City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
FIGURE 1. SHAFTER VICINITY MAP
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
FIGURE 2. SHAFTER LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3 SITE INVENTORY – INCOME DESIGNATION (SHAFTER)
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
FIGURE 3-HOUSING INVENTORY LOCATIONS
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potential environmental effects of the project are classified and described within the CEQA Environmental Checklist under the following general headings:
“No Impact” applies where the project would not result in an impact in a category. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project would result in an impact, but the magnitude of the impact is considered insignificant or negligible.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an impact from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
“Potentially Significant Impact” applies where the project has the potential to result in a significant and unmitigable environmental impact.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
AESTHETICS
This section describes the existing aesthetics setting and the potential effects from HEU implementation.
Information in this Section is derived primarily from the City of Shafter Draft General Plan Update (2005).
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California State Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), was created by the State Legislature in 1963. The purpose of the State Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment.
California Green Building Standards Code
Part 11, Title 124, of the California Code of regulations developed green building standards in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative AB 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 1990 levels by 2020.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter Municipal Code
Section 10.140- Lighting, Municipal Zoning Ordinance identifies the following Development Codes for the provision of light for all types of land uses including residential land uses within the City:
• All single-family, duplex, and triplex residential dwelling units shall be equipped with security lighting affixed to the exterior of each garage and above the exterior of each front and rear door.
o Lights shall be installed and shall be hard-wired into the electrical power source. o Lights shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding residential uses and shall not blink, oscillate or be of unusually high intensity. • Outdoor light poles within residential areas, except for street lighting, shall not exceed 12 feet in height. such lighting shall be designed to project downward and shall not create glare on adjacent properties.
City of Shafter General Plan
The following are Policies pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the HEU. • Policy 3-Industrial Uses: Require industrial development that is in proximity to residential areas to provide buffers, along with appropriate setbacks, landscaping, and screening to minimize noise, light, glare, and other impacts.
• Policy 3-Energy Resources: Encourage the installation of energy-efficient lighting, reduced thermostat settings, and elimination of unnecessary lighting in public facilities.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
City of Shafter Municipal Code
Section 10.280 of the City of Shafter Development Code states that when a land use is proposed within a scenic area, the following criteria shall be used to evaluate the project compliance:
• Building and Structure Placement: The building and structure placement shall be compatible with and shall not detract from the visual setting or obstruct significant views. • Setbacks: intensive land development proposals, including, but not limited to, residential facilities, commercial, and industrial activities shall be designed to blend into the natural landscape and maximize visual attributes of the natural vegetation and terrain. The design of such development proposals shall also provide for maintenance of a natural open space parallel to the right-of-way. This represents the visible land area outside the highway right-of-way which may be described as the "view from the road."
• Access Drives: Right-of-way access drives shall be minimized. Developments involving concentrations of commercial activities shall be designed to function as an integral unit with common parking and right-of-way access drives when feasible. • Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Large scale development shall restrict the number of access points by providing common access roads. Parking and outside storage areas shall be screened from view to the maximum extent feasible from adjacent scenic or recreational resources by placement of buildings and structures, or by landscaping and plantings. • Above Ground Utilities: Utilities shall be constructed and routed underground except in those situations where natural features prevent the underground routing or where safety considerations necessitate above ground construction and routing. Above ground utilities shall be constructed and routed to minimize detrimental effects on the visual setting of the designated area. Where practical, above ground utilities shall be screened from view from adjacent scenic or recreational resources by placement of buildings and structures. • Grading: The alteration of the natural topography of the site shall be minimized and shall, to the extent feasible and practical, avoid detrimental effects to the visual setting of the designated area and the existing natural drainage system.
• Storage Areas: Outside storage areas associated with commercial or industrial activities shall be completely screened from view from the right-of way with landscaping and plantings.
Affected Environment
The City of Shafter is located in the high desert region of Kern County and is bound to the north by the City of Wasco, to the south by the City of Bakersfield, to the east and west by unincorporated Kern County.
The City consists of primarily undeveloped land and agricultural lands, with distant views of the mountains and single-family residences. Land uses in the City include mostly scattered parcels developed with singlefamily residences, commercial land uses, and an airport. Existing sources of light include nighttime street lighting from distant residential and commercial areas and schools.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista is one that would degrade the view from a designated scenic view spot. Structures within a viewer’s line of sight of a scenic vista may interfere with a public view of a scenic vista, either by physically blocking or screening the scenic vista from view, or by impeding or blocking access to a formerly available viewing position. Those viewers may experience scenic areas prior to residential development but could have their views of the scenic vista blocked after completion of residential development indicated in the Housing Element Update.
The City’s General Plan does not identify scenic resources, therefore, the HEU would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate future housing development on housing sites that are located throughout the City. All new development resulting from the HEU would be required to be consistent with the City of Shafter’s Municipal Code Title 17, General Development Code 10.280 Scenic Resources which contains regulations intended to protect scenic vistas. Therefore, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would not result in adverse impacts to scenic vistas and a less than significant impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
The City does not contain structures, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a scenic highway.
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Map, the nearest scenic highway to Shafter is State Route 65 (SR-65), located 41-miles North of the City. SR-65 is designated as eligible for listing as a scenic highway but has not yet been officially designated. The nearest officially
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
designated highway is State Route 33 (SR-33), located 27-miles southwest of the City. 232 Based on this
distance, views of the City from SR 33 and SR 65 are not visible, therefore, no impacts associated with State Scenic Highways will occur and no additional analysis is required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): The HEU would not directly result in construction of new housing but would facilitate new housing development on housing sites located throughout the City. The HEU would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The City’s Development Standards under Municipal Code Title 17, 10.280 Scenic Resources, protects against degrading visual character or quality of public views through its development standards. Development standards are regulations, rules, or measures pertaining to land uses and zoning that establish how future development projects would be designed. Future housing development resulting from the HEU would be required to comply with the Municipal Code regarding design compatibly of housing facilitated by the HEU with the surrounding community. As a result, any viewsheds and view corridors would be preserved. Therefore, impacts to existing visual character and quality of public views would be less than significant and no mitigation required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
232 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed October 24, 2022.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Less Than Significant
Discussion d): New home construction resulting from implementation of the HEU could potentially add new sources of light and glare to the City. Potential new light sources would be primarily exterior nighttime lighting fixtures, parking area lighting, security lighting, light glow from windows, doors and skylights, and accent lighting. This concentration of new sources of nighttime lighting near low-density areas could result in potential impacts. Undeveloped areas of the City of Shafter identified in the Housing Element Update, redevelopment of underutilized residential properties, and replacement, refurbishment, or expansion of existing deteriorated residential structures also would introduce new sources of light and glare that may adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in Shafter or that may impact sensitive biological resources.
However, future housing development resulting from implementation of the HEU would be required to comply with all applicable requirements related to light and glare which include the California Green Building Standards Code that provides guidelines on lighting design elements in order to reduce light pollution and Shafter Development Standards 12.80-Light and Glare and 10.140- Lighting that protects residential neighborhoods from excessive illumination by regulating lighting orientation (directed toward walkways and driveways, or shielding).
All future residential development projects contemplated by the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with the State of California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations), which includes mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries. In addition, all outdoor lighting is required to be designed and installed in compliance with the Shafter Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.90.040 – Lighting, as follows:
“Except for residential light fixtures using less than a 75-watt bulb, the following shall apply to all outdoor lighting fixtures:
(a) All on-site lighting shall be energy efficient, stationary, and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.
(b) Light fixtures shall be shielded so no light is emitted above the horizontal plane of the bottom of the light fixture.
(c) Light fixtures shall be shielded so no light above 0.5 footcandle spills over onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. There shall be no spillover (0.0 footcandle) onto adjacent residential used or zoned properties.”
Section 10.140 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires outdoor pole lights within residential areas, except for street lighting, shall not exceed 12 feet in height. Such lighting. Shall be designed to project downward and shall not create glare on adjacent properties.
Compliance with City of Shafter regulations and implementation of General Plan Policies would ensure that light and glare from new development and redevelopment projects contemplated by the Housing Element Update would be minimized and that significant impacts would not result. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not create new sources of substantial light or glare. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section describes the existing agriculturalsetting and the potential effects from HEU implementation.
Information in this Section is derived primarily from the City of Shafter General Plan/Zoning Map and from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map of Important Farmland.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
The California Land Conservation Act
The 1965 Land Conservation Act, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open pace uses as opposed to full market value (CDOC, 2015). The intent of the Williamson Act is to encourage voluntary land conservation, particularly conservation of agricultural land in California.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in Section 2.4 of the General Plan are applicable to the HEU. • Policy 1: Recognize that the agricultural land use designation indicates the intended long-term developed use of land in the same manner as other General Plan land use designations, and not as a temporary “holding zone.”
c. Ensure that adequate land is designated for urban and rural development to meet long-term needs for housing, employment, shopping, recreation, and other nonagricultural activities. d. Recognize that the Shafter General Plan land use map is a plan for the ultimate build out of the community, and not a projection of land use needs for a particular date. Thus, it is not intended that, in the future, as build out approaches, the General Plan be modified to provide for further expansion of lands designated for urban and rural uses.
Affected Environment
Agricultural fields and open space are typical characteristic of towns in the San Joaquin Valley that physically separate Shafter from these neighboring communities. Irrigated agriculture, the signature characteristic of the Valley, is found throughout the Valley on its highly fertile alluvial soils. Prime farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance exist in various areas within and adjacent to the City.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion a): The HEU would not directly result in construction of new housing but would facilitate new housing development on housing sites located throughout the City. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program’s Map of Important Farmland (2018), designatessections of the City of Shafter as Urban and Built-Up Land which is primarily residential land with a density of at least six units per ten-acre parcel. Other land uses include areas of prime farmland, semi-agricultural and rural commercial land, and other land.233 HEU implementation could therefore convert lands specifically designated by the Department of Conservation for agricultural purposes. Site-specific analyses would need to be conducted as part of the City development process. For the purpose of this programmatic analysis, the resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Contract Act? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion b): Properties in the City of Shafter or within its Sphere of Influence are designated by the California Department of Conservation as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The City of Shafter does not contain any land within its jurisdictional boundaries or within its unincorporated Sphere of Influence that the California Department of Conservation designates Important Farmland. Therefore, implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update could result in impacts pertaining to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Other land uses 233 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF, Accessed March 6, 2023.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
include areas of prime farmland, semi-agricultural and rural commercial land, and other land.234 HEU implementation could therefore convert lands specifically designated by the Department of Conservation for agricultural purposes. Site-specific analyses would need to be conducted as part of the City development process. For the purpose of this programmatic analysis, the resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion c): California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Section 4526 of the California Public Resources Code defines timberland as land, other than land owned by the federal government or land designated by the State as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
According to the USDA Forestry Map Finder, there are no forest or timberlands in the City of Shafter, the nearest forest is located approximately 26-miles east in the Sequoia National Forest. 235 Implementation
of the HEU would not conflict with existing zoning and not require the re-zoning of designated forest or timberland lands to accommodate the project. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would not have an impact on forest lands or timberlands during any phase of the project and no impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
234 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF, Accessed March 6, 2023. 235 https://www.fs.usda.gov/mapfinder. Accessed March 7, 2023.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion d): There are no forest resources within the City of Shafter. Rather, the United States Department of Agriculture classifies Shafter as “Non-Forest,” as indicated by California Forest Inventory and Analysis survey information. In addition, there are no timberland resources or timberland zoned “Timberland Production” areas within the City of Shafter or within its Sphere of Influence. Therefore, no impact would result from implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion e): As discussed above, the candidate sites do not contain any Farmland or forest lands which would be converted to either non-agricultural or non-forest use. Therefore, there are no Farmlands or forests which would be converted to either non-agricultural or non-forest use and no impact would occur during any phase of implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
AIR QUALITY
This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from implementation of the HEU. Descriptions and analysis in this section are provided in part by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. https://www.community.valleyair.org and the City of Shafter General Plan.
Regulatory Setting
Federal and State Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The U.S. EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans (SIP), provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) for criteria pollutants, which are Ozone (O3), Particulate Matter (PM10), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and Lead.
State Implementation Plan
A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The SIP for the State of California is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual Federal Attainment Plans for regional air districts – these air districts prepare their federal attainment plans, which are sent to CARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP.
Federal Attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.
California Clean Air Act
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), CARB requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an air quality management plan to achieve compliance with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS (i.e., visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates). CARB also has passed numerous regulations to reduce the public’s exposure to air emissions. For example, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation includes enforceable elements, such as limits on vehicle idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, and equipment reporting and labeling.
Local Regulations
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Shafter is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and is monitored by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). The District is comprised up of eight counties in California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern county. The District’s mission is to improve the health and quality of life for all Valley residents through efficient, effective, and entrepreneurial air quality management strategies. The District
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
operates and maintains an expansive network of air monitoring sites throughout the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley. A total of 24 sites are currently operated directly by the District or in collaboration with the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Several air monitoring platforms throughout Shafter were set up at various locations including an air monitoring platform at Golden Elementary School, Sequoia Elementary School, Grimmway Elementary School, and the Shafter Department of Motor Vehicles.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
The City of Shafter Municipal Code, Title 17, Ordinance 472, discusses air quality regulations and requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District that have been adopted by the City.
• Code 12.30: No operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, gases, or other forms of air pollution which can cause material damage to health, or which can cause excessive dirt on any other lot. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and/or the requirements of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City.
City of Shafter General Plan
The following air quality policies discussed in Section 6.7-Air Quality relevant to this HEU are listed below:
• Policy 1: Require development projects to minimize the generation of particulate emissions during construction by implementing appropriate dust abatement actions. • Policy 2: Promote land use patterns that provide close proximity between residential neighborhoods and employment/shopping areas to reduce vehicular trip lengths and facilitate walking and the use of bicycles.
• Policy 3: Encourage developers of large residential and non-residential projects to participate in programs and to take measures to improve traffic flow and/or reduce vehicle trips resulting in decreased vehicular emissions. Examples of such efforts may include, but are not limited to, the following: Development of mixed-use projects that provide housing and employment in close proximity and that facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation to work and permit consolidation of vehicular trips.
• Policy 7: Provide physical separations between (1) proposed new industries having the potential for emitting toxic air contaminants and (2) existing and proposed sensitive receptors (e.g., residential areas, schools, and hospitals).
Affected Environment
Local Climate and Meteorological Conditions
The City of Shafter is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) which is the second largest air basin in California, stretching 250 miles north from the Tehachapi Mountains to the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta in the north. The basin averages 35 miles in width between the Coast Ranges to the west and the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. The entire Air Basin, including Kern County, is designated as a severe non-attainment area for Ozone. Particulate matter finer
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
than ten microns, “PM10,” (Oildale-Manor Street station) also exceeds the State and Federal standards.
Carbon Monoxide (Bakersfield-Golden State Highway station) and Nitrogen Dioxide (Shafter-Walker Street station) do not equal or exceed relevant State and Federal standards.
Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status
Local monitoring data are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified for the NAAQS and CAAQS. The four designations are defined as follows. • Nonattainment: assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question.
• Maintenance: assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. • Attainment: assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time.
• Unclassified: assigned to areas where data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion a): The City of Shafter is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the District has adopted a variety of Air Quality Management Plans for a variety of non-attainment pollutants. The District is responsible for maintaining and ensuring compliance with the Air Quality Management Plans. State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) for the project site. To accomplish this, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:
1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.
2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP.
The proposed project land use type was not anticipated in the current growth assumptions.
Therefore, growth assumptions in the City of Shafter General Plan Update will be modified with the approval of the HEU.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.
As the growth represented by the HEU will be updated in the City of Shafter General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:
• That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds and
• That the primary source of emissions from the project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.
Based on these factors, HEU implementation is consistent with the AQAP.
The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) Regional Conformity Analysis determination demonstrates that the regional transportation expenditure plans (Destination 2042 Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program) in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley air quality attainment areas would not hinder the efforts set out in CARB’s SIP for each area’s nonattainment pollutants [carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10)]. The analysis uses an adopted regional growth forecast, governed by both the adopted Kern COG Policy and Procedure Manual and a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Kern and Kern COG (representing itself and outlying municipal member agencies).
