.1,4.tt.2 Mitigation MeastresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Park Møintenance ønd Recreøtion Progrums øndSewíces
Impact 4.13.6,2. Implententation of the General Plan
may rerult in the need þr increased park ntaintenance and recreational progrants and services.Public Services and Facilities Program Policies: 4.7.1,4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.1 .5, 4.7.'1 , 4.1.9, 4.10.2, 4.10,4,4.10.5, 4.lt.1 ,

4.11.2 Mitigation MeasuresNo mitigation required beyond the policies included in the General Plan.

Less than Significant Impacts Less than SignifÌcant Impacts With Mitigation SignifTcant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (612112005) 60

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Findingsexpected to result in inadequate emergency vehicleaccess. The General Plan Circulation rnap provides fo, alternative eccess, and the exislíng City
requirenents for the provision of entergency access todevelopment projects will continue to be implemented.In addition to the Circulation Program nxap, implementatíon of the þllowing Circulation Prograrn policies would avoid inlpacts to the emergency.access system: Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.5 and 3.2.6
would require the management and development ofthe area's local roadway systen't to suppart the Land Use Progran; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.10
and 3.2.1 l, as well as Comnodities Movernent Policy3.5.2 would minimize local cut-through trffic inresidential neighborhoods; Streets and Highways Policies 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 would maintaìn adequate
levels of service for all areas of the City.

Implementation of these policies will maintain the
City's level of service standard throughout the City,
ensuring the adequacy of access routes þr emergencyvehicles. It is not expected that future congestion will significantly affect emergency vehicle access due to
the availability of alternate routes and improvetnentsto key roadways to rnaintain standards. Also, the City will intplennent trffic signal system upgrades that
help to facilitate more efficient energency vehicle
access ønd give priority to emergency vehicles.

Pedestrian qntl Bícvclíst Travel
The General Plan and related actions are not
expecÍed to result in unsafe conditions þr pedestrians and bicyclists. Implementation of existíng Cityrequirements and the provisions of Sectíon 3.4 (Alternative Modes of Transportation) of the proposed
General Plan would avoid significant impacts to
pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing for a
bicycle and trails networlc and supporting the safe andconyenient nþvement of pedestrians. The City willcontinue to require development projects to provide SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS; EIR
FINDINGS OF ¡IACT
f-ess than Significant Impacts Less than Signilicant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAITER EIR findings.DOC (6/21l2005) 6T

JUNE 2OO5
Table A - Summary of Environmental Fintlings
SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÄCTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT

4.15bicycle and pedeslrian facilities and ailxeniÍies
according to City codes, and as a re*it of thedevelopment review process.

Regional Transpprtat¡on Polìcíes on Alternative
TransportutíonThe General Plan and related actions are not expected to result in conflicts with regionaltransportat¡on policies on alternative transportation sínce the Section 3.4 of the proposed General Plan
objectives and policies that sLtpport alternativetransportation and increased use oftransil services.

Increas ed Trøffrc Vplutngt
Impact 4.14.4.t. Implementation of the proposed
General Plan will facilitate the development of
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other types of projects that will result in increased
trffic volumes. This increase in trffic volumes could,in tLrn, result in congeslíon along area roadways and State Routes 43 and 99.

Land Use Program Policy: 2.8. t5
Transportation Program Policies: 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,

3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.r1,

3.2.12, 3.2.t3, 3.2.t4, 3.2.15" 3.2.16, 3.2.17, 3.2.18,3.2.ï9, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.6, 3.5.7 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required beyond the policies included
in the General Plan.

Less than Significant Impacts
Mìnerul Resources
Impact 4.15.5.1. Build out of the General Plan may resuh in the loss of petroleum, naÍural gas, sønd, or gravel resources that would be of value to the residents of the Planning Area and the residents of the State.

Environmental Management Policies: 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3,6.s.4 Less than Signi{icant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\11Ë\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/ZttZ0O5) 62

JUNE ?OO5
Table A * Summary of Environmental Findings

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF,FACT
n ess than Significant Impacts
Mitigation Measures

4.15.5.1A. Prior to the construction of any structure within ten feet of an abandoned well, a leak test shall be performed in accordance with the standards of the California Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) standards, Should a leak be detected, it shall be repairedaccording to CDOGGR guidelines.

4.15.5.18. Well access n-rust be provided for all abandonedwells according to CDOGGR standards.

4.15.5.1C. The construction of any structure over an
abandoned well site is not recommended; however, should a building be allowed over a well site, a vent system must be constructed as per CDOGGR guidelines.

Energt Resources
Impact 4.15.6.t. Build out of the General Plan will resulÍ ínan increase in populøtíon, and resídential and nonresidential structures, potentially increasing the use ofandneed for electricity and/or natural gas. Due to the growthresulting from implernentation of the proposecl General Plan, this increase would result ín impacts on exisfing electrical or natural gas generation/transmission facilitiesPopulation and Housing Program Policy: 5.1.3 Environmental Management Program Policies: 6.8. 1, 6.8.2,6.8.3, 6.8.4, 6.9.5, 6.9.6 Mitigation Measures

4.15.6.14. The City shall review all development proposalsprior to the approval ofdevelopment plans to guarantee that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available to supply adequate energy to the proposed projecf andassociated uses.

4.15.ó.18. The City shall review all development proposalsprior to approval to guarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards ofTitle 24 are met and are incorporatedinto the design of future development.

Less than Signiticant Impacts With Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts After Mitigation J:\USERS\ENG-PLÀN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR flrndings.DOC (6121/2005) 63

.f UNE 200s
STIAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACT¡ONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

Nearly every significant effect identified in the FEIR has been at least substantially lessened, if not fu1ly avoided, by the provisions of the proposed General Plan and the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. There remain six impacts, however, that were identified as significant and unavoidable and which cannot be substantially lessened. Specifically, the proposed General Plan had significant unavoidable adverse impacts on scenic vistas, stationary and mobile source air pollutant emissions, water resources, farmland, Williamson Act contracts, and housing and population projections. The DEIR examined the project alternatives in detail, exploring their comparatle advantages and disadvantages with respect to the proposed General Plan in Section 6.0. As the following discussion demonstrates, hourever, although some of the alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to certain impacts, none of the alternatives is feasible in light of project objectives and other considerations.

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

Organize Shafter's physical environment into a logical, functional, and visually pleasing paLtern, defining the amount, location, and distribution of various types of land uses within the City and its General Plan study area.

Recognize andretain commercial agriculture as a desirabie land use and as a major segment of the community's ideniity and economic base.

Provide a vartely of housing types suitable to a broad range of socioeconomic grorlps and a residential environment that enhances residents' quality of life and reinforces those characteristics of a rural, small town that make Shafter a desirable place to live.

Provide convenientiy located, efficient, and attractive commercial areas to serve regional, communify, and neighborhood functions and meet the retail and commercial service needs of Shafter residents and businesses, as well as those of highway travelers in a manner compatible with Shafter's rurai, small town character.
a
a
a
I
J\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 64

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN ÀND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF SACT
a Expand employment opporfunities, increase the personal income of local residents, and strengthen Shafter's economic base through a well-defined pattem of indusffial development, including rail-served facilities.

To provide an amenity-rich, master-planned urban enclave with a broad range of housing opporhrnities, including move-up housing, south and east of Shafter's existing industrial areas whose visuai character is defined principally by suburban density residential and low-rise commercial uses, along with industrial uses which provide a transition between the Specific Plan area's residential neighborhoods and industrial areas to the north and west.

To provide a master-planned residential community east of Shafter's core area in close proximity to large-scale industrial areas.

Provide ample arca for the conduct of public business and the operation of individual institutions within the community, reinforcing Shafter's vision of a community that values civic involvement.

Maintain a roadway and highway system that:
o Operates at Level of Service C on a daily and peak hour basis, except in the vicinity of freeway interchanges where Levei of Service D is acceptable; and o Balances the need [o move vehicles with the need to protect environmental and aesthetic resources, and the City's qualrty of life.

Provide abalance between the supply and demand for parking, while recognizing the desirability and avallability of alternatives to the use of automobiles.

Support and encourage the use of kansportation modes which provide an alternative to travel by private automobile.

Accommodate the safe movement of commodities
.¡/"ithin and through the City of Shafter in such
away as to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses, environmental resources, and quality of 1ífe.

Promote the expansion of air h'ansportation services for both cargo andpassengers.

Maintain a water system capable of providing the daily and peak water needs of existing and future residences, businesses, and other uses, including the provision of adequate fire flows, maintenance of adequate seryice pressures, and storage for drought and emergency conditions.

Provide a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system capable of meeting the daiiy and peak sewer service needs of existing and future residences, businesses, and other uses during peak use conditions without exhibiting restricted flow (except for force mains) or exceeding the rated capacity of the Shafter-North of the River Regionai'Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal at landfills, enhancing the potential for recycling of the City's solid wastes.

Frotect skuctures for human occupancy and roadways identified as evacuation routes from inundation during the 100-year flood ev-ent.

Provision of schools in locations tl:rit arc readily accessible to student populations, along with sufficient facilities to provide educationai services without overcrowding.

Maintain a system of parks, specialized recreational facilities, and natural open spaces of sufficient size and varíety, and ìn the appropriate locations, to serve the needs of Shafter residents of all ages, encompassing 2.5 acres of improved public parkland per 1,000 popuiation. a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
t
a
a
a
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAlNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 65

JUNE ZOO5

SHAF'TER GENERAL PLAN A,ND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FINDINGS OF FÀCT
. Maintain competent and efficient fire prevention and emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials response services with first responder capability in order to minimize risks to life and properly by responding to 80 percent of all emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials calls within five minutes on a citywide basis.
. Reduce the risk of crime and provide security to Shafter residents and businesses through maintenance of an active police force of 1.2 to 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, physical planning strategies, and a high level of public awareness and support for crime prevention. . To ensure the expansion of public faciiities occrffs in an equitable manner, and that new development pays for the facilities required to support the development without impacting services provided to existing residents and businesses. . To maintain coordinated implementation of Shafter's planning and development review programs with the expansion of services and facilities provided by outside agencies within the Ctty. . Provide a diversity of housing opporlunities to enhance the City's living enr¡ironment and to satisff the shelter needs of Shafter residents.
. Provide housing that is affordable to all economic segments of the community. . Provide equal housing opportunities for allresidents ofShafter. . Maintain and preserve a comprehensive open space system and its associated natural resources by protecting agriculturai and oil production lands where appropriate; providing parks for active and passive recreation; and by preserving nafrxal, scenic, and other open space resources. '
Proiride adequate water supplies to meet present and future needs for domestic consumption and emergencies, while obtaining maximum benefit from limited water resoutces. . Protection of remaining important biological resources within the General Plan study area. . Provide for the proper management of mineral resources within the General Plan study area. . Preserye archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources within the Shafter Planning Area for the benefît and education of future residents.
. Minimize ak pollutant emissions so as to assist in achieving State and Federal air quality standards.
. Reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy sources in existing and new commercial, industrial, and public structures.
. Minimize the potential for loss of life, physical injtry,properfy damage, and economic disruption resulting from an earthquake and other geologic events. . Minimize the potential for loss of life, physical injury, properly damage, and social disruption resulting from a 1OO-year flood.
. Ensure that the land uses surrounding Shafter Airport/IVIinter Field are compatible with airport operations, and do not pose a safety hazard.
. Minimize the negative impacts associated with the storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.
. Maintain a leve1 of preparedness to respond adequately to emergency situations to save lives, protect properfy, and facilitate recovery with minimal disruption.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 66

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTf ONS EIR
F'IND¡NGS OF FÀCT
t Achieve and maintain exterior noise levels appropriate to planned land uses throughout Shafter, as described below.
o Residential
Singie-Family: 60-65 dBA CNEL within rear yards
Multifamily:60-65 dBA CNEL within interior open space areas o Schools
Classrooms: 60 dBA CNEL
Play and sports areas: 70 dBA CNEL
o Hospitals, Libraries: 60 dBA CNEL
o Commercial/Industrial:65-70 dBA CNEL at the front setback.

No Project, No Build Alternative. With this alternative, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted and no firrther building would occur within the City of Shafter. This prohibition would compel any subsequent development to occur in the unincorporated areas of the Counfy or in adjacent cities, resulting in any incremental growth in population, housing, or employment opporlunities to occur in these areas. The No Build alternative represents a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Generai Plan can be measured.

No Project, Existing General Flan Alternative. As required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, Existing General Plan Altemative describes build out of Shafter in accordance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations under the policies and implementing strategies of the current General Plan. Implementation of this Alternative assumes that ultimate buiid out of the existing General Plan would occur.

No Specific Plan. Under the No Specific Plan Altemative, the General Plan would be adopted; however, the two areas designated as "Specific Plan" would instead be designated "Agricultural Open Spa-ce-" The Coberly West anrl Mission takes Specific Plans, Annexation 77, artd cancellation of agricultural preserve contracts would not be approved. Implementation of this Altemative assumes the uitimate build out of the proposed General Plan would occur with the exceptions noted above"
Where a significant impact can be substantialiy lessened (i.e., mitigated to an "acceptable level") solely by the adoption of the project and mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact, even if the alternative would nritigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project (Public Resources Code, $ 21002; Laurel Hil.ls Homeowners Association, supra,83 Cal.App.3d atp.521; see aTso Kings County Farm Bureau v. Cíty of Hanford (1990) 22I Cal.App.3d 69I,730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Associationv. Regents of theUniversity of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d376,400-403).

The Draft EIR and the Final EIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet most or all of the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant, unavoidable impacts (DEIR, p. 6-1).

Four alternatives that could potentially meet the project objectives were considered as part of the environmental review for the project:
a
a
a
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2 1/2005) 67

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
I Reduced Specific Plan Build Out. Under this alternative, the proposed General Plan would be adopted; however, the residential build out of the two areas designated as "specific Plan" would be reduced by 50 percent, as would industrial development within the Specific Plan area alongT'h Standard Road. The Coberly W'est and Mission Lakes Specific Pians would be adopted at lower densities; however, cancellation of agriculfural preserve contracts would not occur and the contracts would be permitted to expire pursuant to existing notices of non-renewal. Thus, land use designations under the Reduced Specific Plan Build Out alternative would be the sam.e as for the proposed General Plan.

Of the four project alternatives evaluated, one would result in no physical changes to the environment on the project site (No Build Alternative); one would allow the development according to the density established in existing plans (No Project Altemative); and two would lower the General Plan's densify patterns (No Specifîc Plan and Reduced Specific Plan Build Out). Relocating the proposed project to an altemative site is not feasible, as the proposed Generai Plan addresses the City of Shafter and its planning area, and is not transferable to another location. Therefore, no alternative site was considered. Each of the four altematives would result in a cornbination of similar, avoided or decreased, and increased environmental impacts as compared to the proposed General P1an, as summarized in Draft EIR Tables 6.4, 6.8, and 6.C.

4.1 No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative
The alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative, which has fewer or reduced environmental impacts compared to the other altematives, and, thus, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Under the No Project/Existing General Pan Altemative, land uses in the Shafter Planning Area would change consistent with the City's existing General Plan. The existing General Plan land use designations do not reflect the current goals of the City to provide more very 1ow density residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in addition to a mix of employment-generating uses. The exìsting General Plan does not provide land use designations for ali areas within the City's sphere of influence. Although the existing General Plan would retain more agriculturally designated land, it does not provide a mix of uses necessary to help maintain City sen ices. The existing General Plan provides less direction for new development and the General Plan policies are less clear than the policies in the proposed General Plan. Therefore, impacts created by development design would be greater under this alternative because the existing General Plan does not provide as rm¡ch direction as the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan build out would covert more open spacelagricultural land to urban development than the existing General Plan, thus eliminating more of the wide-open viewsheds. Because this altemative would not allow urban development on large areas of iand iocated in the southern portion of the Planning Area, impacts associated with aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources would be less than the other alternatives.

The proposed General Plan and related actions will result in a total of 3,488,080 daily trips with 4I,323,056 vehicle miies traveled at build out. tsy comparison, the existing No Project, Existing Generai Pian Aiternative would resuit in a total of 1,160,350 daily trips with i6,995,190 vehicle miles traveled at build out. Thus, vehicle air emissions resulting from the No Project, Existing General Plan Altemative would be approximately 39 percent of the emissions resulting from the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. However, air quality impacts under this altemative wouid remain significant and unavoidable since the emìssions would exceed SJVAPCD threshoids and the J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAfNE\ceneral Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 68

JUNE ZOO5
SHA¡'TER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR
FIND¡NGS OF FÀCT
emissions would be emitted into an air basin which is currently designated as 'hon-attainment" or wo se for ozone and particulatemafrer, constituting a cumulative impact to air quality.

The build out demand for water associated with this alternative would exceed current contracted water supplies; however, the City has identified and planned for future water sources. Although the magnifude of impacts under this alternative would be expected to require fewer \¡/ater resources than those associated with the proposed General Plan, an adequate water supply has been identified for both plans that would satisfy the projected demands in the urban areas and the sphere of influence of the Planning Areas. Therefore, water supply impacts under this altemative would be the same as the proposed General Plan. Population growth that would occur as part of the No Prqect, Existing General Plan Alternahve would be consistent with existing population patterns in the City and Kern COG projections and would not quaiiff as unanticipated population growth.

The No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet the General Plan objectives. The No Project, Existing General Plan Altemative assumes that development would occur as established in the City's existing General Plan. The existing General Plan does not meet project objectives in that it does not provide clear policy direction for future development within the southern portion of the City's sphere of influence and proposed AnnexationTT area. The objectives of the proposed General Plan include a broad range of housing that will enable the City to meet its "fair share" of the housing need as determined by Kern COG. Implementation of the No Project, Existing General Plan would result in substantially fewer dweliing units at build out than what would be deveioped as part of the proposed project. Aithough development that would occì.r as parl of the No Project, Existing General Plan Alternative could enable the City to meet its "fair share" housing allocation in the near-term (next 5-15 years), the long-term provision of sufficient housing would be less likely due to the lower number of housing units constructed at build out. Another objective of the City is to promote economic vitality, provide local employment and entrepreneurial opporfunities, and diverse shopping and commercial services. With the reduction of upper end housing opportunities, an important part of the City's economic development sfrategy would be eliminated. Thus, the No Project, Existing General Plan could constrain the City's abilify to achieve the objective of a better balance of housing close to expanding job opporhrnities.
úr rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the Cily Council makes the following findings:

The proposed General Pian provides for a comprehensive and updated plan with policies which are internally consistent and cover the City's entire sphere of influence. The No Project, Existing General Plan has been amended several times since 1993 and, as a result, there are inconsistencies among the General Plan policies. Furthermore, the General Plan does not cover or provide policies for allof the City's sphere of influence area.

The proposed General Plan incorporates a Housing Program which conforms to State Law and is consistent r,vith the remainder of the General Plan. The No Project, Existing General Plan may not be in compliance with State Law.

The proposed General Plan is based on the most recent data availabie to the City and reflects the current poiicy of the City Council. The No Project, Existing Generai Pian rs out of date, is based on old information, and does not reflect current policies of the City Council. a
a
t
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC(6/21/2005) 69

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER CENERAL PLAN IT.ND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
The No Project alternative will not substantially reduce any remaining significant impacts associated with the Proposed General Plan and will constrain the City's ability to achieve housing and economic objectives.

4.2 No Build Alternative
Because the No Build Alternative would prohibit the conskuction or expansion of structures and facilities within the City, no neï/ additions to the City's housing would occur and the City would not be able to meet Kern COG housing requirements or provide a fatr share of housing for all economic segments of the community. The alternative wouid not meet the goal of providing housing for new families and atlract commercial and industrial businesses as no new development would occur.

Additionally, no improvements to Cify, public, or private facilities, including roadways, fiood control features, public safety and service facilities, or utility systems would be permitted. Thus, the No Build Alternative would not accomplish the objectives of the City, which include providing a fair share of housing for all economic segments of the community, promoting economic vitality, providing 1ocal employment and enhepreneuriai opportunities, and providing diverse shopping and commerciai services.

In rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the City Council makes the following findings:

The proposed General Plan increases the amount of land designated for residential, commerciai, and indush"ial development, providing additional tax revenues and substantially more housing and employment opporhrnities than the No Build Alternative.