The Kern COG Regional Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and Zone Changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the City of Shafter General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Regional Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the Kern COG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast.
Item 2 under Section 3 – Model Maintenance Procedure, of the Kern COG Regional Transportation Modeling Policy and Procedure Manual states “Land Use Data – General Plan land capacity data” or “Buildout capacity” is used to distribute the forecasted County totals, and may be updated as new information becomes available, and is revised in regular consultation with local planning departments.” Under current policies, only after a GPA is approved, can housing and employment assumptions be updated to reflect the capacity changes. Since the proposed development does require a GPA and Zone Change, the existing growth forecast will be modified to reflect these changes. To determine whether the forecasted growth for the project area is sufficient to account for the projected increases in employment, an analysis based on Kern COG regional forecast was conducted.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
As the HEU implementation would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases.
Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
These Plans address multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Preparing a single plan instead of three separate plans allows for the development of a more robust and health protective plan that incorporates stronger control measures over a more expeditious timeframe than may otherwise be required. Furthermore, a focused public process provides greater opportunity for public engagement and participation in the PM2.5 attainment planning process. These Plans addresses the following standards: 1997 PM2.5 Standard (24- hour 65 μg/m³ and Annual 15 μg/m³).
• Plan focus on annual standard – San Joaquin Valley has already attained 24-hour portion of the standard, based on monitoring data from the three-year period from 2014 to 2016. • Attainment deadline of December 31, 2015
• Serious area 5% Plan with attainment deadline of December 31, 2020, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m³
• Serious area Plan with attainment deadline of December 31, 2024, with 5-year extension request 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m³:
• Attainment deadline under “Serious” classification of December 31, 2025 • This Plan would be submitted three years ahead of the 2022 federal submission deadline.
The HEU does not propose development. Instead, the HEU identifies policies and programs that could be implemented to provide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with State Housing Law. The City can accommodate some of the future housing needs based on sites currently zoned for or permitting residential uses. However, rezones may be required to accommodate the RHNA allocation. The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on candidate housing sites throughout the City. A total potential development capacity of 3,492 housing units is assumed. As such, future housing on these sites would be developed with greater density than assumed in the General Plan and Kern KOG’s growth projections.
Construction Emissions
The City of Shafter 6th Cycle Housing Element Update provides opportunities for implementing the City’s required affordable housing. Future development of affordable housing would entail emissions from construction activities. Potential emissions due to future construction activities would be assessed in conjunction with City review of site-specific air quality and greenhouse gas emissions data and studies, with inclusion of appropriate Mitigation Measures. Such review would occur during the project planning process and culminate prior to approval of the relevant projects subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The reviews will provide an adequate mechanism to require specific measures to mitigate potentially significant air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts for the City of Shafter 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Operational Emissions
The City of Shafter 6th Cycle Housing Element Update provides opportunities for implementing the City’s required affordable housing. Operational emissions will depend on future residential densities and associated vehicle miles traveled, in addition to such adjunct operations as building heating and air
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
conditioning. Site-specific analysis of operational air emissions will be performed upon submission of individual development applications.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Discussion b):
Less than Significant
Future residential development would result in an increase in criteria pollutants during construction activities, such as excavation and grading, and operational activities. However, residential developments are not considered a source of emission, such as odors, which would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal daily activities as part of the occupation of future residential development. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, generators, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from future residential development.
The SJVAPCD has currently adopted CEQA significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions for projects during construction and operation based on its Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The District has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on the District’s New Sources Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources.
Using the project type, size and number of vehicle trips, the District has pre-quantified emissions and determined values below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance criteria for pollutants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically reviews and establishes health-based national air quality standards also referred to as NAAQS for ozone, particulates, and other criteria air pollutants guided by the Clean Air Act. The District has adopted several air quality attainment plans over the years that identify measures needed in the Valley to attain EPA’s increasingly stringent NAAQS. The District has implemented these plans and adopted nearly 650 rules that have resulted in significant emissions reductions. Therefore, projects that do not exceed NAAQS emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts. As a result of the District’s stringent and comprehensive air quality management strategy along with significant investments made by Valley business and residents,
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
PM2.5 and ozone levels are now at historically low levels and providing Valley residents with the associated health benefits.
The 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-hour Ozone Standard (2022 Ozone Plan or Plan) uses extensive science and research, state of the art air quality modeling, and the best available information in developing a strategy to attain the federal 2015 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone of seventy parts per billion (ppb) as expeditiously as practicable. Building on decades of developing and implementing effective air pollution control strategies, this Plan demonstrates that the reductions being achieved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) strategy (72% reduction in NOx emissions by 2037) ensures expeditious attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by the 2037 attainment deadline. Over the years, the District and CARB have adopted numerous attainment plans (State Implementation Plans, or SIPs), which serve as the primary vehicles for improving air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. Each SIP builds upon the work of prior plans, while establishing the path for continued air quality improvements. Following the adoption of each attainment plan, the District implements plan strategies through regulatory development, outreach, continued research, and incentive programs. Each attainment plan is just one milestone in the District’s continued effort to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley.
The District and CARB are now conducting a public process to develop an updated Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 standard, to submit required components by the June and December 2023 deadlines. This updated Plan will build on existing air quality strategies, and the comprehensive NOx emissions reduction strategies included in existing ozone and PM2.5 attainment plans will greatly contribute to meeting the federal PM2.5 standard.
In addition to SJVAPCD air quality standards are protected through a number of General Plan policies. In particular, implementing Policy 1 that requires projects to minimize the generation of particulate emissions during construction by implementing appropriate dust abatement actions; Policy 3 that encourages developers of large residential and non-residential projects to participate in programs and to take measures to improve traffic flow and/or reduce vehicle trips resulting in decreased vehicular emissions and Policy 7 that provides physical separations between (1) proposed new industries having the potential for emitting toxic air contaminants and (2) existing and proposed sensitive receptors (e.g., residential areas, schools, and hospitals.
Future residential development would also be required to meet SJVAPCD thresholds during construction and operation. Measures such as dust control and equipment type are applied to grading or clearing permits.
Future development associated with the project would also be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. as applicable, and the City’s local procedures to determine if any long-term air quality impacts would occur from the operation of a specific new development. As such, future implementation of the project would not result in a cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant in which the project region is in nonattainment under federal and state ambient air quality standards.
Therefore, the project would not directly violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): Sensitive receptors are places where people who are more susceptible to air pollution than the general population, including children, athletes, the elderly, and the chronically ill are located. Typical land uses where substantial numbers of sensitive receptors are often found are schools, daycare centers, parks, recreation areas, medical facilities, nursing homes, and convalescent care facilities. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to pollutants.
Future development would result in an increase in criteria pollutants that would impact sensitive receptors during construction activities, such as excavation and grading, and operational activities.
However, residential developments once operational are not considered sources of emissions, such as odors, which would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Future development would be required to comply with local regulations such as the General Plan policies related to air quality, conform with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and AQAP thresholds during construction and operation.
Compliance with these policies and regulations is part of the construction rather than entitlement process.
Measures such as dust control and equipment type are applied to grading or clearing permits. Therefore, the project would not directly expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors, and there would be less than significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion d): As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer stations. No
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
such uses would occupy the candidate sites or the project area. Therefore, HEU implementation would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing biological resources setting and potential effects from implementation of the HEU. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based primarily on information provided in the City of Shafter General Plan and Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they engage in, permit, or fund do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for these species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10 and Part 21) protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs from disturbance or destruction. “Migratory birds” include all nongame, wild birds found in the U.S., except for the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and rock pigeon (Columba livia).
State Regulations
California Fish and Game Code
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may list species as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), respectively. The USFWS can designate critical habitat that identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species. Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take of birds protected under the MBTA and protects their occupied nests. On September 22, 2020, Section 2074.2 of the California Fish and Game Code accepted for consideration the petition submitted to list the western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Based on that finding and the acceptance of the petition, the Commission determined that western Joshua tree is a candidate species as defined by Section 2068 of the Fish and Game Code.
State-listed species and those petitioned for listing are protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, if a species is both Federally and State listed, a consistent determination with the protections of FESA permits (if there would be take of listed species) is required. Under Section 2081, if a species is state-listed only, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required in order to obtain an incidental take permit if the project could result in take of a state-listed species. Because the project is expected to result in impacts on state-listed species, consultation with the CDFW is anticipated.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 directs all Federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species. This Orderfurther directs Federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, control and monitor existing invasive species populations, restore native species to invaded ecosystems, research and develop prevention and control methods for invasive species, and promote public education on invasive species. As the project proponent, the City, or its designee, would be responsible for complying with Executive Order 13112 and ensuring that HEU implementation would not contribute to the spread of invasive species. Plants listed in the Pest Ratings of Noxious Weed Species and Noxious Weed Seed (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2003)would not be used as part of the project.
Federal Protection and Classifications
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Threatened species are defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” It is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined as follows “…harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Also, the USFWS, through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification as forms of a “take.” These interpretations generally are considered and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In the case where a property owner seeks permission from a Federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with the USFWS.
State of California Protection and Classifications
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as “… a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” The State defines a threatened species as “… a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter….” Candidate species are defined as “… a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they already were listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the Federal FESA, the CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species.
CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating “no person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state, any species, or any part of
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided….” CESA defines “take” as “…hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The State has authorized exceptions to all “take” that require “…permits or memorandums of understanding…” and can be authorized for “…endangered species, threatened, species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes.”
In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the State as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds. California Species of Special Concern listings include special status species, including all State and Federal protected and candidate taxa, Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service sensitive species, species considered to be declining or rare by the CNPS or National Audubon Society, and a selection of species considered to be under population stress but not formally proposed for listing.
Nesting birds, including raptors, and passerines and non-passerine land birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW typically recommends surveys for nesting birds that potentially could be directly (e.g., actual removal of trees/vegetation) or indirectly (e.g., noise disturbance) impacted by project-related activities. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW.
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to monitoring and protecting sensitive species in California. The organization has compiled an inventory comprised of information focused on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of rare, threatened, or endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by the CDFW.
Threat rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with one being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered.
A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B, 2, 4, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California.
However, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following goals and policies applicable to the HEU are contained in Section 6.4-Biological Habitats and Wildlife Resources of the Conservation Element of the City of Shafter’s General Plan:
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 1- Ensure that development proposals, including City-sponsored projects, are analyzed for short- and long-term impacts to biological resources.
• Policy 2- Direct development projects away from lands with sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible. Where alternative sites are infeasible, unavailable, or otherwise undesirable, require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. • Policy 3- Whenever a biological resources survey is undertaken to determine the presence or absence of a threatened or endangered species, or of a species of special concern identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, require the survey to follow established protocols for the species in question prior to any final determination that the species is absent from the site.
Affected Environment
The Shafter HEU Planning area has been developed with agricultural, urban, and petroleum production uses. Native vegetation that is present within the area consists of widely scattered remnants of grassland and saltbush scrub. Habitat for “Species of Special Concern” may remain in the Rio Bravo Oil Field outside the high-intensity production area. The canals that cross the Planning Area have little or no marsh or riparian cover. Agricultural ponds that exist within the Planning Areas are primarily kept clear of vegetation and do not have significant habitat value for breeding or foraging wildlife.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion a): The HEU does not propose construction of housing or other development; rather, it provides capacity for future housing development for six primary candidate housing sites. However, future housing development could potentially impact candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife or plant species through direct or indirect disturbance or elimination of essential habitat, if located near such resources. According to the City General Plan, the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), badger (Taxidea taxus), and spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii) are known to persist within agricultural areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with Federal, State, and local regulations. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure that no habitat would be impaired during development, construction, or operations. Future housing development would be subject to General Plan Conservation Element Policies 1 and 3, which require applicants proposing development within biologically sensitive areas to determine short and long-term impacts to biological resources and to consult with the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Compliance with Policy 1 would
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
identify areas for special protection and create protection measures for specified habitat and sensitive species.
Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would have the potential to impact nesting birds which may be located on any of the candidate sites and have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in local trees and shrubs. Potentially impacted bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If vegetation clearing associated with contemplated residential development would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 to July 15 for raptors and January 15 to August 31 for other birds), direct impacts to nesting birds could occur. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process per City of Shafter Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter II, Section 2 (Planning Application Requirements and Forms). Future housing developments facilitated by the HEU would require implementing mitigation measures MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3, which would reduce any residential project impacts to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM BIO-1: Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to special-status wildlife and plants species, may at the discretion of the City, be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the HEU, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species which may include the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Swainson’s Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, Cotch Bumble Bee, and Burrowing Owl all species of concern in the San Joaquin Valley region.
A Biological Resources Report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include (1) methods used to determine presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed site-specific project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate Project Design Features required by the applicant to minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the impact level to less than significant.
MM BIO-2: If it is determined that potential impacts to nesting birds may occur as a result of an individual project, then housing development activities contemplated in the HEU shall avoid the bird breeding season (typically January through July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, the site-specific applicant shall be responsible for retaining a qualified biologist who will conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the survey area. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding each site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code and minimize the potential for project delay, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by the qualified biologist prior to project commencement. In the event active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the biologist or overriding agencies) shall be established around such active nests, and no construction within the buffer shall allowed until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MM BIO-3: If San Joaquin Kit Fox species is detected during surveys, a) consultation with the CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State Incidental Take Permit (ITP)pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) necessary to comply with CESA.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion b): While the HEU does not specifically propose residential development and resulting alteration of a known or potential riparian habitat, it is possible that potential future housing development projects resulting from implementation of the HEU could directly or indirectly impact riparian habitats or sensitive natural areas. However, future site-specific housing development facilitated by the HEU would comply with General Plan Policy 1 which ensures that development proposals, including City-sponsored projects, are analyzed for short- and long-term impacts to biological resources. Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and comply with General Plan policies. Further, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 for avoiding and minimizing construction and operations impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore, resultant impacts would be less than significant level with implementation of specified mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to special-status wildlife and plants species, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the HEU, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A Biological Resources Report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey which may include the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Swainson’s Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, Cotch Bumble Bee, and Burrowing Owl all species of concern in the San Joaquin Valley region. The report shall include (1) methods used to determine presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed site-specific project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate Project Design Features required by the applicant to minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the impact level to less than significant.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MM BIO-2: Housing development activities contemplated in the HEU shall avoid the bird breeding season (typically January through July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if feasible.
If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, the site-specific applicant shall be responsible for retaining a qualified biologist who will conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the survey area. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding each site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code and minimize the potential for project delay, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by the qualified biologist prior to project commencement. In the event active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the biologist or overriding agencies) shall be established around such active nests, and no construction within the buffer shall allowed until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
MM BIO-3: If San Joaquin Kit Fox species is detected during surveys, a) consultation with the CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State Incidental Take Permit (ITP)pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) necessary to comply with CESA.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion c) While the HEU does not specifically propose alteration of a known or potential jurisdictional wetland or other waters of the U.S. or State, it is possible that potential future site-specific housing development projects resulting from implementation of the HEU could directly or indirectly impact jurisdictional waters or wetlands. According to the City’s General Plan, the canals that cross the City’s Planning Areas have little or no marsh or riparian cover. Agricultural ponds that exist within the Planning Areas are primarily kept clear of vegetation and do not have significant habitat value for breeding or foraging wildlife. Regardless, future housing development would be required to implement Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 which would require a site-specific biological study to be conducted in order to determine what impacts could be had on riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation communities through consultation with the appropriate agencies. If necessary, development on specific sites will need to incorporate design to mitigate effects. Implementation of MM BIO-1 would reduce the potential for future housing development to result in substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on any known wetlands or other waters of the U.S. and State. Therefore, potential impacts related to wetland resources would be less than significant level with implementation of specified mitigation.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to special-status wildlife and plants species, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the HEU, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A Biological Resources Report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey which may include the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Swainson’s Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, Cotch Bumble Bee, and Burrowing Owl all species of concern in the San Joaquin Valley region. The report shall include (1) methods used to determine presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed site-specific project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate Project Design Features required by the applicant to minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the impact level to less than significant. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion d): The City consists of developed and urbanized areas including rural desert and agricultural areas. According to the City’s General Plan, there are no natural corridors that wildlife can use to move freely through the Shafter HEU Planning Area, although, common and sensitive wildlife is known to utilize and move through agricultural lands and cross highways. Future housing development contemplated in the HEU has the potential to impact nesting birds which have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs. Regardless, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species, migratory wildlife species, or migratory wildlife corridors. Applications for future housing development stemming from the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to a wildlife corridor, would be required to implement the Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3. Compliance with Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3, future housing development would reduce impacts to any identified wildlife corridor to a less than significant level.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Applications for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to special-status wildlife and plants species, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the HEU, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A Biological Resources Report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey which may include the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Swainson’s Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, Cotch Bumble Bee, and Burrowing Owl all species of concern in the San Joaquin Valley region. The report shall include (1) methods used to determine presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed site-specific project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate Project Design Features required by the applicant to minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to be implemented by the applicant to reduce the impact level to less than significant.