The proposed General Flan allows the City to satisfy regional goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of all economic levels which would not be satisfied under the No Build Alternative.

The proposed Generai Plan allows the City to improve and maintain public services such as roadways and public safety. The No Build Altemative would not permit the construction of new roadways or public service facilities.

4.3 No Specific Plan Alternative
Under the No Specific Plan Alternative, land uses in the Shafter lvould change consistcnt with the City's proposed General Plan, except that the areas designated Specific Plan would remain in agriculturai open space. Comparing the No Specific Plan Alternative land uses with the proposed General Plan land uses, the percentage of change is notable in that the No Specific Plan Alternative preserves a larger amount of agricultural land than does the proposed project, cutling the loss of agricultural land in half. This alternative would also avoid cancellations of existing agricultural preserve contracts. Under the No Specific Plan Altemative, land uses in the Shafter wouid change consistent with the City's proposed General Plan, except that the areas designated Specific Plan would remain in agricultural open space. Development under the No Specific Plan Altemative would not reflect the current goals of the City to provide more low density residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in close proximity to expanding employment-generating uses. Although the No Specific Plan Alternative would retain more agricultural land, it would not improve economies of a
a
¡
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StafflReports\Final SHAFTER EIR {indings.DOC (6/21/2005) 70

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
scale for infrastructure and services being provided to urban development in the southern portion of the Shafter's Planning Area. Overall, the No Specific Plan Altemative is considered to be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed General Plan.

The No Specific Plan Alternative would provide equivalent direction for the protection of visual resources as would be proposed General Plan. Impacts created by development design would be less under this alternative because the proposed General Plan r,vould convcrt more open space/agricultural land to urban development, thus eliminating more of the wide-open viewsheds. The No Specifîc Plan Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan as there would be less deveiopment and loss of open viewsheds. The No Specific Plan Alternative would result in a total of 1,848,680 daiiy trips with 21,901,22A vehicle miles traveled at build out. Vehicle air emissions resulting from the No Speci{ic Plan Alternative would be approximately 53 percent of the emissions resulting from the proposed General Plan and related actions. However, air quality impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable since the emissions would exceed SIVAPCD thresholds and the emissions would be emitted into an air basin which is currentþ designated as 'onon-attainment" or worse for ozone and particuiate mallet, constituting a cumulative impact to air qualityThe build out demand for water associated with the No Specific Plan Alternative wouid exceed current contracted water supplies. Although the magnitude of impacts under this aitemative would be expected to require fewer water resources than those associated with the proposed General Plan, an adequate water supply has been identified for the proposed General Plan that would satisfy the projected demands in the urban areas and the sphere of influence which would exceed the water needs of this alternative. Therefore, water supply impacts under this altemative would be less than the proposed General Plan; however, they would remain significant and unavoidable because availability of water for urban areas outside of the Shafter sphere of influence-but within the Shafter Planning Area-has not been demonstrated, urban development outside of the City's sphere. Both the proposed General Pian and the No Specific Plan Alternative exceed Kern COG projections for growth and provide greater opporlunity to meet "fair share" housing requirements, although the No Specific Plan alternative is closer to Kern COG projections. Overall, the No Specific Plan Altemative is considered to be neither superior nor inferior to the proposed General Plan.

In rejecting this altemative as infeasible and failing to meet project objectives, the City Council makes the following findings:
a
I
The proposed General Plan provides for a large Specific Plan area which will assist in the regionai need for a more balanced ratio befween
jobs and housing. Under the No Specific Plan
Alternative, the number of housing and employment opportunities would be reduced and the ability of the City to provide housing for all economic levels near employment opporfunities would be reduced.

The proposed General Pian provides for new development in a cohesive manner through Specific Plans (Mission tr akes and Coberly West) which pian for an entire community rather than small individuai projects. The No Speciflc Plan Alternative would allow previously approved projects (Kem Counlv) and would not provide for necessary services.

JìUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/2n005) 7l

JUNE 2OO5
SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS EIR
FfNDINCS OF F'ACT
The proposed General Plan allows the City to satisfy regional goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of all economic levels. The No Specific Plan Altemative would reduce the potential for residential development in the City and in the region. a

4.4 Reduced Specifïc Plan Alternative
The Reduced Specific Plan Alternative land uses would change consistent with the proposed General Plan except that the areas designated Specific Plan would be developed at a lower intensity, ultimately resulting in the loss of agriculture lands and 'Williamson
Act contracts equivalent to that of
the proposed General Plan. Development under the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would reflect the current goals of the City to provide more low density residential areas for executive and "move-up housing" in close proximity to expanding employment-generating uses, only to a lesser degree than the proposed General Plan. This alternative would provide equivalent direction for the protection of visual resources as the proposed General Plan, and would result in an equivalent loss of open vistas.

The Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would result in a total of 2,662,570 daily trips with 31,543,265 vehicle miles traveled at build out. Thus, vehicle air emissions resulting from the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would be approximately 76 percent of the emissions resulting from the proposed General Plan and Related Actions. However, air qualif impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable since the emissions would exceed SIVAPCD thresholds and the emissions would be emitted into an air basin which is currently designated as "nonaltainment" or worse for ozone and particulate matter, constituting a curnulative impact to air quality.

The buiid out demand for water associated with this alternative wouid exceed current contracted water supplies. Although the magnitude of impacts under this aiternative would be expected to require fewer water resources than those associated with the proposed General Plan, an adequate water supply has been identified for the proposed General Plan that would satisfy the projected demands in the urban areas and the sphere of influence which would exceed the water needs of this alternative. Therefore, water supply impacts under this alternative would be less than the proposed General Plan; however, they would remain significant and unavoidable because avalTability of water for urban areas outside of the Shafter sphere of influence-but within the Shafter Planning Area-has not been demonstrated. Urban development outside of the City's sphere would result in a significant unavoidable impact on water resources.

Population growth and employment would be approximately 30 percent less under the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative than under the proposed General P1an. Both the proposed General Plan and the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative exceed Kem COG projections for growth and provide greater opportunity to meet "fair share" housing requirements, although the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative is closer to Kem COG projections. The cost of housing is driven by supply and demand.

Therefore, knowing that the demand is increasing and having less supply, the cost of housing will increase. Hence, it would be more difficult for the City of Shafter to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community.

In rejecting this altemative as infeasibie and failing to meet project objectives, the City Council makes the following findings:

The proposed General Flan provides greater opporh-rrities to meet the City's goal of providing housing for all economic leveis close to employment opporfunities. Under the Reduced Specific a
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) 7Z

JUNE 2OO5
Sf{AFTER CENERAL PLÀN AND RÚLATED ACTIONS EIR

FINDINGS OF FACT
a
a
Plan Alternative, the ability to have all levels of housing opportunities would be reduced, as a smaller number of housing units would lessen the supply and increase the costs to buyers.

Furthermore, the Reduced Specific Plan Alternative would provide fewer housing units near employment opporfunities.

The proposed General Plan allows the City to satisfy regional goals for the provision of a fair share of housing to residents of a1l economic levels. The Reduced Specific Plan Altemative will reduce the potential for residential development in the City and the region.

The proposed General Plan provides for Specifìc Plans that would zupport commercial development and public services. The Reduced Specific Plan Altemative could reduce the ability of the project to support nearby commercial development and public serrrices, thus creating longer trips for necessary goods and services.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Updãte\StaffReports\Final SHAFTER EIR findings.DOC (6/21/2005) IJ

EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDII{G CONSIDERATTONS F'OR TTTE CITY
OF SHAFTER 2OO5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE A¡.ID RELATED
ACTIONS ENVIROI{MEI{TAL IMPACT REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The General Plan is the product of a thorough planning and public comment process that involved issues identification, interagency coordination, plan formulation, and multiple public hearings providing for public input and comment. As set forth in the preceding sections, the Cify Council's approval of the proposed General Plan will result in signifrcant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. All feasible mitigation has been proposed to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts identifred in the EIR, and no additional feasible mitigation is availabie to firther reduce significant impacts without creating new significant adverse impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council chooses to approve the proposed General Plan (Project) because, in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable.

The following statement identifies why, in the Council's judgment, the benef,rts of the Project as
approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the entire Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding {indings, which are incorporated by reference into this section.

2.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND OTHER CONSTDERATIONS
The Council finds that the General Plan would have the following economic, social, and environmental bene fits :

2.1 Improving the Jobs-Housing Balance in the Region
A jobs-housing ratio is the relationship between the total number of jobs and the total number of
employed residents in a region. The lower the
jobs/housing ratio, the fewer local jobs available for
residents, which results in workers being forced to commute out of the area for work. A higher jobshousing ratio means a greater number ofjobs would exist in the area. A balance ofjobs and housing can benefit the environment of an area by reducing commute times and distances befween residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes.result in increased vehicle tr-ip length, which creates environmentai effects associated with transportation, air quality, and noise. One of the objectives of J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\¡NE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Shafrer EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/2112005) 1

JUNE ZOO5
STIAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND REL.4,TED ACTIONS EfR

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
the Shafter General Plan is to improve the jobs-housing balance within the region, reducing the need for Kern Counfy residents to travel long distances to work. The City of Shafter is considered a 'Jobs dch" community and under the existing General Plan, Kem COG projected Shafter's job-tohousehold ratio would be 5.30 by 2030. At build out, the jobs-housing ratio in the City of Shafter, with the Annexation 77 and Pre-zoning area, would be 2.43jobs for every household. Even though the City of Shafter is expected to have many more
jobs than households by 2030, other cities within
Kern Counly are expected to have a much lower jobs-to-household ratio. For cxample, Bakersfield is expected to have a 1.05
jobs-to-housing ratio in 2030. Because Shafter's iocal employment base will help to balance the numerous households in surrounding cities, a closer balance between the number ofjobs and households could exist within the region by 2030, and the jobs within Shafter would have a beneficial effect on the region. The land use designations and policies ofthe proposed General Plan have been tailored to improve the balance between loca1 employment and housing opportunities, thereby reducing commute times and distances between residential developments and employment centers, and associatecl environmental effects such as noise, air qtnlity, and tr-affic.

2.2 Diversification and Expansion of the City's Housing Stock The proposecl General Plan confains a number of policies which, when implemanted, would serve to diversifu and expand the City's housing stock. For example, within the Housing Program, there are policies that encourage both housing affordable to lower income households, seniors, and other special needs groups who often have difniculty obtaining and keeping housing, and housing for moderate and above moderate-income househoids. A General Plan Land Use Program Policy addresses a special needs group through requiring the City to facilitate the development of adequate housing for farm workers. Shafter is an impacted area with 59 percent of the housing within the Planning Area in the very low- and low-income categories. Thus, over half of Shafter's new housing needs were determined by Kem COG to be needed for moderate- and above moderate-income households. Additional provisions of the Housing Program provide specific action programs to facilitate the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community, aimed at meeting Shafter's fair share of regional housing needs. (See Section 5.5 of the Housing Program for the City's five-year action plan for housing). The General Plan also provides for large-scale planned communities in the I-and Use Program which will provide high leve1 amenities and move-up housing (Mission Lakes and Coberly West) in close proximity to jobs in the City and the region. The planned commtrnities wili thus assist in reducing travel time which will lower vehicle emissions that cause air poilution.

2.3 Improvement to Roadways
While the region as a whole is expected to grow significantly over the life of the planning period, improving the jobs-housing balance within the City, will improve projected haffic within the City and along the region's roadway system, even as the number of vehicles on the road increases with population growth. trV'ithout the policies of the proposed General Plan promoting these benefits, the condition of roadways within the Planning Area could be expected to become much worse as the inevitable population grorvth occurs. Circulation Program policies, for example, aím to reduce -^1:^^^^ ^- ^-,¿^-^^l^:1^^
LL^-^L-- ..^l--^i-- ¿L^ 1^---.l^-^ ,-^^)---^--^ ---I-il^ T ^,-l rf-- ---1:-:-, ,--1, rçüalrçs ulr ¿aLrLUilluLrrrgs, LllçlçuJ tçuuvurg Lltv uurLltrll uu atga ruaLtwilys, wllrttr Lanlu ulig IJoIIL;igs
¡tvgK
to improve the area's jobs/housing baiance. The adoption of a Bicycle Plan is one example of the General Plan poiicies aimed at reducing reliance on the automobile. Other examples inciüde the J:\USERS\ENG-PLANW/AYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Shafter EIR Oveniding considerations.doc (6/21l2005) 2

JUNE 2OO5

SIIAFTER CENERAL PLAN AND RELATED A,CTIONS EIR

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
estabiishment of an inter-modal rail facility which would reduce long-distance truck travel and the City's active participation in regional traffic solutions including the West Beltway and improvements to 7tr' Standard Road.

2.4 Protection of Significant Environmental Features
The proposed General Plan contains several policies that focus on preserving agriculture as a significant environmental feature. The General Plan identifies the permanent nature of the agriculturai land use designation and further emphasizes that agriculture is not a temporary "holding zone." Ensuring these benefits now, before population pressures become even greater, and the political wiil to avoid developing these areas perhaps weakens, is especially important. The General Plan sets forth poiicies that will function as environmentai performance standards to ensure the protection of significant environmental features, such as open space, biological resources and mineral resources.

These policies also address certai.n specific environmental features such as the need to maintain a permanent agricultural/open space buffer around central Shafter, including a broad buffer between cenkal Shafter and the lands within the southeastern porlion of the Planning Area. The General Plan also requires the development projects be directed away from lands with sensitive biological resoltrces to the extent feasible. Additionally, the General Plan provides for the proper management of mineral resources by protecting the environment around mineral processing operations.

2.5 Provision for Public Services and Facilities
The General Plan ensures that the expansion of public facilities will occur in an equitable manner, and that new development provides the on- and ofÊsite facilities needed to support the development in a manner that avoids increased costs for and reductions in the level of public seryices provided to existing residents and businesses.

2.6 Fiscal and Economic Considerations
The General Plan supports the retention and development of agriculturally related industries and support services to assist in maintaining the long-term economic viabilify of agriculturally designated land. Additionally, the General Plan promotes regulations that allow farmers to manage their operations in an efficient economic manner. The General Plan also provides for economic growth through encouraging nel¡/ uses in the downtown by promoting professional office, mixed-use and residential projects, which conkibute to the vitality of the area. Other areas where new uses are encouraged include the Shafter Airport, central Shafter, and the ITTC. By encouraging growth in these areas, municipal services can be efficiently provided. As a means of financing infrastructure for future development, the General Pian considers the use of a special assessment or participation in a land-based financing district; both programs are aimed at ensuring new development funds necessary for public infrastructure and public facilities.

3.0 ADDITIONAL O\¡ERRTDINGCONSIDERATIONS
Foilowing is a summary of the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project and a description of the overriding considerations for each of the unavoidable, significant impacts.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WALNE\Generaf Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Shafter EiR Oveniding considerations.doc (6/2112005) 3

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
a

3.1 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Significant IJnavoidable Adverse Impact. Conversion of open space and agriculhral lands to urban uses.

Overriding Considerations. The Plarming Area currently contains 39,940 acres of open space and agricultural lands. With the implementation of the proposed General Plan, 14,024 acres of open space and agricultural lands would be converted to various urban and rural residential uses representing a loss of 35 percent of the existing total. The City of Shafter is surounded by open spaceTagricultural land and, in order for growth to occur, some of these iands will need to be converted to urban uses. 'While
it is not possible to mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance, approval of the proposed General Plan would assist in protecting and preserving a large portion of the open space/agricuitural land through maintaining a permanent agncultural/open space buffer around central Shafter, including a broad buffer between central Shafter and lands within the southeastem porlion of the Planning Area. Other benefits of the proposed General Plan related to protecting open space/ agncultural land include the following:
'Working with Kern County to protect lands designated for agricultural use, minimiztng the influence of speculative land transactions on the price of farmland and providing incentives for long-term agricultural use;
Developing attractive but natural-appeanng landscape at commtrnity entries and along arteriais and collector roadways, thus improving the visuai resources of the community; and Establishing a comprehensive system of open space that is available to the public, inciuding facilities for organized recreation; active informal play; passive recreation; and enjoyment of the natural environment.

Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to the loss of open space/agricultural land and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be acceptable.

3.2 Air Quality
Signifïcant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. Exceeding loca1 and regional air quality standards for stationary and mobile source emissions resulting in a worsening of air quality.

Overriding Considerations. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is the second iargest basin in the State and has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as non-attainment for 8-hour t ñrr ' 'r ) : l') I i : r | î,
'
1' 1 '11 | l
OZOne aflG fIVl2.5. I nUS, a SIgnIIIL;a[t alr quallty proolËm ËÅIsl.s ltuw tll t\çrfl \-o[JnLy wnlçn wllr perslst for a number of years whether or not there is significant growth in the Shafter Planning Area. Also, urban growth will likely occur in communities surrounding the Shafter Planning Area irrespective of a
a
JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\Genera1 Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Shafter EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/2112005) 4

JUNE 2OO5
SHÀT'TER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSTDERATIONS
a
a
o
a
a
the adoption of the proposed General Plan. Air quality is a regional problem that does not respect jurisdictional or planning area boundaries. Continuing urban gror,vth, whether it occurs in the Shafter Planning Area or in other areas, will contribute to the regional air quality problem in roughly the same mannef.

The adoption of the proposed General Plan, which includes policies that provide positive actions toward a comprehensive strategy dealing with air quality and are provided below, will be beneficial to the regional air qualify program. These policies incorporate the majority of the goals, policies, and programs identified by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The beneficial Generai Plan policies include the following:

Promoting land use pattems that provide close proximify between residential neighborhoods and employmenlshopping areas to reduce vehicular trip lengths and facilitate walking and the use of bicycles;
Encouraging developers of large residential and non-residential projects to participate in prog:ams and to take measures to improve kaffic flow andlor reduce vehicle trips resulting in decreased vehicular emissions;
Supporting and facilitating employer-based trip reductions programs by recognizing such programs as mitigation for traffic and air quality impacts where their ongoing implementation can be ensured;
Faciiitating the development of an inter-modal rail yard serving both BNSF and IJP rail lines as a means of reducing diesel emission from long-haui tructrs; Cooperating with State and regional agencies to coordinate the provision of parking facilities with regional transportation needs (e.g., park-and-ride lots); and Promoting the use of fixed-schedule transit service within the City and encourage transit connections between Shafter and other parts of the region.

Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to air qualiLy and any adverse environmental effects associated v¡ith this tnpact are considered to be acceptable.

3.3 Water Resources
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. Lack of demonstrated availability of water resources for urban development in Plaruring Area outside city limits and sphere of influence.

Overriding Considerations. A large groundwater basin, covering over 1,500,000 acres underlies most of the southern San .Ioaquin Valley and has been providing water for the Planning Area since the early 1900s. tsuild out of the proposed General Plan will result in an increase in the demand for urban water supplies. The potable water supply necessary for build out of the General Plan within the City limits and the sphere of influence has been calculated and will be provided by either the Cify of a
JIUSERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Shafter EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/2112005) 5

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATCD ACTIONS EIR
STATEMENT OF OVERR¡DING CONSTDERATIONS
a
a
a
a
a
Shafter or Oildale Mutual'Water Serr¡ice Company. The proposed General Plan land use plan and water service by the Oildale Mutual Water Service Company and the City of Shafter will result in a net reduction of water for the City of Shafter and the sphere of influence through the use of reclaimed water for landscaped areas.

The groundwater basin from which Shafter and surrounding communities withdraw water is not adjudicated. Thus, even though it has been demonstrated that water supplies necessary to serve urban development within the Shafter Water service area and the revised Oildale Mutual Water Serrice area, it has not been demonstrated that water will be available to serve urban development in the remaining Planning Area. Adoption of the proposed General Plan would provide policies to protect the availability of water supplies and encourage water conservation. Even with these policies, which are listed below, the availability of water for lhe area outside the City limits and sphere of influence would stil1 remain significant and unavoidable. Specific General Plan policies related to water resources include the following:
.Periodically evaluating loca1 water consumption patterns, the adequacy of existing facilities, and the need for new facilities;
Promoting water conservation through application of appropnate landscaping ancl site planning techniques;
Ensuring that land use changes will not adversely affect the groundwater basin by requiring a facfi;ø] statement from new developers related to water demand and water conservation; Requiring new development to be equipped with water conservation devices, including dual water systems where reclaimed wastewater can be economically provided; and Working with the North of the River Sanitation Diskict to facilitate the use of reclaimed wastewater.

Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefîts of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to the availability of water resources in the Planning Area outside of the City limits and the sphere of influence and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be acceptable.

3.4 AgriculturalResources
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impact. Conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. Conversion of farmland under a Williamson Act contract to urban uses.

Overriding Considerations. Projected urban growth will result in the reduction of productive agricultural land. Conversion of agricultural land within the future growth areas will not occur immediately as the Generai Plan is intended to provide land for development over the next 25 years.

Also the development of urban uses will depend on the supply and demand. Therefore, it is likely that a substantial amount of iand within the future growth areas will remain in agricultural production for many years.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Shafter EIR Overriding consi'Cerations.doc (6/2112005) 6

JUNE 2OO5

SHAFTER GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS EIR

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I
Williamson Act contracts are for 10 years and arc annually automatically renewed for an additional one-year period. The Williamson Act contains limited provisions for cancellation of contracts and there are penalties for early cancellation. Therefore, the development of agricultural land under a IV'illiamson Act contract requires special considerations which may not be attractive to the farmland properly orvner. Thus, not all development on farmland with'Williamson Act contracts may occur in the propt-rseti General Plan.

While it is not possible to mitigate the loss of agricultural land and/or farmland under a 'W'illiamson
Act contract, adoption of the proposed General Plan provides positive local action in regard to this issue. Specific beneficial General Plan policies associated with retention of agricultural lands include the following:

Protecting lands designated for agricultural use by providing a distinct boundary between lands intended for urban and rural use and those intended to be preserved in long-term agricuitural use; Limiting the extension of r¡rban services into or through areas that are designated for agricultural uses, and avoid their inclusion in assessment dishicts and other financing mechanisms intended for the provision ofurban services and facilities;
Pursuing an Agricultural Conservation Easement program pursuant to the California Farmland Conservancy Program (PRC $ 10200 et seq.); and
Supporting effîcient management of local agricultural production activities by encouraging the provision of adequate farm worker and farm family housing within and adjacent to agricuiturai areas.

Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to the loss of agricultural land and farmland under a Williamson Act contract and any adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be acceptable.

3.5 Population and Housing
Significant Unavoidable Adverse fmpact. Exceed regional housing and population projection Overriding Considerations. Projected growth in the Planning A¡ea will exceed the Kern COG projections for housing and employment. Kern COG's projections are based on the existing General Plan and do not inciude aii the land area in the proposed General Plan. In addition, the projections do not reflect the new boundaries of the City of Shafter sphere of influence. Projections for housing and employment in the build out of the proposed General Plan assume that ali development that is allowed is built. Regional economics and the markeþlace will dictate the build out of the General Plan and also determine the accilracy of the projections. a
a
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Shafter EIR Overriding considerations.doc (6/21l2005) 7

JUNE 2OO5
SHÀFTER GENERÀL PLAN AND RELATED ÀCTIONS ETR

STATCMENT OF OVERRIDTNG CONSIDERATIONS
While it is not possible to mitigate incongruent housing and population projections, adoption of the proposed General Plan would provide policies that limit the number of dwelling units and, therefore, the potential population growth. The specific beneficial General Plan policies are provided below. a
Determining that the maximum allowable residential densify for development within the 7ú Standard Road Specific Plan area shall be 4.25 dwelling. units per gÍoss acre within each Specific Plan, excluding acreage within the rights-of-way for 7t" Standard Road and the existing canals, thus limiting population growth; and
Permitting a maximum af 13,954 dwelling units throughout the Specific Plan area (16.61 persons per acre), wfuch further limits population growth.

Conclusion. Based upon the previously described social, economic, and other benefits or considerations of the Project and the additional overriding considerations described above, the benefits of the of the proposed General Plan outweigh the impact related to exceeding the regional population and housing projections and arry adverse environmental effects associated with this impact are considered to be acceptable.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\\MAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Shafter EIR Oveniding considerations.doc (6/21l2005) 8

EXHTBIT D
CITY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 GEI\ERAL PLAI\ UPDATE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL TMPACT REPORT
MITIGATTON MONITORING AI{D COMPLIANCE PROGRAIVT
This mitigation monitoring and compliance program has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measlres contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shafter Generai Plan and Related Actions (State Clearinghouse No. 2004101029). The program has beèn prepared in compliance with State law by the Cily of Shafter.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures piaced on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Pubiic Resource Code Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The monitoring program contains the following elements
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compiiance will be reporfed.
3) The program contains a separate Mitigation Monitoring and Compliance Record for each action.

On each of these record sheets, the pertinent actions and dates will be logged, and copies of permits, correspondence or other relevant data will be attached. Copies of the records will be submitted to the Planning Division.
4) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program.

As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.

J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/21/2005) 1

LSA ASSOCTATES, tNC
JUNE 2OO5Project File No./Name:

Date:

CITY OF SHAFTER 2O05 FINAL ENVIRONIVI MITICATION MONITORING AND GENERAL PLÀN UPDÀTE ENTAL IiVfPACT REPORT COMPLIÀNCE PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
City of Shafter General Plan Applicant: City of Shafter June 210 2005

4.2.3F. The City shall require street ligtrtning to be limited to intersections and other locations that are needed to maintainsafe access (e.g. sharp cuwes).4.2.3A. The City shall require that sources of lighting providethe minirm¡m lighting required to ensure safe circulation andvisibility.

CDD/BO
CCD/BO

BO/CEBO/PO
A/B/D
AiBlC
A/BA/B
Project proponent
shall submit lighting
plan with building
construction plans for review andapproval by City,
The project proponent shall incorporatea building lighting plan with the construction plans forreview and approval by the City.

All roadway plans
shall incorporate a
lighting plan forreview and approval
by the City.

The project proponent shall incorporatea lighting plan with the building consûuction plans for review and approval
by the City.

NCID
NClD
NCID
NCID
213
213
214
213

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

4.2.3D. Require that lighting provided for new development be designed so as to be confined to the areas that ate intended to be lighted.
2 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\t{E\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/2 i/2005)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC
JTJNE 2OO5 C¡TY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 G Ì'INAL ENVIRONME ÙIITIGÀTION MONITORING AND C ENERAL PLAN UPDATE NTAL IMPACT REPORT OMPLIANCE PROGRAM SJVAPCD Measures . Reduce vehicle /rþs. These measures reduce air pollution emissions by entirely eliminating some of the vehicle tripsassociated with a project. An example is the provision of bicycle facilities to encourage bicycle use instead ofdriving. . Reduce vehicle miles traveled. These measures reduce emissions by reducing the length of vehicle trips associatedwith a projeðt. An example is satellite officesitelecommuting

4.3.4.3F. Adopt incentives and/or regulations ûo enact energy conservation requirements for private and publicdevelopments.

4.3.4.3D. Require residential building consf,uction to comply with energy use guidelines detailed in Title 24 of the California Adminishative Code.4.3.4.3C. Encourage cenfrally heated facilities to utilize automated time clocks or occupant sensors to control heating 4 .3 .4 .38. Encourage the use of efficient heating equipment and other appliances, such as water heaters, swimming pool
heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, and boilerunits.

4.2.3F. Require that access to non-residential uses adjacent toresidential neighborhoods be designed so as to provide adequate separation and prevent spillover of night lightingfrom the non-residential use into the adjacent residential neighborhood.

4.3.4.3A. Encourage the use of building materials/methods,which reduce emissions.

BO
CDD/BO

CDD/CE/BO
CDD
BOBOBO
AlE
AAA
A/B
A/B
A/B/D
City review of newdevelopment trafficstudies, and site
plans.

Within 5 years of certification of
DEIR,Review of BuildingPlans
Review of Building
Plans
Review of BuildingPlans
Project proponent
shall submit site planand lighting plan
with building construction plans forreview and approval Review of BuildingPlans
by
BID
D
NCNC
A/CNC
NCID
3 Non-compliance
in annual General
Plan implementation review.
213
213
2t3213213
lVlitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Moniforing
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verifìed
Date/lnitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
Responsible for
Monitoring
-',
3 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibir C - MMCP.doc (6/21/2005)

LSA ASSOCTATES, tNC
JTJNE ZOOS CITY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 GENER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IVlITIGATION MONITORING AND COIVIPL

AL PLAN UPDATE

IIVIPACT REPORT
IA¡.fCE PROGRAM
centers provided to reduce the length of employee cornmute trips. . Use of low emíssion vehicles. These measures do not aim toreduce trips or VMT, but rather promote the use of flrels that are less polluting than gasoline or diesel. Examples are theconversion of a vehicle fleet to opemte on compressed natural gas and the purchase ofan electric vehicle. . Improve truffic .flows/reduce congestion. These measuresreduce emissions by reducing traffic congestion and./or reducing stops and staÍs. This allows vehicles to operate at steady and moderate speeds, and thus lowers pollution per mile traveled. An example is timing the traffic signals on an arterial to facilitate unintemrpted travel.

Support Measures. These measures may not directly reduce emissions, but rather support and facilitate other emissionreduction stategies. An example is a guaranteed ride home program implemented at a worksite in order to encourage employees to use cornmute altematives by allaying concernsover being without a vehicle in case of emergency.

4.4.4.1A. At a minimum, a wildlife/plant habitat suitability assessment shall be part of the impact analysis for anydevelopment project located within the Plaruring Area. If a covered species has been observed in the vicinity ofthe project area or the site has suitable habitat conditions, then a focused species survey shall be completed. Ifa covered species is found to be present, then appropriate mitigation measures will be determined by the applicable lead agency. A "covered" speciesis any plant or anirnal listed as threatened or endangered byCDFG or USFWS, a non-listed species that requires mitigation under Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or a species that is protectedunder local ordinances.

CDD A Review of Plans CIDIA U2l3
Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible lbr
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing ol'
Verification
Method of
Verilic¿tion
Verifietl
Date/lnitials
Sanctions fol'
Non-Compliance
4 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/2 l/2005)

LSA ASSOCIATBS, fNC
JUNE 2OO5 C¡TY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 CENERAL PLA,N UPDATE FINAL ENV¡RONMEN ÙfITIGATION Ù¡ONITORING AND CO TAL IÙIPACT RÐPORT ùIPLIANCE PROGRAM

4.4.4.t8. In the event that the Valley Floor Habitat
Conservation Plan (VFHCP) is adopted, then any project
within the Planning Area will be a VFHCP participant andwould comply with FESA Section 104 permit conditions andmitigation measures adopted in the Plan.

CDD
CDD
CDD
A/B
A
A
Review of Plans
Review of Plans
Review of Plans
B/D
C/D/A
CIDIA
U2
7l213t4t6
t/2t3
Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verilication
Verified
Date/lnitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance

4.4.4.2A. The City establishes baseline ratios for mitigating the impacts of development related uses to rare, threatened andendangered species and their associated habitats as the following:

Preserve habitat by covered species at minimum of 1:1
replacement ratio in locations that provide long-term
conservation value for impacted resoìfice. Habitat is defined aswhere a plant or animal completes its life cycle. Habitat is the Plaruring Area can include native plant communities, annual grasslands, oilfields, and agricultural land. Habitat mitigationcould involve dedication of conservation easement on theoccupied on-site habitat, acquisition ofoff-site habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in amissing link or gap in an HCP reserve (endorsed by theUSFWS and/or CDFG) that has been established to províde conservation value for the species. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for thepreservation ofsuch areas in perpetuity.

4.4.4.4.4. Should an agreement be reached with the signatories of the MBHCP for authorization to use this prograrr¡, the City of Shafrer shall collect the mitigation fees upon thedevelopment of the area within the MBHCP which is located north of 7ù Standard Road and within the sphere of influence of the City of Shafter. The City shall forward the MBHCP feesto the County of Kern and/or the City of Bakersfield, Alïernatively, development within the MBHCP shall provide equivalent mitigation in the form of habitat acquisition or payment of fees into an established mitigation bank.
5 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WALNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/21l2005)

LSA aSSOCIATES, INC
JUNE ZOO5 CITY OF SHAFTER 2O05 GE FINAL ENV¡RONMEN IVlITIGATION MONlTORING AND CO NERAL PLAN UPDATE TAL IIVIPACT REPORT MPLIAI{CE PROGRAM

4.5.4.2A. If human remains are encountered during a public or private construction activity, State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Kern County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5091.98. The Kern County Coroner rnust be notified within 24 hours. If the çoroner determines that the burial is not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likelydescent (MLD) for this area. The MLD may become involved with the disposition of the br¡rial following scientific analysis

4.6.4.3.A. New developments shall provide erosion and
sedimentation confrol measures to maintain the capacity of areastorm drains, protect water qualþ, and to reduce erosion and the loss oftopsoil.4.6.4.3.8. New development shall use BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

4.7.4.1.A. On a site-specific, project-by-project basis, all new discretionary development projects shall be subject to anassessment to determine whether hazardous materials are present as required by the County Department of
Environmental Services.

4.7.4.1.8. Soils shall be tested for concentrations of
agricultural chemicals prior to grading permit approval whereappropriate, as determined by local, State, or Federal agencies.Contaminated soils shall be treated andlor excavated anddisposed of at certified hazardous waste facility.

BO
CDD/BO

CDD/CE/BO

CDD/CE/BO
BO
A/B
D/E

NB/CIDIENBICIDIE
C
Review of Plans
Review of Plans
Review of Plans,
During Construction
Review of Plans,
During ConstructionDuring Construction
NB/D
A/B
NBIC/D

AIBICID
A
2 316t7
213t4
2l3t4t6t7
4 6 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYI'{E\GeneraI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibir C - MMCP.doc (6/2112005)

LSA ASSOCIATES, TNC
JUNE 2OOS CITY OF SHAFTER 2O05 GENERA
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MITTGATION MONITORING AND COMPLI L PLAN UPDÀTÈ MPACT REPORT ANCE PROGRAIVT

4.7.4.LC" Fugitive dust on construction sites shall be
controlled by inigation, paving of construction roads, limitinggrading activities during periods of high winds, and other applicable methods as set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Contol District.

4.9.4.1.A New development located within the vicinity ofcanals shall provide fencing to protect the public and the canals as required by the Crty of Shafter.

4.9.4.I.8 Grading plans as reviewed by the City for new development near canals shall take into account the prevention of canal failures by percolation and piping due to lowering of the adjacent ground surface.

4.9.4.1.C The developer shall notify new owners of homes located adjacent to canals ofpossible noise and odor created by the operation and maintenance of the canals.

4.11.3.14. Standard construction activities shall be limited tobetween 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction activities shall be allowed on weekends and holidays until afier the buildings are enclosed without prior authorization of the City.

4.11.3.18. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to
construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the City shall ask all project applicants to develop a site-specific noise reduction CDD/BO
CDD/BO
CDD
CE, BO
BO
CDD
c
C
AAA
C
Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measure
Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measure

4.11.3.1.4 in grading and conskuctionplans submitted forreview and approval by City.

Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measwe4.9.4.t.C in disclosures to newhomeowners.

Review of Grading
PlansReview of PlansReview of Plans
NC
A/C
D
C
AIC
A
2/4t7
214t7
213
2 417
Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequencl,
Timing of
Verilication
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/lnitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
7 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\,StaffReports\iFinal ExhibitC - MMCP.doc (6/21l2005)

LSA ASSOCTATES, INC
JUNE 200s CITY OF SIIA¡'T FINAL EN

IVIITIGATTON MONITORI
ER 2O05 GENER
VIRO N IV¡E NTAL NG AND COIVlPL

AL PLAN UPDATE
IIVIPACT RtrPORT IA¡¡CE PROGRAM
progranL subject to the City's approval, which includes the following measures: . Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening
contact number for the Cþ in the event of problems. . An on-site complainT and enforcement managff shall be posted to respond to and track complaints.
¡ A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project
manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the issuance of a building permit(including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.). . Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intakesilencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acousticallyattenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible. . Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use ofpneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall be used; this muffler çan lower noise levels from pneumatic tools where feasible, whichcould achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter proceduresshall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment,whenever feasible. r Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and

4.11.3.1.8 in grading and constructionplans submitted for review and approval
by City.

Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible lbr
lVlonitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing ol'
Verification
Method of
Verifïcation
Verified
Date/lnitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
8 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\GeneIaI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Exhibir C - MMCP.doc (6/21D005)

LSA ASSOCTATES, INC
JUNE 2OO5 CITY OF SHAFT
FINAL EN iVIITIGATION MONITORI NERAL PLAN UPDATE TA.L IMPACT REPORT MPLIANCE PROGRAM ER 2OO5 GE VI RO N MEN NG AND CO enclosed within temporary sheds or insulation barriers, or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

4.11.3.lC. If pile-driving occrrs as pafi of the
be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
through Friday, witl¡ no pile driving permitted
project, it shall
p.m., Mondaybetween 12:30
and 1:30 p.m. No pile driving shall be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
4 11.3.1D. To frrther mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts, a set ofsite-specific noise attenuation measures shall be completed under the supervision ofa qualified acoustical consultant. Thisplan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved.

These attenuation measures shall include as many of the following control strategies as feasible and shall beimplemented prior to any required pile-driving activities: . Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirementsand conditions; r Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site; . Utilize noise control blankets on the building struchre as itis erected to reduce noise emission from the site; . Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receívers by lemporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and . Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

CDD/BOCDDIBO
BiC
C
Project proponent shall incorporateMitigation Measure4.11.3.1.D. on grading and construction drawings for review
and approval by City.

Project proponent shall incorporatemitigation Measure

4.11.3.1.C on construction drawings for review and
approval by City.

A
A
214
4 Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible for
Nlonitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Date/lnitials
Sanctions for
Non-Compli4nce
9 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\'IIE\GeneIaI Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCp.doc (6/2112005)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC
JUNE 2OO5 CITY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 GENf,RAL ]ILAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRON¡VIENTAL IIVTPACT REPORT IlTITIGATION MON¡TORING AND COIVIPLIANCE PROGRAM

4.11.3.1E. A process with the following components shall beestablished for responding to and tracking complaintspertaining to pile-driving consfnrction noise : . A procedure for notifying City staff and Police Departrnent; . A list of telephone numbers (dwing regular construction hours and off-hours); . A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to complaintprocedures and who to notify in the event of a problem; . Designation of a construction complaint managû for the project; and . A requirement to notify of neighbors within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance ofpiledriving activities.

4.11.8.24. Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses and that are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 57 dBA CNEL should be equipped with air conditioning or
mechanical ventílation to allow the windows and doors to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, thus reducingnoise levels below the level of significance (45 dBA CNEL).4.11.8.2R Buildings associated with noise-sensitive uses andthat are directly exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 69 dBA CNEL should incorporate mitigation measures such as building façade upgrades.4.11.8.2C. Outdoor active use areas, such as bacþards and school playgrounds, would need to be protected by
freestanding sound walls along the property boundaries whereexposed to noise levels above 70 dBA.

4. I 5.5. 14. Prior to the construction of any structure within ten feet of an abandoned well, a leak test shall be performed in accordance with the standards of the California Division of Oil CDD
CDDIBO
CDDIBO
CDD/BO
CDDÆO B
B/C
B
B
B
Review of Building
Construction Plans.

Review of site and
construction plans
Review of Building
Construction Plans.

Review of Building
Constuction Plans.

Projeci proponent shall include procedure established
under MitigationMeasure 4.11.3.1.8.
with grading and
constructions plansfor approval by City.
rI
C
A/B/C
C
C
A/C/D
2 222
214
IVlitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsihle fbr
Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequenc¡,
Timing of
Verilïcation
Method ol'
Verification
Verifìed
Date/lnitials
Sanrctions for
Non-Cornpliance
J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WAYNE\General Plan Update\Staff Reports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.doc (6/2112005) 10

LSA ASSOCIATÊS, TNC
JUNE 2OO5 CITY OF SHAFTER 2OO5 GENER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IvIITIGATION IvIoNIToRING AND coMpLAL PLAN UPDATE IMPACT REPORT IANCE PROGRAM4.15.5.18. Well access must be provided for all abandonedwells according to CDOGGR standards. and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR) standards. Should
a leak be detected, it shall be repaired according to CDOGGRguidelines.Gas

4.15.6.18. The City shall review all development proposalsprior to approval to guarantee that energy conservation and efficiency standards of Titte 24 are met and are incorporatedinto the design of firture development.

4.15.6.14. The City shall review all development proposals prior to the aþproval of development plans tã guarãnteè that suffi.cient energy resources and facilities are available to supplyadequate energy to the proposed project and associated uses.

4.15.5.1C. The construction of any stnrctuïe over an abandoned well site is not recommended; however, should a building beallowed over a well site, a vent system must be constructed as per CDOGGR guidelines.

CDD
CDD/BO
CDD
BO A/B
A
A/B
A/B
Review of building
construction plans.

Review of
development plans.

Review of site and
construction Plans.

Review of site and
construction Plans.

C
B

NBICNBIC
2 222
Mitigation Measure No. /
lmplementing Action
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
VerifTcation
Method of
Verification
Sanctions for
Ncn-Compliance
Monitoring
Frequency
Verified
Date/lnitials
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
CDD Community Development
Director or designee
CE City Engineer or designee
BO Building Offrcial or designee
PO Police Captain or designee
FC Fire Chief or designee
A With Each New
Development
B Prior To Consíuction
C ThroughoutConshuction
D On Completion
E Operating
A On-site Inspection
B Other Agency Permit / Approval
C Plan Check
D Separate Submittal (Reports / Srudies
/ Plans)
Withhold Recordation of Final MapWithhold Grading or Building PermirWithhold Certificate of Occupancy Stop Work Order
Retain Deposit or BondsRevoke CIIP
Citation
1 2J
4 56
1 J:\USERS\ENG-PLAN\WA\1{E\GeneraI Plan Update\StaffReports\Final Exhibit C - MMCP.cloc (6/21/2005) 11

EXHIBIT 5

ADDENDUM TO

CITY OF SHAFTER
2005 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

AND RELATED ACTIONS

CERTIFIED FINAL PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(State Clearinghouse No. 2004101029)
FOR
Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-03
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
October 20, 2022

2 I. INTRODUCTION
On June 2, 2005, the City Council of the City of Shafter updated the Shafter 1993 General Plan.

The 2005 General Plan Update provides policies that guide development and environmental management. Specific land uses and densities are identified for land and resources within the adopted General Plan Area Boundary. The environmental effects of those actions were analyzed in a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) (SCH No. 2004101029) that was certified by the Shafter City Council on June 21, 2005 (Resolution No. 05-1738). The adoption of the 2005 General Plan Update and environmental analysis included the adoption of subject Specific Plan area for urban residential development (Resolution No. 05-1739). The Heritage Ranch Specific Plan was originally adopted in 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-574) and subsequently was amended in 2014 (Ordinance No. 658) and in 2017 (Ordinance No. 699).

Lennar Homes of California is requesting an amendment to the adopted Heritage Ranch Specific Plan for minor changes to the project name, residential land use and development standards. The changes to the plan include:
• Changing the name of the Specific Plan to Marcona Preserve; • Removing the provisions for a gated, age-restricted neighborhood with privately maintained infrastructure;
• Removing the plans for a community swimming pool and recreation building; • Revising the development standards related to minimum lot size and minimum building setbacks;
• Increasing the allowed lot coverage:
• Replacing the house elevations and floor plans with Lennar Homes product lines; and, • Making minor corrections, changes, and updates to the Specific Plan text.

The amendment does not include any changes to the land use plan or change the existing adopted residential, park, or school development densities.

An addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH No. 2004101029), which includes the adopted Heritage Ranch Specific Plan, has been prepared for Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-03. The certified Program EIR and Addendum adequately describe the activity of the residential development proposed in Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-03.

Because the proposal is within the scope of the overall project analyzed in the certified program environmental impact report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (i.e., no new urban type development or densities is being proposed or changed with the project), no additional environmental documentation is required. This addendum to the certified final program environmental impact report (SCH 2004101029) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15164 to aid in the review of the proposal.

3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lennar Homes of California is requesting an amendment to the adopted Heritage Ranch Specific Plan for minor changes to the project name, residential land use and development standards. The changes to the plan include:
• Changing the name of the Specific Plan to Marcona Preserve; • Removing the provisions for a gated, age-restricted neighborhood with privately maintained infrastructure;
• Removing the plans for a community swimming pool and recreation building; • Revising the development standards related to minimum lot size and minimum building setbacks;
• Increasing the allowed lot coverage:
• Replacing the house elevations and floor plans with Lennar Homes product lines; and, • Making minor corrections, changes, and updates to the Specific Plan text.

The amendment does not include any changes to the land use plan or change the existing adopted residential, park, or school development densities.

III. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE
The Heritage Ranch Specific Plan is located in the southeast portion of the City of Shafter, generally north of Seventh Standard Road between the Friant-Kern Canal and the Calloway Canal within Section 36, T28S, R26E, MDB&M.

IV. PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
The purpose of the Addendum is to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the minor modifications to the project description described in the Final Program EIR for the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029) as certified by the City of Shafter on June 21, 2005.

V. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
According to Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency or the responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that, for a project covered by a certified EIR, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR rather than an addendum is required only if one or more of the following conditions occur:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

4 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

None of the above situations can be attributed to the proposed project. The level of overall development potential analyzed as part of the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) is identical to that under the proposed project. The project will not permit or induce any new urban type development or densities with the proposed minor amendment.

Because the current proposal does not increase development intensities beyond the levels considered in the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029), no additional significant impacts are present, nor is the severity of known significant impacts increased. Although no changes to significant impacts are identified, the existing significant impacts and significant and unavoidable impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources (regarding conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban uses), Air Quality (regarding stationary and mobile resource emissions), Water Resources (regarding the lack of demonstrated availability of water resources for urban development outside the city limit line and SOI in the General Plan Area Boundary), Agricultural Resources (regarding the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses and conversion of farmland under a Williamson Act contract to urban uses), and Population and Housing (regarding exceeding regional housing and population projections) still remain and require all of the Certified Final Program EIR Mitigation Measures and statements of overriding consideration adopted for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions to be adopted with approval of the proposed project. The Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of

5 Shafter will consider the addendum with the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) prior to making a decision on the project.

In accordance with Section 15164(c) of the California State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum need not be circulated for public review and an additional round of public comments, but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. The decision-making body, in this case the City Council of the City of Shafter, will consider this Addendum to the Certified Final Program EIR in conjunction with the Certified Final Program EIR and other planning documents prior to making a decision on the project [CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)].

VI. BACKGROUND
Lennar Homes of California is requesting an amendment to the adopted Heritage Ranch Specific Plan for minor changes to the project name, residential land use and development standards. The changes to the plan include:
• Changing the name of the Specific Plan to Marcona Preserve; • Removing the provisions for a gated, age-restricted neighborhood with privately maintained infrastructure;
• Removing the plans for a community swimming pool and recreation building; • Revising the development standards related to minimum lot size and minimum building setbacks;
• Increasing the allowed lot coverage:
• Replacing the house elevations and floor plans with Lennar Homes product lines; and, • Making minor corrections, changes, and updates to the Specific Plan text.

The amendment does not include any changes to the land use plan or change the existing adopted residential, park, or school development densities. Because the proposal is within the scope of the overall project analyzed in the certified program environmental impact report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions, i.e., n new urban type development or densities are proposed or induced by the project, no additional environmental documentation is required.

The City of Shafter undertook an update to its existing 1993 General Plan to plan for various land uses and regulatory components for an expanded City of Shafter General Plan Area boundary in 2005. A complete discussion of the background and various actions related to the 2005 General Plan Update is contained within the Certified Final Program EIR for the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029). The EIR was prepared as a Program EIR to address the potential significant environmental impacts of the planned future development within the 2005 General Plan Boundary. The Program EIR is also intended to be used for additional future actions necessary to implement the General Plan, including implementing proposed amendments and serve as the basis for focusing the scope of subsequent environmental analysis, such as specific development proposals that are consistent with the General Plan. Also included as part of the Certified Final Program EIR are public and agency comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, as well as the City of Shafter’s written responses to each of those comments. The Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) was certified by the Shafter City Council on June 21, 2005. In addition to the certification of the Program EIR, the City Council of the City of Shafter adopted the General Plan Update and several related

6 actions. An addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions (SCH 2004101029) for the Heritage Ranch Specific Plan was certified by the City of Shafter on February 7, 2006, under Ordinance No. 06-574 and was subsequently amended in 2014 under Ordinance No. 658 and in 2017 under Ordinance No. 699.

VII. CONTENTS OF ADDENDUM
The Addendum includes the various project descriptions, project documents and maps, and 2005 General Plan Update Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029).

VIII. SCOPE OF THE ADDENDUM
This proposed addendum to the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) addresses the following issue:

Lennar Homes of California is requesting an amendment to the adopted Gossamer Grove Lennar Homes of California is requesting an amendment to the adopted Heritage Ranch Specific Plan for minor changes to the project name, residential land use and development standards. The changes to the plan include:
• Changing the name of the Specific Plan to Marcona Preserve; • Removing the provisions for a gated, age-restricted neighborhood with privately maintained infrastructure;
• Removing the plans for a community swimming pool and recreation building; • Revising the development standards related to minimum lot size and minimum building setbacks;
• Increasing the allowed lot coverage:
• Replacing the house elevations and floor plans with Lennar Homes product lines; and, • Making minor corrections, changes, and updates to the Specific Plan text.

The amendment does not include any changes to the land use plan or change the existing adopted residential, park, or school development densities.

The proposed action is a discretionary action and it should be noted that it may not be approved pending public testimony and deliberations of the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Shafter.

IX. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The following documentation was previously prepared for the project:

1. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was mailed to a number of agencies, organizations, and interested citizens on October 6, 2004.

2. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated concurrently with the NOP.

7 3. A Notice of Completion was mailed to California’s State Clearinghouse on April 12, 2005, indicating that the Draft EIR was available for review.

4. The Draft Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) was released on April 13, 2005, and made available for a 45-day public review period which ended on May 27, 2005.

5. The Final Program EIR (SCH NO. 2004101029) was certified by the City of Shafter on June 21, 2005.

6. Notices of Determination for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions were filed and posted by the Kern County Clerk on June 22, 2005.

X. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Consistent with Section 15150 of the California State CEQA Guidelines, the following documents were used in preparation of this addendum and are incorporated herein by reference:

1. City of Shafter Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and Related Actions, April 2005 (SCH No. 2004101029).

2. City of Shafter Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Land Update and Related Actions, June 21, 2005 (SCH No. 2004101029).

3. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1738

4. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1739

5. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1740

6. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1741

7. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1742

8. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 05-567

9. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1743

10. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1744

11. City of Shafter Resolution No. 05-1745

12. Notices of Determination for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions filed and posted by the Kern County Clerk on June 22, 2005

8 13. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21, 2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Zone Change No. 06-07

14. City of Shafter Resolution No. 06-1824

15. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 06-580

16. City of Shafter Resolution No. 06-1813

17. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 05-574

18. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21-2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 14-24 dated September 23, 2014

19. City of Shafter Resolution No. 2373

20. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 662

21. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21-2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 16-27 dated January 21, 2016

22. City of Shafter Resolution No. 2452

23. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 681

24. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21, 2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 17-01 dated July 6, 2017

25. City of Shafter Resolution No. 2542

26. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 699

27. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21, 2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 17-02 dated February 1, 2018

28. City of Shafter Resolution No. 2574

29. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 704

9 30. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21-2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Zone Change No. 15-60 dated May 21, 2018.

31. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 705

32. Certified addendum to the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (and Related Actions) Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 21-2005 (SCH No. 2004101029) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 21-04 dated December 2, 2021.

33. City of Shafter Resolution No. 2844

34. City of Shafter Ordinance No. 732

35. City of Shafter Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Municipal Code)

36. City of Shafter General Plan

PROJECT ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR
The City of Shafter’s 2005 General Plan Update and related actions included a comprehensive revision and update to the City of Shafter’s 1993 General Plan, expansion of the General Plan Area Boundary, adoption of two Specific Plans located along the north side of Seventh Standard Road (Coberly West and Mission Lakes), annexation of lands within the southeastern portion of the General Plan Area Boundary, pre-zoning of the proposed annexation area, cancellation of Certain Williamson Act contracts within lands proposed to be annexed, and expansion of the North of the River Municipal Water District. The General Plan is the City’s most important statement regarding its ultimate physical, economic, and cultural development, and will be used by officials and others to guide decisions governing development and management of human and natural resources. The General Plan uses text, maps, and illustrations to document the organization of physical, environmental, economic, and social activities desired by the City’s residents in order to create and maintain a healthful, functional, and desirable community. The 2005 General Plan Update addresses immediate and long-term issues including traffic, expansion of the local employment base, provision of public services, and environmental constraints. The goal of the General Plan is to provide a consistent policy guide, which incorporates public health, safety, and “quality of life” considerations.

The two Specific Plans adopted along the north side of Seventh Standard Road in the southeastern portion of the General Plan Area Boundary are Coberly West Specific Plan and Mission Lakes Specific Plan. The Coberly West Specific Plan encompasses approximately 830 acres, 764.8 of which are to be devoted to the development of 3,432 dwelling units. A total of 5,334 residential dwelling units are proposed in the Mission Lakes Specific Plan on 1,347 acres.

The City of Shafter annexed approximately 5,000 acres of land in the southeastern portion of the General Plan Area Boundary. All of the acreage annexed is within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) as adopted by the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

10 Concurrent with the adoption of the City’s 2005 General Plan Update, Shafter pre-zoned parcels within the Annexation 77 area. Pre-zoning of annexation territory is a pre-requisite for LAFCO review and action. The entire Annexation 77 area was pre-zoned consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the area. Two landowners petitioned for cancellation of Williamson Act contracts pursuant to Section 51280 et seq. of the California Government Code.

The cancellation petitions addressed lands within the Annexation 77 area, which are designated and zoned for “Specific Plan” land use. The North of the River Municipal Water District was expanded in the Annexation 77 area as well.

XI. CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
Reference item number II, above.

XII. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
None of the changes described in this Addendum would result in any significant environmental effects or any substantial increases in the severity of environmental effects identified in the Certified Final Program EIR for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions. The proposed minor amendments to the project name, residential land use, and development standards ensures this determination. All of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Heritage Ranch Specific Plan were adequately identified and addressed in the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029). All of the Mitigation Measures proposed in the Certified Final Program EIR were adopted for the 2005 General Plan Update and related actions. Through this Addendum, the same Mitigation Measures are adopted with project approval. As well, the existing significant and unavoidable impacts for Aesthetic and Visual Resources (regarding conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban uses), Air Quality (regarding stationary and mobile resource emissions), Water Resources (regarding the lack of demonstrated availability of water resources for urban development outside the city limit line and SOI in the General Plan Area Boundary), Agricultural Resources (regarding the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses and conversion of farmland under a Williamson Act contract to urban uses), and Population and Housing (regarding exceeding regional housing and population projections) still remain and require statements of overriding consideration in conjunction with approval of the proposed project.

The level of overall development potential analyzed as part of the Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029) for the 2005 General Plan Update is identical to that under the proposed project. The current proposal does not increase development intensities beyond the levels considered in the Certified Final Program EIR. The proposed minor amendments to the project name, residential land use and development standards ensures this determination. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented its report on global warming in 2001; however, no comments on global warming or greenhouse gas emissions were submitted for consideration under the 2005 General Plan Update Certified Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2004101029). Moreover, the proposal itself would not cause or create any greenhouse gas emissions. No increases in development densities are considered with the proposal. The above analysis clarifies that no additional significant impacts are present, nor will the severity of know significant impacts be increased by the proposal. Therefore, an addendum to the Certified Final

MANAGEMENT REPORT

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2022
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Rogelio Sanchez, Finance Director
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021

RECOMMENDATION

1. Council find the proposed activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, and SAS 114 letter, for the year ended June 30, 2021.

BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year 2020-21 has been completed. All reports have been audited by the City’s independent auditors. Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP (LSL), and received an unqualified audit opinion. An unqualified audit opinion is informally known as a “clean opinion” and is issued when the financial statements are prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The documents referenced above will be presented by City staff. Kelly Telford a Partner with LSL will present the results of the audit and answer any questions from the City Council or public.

The Letter of Transmittal and Management Discussion and Analysis within the ACFR provides a narrative, financial summaries, year-over-year comparisons, and analysis of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City and the City operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. It is recommended that these documents are read in conjunction with the basic financial statements as they provide context and insight into the financial results for the year.

The Audit Opinion is located on pages 1 and 2 of the ACFR. As stated above, the City received an unqualified opinion, and the report was not completed in time to submit the ACFR to the Government Officers Finance Association (GFOA) for their review and consideration for the Excellence in Financial Reporting annual award.

The Single Audit is a mandatory report that examines the compliance requirements

ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
- 2 -
applicable to each program funded with Federal dollars, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular A-133 as long as specific criteria are met.

This year a Single Audit Compliance Report will be completed in early 2023 because the City expended more than the triggering threshold of $750,000 in federal funds. A copy of the Single Audit report will be published on the City’s website in early 2023.

Although no specific opinion is rendered on the City’s internal controls, within the scope of the audit the auditors did consider the City’s internal controls and are required, according to Governmental Auditing Standards, to report any deficiency in internal controls that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. LSL identified the following three reportable deficiencies during the audit:

1. Delay in Financial Reporting

2. Improve Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
The identified deficiencies will be explained in more detail in the Single Audit Report with corresponding recommendations and Management’s Corrective Action Plan.

In addition to the ACFR the auditors have also provided the required Statement on Auditing Standards “SAS" 114 letter. This letter is the Auditors communication directly to those charged with governance. The letter reports on issues including, but not limited to; significant audit findings, difficulties encountered in performing the audit, corrected and uncorrected misstatements, and disagreements with management. The auditors will be in attendance via ZOOM at the City Council meeting to review this letter with the Council.

ANALYSIS
The attached Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for Fiscal Year 2020-21 has a section called "Managements Discussion and Analysis" (MD&A) which provides over twenty pages in financial analysis.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

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(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines in that the action is a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
- 3 -

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
None.