MM BIO-2: Housing development activities contemplated in the HEU shall avoid the bird breeding season (typically January through July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if feasible.
If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, the site-specific applicant shall be responsible for retaining a qualified biologist who will conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the survey area. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding each site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code and minimize the potential for project delay, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by the qualified biologist prior to project commencement. In the event active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the biologist or overriding agencies) shall be established around such active nests, and no construction within the buffer shall allowed until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
MM BIO-3: If San Joaquin Kit Fox species is detected during surveys, a) consultation with the CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire a State Incidental Take Permit (ITP)pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) necessary to comply with CESA.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Less Than Significant
Discussion e): Implementation of residential development contemplated in the HEU would not be expected to conflict with the adopted 2005 City of Shafter General Plan Update and is not subject to any local ordinances. Regardless, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for protecting biological resources. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process per City of Shafter Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter II, Section 2 (Planning Application Requirements and Forms).
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion f): The Shafter HEU Planning area has been developed with agricultural, urban, and petroleum production uses. Native vegetation that is present within the area consists of widely scattered remnants of grassland and saltbush scrub. Habitat for “Species of Special Concern” may remain in the Rio Bravo Oil Field outside the high-intensity production area.
Sensitive upland wildlife species of the San Joaquin Valley are known to persist in the saltbush scrub and grassland areas in the oil fields, since these parcels are usually relatively undisturbed, although typically grazed, compared to the surrounding agricultural areas. Regardless, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for protecting biological resources. All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process per City of Shafter Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter II, Section 2 (Planning Application Requirements and Forms). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from implementation of the 6th Cycle HEU. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided in the City of Shafter General Plan.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the U.S. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider effects of their undertaking on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment.
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA (PRC Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2 and CCR Title 145, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5) calls for evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, National Register, or designation under a local ordinance. CEQA requires public agencies and private interests to identify potential adverse impacts or environmental consequences of their projects on any object or site of significance with respect to history. CEQA also provides protection for paleontological remains.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of people important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed.
CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
California Public Resources Code
PRC 21083.2, 5097.5, 30244, and 21084.1
According to PRC 21083.2 (a), if archaeological resources are determined to be significant, then the impacts on that resource should be addressed. PRC 5097.5 prohibits the excavation and/or the removal of a “vertebrate paleontological site…or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” PRC 30244 requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological resources resulting from development on public land.
PRC 21084.1 gives the lead agency power to determine if a resource is a historical resource, even if the resource is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register of historical places. In addition, the lead agency can determine that a resource is a historical resource, even if it is not deemed significant in a historical resource survey.
Native American Heritage Act
The Native American Heritage Act, passed by California in 1976, established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for protecting Native American religious values on state property. The NAHC not only protects the heritage of Native Americans, but also ensures their participation in matters concerning heritage sites. The Commission’s duty is to assist both Federal and State agencies in protecting Native American sacred places and provide recommendations concerning Native American heritage in accordance with environmental law and policy. The Act protects burials from disturbance, vandalism, and accidental destruction. It also stipulates which specific procedures laid out in the California Health and Safety Code must be implemented if a Native American burial is uncovered during project construction or archaeological data recovery.
California Assembly Bill 52
(PRC 21080.1, 21080.3.1, and 21080.3.2)
As of July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC for the purpose of mitigating impacts on tribal cultural resources. The specific directives of the bill are as follows:
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
“Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section (PRC Section 21080.1(d)).” The legislation imposes new requirements for consultation regarding projects that may affect a tribal cultural resource, includes a broad definition of what may be considered to be a tribal cultural resource, and includes a list of recommended mitigation measures.
Assembly Bill 52 added Tribal Cultural Resources to the categories of Cultural Resources in CEQA. “Tribal resources” are defined as either (1) sites, features, places cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that are included in the State register of historical resources or a local register of historical resources, or that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the State register; or, (2) resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant based on the criteria for listing in the State register. Under this legislation, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is defined as a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss the impact and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures could avoid or substantially lessen the impact.
Assembly Bill 52 further requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic are of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If a tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, significance of tribal cultural resources, and significance of project impacts on tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe. The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource (if such a significant effect exists) or when a party concludes mutual agreement cannot be attained.
The legislation also identifies Mitigation Measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation. Recommended measures include the following:
• Preservation in place;
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; • Protecting the traditional use of the resource;
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource; and,
• Permanent conservation easements with culturally appropriate management criteria.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
California Senate Bill 18 (Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Act – 2004) California State law provides for limited protection of Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places, such as the following: sanctified cemeteries; religious ceremonial sites, shrines; burial grounds; prehistoric ruins; archaeological sites; and sacred sites.
California Senate Bill 18 (2005) placed new requirements on local governments for developments in or near a Traditional Tribal Cultural Place (TTCP). Local jurisdictions must provide opportunities for involvement of California Native American tribes in the land planning process to preserve traditional tribal cultural places. The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends the Native American Heritage Commission provide written information within 30 days to inform the Lead Agency if a proposed project is determined to be near a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if the tribes want to consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. If the Native American Heritage Commission, the tribe(s) and interested parties agree upon mitigation measures necessary for the proposed project, the mitigation measures would be included in the project EIR. If the City and tribe agree adequate mitigation or preservation measures cannot be implemented, neither party is obligated to act. SB 18 also amended California Civil Code Section 815.3 to add California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements to protect their cultural places.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the County Coroner must be notified, and no further disturbance is authorized to occur until the County Coroner has decided of origin and disposition of the remains. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner must notify the NAHC, who will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD then inspects the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following goals and policies applicable to the project are contained in Section 6.6-Cultural Resources of the General Plan:
• Policy 1: Require new developments to analyze, and therefore avoid or mitigate impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources in accordance with applicable CEQA guidelines and provisions of the California Public Resources Code • Policy 2: Require that areas found to contain significant artifacts or fossils be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or paleontologist for recommendations concerning protection and preservation, implementing those recommendations as part of the mitigation measures required for the project.
• Policy 3: As a standard condition of approval for new development projects, require that if cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during grading, alteration of earth materials in the
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
vicinity of the find be halted until a qualified expert has evaluated the find and recorded identified cultural resources.
• Policy 4: Preserve historic structures and ensure that alterations to historic buildings and their immediate settings are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ensure that specific rehabilitation projects follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
• Policy 5: Preserve significant historic structures. Consider various alternatives to demolition of these structures, including adaptive reuse of historic buildings for contemporary uses. • Policy 6: Preserve sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and pursue listing eligible sites in the register.
• Policy 7: Through the development review process, ensure that projects with street frontage adjacent to the Green Hotel, Shafter Depot, or Santa Fe Foreman’s Home be designed to be sensitive to the character of historic buildings. The project review may consider: Scale, height, and massing; Fenestration; Architectural details; Building materials; and Site Planning.
Affected Environment
Agricultural activities have occurred in the City of Shafter and in its vicinity has been cultivated since the late 1800s. Along with mining activities and urban development, these activities have disturbed much of the surface of the land in the Planning Area. There may remain, however, subsurface archaeological sites that are undisturbed. There are several remaining historical structures and/or sites in the Shafter area.
The City has received sediments from the Coast Ranges to the west, the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, and to a lesser degree from activity on the San Andreas Fault system. These sediments contain different species of fossils, reflecting the different periods of deposition. Vertebrate fossils found in these formations are significant as defined under State and Federal citations.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion a): Historical resources are buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. These resources include intact structures of any type that are 50 years or more of age and can include houses, structures such as irrigation works and engineering features.
Although the HEU does not propose any specific development, future residential development in Shafter contemplated and facilitated by the HEU potentially could result in direct or indirect impacts to historical
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
resources through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historic resources. The likelihood of encountering historical resources on developed properties is greater than the corresponding likelihood on vacant properties. Most of the area comprising the candidate sites identified in the HEU are vacant.
The Shafter Planning Area has been cultivated since the late 1800s. Along with mining activities and urban development, these activities have disturbed much of the surface of the land in the HEU Planning Area.
There may however remain subsurface archaeological sites that are undisturbed. There are several remaining historical structures and/or sites in the Shafter area, including the following:
Shafter Cotton Research Station. The 120- acre center was established in 1922. The cotton variety developed at the station resulted in the widespread cultivation of premium cottons in the San Joaquin Valley for a worldwide market. The Station is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is a California Point of Historical Interest.
Shafter/Minter Field Airport. This air facility was built and maintained to train military pilots during World War II. It was originally registered by the state as a historical site for the role it played in the War. An air museum has been established to preserve artifacts from World War II.
Site of the Flight of the Gossamer Condor. A plaque at Shafter Airport commemorates the occasion of the world’s first man-powered flight to complete the “Kremer Circuit,” a figure-eight around two pylons onehalf mile apart. Shafter Depot. This structure, located at the corner of State Route 43 and Lerdo Highway, was erected in 1917, and has been restored to its original state. Many pieces of Shafter’s history, including a railroad office complete with furniture and equipment and pre-World War II farm machinery, are on display.
The Green Hotel was built in 1913 by the Kern County Land Company to accommodate prospective buyers.
It is the oldest commercial building in Shafter and has been restored. The Hotel is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is a California Point of Historical Interest.
Santa Fe Foreman’s Home. This structure, constructed in 1889 by the Santa Fe Railroad to house railroad foremen, was the first home built in Shafter. It is located at the corner of Central Avenue and Santa Fe Way. The Shafter Historical Society has been responsible for preserving the Green Hotel and the Shafter Depot.
Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources significant to our culture, and are afforded protection by Federal, State, and local environmental guidelines. The Planning Area has received sediments from the Coast Ranges to the west, the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, and to a lesser degree from activity on the San Andreas Fault system. These sediments contain different species of fossils, reflecting the different periods of deposition. The vertebrate fossils found in these formations are significant as defined under State and Federal citations. They are also important because they help provide dates concerning rates and frequency of fault activity, and the timing and rates of rise on such major mountain ranges as the Sierra Nevada.
Future residential development on the HEU candidate sites would be subject to development review and be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements pertaining to avoiding impacts to
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
historical resources. Furthermore, all future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process and may include CEQA review, as well as compliance with City General Plan Policies addressing historical resources. If the City determines it likely that future development on identified candidate housing sites could impact unidentified historical resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 below would be required. Such implementation, together with compliance with Federal and State regulations and City General Plan Policies would ensure any resultant impact to historical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-CR-1: Applications for future development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, where the City of Shafter has determined a potential for impacts to historic resources may exist, may be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: For any building or structure older than 50 years of age having its original structural integrity intact, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historian to determine if said building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Applicant shall submit a Historical Resource Assessment to the City of Shafter that shall include methods used to determine presence or absence of historical resources, identification of potential impacts from the proposed development, and evaluation of the significance of any identified historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion b): The HEU does not directly propose any future residential development and does not propose any related grading or excavation. Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would involve grading or excavation activities, some of which might impact previously unknown archaeological resources on the candidate sites. There is a potential likelihood of finding archaeological resources on identified vacant candidate sites. If such resources are encountered, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR-2, in combination with compliance with the State- and City-established regulatory frameworks, would ensure any resultant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM CR-2: Applications for future development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, where the City of Shafter has determined a potential for impacts to archaeological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to issuance of any permit future residential development on an undisturbed site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an archaeological
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
survey to evaluate the presence of cultural resources and the need for project impact mitigation by preservation, relocation, or other method(s). The Applicant shall submit an Archaeological Resource Assessment to the City of Shafter that shall include methods used to determine presence or absence of archaeological resources, identification of potential impacts from the HEU, and evaluation of the significance of any identified archaeological resources. If there are potentially significant impacts to an identified archaeological/cultural resource, the Assessment also shall recommend appropriate mitigation required by the Applicant to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion c): Residential development contemplated in the HEU would not occur on any land containing a cemetery. There are no known formal cemeteries located within the contemplated residential development sites. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. and to comply with Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 below. The resultant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-CR-1: Applications for future development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, where the City of Shafter has determined a potential for impacts to historic resources may exist, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework: For any building or structure older than 50 years of age having its original structural integrity intact, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional historian to determine if said building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Applicant shall submit a Historical Resource Assessment to the City of Shafter that shall include methods used to determine presence or absence of historical resources, identification of potential impacts from the proposed development, and evaluation of the significance of any identified historical resources.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
ENERGY
Regulatory Setting
This section describes the existing energy resources setting and generalized potential effects from implementation of the HEU. Information in this section is based primarily on information contained in the Shafter General Plan and the Shafter Municipal Code.
State Regulations
California Energy Commission
The regulations directly applicable to the project are Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6, and CALGreen Title 24, Part 11. These regulations include but are not limited to the use of energy efficient heating and cooling systems, water conserving plumbing and water-efficient irrigation systems.
Residential development contemplated in the HEU would be required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations as part of the building permit and inspection process.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following Goals and Policies are applicable to the contemplated residential development are contained in Section 6.8-Energy Resources of the General Plan:
• Policy 1: Continue to implement Title 24 of the State Building Code and provide incentives to new development to exceed its energy efficiency standards through increased use of passive solar design and daylighting.
• Policy 2: Promote the use of site design, landscaping, and solar orientation to decrease the need for summer cooling and winter heating.
• Policy 3: Encourage the installation of energy efficient lighting, reduced thermostat settings, and elimination of unnecessary lighting in public facilities. o Encourage the incorporation of recycled materials in new construction, where feasible. o Promote the use of solar, wind, and other alternative energy generation systems as part of new planned development.
• Policy 4: Encourage the incorporation of recycled materials in new construction, where feasible.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
Residential projects contemplated by the HEU must comply with the City’s Development Code includes Development Codes that encourage use of energy conservation techniques in all new developments.
Affected Environment
Pacific Gas and Electric provides electrical and natural gas services to Shafter.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a: The HEU would not directly result in residential construction. Rather, the HEU would facilitate and provide a policy context for future residential development on the six identified candidate sites. However, residential development contemplated in the HEU would require use of construction equipment including power tools, earth moving equipment, construction vehicles, and material handling equipment. Use of energy resources during grading and construction activities would be temporary in nature and could be expected to last throughout the 6th Cycle time frame. Temporary impacts during grading and construction would not represent a significant demand for available supplies.
This future residential development would result in direct consumption of electricity and natural gas.
Grading and construction equipment would use diesel fuel. Vehicles and vehicle trips associated with workers’ commutes also would result in fuel and energy use. During grading and construction activities some incidental energy conservation would occur through compliance with State requirements.
Construction equipment also would be required to comply with current United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board engine emissions standards. All grading and construction-related activities would be subject to project level review and approval by appropriate City staff.
San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District regulations pertaining to energy conservation would require the compliance of each individual residential development. Future residential developments would be subject to project-specific review and approval to ensure compliance with applicable City of Shafter General Plan Goals and Policies, and with City of Shafter Municipal Code requirements. HEU buildout would not foreseeably result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during grading and construction activities contemplated by the HEU.
Therefore, HEU-related development activities fuel consumption would not be more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar residential projects. During operation of each residential project, occupancy of the HEU-contemplated residences would result in consumption of electricity and natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2015, households on average, in the western U.S consumed about 10,330 kilowatt hours(kWh) of electricity annually which averages to about 867 (kWh) per month. The State of California averages about 557 (kWh) per month, which is far below the national average (867 kWh). The average annual energy use per home has been declining over the recent past due in part to improvements to building insulation and materials; improved efficiencies in
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
heating and cooling equipment, water heaters, refrigerators, lighting, appliances, energy conserving designs and operational programs. In addition, new residential development will be required to accommodate solar energy connections or sources of on-site renewable energy, per the latest 2019 California Energy Code requirements. The Energy Code requires all new residential construction to achieve net-zero emissions associated with electricity usage using on-site renewable sources. This analysis has conservatively assumed 80% of electricity usage will be captured via on-site renewable sources (i.e., solar panels), as part of the project design.