NEXT STEPS
None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY 21

2. Independent Auditor's Report

3. Audit Communication Letter

CITY OF

SHAFTER
Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report
2020-2021

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
$118$/&2035(+(16,9(),1$1&,$/5(3257
)257+(<($5(1'('-81(

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
$118$/&2035(+(16,9(),1$1&,$/5(3257
)257+(<($5(1'('-81(
7$%/(2)&217(176
3DJH
,1752'8&725<6(&7,21
8QDXGLWHG

/HWWHURI7UDQVPLWWDOL 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO&KDUW[LLL ),1$1&,$/6(&7,21
,QGHSHQGHQW$XGLWRUV¶5HSRUW 0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
8QDXGLWHG
 %DVLF)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

*RYHUQPHQW:LGH)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

6WDWHPHQWRI1HW3RVLWLRQ 6WDWHPHQWRI$FWLYLWLHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ1HW3RVLWLRQ )XQG)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

%DODQFH6KHHW 5HFRQFLOLDWLRQRIWKH*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV%DODQFH6KHHW WRWKH*RYHUQPHQW:LGH6WDWHPHQWRI1HW3RVLWLRQ 6WDWHPHQWRI5HYHQXHV([SHQGLWXUHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ)XQG%DODQFHV 5HFRQFLOLDWLRQRIWKH*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV6WDWHPHQWRI5HYHQXHV ([SHQGLWXUHVDQG&KDQJHV)XQG%DODQFHVWRWKH*RYHUQPHQW:LGH 6WDWHPHQWRI$FWLYLWLHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ1HW3RVLWLRQ 3URSULHWDU\)XQGV)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

6WDWHPHQWRI1HW3RVLWLRQ 6WDWHPHQWRI5HYHQXHV([SHQVHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ)XQG1HW3RVLWLRQ 6WDWHPHQWRI&DVK)ORZV )LGXFLDU\)XQGV)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV

6WDWHPHQWRI)LGXFLDU\1HW3RVLWLRQ 6WDWHPHQWRI&KDQJHVLQ)LGXFLDU\1HW3RVLWLRQ 1RWHVWRWKH%DVLF)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQW

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
$118$/&2035(+(16,9(),1$1&,$/5(3257
)257+(<($5(1'('-81(
7$%/(2)&217(176
3DJH
5HTXLUHG6XSSOHPHQWDU\,QIRUPDWLRQ
8QDXGLWHG


1RWHVWRWKH5HTXLUHG6XSSOHPHQWDU\,QIRUPDWLRQ 
%XGJHWDU\&RPSDULVRQ6FKHGXOHV

*HQHUDO)XQG 
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 
6FKHGXOHRI&KDQJHVLQ1HW23(%/LDELOLW\DQG5HODWHG5DWLRV 
3RVW5HWLUHPHQW+HDOWK%HQHILWV 
6FKHGXOHRI3URSRUWLRQDWH6KDUHRIWKH1HW3HQVLRQ/LDELOLW\ 
0LVFHOODQHRXV3ODQ 
6DIHW\3ODQ 
6FKHGXOHVRI&RQWULEXWLRQV

0LVFHOODQHRXV3ODQ


6DIHW\3ODQ 6XSSOHPHQWDU\,QIRUPDWLRQ
1RQPDMRU*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV

&RPELQLQJ%DODQFH6KHHWV &RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWVRI5HYHQXHV([SHQGLWXUHVDQG&KDQJHLQ)XQG%DODQFH 6FKHGXOHRI5HYHQXHV([SHQGLWXUHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ)XQG%DODQFHV± %XGJHWDQG$FWXDO6FKHGXOHV

)HGHUDO*UDQW6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 7UDIILF6DIHW\6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 6/(6)*UDQWV6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 6WDWH*DVROLQH7D[6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 3ROLFH6HUYLFHV6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 
$VVHW)RUIHLWXUH 5RDG0DLQWHQDQFHDQG5HKDELOLWDWLRQ$FW6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG +RXVLQJDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW)XQG6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG /RZDQG0RGHUDWH,QFRPH+RXVLQJ6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG /LJKWLQJDQG/DQGVFDSH'LVWULFW6SHFLDO5HYHQXH)XQG 7UDIILF0LWLJDWLRQ,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG :DWHU&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG :DVWHZDWHU&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG 5HIXVH&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG 3DUN&DSLWDO,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG 
&DSLWDO$VVHW5HSODFHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG 0HGLDQ0LWLJDWLRQ,PSURYHPHQW&DSLWDO3URMHFW)XQG 1RQ0DMRU(QWHUSULVH)XQGV

&RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWRI1HW3RVLWLRQ &RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWVRI5HYHQXHV([SHQVHVDQG&KDQJHVLQ1HW3RVLWLRQ &RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWRI&DVK)ORZV

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
$118$/&2035(+(16,9(),1$1&,$/5(3257
)257+(<($5(1'('-81(
7$%/(2)&217(176
3DJH
,QWHUQDO6HUYLFH)XQGV

&RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWRI1HW3RVLWLRQ &RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWVRI5HYHQXHV([SHQVHVDQG&KDQJHLQ1HW3RVLWLRQ 
&RPELQLQJ6WDWHPHQWRI&DVK)ORZV 67$7,67,&$/6(&7,21
8QDXGLWHG

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV )LQDQFLDO7UHQGV

1HW3RVLWLRQE\&RPSRQHQW±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV &KDQJHVLQ1HW3RVLWLRQ±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV *RYHUQPHQWDO$FWLYLWLHV7D[5HYHQXHE\6RXUFH±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV *RYHUQPHQWDO$FWLYLWLHV6DOHV7D[5HYHQXHVE\%XVLQHVV&DWHJRU\± /DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV )XQG%DODQFHVRI*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV &KDQJHVLQ)XQG%DODQFHVRI*RYHUQPHQWDO)XQGV±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV *HQHUDO*RYHUQPHQWDO5HYHQXHVE\6RXUFH±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 5HYHQXH&DSDFLW\

$VVHVVHG9DOXHRI7D[DEOH3URSHUW\±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 'LUHFWDQG2YHUODSSLQJ3URSHUW\7D[5DWHV±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 3ULQFLSDO3URSHUW\7D[SD\HUV±&XUUHQW<HDUDQG1LQH<HDUV$JR 3URSHUW\7D[/HYLHVDQG&ROOHFWLRQV±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 'HEW&DSDFLW\

5DWLRVRI2XWVWDQGLQJ'HEWE\7\SH±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV +LVWRULFDODQG2YHUODSSLQJ'HEW±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 'LUHFWDQG2YHUODSSLQJ'HEW 'HPRJUDSKLFDQG(FRQRPLF,QIRUPDWLRQ

'HPRJUDSKLFDQG(FRQRPLF6WDWLVWLFV±/DVW7HQ&DOHQGDU<HDUV 3ULQFLSDO(PSOR\HUV±&XUUHQW<HDUDQG7HQ<HDUV$JR 2SHUDWLQJ,QIRUPDWLRQ

)XOO7LPHDQG3DUW7LPH&LW\(PSOR\HHVE\)XQFWLRQ±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 2SHUDWLQJ,QGLFDWRUVE\)XQFWLRQ±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV &DSLWDO$VVHWV6WDWLVWLFVE\)XQFWLRQ±/DVW7HQ)LVFDO<HDUV 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California 93263
1RYHPEHU
+RQRUDEOH0D\RU
0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLO
&LWL]HQVRIWKH
&LW\RI6KDIWHU
7KH$QQXDO&RPSUHKHQVLYH)LQDQFLDO5HSRUW
$&)5
RIWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU
&LW\
IRUWKH
ILVFDO\HDUZKLFKHQGHG-XQHLVKHUHE\VXEPLWWHG5HVSRQVLELOLW\IRUERWKWKH DFFXUDF\RIWKHGDWDDQGWKHFRPSOHWHQHVVDQGIDLUQHVVRIWKHSUHVHQWDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJ DOO GLVFORVXUHV UHVWV ZLWK WKH &LW\  7R SURYLGH D UHDVRQDEOH EDVLV IRU PDNLQJ WKHVH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D FRPSUHKHQVLYH LQWHUQDOFRQWUROIUDPHZRUNWKDWLVGHVLJQHGERWKWRSURWHFWWKHJRYHUQPHQW¶VDVVHWVIURP ORVVWKHIWRUPLVXVHDQGWRFRPSLOHVXIILFLHQWUHOLDEOHLQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRI WKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU¶VILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVLQFRQIRUPLW\ZLWKJHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGDFFRXQWLQJ SULQFLSOHV
*$$3
%HFDXVHWKHFRVWRILQWHUQDOFRQWUROVVKRXOGQRWRXWZHLJKWKHLUEHQHILWV WKH &LW\¶V FRPSUHKHQVLYHIUDPHZRUN RI LQWHUQDO FRQWUROV KDV EHHQ GHVLJQHGWR SURYLGH UHDVRQDEOHUDWKHUWKDQDEVROXWHDVVXUDQFHWKDWWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVZLOOEHIUHHIURP PDWHULDOPLVVWDWHPHQW$VPDQDJHPHQWZHDVVHUWWKDWWRWKHEHVWRIRXUNQRZOHGJHDQG EHOLHIWKLVILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLVFRPSOHWHDQGUHOLDEOHLQDOOPDWHULDOUHVSHFWV 7KH&LW\¶VILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVKDYHEHHQDXGLWHGE\/DQFH6ROO /XQJKDUG//3 /6/

7KHJRDORIWKHLQGHSHQGHQWDXGLWZDVWRSURYLGHUHDVRQDEOHDVVXUDQFHWKDWWKHILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV RI WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU IRU WKH ILVFDO \HDU HQGHG -XQH   DUH IUHH RI PDWHULDO PLVVWDWHPHQW 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW DXGLW LQYROYHG H[DPLQLQJ RQ D WHVW EDVLV HYLGHQFHVXSSRUWLQJWKHDPRXQWVDQGGLVFORVXUHVLQWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV DVVHVVLQJ
WKH DFFRXQWLQJ SULQFLSOHV XVHG DQG VLJQLILFDQW HVWLPDWHV PDGH E\ PDQDJHPHQW  DQG
HYDOXDWLQJ WKH RYHUDOO ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQW SUHVHQWDWLRQ 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW DXGLWRU FRQFOXGHG EDVHG XSRQ WKH DXGLW WKDW WKHUH ZDV D UHDVRQDEOH EDVLV IRU UHQGHULQJ DQ XQPRGLILHGRSLQLRQWKDWWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHUILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVIRUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG -XQHDUHIDLUO\SUHVHQWHGLQFRQIRUPLW\ZLWK*$$37KHLQGHSHQGHQWDXGLWRU¶V UHSRUWLVSUHVHQWHGDVWKHILUVWFRPSRQHQWRIWKHILQDQFLDOVHFWLRQRIWKLVUHSRUW 7\SLFDOO\WKHLQGHSHQGHQWDXGLWRIWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVRIWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHULVDSDUW RIDEURDGHUIHGHUDOO\PDQGDWHG ³6LQJOH$XGLW´GHVLJQHGWRPHHWWKH VSHFLDOQHHGVRI IHGHUDOJUDQWRUDJHQFLHV7KHVWDQGDUGVJRYHUQLQJ6LQJOH$XGLWHQJDJHPHQWVUHTXLUHWKH LQGHSHQGHQWDXGLWRUWRUHSRUWQRWRQO\RQWKHIDLUSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV EXW DOVR RQ WKH DXGLWHG JRYHUQPHQW¶V LQWHUQDO FRQWUROV DQG FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK OHJDO UHTXLUHPHQWVZLWKVSHFLDOHPSKDVLVRQLQWHUQDOFRQWUROVDQGOHJDOUHTXLUHPHQWVLQYROYLQJ WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQRIIHGHUDODZDUGV7KHVHUHSRUWVDUHDYDLODEOHLQWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU¶V VHSDUDWHO\LVVXHG6LQJOH$XGLW5HSRUW
i

*$$3UHTXLUHWKDWPDQDJHPHQWSURYLGHDQDUUDWLYHLQWURGXFWLRQRYHUYLHZDQGDQDO\VLV WRDFFRPSDQ\WKHEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVLQWKHIRUPRI0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG $QDO\VLV
0' $
 7KLV OHWWHU RI WUDQVPLWWDO LV GHVLJQHG WR FRPSOHPHQW WKH 0' $ DQG VKRXOG EH UHDG LQ   FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK LW 7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU¶V 0' $ FDQ EH IRXQG LPPHGLDWHO\IROORZLQJWKHUHSRUWRIWKHLQGHSHQGHQWDXGLWRUV 3URILOHRIWKH*RYHUQPHQW
7KH&LW\ RI6KDIWHU LV ORFDWHG LQWKH VRXWKHUQ SRUWLRQ RIWKH6DQ -RDTXLQ9DOOH\ LQWKH &RXQW\RI.HUQ7KLVSRUWLRQRI&DOLIRUQLDLVSULPDULO\UXUDOLQQDWXUHDQGKHDYLO\LQYHVWHG LQ DJULFXOWXUH DQG RLO JDV SURGXFWLRQ7KH&LW\ZDVIRXQGHG LQ  LQFRUSRUDWHG LQ

 DQG EHFDPH D &KDUWHU &LW\ LQ 

 7KH &LW\ FXUUHQWO\ RFFXSLHV D ODQG DUHD RI
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
DORQJZLWKRWKHUUHFUHDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHVDQGFXOWXUDOHYHQWV7KH &LW\FRQWUDFWVZLWKWKH&RXQW\RI.HUQIRUILUHSURWHFWLRQ$PEXODQFHVHUYLFHVDUHSURYLGHG E\DSULYDWHFRPSDQ\FRQWUDFWHGZLWKWKH&RXQW\RI.HUQ7KLV UHSRUWLQFOXGHVDOOIXQG W\SHVDQGDFFRXQWJURXSVRIWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHUDQGWKH6XFFHVVRU$JHQF\WRWKH6KDIWHU &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW$JHQF\
2WKHUJRYHUQPHQWDOHQWLWLHVDOVRSURYLGHVHUYLFHVZLWKLQWKH6KDIWHUFLW\OLPLWVLQFOXGLQJ EXWQRWOLPLWHGWR
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¶VILQDQFLDOSODQQLQJDQG FRQWURO$OOGHSDUWPHQWVZLWKLQWKH&LW\DUHUHTXLUHGWRVXEPLWUHTXHVWVIRUDSSURSULDWLRQV IRUWKHXSFRPLQJEXGJHW\HDUWRWKH&LW\0DQDJHU7KH&LW\0DQDJHUDQGWKH)LQDQFH 'LUHFWRUXVHWKHVHUHTXHVWVDVDVWDUWLQJSRLQWIRUGHYHORSLQJWKHSURSRVHGEXGJHW7KH &LW\PDNHVVXVWDLQDEOHEXGJHWLQJDWRSSULRULW\DQGDWVHYHUDOVWDJHVLQWKHEXGJHWDU\ SURFHVV FRPSXWDWLRQV DUH PDGH WR HQVXUH RQJRLQJ H[SHQGLWXUHV GR QRW H[FHHG FRQVHUYDWLYHO\ HVWLPDWHG RQJRLQJ UHYHQXHV  7KH &LW\ 0DQDJHU WKHQ SUHVHQWV WKH SURSRVHGEXGJHWWRWKH&LW\&RXQFLOIRUUHYLHZRQRUEHIRUH-XQHVWRIHDFK\HDU7KH &LW\&RXQFLOWKHQDGRSWVWKHDQQXDOEXGJHWE\DIILUPDWLYHPDMRULW\YRWHRQRUEHIRUH-XQH WKRIHDFK\HDU7KH&LW\0DQDJHUPD\WUDQVIHUPRQLHVEHWZHHQGHSDUWPHQWVGLYLVLRQV SURJUDPVDQGDFFRXQWVZLWKLQIXQGVDQGGHSDUWPHQWV6XSSOHPHQWDODSSURSULDWLRQVWRWKH EXGJHWFDQEHPDGHE\WKH&LW\&RXQFLOEXWUHTXLUHWKH&LW\0DQDJHUWRFHUWLI\WKDWPRQLHV LQH[FHVVRIWKRVHHVWLPDWHGLQWKHEXGJHWDUHDYDLODEOHIRUDSSURSULDWLRQ%XGJHWWRDFWXDO FRPSDULVRQV DUH SURYLGHG LQ WKLV UHSRUW IRU HDFK LQGLYLGXDO JRYHUQPHQWDO IXQG WKLV FRPSDULVRQLVSUHVHQWHGLQWKHUHTXLUHGVXSSOHPHQWDU\LQIRUPDWLRQ 56,
VHFWLRQRIWKLV
UHSRUW
ii

)DFWRUV$IIHFWLQJ)LQDQFLDO&RQGLWLRQ
7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU LV LQ D UHODWLYHO\ VWURQJ ILQDQFLDO FRQGLWLRQ ZLWK UHFXUULQJ UHYHQXHV H[FHHGLQJ UHFXUULQJ H[SHQGLWXUHV RQ DQ RQJRLQJ EDVLV DQG DGHTXDWH IXQG EDODQFH WR FRYHUFXUUHQWOLDELOLWLHVDQGDSUXGHQWUHVHUYHOHYHO7KLVFDQEHDWWULEXWHGWRWKH&LW\¶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¶VSHQVLRQSODQVDQGHOLPLQDWHWKH SHQVLRQOLDELOLW\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHGXFWLRQLQWKH&DO3(56DVVXPHGHDUQLQJVUDWHWR SHUFHQW
7KH&LW\KDVDKLJKUHYHQXHFRQFHQWUDWLRQLQVDOHVWD[HVZLWKVLJQLILFDQWOHYHOVRIVDOHV WD[HV JHQHUDWHG E\ D VPDOO QXPEHU RIWD[ SD\HUV DORQJ ZLWK D KLJK FRQFHQWUDWLRQ ULVN ZLWKLQWKHRLOVHUYLFHVEXVLQHVVVHFWRU7RPLWLJDWHWKLVULVNWKH&LW\&RXQFLOKDVDSSURYHG D )XQG%DODQFH3ROLF\ UHTXLULQJ DPLQLPXP RI  SHUFHQW RI QH[W \HDU¶V JHQHUDOIXQG DQQXDO EXGJHWHG RSHUDWLQJ H[SHQGLWXUHV LQ 8QDVVLJQHG )XQG %DODQFH RI WKH *HQHUDO)XQG7KH&LW\¶VFXUUHQWXQDVVLJQHGIXQGEDODQFHOHYHOVH[FHHGWKLVDPRXQW 7KH&LW\KDVDVVLJQHGSRUWLRQVRIWKHJHQHUDOIXQGEDODQFHIRURSSRUWXQLWLHVWRUHLQYHVW H[FHVVIXQGVLQRQHWLPHVWUDWHJLFSURMHFWVWREHQHILWWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGSD\PHQWVWRZDUG XQIXQGHG OLDELOLWLHV 7KHVH DVVLJQPHQWV DUH H[FOXGHG IURP WKH PLQLPXP IXQG EDODQFH FDOFXODWLRQV
6WDWHZLGHDQGUHJLRQDOHFRQRP\
7KH&RQVXPHU3ULFH,QGH[
&3,8
IRUWKH/RV$QJHOHV&$DUHDWKHFORVHVWSXEOLVKHG
PHDVXUHWRWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU,WLVOLNHO\WKDWWKHZRUVWHIIHFWVRIWKH&29,' SDQGHPLF
DUHEHKLQGXV+RZHYHUZHIDFHQHZHFRQRPLFFKDOOHQJHVLQLQIODWLRQDQGDSRWHQWLDO UHFHVVLRQ 7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU H[SHFWV UHYHQXH DQG H[SHQVH LQFUHDVHV FRPSDUHG WR SUHYLRXV\HDUVDVWKHFLW\FRQWLQXHVWRJURZ
KRZHYHUFXUUHQWHFRQRPLFFRQGLWLRQVFRXOG
GLVUXSWWKH&LW\¶VODUJHVWUHYHQXHVRXUFHZKLFKLV6DOHV7D[HV 7KH &LW\¶V 6DOHV 7D[ &RQVXOWDQWV DUH RSWLPLVWLF RQ WKHLU )<  VDOHV WD[ UHYHQXH IRUHFDVWEXWLWLVZRUWKSRLQWLQJRXWWKDWWKHQDWLRQKDVH[SHULHQFHGKLJKLQIODWLRQ UDWHV RYHUWKHSDVW\HDU&XUUHQWLQIODWLRQUDWHVDUHDWD\HDUKLJKDQGKDYHOHGWKH)HGHUDO 5HVHUYHWRLQFUHDVH FXUUHQWLQWHUHVW UDWHV7KHQDWLRQ¶VHFRQRP\KDVH[SHULHQFHGWZR FRQVHFXWLYHTXDUWHUVRIQHJDWLYHUHDO*'3JURZWKLQZKLFKFRQVWLWXWHVDUHFHVVLRQ 7KHUHFHVVLRQHIIHFWVRQ6DOHV7D[HVZLOOSUREDEO\QRWEHIHOWXQWLOWKHHQGRI 7KH HIIHFWV RI FXUUHQW UHFHVVLRQ DQG LWV LPSDFW RQ HPSOR\PHQW UHPDLQV WR EH VHHQ 'HVSLWH UHFHQW DQG IUHTXHQW KLNHV IURP WKH )HGHUDO 5HVHUYHV RQ LQWHUHVW UDWHV ZH FRQWLQXHWRVHHDUHDVRQDEOHXQHPSOR\PHQWUDWH
KRZHYHUWKHFXUUHQWUHFHVVLRQLVDWWKH
HDUO\VWDJHVZKHUHLQIODWLRQQHHGVWREHFRQWUROOHG iii

Source: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/newsrelease/consumerpriceindex_losangeles.htm 8QHPSOR\PHQW5DWH+LVWRULFDO7UHQG
&DOLIRUQLDYV.HUQ&RXQW\


6RXUFH
86%XUHDXRI/DERU6WDWLVWLFV


iv

7KHUHLVQRWDUHOLDEOHVRXUFHRIGDWDWRPHDVXUHWKHVSHFLILFXQHPSOR\PHQWUDWHLQWKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU 7KH &LW\¶V HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW DFWLYLWLHV KDYH VXFFHVVIXOO\ FUHDWHG OLWHUDOO\ WKRXVDQGV RI QHZ MREV ZLWKLQ WKH SDVW VHYHUDO \HDUV PDLQO\ LQ WKH ORJLVWLFV ZDUHKRXVLQJ DQG WKH RLO DQG JDV VHFWRUV 7KHVH QHZ MREV FRQWLQXH WR SURYLGH UHDO RSSRUWXQLWLHVWR6KDIWHU¶VXQHPSOR\HG
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
KRZHYHUWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDKDVFRQVLVWHQWO\GHPRQVWUDWHGDFOHDUKRVWLOLW\WRZDUGV IRVVLOIXHOVZKHUH.HUQ&RXQW\KDVQRWREWDLQHGQHZGULOOLQJSHUPLWV'HVSLWHKLJKGHPDQG LQFUXGHDQGSURFHVVHGRLO
HFRQRPLFEHQHILWVIURPIRVVLOIXHOZLWKLQ&DOLIRUQLDZLOOFRQWLQXH WRGHWHULRUDWHXQOHVVGULOOLQJSHUPLWVDUH UHVWRUHGDQGWKH FRGLILHGSKDVHRXWRIH[LVWLQJ GULOOLQJLVUHYHUVHG
<HDU3ULFHSHU%DUUHORI&UXGH2LO
Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil 2YHUWKHSDVW \HDUWKHORFDOKRXVLQJPDUNHWLQ6KDIWHUKDVEHHQH[WUHPHO\ VWURQJDQG VLPLODUVLJQQDWLRQDOO\ZLWKUHFHQWVLJQVRIGHFUHDVH7KHPHGLDQKRPHSULFHVQDWLRQZLGH LQFUHDVHGEHWZHHQDQGE\SHUFHQW,Q&DOLIRUQLDKRXVLQJSRVWHGDQRYHUDOO LQFUHDVHRISHUFHQWRYHUWKHSDVW\HDU,Q.HUQ&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLDWKHPHGLDQKRPH v

SULFH KDV LQFUHDVHG  SHUFHQW RYHU WKH SDVW \HDU +RPHV LQ WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU &DOLIRUQLDVDZDQLQFUHDVHRISHUFHQWRYHUWKHSDVW\HDU+RXVLQJLQYHQWRU\LQWKH KLVWRULFDOFRUHRI6KDIWHUKDVEHHQYHU\WLJKWIRUWKHSDVWIHZ\HDUVZLWKIHZXQLWVXSIRU VDOHDQGRQO\DVPDOOLQYHQWRU\RIEXLOGDEOHORWV7KDWLVFKDQJLQJDVWKUHHQHZKRXVLQJ GHYHORSPHQWV DW D YDULHW\ RI SULFH SRLQWV DUH LQ YDULRXV VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW ,Q 6RXWKHDVW6KDIWHUERUGHULQJWKH&LW\RI%DNHUVILHOGDODUJH/HQQDU+RPHVGHYHORSPHQW QDPHG*RVVDPHU*URYHEHJDQVHOOLQJKRPHVLQ7KLVGHYHORSPHQWLVSODQQHGIRU VLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHVDQGWKH&LW\LVDQWLFLSDWLQJDQDQQXDOEXLOGRXWUDWHEHWZHHQ  DQG  XQLWV 7KLV GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO FRQWLQXHWR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW LPSDFW RQWKH &LW\¶V SRSXODWLRQ JURZWK LQFUHDVHV LQ PHGLDQ KRPH SULFHV DQG LQFUHDVHV LQ WRWDO DVVHVVHGYDOXDWLRQ7ZRDGGLWLRQDOKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWVQHLJKERULQJ*RVVDPHU*URYH DUHHQWLWOHGZKLFKZLOOFRQWLQXHWRDGGWRGHYHORSPHQWLQWKLVSRUWLRQRI6KDIWHU$VDUHVXOW RIDOOWKLVGHYHORSPHQW6KDIWHUKDGDQLQFUHDVHRISHUFHQWLQSRSXODWLRQRYHUWKHSDVW \HDUFRPSRXQGHGRQSHUFHQWLQDQG
SHUFHQWLQ
PDNLQJ6KDIWHURQHRI
WKHIDVWHVW JURZLQJ FRPPXQLWLHV LQ.HUQ &RXQW\ DV ZHOO DV RQH RIWKHIDVWHVW JURZLQJ FRPPXQLWLHVLQWKH6WDWH
/RFDO(FRQRPLF+LVWRU\
7KH6KDIWHU&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW$JHQF\DFWLYDWHGLQ 

ZDVDYDOXDEOHZLGHUDQJLQJWRROWRVSXUHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQW7KDWFKDQJHGLQ ZKHQWKH 6WDWH RI &DOLIRUQLD SDVVHG OHJLVODWLRQ GLVVROYLQJ DOO UHGHYHORSPHQW DJHQFLHV :LWK QR IXUWKHU 6WDWH IDFLOLWDWHG WRROV DYDLODEOH WKH &LW\ IRFXVHG LQWHUQDOO\ WR JURZ LWV HFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWSURJUDPDQGPDLQWDLQDQHQYLURQPHQWZKHUHEXVLQHVVHVFDQEH VXFFHVVIXO:LWKWKLVIRFXVDQGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK&LW\OHDGHUVKLSDQGSODQQLQJDVVHWV ZHUH SXW LQ SODFH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D VWURQJ DQG GLYHUVH ORFDO EXVLQHVV FRPPXQLW\
$JULFXOWXUHDQGHQHUJ\KDYHKLVWRULFDOO\EHHQWKHHFRQRPLFDQFKRUVIRU6KDIWHUZLWK RIWKHWRWDOZRUNIRUFHHPSOR\HGLQVRPHDUHDRIDJULFXOWXUH+RZHYHUDVWKHJHRJUDSKLFDO FHQWHU RI &DOLIRUQLD ORFDWHG EHWZHHQ WKH PDMRU , DQG

 )UHHZD\V 6KDIWHU EHFDPH
DWWUDFWLYH WR WKH ORJLVWLFV DQG GLVWULEXWLRQ LQGXVWU\ 3DUDPRXQW /RJLVWLFV 3DUN ZDV GHYHORSHGRQDFUHVERUGHULQJWKHPDLQOLQH%16)5DLOURDGWUDFNVLVQRZNQRZQDV :RQGHUIXO,QGXVWULDO3DUN
7DUJHW&RUSRUDWLRQ
1<6(
7*7
ZDVWKHILUVWWRFRPHWR6KDIWHUZLWKWKHLU
PLOOLRQ
VTXDUH IRRW ZDUHKRXVH GLVWULEXWLRQ FHQWHU LQ  ,Q  :LOOLDPV6RQRPD '7&

1<6(
:60
D&DOLIRUQLDVDOHVFRPSDQ\WKDWLQFOXGHVWKH:HVW(OPDQG3RWWHU\%DUQ EUDQGVORFDWHGWKHLU:HVW&RDVWLQWHUQHWDQGFDWDORJVDOHVRIILFHVLQWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU ,Q:LOOLDPV6RQRPDH[SDQGHGWKHLURSHUDWLRQVLQ6KDIWHUE\LQFUHDVLQJERWKVTXDUH IRRWDJH DQG HPSOR\PHQW DQG WKHQ FRPSOHWHG D VHFRQG H[SDQVLRQ LQ  &HPH[&RQVWUXFWLRQDOVRRSHQHGD UHJLRQDOVDOHVIDFLOLW\LQWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHULQ DQGWKHQH[SDQGHGWKHLUORFDORSHUDWLRQLQE\FRQVROLGDWLQJWKHLUVRXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD RSHUDWLRQVLQWR6KDIWHU
,QWZRPDMRUFRUSRUDWLRQVFRQVWUXFWHGQHZIDFLOLWLHVLQ6KDIWHU0,6ZDFRDGLYLVLRQ RI6FKOXPEHUJHU/LPLWHG
1<6(
6/%
EXLOWDQGRFFXSLHGDQHZVTXDUHIRRWIDFLOLW\
RQ  DFUHV WR SURYLGH RLO UHODWHG VHUYLFHV DQG VXSSOLHV %DNHU +XJKHV ,QFRUSRUDWHG

1<6(
%+,
FRPSOHWHGVTXDUHIHHWRIEXLOGLQJVIRUWKHLUQHZFRUSRUDWHFDPSXV RQ  DFUHV LQWKH &LW\ RI6KDIWHU:HDWKHUIRUG,QWHUQDWLRQDO 1<6(
:)7
 DQRWKHU RLO
VHUYLFHVUHODWHGFRPSDQ\FRPSOHWHGFRQVWUXFWLRQLQRIDQHZPDQXIDFWXULQJIDFLOLW\ RQ  DFUHV  7KHVH HQHUJ\ VHFWRU FRPSDQLHV KDG EXVLQHVV WR EXVLQHVV UHWDLO VDOHV FRPSRQHQWVSXUFKDVHGUDLOVHUYLFHVIURPWKH&LW\DQGSURYLGHGKXQGUHGVRIMREV vi

%HWZHHQDQGLQGXVWULDOJURZWKLQ6KDIWHUFRQWLQXHGDV:RQGHUIXO5HDO(VWDWH 'HYHORSPHQW EURXJKW VHYHUDO QHZ EXVLQHVVHV LQWR WKH :RQGHUIXO ,QGXVWULDO 3DUN

IRUPHUO\ WKH 3DUDPRXQW /RJLVWLFV 3DUN
 5RVV 6WRUHV ,QF
1$6'$4
5267
 DQ
6 3)RUWXQHDQG1DVGDTFRPSDQ\FRQVWUXFWHGDPLOOLRQVTXDUHIRRW GLVWULEXWLRQIDFLOLW\)HG([
1<6(
)';
FRPSOHWHGDVTXDUHIRRWWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
IDFLOLW\ RQ  DFUHV IRFXVHG RQ VXSSRUWLQJ WKH 5RVV SURMHFW DQG RWKHU QHLJKERULQJ EXVLQHVVHV$PHULFDQ7LUH'LVWULEXWRUV,QF H[SDQGHGWKHLU RSHUDWLRQVIURP D  VTXDUHIRRWUHQWDOSURSHUW\WRDQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGPLOOLRQVTXDUHIRRWEXLOGLQJWKDWVHUYHV DV WKHLU :HVW &RDVW 'LVWULEXWLRQ &HQWHU %DNHUVILHOG 3LSH DQG 6XSSO\ ,QF FRPSOHWHG FRQVWUXFWLRQRQDDFUHSDUFHOZKLFKKRXVHVWKHLUSLSHIDEULFDWLRQ UHWDLOV VDOHVDQG GLVWULEXWLRQ EXVLQHVV 7KHVH SURMHFWV JUHZ WKH ORFDO MRE EDVH DQG HVWDEOLVKHG WKH &LW\RI6KDIWHU¶VSRVLWLRQDVDORJLVWLFDOKXEIRUJRRGVPRYHPHQWLQ&DOLIRUQLD 7KH \HDUV  DQG  EURXJKW VHYHUDO VXEVWDQWLDO LQGXVWULDO SURMHFWV WR WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU 05& *OREDO
1<6(
 05&
 GHYHORSHG D QHZ  VTXDUH IRRW SLSH
SURFHVVLQJ DQG VDOHVIDFLOLW\ ORFDWHG RQ  DFUHV ZLWKLQWKH:RQGHUIXO,QGXVWULDO3DUN 2XWVLGHRIWKH:RQGHUIXO,QGXVWULDO3DUN-6$J3DFNDJLQJ,QFDUHWDLOHURIDJULFXOWXUDO SDFNDJLQJSURGXFWVFRPSOHWHGDVTXDUHIRRWIDFLOLW\RQ DFUHVLQWKH(DVWHUQ
SRUWLRQRIWKH&LW\
,QWKH&LW\FRPSOHWHGDQHZFRQWDLQHU\DUGIDFLOLW\DGMDFHQWWRWKHFLW\RZQHGUDLOURDG WUDFNWRVXSSRUWWKHORQJVWDQGLQJLQODQGSRUWYLVLRQ7KLVIDFLOLW\FDQSURYLGHDQRUJDQL]HG DQG VHFXUH ORFDWLRQ WR H[FKDQJH LPSRUW DQG H[SRUW HTXLSPHQW DQG FDQ VWUHQJWKHQ 6KDIWHU¶VSRVLWLRQDVDNH\ORFDWLRQIRUORJLVWLFVDQGZDUHKRXVLQJLQFHQWUDO&DOLIRUQLD ,QDQG
EXVLQHVVDQGLQGXVWULDOGHYHORSPHQWJURZWKFRQWLQXHGZLWK(VVHQGDQW

1$6'4
(61'
 D OHDGLQJ QDWLRQDO ZKROHVDOH GLVWULEXWRU RI ZRUNSODFH HVVHQWLDOV DQG 6 3FRPSDQ\RSHQLQJDQHZVTXDUHIRRWORJLVWLFVDQGGLVWULEXWLRQIDFLOLW\ 5RVV6WRUHV,QF
1$6'$4
5267
H[SDQGHGWKHLUIDFLOLW\E\DGGLQJDQRWKHUPLOOLRQ VTXDUHIRRWGLVWULEXWLRQZDUHKRXVH3HUIRUPDQFH)RRG*URXS 1<6(
3)*&
H[SDQGHG
WKHLUFROGVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\DQG$OOLDQFH5HDG\0L[FRQVWUXFWHGWKHLU&DOLIRUQLDFHQWUDOYDOOH\ KHDGTXDUWHUVLQ6KDIWHU
,Q$PD]RQEHJDQFRQVWUXFWLQJDRQHPLOOLRQVTXDUHIRRWPXOWLOHYHOIXOILOOPHQWFHQWHU WR6KDIWHULQWKH:RQGHUIXO,QGXVWULDO3DUNDVDFRPSOLPHQWWRWKHLUH[LVWLQJIDFLOLW\QHDU 0HDGRZV )LHOG $LUSRUW LQ QRUWK %DNHUVILHOG 7KH 6KDIWHU IDFLOLW\ ZLOO EH D VRIW JRRGV GLVWULEXWLRQ FHQWHU IRFXVLQJ RQ FORWKLQJ ERRNV DQG PLVFHOODQHRXV KRXVHKROG LWHPV &RQVWUXFWLRQ KDV EHHQ FRPSOHWHG DQG $PD]RQ ZLOO FRPPHQFH GDLO\ RSHUDWLRQV E\ 1RYHPEHU$PD]RQZLOOSURYLGHDSSUR[LPDWHO\QHZMREVDWWKLVIDFLOLW\ ,Q  :DOPDUW
1<6(
:07
 WKH ZRUOG¶V ODUJHVW FRPSDQ\ E\ UHYHQXH DQG
HPSOR\PHQW FRPSOHWHG FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG EHJDQ RSHUDWLRQV RI D VWDWH RI WKH DUW IXOO\ DXWRPDWHGVTXDUHIRRWFROGVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\7KLVSURMHFWVKRZFDVHVFXWWLQJHGJH WHFKQRORJ\ DQG SURYLGHV RYHU RQH KXQGUHG 67(0IRFXVHG MREV RI WKH IRXU KXQGUHG SRVLWLRQVDWWKHIDFLOLW\
6LQFHWKHHYROYLQJHFRQRPLFFOLPDWHLQWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDIRFXVHGRQDOWHUQDWLYH HQHUJ\ DQG DZD\ IURP SHWUROHXP SURGXFWV DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWHG VRPH 6KDIWHU EDVHG RSHUDWLRQVDQGFDXVHGWKHLUFORVXUHV+RZHYHULQHDFKFDVHDQHZLQGXVWULDORSHUDWLRQ KDVWDNHQRYHUWKRVHIDFLOLWLHVFRQILUPLQJ6KDIWHU¶VDWWUDFWLRQ vii

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¶VH[SDQVLRQLQWR6KDIWHUZLOOFUHDWHQHZMREVDQGHVWDEOLVKD QHZFHQWUDOL]HGVXSSO\DQGGLVWULEXWLRQEDVH
7KHGLYHUVLILFDWLRQRI6KDIWHU¶VHFRQRP\FRQWLQXHVZLWKWKHSRSXODWLRQH[SHFWHGWRJURZ IURPWKHFXUUHQWUHVLGHQWVWRE\6WDUEXFNVRSHQHGWKHLUILUVW6KDIWHU ORFDWLRQLQ-XQHDQGEHFDPHLQVWDQWO\SRSXODUZLWKUHVLGHQWV&RXQWU\VLGH&DU:DVK KDVEHJXQFRQVWUXFWLRQRQWKHILUVWHYHUGULYHWKURXJKFDUZDVKLQWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHUDQG ZLOODOVRIHDWXUHPXOWLSOH UHVWDXUDQWRSWLRQVZKHQWKHSURMHFWLVFRPSOHWHGLQPLG 6KDIWHU 3DUNV  5HFUHDWLRQ 'LVWULFW ZLOO VRRQ EUHDN JURXQG RQ D  DFUH FRPPXQLW\ VSRUWVSDUNRQWKH&LW\¶VPDLQKLJKZD\WKDWZLOOSURYLGHLQGRRUDQGRXWGRRUIDFLOLWLHVIRU PXOWLSOH\RXWKVSRUWV7KHSDUNZLOOEHDFDWDO\VWIRUVSRUWVWRXULVPLQ6KDIWHUDVWKHKRVW RI ODUJH WRXUQDPHQWV IRU VRFFHU EDVHEDOO VRIWEDOO EDVNHWEDOO YROOH\EDOO DQG RWKHU UHFUHDWLRQDOSXUVXLWV
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¶V EXVLQHVV GHYHORSPHQW VWUDWHJ\ DQG SUREXVLQHVV HQYLURQPHQW7KHUHVXOWVDUHULVLQJORFDOUHYHQXHIURPLQFUHDVHGVDOHVWD[DQGSURSHUW\ WD[HV DV ZHOO DV ORFDO DQG UHJLRQDO MRE RSSRUWXQLWLHV7KH&LW\ RI6KDIWHU KDV LQYHVWHG PLOOLRQVRIGROODUVRYHUWKHSDVWGHFDGHLQWRURDGVZDWHUZHOOVVHZHUFDSDFLW\UDLOURDGV DQGDILEHURSWLFQHWZRUNWRSURYLGHWKHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHEXVLQHVVHVUHTXLUH&ROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK ORFDO EXVLQHVV VXSSRUW DJHQFLHV ERWK SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF ZLOO HQVXUH WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU FRQWLQXHV WR JURZ DQG WKULYH WR WKH EHQHILW RI ORFDO EXVLQHVVHV DQG UHVLGHQWV
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viii

WKH &LW\ FDQ EH FRPSHQVDWHG IRU WKH XVH RI &LW\ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH DQG UHODWHG VHUYLFHV UHQGHUHG 7KH ILEHU RSWLF QHWZRUN LQLWLDOO\ VHUYHV PXQLFLSDO DQG EXVLQHVV FHQWHUV WKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\EXWXOWLPDWHO\ZLOOSURYLGHIXOO)LEHUWRWKH+RPHFRQQHFWLYLW\IRUDOO 6KDIWHUUHVLGHQWV,QWKH&LW\LQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK9$67&RPPXQLFDWLRQVDGGHGWKH ILUVWUHVLGHQWLDOFXVWRPHUWRWKLVVHUYLFHRIIHULQJUHOLDEOHLQWHUQHWVSHHGVXSWRJLJDE\WH SHUVHFRQG
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
6KDIWHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DUWQHUVKLS 7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU FUHDWHG WKH 6KDIWHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DUWQHUVKLS'HSDUWPHQW
IRUPHUO\WKH³6KDIWHU6FKRROV3URMHFW´
LQWKH)LVFDO<HDU
WRHQKDQFHHGXFDWLRQDORSSRUWXQLWLHVIRU6KDIWHU UHVLGHQWV7KHGHSDUWPHQWLVSDUWRID ORQJWHUPVWUDWHJ\WREXLOGLQJDQHGXFDWHGDQGILQDQFLDOO\VWDEOHFRPPXQLW\ 7RGD\PRVWRIWKHGHSDUWPHQW¶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¶VOLEUDU\URRPDQGDQRXWGRRUSOD]D
7KH 6KDIWHU /LEUDU\  /HDUQLQJ &HQWHU RIIHUV FODVVHV HGXFDWLRQDO HYHQWV DQG OLEUDU\ VHUYLFHVRIWHQLQSDUWQHUVKLSZLWKHGXFDWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQVDQGIRXQGDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJRXU ORFDO VFKRROV %DNHUVILHOG &ROOHJH KDV EHHQ D SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW SDUWQHU RIIHULQJ FODVVHVVXSSRUWVHUYLFHVDQGVWDIILQJIRUWKHOLEUDU\RXWRIWKHEXLOGLQJ 7KH6KDIWHU/LEUDU\ /HDUQLQJ&HQWHULVRSHQILYHGD\VSHUZHHNZLWKPRUHRSHUDWLQJ KRXUVWKDQDQ\OLEUDU\LQ.HUQ&RXQW\)URP-DQXDU\WR6HSWHPEHUWUDIILFLQWR WKHEXLOGLQJKDVDYHUDJHG
SHRSOHSHUPRQWK$WWHQGDQFHDWFODVVHVDQGSURJUDPV KDVDYHUDJHGSHUPRQWKDQGERRNFLUFXODWLRQKDVDYHUDJHGSHUPRQWK ix

0RUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH 6KDIWHU /LEUDU\  /HDUQLQJ &HQWHU FDQ EH IRXQG DW 
VKDIWHUOHDUQLQJFRP
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
&DVK DQG LQYHVWPHQW SROLFLHV DQG SUDFWLFH 7KH &LW\ FRQWLQXHV WR PDLQWDLQ DQ ,QYHVWPHQW3ROLF\ZKLFKLVVXEPLWWHGDQQXDOO\WRWKH&LW\&RXQFLODORQJZLWKTXDUWHUO\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V5HSRUWVUHSRUWLQJLQYHVWPHQWDFWLYLW\DQGSRUWIROLREDODQFHVGXULQJWKHILVFDO \HDU7KHJRDOVRIWKHSROLF\DUHWRLQYHVWSXEOLFIXQGVLQDPDQQHUZKLFKZLOOSURYLGHLQ WKLVRUGHU
VHFXULW\OLTXLGLW\DQGUHWXUQ
ZKLOHFRQIRUPLQJWRDOO6WDWHDQGORFDOVWDWXWHV
JRYHUQLQJ WKH LQYHVWPHQW RI SXEOLF IXQGV ,Q  WKH &LW\ LPSOHPHQWHG LQYHVWPHQW PDQDJHPHQWVRIWZDUHIURP&OHDUZDWHU$QDO\WLFVWRLPSURYHWKH&LW\¶VPDQDJHPHQWDQG UHSRUWLQJRILQYHVWPHQWV
&DVKWHPSRUDULO\ LGOH GXULQJWKH \HDU ZDV LQYHVWHG LQ GHPDQG GHSRVLWV FHUWLILFDWHV RI GHSRVLW/RFDO$JHQF\,QYHVWPHQW)XQGRIWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD /$,)
&RUSRUDWH%RQGV
DQGREOLJDWLRQVRIWKH867UHDVXU\
x

Source: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/historical/quarterly.asp 7KH&LW\¶VLQYHVWPHQWSRUWIROLRIROORZVWKH&LW\¶VLQYHVWPHQWSROLF\7KHVDIHW\DQGOLTXLGLW\ SROLF\REMHFWLYHVZHUHSODFHGDERYHUDWHVRIUHWXUQFRQVLGHUDWLRQVLQPDNLQJGHSRVLWVDQG LQYHVWPHQWV$FFRUGLQJO\GHSRVLWVZHUHHLWKHULQVXUHGE\IHGHUDOGHSRVLWRU\LQVXUDQFH FROODWHUDOL]HG RU EDFNHG E\ WKH IXOO IDLWK RI WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW  )RU DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQVHH1RWHWRWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV
3HQVLRQDQGRWKHUSRVWHPSOR\PHQWEHQHILWV7KH&LW\RI6KDIWHUSURYLGHVSHQVLRQ EHQHILWV IRU LWV VDIHW\ DQG QRQVDIHW\ HPSOR\HHV LQ VHSDUDWH SODQV PDQDJHG E\ WKH &DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF(PSOR\HHV5HWLUHPHQW6\VWHP
&DO3(56
7KH&LW\RI6KDIWHULVVXEMHFW
WRWKH3XEOLF(PSOR\HHV¶3HQVLRQ5HIRUP$FWRI
3(35$
ZKLFKLPSRVHVDORZHU
SHQVLRQEHQHILWOHYHODQGPDQGDWHGHPSOR\HHFRVWVKDULQJRQQHZPHPEHUV(DFK\HDU D &DO3(56 DFWXDU\ FDOFXODWHV WKH DPRXQW RI WKH DQQXDO FRQWULEXWLRQ WKDW WKH &LW\RI6KDIWHUPXVWPDNHWRWKHSHQVLRQSODQWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHSODQZLOOEHDEOHWRIXOO\ PHHWLWVREOLJDWLRQVWRUHWLUHGHPSOR\HHVRQDWLPHO\EDVLV7KLVSD\PHQWLVFDOFXODWHGDV DSHUFHQWDJHRISD\UROODQGUHPLWWHGWR&DO3(56ZLWKHDFKSD\UROOF\FOH$VDPDWWHURI SROLF\ WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU IXOO\ IXQGV HDFK \HDU¶V DQQXDO UHTXLUHG FRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH SHQVLRQSODQVDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHDFWXDU\
,QWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHUPDGHDRQHWLPHSD\PHQWRIPLOOLRQWRSD\RIIWKH&LW\¶V XQIXQGHG SHQVLRQ OLDELOLWLHV DV RI WKH -XQH   &DO3(56 DFWXDULDO UHSRUW 3UHSD\PHQWRIWKLVOLDELOLW\ZLOOUHGXFHIXWXUHDQQXDOSHQVLRQFRQWULEXWLRQUDWHVPLQLPL]H WRWDOUHWLUHPHQWFRVWVDQGLPSURYHWKHIXQGHGVWDWXVRIWKH&LW\¶VSHQVLRQSODQ,Q WKLV SHQVLRQ SUHSD\PHQW ZDV DSSOLHG WR WKH &LW\¶V QHW SHQVLRQ OLDELOLW\ RIIVHWWLQJ DQG UHVXOWLQJLQDQHWSHQVLRQDVVHWRIPLOOLRQ'XHWRDFWXDOHDUQLQJVDW&DO3(56EHORZ WKH DFWXDULDOO\ DVVXPHG HDUQLQJV UDWH FKDQJHV LQ HDUQLQJV DVVXPSWLRQV DQG RWKHU IDFWRUVWKLVSHQVLRQDVVHWZDVUHSODFHGZLWKDQHWSHQVLRQOLDELOLW\RIPLOOLRQLQ ,QWKH&LW\PDGHDVXSSOHPHQWDOSD\PHQWRI
PLOOLRQWR&DO3(56WRHOLPLQDWH                
  
Ϭ͘ϬϬй
ϭ͘ϬϬй
Ϯ͘ϬϬй
ϯ͘ϬϬй
ϰ͘ϬϬй
ϱ͘ϬϬй
ϲ͘ϬϬй
ΖϬϭ ΖϬϮ ΖϬϯ ΖϬϰ ΖϬϱ ΖϬϲ ΖϬϳ ΖϬϴ ΖϬϵ ΖϭϬ Ζϭϭ ΖϭϮ Ζϭϯ Ζϭϰ Ζϭϱ Ζϭϲ Ζϭϳ Ζϭϴ Ζϭϵ ΖϮϬ ΖϮϭ ΖϮϮ >/&ZĂƚĞ
)LVFDO<HDU
/$,)5DWH$SSRUWLRQPHQW5DWHDVRI-XQH
xi

WKHXQIXQGHGSHQVLRQOLDELOLW\UHVXOWLQJIURPWKHUHGXFWLRQLQWKH&DO3(56GLVFRXQWUDWHWR SHUFHQW%\SD\LQJWKLVOLDELOLW\QRZWKH&LW\DYRLGVWKHSHUFHQWFRVWRIILQDQFLQJ WKLVOLDELOLW\WKURXJK&DO3(56WKHLUDVVXPHGHDUQLQJV UDWH7KH&LW\XVHGXQDVVLJQHG JHQHUDOIXQGPRQH\ FXUUHQWO\ LQYHVWHG DW XQGHU  SHUFHQW DWWKHWLPHWR DYRLGWKH SHUFHQWILQDQFLQJFRVWIURP&DO3(56
7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU DOVR SURYLGHV RQH \HDU RI SRVWUHWLUHPHQW KHDOWK DQG GHQWDO FDUH EHQHILWVIRUFHUWDLQHPSOR\HHVWKDWUHWLUHGLUHFWO\IURPWKH&LW\ZLWKDWOHDVWILYH\HDUVRI VHUYLFHZLWKWKH&LW\$VRIWKHHQGRIWKHFXUUHQWILVFDO\HDUWKHUHZHUHVHYHUDOUHWLUHG HPSOR\HHV UHFHLYLQJ WKLV EHQHILW ZKLFK LV ILQDQFHG RQ D SD\DV\RXJR EDVLV 7KH LQFUHDVH LQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDVWKH UHVXOW RIWKH UHFHQW0RGLILHG &RPPXQLW\ &RUUHFWLRQDO )DFLOLW\
0&&)
FORVXUH,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWK*$$3WKH&LW\LVUHTXLUHGWRUHSRUWDOLDELOLW\ LQWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHHPSOR\HU¶VREOLJDWLRQWRSURYLGHWKHVH EHQHILWV
5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG
5RJHOLR6iQFKH]5Xt]
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU 
xii

/dzK&^,&d
ZKZ'E/d/KE>,Zd
:h>zϭ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ϭϭϭ&ƵůůͲdŝŵĞ
ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ
ϭϵWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞͬ
džƚƌĂ,ĞůƉ
ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ
/dzKhE/>
ŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ
DĂŶĂŐĞƌ
/d^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ///d^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ/
ŝƚLJůĞƌŬ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐͲŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ

ŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
KĨĨŝĐĞdĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶ
,ZDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
,ZŶĂůLJƐƚKĨĨŝĐĞdĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶ
D/E^dZd/s
^
Zs/
^
ϴ&d
ͬϯWd

ĚŵŝŶƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
&ŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ϲ&d

ĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐDĂŶĂŐĞƌWĂLJƌŽůůdĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶĐĐŽƵŶƚůĞƌŬ//ϮĐĐŽƵŶƚůĞƌŬ/ϭ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞůĞƌŬ dƌĂŶƐŝƚ
ϭ&d
ͬϰWd

dƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝǀĞƌϯWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞdƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝǀĞƌƐ
h^/E
^^
s
>KWD
Ed
ϭ&d

ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
/dz^
Zs/
^
ϰϯ&d
ͬϮWd

WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ϭ&d

^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ
WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ
Ϯϳ&d

'/^ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ
'/^dĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶ
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ/
ůĞƌŬdLJƉŝƐƚ
hd/>/d/
^
DE'
Z
2 Utility TechnicianUtility Operator II2 Utility Operator IMaintenance WorkerLaborer II Wh>/tKZ<^
DE'
Z
Public Facilities ManagerMechanic3 Equipment Operator3 Maintenance Worker4 Laborer II2 Laborer I

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ
ϰ&d
ͬϭWd

ŝƚLJ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ

ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ/WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐŝĂů
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ϴ&d
ͬϭWd

ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƵŝůĚŝŶŐ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌ//ϮƵŝůĚŝŶŐ/ŶƐƉĞĐƚŽƌ/ŽĚĞ ŶĨŽƌĐĞŵĞŶƚKĨĨŝĐĞƌ//^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ/ͬ//&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ/ͬ//ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ/ůĞƌŬdLJƉŝƐƚWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶ

hd/KEWZdE
Z^,/W
Ϯ&d
ͬϭϰWd

ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉ
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ

W>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌDĂŶĂŐĞƌϱ
WWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞdĞĂĐŚĞƌϱ
WWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞdƵƚŽƌ//ϰ
WWĂƌƚͲƚŝŵĞdƵƚŽƌ/
D&
ϭ&d

ŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐŚŝĞĨ
WK>/

ϰϲ&d

WŽůŝĐĞŚŝĞĨ
ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚŚŝĞĨŽĨWŽůŝĐĞ
WĂƚƌŽů
Ϯϵ&d

WŽůŝĐĞ>ŝĞƵƚĞŶĂŶƚ
ϰWŽůŝĐĞ^ĞƌŐĞĂŶƚƐϲ^ĞŶŝŽƌWŽůŝĐĞKĨĨŝĐĞƌƐϭϴWŽůŝĐĞKĨĨŝĐĞƌƐ ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ϭϬ&d

WŽůŝĐĞĂƉƚĂŝŶ
WŽůŝĐĞ^ĞƌŐĞĂŶƚĚŵŝŶ
WŽůŝĐĞZĞĐŽƌĚƐ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌϲWŽůŝĐĞŝƐƉĂƚĐŚĞƌƐWŽůŝĐĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞdĞĐŚŶŝĐŝĂŶ E/D>KEdZK>
ϰ&d

ŶŝŵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů
DĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ŶŝŵĂůŽŶƚƌŽůKĨĨŝĐĞƌϮŶŝŵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐtŽƌŬĞƌ
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ//
xiii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150 Sacramento ,CA95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 ,1'(3(1'(17$8',7256¶5(3257
7RWKH+RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQG0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLO &LW\RI6KDIWHU&DOLIRUQLD
5HSRUWRQWKH)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV
Opinions
:HKDYHDXGLWHGWKHDFFRPSDQ\LQJILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVWKHEXVLQHVVW\SH DFWLYLWLHV HDFKPDMRUIXQG DQGWKH DJJUHJDWH UHPDLQLQJIXQG LQIRUPDWLRQ RI&LW\ RI6KDIWHU&DOLIRUQLD

WKH&LW\
DVRIDQGIRUWKH\HDUHQGHG-XQHDQGWKHUHODWHGQRWHVWRWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV ZKLFKFROOHFWLYHO\FRPSULVHWKH&LW\¶VEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDVOLVWHGLQWKHWDEOHRIFRQWHQWV ,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV UHIHUUHG WR DERYH SUHVHQW IDLUO\ LQ DOO PDWHULDO UHVSHFWV WKH UHVSHFWLYHILQDQFLDOSRVLWLRQRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVWKHEXVLQHVVW\SHDFWLYLWLHVHDFKPDMRUIXQG DQGWKHDJJUHJDWHUHPDLQLQJIXQGLQIRUPDWLRQRIWKH&LW\DVRI-XQHDQGWKHUHVSHFWLYHFKDQJHV LQILQDQFLDOSRVLWLRQDQGZKHUHDSSOLFDEOHFDVKIORZVWKHUHRIIRUWKH\HDUWKHQHQGHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK DFFRXQWLQJSULQFLSOHVJHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD Basis for Opinions
:H FRQGXFWHGRXUDXGLWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDXGLWLQJ VWDQGDUGVJHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV RI$PHULFD
*$$6
DQGWKHVWDQGDUGVDSSOLFDEOHWRILQDQFLDODXGLWVFRQWDLQHGLQGovernment Auditing Standards, LVVXHG E\ WKH &RPSWUROOHU *HQHUDO RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 2XU UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV XQGHU WKRVH VWDQGDUGVDUHIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGLQWKH$XGLWRU¶V5HVSRQVLELOLWLHVIRUWKH$XGLWRIWKH)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV VHFWLRQ RI RXU UHSRUW  :H DUH UHTXLUHG WR EH LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH &LW\ DQG WR PHHW RXU RWKHU HWKLFDO UHVSRQVLELOLWLHVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHUHOHYDQWHWKLFDOUHTXLUHPHQWVUHODWLQJWRRXUDXGLWV:HEHOLHYHWKDW WKHDXGLWHYLGHQFHZHKDYHREWDLQHGLVVXIILFLHQWDQGDSSURSULDWHWRSURYLGHDEDVLVIRURXUDXGLWRSLQLRQ Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements 0DQDJHPHQW LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG IDLU SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKHVH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK DFFRXQWLQJ SULQFLSOHV JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG LQWKH 8QLWHG6WDWHV RI$PHULFD  DQGIRUWKH
GHVLJQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH RI LQWHUQDO FRQWURO UHOHYDQW WR WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG IDLU SUHVHQWDWLRQRIILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVWKDWDUHIUHHIURPPDWHULDOPLVVWDWHPHQWZKHWKHUGXHWRIUDXGRUHUURU ,QSUHSDULQJWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVPDQDJHPHQWLVUHTXLUHGWRHYDOXDWHZKHWKHUWKHUHDUHFRQGLWLRQVRU HYHQWVFRQVLGHUHGLQWKHDJJUHJDWHWKDWUDLVHVXEVWDQWLDOGRXEWDERXWWKH&LW\¶VDELOLW\WRFRQWLQXHDVD JRLQJFRQFHUQIRUWZHOYHPRQWKVEH\RQGWKHGDWHRIWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Shafter, California
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with the GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if, there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
 Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.

Other Reporting Responsibilities
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison schedules for the general fund and transportation special revenue fund, the schedules of proportionate share of the net pension liability/(asset), the schedules of employer plan contributions, and the schedule of changes in the total OPEB liability and related ratios be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
2

7RWKH+RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQG0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLO &LW\RI6KDIWHU&DOLIRUQLD
Supplementary Information
2XUDXGLWZDVFRQGXFWHGIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIIRUPLQJRSLQLRQVRQWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVWKDWFROOHFWLYHO\ FRPSULVH WKH &LW\¶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
Other Information
0DQDJHPHQWLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKHRWKHULQIRUPDWLRQLQFOXGHGLQWKHDQQXDOUHSRUW7KHRWKHULQIRUPDWLRQ FRPSULVHVWKHLQWURGXFWRU\VHFWLRQDQGVWDWLVWLFDOVHFWLRQEXWGRHVQRWLQFOXGHWKHEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV DQG RXU DXGLWRU¶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
2WKHU5HSRUWLQJ5HTXLUHGE\Government Auditing Standards ,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK Government Auditing Standards, ZH KDYH DOVR LVVXHG RXU UHSRUW GDWHG 1RYHPEHURQRXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHUILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLQJDQGRQRXU WHVWVRILWVFRPSOLDQFHZLWKFHUWDLQSURYLVLRQVRIODZVUHJXODWLRQVFRQWUDFWVDQGJUDQWDJUHHPHQWVDQG RWKHUPDWWHUV7KHSXUSRVHRIWKDWUHSRUWLVVROHO\WRGHVFULEHWKHVFRSHRIRXUWHVWLQJRILQWHUQDOFRQWURO RYHUILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLQJDQGFRPSOLDQFHDQGWKHUHVXOWVRIWKDWWHVWLQJDQGQRWWRSURYLGHDQRSLQLRQRQWKH HIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKH&LW\¶VLQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHUILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLQJRURQFRPSOLDQFH7KDWUHSRUWLVDQLQWHJUDO SDUWRIDQDXGLWSHUIRUPHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKGovernment Auditing StandardsLQFRQVLGHULQJWKH&LW\¶V LQWHUQDOFRQWURORYHUILQDQFLDOUHSRUWLQJDQGFRPSOLDQFH 6DFUDPHQWR&DOLIRUQLD
1RYHPEHU
3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
)RUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG-XQH
$V PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU ZH RIIHU UHDGHUV RI WKH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU¶V $QQXDO &RPSUHKHQVLYH )LQDQFLDO5HSRUW
$&)5
WKLVQDUUDWLYHRYHUYLHZDQGDQDO\VLVRIWKHILQDQFLDODFWLYLWLHVRIWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU IRUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG-XQH:HHQFRXUDJHUHDGHUVWRFRQVLGHUWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSUHVHQWHGKHUHLQ FRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQSUHVHQWHGLQWKHOHWWHURIWUDQVPLWWDOILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDQGQRWHV WRWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV
),1$1&,$/+,*+/,*+76)25),6&$/<($5
x $VVHWVDQGGHIHUUHGRXWIORZVRIUHVRXUFHVRIWKH&LW\H[FHHGHGLWVOLDELOLWLHVDQGGHIHUUHGLQIORZVRI 5HVRXUFHVDWWKHFORVHRIWKHILVFDO\HDUE\PLOOLRQ x 7RWDOQHWSRVLWLRQLQFUHDVHGE\PLOOLRQLQILVFDO\HDU7KHQHWSRVLWLRQIRUJRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHVLQFUHDVHGE\
PLOOLRQZKLOHWKHQHWSRVLWLRQIRUEXVLQHVVW\SHDFWLYLWLHVGHFUHDVHGE\ PLOOLRQ
x 2Q-XQHWKHJRYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVKDGDFRPELQHGHQGLQJIXQGEDODQFHRIPLOOLRQ $SSUR[LPDWHO\RIWKLVDPRXQW
PLOOLRQ
LVXQDVVLJQHG
x 7KHJHQHUDOIXQGKDVDQXQDVVLJQHGIXQGEDODQFHRIPLOOLRQ7KLVDPRXQWLVRIWRWDO JHQHUDOIXQGRSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVRIPLOOLRQOHVVDRQHWLPHFDSLWDORXWOD\RIPLOOLRQ x <HDUHQG JHQHUDO IXQG UHYHQXH FROOHFWLRQV WRWDOHG   PLOOLRQ ZKLFK ZDV  RI WKH ILQDO
EXGJHWHVWLPDWHRIPLOOLRQ6DOHVDQGXVHWD[UHFHLSWVH[FHHGHGHVWLPDWHVE\PLOOLRQRU 7KHRULJLQDOVDOHVWD[SURMHFWLRQVZHUHRQWKHSHVVLPLVWLFVLGHGXULQJWKHVWDUWRIWKH&29,' SDQGHPLF/LFHQVHSHUPLWVDQGIHHVH[FHHGHGHVWLPDWHVE\ PLOOLRQRUGXHWRKLJKHU
EXLOGLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW DFWLYLWLHV 3URSHUW\ WD[HV DQG SURSHUW\ WD[HV LQ OLHX RI 9/) H[FHHGHG HVWLPDWHVE\PLOOLRQRUGXHWRKLJKHUWKDQDQWLFLSDWHGDVVHVVHG YDOXDWLRQIURPQHZ UHVLGHQWLDODQGLQGXVWULDOGHYHORSPHQW*HQHUDOIXQGUHYHQXHVLQFUHDVHGE\PLOOLRQRU IURP SULRU \HDU 7KLV LQFUHDVH ZDV PDLQO\ GXH WR LQFUHDVHV LQ WD[HV E\  PLOOLRQ ,QYHVWPHQW HDUQLQJVGLGQRWPHHWH[SHFWDWLRQVE\

PLOOLRQRU7KHPDLQUHDVRQLVWKDWWKHJDLQ
DQGORVVIURPPDUNHWYDOXHVZKLFKLVD³QRQFDVK´YDOXHXVHGWREHFRPELQHGZLWKLQWHUHVWLQFRPH SD\PHQWV 7KH PDUNHW DGMXVWPHQW ZDV VHSDUDWHG IURP WKH DFWXDO FDVK LQWHUHVW SD\PHQWV ZKLFK UHVXOWHGLQDUHGXFWLRQRILQYHVWPHQWHDUQLQJV
x ([FHSWIRUWKHZDWHUVHUYLFHVIXQGDOOHQWHUSULVHIXQGVKDGRSHUDWLQJORVVHV7KHZDWHUIXQGKDGDQ RSHUDWLQJLQFUHDVHLQWKHDPRXQWRI
PLOOLRQEHIRUHWUDQVIHUVFRPSDUHGORVVRI

PLOOLRQLQ
WKHSULRU\HDU5HYHQXHVZHUHKLJKHU FRPSDUHGWRWKHSULRU \HDUGXHWRDELOOLQJFKDQJHIURP ³LQ DGYDQFH´WR ³LQDUUHDUV´7KH UHYHQXHVDUHPLOOLRQRUKLJKHUWKDQWKHSUHYLRXV\HDU 2SHUDWLQJH[SHQVHVZHUHORZHUFRPSDUHGWRSULRU\HDUGXHD UHGXFWLRQLQPDLQWHQDQFH KRZHYHU
RWKHU RSHUDWLQJ H[SHQVHV LQFOXGLQJ ODERU XWLOLWLHV DQG VXSSOLHV KDYH LQFUHDVHG  7KH &LW\ LPSOHPHQWHGD\HDUUDWHDGMXVWPHQWSODQHIIHFWLYH-XO\WRDGGUHVVKLVWRULFDOORVVHVEXWWKH UDWHVQHHGWREHUHYLVLWHGGXHWRUHFHQWLQIODWLRQDU\SUHVVXUHVDQGIXWXUHFDSLWDOSURMHFWV x 7KH ZDVWHZDWHU VHUYLFHV IXQG KDG D ORVV RI  PLOOLRQ EHIRUH WUDQVIHUV FRPSDUHG WR D ORVV RI PLOOLRQLQWKHSULRU\HDU7KHORVVLVPDLQO\GXHWRLQFUHDVHGODERUFRVWVDQGPDLQWHQDQFHUHSDLUV RSHUDWLQJFRVWV7KH&LW\LPSOHPHQWHGD\HDUUDWHDGMXVWPHQWSODQHIIHFWLYH-XO\WRDGGUHVV WKLVORVVDQGIXWXUHFDSLWDOQHHGVEXWWKHUDWHVZLOOQHHGWREHUHYLVLWHG 5

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
)RUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG-XQH
x 7KH0RGLILHG&RPPXQLW\&RUUHFWLRQDO)DFLOLW\
0&&)
IXQGKDGDORVVRIPLOOLRQEHIRUHWUDQVIHUV
FRPSDUHGWR D ORVV RIPLOOLRQ LQWKH SULRU \HDU7KH FXUUHQW \HDU ORVVLV UHODWHGWR QRQFDVK GHSUHFLDWLRQ DQG FDSLWDO RXWOD\ $OVR WKH FXUUHQW \HDU UHIOHFW WKH FORVXUH RI 0&&) GXULQJ WKH ILUVWTXDUWHURIWKHILVFDO\HDU7KHFORVXUHLVHYLGHQWRQWKHGUDVWLFUHGXFWLRQRIRSHUDWLQJUHYHQXHV DQGH[SHQVHV
x 7KH UDLO VSXU VHUYLFHV IXQG KDG D ORVV EHIRUH WUDQVIHUV DQG FDSLWDO FRQWULEXWLRQV RI  PLOOLRQ LQFOXGLQJ  PLOOLRQ RI GHSUHFLDWLRQ H[SHQVH FRPSDUHG WR D ORVV RI  PLOOLRQ LQFOXGLQJ PLOOLRQLQGHSUHFLDWLRQLQWKHSULRU\HDU7KHPDLQFXVWRPHUVRIWKH&LW\¶VUDLOVHUYLFHVDUHUHODWHG WRWKHRLODQGJDVVHFWRU
29(59,(:2)7+(),1$1&,$/67$7(0(176
7KLVGLVFXVVLRQDQGDQDO\VLVLQWURGXFHVWKHUHDGHUWRWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU¶VEDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU¶V EDVLF ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV FRQVLVW RI WKUHH FRPSRQHQWV   
 JRYHUQPHQWZLGH ILQDQFLDO

VWDWHPHQWV

IXQGILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVDQG
QRWHVWRWKHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV7KLVUHSRUWDOVRFRQWDLQV VXSSOHPHQWDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRKHOSWKHUHDGHUGHYHORSDIXOOXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKH&LW\¶VILQDQFLDODFWLYLWLHV *RYHUQPHQW:LGH)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV
7KH JRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV LQFOXGHWKHStatement of Net Position DQGWKHStatement of Activities and Changes in Net Position7KHVHVWDWHPHQWVDUHLQWHQGHGWRSURYLGHDUHDGHUZLWKDEURDG RYHUYLHZRIWKH&LW\¶VILQDQFHV7KH\DUHSUHVHQWHGLQDPDQQHUWKDWLVVLPLODUWRSULYDWHVHFWRUEXVLQHVV 7KH Statement of Net Position SUHVHQWV LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ DOO RI WKH &LW\¶V DVVHWV GHIHUUHG RXWIORZV RI UHVRXUFHVOLDELOLWLHVDQGGHIHUUHGLQIORZVRIUHVRXUFHVZLWKWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHWZRUHSRUWHGDVQHW SRVLWLRQ,QFUHDVHVDQGGHFUHDVHVLQQHWSRVLWLRQWKDWRFFXURYHUWLPHPD\VHUYHDVDQLQGLFDWRURIWKH&LW\¶V ILQDQFLDOSRVLWLRQ
7KHStatement of Activities and Changes in Net PositionSUHVHQWVLQIRUPDWLRQVKRZLQJKRZWKH&LW\¶VQHW SRVLWLRQFKDQJHGGXULQJWKHPRVWUHFHQWILVFDO\HDU$OOFKDQJHVLQQHWSRVLWLRQDUHUHSRUWHGXVLQJWKHAccrual Basis of Accounting&KDQJHVDUHUHSRUWHGDVVRRQDVWKHXQGHUO\LQJHYHQWFDXVLQJWKHFKDQJHVRFFXUV UHJDUGOHVVRIWKHWLPLQJRIWKH UHODWHG FDVKIORZV7KHUHIRUH UHYHQXHDQGH[SHQVHVDUH UHSRUWHGLQWKLV VWDWHPHQWIRUVRPHLWHPVWKDWZLOORQO\UHVXOWLQFDVKIORZVLQIXWXUHILVFDO\HDUVVXFKDVUHYHQXHVUHODWHGWR XQFROOHFWHGWD[HVRUHDUQHGEXWXQXVHGHPSOR\HHOHDYH %RWKRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVGLVWLQJXLVKIXQFWLRQVRIWKH&LW\WKDWDUHVXSSRUWHGE\WD[HV DQG LQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO UHYHQXHV
JRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV
 IURP RWKHU IXQFWLRQV WKDW DUH LQWHQGHG WR EH VHOIVXSSRUWLQJ7KH VHOIVXSSRUWLQJIXQFWLRQVDUH FDOOHG“Business-Type Activities” RUHQWHUSULVHIXQGV DQGDUHLQWHQGHGWRUHFRYHUDOORUDVLJQLILFDQWSRUWLRQRIWKHLUFRVWVWKURXJKXVHUIHHVDQGFKDUJHVIRUVHUYLFHV 7KHJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVRIWKH&LW\LQFOXGHJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQWDGPLQLVWUDWLRQSXEOLFVDIHW\ SROLFHILUH
DQGDQLPDOFRQWURO
SXEOLFZRUNVFXOWXUHDQG UHFUHDWLRQFLW\SODQQLQJSDUN UHFUHDWLRQDQGSD\PHQWVRQ ORQJWHUPGHEW
7KH VHOIVXSSRUWLQJ EXVLQHVVW\SHDFWLYLWLHV LQFOXGH6KDIWHU¶VZDWHU VHUYLFHVZDVWHZDWHU VHUYLFHV UHIXVH FROOHFWLRQ WUDQVLW RSHUDWLRQV UDLO RSHUDWLRQV QHWZRUN RSHUDWLRQV DQG D PRGLILHG FRPPXQLW\ FRUUHFWLRQDO IDFLOLW\
6

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
)RUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG-XQH
)XQG)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV
$IXQGLVDJURXSLQJRI UHODWHGDFFRXQWVWKDWDUHXVHGWRPDLQWDLQFRQWURORYHU UHVRXUFHVWKDWKDYHEHHQ VHJUHJDWHGIRUVSHFLILFDFWLYLWLHVRUREMHFWLYHV7KH&LW\OLNHRWKHUVWDWHDQGORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVXVHVIXQG DFFRXQWLQJWRHQVXUHDQGGHPRQVWUDWHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKILQDQFHUHODWHGOHJDODQGDFFRXQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH&LW\¶VIXQGVFDQEHGLYLGHGLQWRWKUHHFDWHJRULHV
JRYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVSURSULHWDU\IXQGVDQGILGXFLDU\
IXQGV
*RYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVDUHXVHGWRDFFRXQWIRUWKHVDPHIXQFWLRQVUHSRUWHGDVJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVLQWKH JRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV7KHVHVWDWHPHQWVIRFXVRQKRZFDVKDQGRWKHUILQDQFLDODVVHWVFDQ UHDGLO\EHFRQYHUWHGWRDYDLODEOHUHVRXUFHV7KH\DOVRVKRZIXQGEDODQFHVWKDWDUHOHIWDWWKHHQGRIWKHILVFDO \HDUDQGGLVWLQJXLVKEHWZHHQDPRXQWVWKDWDUHUHVWULFWHGIRUVSHFLILFSXUSRVHVYHUVXVIXQGVWKDWDUHDYDLODEOH IRUVSHQGLQJ
Governmental Funds
%HFDXVHWKHIRFXVRIJRYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVLVQDUURZHUWKDQWKDWRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV LWLVXVHIXOWRFRPSDUHWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSUHVHQWHGIRUJRYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVZLWKVLPLODULQIRUPDWLRQSUHVHQWHG IRUJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVLQWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV%\GRLQJVR UHDGHUVPD\EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGWKHORQJWHUPLPSDFWRIWKHJRYHUQPHQW¶VQHDUWHUPILQDQFLQJGHFLVLRQV%RWKWKHJRYHUQPHQWDO IXQGEDODQFH VKHHWDQGWKHJRYHUQPHQWDOIXQG VWDWHPHQWRI UHYHQXHVH[SHQGLWXUHVDQG FKDQJHVLQIXQG EDODQFHVSURYLGHDUHFRQFLOLDWLRQWRIDFLOLWDWHWKLVFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQJRYHUQPHQWDOIXQGVDQGJRYHUQPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV
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roprietary Funds
3URSULHWDU\IXQGVDUHXVHGWRDFFRXQWIRUVHUYLFHVDQGDFWLYLWLHVIRUZKLFKWKH&LW\FKDUJHVFXVWRPHUV7KH &LW\RI6KDIWHUPDLQWDLQVWZRGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRISURSULHW\IXQGV Enterprise Funds  7KHVH DUH IXQGV WKDW DUH XVHG WR UHSRUW EXVLQHVVW\SH DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH JRYHUQPHQWZLGH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV  7KH &LW\ RI 6KDIWHU KDV IRXU PDMRU HQWHUSULVH IXQGV   ZDWHU
ZDVWHZDWHU UDLO DQG WKH PRGLILHG FRPPXQLW\ FRUUHFWLRQDO IDFLOLW\ $OO RWKHU HQWHUSULVH IXQGV DUH DJJUHJDWHGDVQRQPDMRUIXQGV
Internal Service Funds7KHVHIXQGVDUHXVHGWRDOORFDWHDQGDFFXPXODWH FRVWVLQWHUQDOO\DPRQJWKH &LW\¶VIXQFWLRQV7KH&LW\XVHVLQWHUQDOVHUYLFHIXQGVWRDFFRXQWIRUWKHPDLQWHQDQFHDQGUHSODFHPHQWRI LWVIOHHWPDLQWHQDQFHRI&LW\EXLOGLQJVDQGIDFLOLWLHVULVNPDQDJHPHQWDQGLQIRUPDWLRQWHFKQRORJ\7KHVH IXQGVDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVRIWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVEHFDXVH WKHLUDFWLYLWLHV VXSSRUWJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHV7KHLQWHUQDO VHUYLFHIXQGVDUH FRPELQHGLQWRD VLQJOH DJJUHJDWHGSUHVHQWDWLRQLQWKHSURSULHWDU\IXQGILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV 7

&,7<2)6+$)7(5
0DQDJHPHQW¶V'LVFXVVLRQDQG$QDO\VLV
)RUWKHILVFDO\HDUHQGHG-XQH
Fiduciary Funds
)LGXFLDU\IXQGVDUHXVHGWRDFFRXQWIRUILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHVKHOGIRUWKHEHQHILWRISDUWLHVRXWVLGHWKH&LW\ JRYHUQPHQW)LGXFLDU\IXQGVDUHQRWUHIOHFWHGLQWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHVWDWHPHQWVEHFDXVHWKHUHVRXUFHVRI WKHVHIXQGVDUHQRWDYDLODEOHWRVXSSRUWWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHU¶VJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHV7KH&LW\PDLQWDLQVIRXU ILGXFLDU\IXQGVRQHSULYDWHSXUSRVHWUXVWIXQGIRUWKH5'$6XFFHVVRU$JHQF\DQGWKUHHDJHQF\IXQGVIRU WKLUGSDUW\PRQH\VKHOGE\WKH&LW\UHODWLQJWRWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHPRGLILHGFRPPXQLW\FRUUHFWLRQDOIDFLOLW\ 1RWHVWR%DVLF)LQDQFLDO6WDWHPHQWV
7KHQRWHVWREDVLFILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWVSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWZLOOKHOSWKHUHDGHUJDLQDIXOOXQGHUVWDQGLQJ RIWKHGDWDSURYLGHGLQWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLGHDQGLQGLYLGXDOIXQGILQDQFLDOVWDWHPHQWV 5HTXLUHG6XSSOHPHQWDO,QIRUPDWLRQ
7KLV UHSRUWDOVRSUHVHQWV FHUWDLQ UHTXLUHG VXSSOHPHQWDU\LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJWKH&LW\¶VSURJUHVVLQLWV REOLJDWLRQWR SURYLGH SHQVLRQ EHQHILWVWR LWV HPSOR\HHV DQGWKH EXGJHWWRDFWXDO LQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKH&LW\¶V JHQHUDOIXQG
*29(510(17:,'(),1$1&,$/$1$/<6,6
$VQRWHGHDUOLHUQHWSRVLWLRQPD\VHUYHRYHUWLPHDVDXVHIXOLQGLFDWRURIDJRYHUQPHQW¶VILQDQFLDOSRVLWLRQV 7KHUHIRUHSULRU\HDULQIRUPDWLRQLVPDGHDYDLODEOHIRUDFRPSDUDWLYHDQDO\VLVRIJRYHUQPHQWZLGHGDWD $QDO\VLVRI1HW3RVLWLRQ
$VRI-XQHWKH&LW\RI6KDIWHUKDVWRWDODVVHWVRI 
PLOOLRQWRWDOGHIHUUHGRXWIORZVRIUHVRXUFHV
RI 
PLOOLRQWRWDO OLDELOLWLHV RI PLOOLRQ DQGWRWDO GHIHUUHG LQIORZV RI UHVRXUFHV RI  PLOOLRQ
7KHUHIRUHDVVHWVSOXVGHIHUUHGRXWIORZVH[FHHGOLDELOLWLHVSOXVGHIHUUHGLQIORZVE\PLOOLRQ $ODUJHSRUWLRQRIWKH&LW\¶VQHWSRVLWLRQ
PLOOLRQUHSUHVHQWVLWVQHWLQYHVWPHQWLQFDSLWDODVVHWV7KHVH DVVHWVDUHODQGEXLOGLQJVHTXLSPHQWDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHOHVVDQ\RXWVWDQGLQJGHEWXVHGWRDFTXLUHWKHP7KH &LW\XVHVWKHVHFDSLWDODVVHWVWRSURYLGHPXQLFLSDOVHUYLFHVWRLWVFLWL]HQV7KHUHIRUHWKH\DUHQRWDYDLODEOH IRUVSHQGLQJ,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWHYHQWKRXJKWKH&LW\¶VFDSLWDODVVHWVDUHUHSRUWHGQHWRIUHODWHGGHEW WKHUHVRXUFHVQHHGHGWRUHSD\WKLVGHEWPXVWEHSURYLGHGIURPRWKHUVRXUFHVEHFDXVHFDSLWDODVVHWVW\SLFDOO\ FDQQRWEHXVHGWROLTXLGDWHWKHVHOLDELOLWLHV
7KHUHPDLQLQJQHWSRVLWLRQ
 PLOOLRQ LQFOXGHVPLOOLRQWKDWLVVXEMHFWWRH[WHUQDOUHVWULFWLRQVRQ KRZLWFDQEHXVHGDQGPLOOLRQZLWKQRVXFKUHVWULFWLRQV $W WKH HQG RI WKH FXUUHQW ILVFDO \HDU WKH &LW\ LV DEOH WR UHSRUW SRVLWLYH EDODQFHV LQ WRWDO QHW SRVLWLRQ IRU JRYHUQPHQWDO)RUWKHJRYHUQPHQWDODFWLYLWLHVXQUHVWULFWHGQHWSRVLWLRQWRWDOVPLOOLRQ7KH0&&)UDLO ILEHURSWLF FRPPXQLFDWLRQDQGWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVIXQGVKDYHQHJDWLYHXQUHVWULFWHGQHWSRVLWLRQV 8