New residential development would not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other single-family land use projects of similar scale and configuration. Therefore, individual project-related operational impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion b: Implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with California State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, green building standards, and appliance efficiency regulations. The residential development would not cause inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption; therefore, no adverse impact would result. Contemplated residential development therefore would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be required to be consistent with City of Shafter Municipal Code requirements related to renewable energy and energy efficiency and with all existing California Building Code (CMMC Title 5, Chapter 1, Section 5-1 [Construction Codes Adopted]) energy requirements. Such compliance with the existing regulations and CMMC would reduce any identified impacts to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the existing geology and soil setting and the potential effects from residential implementation on the identified six candidate sites. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided in part by the City of Shafter General Plan.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (AP Act) (PRC Sections 2621 to 2630) was passed in 1972 to provide a statewide mechanism for reducing the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the AP Act is to prevent siting of buildings used for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. It should be noted that the AP Act addresses the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as seismically induced ground shaking or landslides.
The law requires the State Geologist to identify regulatory zones (known as Alquist-Priolo (AP) Fault Zones) around surface traces of active faults, and to depict these zones on topographic base maps, typically at a scale of one inch to 2,000 feet. AP Fault Zones vary in width, although they are often 0.75 mile wide. Once published, the maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Except for single-family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings that are not part of a larger development (i.e., four units or more), local agencies are required to regulate development within the mapped zones. In general, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) (PRC Sections 2690 to 2699.6), which was passed in 1990, addresses earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture. These hazards include strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures. Much like the AP Act discussed above, the State Geologist maps these seismic hazard zones to assist local government in the land use planning process. SHMA states, “It is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” SHMA also states, “Cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBC) (CCR, Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, Chapter 29 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. The CBC applies to building design and construction in the state and is based on the Federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) used widely throughout the country (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis). The CBC has been modified for California conditions with more detailed and/or more stringent regulations.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
The State Earthquake Protection Law (California Health and Safety Code Section 19100, et seq.) requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes.
Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC.
The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, and Appendix Chapter A33 regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control and construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. The CBC is updated every three years, and the current 2013 CBC took effect January 1, 2014.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following goals and policies that are relevant to the proposed project are contained in Section 7.0- Environmental Hazards Program of the Shafter General Plan:
• Policy 1: Require that all new developments comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code’s seismic design standards.
• Policy 2: Promote earthquake survival and ability to function after a major earthquake as the primary objective in the siting, design, and construction of emergency services facilities (e.g., fire stations, police stations, and medical facilities).
• Policy 3: Encourage the retrofitting of emergency services and high occupancy structures which could be vulnerable to seismic activity to meet existing code requirements. • Policy 4: Require geologic and soils reports to be prepared for proposed development sites (including specialized soils reports in areas suspected of having problems with potential bearing strength, expansion, settlement, or subsidence), and incorporate the findings and recommendations of these studies into project development standards. o The objective of these studies is to ensure that the standards of the Uniform Building code are met, and that structures designed for human occupancy are not in danger of collapse or significant structural damage with corresponding hazards to human occupants. o Where structural damage can be mitigated through structural design, ensure that potential soils hazards do not pose risks of human injury or loss of life in outdoor areas of a development site.
• Policy 5: Provide information and establish incentives for property owners to rehabilitate existing properties.
• Policy 6: Encourage the purchase of earthquake insurance by residents and businesses. • Policy 7: Work with PG&E, pipeline companies, and industrial uses to implement measures to safeguard the public from seismic hazards associated with high voltage transmission lines, caustic and toxic gas and fuel lines, and flammable storage facilities. • Policy 8: Encourage continued investigation by State agencies of geologic conditions within the area to promote public awareness of potential geologic and seismic hazards.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
Section 10.320-Soils Reports of Shafter’s Municipal Codes Development Standards requires the following:
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
1. A preliminary soils report, prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, based upon adequate test borings, shall be required for every subdivision for which a final tract map is required, and may be required by the City Engineer for other development applications. The preliminary soils report requirement may be waived if the City Engineer finds that sufficient knowledge exists as to the quality of the soils located on the development site.
2. ln the event the preliminary soils report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soils problems which, if not corrected, could lead to structural defects, a soils investigation of each lot, parcel, or building site in the subdivision or development may be required. Such soils reports must be performed by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California, who shall recommend a corrective action likely to prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where such an identified soils problem exists.
3. The subdivision, or other type of development, or any portion thereof where soil problems exist, may be approved by the City Engineer if it is determined that a recommended action would prevent an occurrence of damage to any structure to be constructed and that the issuance of a building permit be subject to the inclusion of such recommended action(s) for the construction of each structure involved.
4. All soils reports prepared specifically for subdivisions shall be kept on file for public inspection by the City, pursuant to the provisions of Section 66434.5 of the Subdivision Map Act.
5. Final soils reports shall certify that all soils meet engineering requirements prior to issuance of any building permit.
Affected Environment
The primary candidate sites occupy approximately 24,000 acres in the northwesterly and the southeasterly portions of the City. Many of the candidate sites are undeveloped.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a) i): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. The candidate housing sites are not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known surface expression of fault traces is
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
thought to cross the sites. Therefore, HEU contemplated and facilitated residential development would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. However, the City of Shafter is surrounded on three sides by active fault systems. Several of these systems are less than 10 miles from the City limits. In addition, there are faults outside the San Joaquin Valley that are sufficiently near Shafter that a major earthquake could affect the City. No impact would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a) ii): The potential severity of ground shaking depends on many factors, including distance from the originating fault, the earthquake magnitude, and the nature of the subsurface materials. Seismic ground shaking is not expected to materially affect construction of the proposed project because the event would be short-term, and construction would immediately cease upon experiencing an earthquake. The potential for seismic ground shaking in the vicinity of the candidate sites during operation is unavoidable.
However, the City of Shafter is surrounded on three sides by active fault systems. Several of these systems are less than 10 miles from the City limits. In addition, there are faults outside the San Joaquin Valley that are sufficiently near Shafter that a major earthquake could affect the City. All residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be designed to conform with all relevant building codes and with City General Plan Goals and Policies that, among other things, require geologic and soils reports to be prepared for all development sites. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion a) iii): Liquefaction in soils and sediments occurs during earthquake events when soil material is transformed from a solid state to a liquid state generated by an increase in pressure between pore space and soil particles. The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
future residential development on identified candidate sites. However, all future residential construction could be subject to liquefaction. The City-required geologic and soils reports for all development sites would identify potential ground failure hazards. All future housing would be subject to the City of Shafter’s development review process and would be required to comply with all City, State, and Federal requirements. As a result, any identified impacts related to potential hazards from soil failure, including liquefaction, would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GEO-1 During HEU implementation, each residential development shall prepare a Geotechnical Investigation Report as described in the Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070).
Successful incorporation of these specifications shall be verified by the City of Shafter Building Official prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. iv) Landslides?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion a) iv): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. The identified candidate sites are relatively flat and are not located in the vicinity of slopes or hillsides that could potentially be susceptible to landslides.
Therefore, no impact would occur from residential development contemplated or facilitated in the HEU.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion b): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. Much of the candidate sites area is vacant and thereby could be subject to wind-caused soil erosion. Developers of the future residential units will be required to comply with specific City requirements that govern wind and water erosion during site preparation (grading; excavation) and construction activities to control soil erosion. The City of Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070) specifies requirements needing to be satisfied prior to issuance of a
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Grading Permit for any applicable project. In addition, following residential development, each development site would be paved over and landscaped, which would minimize soil erosion. Therefore, the resultant level of impact would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 would ensure any related impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GEO-1 During HEU implementation, each residential development shall prepare a Geotechnical Investigation Report as described in the Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070).
Successful incorporation of these specifications shall be verified by the City of Shafter Building Official prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion c):
Landslide/Lateral Spreading
The Shafter HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. The identified candidate sites are relatively flat with minor grade variation for drainage purposes. Most of the areas surrounding the development sites are similarly level and lack prominent geological features typically associated with landslides such as hillsides or riverbanks. Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope.
Because failure tends to propagate as block failures, it is difficult to analyze and estimate where the first tension crack will form. The City-required Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Report will determine if, and where, such conditions exist on the identified candidate development sites. The level of impacts associated with lateral spreading on the candidate residential development sites likely would be less than significant.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence is most often attributed to human activity, mainly from the removal of subsurface water. Other principal causes of subsidence are aquifer groundwater pumping, system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydro compaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. Groundwater pumping or soil compaction is not considered a substantial problem in the broader project area. As a result, land subsidence, which is often
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
a byproduct of the exploitation of groundwater, would also not be considered a substantial issue in the project area. The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. The City-required Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Report will determine groundwater depths on each individual candidate site. Shafter and its vicinity are subject to moderate to severe ground shaking as a result of alluvial soils that underlie the City and the City’s proximity to active faults. In addition, thick sedimentary deposits in Shafter create a likelihood that a strong earthquake or other geological disturbance in the area could cause ground subsidence on properties within the City limits. Impact levels associated with the HEU are less than significant.
Liquefaction or Collapse
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless and some low-plastic silt and clay soils.
These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction occurs, the liquefied soil/water matrix can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. The City-required Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Report will determine sitespecific conditions and likelihood of liquefaction or soil collapse. Therefore, the level of impacts related to the HEU that are associated with collapse would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GEO-1 During HEU implementation, each residential development shall prepare a Geotechnical Investigation Report as described in the Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070).
Successful incorporation of these specifications shall be verified by the City of Shafter Building Official prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion d): Expansive soils generally have a significant amount of clay particles, which can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Web Soil Survey, the proposed project site primarily consists of soils classified
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
as Lavic Loamy Fine Sand.236 Lavic Loamy Fine Sand are not a clay soil and is generally not susceptible to expansion.
Shafter and its vicinity are subject to moderate to severe ground shaking as a result of alluvial soils that underlie the City and the City’s proximity to active faults. In addition, thick sedimentary deposits in Shafter create a likelihood that a strong earthquake or other geological disturbance in the area could cause ground subsidence on properties within the City limits.
Notwithstanding, the project would be required to comply with Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-
28.070) which sets forth the procedures governing the requirements for Soils Engineering Reports and Engineering Geology Reports, which are required in support of discretionary project applications.
To reduce the any potential impacts related to expansive soils, a Geotechnical Investigation shall be implemented during construction of the proposed project through the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 below. With the incorporation of this Mitigation Measure, impacts associated with residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU pertaining to expansive soils would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM GEO-1 During HEU implementation, each residential development shall prepare a Geotechnical Investigation Report as described in the Shafter Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070).
Successful incorporation of these specifications shall be verified by the City of Shafter Building Official prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion e): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development on identified candidate sites. Associated residential development would not require septic tanks or any other alternative wastewater disposal system but would connect directly to City-operated wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
236 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed October 4, 2022.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas emissions setting and potential effects from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU. Information in this section is based on information provided in the City of Shafter General Plan and by Federal and State regulations and programs.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Greenhouse Gas Endangerment
On December 7, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases (GHG) under Section 202(a) of the FCAA:
• The U.S. EPA finds that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key GHGs—Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), Perfluorocarbons (PFC), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding. • The U.S. EPA finds that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key GHGs and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
State Regulations
There are numerous state plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate change that 1) establish overall state policies and GHG reduction targets; 2) require state or local actions that result in direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the project; 3) require CEQA analysis of GHG emissions; and 4) provide generally accepted guidance in performing GHG analyses. The major components of California’s climate change policy are reviewed below.
Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 was signed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006 and is now codified as Sections 38500–38599 of the California Health and Safety Code. Assembly Bill 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
Senate Bill 97 and Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines As directed by Senate Bill 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2009, adding a new Section 15064.4, “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” and a new Section 15126.4(c), “Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
CARB GHG Emissions Data and Scoping Plan
AB 32 requires CARB to develop a scoping plan to lower the state’s GHG emissions to meet the 2020 limit.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved at the December 2008 CARB meeting, and the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved in May 2014 (CARB, 2014). Key elements of the scoping plan include expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards; achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent; developing a California cap and trade program linked with other similar programs; establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; implementing existing laws and standards, such as California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and issuing targeted fees to fund the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 administration.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (November 2017) The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies California’s post-2020 reduction strategy and reflects the 2030 target of a 340 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill 32. Key programs the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include the following:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks;
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030); • Implementing Senate Bill 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030; • California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes nearzero emissions technology and deployment of ZEV trucks; • Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030;
• Continued implementation of Senate Bill 375;
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps; • Twenty percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from refineries by 2030; and, • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
The 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s longterm greenhouse gas reduction goals and identifies local actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
The Update assessed progress toward achieving the Senate Bill 32 2030 target and lay out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Achieving carbon neutrality will require the State of California to consider engineered carbon removal at the source of emissions and directly from the atmosphere. The California Air Resources Board and the California natural Resources Agency have assembled expert to discuss recent market trends, potential applications, environmental factors, and community considerations for engineered (technical solutions) carbon removal. The term “engineered” is inclusive of, but not limited to, projects that capture carbon emissions from industrial facilities, filter carbon emissions directly from the atmosphere, and safely store carbon in geologic formations.
Achieving carbon neutrality will bring several changes to California, including moving the State away from fossil fuel combustion in a manner that supports job retention and creation as California makes a just transition toward a clean energy economy.
Local Regulations
No goals or policies regarding Greenhouse Gases are included in Shafter’s General Plan or Municipal Code.
Affected Environment
According to climate scientists, the earth’s climate has been warming for the past century; 97 percent of climate scientists believes that this warming trend is related to the release of certain gases into the atmosphere by human activities (NASA, 2015). The most recognized GHGs include CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapor, ozone, aerosols, HFCs, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), PFCs, and SF6.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
About 75 percent of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are a result of fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased 31 percent, 151 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, since the year 1750 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001).
Worldwide, California is ranked as the 12th largest emitter of GHGs. Based on the most recent GHG emissions inventory, California’s gross annual emissions of GHGs in 2013 totaled 459.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) (CARB, 2013). Most of California’s emissions, approximately 81 percent, consist of CO2 produced from fossil fuel combustion. The transportation sector is the single largest category of California’s GHG emissions, accounting for approximately 37 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions, followed by electricity consumption (from both in-state and out-of-state providers), which accounts for a total of roughly 23 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions, and then the industrial sector accounting for approximately 20 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The contribution from each of the various other use sectors contribute roughly one to eight percent each to the total GHG emissions inventory (CARB, 2013).
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion a): The HEU does not propose any specific residential development, however, residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be subject to permits and City of Shafter plan check processes. Future residential development would occur according to market conditions and at the discretion of individual property owners/developers. The HEU does identify six primary candidate sites that would more than meet the 6th Cycle RHNA requirements for the City. The new housing would induce population growth in the City. United States Census data indicates that the number of persons per household in Shafter is 3.84. Therefore, at full build out of the RHNA required number of units for Shafter, the increase in population would be 12,649 persons. The increased population would lead to an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled, construction activities, stationary area sources (e.g., space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products use), energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Increased greenhouse gas emissions would incrementally contribute to global climate change. Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would comply with Title 24 green building standards for new development. Such compliance would result in lower emissions from the City overall and would support greenhouse gas reduction efforts. In addition, future residential development would be subject to Shafter’s development review process, CEQA evaluation, and plan check process. Future applicants would be required to prepare air quality and GHG emissions studies using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which relies upon project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. Site-specific details are not available for this analysis of the HEU, which is programmatic in nature. Future residential projects such as those contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, would be required to demonstrate compliance with all State and City regulations pertaining to lessening of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the HEU’s potential impact pertaining to GHG generation, either directly or indirectly, with compliance with State and Federal regulations, would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion b): The use of heavy mobile construction equipment, delivery of construction materials, hauling of construction debris, and worker commutes would result in the generation of GHGs. Future residential projects such as those contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, would be required to demonstrate compliance with all State and City regulations pertaining to lessening of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the HEU’s potential impact pertaining to GHG generation, and conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials setting and potential effects from HEU implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided in the City of Shafter General Plan and by the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA’s purpose is to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The U.S. EPA relies on the National Priorities List (NPL), which is a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the U.S. and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the U.S. EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is a database used by the U.S. EPA to track activities conducted under its Superfund program. Specific information is tracked for each individual site. WasteLAN is the name of the regional version of this database.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA Subtitle C addresses hazardous waste generation, handling, transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. RCRA establishes a system that uses hazardous waste manifests to track the movement of hazardous waste from generation to disposal (cradle-to-grave). The 1984 amendments to RCRA created a national priority for waste minimization. Subtitle D establishes national minimum requirements for solid waste disposal sites and practices and requires States to develop plans for the management of wastes within their jurisdictions. Subtitle I require monitoring and containment systems for underground storage tanks (USTs) that hold hazardous materials. Owners of USTs must demonstrate financial assurance for the cleanup of a potential leaking tank.
State Regulations
Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List) The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements by providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor/Haznet) The mission of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is to provide the highest level of safety, and to protect public health and the environment from toxic harm. DTSC pprovides a listing of all existing information on permits and corrective action at hazardous waste facilities, as well as site cleanup projects on the EnviroStor/Haznet database.
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California.
The law states that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their waste is hazardous and to ensure their proper management. HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous waste. The law exceeds RCRA requirements by mandating source reduction planning, and a much broader requirement for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. The law also regulates several types of waste and waste management activities that are not covered by RCRA.
California Code of Regulations
Most state and federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous waste are spelled out in CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators and transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Most RCRA regulations have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. However, because DTSC regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the U.S. EPA, Title 22 contains fewer exemptions and exclusions than RCRA, and regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities. To make regulatory requirements more accessible and easier to follow, California compiled the hazardous materials, waste, and toxics-related regulations into CCR, Title 26, “Toxics.” Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following goals and policies applicable to the project are contained in Section 7.5-Hazardous Materials section of the City of Shafter General Plan:
• Policy 1: Implement the provisions of the Kern County Integrated Waste Management Plan and the Household Hazardous Waste component of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, including, but not limited to, provisions for pretreatment and disposal, storage, handling, and emergency responses.
• Policy 2: Promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Affected Environment
Most of the candidate residential sites identified in the HEU consist of vacant undeveloped land with very sparse vegetation. There may have been previous agriculture activities that resulted in contamination of the identified candidate sites.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a):
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Environmental exposure to hazardous materials can occur through the following:
• transportation accidents;
• environmentally unsound disposal methods;
• improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes; and/or, • emergencies such as explosions or fires.
Severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.
Although the HEU does not directly propose housing development, hazardous materials would be handled at each project site during construction of the residential units contemplated and facilitated by the HEU.
These hazardous materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles. This handling of hazardous materials would be a temporary activity coinciding with the short-term construction phase of residential units expected to last during the duration of the 6th Cycle. These materials would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to County, State, and Federal regulations. Even though hazardous materials associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles may be stored on each project site, it is expected that only the amounts needed would be kept onsite, and any handling of such materials will be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Removal and disposal of hazardous materials from the project site would not be required as the project site is currently vacant with no structures. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Long-Term Operation Impacts
Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not involve ongoing or use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials during occupancy of housing units. Because of the nature of the project, hazardous materials used onsite may vary, but would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, cleaning agents, and similar materials used for daily residential operations and maintenance activities. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion b): The HEU would not directly result in residential construction; rather, the HEU would facilitate future housing development in Shafter. This residential development would involve excavation and grading activities that could expose construction employees and the public to unknown hazardous material in soil or groundwater. Each future discretionary application for residential development on the identified candidate residential sites would be reviewed by City staff to confirm compliance with all City regulations. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ- 1, which requires preparation and submittal of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the latest STM protocol be made for each residential project facilitated by the HEU. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would identify specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) that may require further sampling or remediation by a qualified hazardous materials specialist. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2 provides instructions for contractors to identify and rectify suspected hazardous wastes inadvertently discovered during grading or construction activities. These assessments would include a review of local, State, Tribal, and Federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, and physical setting sources. Although future residential development could accidently release hazardous materials into the environment, the City of Shafter discretionary and plan review processes, together with compliance with Mitigation Measure MM HAZ- 1 and Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2, would ensure no significant hazard would result. Following compliance with the established regulations, all Federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ- 1 potential impacts involving accidental discovery of unknown wastes or hazardous materials during grading and construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM HAZ-1: Each Applicant for a new residential project contemplated by the HEU that will require City of Shafter discretionary approval may be required to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments and shall submit said Environmental Site Assessment to the appropriate City Department for review and approval. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicates evidence that contamination exists on the individual site that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, the Applicant shall complete a Phase II level review that will fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination and the scope of required cleanup procedures. The City of Shafter shall consider the results of the Phase II Assessment as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to taking any discretionary action on the identified residential project.
MM HAZ-2: If an Applicant or Applicant’s contractor for any residential project/development contemplated in and facilitated by the HEU discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials during grading and construction activities that are thought to involve hazardous waste or materials, the Applicant or Applicant’s contractor may be required to do the following:
• Immediately cease work in the suspected contaminant’s vicinity, remove workers and the public from the suspected contaminated area, and secure said area; • Notify the Applicant’s Environmental Professional and immediately implement proper remedial activities that are recommended; and,
• Notify the Shafter City Engineer and Planning and Community Development Director and implement measures to further secure the area.
In addition, the Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if any required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): Activities associated with the construction and operation of housing generally would not include the use of hazardous materials that would emit hazardous emissions. However, any future residential development facilitated by the HEU must comply with mandatory requirements and regulations pertaining to emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes near schools. Compliance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health, and Safety Code, and RCRA regulations that regulate how to transport and handle hazardous and non-hazardous materials and waste would reduce potential impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned school to a less than significant level.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Discussion d): Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the State and other local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements that require the provision of information regarding the location of hazardous materials release sites. A search was conducted through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor website to identify whether any candidate site is listed in the database as a Cortese site. There are twenty listings in the EnviroStor list in the Cortese site data base for the City of Shafter.
237
As a result, specific development proposals on any of the HEU-identified candidate sites would need to be accompanied by a Phase I Hazards Assessment with appropriate recommendations, as specified in Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM HAZ-1: Each Applicant for a new residential project contemplated by the HEU that will require City of Shafter discretionary approval shall prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the latest ASTM protocol for such assessments and shall submit said Environmental Site Assessment to the appropriate City Department for review and approval. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicates evidence that contamination exists on the individual site that could require cleanup to avoid danger to people or damage to the environment, the Applicant shall complete a Phase II level review that will fully characterize the nature and extent of such contamination and the scope of required cleanup procedures. The City of Shafter shall consider the results of the Phase II Assessment as part of the CEQA compliance process prior to taking any discretionary action on the identified residential project. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
237 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed March 2023
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Kern County adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which includes incorporated cities in the County including the City of Shafter. The purpose of the Plan was to establish procedures and criteria by which the County of Kern and affected cities can address compatibility issues when making planning decisions regarding airports and the land uses around them. The Plan is used as a reference and guide in evaluating impact and designing mitigation. Minter Field Airport is located in the northeastern region of the City, therefore, the HEU would be located within the boundary of the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Minter Airport (Shafter 2005). The airport provides services such as flight training; supporting area agricultural and business operations; and aircraft fueling, storage, and maintenance. As is typical of most general aviation airports, the dominant type of aircraft based at Shafter Airport/Minter Field is the singleengine, propeller-driven, airplane, comprising 87% of the total (Shafter 2005). A potential housing site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the airport. Proposed residential developments, including land division consisting of five or more dwellings shall be subject to compatibility review by the City. Therefore, based on City review of housing development prior to construction, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because of a public airport or public use airport and impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion f): HEU-contemplated and facilitated residential development would include construction of new roadways that would provide new access to the development sites, as necessary. The development would therefore not establish any barrier that would interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would be required to meet City of Shafter codes to provide emergency exits.
Furthermore, City and County Fire officials will review the associated discretionary applications to ensure adequate fire service and safety because of project implementation. Therefore, no impact will result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion g): The City of Shafter does not contain any lands that are in a “Very High, High, or Moderate” Fire Hazard Zone. Therefore, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the hydrology and water quality setting and the potential related effects from HEU implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based in part on information provided in the City of Shafter General Plan and City of Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to jurisdictions that comply with FEMA regulations to limit development within floodplains. FEMA also prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to identify areas subject to flooding. These FIRMs provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year with an average recurrence interval of one hundred years.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
U.S. EPA serves as the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. The CWA of 1972 is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the U.S. EPA and individual states. Section 303 of the CWA requires individual states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the U.S.
The NPDES permit program was established under Section 402 of the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for a broad range of discharges, including point source municipal waste discharges and non-point source storm water runoff.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93-523), passed in 1974, the U.S. EPA regulates contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Contaminants of concern relevant to domestic water supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are regulated by the U.S. EPA’s primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are applicable to treated water supplies delivered to a distribution system.
The U.S. EPA has delegated to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) the responsibility for administering California’s drinking-water program. The CDPH is accountable to the U.S. EPA for program implementation and for adopting standards and regulations that are at least as stringent as those developed by the U.S. EPA. The applicable state primary and secondary MCLs are set forth in CCR, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) of 1969 is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of its residents. The Porter-Cologne Act requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans (Basin Plans). Basin Plans are the regional water quality control plans required by both the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act, in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are established for each of the RWQCBs. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities through the preparation of Reports of Waste Discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and its RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, and other approval actions.
In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues for the state. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. Other state agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California Department of Health Services for drinking water regulations, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
NPDES Permit System and Waste Discharge Requirements for Construction The 1972 amendment to the CWA established the NPDES permit program. The NPDES permit program outlined in the CWA contains effluent limitation guidelines, water quality requirements, and permit program requirements for discharges to waters of the United States. The EPA has overall responsibility for the NPDES program, but administration of the program in California has been delegated to the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies relevant to the proposed project are included in Section 4.5-Drainage and Flooding section of the City’s Development Standards:
• Policy 1: Require 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.
• Policy 2: Require adequate infrastructure to be in place and operational prior to occupancy of new development, such that new development will not negatively impact the performance of drainage facilities serving existing developed areas.
The following policies relevant to the proposed project are included in Section 7.3-Flooding and Drainage section of the City’s Development Standards:
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 1: Ensure that structures designed for human occupancy are constructed outside of the 100-year floodplain as specified by FEMA, unless a special study has been conducted to ensure that the base floor elevation of the structure is located above the 100-year floodplain, and that the structure is flood-proofed below that level.
• Policy 2: Through the development review process, require construction and dedication of needed drainage and flood control facilities.
• Policy 3: On a regular basis, review and update the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan to ensure that street and storm drain flood control systems are designed to accommodate identified storm flows.
• Policy 4: Where construction of a retention or detention basin is needed to support new development, require the development to provide for its construction and maintenance.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
During design review, the Development Standards of the City’s Municipal Code encourage improved drainage from lots directly to a street storm drain, or through public or privately maintained easements.
Special Floods Area
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) created flood maps to assist mortgage lenders to determine insurance requirements and assist communities in developing strategies to reduce their flood risk. These identified areas are known as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). An SFHA is defined as the area that will be inundated by a flood event having a one percent change of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE, and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas are labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) and are also shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2%-annual-chance (500- year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2%-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded) Figure 3.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
FIGURE 4. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD MAP
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Affected Environment
The City of Shafter has very few areas that are flood hazard areas. However, there are four areas that areas that are considered flood hazard areas. Three such areas are labeled as Zone A and one such area is labeled as Zone AO. Two of the Zone A areas are directly on, or next to, the railroad. The other Zone A area is a detention basin built near a residential community to protect it from flooding. The area labeled AO is also directly along the railroad.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): The Shafter HEU does not propose any specific residential development. Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be subject to City discretionary permits and plan check processes. In addition, future residential development would occur according to housing market conditions and at the discretion of affected individual property owners. Future residential development could result in potential impacts to water quality, as follows:
• During the grading and construction activities where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be greatest.
• Subsequently to residential construction and before establishment of ground cover, when the potential for erosion may remain high; and,
• After completion of residential development when impacts pertaining to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase. • Urban runoff discharges into storm drains, which will be constructed as part of said residential development. Polluted runoff can include a wide assortment of environmental, storm water characteristics depend on site conditions (e.g., land use; impervious cover; pollution prevention practices), rain events (rate and duration of rainfall; intensity; time between rain events), soil type and particle sizes, vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition.
Construction of housing units associated with implementation of the HEU has the potential to result in short-term impacts to water quality. Activities such as utility installation, grading, ground clearing, landscaping, and building construction could result in generating potential water pollutants such as chemicals, paints, silt, debris that may affect the water quality. During grading and construction activities, the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be greatest. In addition, impacts could occur prior to establishment of ground cover when the erosion potential may be relatively high. Future HEU
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
residential development projects would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory framework pertaining to water quality maintenance. Future residential development that disturbs more than one acre of land surface would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program. The NPDES Construction General Permit Program requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce or prevent pollutant discharge from development activities to the Maximum Extent Practicable for urban runoff and meeting the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards for construction-related storm water. Construction activities would be required to comply with a project specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that identifies erosion control and sediment control BMP that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion controls are intended and designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are intended and designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. In addition, future residential development projects would be subject to City of Shafter Municipal Code (Section 15.28) regulations governing grading and erosion control.
Upon full build out, residential buildings, concrete walkways, ac pavement, sidewalks and streets would create impervious surfaces that would contribute to stormwater runoff. Future residential development would be required to comply with existing State Water Quality Control Board water quality standards and waste discharge regulations. Future HEU-facilitated residential development would comply with these regulations and waste discharges would be connected to the existing or new public wastewater system.
Thereby, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion b): Increased impervious surfaces reduce the amount of surface water available for infiltration to groundwater sources. Future residential development on the mostly vacant candidate sites contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would increase impervious surfaces, decrease water infiltration into the groundwater basin, and reduce groundwater recharge.
Future HEU-facilitated residential development would be required to incorporate design features that would reduce impervious areas as feasible and thereby promote water infiltration. Treatment control and hydromodification management facilities would promote stormwater retention and infiltration. Also, future residential development on candidate residential sites would comply with water quality standards intended to reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality. In addition, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing construction and operational impacts to groundwater supplies. Compliance with these requirements thereby would not decrease groundwater supplies and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): Future HEU-facilitated residential development would be required to incorporate design features that would reduce impervious areas as feasible and thereby promote water infiltration.
Treatment control and hydromodification management facilities would promote stormwater retention and infiltration. Also, future residential development on candidate residential sites would comply with water quality standards intended to reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality. In addition, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be required to
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing construction and operational impacts to groundwater supplies. Compliance with these requirements thereby would not alter the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion d): According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), portions of the City of Shafter are located within a flood hazard zone. Residential development would be subject to provisions in the City Municipal Code (Section 15.44 – Floodplain Management). None of the candidate sites are located within a tsunami inundation zone. In addition, housing resulting from implementing the HEU would not be at risk from seiche because there is no water body around any of the candidate sites capable of producing as seiche. No impact would result from residential development contemplated by or facilitated by the HEU.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan??
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion e): The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014) provides authority for agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or alternative plans that demonstrate water basins are being managed sustainably. The City of Shafter Municipal Code and other regulations are designed to protect water resources and improve water quality. Future HEU-facilitated residential developments would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and to incorporate stormwater standards manual requirements into design plans to minimize potential impacts
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
to water quality. In addition, dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres are required to comply with discharge standards. All future housing development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City of Shafter’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and would be required to comply with all Federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan. Thereby, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the existing land use and planning setting and potential effects from HEU implementation. The narrative in this section is informed by the City of Shafter General Plan and City of Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Government Code Section 65300, et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of a city or county and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the City’s or County’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics, including at a minimum, land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the City’s or county’s vision for the area.
The State Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65800, et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific zone district, are required to be consistent with the general plan.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
Section 2.5-Residential Uses of the City’s General Plan identify the following policies applicable to the proposed project:
• Policy 1: Promote the development of rural residential areas and rural communities that provide for and protect rural lifestyles and are compatible with nearby agricultural uses.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 2: Maintain and promote suburban density, single-family areas that will accommodate a range of densities from small lot subdivisions in a planned community setting to traditional subdivisions to large lot equestrian-oriented developments. • Policy 3: Broaden the range of housing types and encourage innovation in available housing types.
In addition to traditional single-family housing, provide:
• Move-up and executive housing opportunities.
• Housing for those desiring amenities not typically found in small town subdivisions (e.g., common open space and recreational areas).
• Opportunities for those not desiring a dwelling on an individual lot or a mobile home lifestyle; and
• Appropriate housing for active seniors and those requiring some degree of assistance or care.
• Ensure that multifamily projects fit the scale of the community, are consistent with Shafter’s small town community character, are of high quality, and are well maintained. • Promote the development of residential projects that provide semi-private and private open space and recreation facilities.
• Support efficient management of local agricultural production activities by encouraging the provision of adequate farm worker and farm family housing within and adjacent to agricultural areas.
• Design new residential development with identifiable neighborhood units. Street design should route through traffic around, rather than through new neighborhoods.
Neighborhood streets should be quiet, safe, and amenable to bicycle and pedestrian uses.
Affected Environment
Most of the built environment in the City of Shafter is residential, with varying types of densities.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
No Impact
Discussion a): The largest of the identified candidate residential sites in the HEU are in the extreme southeasterly portion of the City. Other candidate residential sites are in the extreme northwesterly portion of the City and within the City Center. The following Table 3 provides the six primary candidate sites and the units that can be accommodated on those sites. As demonstrated, the candidate sites can accommodate far more units than the City RHNA requirement of 3,294 units.
Table 3-HEU Candidate Residential Sites
PLANNING AREA VERY
LOW
LOW MODERATE ABOVE
MODERATE
City Center (Realistic Capacity = Acres
X Max Density X 0.8)
8 8 837 0
Specific Plan Areas
Gossamer Grove 0 0 1,079 1,078
Marcona Preserve (formerly Heritage
Ranch)
0 0 441 439
Mission Lakes 29 117 2,446 2,442
Orchard Hills 0 0 220 220
Sites to be Rezoned
Rezone (Realistic Capacity = Acres X
Max Density X 0.8)
949 3,792 7,113 7,281
TOTAL 2023-2031 986 3,917 12,136 11,460
Sufficient vacant land is available to accommodate the required new residential units, particularly within the specific plan areas. No existing communities or neighborhoods would be divided because of the contemplated and facilitated residential development. Thus, development of the project site is a logical continuation of the development pattern in the area as proposed by the General Plan and will not divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur that would divide an established community.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion b): Only candidate properties near the City Center would need to be rezoned to accommodate the residential density indicated in Table 3 and no other candidate sites would need to be rezoned. The HEU is required to comply with applicable state housing laws. Thereby, the HEU would be consistent with applicable land use and planning policies in the state, regional, and local context necessary to comply with that legislation and includes HEU consistency with the City General Plan. As a result, future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be consistent with all applicable land use and planning policies and regulations intended to minimize environmental effects. Therefore, residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less than significant impact would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing mineral resources setting and potential effects from implementation of the HEU-identified candidate residential sites.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
SMARA was enacted in 1975 for the purpose of establishing mineral resource management policies within the general plan by local agencies. (SMARA) has developed mineral land classification maps and reports to assist in the protection and development of mineral resources. According to the SMARA, the following four mineral land use classifications are identified:
• Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.
• Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3): This land use classification refers to areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from the available data. Hilly or mountainous areas underlain by sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock types and lowland areas underlain by alluvial wash or fan material are often included in this category. Additional information about the quality of material in these areas could either upgrade the classification to MRZ-2 or downgrade it to MRZ-1.
• Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4): This land use classification refers to areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone.
State
California Department of Conservation
The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) serves as a regulatory, policy, and appeals body representing the State's interests in the reclamation of mined lands, geology, geologic and seismologic hazards, and the conservation of mineral resources.
Affected Environment
No land within the candidate sites is designated for mineral use extraction or processing.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion a): No land within the candidate sites is designated for mineral use extraction or processing.
Therefore, residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not reduce the availability of any minerals that could be of value to the region or state. No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion b): No land within the candidate sites is designated for mineral use extraction or processing.
Therefore, residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
NOISE
This section describes the existing noise setting and potential effects from HEU residential implementation on the identified candidate residential sites. The primary sources for the following narrative and analysis are the City of Shafter General Plan and the City of Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
State
Building Standards Administrative Code
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the “State Noise Insulation Standard,” it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. In addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the way dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard, where such units are proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn.
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise and land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
Local
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in Section 7.7-Noise, of the General Plan are applicable to the HEU:
• Policy 3: Minimize motor vehicle noise in residential areas through proper route location and sensitive roadway design.
• Policy 4: Provide planned industrial areas with truck access routes that are separated from residential areas to the maximum feasible extent.
• Policy 5: Where new development (including construction and improvement of roadways) is proposed in areas exceeding the General Plan Noise Objective, or where the development of proposed uses could result in an increase in noise, require a detailed noise attenuation study to be prepared to determine appropriate mitigation needed to meet the City’s noise objectives, and incorporate such mitigation in too provide a safe and comfortable living environment for new residential, business, and commercial developments in Shafter which are minimally affected by noise.
• Policy 6: When new development proposes a potentially significant noise source, require a noise analysis to be prepared. Require appropriate noise mitigation when the proposed project will exceed General Plan noise objectives or cause an audible (3.0 dBA) increase in noise in areas where General Plan noise objectives are already exceeded as the result of existing development. • Policy 7: Utilize site and architectural design features to mitigate noise impacts, where feasible.
In addition to sound barriers, consider:
o Increasing building setbacks to furtherseparate the noise-sensitive use from the noise source. o Locating uses that are the most tolerant of noise closer to the noise source and use the buildings housing these uses as noise barriers.
o Orient delivery, loading docks, and outdoor work areas away from noise sensitive uses. o Place noise-tolerant uses, such as parking areas, and noise-tolerant structures, such as garages, between the noise source and sensitive receptor. o Cluster office, commercial, or multifamily residential structures to reduce noise levels within interior open space areas.
o Provide double-glazed and double paned windows on the side of the structure facing a major noise source, and place entries away from the noise source to the extent possible. • Policy 8: Where feasible, use noise barriers (walls, berms, or a combination thereof) to reduce significant noise impacts. Where noise barriers are constructed, require appropriate landscaping treatment to be provided.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 9: Continue enforcement of California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25, Section 1092, California Administrative Code).
• Policy 10: Regulate the hours of construction activities in order to avoid or mitigate noise impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
The following policy contained in Section 3.0-Transportation Program of the General Plan applicable to the HEU:
• Policy 3: Support efforts at Minter Field/Shafter Airport to minimize negative effects of air transportation, such as air pollution, noise, and safety hazards.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
Section 10.180-Noise Hazards, of the City’s Development Code identifies the following relevant to the proposed project:
a. When a land use application or development permit is proposed within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour and such a proposed use or noise associated with such a use is adjacent to a residential one district or residential use, the following standards shall apply:
(1) Noise levels shall be identified. An acoustical report shall be performed to identify noise impacts and any recommendation for noise attenuation or other mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design standards or conditions of approval as applicable. (2) interior noise levels in residences dwelling units and educational institutions shall not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL emanating from sources outside of the affected building. (3) Exterior noise levels in residential land use areas shall not exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL. (4) Ability to mitigate exterior noises to the levels of 65 dB(A) CNEL shall be considered by the reviewing authority when determining the actual CNEL level with which the land uses must comply. (5) ln areas where noise exceeds the noise standard, steps shall be taken to mitigate noise levels. An acoustical report identifying mitigation measures shall be required and reviewed by the Environmental Health Services Department prior to issuance of any required development permits or approval of land use applications.
Affected Environment
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The zero point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels refer to a change of
3.0 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). The candidate sites are vacant or in a partially developed area of the City with mostly residential uses. The existing noise environment within the City of Shafter is characterized by the area’s general level of development. Ambient noise levels are therefore increased because of roadway traffic, industrial activities, and other human activities. Table 4 - Population Density and Associated Ambient Noise Levelssummarizes typical ambient noise levels based on level of development.
Table 4-Population Density and Ambient Noise Levels
Population Density dBA, Ldn
Rural 40-50 40-50
Small town or quiet suburban residential 50
Normal suburban residential 55
Urban residential 60
Noise urban residential 65
Very noisy urban residential 70
Downtown, major metropolis 75-80
Area adjoining freeways or near major airport 80-90
Notes: dBA=A weighted decibels Ldn=day-night level
Source: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated negative Declaration, Silver Peak Solar Project, February 24, 2011 Given the rural nature of the City, baseline ambient noise levels are assumed to be approximately 40-50 Ldn.
Project Impacts
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion a):
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Most of the candidate sites are in rural areas of Shafter or are in areas partially developed with singlefamily residences and residential streets. The existing noise environment is primarily characterized by roadway traffic and other human activities. Based on the character of the candidate sites, baseline ambient levels would be estimated to be approximately 4-50 Ldn.
Noise Impacts Construction
The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential construction in Shafter. Construction activities for the future residential development could result in short-term and intermittent increases in noise levels in the candidate sites vicinity. Noise levels would vary depending on construction activity, equipment type, duration of use, and the distance between noise source and receiver. Typical sound emission characteristics of construction equipment that may be used during residential grading and construction are provided in Table 5. The noise levels are described in terms of Lmax, which is the maximum sound level of a particular noise event measured at 50 feet.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Table 5- Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Type
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) of Equipment
at 50 Feet (in A-weighted decibels (dBA)
Dump Truck 76
Front End Loader 79
Air Compressor 78
Pneumatic Tools 85
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Concrete Pump Truck 81
Bulldozer 85
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2011 Notes: The noise levels shown above are actual, measured noise levels based on measurements performed for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Noise measurements were averaged to compute the actual emission level.
Noise levels will be loudest during the grading phase from the use of a bulldozer, which at 50 feet, ranges from 85 to 90 dBA. For every doubling of distance, the sound level reduces by six dBA. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise generation related to construction activities is addressed in Section 8.24.030 of the City of Shafter Municipal Code which states as follows:
“Within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, no person shall operate equipment, for the construction or repair of buildings, structures or projects, which creates noise exceeding the ambient noise level beyond fifty feet from the source between the hours of seven p.m. and seven a.m.”
Implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not result in direct construction of housing; rather, it would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development in Shafter. This future housing development would result in construction noise generated from grading and construction activities. Construction would involve the following general sequence: (1) site preparation and/or demolition of any existing structures on the candidate site; (2) grading and utilities construction; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) application of architectural coatings. Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, excavators, graders, loaders, compactors, cranes, trucks, pavers, pneumatic tools, generator sets, and air compressors. With the possible exception of pile-driving activities, construction equipment with substantially higher noisePage 572 of 935 City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
generation characteristics would not be anticipated to be used for construction of typical residential developments. Typical construction equipment generates maximum noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source that ranges from 80 dBA for backhoes and loading trucks to 85-90 dBA for graders and excavators.
Construction noise can vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of equipment used. Also, residential construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the HEU are anticipated to occur in incremental phases over time and based on market demand, economic, and planning factors. Thereby, construction-related noise would not be concentrated in any one constant area in Shafter.
Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the City’s noise restrictions indicated above. Furthermore, the City Planning Department may require an acoustical analysis for future residential development projects that may be in a noise environment that may affect future residents. The acoustical analysis would ensure development and operation of future residential projects would meet City standards.
Noise Impacts During Operation
Future residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would result in additional noise sources from housing, people, pets, and automobiles in the new communities. Noise also would be generated from stationary operation related sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, tankless water heaters, generators, and lawn maintenance equipment. Specific information about HVAC units for the new residential units is not now known. Typically, acoustical enclosures around the HVAC units decrease audible noise. Also, increased vehicular traffic accompanying the increased number of residential units would add to traffic noise on Shafter roadways. Future HEU-facilitated residential development would be subject to the City of Shafter discretionary application review process.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, and MM NOI-3 would reduce noise impacts from grading and construction activities and from operation of future residential development facilitated by the HEU to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM NOI-1: To reduce potential grading and construction noise impacts, each Applicant for a specific project the City may require construction contractors to implement a site-specific Noise Reduction Program that shall include the following measures, ongoing through any demolition, grading, and/or construction.
• Equipment and trucks used for residential development shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills) used for residential development shall be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used. External jackets on the tools shall be used where feasible. Quieter procedures shall be used, whenever feasible.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Stationary construction-related noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible and shall be muffled and incorporate insulation barriers or other measures to the extent feasible.
MM NOI-2: Prior to any demolition or construction activities that may be necessary, in order to obtain a grading permit, or building permit approval, each applicant proposing a specific project shall submit to the City of Shafter Planning Department for approval, a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction activities. At a minimum, these measures shall include the following:
• A procedure for notifying the City Code Enforcement Officer and Police Department about regular construction hours and off-hours.
• A requirement for a sign to be posted by the Applicant on-site that specifies the permitted construction days and hours, and notification procedure, and whom to notify in the event of a noise-related concern. The sign also shall include the construction contractor’s telephone numbers during regular construction hours and off-hours. • A requirement for a pre-construction meeting to be held with the Applicant and general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices are completed.
MM NOI-3: All noise-generating residential construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year’s Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day.
Implementation of the above Mitigation Measures would ensure any noise-related impacts associated with future residential development facilitated by the HEU will be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion b): Groundborne vibration results from sound waves radiating through the ground. The sound caused by groundborne vibration is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by groundborne vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second, and groundborne noise is measured as vibration decibels (Vdb). Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration and noise are construction equipment and traffic on rough roads.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration level and peak particle velocities for construction equipment operations. The calculated root mean square (RMS) velocity level
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
expressed in Vdb and PPV for construction equipment at distances of 25, 50, and 100 feet are listed on Table 6.
Table 6-Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(ft.) in inches
per second
(in/sec)
RMS at 25
ft. (Vdb)
PPV at 50
ft. (in/sec)
RMS at 50
ft. (Vdb)
PPV at
100 ft.
(in/sec)
RMS at
100 ft.
(Vdb)
Loaded Truck 0.0760 86 0.0269 77 0.0095 68
Jackhammer 0.0350 79 0.0124 70 0.0044 61
Small Bulldozer 0.0030 58 0.0011 49 0.0004 40
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; RMS = root mean square; Vdb = vibration decibels The FTA uses a PPV of 0.2 inch per second as the vibration damage threshold for fragile buildings and a PPV of 0.12 inch per second for extremely fragile historic buildings. The FTA criterion for infrequent groundborne noise events (fewer than 30 events per day) that may cause annoyance is 80 Vdb for residences and other buildings where people normally sleep. While this project is not a transit project being proposed by the FTA, these FTA thresholds are being used for this analysis as a comparison to the FTA-published vibration levels for construction equipment. According to the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018,238 while ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, construction vibration may result in building damage or prolonged annoyance from activities such as blasting, piledriving, vibratory compaction, demolition, and drilling or excavation near sensitive structures. Residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU does not require these types of construction activities. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
238 https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manualreport-0123.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): A potential candidate HEU housing site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the airport. Proposed residential developments, including land division consisting of five or more dwellings shall be subject to compatibility review by the City. Therefore, based on City review of housing development prior to construction, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because of a public airport or public use airport and impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes the existing population and housing setting from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the City of Shafter General Plan, California State Housing Laws, and United States Census Bureau data.
Regulatory Setting
State
Housing Requirements of the Sustainable Community Strategy In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Community Strategy must accommodate regional housing needs allocations on the California side of the region with the goal of consistency between future land use and transportation plans. Each jurisdiction must provide for Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories in its Housing Element with the land use allocations governed by the City of Shafter.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Housing Element regulations require local jurisdictions to plan for the construction of a share of the region’s projected housing needs. This share is called the RHNA. The specific RHNA number for a jurisdiction is important because state law mandates that each jurisdiction provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community to meet or exceed this number of housing units. The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), as the regional
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
planning agency, calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions within Kern County, including the City of Shafter.
Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG)
Kern COG is the official comprehensive regional planning agency for the eleven incorporated cities in Kern County. Kern COG coordinates its transportation planning activities with adjacent areas through Caltrans Districts 6 and 9. The region is adjacent to Caltrans Districts 5, 7 and 8 as well. Land use planning, including analysis of present land uses and projections of future uses, analysis of population trends and projections of future populations and their distribution is carried out.
Kern COG is designated to prepare the Regional Housing Allocation Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65584. The plan addresses all housing needs from all income levels in the Kern region. The need is based on available census data, market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites, public facilities, commuting patterns, and population projections. Kern COG evaluates these criteria and determines the existing and projected housing needs for the region.
Local
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in Section 2.5-Residential Uses, of the City’s General Plan are applicable to the HEU:
• Policy 1: Promote the development of rural residential areas and rural communities that provide for and protect rural lifestyles and are compatible with nearby agricultural uses. • Policy 2: Maintain and promote suburban density, single-family areas that will accommodate a range of densities from small lot subdivisions in a planned community setting to traditional subdivisions to large lot equestrian-oriented developments. • Policy 3: Broaden the range of housing types and encourage innovation in available housing types. In addition to traditional single-family housing, provide:
a) Move-up and executive housing opportunities;
b) Housing for those desiring amenities not typically found in small town subdivisions (e.g., common open space and recreational areas); c) Opportunities for those not desiring a dwelling on an individual lot or a mobile home lifestyle; and
d) Appropriate housing for active seniors and those requiring some degree of assistance or care.
• Policy 4: Ensure that multifamily projects fit the scale of the community, are consistent with Shafter’s small town community character, are of high quality, and are well maintained. • Policy 5: Promote the development of residential projects that provide semi-private and private open space and recreation facilities.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 6: Support efficient management of local agricultural production activities by encouraging the provision of adequate farm workers and farm family housing within and adjacent to agricultural areas.
• Policy 7: Design new residential development with identifiable neighborhood units. Street design should route through traffic around, rather than through new neighborhoods.
Neighborhood streets should be quiet, safe, and amenable to bicycle and pedestrian use.
Affected Environment
According to the 2020 census, the City of Shafter had approximately 19,964 residents which comprised of
84.2% Hispanic or Latino followed by 12.8% white and 12.5% two or more races. There were approximately 5,109 households with 57.3% of households owner-occupied.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction; rather, the HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development in the City of Shafter. To meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 3,492 dwelling units, the HEU identifies six candidate sites that could accommodate the RHNA allocation which would induce population growth in Shafter. The development would occur according to market conditions and at the discretion of individual property owners. United States Census data indicates that the number of persons per household in Shafter is 3.84. Therefore, at full build out of the RHNA required number of units for Shafter, the increase in population would be approximately 12,649 persons. The United States Census Bureau estimated Shafter’s population on April 1, 2020, to be 19,953 and the number of households in the City on July 1, 2021, to be 4,981. Full buildout of the RHNA allocation for Shafter would increase the City population by 61 percent, a significant increase.
However, all new residential development would be accompanied by development of infrastructure required to serve the new housing. Furthermore, there is more than sufficient land in Shafter to accommodate the contemplated new development and to exceed the RHNA allocation by a substantial number.
Table 7 provides the total number of potential units allocated to each income bracket within each respective Planning Area (PA), and demonstrates the City has the potential to far exceed the RHNA numbers within all income categories. The Housing Element Update provides for five primary sites that,
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
without being re-zoned to residential use, could accommodate 9,365 total units (37 Very-Low Income; 125 Low-Income; 5,023 Moderate Income; and 4,179 Above-Moderate Income). Also, the HEU indicates that other available properties within Shafter that could be re-zoned for residential use could accommodate an additional 19,135 residential units (949 Very-Low Income; 3,792 Low-Income; 7,113 Moderate Income; and 7,281` Above-Moderate Income), which in the City Center and potential re-zoned sites, reflects a realistic capacity of 80 percent of the allowable maximum residential density. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
Table 7- Sites Inventory Summary
PLANNING AREA VERY
LOW
LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE
City Center (Realistic Capacity
= Acres X Max Density X 0.8)
8 8 837 0
Specific Plan Areas
Gossamer Grove 0 0 1.079 1,078
Marcona Preserve (formerly
Heritage Ranch)
0 0 441 439
Mission Lakes 29 117 2,446 2,442
Orchard Hills 0 0 220 220
Sites to be Rezoned
Rezone (Realistic Capacity =
Acres X Max Density X 0.8)
949 3,792 7,113 7,281
TOTAL 2023-2031 986 3,917 12,136 11,460
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion b): Table 7 provides the total number of potential units allocated to each income bracket within each respective PA, and demonstrates the City has the potential to far exceed the RHNA numbers within all income categories. The Housing Element Update provides for five primary sites that, without being re-zoned to residential use, could accommodate 9,365 total units (37 Very-Low Income; 125 LowIncome; 5,023 Moderate Income; and 4,179 Above-Moderate Income). Also, the HEU indicates that other available properties within Shafter that could be re-zoned for residential use could accommodate an additional 19,135 residential units (949 Very-Low Income; 3,792 Low-Income; 7,113 Moderate Income; and 7,281` Above-Moderate Income), which in the City Center and potential re-zoned sites, reflects a realistic capacity of 80 percent of the allowable maximum residential density. No substantial numbers of existing housing would occur, and no impacts would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
PUBLIC SERVICES
This section describes the public services setting and the potential effects from HEU implementation on public services. Information for this section was provided by the City of Shafter General Plan and the City of Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
State
California Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBC), contained in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBC is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code but has been modified for California conditions. It is adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in multi-family buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code, contained in Part 9 of CCR Title 24, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The California Fire Code regulates building standards set forth in the CBC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection. The California Fire Code is updated and published every 3 years by the California Building Standards Commission.
Mitigation Fee Act
Enacted as AB 1600 on January 1, 1989, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000-66008) requires a local agency that is establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency also must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b) and Education Code, Section 17620 SB 50 amended Section 65995 of the California Government Code, which contains limitations on Section 17620 of the Education Code, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Section 65995(b)(3) of the Government Code requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every 2 years, according to inflation adjustments.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act sets a standard park space to population ratio of up to 3 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. Cities with a ratio of higher than three acres per 1,000 persons can set a standard of up to five acres per 1,000 persons for new development. The calculation of a City’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal Census to the amount of City-owned parkland. A 1982 amendment (Assembly Bill [AB] 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for a recreation facility or park land and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Local
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in the City’s General Plan area applicable to implementation of the HEU:
Section 4.2-Water Facilities
• Policy 1: 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 water facilities serving existing developed areas.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Section 4.3-Sewer Facilities
• Policy 1: 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.
Section 4.6-Schools
• Policy 2: Require new development to provide necessary funding and/or capital improvements to mitigate projected impacts on school facilities, as determined by the responsible school district. • Policy 3: Require new development to pay all legally established fees, participate in land-based financing districts established by local school districts for the acquisition and development of school sites with adequate, permanent classroom space, or provide equivalent capital improvements, as required.
Section 4.7-Parks
• Policy 2: Require new development to provide land and improvements to meet the City’s parks and recreation objective or pay fees in lieu of the provision of improved parkland.
Section 4.8-Fire Protection
• Policy 1: Work with the Kern County Fire Department to site new fire stations such that all of the area planned for urban development will be within a two-mile response distance of a fire station. • Policy 2: Prior to approval of discretionary development projects, require written verification from the Kern County Fire Department that a five-minute response time can be maintained for 80 percent of emergency fire, medical, and hazardous materials calls on a citywide basis. • Policy 5: Through the development review process, ensure that adequate water for fire flows can be provided to individual projects.
Section 4.9-Police Protection
• Policy 2: Provide basic requirements and incentives for the provision of design features in new development to reduce the potential for crime. These include, but are not limited to:
o Providing well-lighted and visible streets and street names, entrances, addresses, recreation areas, and parking areas;
o Limiting access into and between buildings to reduce escape routes and make undetected entry difficult;
o Providing landscaping that permits surveillance of open areas and entryways, and does not create places for concealment;
Affected Environment
Fire Protection
The City of Shafter contracts with the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) for fire protection services.
The KCFD provides response to all fire and life safety emergencies including, but not limited to, fires, hazardous materials, vehicle accidents, rescues, airplane crashes, bomb threats, and medical aid. Fire prevention services are provided from Station 32, located at 325 Sunset Avenue in Shafter. This station
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
operates three shifts, each staffed full-time by paid personnel, consisting of one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter. Station 61, located at 6400 Fruitvale Avenue, is currently and would continue to be the station serving the southeastern portion of the City. This station contains both an engine company and a ladder company, each with a full-time captain, engineer, and firefighter.
Police Protection
Law enforcement and public protection services are provided by the City of Shafter Police Department, located at 201 Central Valley Highway, and provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and the California Highway Patrol. Police protection services within the incorporated limits of the City of Shafter are provided by the Shafter Police Department, which maintains a force of uniformed officers and a police supervisor on a 24 hour per day, seven days per week basis. Police protection services within unincorporated areas are provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department from its Buttonwillow Substation, which provides service to unincorporated County areas south and west of the City and its McFarland Substation, which serves unincorporated areas north and east of the City. Unincorporated County areas south of 7th Standard Road are patrolled by officers from the Sheriff’s “Rosedale Substation.” The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides traffic enforcement on major roads, State highways, and freeways within the City.
Schools
Shafter is home to the Richland School District which oversees operation of four schools: Golden Oak Elementary School (K-6), Redwood Elementary School (K-6), Sequoia Elementary School (K-6) and Richland Junior High School. Class sizes in grades K-3 average 20 students, while grades 4-8 average 30 students.
Shafter is also home to Shafter High School, a member of the Kern High School District, both Districts are part of the Shafter Education Partnership. The Kern High School District serves grades 9-12. The Norris School District (grades K-8) serves the southeastern portion of Shafter. The Maple Elementary School District serves an area in the western portion of the City. Other school districts serve portions of the City along the southern boundary, including Rio Bravo-Greeley Union Elementary School District and Rosedale Union Elementary School District.
Parks
Park and recreation facilities within the City of Shafter are provided by four entities: the City of Shafter, the Shafter Recreation and Park District, North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, and the Kern County Park and Recreation Department. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District covers the southeastern portion of the City along a ½-mile wide strip north of 7th Standard Road. Kern County provides regional park facilities. The City of Shafter has seven parks totaling over 30-acres which include:
Mannel Park; Kirschenmann Park; Stringham Park; Rodriguez Park; Town Square; Veteran Park; Flight Park. The City of Shafter’s Veteran Building Facility is available for commercial and/or private events.
Other Public Facilities
The Shafter Public Library located at 236 James Street provides library services and summer events and activities to residents in the City.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion a) The HEU would not result in direct residential construction; rather, the HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development in the City of Shafter. To meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 3,492 dwelling units, the HEU identifies six candidate sites that could accommodate the RHNA allocation. The development would induce population growth in Shafter. The development would occur according to market conditions and at the discretion of individual property owners. The HEU does identify six primary candidate sites that would more than meet the 6th Cycle RHNA requirements for the City. New housing would induce population growth. United States Census data indicates that the number of persons per household in Shafter is 3.84. Therefore, at full build out of the RHNA required number of units for Shafter, the increase in population would be 12,649 persons. The United States Census Bureau estimated Shafter’s population on April 1, 2020, to be 19,953 and the number of households in the City on July 1, 2021, to be 4,981. A Full buildout of the RHNA allocation for Shafter would increase the City population by 61 percent, a significant increase. However, compliance with required development act fees would ensure the resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
Fire Protection
Less Than Significant
The Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) provides fire protection and emergency services to the City of Shafter. The KCFD provides response to all fire and life safety emergencies including, but not limited to, fires, hazardous materials, vehicle accidents, rescues, airplane crashes, bomb threats, and medical aid.
Fire prevention services are provided from Station 32, located at 325 Sunset Avenue in Shafter. This station operates three shifts, each staffed full-time by paid personnel, consisting of one captain, one
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
engineer, and one firefighter. Station 61, located at 6400 Fruitvale Avenue, is currently and would continue to be the station serving the southeastern portion of the City. This station contains both an engine company and a ladder company, each with a full-time captain, engineer, and firefighter.
Implementation of the HEU would not directly result in new residential construction but would guide and provide a policy framework for future residential development within the City. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would result in an estimated population growth of 12,649 persons, which would incrementally increase demand for fire protection and emergency service in the City. It is possible that new fire stations would be necessary to serve the new development. However, future residential development would be required to provide adequate infrastructure and access to the development and will be required to contribute a fair share toward funding provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical service as determined necessary to adequately serve the new development. As a result, each new residential project would not result in physical impacts associated with provision or construction of fire protection and emergency service facilities.
Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City of Shafter’s development review process and the 2019 California Fire Code, which requires new construction projects to comply with fire safety standards and fire prevention measures such as smoke and carbon monoxide sensors, fire extinguishers, and sprinkler systems to reduce the burden to fire service providers. Cityrequired fees also would apply to new residential development facilitated in the HEU. Payment of such fees would assist funding construction and operation of new fire protection and emergency service facilities and thereby minimize future residential project operational impacts to such services. Also, future residential developers would be required to submit a will-serve letter or service questionnaire to the Fire Department in conjunction with development project applications to ensure fire protection and emergency service are available to serve future residential developments. Compliance with the established regulatory framework would minimize impacts to fire protection and emergency services to a less than significant level.
Police Protection
Less Than Significant
Law enforcement and public protection services are provided by the City of Shafter Police Department, located at 201 Central Valley Highway, and provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, and the California Highway Patrol. Police protection services within the incorporated limits of the City of Shafter are provided by the Shafter Police Department, which maintains a force of uniformed officers and a police supervisor on a 24 hour per day, seven days per week basis. Police protection services within unincorporated areas are provided by the Kern County Sheriff’s Department from its Buttonwillow Substation, which provides service to unincorporated County areas south and west of the City and its McFarland Substation, which serves unincorporated areas north and east of the City. Unincorporated County areas south of 7th Standard Road are patrolled by officers from the Sheriff’s “Rosedale Substation.” Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would result in an estimated population growth of 12,649 persons, which would incrementally increase demand for police protection
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
service in the City. It is possible that new police stations would be necessary to serve the new development. However, future residential development would be required to provide adequate infrastructure and access to the development and would be required to contribute a fair share toward funding provision of appropriate police protection service as determined necessary to adequately serve the new development. As a result, each new residential project would not result in physical impacts associated with provision or construction of police protection facilities.
The City collects a Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing capital improvement costs for police protection facilities. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would be applied to police facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for police protection services that would be created by the Project. Therefore, the new residential development would not result in the need to construct new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Impacts would be less than significant.
Schools
Less Than Significant
The HEU would not result in direct residential construction; rather, the HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development in the City of Shafter. To meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation of 3,492 dwelling units, the HEU identifies six candidate sites that could accommodate the RHNA allocation which would induce population growth in Shafter. United States Census data indicates that the number of persons per household in Shafter is 3.84. Therefore, at full build out of the RHNA required number of units for Shafter, the increase in population would be 12,649 persons. The United States Census Bureau estimated Shafter’s population on April 1, 2020, to be 19,953 and the number of households in the City on July 1, 2021, to be 4,981. Therefore, full buildout of the RHNA allocation for Shafter would increase the City population significantly by 61 percent. Table 8 depicts the anticipated number of students the proposed project would generate based on single-family households.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Table 8-Student Generation Rates
School Level Student Generation
Factor
Number of Students
Elementary School 0.6239 2,563
Middle School 0.1651 822
High School NA NA
Total ------- 3,385
Notes:
1) Elementary and Junior High School generation rates are based upon the Richland School District School Facilities Needs Analysis Report, September 10, 2020.
2) High School student generation rates for Shafter Highs Schools are not available.
According to State law (Government Code § 65995-6), school districts have the authority to levy a new construction fee per square foot of industrial construction for the purpose or funding the reconstruction or construction of new school facilities. Pursuant to Section 65995(3) (h) of the California Government Code, the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities.” Therefore, the payment of school impact fees for residential development would offset the potential impacts of increased student enrollment related to the implementation of the project resulting in less than significant impacts.
Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with State Senate Bill 50, which allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and nonresidential projects. These fees are evaluated on an annual basis and would be collected at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each residential project. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), “payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property….” Payment of such fees would provide an adequate financial base to construct new and to equip existing schools in Shafter. Therefore, impacts pertaining to construction of school facilities would be less than significant.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Parks
Less Than Significant
The HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development on six primary candidate sites in Shafter. Future residential growth and population increase (12,649 persons) would increase the demand incrementally for park facilities in the City. This topic is discussed in more tail in Section 16 (Recreation) of this document and the level of impact would be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities (Library and Churches)
Less Than Significant
The HEU does not propose specific construction of new or physically altered public facilities. Future HEUfacilitated residential development could warrant construction of new library facilities or physically altered existing facilities. Any future expansion of existing facilities for construction of new facilities, if required, would be subject to environmental review. Demand would be partially offset by funding generated by an increased residential population. In addition, payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides a fairshare of funds for additional public services. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
RECREATION
This section describes the recreation facilities setting and the potential effects from HEU implementation on recreation in the City of Shafter. This narrative is primarily provided by the City of Shafter General Plan and the City of Shafter Municipal Code.
Regulatory Setting
State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act sets a standard park space to population ratio of up to three acres of park space per 1,000 persons. Cities with a ratio of higher than three acres per 1,000 persons can set a standard of up to five acres per 1,000 persons for new development. The calculation of a City’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal Census to the amount of City-owned parkland. A 1982 amendment (Assembly Bill [AB] 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for a recreation facility or park land and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Local
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in Section 4.7-Parks and Recreation of the General Plan are relevant to the implementation of the proposed project:
• Policy 2: Require new development to provide land and improvements to meet the City’s parks and recreation objective or pay fees in lieu of the provision of improved parkland. • Policy 8: In addition to the provisions of the Quimby Act, pursue use of park fees through grants and land-based financing districts.
Affected Environment
Park and recreation facilities within the City of Shafter are provided by four entities: the City of Shafter, the Shafter Recreation and Park District, North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, and the Kern County Park and Recreation Department. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District covers the southeastern portion of the City along a ½-mile wide strip north of 7th Standard Road. Kern County provides regional park facilities. The City of Shafter has seven parks totaling over 30-acres which include:
Mannel Park; Kirschenmann Park; Stringham Park; Rodriguez Park; Town Square; Veteran Park; Flight Park. The City of Shafter’s Veteran Building Facility is available for commercial and/or private events.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion a): The HEU would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development on six primary candidate sites in Shafter. Future residential growth and population increase (12,649 persons) would increase the demand incrementally for parks and other recreation facilities in the City such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. All future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City development review process and must comply with Shafter Municipal Code requirements. The City may in the future require payment of fees to help fund park improvements or park land acquisition. Payment of such fees would assist funding acquisition and development of new or rehabilitation of existing park and recreational facilities necessary to accommodate recreational demands created by addition of new residential units and concomitant residential population. Most of the vacant candidate sites identified in the Shafter HEU are within Specific Plan areas, which can provide additional park and recreation facilities as needed or required. Thereby, the HEU-facilitated residential development could not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM REC-1 and Mitigation Measure MM REC-2, the resulting impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM REC-1: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any individual residential project for which the City of Shafter park land dedication requirements would not be met, the Applicant of said project shall pay park fees the City of Shafter shall establish and assess to provide park and recreational facilities to serve future residents of the proposed new HEU-facilitated residential units.
MM REC-2: Every developer of residential projects contemplated and facilitated by the HEU, at the discretion of the City may l be required to dedicate a portion of the project site, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of both, as the City of Shafter may require., for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve future residents of each individual residential development. In determination of whether a developer shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, or a combination of both, the following procedures may be used:
a) Applicant required to or desiring to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes shall, upon filing a tentative map for approval, check with the City of Shafter to determine whether the subject property has been designated for a park site. If an Applicant’s property is designated, the Applicant/developer shall coordinate with the necessary City departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the development plan for the respective residential development. b) If the Applicant’s property is not so designated, and a school site is proposed within, or in proximity to, the development site, a park site adjacent to the school site, the City may require the Applicant/developer shall coordinate with the appropriate City departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the respective residential development plan.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion b): Residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not result in direct housing construction but enable residential development on the identified candidate sites. This future residential development would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities in the future.
Greater demands on parks and recreational facilities would potentially result in the need to provide new or expanded facilities to maintain an acceptable level of recreational service in Shafter. The HEU does not propose construction of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, HEU implementation would not result in substantial environmental impacts in this regard. However, future residential development could warrant construction of new or physically altered parks and/or recreational facilities. Any future expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities would be subject to environmental review and must comply with any applicable City development review actions related to expansion of recreational facilities. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a datadriven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads.
State Regulations
California State Transportation Agency
The mission of the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) is to develop and coordinate the policies and programs of the state’s transportation entities to achieve the state’s mobility, safety, and air quality objectives from its transportation system.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
The following policies contained in Section 3.2-Streets and Highway’s, of the City’s General Plan are relevant to implementation of the proposed project:
• Policy 2: C Maintain design standards and protect the primary purpose of the roadways shown in the Circulation Plan (previously referenced Figure 3-1) consistent with the following guidelines:
o Local Streets (52’ to 66’ right-of-way) provide access to abutting properties and are designed to discourage through traffic within residential neighborhoods. Within residential neighborhoods, local streets will have 52’ to 60’ rights-of-way, depending upon the amount of traffic the road is intended to accommodate. Within commercial, business park, and industrial areas, local streets would have larger rights-of-way, up to 66’.
• Policy 7: Pursue the establishment of traffic impact mitigation fees on new development to ensure that transportation improvements are constructed in a timely manner. • Policy 10: Design and reconfigure collector and local roadways to improve circulation within and connections to residential, commercial, and industrial areas. o Implement appropriate measures to mitigate speeding and other traffic impacts in residential areas. –
o Implement roadway patterns that limit through traffic on local residential streets. If culde-sacs are proposed, encourage the cul-de-sac’s design to be open ended as a method to increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
• Policy 11: Require the design of new developments to focus through traffic onto arterial streets. • Policy 13: Locate driveways on corner parcels as far away from the intersection as is possible. • Policy 17: Require new development to construct all on-site roadways, including Transportation Program routes, and provide a fair share contribution for needed off-site improvements.
Contributions for off-site improvements may be in the form of fees and/or physical improvements, as determined by the City Engineer.
City of Shafter Municipal Code
For specific plan areas, a circulation plan showing existing and proposed public and private streets, pedestrian ways, trails, and related transportation access or circulation features required to serve the proposed development. The circulation plan shall be supported by schematic designs of principal traffic and circulation improvements and such traffic engineering data as required by the City to demonstrate that existing and proposed facilities, both within and outside the zone, shall be adequate to serve land uses proposed by the Development Plan.
Affected Environment
Transportation Network
In the City of Shafter, regional roadways include State Routes 99 and 43, as well as 7th Standard Road and Lerdo Highway. State Route 99 is a limited access freeway that runs from northwest to southeast along the eastern edge of the General Plan study area. It is currently constructed with four travel lanes and interchanges at Lerdo Highway and 7th Standard Road. State Route 43 runs from the northwestern portion of the General Plan study area southeast through central Shafter and then turns in a southerly direction at Beech Avenue. It is currently constructed as a four-lane divided highway through the central portion of the City, and as a two-lane facility where it continues in a southerly direction. Lerdo Highway is the main east-west roadway connecting central Shafter to State Route 99 and Interstate 5. It is currently constructed as a four-lane divided highway from Interstate 5 (west of the study area) to Mannel Avenue in central Shafter, and then as a two-lane undivided highway east to State Route 99. 7th Standard Road forms the southerly boundary of the City of Shafter and its planning area. It is currently being improved from a two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane highway between State Route 99 and Santa Fe Way.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Less than Significant
Discussion a): Residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would total at least 3,492 units to comply with Shafter’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. However, the HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future residential development on the identified candidate sites in the City. The HEU does not include any goals or policies that would conflict with plans or other regulations that address Shafter’s vehicular circulation system. The City will review future residential projects on a case-by-case basis to verify consistency with applicable City regulations that pertain to the circulation system. All future development projects facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA and be required to comply with General Plan Policies indicated above and with Municipal Code requirements. Thereby, future HEU-facilitated residential projects would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion b): Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect July 1, 2020. Impacts related to LOS will be evaluated through the City’s development review process apart from CEQA. A project is considered to have a less than significant impact related to VMT if it is in a low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)(2) focuses on impacts that result from certain transportation projects. The HEU is not a transportation project, as a result, no impacts on this issue will result. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)(3) and (b)(4) focuses on the evaluation of a project's VMT. The HEU will not create a significant amount of traffic in the surrounding area because the HEU does not propose specific residential development. As a result, the HEU will not result in a conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) of the CEQA Guidelines and no impacts will occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion c): The HEU would not result in direct residential construction but would facilitate future residential development in the City of Shafter. The candidate residential sites are concentrated in the northwest and southeast portions of the City. Site-specific details for future residential development on the candidate housing sites are not known presently. Future HEU-facilitated residential development, on a case-by-case basis, will be reviewed and be required to comply with the Shafter General Plan, Shafter Municipal Code, and State of California requirements pertaining to circulation design.
City of Shafter General Plan Section 3.0 – Transportation Program Policy 1 in part requires the following:
• Promote the design of roadways to optimize safe traffic flow within established roadway configurations by minimizing driveways and intersections, uncontrolled access to adjacent parcels, on-street parking, and frequent stops.
• Provide adequate capacity at intersections to accommodate future traffic volumes by installing intersection traffic improvements and traffic control devices, as needed, as development occurs. • Facilitate the synchronization of traffic signals.
Transportation Program Policy 10 provides for the following:
• Design and reconfigure collector and local roadways to improve circulation within and connections to residential, commercial, and industrial areas. o Implement appropriate measures to mitigate speeding and other traffic impacts in residential areas.
o Implement roadway patterns that limit through traffic on local residential streets.
The City of Shafter Engineering Division will review project traffic circulation needs and design issues during the plan check review process. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations mandated for design of new housing and emergency access. Thereby, residential development facilitated by the HEU will not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant
Discussion d): The City Engineering Division will review project traffic circulation needs and design issues during the plan check review process. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations mandated for design of new housing and emergency access.
In addition, California Building Code standards apply to new construction and development of emergency access issues associated with earthquakes, flooding, climate/strong winds, and water shortages. Future HEU-facilitated residential development would be required to comply with current, applicable building and fire safety regulations pertaining to design of new housing and emergency access. Compliance with the City of Shafter General Plan, City of Shafter Municipal Code, California Fire Code, and California Building Code standards would ensure future residential development facilitated by the HEU will provide adequate emergency access. Thereby, the resultant level of impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes the Tribal Cultural Resources setting and the potential effects from HEU implementation on Tribal Cultural Resources. The information in this section is primarily obtained from the City of Shafter General Plan and by results of Tribal Consultations.
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Senate Bill 18
California State law provides for limited protection of Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places, such as the following: sanctified cemeteries, religious, ceremonial sites, shrines, burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, archaeological sites; and sacred sites.
California Senate Bill 18 placed new requirements on local governments for developments in or near a Traditional Tribal Cultural Place (TTCP). Local jurisdictions must provide opportunities for involvement of California Native American tribes in the land planning process to preserve traditional tribal cultural places.
The Final Tribal Guidelines recommends the Native American Heritage Commission provide written information within 30 days to inform the Lead Agency if a proposed project is determined to be near a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if the tribes want to consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. SB 18 also amended California Civil Code Section 815.3 to add California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements to protect their cultural places.
Assembly Bill 52 CEQA Tribal Consultation
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) took effect July 1, 2015, and requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and Applicants would have information available early in the proposed Project’s planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources.
California Native American Graves Protection and repatriation Act (CalNAGPAR) California State Assembly 978 (AB 978), requiring all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items to provide a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes. The bill also created a Repatriation Oversight Commission with oversight authority.
California Native American Heritage Commission
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA), among many other powers and duties.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
Section 6.6-Cultural Resources of the City’s General Plan consist of the following policies relevant to implementation of the proposed project:
• Policy 1: Require new developments to analyze, and therefore avoid or mitigate impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources in accordance with applicable CEQA guidelines and provisions of the California Public Resources Code. Identify, protect, and minimize impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources. • Policy 2: Require that areas found to contain significant artifacts or fossils be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or paleontologist for recommendations concerning protection and preservation, implementing those recommendations as part of the mitigation measures required for the project. Review proposed development for the possibility of cultural resources and for compliance with the cultural resources program. • Policy 3: As a standard condition of approval for new development projects, require that if cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during grading, alteration of earth materials in the vicinity of the find be halted until a qualified expert has evaluated the find and recorded identified cultural resources.
Affected Environment
The City of Shafter has received sediments from the Coast Ranges to the west, the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, and to a lesser degree from activity on the San Andreas Fault system. These sediments contain different species of fossils, reflecting the different periods of deposition. The vertebrate fossils found in these formations are significant as defined under State and Federal citations.
They are also important because they help provide dates concerning rates and frequency of fault activity, and the timing and rates of rise on such major mountain ranges as the Sierra Nevada.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Discussion a): Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014, known as California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires lead agencies evaluate a project’s potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” These resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” Also, AB 52 gives lead agencies discretion to determine, based on substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” In compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), the City of Shafter has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the Shafter vicinity and may have concerns about adverse effects on tribal cultural resources from development, such as the effects defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. The City of Shafter contacted the following tribal representatives:
• Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley
• Chumash Council of Bakersfield
• Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
• Tejon Indian Tribe
• Tule River Indian Tribe
The 30-day AB 52 Tribal consultation period ended on June 19, 2023, no requests for consultation were received from any of the tribes contacted.
Although the HEU does not propose any specific development or ground disturbing activities, it is reasonable to assume that future residential development on the identified candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU could directly or indirectly impact undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources during grading and/or construction activities. The possibility of encountering such resources is greater on vacant, undeveloped properties than on developed sites. Most of the candidate sites identified in the HEU are vacant and thereby the likelihood of discovering tribal cultural resources is greater on these candidate sites.
The HEU proposes no specific grading or construction activities. Therefore, details pertaining to future residential development on the candidate sites facilitated by the HEU are unknown at present. No sitespecific cultural resource surveys were conducted for this programmatic level of analysis.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Future HEU-facilitated residential development on the identified candidate sites would be subject to Shafter’s development process and would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local requirements for protection of tribal cultural resources. This includes compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 21074 and with Shafter General Plan Environmental Management Program Policies 1 and 2, as stated above. Also, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TR-1 would require Applicants/Developers to immediately cease any ground-disturbing activities upon discovery of any tribal, cultural, or archaeological resources, which would reduce any potential future impacts to such cultural resources to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM TR-1: Upon discovery of any tribal, cultural, or archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant/Developer shall immediately cease such activities in the immediate vicinity. The finding then will be assessed by a qualified archaeologist retained by the Applicant/Developer and a tribal monitor/consultant approved by the consulting Tribal Group. The Applicant/Developer shall promptly notify the City of Shafter Director of Planning about the discovery of resources. If the resources are Native American in origin, the consulting tribe shall coordinate with the landowner pertaining to treatment and curation of such resources. Typically, the tribe will request preservation in place or recover8y for educational purposes. At the direction of the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant, and in coordination with the City of Shafter Planning Department, work may continue other parts of the affected site while evaluation, and if necessary, additional protective measures are completed at the affected portion of the site pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). If the qualified archaeologist determines a resource to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time and funding to allow for sufficient implementation of avoidance measures must be made available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment upon identification of unique archaeological resources (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)). If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the consulting tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution, with a research interest in the materials. Acceptance and curation of the historic archaeological materials will be at the discretion of the institution. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, the material shall be offered to the consulting tribe or the Shafter Historical Society for educational purposes.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes the utilities and service systems setting and potential effects from implementation on of the HEU. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided in part by the City of Shafter May 2021 Final Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Water
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than twenty-five people. In California, the State Department of Health Services conducts most enforcement activities.
Wastewater
Clean Water Act
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Under the CWA, the EPA implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater standards.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit program was established within the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.
Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.
State Regulations
Water
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the ultimate authority over state water rights and water quality policy. PorterCologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in several water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs