City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The City of Shafter is overseen by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Water Conservation Act of 2009
This Act was drafted to protect statewide water sources. The Act called for a 20 percent reduction in water use in California by the year 2020. Failure to comply with interim and final targets (20% reduction) make each non-complying jurisdiction ineligible for grants and loans from the State needed to attain water selfsufficiency.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
Section 6.8-Energy Resources of the City’s General Plan contains the following policies applicable to implementation of the proposed project:
• 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. • Policy 4: Encourage the incorporation of recycled materials in new construction, where feasible.
City of Shafter 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (1983 and subsequently amended several times) requires “every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, to prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an Urban Water Management Plan.” The Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years and must describe and evaluate reasonable and practical efficient water uses, reclamation, and conservation activities. UWMPs are considered a foundation document and source of information for Water Supply Assessments (Senate Bill 610) and Written Verifications of Water Supply (SB 221). Also, a UWMP may serve as a long-range planning document for water supply, a source of data for development of a regional water plan, and a source document for jurisdictions as they prepare their General Plans.
One primary object of the Urban Water Management Planning Act is the assessment of demands and supplies over a 20-year or 25-year planning horizon under normal rainfall conditions and under various drought conditions. The Act also requires water shortage contingency planning and drought response actions be included in a UWMP.
The 2020 City of Shafter Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides a framework for long-term water planning and informs the public of the City’s plans for long-term resource planning to ensure
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
adequate water supplies for existing and future demands. The UWMP documents the availability of an appropriate level of reliability of water service sufficient to meet the needs of the City’s customers during normal, single dry and multiple dry years. The sections of the UWMP are the following: Introduction/ Service Area Description; Water Sources and Supplies; Recycled Water Opportunities; Water Quality; Water Use; Reliability Planning; Contingency Planning; Conservation Measures; and Appendices. The Shafter UWMP includes background information pertaining to the City’s history, water system, and water supplies. Also, the UWMP analyzes recent water demands and projects future water supply capacity and water demands through 2045. In addition, the Shafter UWMP analyzes the effects of water quality, drought, and emergencies on the City water supply reliability.
Affected Environment
Water
The City of Shafter owns and operates its own public water system, including groundwater wells, aboveground water storage tanks with booster stations, an above-ground tank and booster plant, and water distribution lines. Treatment of the City’s water supply is achieved by chlorination. Shafter’s water service area comprises approximately 75 percent of the City limits, as well as additional areas outside the City limits. Three-fourths of the City’s growth is outside the water service area and is serviced by the Oildale Mutual Water Company (OMWC). On average, commercial and industrial users account for approximately one-third of total City water usage. The City currently uses only potable water to meet the needs of its water service area.
Sewer
Shafter’s Department of Public Works is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City’s public sewer system. Wastewater treatment service within the City is accomplished through a co-ownership of the Shafter/North of the River Sanitation District (NORSD) regional treatment plant that guarantees a set share of the treatment plants to the City of Shafter. The North of the River Sanitary District owns twothirds of the wastewater treatment plant, and the City of Shafter owns one-third of the plant. Wastewater generated within the Planning Area is transported through several miles of gravity sewer lines and several lift stations to the Shafter/NORSD Wastewater Treatment Facility, located on a 160-acre site on 7th Standard Road within the City of Shafter.
Solid Waste
Two franchise haulers, American Refuse and Varner Brothers, serve newly annexed territories in the City of Shafter. The City owns collection equipment and operates residential, commercial, and industrial trash pickup services within the core community. Solid waste that is collected within the City is typically delivered and disposed of at the Shafter/Wasco Landfill and the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill.
These landfills are owned and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Shafter/Wasco Landfill is the City’s primary landfill, while the Bena Landfill accepts some refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both facilities are designated as Class III landfills and have the capacity to serve projected solid waste disposal needs through January 2030.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Electricity
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to the City.
Natural Gas
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas to the City.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): The City of Shafter receives 100% of its water supply from groundwater produced from the San Joaquin Valley Basin, Dern County Sub Basin of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Currently, the City operates six active groundwater production wells that have a combined nominal capacity of 8,600 gallons per minute (gpm). The City maintains five operating above-ground storage tanks with a combined storage capacity of 5.45 million gallons and is planning to construct a new 850,000-gallon storage and booster station in the southeast Shafter Service Area in 2023. The City also plans to replace the storage and booster station of Tank 1 by 2024; the new storage facility will have an 850,000-gallon capacity. The City maintains and operates five booster stations, each of which are located at one of the five storage tanks. The City distributes water to residential, commercial, and other customers through approximately 4,800 service connections using an approximate 87-mile network of distribution mains that range in size from 4 to 18 inches.
Although the residential build out facilitated by the HEU would eventually add 12,649 residents to the City, HEU implementation would not require the relocation or construction of new utility infrastructure which could cause a significant environmental effect. The new residential units contemplated and facilitated by the HEU will be constructed over time on a combination of the six identified candidate sites.
Each development on a specific candidate site will require analysis of the existing and any planned water conveyance system.
The Shafter UWMP indicates the City does not expect to have a water supply shortage through 2045 under normal or under drought conditions. The City’s overall water supplies (wells) are resilient to water droughts and to water quality issues. Furthermore, the 2020 Shafter UWMP states that “if the water consumption rates per resident in the City decrease as this UWMP projects, the City can expect to meet water demands through the year 2045, in spite of a growth of 50% (2% annually).” The UWMP also
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
recommends conservation tools that will enable the City’s residents to conserve water and maximize water use efficiency.
It should be noted that the UWMP indicates that the City currently does not utilize the entire capacity of all its groundwater wells but is expected to increase pumping by approximately 13 percent within 10 years. The UWMP indicates “total production should continue to increase through…2045. Therefore, it can be expected that the City will construct new groundwater wells to meet projected demands. In the interim, the City will maximize the production of its existing wells, but also maximize conservation efforts and programs.” Groundwater pumping volume for 2045 is expected to be 25% greater than the 2020 volume, “…despite a projected population growth of nearly 70 percent. “Furthermore, alternative water sources (e.g., recycled water; recycled stormwater; greywater) may be accessible. The UWMP states that “Senate Bill 1087 requires that water use projections of a UWMP include the projected water use for single-family and multi-family residential for lower income households as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier. The residential sector projections [for the City of Shafter] include projected low-income housing per the City’s [5th Cycle] Housing Element.” The City’s projected water use for 2020-2045 indicates the residential sector will account for
72.7% of water demand in Shafter.
Projected water demands and supplies in Shafter are based on the following assumptions:
• Consumption rate of 217 gallons per capita day beginning in 2020. • Decreasing consumption rate, starting from 217 gallons per capita day in 2020 with a passive savings of 0.5% annually (due to an increase in water-use efficiency) For drought-time demands, a small degree of increase is expected.
Compliance with existing regulations and with UWMP recommendations and findings will ensure the resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
Sewer Service
The City provides wastewater collection services within its service area and provides wastewater collection to a few small unincorporated communities south of the City’s core area and north of 7th Standard Road. Municipal wastewater in the wastewater service area is generated from a combination of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sewer discharges. The City wastewater collection system drains primarily from north to south, and from east to west. Wastewater discharged from the City is collected from a network of approximately eighty-five miles of gravity sewer mains.
Currently, Kern County manages a collection system for the Mexican Colony portion of South Shafter and pays the City to convey sewer flows to the Shafter Avenue outfall pipeline. The UWMP states that “within two years, it is anticipated that State grant funds will construct additional conveyance systems to allow all unincorporated South Shafter water customers to receive sewer service.” After this grant project is completed, the City will assume all sewer collection systems in South Shafter, including the Mexican Colony.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Improvements to the City Wastewater Treatment Plant (the only treatment facility serving the City) were estimated to begin in 2022 to accommodate additional generated wastewater. Development facilitated by the HEU would connect to the existing waterlines in public right-of-way in the immediate vicinity.
Compliance with existing regulations and with UWMP recommendations and findings will ensure the resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
Storm Drainage
Implementation of the HEU would include storm water drainage improvements. However, housing resulting from the HEU would connect to the existing storm drains in the public right-of-way in the immediate vicinity of the candidate residential sites and would not require the relocation of water facilities or connections. The resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the main provider of electricity to the City of Shafter. The HEU is in a built-up community with existing infrastructure and would therefore connect to the existing electrical transmission infrastructure.
The resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
Natural Gas
Southwest Gas Corporation (SGC) is the main per of natural gas to the City. The HEU is in a built-up community with existing infrastructure and would therefore connect to the existing natural gas transmission infrastructure.
The resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
Telecommunications
Cable TV, internet, telephone service, cellular service would connect to existing facilities that are maintained by various service providers.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
L
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
Less Than Significant
Discussion b): The Shafter UWMP indicates the City does not expect to have a water supply shortage through 2045 under normal or under drought conditions. The City’s overall water supplies (wells) are resilient to water droughts and to water quality issues. Furthermore, the 2020 Shafter UWMP states that “if the water consumption rates per resident in the City decrease as this UWMP projects, the City can expect to meet water demands through the year 2045, in spite of a growth of 50% (2% annually).” The UWMP also recommends conservation tools that will enable the City’s residents to conserve water and maximize water use efficiency.
It should be noted that the UWMP indicates that the City currently does not utilize the entire capacity of all of its groundwater wells but is expected to increase pumping by approximately 13% within 10 years.
The UWMP indicates “total production should continue to increase through 2045. Therefore, it can be expected that the City will construct new groundwater wells to meet projected demands. In the interim, the City will maximize the production of its existing wells, but also maximize conservation efforts and programs.” Groundwater pumping volume for 2045 is expected to be 25% greater than the 2020 volume, “…despite a projected population growth of nearly 70%. “Furthermore, alternative water sources (e.g., recycled water; recycled stormwater; greywater) may be accessible. The UWMP states that “Senate Bill 1087 requires that water use projections of a UWMP include the projected water use for single-family and multi-family residential for lower income households as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier. The residential sector projections [for the City of Shafter] include projected low-income housing per the City’s [5th Cycle] Housing Element.” The City’s projected water use for 2020-2045 indicates the residential sector will account for 72.7% of water demand in Shafter.
Projected water demands and supplies in Shafter are based on the following assumptions:
• Consumption rate of 217 gallons per capita day beginning in 2020. • Decreasing consumption rate, starting from 217 gallons per capita day in 2020 with a passive savings of 0.5% annually (due to an increase in water-use efficiency) For drought-time demands, a small degree of increase is expected.
Compliance with existing regulations and with UWMP recommendations and findings will ensure the resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
The resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion c): The UWMP states that “within two years, it is anticipated that State grant funds will construct additional conveyance systems to allow all unincorporated South Shafter water customers to receive sewer service.” After this grant project is completed, the City will assume all sewer collection systems in South Shafter, including the Mexican Colony.
Improvements to the City Wastewater Treatment Plant (the only treatment facility serving the City) were needed to begin in 2022 to accommodate additional generated wastewater. Development facilitated by the HEU would connect to the existing waterlines in public right-of-way in the immediate vicinity.
Compliance with existing regulations and with UWMP recommendations and findings will ensure the resultant level of impact from implementation of residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would be maintained at less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion d): Two franchise haulers, American Refuse and Varner Brothers, serve newly annexed territories in the City of Shafter. The City owns collection equipment and operates residential, commercial, and industrial trash pickup services within the core community. Solid waste that is collected within the City is typically delivered and disposed of at the Shafter/Wasco Landfill and the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill. These landfills are owned and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Shafter/Wasco Landfill is the City’s primary landfill, while the Bena Landfill accepts some refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both of these facilities are designated as Class III landfills and have the capacity to serve projected solid waste disposal needs through January 2030.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
The City will continue to implement a variety of solid waste reduction, recycling, and re-use measures to meet its obligation under AB 939 and HEU-facilitated residential development will be required to comply with all City General Plan Policies and Municipal Code regulations pertaining to solid waste reduction. The resultant level of impact would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion e): Two franchise haulers, American Refuse and Varner Brothers, serve newly annexed territories in the City of Shafter. The City owns collection equipment and operates residential, commercial, and industrial trash pickup services within the core community. Solid waste that is collected within the City is typically delivered and disposed of at the Shafter/Wasco Landfill and the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill. These landfills are owned and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Shafter/Wasco Landfill is the City’s primary landfill, while the Bena Landfill accepts some refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both of these facilities are designated as Class III landfills and have the capacity to serve projected solid waste disposal needs through January 2030.
The City will continue to implement a variety of solid waste reduction, recycling, and re-use measures to meet its obligation under AB 939. The following General Plan Policies are applicable to the HEU:
• Provide the best possible service for the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste at the lowest possible cost.
• Provide and promote opportunities to reduce solid waste generation at home and in businesses and public facilities; make possible the safe disposal of hazardous materials. • Require builders to incorporate appropriate storage areas for recyclables in new commercial, industrial, and public developments.
• Support the identification and selection of new landfill sites in remote locations of the County, where such sites would not impact existing or proposed parks or water storage facilities. • Limit the location of solid waste transfer stations to areas where heavy industrial uses would be appropriate, avoiding traffic, odor, and other environmental impacts on the community.
Under any circumstance, solid waste must be disposed of in accordance with Federal and State laws.
Impacts related to solid waste disposal methods and regulations would be less than significant.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
WILDFIRE
Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) CAL FIRE is responsible for providing wildland fire protection, fire prevention, and resource management on more than thirty-one million acres of State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands throughout California. In addition, CAL FIRE provides emergency servicesto 115 local government cooperators through agreements with districts, cities, and counties.
California Senate Bill 1241 (SB 1241)
The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan that includes various elements, including, among others, a safety element for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with, among other things, wildland, and urban fires. The safety element includes requirements for state responsibility areas, as defined, and very high fire hazard severity zones, as defined.
Local Regulations
City of Shafter General Plan
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.
•
Affected Environment
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 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
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
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.
Project Impacts
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): According to Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the City of Shafter is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone for a Local Responsibility Area. No candidate housing sites are near a fire hazard severity zone. The HEU-identified candidate sites are mostly vacant properties in the extreme northwest and southeast portions of the City. Residential development contemplated and facilitated by the HEU would not involve the closure or alteration of any existing evacuation routes or emergency access road to the candidate sites, unless the City of Shafter approves an alternate circulation plan to be in effect at time of residential development occurring. Prior to All HEU-facilitated residential development will be reviewed by City and County Fire officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because no part of Shafter is within a very high fire hazard severity zone. As a result, potential impacts to adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation will be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion b): According to the November 21, 2022, CALFIRE “State Responsibility Area – Fire Hazard Zones” Map for Kern County, no portion of Shafter is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone.
Therefore, future HEU-facilitated residential development would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose future housing occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no impact would result.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Discussion c): No portion of Shafter is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, future residential development facilitated by the HEU would not require installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impact to the environment. No impact would result.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion d): No portion of Shafter is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, future HEU-facilitated residential development would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes associated with a very high fire hazard severity zone. Additionally, the HEU candidate sites are relatively flat consisting of natural occurring desert landscape and is not located in the vicinity of slopes or hillsides that could potentially be susceptible to landslides or downstream flooding. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant
Discussion a): The foregoing analysis indicates HEU implementation does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The HEU would not result in direct housing construction but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on identified candidate residential sites throughout Shafter.
All future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be surject to the City of Shafter’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements. HEU implementation would not result in any direct environmental impacts that would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion b): State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable” as times when “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This document provides a programmatic analysis of the effects of implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
HEU implementation would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future housing development on the six identified candidate residential sites in Shafter, most of which are vacant property. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners; be subject to the City development review process; be subject to environmental review under CEQA. Only one of the candidate sites, which would not be necessary to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for Shafter, would require a change of zone to accommodate residential development. Based on these factors, and since all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City development review process, the HEU implementation would not result in environmental effects that are individually limited through implementation of specified Mitigation Measures, but cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures are contained in Appendix A to this document. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Discussion c): There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by implementation of the 6th Cycle Shafter HEU. The HEU would facilitate future residential development on six identified candidate sites, generally in the extreme northwestern and extreme southeaster areas of the City but would not result in direct residential construction. The HEU provides physical capacity for future residential development consistent with California State Housing Law. The candidate housing sites are dispersed such that adverse changes in City neighborhoods would be avoided and aesthetic impacts would not occur. The dispersion also would reduce adverse environmental impacts. HEU implementation would create adequate housing availability for households of all income levels, especially for lowerincome households, as mandated by Shafter’s RHNA allocated units. Impacts of HEU implementation would be less than significant after incorporation of identified Mitigation Measures contained in Appendix A.
City of Shafter CEQA IS/MND
REFERENCES
USGS-Science for a Changing World https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper Accessed August 31, 2022.
Your EnviroStor-Department of Toxic Substances Control https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed August 23, 2022
California Department of Conservation https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed August 23, 2022.
California Department of Conservation
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#opemmodal/-117.41448/34.56284/14. Accessed August 24, 2022.
State of California Department of Finance https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estinates/e-5/.
Accessed August 24, 2022.
Public School Review https://www.publicschoolreview.com. Accessed August 25, 2022.
PERC Water Corporation. Accessed August 26, 2022.
Cal Recycle https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1870?siteID=2652.
Accessed August 29, 2022.
CAL FIRE-FRAP https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ. Accessed August 29, 2022.
United States Census data (2020)
City of Shafter General Plan
City of Shafter Municipal Code
City of Shafter 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
APPENDIX A-MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 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 projectlevel 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).
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.
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
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 occur, at the discretion of the City, the Applicant 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.
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 survey to evaluate the presence of cultural resources and the need for project impact mitigation by preservation, relocation, or other method(s). If deemed necessary, by the City, the Applicant may be required to 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 proposed project, 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.
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: During HEU implementation, each residential development shall prepare a Geotechnical Investigation Report as described in the Shafter General Plan and the Municipal Code (Chapter 15-28.070, Sections D and E). Successful incorporation of these specifications shall be verified by the City of Shafter Building Official prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Each Applicant for a new residential project contemplated by the HEU that will require City of Shafter discretionary approval, if deemed necessary by the City, the Applicant 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.
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
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.
Noise
MM NOI-1: If deemed necessary by the City to reduce project development (grading and construction) noise impacts, the Applicant will 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 sued 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. • 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 activities that may be necessary, Grading Permit, or Building Permit approval, each Applicant for 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.
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
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.
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 Day8; Independence Day; Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day.
Recreation
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.
Tribal Cultural Resources
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 findings will then 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 on 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
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
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.
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.
Appendix A-Mitigation Measures
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
APPENDIX B-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA-required component of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) process for the project. The results of the environmental analyses, including proposed mitigation measures, are documented in the Final MND.
CEQA requires that agencies adopting MNDs take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented subsequent to project approval.
As part of the CEQA environmental review procedures, Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and enforceability of any mitigation measures applied to a proposed project. The lead agency must adopt an MMRP for mitigation measures incorporated into the project or proposed as conditions of approval. The MMRP must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. As stated in Section 21081.6(a)(1):
The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so, requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
Table 1 is the final MMRP matrix. The table lists each of the mitigation measures proposed in the Final MND and specifies the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure and the time period for the mitigation measure.
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Biological Resources
Impact 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?
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 sitespecific 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
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.
Impact A 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 preconstruction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing
activities to determine the presence/absence,
City of Shafter Applicant PreConstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A 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).
Impact A 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A Incidental Take Permit (ITP)pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b)
necessary to comply with CESA.
Impact 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.
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. 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B 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.
Impact B 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 preconstruction 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B 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).
Impact B 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
City of Shafter Applicant PreConstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b)
necessary to comply with CESA.
Impact 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.
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. 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact C 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.
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact 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.
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. 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
City of Shafter Applicant PreConstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact D 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.
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact D 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 preconstruction 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
City of Shafter Applicant PreConstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact D 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.
Cultural Resources
Impact A: Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to
§15064.5?
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 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
City of Shafter Applicant At point of
application
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A 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.
Impact B: Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
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 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
City of Shafter Applicant Permitting
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B 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.
Impact C: Disturb
any human
remains, including
those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
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,
City of Shafter Applicant At point of
application
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact C 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.
Geology and Soils
Impact A (iii):
Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural
Community
Conservation Plan,
or other approved
local, regional, or
state habitat
conservation plan.
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.
City of Shafter Applicant Preconstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B: Result in
substantial soil
erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
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.
City of Shafter Applicant Preconstruction
Impact 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?
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.
City of Shafter Applicant Preconstruction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact 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?
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.
City of Shafter Applicant Preconstruction
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact B: Create a
significant hazard
to the public or the
environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset
and accident
conditions
involving the
release of
hazardous
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 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
City of Shafter Applicant Discretionary
phase of project
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
materials into the
environment?
Impact B:
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 shall 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;
City of Shafter Applicant’s
Contractor
Grading and
Construction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact B •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.
Impact 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
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
City of Shafter Applicant Discretionary
phase of project
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
public or the
environment?
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.
Noise
Impact 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?
MM NOI-1: To reduce potential grading and
construction noise impacts, each Applicant for a
specific project the City shall require
construction contractors to implement a sitespecific 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.
City of Shafter Applicant Grading and
Construction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A
Impact A
•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.
•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
City of Shafter Applicant Prior to
demolition
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A
Impact A
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. Noisegenerating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal
City of Shafter Contractor Construction
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A 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.
Recreation
Impact 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?
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.
City of Shafter Applicant Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
MM REC-2: Every developer of residential
projects contemplated and facilitated by the
HEU may shall be required to dedicate a portion
of the project site or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or
do a combination of both, as the City of Shafter
City of Shafter Applicant Before proposal
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A 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 procedure 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
will 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 may be required
to be developed and the Applicant/developer
shall coordinate with the appropriate City
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
Impact A departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the respective residential development plan.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 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
MM TR-1: Upon discovery of any tribal, cultural,
or archaeological resources during grounddisturbing 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
City of Shafter Applicant Project
Groundbreaking
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
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 Resources
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
Appendix B-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Monitoring
Party
Responsible
Implementing
Party
Implementation
Phase
Completion
Date / Initials
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.
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.
Appendix C
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 179
APPENDIX C-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IS MND
This section includes the comments received during circulation of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) prepared for the Shafter 6th Cycle Element Housing Update and responses to those comments. Corrections or additional text discussed in the responses to comments are also shown in the text of the Final IS-MND in strikethrough (for deleted text) and underline (for added text) format. (Additional minor clarifications and corrections to typographical errors not based on responses to comments may also be shown in strikeout/underline format in the Final IS-MND. None of these changes introduce significant new information or affect the conclusions of the IS-MND.) The IS-MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on June 2, 2023, and concluded on July 2, 2023. The Housing Element Update received three comment letters on the Draft IS-MND.
Each comment letter on the following page has been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a letter. Following the letters, the responses to each comment are listed sequentially in the table following the letters. The letters identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the letter assigned to each issue (Comment A, Response to Comment A) for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter #1.
Appendix C
Comment Letter #1
Comment
B
Comment
A
Comment
C
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 181
Con't
Comment
C
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 182
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 183
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 184
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 185
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 186
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 187
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 188
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 189
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 190
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 191
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 192
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 193
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 194
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 195
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 196
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 197
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 198
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 199
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 200
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 201
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 202
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 203
Appendix C
City of Shafter
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
The Wonderful Company
Comment Letter #1
Comment A Response to Comment A
We support the City’s efforts to update the Housing Element but have concerns that the proposal may unintentionally inhibit certain growth opportunities by not providing sufficient flexibility. Specifically, we ask that adequate flexibility, with regard to density associated with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) categories, be built into the final Housing element to ensure future development projects meet the needs of the City’s residents. Although Wonderful is committed to assisting in meeting housing needs, we cannot agree to any mandatory density requirements for residential housing development on our properties.
The City of Shafter’s Housing Element (HEU) identified
agricultural lands currently owned by the Wonderful
Company located east of the City Center as a potential
site to rezoned to R-3 (Medium-High Density) to
supplement the overall shortfall in available land for
lower income housing to meet the City’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number of 1,109 units
for low-income housing. The City’s total RHNA for all
income levels is 3,294.
According to the City of Shafter’s Municipal Code, Page 4- 5, Table 4.B, there are no minimum density requirements per acre listed for R-3 zones, there is, however, a
maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre,
additionally, multiple family dwellings are allowed by
right in R-3 Districts.
The City of Shafter has no shortage of open land for
development. The RHNA housing allocation for Shafter
for the current 6th Cycle is 3,294 units in all income
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 205
categories, the draft Housing Element identified the
potential for the City to far exceed the RHNA number of 3,294 in all income categories with only a shortfall in sites adequately zoned for low-income (with a min density of
20 du/acre). In total, with the current rezoning program, the City identified 11,460 housing units that can be
accommodated in three areas within the City for all
income categories.
Considering R-3 zones do not have minimum density
requirements but do have a maximum density of 24
dwelling units per acre, the Wonderful Company would
have the flexibility to develop up to 24 dwelling units per acre as indicated in the City’s Municipal Code.
The intention of the Housing Element Update is not to
mandate cities to develop housing units based on the
RHNA allocation but rather, it is required that cities show that they have adequate land zoned appropriately to
meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community. The rezoning of identified parcels to R-3
would enable property owners to develop up to 24
du/acre on those sites, but it is not required that those densities are met on said sites. The City is rezoning
sufficient land to ensure that if all parcels are not
developed to max density, there is still adequate land to accommodate the RHNA. To reiterate, there is no
mandate requiring R-3 designated parcels to develop at
max densities, the only requirement would be multifamily housing is developed.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 206
For further information on the Housing Element, The
draft HEU can be viewed on the City’s website at:
https://shafter.com/DocumentCenter/View/5044/Housi
ng-Element.
Comment B Response to Comment B
Additionally, there were no maps included in the proposals that clearly show the properties which are being designated to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. We request that the City provide a map within the document that clearly indicates all the locations described in the proposal and the ‘Very Low” and “Low” income housing proposed for each property.
Comment noted.
The City of Shafter’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ISMND) did not include maps depicting the
properties which are being designated to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. Upon finalizing the ISMND, maps
that depict property locations and income designations
will be included in the final version of the ISMND.
However, please refer to the Draft Housing Element,
Figure B-1 (Housing Inventory Locations) on page 210 of the document which depicts the potential housing
locations within the City and Figure 11-47 (Site InventoryIncome designation (Shafter)) on page 107 of the Housing Element depicts the inventory of sites and their income designation.
The entire draft (including maps) of the HEU can found on the City’s website at:
https://shafter.com/DocumentCenter/View/5044/Housi
ng-Element
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 207
Comment C Response to Comment C
We believe that the goal of the City’s Housing Element is to provide housing for all income levels that enables vibrant, healthy, and safe neighborhoods and encourages innovative residential designs to accomplish that goal. Wonderful remains dedicated to our mission of providing the residents of Shafter with a mix of affordable housing opportunities and look forward to working with the City to ensure its housing obligations are realized.
Comment noted.
The City of Shafter appreciates your support.
California Department of Fish and Game
Comment Letter #2
Comment A Response to Comment A
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Shafter in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project. There may be special-status resources present in and adjacent to the Project site. These resources may need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities. CDFW is concerned with potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to, the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the State threatened tricolor blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainson), the State candidate-listed endangered Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
Comment Noted.
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. However, as
identified in the IS/MND mitigation measures, during preconstruction and prior to grading or construction activities at each Project site, the City of Shafter would require Project applicants to conduct site-specific general biological resources survey by a qualified biologist on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife
species. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the IS/MND
requires 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, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted on sites that contain the presence of
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 208
any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. Mitigation BIO-1, has been
revised to include the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Swainson’s
Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, Cotch Bumble Bee, and
Burrowing Owl as species of concern in the San Joaquin
Valley region.
Comment B Response to Comment B
San Joaquin Kit Fox
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents a San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) record within the Project site (CDFW2023a). Their populations are known to fluctuate over years and presence or absence in any one year does not necessarily reduce the potential for kit fox to occur on a site. It is important to note that SJKF may be attracted to the Project area due to the type and level of activity and the loose, friable soils that are created as a result of intensive ground disturbance. If plowed fields are left fallow for any length of time, SJKF can quickly move in and utilize these areas for both denning and foraging. CDFW recommends following the USFWS’s “Standard Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance” (2011) survey protocol sand that they be conducted as part of the biological technical studies conducted as part of the CEQA documents for future housing projects. If this 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. CDFW advises that avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for SJKF be fully addressed in the MND.
Mitigation Measure (MM BIO-1) in the IS/MND, requires
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, 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. The draft IS/MND does not
include specific measures for SJFK. However, an
additional measure specific to SJFK will be included in the final IS/MND.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 209
Comment C Response to Comment C
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk (SWHA) exhibits high nest-site fidelity year after year in the San Joaquin Valley (CDFW 2016). The Project as proposed will involve noise, groundwork, and movement of workers that could affect nests and has the potential to result in nest abandonment, significantly impacting local nesting SWHA. Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for SWHA, potential significant impacts that may result from project activities include nest abandonment, and reduced nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young). CDFW agrees with the MND that housing development activities will be timed to avoid the normal bird breeding season (February 1 through September 15). However, if construction must take place during that time, CDFW recommends protocol surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist following the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHATAC 2000) during the survey season prior to project construction. CDFW recommends a minimum nodisturbance buffer of 0.5-mile be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. If an active SWHA nest is detected during surveys and a 0.5-mile buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the issuance of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the IS/MND requires
Applicants to avoid construction during the bird breeding season (January through July for raptors and February
through August for other avian species). 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. Furthermore, if an active
SWHA nest is detected during surveys and a 0.5-mile
buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW will be
initiated to discuss how to implement the Project and
avoid take.
Comment D Response to Comment D
Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolor blackbird (TRBL) have the potential to nest within and adjacent to the Project site. Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for TRBL, potential significant impacts include nest and/or colony abandonment, reduced reproductive success, and reduced health and vigor of eggs and/or young. TRBL are known to nest in alfalfa, wheat, and other low agricultural crop fields. TRBL aggregate and nest colonially, forming colonies of up to 100,000 nests (Meese et al.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the IS/MND requires
Applicants to avoid construction during the bird breeding season (January through July for raptors and February
through August for other avian species). 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
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 210
2014). Approximately 86% of the global population is found in the San Joaquin Valley (Kelsey 2008, Weintraub et al. 2016). Increasingly, TRBL are forming larger colonies that contain progressively larger proportions of the species’ total population (Kelsey2008). In 2008, for example, 55% of the species’ global population nested in only two colonies, which were located in silage fields (Kelsey 2008). In 2017, approximately 30,000 TRBL were distributed among only 16colonies in Merced County (Meese2017). Nesting can occur synchronously, with all eggs laid within one week (Orians 1961). For these reasons, depending on timing, disturbance to nesting colonies can cause abandonment, significantly impacting TRBL populations (Meese et al. 2014). CDFW recommends the following avoidance and minimization measures be incorporated into the MND for this Project.
CDFW agrees with the MND that housing development activities will be timed to avoid the normal bird breeding season (February 1 through September 15).
However, if construction must take place during that time, CDFW recommends that a survey for suitable habitat be conducted by a qualified biologist with knowledge of TRBL natural history and behaviors as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document for each housing project. If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for nesting TRBL no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. If an active TRBL nesting colony is found during pre-activity surveys, CDFW recommends implementation of a minimum 300-foot no disturbance buffer around the colony in accordance with CDFW’s “Staff Guidance Regarding Avoidance of Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird Breeding Colonies on Agricultural Fields in 2015” (CDFW2015). CDFW advises that this buffer remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that nesting has ceased, the birds have fledged, and are no longer reliant upon the colony or parental care for survival. It is important to note that TRBL colonies can expand over time.
For this reason, CDFW also recommends conducting pre-activity surveys of an identified nesting colony within 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbing activities to reassess the colony’s areal extent. If a TRBL nesting colony is detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an 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. Furthermore, if an active TRBL nest is detected during surveys and a 300-foot no
disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with
CDFW will be initiated to discuss how to implement the
project and avoid take.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 211
ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground-disturbing activities.
Comment E Response to Comment E
Crotch Bumble Bee
Crotch Bumblebee (CBB) have the potential to occur within the Project site. CBB was identified to have the potential to significantly impact local CBB populations. CDFW agrees with the MND that for future housing development facilitated by the HEU, surveys will be conducted on sites that contain the presence of any sensitive biological resources. CDFW recommends that a habitat assessment was once common throughout most of central and southern California. However, it now appears to be absent from most of their range, especially in the central portion of its historic range within California’s Central Valley (Hatfield et al. 2014). Analyses by the Xerxes Society et al. (2018) suggest there have been sharp declines in relative abundance by 98% and persistence by 80% over the last ten years. Suitable CBB habitat includes areas of grasslands and upland scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. CBB primarily nest in late February through late October underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, underbrush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2015). Overwintering sites utilized by CBB mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Goulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014). Therefore, ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with project activities be conducted for suitable CBB habitat, CBB nesting habitat, and CBB foraging resources, and that surveys follow CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW2023b). If ground-disturbing activities occur during the over wintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.
Mitigation Measure (MM BIO-1) in the IS/MND, requires
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, 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.
Furthermore, if a ground disturbing activities take place between October-February consultation with CDFW will
be initiated to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 212
Comment F Response to Comment F
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl (BUOW) has the potential to be present on and adjacent to the Project site. It is possible project activities could impact this species. BUOW has the potential to be year-round residents. Dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients, or new colonizers and can utilize the project site year-round. Therefore, CDFW recommends the survey methodology described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) be followed before beginning ground disturbing activities. In the event that BUOW are found, CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
Failure to implement the recommended buffer zones could cause adult BUOW to abandon the nest, cause eggs or young to be directly impacted (crushed), and/or result in reproductive failure, in violation of Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the IS/MND requires
Applicants to avoid construction during the bird breeding season (January through July for raptors and February
through August for other avian species). 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. Furthermore, if an active
BUOW nest is detected during surveys and a level of
disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with
CDFW will be initiated.
Comment G Response to Comment G
Nesting birds
CDFW agrees with the MND that housing development activities will avoid the bird breeding season. If ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February 1 through September 15), the project proponent is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the project does not Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the IS/MND requires
Applicants to avoid construction during the bird breeding season (January through July for raptors and February
through August for other avian species). If breeding
season avoidance is not feasible, the site-specific
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 213
result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes as referenced above. In the event that ground-disturbing activities were to occur during the bird breeding season, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct pre-activity surveys for active nests no more than10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by the project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.
If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
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. Furthermore, if an active
SWHA nest is detected during surveys and a 0.5-mile
buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW will be
initiated to discuss how to implement the project and
avoid take.
Comment H Response to Comment H
California Natural Diversity Database
Please note that the CNDDB is populated by and records voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting Comment noted.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 214
species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist/botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project area.
Comment I Response to Comment I
Lake and Streambed Alteration
Future residential development may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires the project proponent to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or by electronic mail at [email protected].
According to the City of Shafter’s General Plan, the
drainage 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.
Comment J Response to Comment J
Federally Listed Species
CDFW recommends consulting with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to SJKF. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities. CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Shafter in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources. If you have any 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
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 215
questions, please contact Jaime Marquez, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3200, or by electronic mail at [email protected].
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Compliance with Policy 1 would identify areas for special protection and create protection measures for specified habitat and sensitive species.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District Control
Comment Letter #3
Comment A Response to Comment A
Development Project Siting
The Housing Element is the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions.
Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative air pollution impacts from business operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.). Guidance and policies used to implement the Housing Element should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:
• CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/resource-center/strategydevelopment/land-useresources.
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. However, prior to project approval, and at the discretion of the City, the City may require
development project applicants to submit a technical
assessment evaluating potential project operation phaserelated air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with CARB’s Air Quality and
Land Use Handbook and determine appropriate
mitigation to air pollution impacts from business
operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.).
Comment B Response to Comment B
Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located.
The Shafter AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by The City of Shafter is committed to working SJVAPCD,
residents, community businesses and other key
stakeholders to reduce the exposure of harmful air
pollutants to disadvantaged communities. The City will
assess the emission reductions measures and strategies
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 216
CARB for development and implementation of a CERP. Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the Shafter Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020. During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land-use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies. Furthermore, the District recommends the City assess the emission reductions measures and strategies included in the CERP and address them for development projects within the Housing Element area, as appropriate, to align the City work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP. For more information regarding the CERP approved for Shafter, please visit the District’s website at: http://community.valleyair.org/selectedcommunities/shafter/ included in the CERP and address them for development
projects within the Housing Element area, as appropriate, to align the City work with the air pollution and exposure reduction strategies and measures outlined in the CERP.
Comment C Response to Comment C
3.Future Development Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designed as a nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10 PM2.5 standards. Per the Housing Element, it is anticipated there will be the need for building 3,294 new housing units from current projections. As such, the District recommends that the Housing Element stipulate that future development projects identify and characterize project construction and operational air emissions. The District recommends the air emissions be compared to the District significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Prior to issuance of any construction permits, and at the discretion of the City, development project applicants
may be required to l prepare and submit to the City of
Shafter a technical assessment evaluating potential
project construction-related air quality impacts. The
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If
construction-related criteria air pollutants are
determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD
adopted thresholds of significance, as identified in the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 217
Quality Impacts: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. The District recommends that future development projects be mitigated to the extent feasible, and that future development projects with air emissions above the aforementioned thresholds be mitigated to below these thresholds. As such, the Housing Element should incorporate where appropriate, a discussion of policies, which when implemented, will require assessment and characterization of projectlevel emissions, and subsequently require mitigation of air quality impacts to the extent feasible at the individual project-specific level. Environmental reviews of potential impacts on air quality should incorporate the following items:
3a) Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the future development projects should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment. 3b) Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.
Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, future development projects related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through (GAMAQI), the City of Shafter Planning Division may
require that applicants for new development projects
incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds.
3a) 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.
3b) Operational Emissions
The City of Shafter 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
provides opportunities for implementing the City’s
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 218
incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf 3c) Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors.
CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.
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 conditioning. Sitespecific analysis of operational air emissions will be performed upon submission of individual development
applications.
3c) Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions.
Future development associated with the HEU that
requires an emission analysis would be required to be
performed using the most recent version of the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
Comment D Response to Comment D
4. Health Risk Screening/Assessment for Future Development Projects For future development projects, the City should evaluate the risk associated with them for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions. To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, daycare facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.
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. However, prior to site specific project
approvals, and at the discretion of the City, the City may evaluate new development proposals for sensitive
receptors (e.g., residential, schools, day care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Applicants for sensitive land uses that are within the
recommended buffer distances shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City prior to future project
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with
policies and procedures of the state Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA0, the
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 219
Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):
A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation. To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRI ORI.
TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:
Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling. protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.
A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the health impacts would exceed the District’s established risk thresholds, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm.
A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.
The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.
The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) and will follow the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology. A
project with potentially significant health risks which include impacts related to TAC’s, would require
Measures to reduce risk impacts. Mitigation measures
identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or
incorporated into the site development plan as a
component of the proposed project.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 220
• HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
• HARP2 files
• Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.
For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
• E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
• Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/resource-center/strategy-development/land-use-resources.
Comment E Response to Comment E
5. Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increase from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities.
The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis. Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website: www.valleyair.org/ceqa.
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, at the
discretion of the City, development project applicants
shall prepare and submit to the City of Shafter a technical assessment evaluating potential project constructionrelated air quality impacts. An AAQA analysis will be prepared that evaluates the impact of Project-related
emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, NO2, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5) and toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., diesel
particulate matter or DPM) along the ambient air
boundary (defined as the edge of on-site construction
area) and at existing nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of Project locations and 500 feet of Project construction routes to determine if sensitive receptors are exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Comment F Response to Comment F
6. Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Future development projects within the Housing Element area with the potential to result in a significant impact on air quality should consider the feasibility of Prior to issuance of any construction permits, at the
discretion of the City, applicants for future development projects may enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 221
implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure. A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.
The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve. emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.
Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient, heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors. In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that projectrelated emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.
Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The VERA is
intended to identify the amount of emissions to be
reduced, in addition to the amount of funds to be paid by the project applicant to the SJVAPCD to implement
emission reduction projects required for the project.
Under this agreement, project proponents may enter
into an agreement where funds are used to develop and
implement emission reduction projects.
Comment G Response to Comment G
7. Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Housing Element includes residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends future development project proponents consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. More Comment noted. The City of Shafter will provide
information on the Districts CGYM program to
prospective future project proponents.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 222
information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm.
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.
Comment H Response to Comment H
8. On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.
New residential development in the City of Shafter 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 netzero emissions associated with electricity usage using onsite renewable sources. This analysis has conservatively assumed 80% of electricity usage will be captured via onsite renewable sources (i.e., solar panels), as part of the project design.
Comment I Response to Comment I
9. Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric. charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and future development project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations. Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.
Comment noted. 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 City will consider installing electric vehicle chargers for future development projects.
Comment J Response to Comment J
10. District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual The City of Shafter acknowledges that individual projects resulting from implementation of the HEU would be
subject to all District rules, including 4601 and 4901. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, at the discretion of the City, project proponents may be required to
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 223
rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (661) 392-5665. 10a) District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
Accordingly, future development projects within the Housing Element area may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism. District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM. The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions. demonstrate to the City that they have obtained all
required permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District; and that all construction
activities will continuously comply with applicable
regulatory standards; including but not limited to
SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Control Measures for
construction emissions of PM10. If it is determined that air quality impacts are found to be significant even after complying with District Rules 9510 and 9410, project
proponents will be directed to enter into a VERA or other equal and feasible mitigation prior to the start of the first project activity generating emissions.
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. Therefore, District Rule 9510 would not be applicable to the HEU as it is not a transportation project.
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 224
In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the public agency’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis. Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm. The AIA application form can be found online at: http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm. District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510 and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
10b) District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm. 10c) District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements, or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
10d) District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) For future development projects, a project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 225
Earthmoving Activities. Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5-acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950. The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm 10e) District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters. Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater. Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at: http://valleyair.org/rule4901/ 10f) Other District Rules and Regulations. Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Rule 4641 (Cutback, slow cure, and emulsified asphalt, paving and maintenance operations).
Appendix C-Response to Comments on the Draft IS MND
Page | 226
Comment K Response to Comment K
11. Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents, and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, at the
discretion of the City, development project applicants
may be required to prepare and submit to the City of
Shafter Planning Division a technical assessment
evaluating potential project construction-related air
quality impacts. The evaluation would be prepared in
conformance with SJVAPCD methodology in assessing air
quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air
pollutants are determined to have the potential to
exceed the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds of significance,
as identified in the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), the City of Shafter
Planning Division may require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures
to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction
activities to below these thresholds. These identified
measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate
construction documents (e.g., construction management
plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
Comment L Response to Comment L
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.
Comment noted.
A copy of this letter will be provided to the project
Applicant.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 14, 2023
Steve Esselman, Director
Planning Department
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Dear Steve Esselman:
RE: City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Shafter’s (City) draft housing element received for review on May 16, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (December 31, 2023), any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing Exhibit 3
Steve Esselman, Director
element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until all necessary rezones are completed pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c).
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the City’s effort during the review and update, including timeliness of submittal of this initial draft housing element. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 August 14, 2023
APPENDIX
CITY OF SHAFTER
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
General: While the element includes a program-by-program review of implementation, it should specifically re-evaluate Programs 1.2.5 (Water and Sewer Coordination), 1.3.1 (Energy Conservation), 2.3.3 (Large Sites) and 2.3.4 (Lot Consolidation). These programs appear to have objectives that were essential to compliance in the prior planning cycle. Yet, the programs were eliminated or were not appropriately modified. The element should better describe the objectives from the prior planning cycle, report progress in implementation, evaluate the effectiveness of the program in achieving objectives and add or modify current programs, as appropriate.
Housing for Specials Needs: As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an evaluation of the cumulative effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). Programs should be revised as appropriate to reflect the results of this evaluation.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Outreach and Enforcement: While the element generally describes the City partners with the Kern County Fair Housing Coordinator, it should discuss the effectiveness of that partnership in terms of outreach and addressing complaints to better formulate policies and programs.
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 August 14, 2023
Further, the element should evaluate the number and characteristics of complaints in the City as well as compliance with state and federal fair housing laws, including any past lawsuits, consent decrees or other related fair housing legal matters. For more information, please see HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance (starting on p. 29) at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/AFFH_Document_Final_4-27- 2021.pdf.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty(R/ECAP): The element identifies an area of High Segregation and Poverty and should include specific analysis to understand the conditions of the area relative to other areas and better formulate appropriate policies and programs. For example, the analysis should discuss demographics (e.g., income, housing types, housing age), housing conditions, neighborhood conditions, infrastructure, access to opportunities (e.g., parks, schools, amenities, community facilities and programs, transportation mobility, safe route to schools) and compare those conditions to other areas of the City, including newer master planned areas.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element should discuss disparities in access to transportation opportunities, particularly for protected classes and lower-income households by geography or area. For more information, please see HCD’s AFFH Guidance.
Disproportionate Housing Needs, including Displacement Risk: The element includes some general information on persons experiencing homelessness and housing conditions but should also evaluate those needs, impacts and patterns within the City, such as areas of higher need. For homelessness, the element should examine patterns of need or areas with higher concentrations of persons experiencing homelessness, including access to transportation and services. For housing conditions, the element should discuss any areas of potentially higher needs of rehabilitation and replacement. The element should utilize local data and knowledge such as service providers and code enforcement officials to assist this analysis.
In addition, to better evaluate displacement risks, the element could utilize new data available for displacement risk on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fairhousing.
Identified Sites and AFFH: The analysis must identify whether sites improve or exacerbate conditions and whether sites are isolated by income group. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that affects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity).
The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to promote equitable quality of life throughout the community (e.g., anti-displacement and place-based community revitalization strategies).
Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The City consists of only a few census tracts and these boundaries do not coincide with the City boundaries which can
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 August 14, 2023
complicate the AFFH analysis when only using federal and state data. Further and as a result, in many cases, the analysis of patterns and trends is minimal or absent. The element must supplement the state and federal data with local data and knowledge and other relevant factors to complete an analysis and better evaluate patterns and trends. For example, local data and knowledge can include information from City staff such as code enforcement officials, city engineers. This information can also include service providers, past planning documents, past assessments of need in funding applications, County analysis of impediments and, particularly, could be based on focused outreach on fair housing issues. Other relevant factors can include demographics, governmental and nongovernmental actions, historical land use and zoning practices (e.g., past redlining/Greenlining, restrictive covenants, planning documents, etc.), disparities in investment to specific communities including transportation investments, seeking investment or lack thereof to promote affordability and inclusion, local initiatives, or other information that may have impeded housing choices and mobility.
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: While the element lists broad categories of analysis (e.g., segregation and integration), it should also list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues based on the AFFH analysis. Contributing factors are underlying issue areas that are intended to provide direction and context for appropriate policies and programs.
Examples include lack of a community revitalization strategy, land use and zoning practices, lack of investments in neighborhoods. For more information, please see HCD’s AFFH Guidance, starting on page 68.
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).) Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element does not address this requirement.
The element must quantify existing and projected ELI households and analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs should address household characteristics such as tenure, overpayment and overcrowding and should analyze resources, effectiveness of strategies and the magnitude of needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. For additional information, please see HCD’s Building Blocks.
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 August 14, 2023
Housing Conditions: While the element discusses the age of housing units (p. 26) but must also estimate the number of units needing rehabilitation and replacement. This estimate can be obtained from a variety of sources such as the City’s code enforcement department.
Special Housing Needs: While the element generally quantifies special housing needs, it should also analyze those needs. The analysis should include, but is not limited to, factors such as household income, tenure, housing types, zoning, and available resources. Local officials, special needs service providers, or City/County social and health service providers may be able to assist with information to complete the analysis. In addition, the analysis should address:
• Farmworkers: While the element includes data on farmworkers from the Census, this data is generally a significant undercount. In addition, the element should utilize County level data available through the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Census and can also obtain useful information from the Office of Education regarding student programs. In addition, the analysis should address trends, characteristics, disproportionate needs, effectiveness of resources and strategies, magnitude of the housing need, including disproportionate housing need and the effectiveness of past policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps. The analysis may utilize past farmworker housing studies and other studies generally applicable to their special housing needs. For example, the element could utilize a recent study conducted by University California at Merced that is available at https://clc.ucmerced.edu/sites/clc.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/fwhs_repo rt_2.2.2383.pdf. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address this special housing need in the region. • Homelessness: The element must utilize the most recent Point in Time survey and should also evaluate the characteristics of housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness such as disproportionate impacts on protected characteristics, gender and household type.
3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress toward the RHNA: The element may utilize pending, approved or under construction (pipeline) units since June 30, 2023 toward the RHNA. For example, HCD understands the City is currently working on a sweat equity subdivision that will be available to lower income households. This type of pending development may be utilized toward the RHNA. To utilize pipeline units, the element should demonstrate their affordability and availability in the planning period. Affordability should be based on actual or anticipated rent and sales prices or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability should discuss, statute, remaining steps, likelihood of being built in the planning period and any known barriers to development in the planning period.
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 August 14, 2023
Parcel Inventory: The element lists parcels based on a variety of factors such as parcel number, general plan designation and zoning but should also list sites by size (acreage).
Specific Plans: The element generally describes several specific plans and assumes the number of units by affordability based on brief market data. However, unless the specific plans are project based, the element should list specific plans by parcel number, general plan designation, size of parcel, realistic capacity and anticipated affordability. Please be aware, based on this listing, the element may need to address other analyses. For example, if utilizing densities less than 20 units per acre toward the lower-income RHNA, the element must have specific analysis based on factors such as market conditions and experience within the zone. Also, sites smaller than a half-acre or larger than 10 acres are generally deemed inappropriate unless demonstrated suitable based on specific analysis.
See below for additional discussion.
In addition, the element should specifically describe the status of the specific plan, anticipated build out horizon, any known barriers to full development in the planning period and adjust assumptions as appropriate. Please see HCD’s Building Blocks for additional information.
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites (80 percent of maximum allowable density), it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements and typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction.
In addition, if utilizing zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses, then the element must demonstrate the likelihood of a residential component based on factors such as past trends and proposed policies and programs.
Size of Sites: The sites inventory appears to identify small sites and may be using larger sites to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA. Sites smaller than a half-acre in size and larger than 10 acres are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lowerincome households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The element should provide specific examples with comparable densities and affordability or other evidence.
For example, for sites expected to be aggregated, the element must describe circumstances leading to consolidation, such as common ownership, Based on a complete analysis, the City should consider adding or revising programs to include incentives for facilitating development on small and larger sites. For more information, please see HCD’s Sites Inventory Handbook.
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions, it must relate those conditions to identified sites and describe any other known environmental or other constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning period. Examples of other known conditions include shape, contamination,
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 August 14, 2023
property conditions, easements, Williamson Act contracts, conservation easements, overlays and airport and military compatibility.
Infrastructure: The element includes some discussion on water and sewer providers in the City. However, it must also clarify whether sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) can accommodate the regional housing need and include programs if necessary.
In addition, the element includes a program to grant water and sewer priority to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. However, the element should clearly describe whether the City is a water or sewer provider. If so, the element should then clearly describe whether a procedure is available and if not, then add a program to establish a written procedure by a specified date.
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: Sites identified in prior planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households unless a program, meeting statutory requirements, requires rezoning within three years.
The element should clarify if sites were identified in prior planning periods and if so, which sites and include a program if utilizing previously identified sites in the current planning period. For more information on program requirements, please see HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element.
The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Single Room Occupancy (SRO)): While the element mentions SROs are allowed in the Downtown Commercial (DC) zone with a conditional use permit (CUP), it should also demonstrate the zoning, development standards and permit procedures encourage and facilitate SROs. For example, the element should specifically evaluate the minimum unit size requirement and CUP process as a constraint and add or modify programs to encourage the use.
4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Building Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze which building code (e.g., 2019) is enforced, any local amendments to the building code and their enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability. While the element describes local amendments and minimal impacts on housing costs, it should also clarify which building code is utilized and the type of enforcement conducted (e.g., complaint-based) then evaluate any disproportionate
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 August 14, 2023
impacts on lower-income and special needs households and persons with protected characteristics.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While the element includes programs to revise procedures for reasonable accommodation and group homes, it must include analysis to better formulate policies and programs, as follows:
• Family Definition: The element should identify any definition of family utilized in zoning and land use and analyze impacts on housing for persons with disabilities such as impacts on unrelated or the number of persons.
• Reasonable Accommodation: The element should describe the procedure including application requirements, timing of review and decision-making criteria such as approval findings and add or modify Program 3.2.1 (Standards for Special Needs Housing), as appropriate.
• Group Homes: The element should clearly describe which zones allow group homes six or fewer persons and seven or more persons, regardless of licensing, and how those uses are described then evaluate any potential constraints such as subjecting the uses to a conditional use permit or excluding the uses from any zones that allow residential uses. In turn, the element should add or modify Program 3.2.1 (Standards for Special Needs Housing), as appropriate.
5. An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use…(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9).)
Based on HCD’s records, the City currently has one development at-risk of conversion in the next ten years. The element should reconcile these records and if necessary, add analysis and add or modify programs, as appropriate. Please see HCD’s Building Blocks for additional information. HCD will send additional information on the property under separate cover.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have discrete timelines (e.g., annually, by 2025) early in the planning period. Example of programs that should be modified with discrete timelines or with a date earlier in the planning period include Programs 1.2.1 (Housing Rehabilitation), 2.1.1 (Affordable Housing Program Inventory), 2.1.2 (Partnership and
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 August 14, 2023
Nonprofit Assistance), 2.2.2 (Commercial Zone Floor Area), 2.2.4 (Density Bonus),
2.3.1 (Infrastructure Improvements) and 3.2.3 (Special Needs).
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:
• Program 1.1.1 (Rezone Sites): The Program should be revised to include minimum acreage and meet all by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h) and (i) including clarifying by right to mean without discretionary action and requiring minimum densities.
• Program 3.2.2 (Emergency Shelters): With respect to emergency shelters, the program should clarify sufficient capacity to meet the need for emergency shelters and at least one shelter, appropriate parking requirements limited to employees, proximity of capacity near transportation, amenities and homelessness services, allowing residential uses, and amending the definition of emergency shelters.
Please note, to utilize multi-jurisdictional provisions, a shelter must be completed in the first two years of the planning period.
3. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
While the element briefly mentions farmworkers in a few programs, it must have specific efforts based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. For example, the element could commit to proactive actions to coordinate with nonprofit developers, employers, and other related organizations, to explore funding and incentives and to identify specific development opportunities.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 August 14, 2023
As noted in Findings B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:
• Program 2.2.2 (Commercial Zone Floor Area): The Program should specifically commit to increase the floor area ratio and promote the ability to achieve maximum densities.
• Fees: The element could include a program to proactively revise fees to account for differences in impacts in housing based on factors such as location, housing for lower-income and special needs households or smaller housing types. For example, the element could commit to levy fees based on square footage to encourage ownership for smaller single family housing types. • SB 35: While the element seems to explain a development utilizing SB 35 is not likely, it should commit to establish a written procedure by a specified date.
5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics or numeric targets, geographic targeting and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas, placebased strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While Program 2.1.4 commits to establish a handout, it should consider additional actions to promote accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development for very low-, low-, and moderateincome households. This can take the form of flexible zoning requirements, development standards, or processing and fee incentives that facilitate the creation of ADUs, such as reduced parking requirements, fee waivers and more. Other strategies could include establishing an ADU specialist within the planning department. In addition, the Program should monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., 6 months) and amend the ordinance to comply with state ADU law, if necessary.
City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 August 14, 2023
D. Quantified Objectives
A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(b).) While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction and rehabilitation by income group (Table V-1), quantified objectives for conservation should not be limited to atrisk preservation and should be increased to better reflect the identified needs.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, the element should also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. Specially, the element should discuss efforts to include lower-income and special needs households or make additional efforts as part of future submittals. In addition, the element describes comments and responses from the local air district but should also discuss how the element incorporates those comments and should discuss other comments and how they were incorporated.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CC: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager; Alan Cazares, Associate Planner From: Steve Esselman, Planning Director
Subject: Summary of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Revisions in Response to HCD Comment Letter
Date: October 10, 2023
This memorandum provides a summary of the proposed revisions to the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU) in response to the comment letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) dated August 14, 2023 (see attached).
Non-Substantive Revisions
Based on the HCD comment letter, the following non-substantive revisions were included in the revised document:
- Clarification on estimated number of units requiring rehabilitation or replacement in the core.
- Clarification on Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households and the number found in Shafter.
- Additional information on the definition of farm workers and defining the difficulties such workers have in finding suitable housing.
- Additional information on homelessness, including a discussion on the results of the most recent Point in Time Count in the area and the availability of shelters. - Provided confirmation that no fair housing complaints were submitted from the City of Shafter during the previous housing cycle to the Kern County Fair Housing Coordinator. - Additional information on two high segregation and poverty areas in the core, including access to Dial-A-Ride and recreational opportunities.
- Additional information on how the city complies with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Additional information on fair housing issues.
- Additional information on future economic growth initiatives in the city, including hiring an economic development director and attracting a hotel developer. - Additional information on educational resources in the city, including information about the Shafter Library.
- Discussion on the City’s participation in AB 617 and the benefits to the community. - Discussion on the state of the schools in Shafter.
- Discussion on an area with a slightly higher disabled population.
- Discussion on transportation opportunities in the City, including additional information about the Dial-A-Ride program.
- Discussion on the relatively few issues in Shafter regarding substandard housing. - Discussion about flood zones.
- Additional information on the sites inventory regarding high segregation and poverty, access to opportunity, fair housing, affordable housing units, private investment, and disparities in mortgage lending.
- Additional information on promotion of energy conservation. - Additional information regarding the City’s water and sewer service. - Clarification that the City uses the 2022 California Building Code. - Clarification that the conditional use permit process does not constrain single room occupancy units.
- Clarification on the definition of “family” and how any sized family can live within any residential zone.
- Clarification on how the City provides reasonable accommodation. - Discussion about how none of the properties in the sites inventory are under a Williamson Act Land Use contract.
- Discussion of how environmental constraints were considered during the site inventory selection process.
- Addition of 200 low-income units identified at 300 Terra Vista Lane, owned by the Shafter Kern Housing Authority will expire April 11, 2033 in the quantified objectives to be conserved.
- Provide information on website about home rehabilitation and funding. - Provide HEU to water and sewer providers.
- Assist with grants to rehabilitate houses within an area designated high segregation and poverty areas in the core.
- Contact Shafter Kern Housing Authority, owner of the 200-uniit project at 300 Terra Vista Lane, with affordability deed restrictions expiring 4/11/2033, to develop a plan to extend the affordability protections on this property.
- Add a procedure for ministerial review of projects when required by state statute (i.e., SB 35, housing inventory sites, etc.) in Zoning Ordinance. - Include fair housing education and information at least twice per year in City water bill and any other periodic or regular communication to residents, starting 2024. - Amend the definition of emergency shelters to be consistent with Gov. Code §65583(a)(4)(C) and ensure appropriate parking requirements limited to employees. - Provided additional detail on public outreach efforts throughout the HEU process, including how public input was incorporated into the HEU.
Substantive Revisions
The following are proposed substantive revisions because of the HCD comment letter:
- Rezoning 189.4 acres on sites identified in the Sites Inventory to a minimum density of 20 units/acre with assumption that 25% of units lower income as required by State law.
- Facilitate development of lower income housing on large sites (>10 acres), work with developers to market availability of sites, and offer incentives (such as streamlined review and technical assistance).
Attachments: HCD Comment Letter
Site Inventory Map
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 18, 2023
Steve Esselman, Director
Planning Department
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Dear Steve Esselman:
RE: City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Shafter’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on October 19, 2023. In addition, the California Department of Housing and Development (HCD) received revisions on December 15, 2023 that were made available to public for seven days prior to submittal to HCD. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, HCD is reporting the results of its review.
The revised draft housing element, including revisions, addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s August 14, 2023, review; however, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code, § 65580 et. seq.), as follows:
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) While the element includes many meaningful actions to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), including promoting housing choices and affordability in newer and highest resource areas, it should expand place-based strategies toward community revitalization, particularly in areas of high segregation and poverty. Examples include expanding access to stores and healthy foods, improving safe routes to school and active transportation, increasing recreational opportunities, parks and community facilities, pursuing economic development strategies, prioritizing the capital improvement program, targeting a higher proportion of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, implementing the environmental justice element at least annually and applying for additional funding.
Exhibit 5
Steve Esselman, Director
The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65585.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a City does not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (December 31, 2023), programs (e.g., Program 1.1.1 (Rezone Sites to Accommodate Housing Need) to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the RHNA must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline.
Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, that any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. HCD’s future reviews will continue to consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.
For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. While the City has submitted its electronic sites inventory, if any changes occur, the City should re-submit the electronic sites inventory with future submittals of the adopted housing element.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
Steve Esselman, Director
HCD appreciates the dedication and effort the City’s housing element team provided throughout the housing element review. HCD particularly applauds your dedication, diligence and collaboration. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Margaret Scarpa, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 26, 2024
Steve Esselman, Director
Planning Department
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, California 93263
Dear Steve Esselman:
RE: City of Shafter’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Shafter’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on January 16, 2024. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, HCD is reporting the results of its review.
The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements that were described in HCD’s December 18, 2023 review. The housing element will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) when it is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a City does not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (December 31, 2023), programs (e.g., Program 1.1.1 (Rezone Sites to Accommodate Housing Need) to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
Exhibit 6
Steve Esselman, Director
For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. While the City has submitted its electronic sites inventory, if any changes occur, the City should resubmit the electronic sites inventory with future submittals of the adopted housing element.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the dedication and effort the City’s housing element team provided throughout the housing element review. HCD particularly applauds your dedication, diligence and collaboration. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Margaret Scarpa, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 5, 2024
FROM: Gabriel A. Gonzalez, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Rogelio Sanchez, Finance Director
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER ANNUAL
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR) FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “Project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), Federal Single Audit, and SAS 114 letter, for the year ended June 30, 2023.
BACKGROUND
The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 has been completed. All reports have been audited by the City’s independent auditors. Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP (LSL), and received an unqualified audit opinion. An unqualified audit opinion is informally known as a “clean opinion” and is issued when the financial statements are prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The documents referenced above will be presented by City staff. A partner or manager from LSL will present the results of the audit and answer any questions from the City Council or public.
The Letter of Transmittal and Management Discussion and Analysis within the ACFR provides a narrative, financial summaries, year-over-year comparisons, and analysis of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report of the City and the City operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. It is recommended that these documents are read in conjunction with the basic financial statements as they provide context and insight into the financial results for the year.
The Audit Opinion is located on pages 1 and 2 of the ACFR. As stated above, the City received an unqualified opinion, and the report was not completed in time to submit the ACFR to the Government Officers Finance Association (GFOA) for their review and consideration for the Excellence in Financial Reporting annual award. The Single Audit is a mandatory report that examines the compliance requirements applicable to each program funded with Federal dollars, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular A-133 as long as specific criteria are met. This year a Single Audit Compliance Report was completed because the City expended more than the triggering threshold of $750,000 in federal funds. A copy of the Single Audit report is included with this staff report.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT (ACFR) FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023
- 2 -
Any identified deficiencies will be explained in more detail in the Single Audit Report with corresponding recommendations and Management’s Corrective Action Plan. In addition to the ACFR the auditors have also provided the required Statement on Auditing Standards “SAS" 114 letter. This letter is the Auditors communication directly to those charged with governance. The letter reports on issues including, but not limited to; significant audit findings, difficulties encountered in performing the audit, corrected and uncorrected misstatements, and disagreements with management. The auditors will be in attendance via ZOOM at the City Council meeting to review this letter with the Council.
ANALYSIS
The attached Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 has a section called "Management Discussion and Analysis" (MD&A) which provides multiple pages of financial analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not defined as a “Project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines in that the action is a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ALTERNATIVES
N/A
NEXT STEPS
Submit ACFR to Federal Audit Clearinghouse, State controller reports, continuing disclosure, and the city's website.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
2. Independent Auditor's Report
3. Audit Communication Letter
CITY OF SHAFTER
2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3
W W W . S H A F T E R . C O M
A N N U A L C O M P R E H E N S I V E
F I N A N C I A L R E P O R T
CITY OF SHAFTER
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For The Year Ended June 30, 2023
Prepared By:
Finance Department
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY OF SHAFTER
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For The Year Ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCTORY SECTION (Unaudited)
Letter of Transmittal .............................................................................................................................................. i Organizational Chart ......................................................................................................................................... xiii
FINANCIAL SECTION
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 1 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (UNAUDITED) ........................................................................... 5 Basic Financial Statements:
Government-Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ............................................................................................................................ 29 Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position .................................................................................. 30 Fund Financial Statements:
Governmental Funds Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position .......................................................................... 39 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .............................................. 40 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position ......................................................................... 42 Proprietary Funds Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position ..................................................................................................................... 44 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position .............................................. 46 Statement of Cash Flows ...................................................................................................................... 48 Fiduciary Funds Financial Statements:
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ...................................................................................................... 52 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position .................................................................................. 53 Notes to the Basic Financial Statement ............................................................................................................... 57
CITY OF SHAFTER
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For The Year Ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):
Notes to the Required Supplementary Information ............................................................................................ 95 Budgetary Comparison Schedules:
General Fund ............................................................................................................................................... 96 Transportation Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................................................ 97 Schedule of Changes in Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios:
Post-Retirement Health Benefits ................................................................................................................. 98 Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability:
Miscellaneous Plan .................................................................................................................................... 100 Safety Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 101 Schedules of Contributions:
Miscellaneous Plan .................................................................................................................................... 102 Safety Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 103 Supplementary Information
Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheets ....................................................................................................................... 108 Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance ................................. 114 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual Schedules:
Federal Grant Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................... 119 Traffic Safety Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................................................ 120 SLESF Grants Special Revenue Fund ...................................................................................................... 121 State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 122 Asset Forfeiture Fund ................................................................................................................................ 123 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act Special Revenue Fund ........................................................... 124 Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund .................................................................... 125 Lighting and Landscape District Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................... 126 Water Capital Improvement Capital Project Fund ..................................................................................... 127 Wastewater Capital Improvement Capital Project Fund............................................................................ 128 Refuse Capital Improvement Capital Project Fund ................................................................................... 129 Park Capital Improvement Capital Project Fund ....................................................................................... 130 Capital Asset Replacement Capital Project Fund ..................................................................................... 131 Median Mitigation Improvement Capital Project Fund............................................................................... 132 Traffic Mitigation Improvement Capital Project Fund ................................................................................ 133 Non-Major Enterprise Funds:
Combining Statement of Net Position .............................................................................................................. 136 Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position .............................................. 137 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................... 138
CITY OF SHAFTER
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For The Year Ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Internal Service Funds:
Combining Statement of Net Position .............................................................................................................. 140 Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Position ............................................... 141 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................... 142 Custodial Funds:
Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position .............................................................................................. 144 Combining Statements of Change in Fiduciary in Net Position ....................................................................... 145 STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited)
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. 149 Financial Trends:
Net Position by Component – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................................ 150 Changes in Net Position – Last Ten Fiscal Years ..................................................................................... 152 Governmental Activities Tax Revenue by Source – Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................................. 156 Governmental Activities Sales Tax Revenues by Business Category – Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................................................................................................... 157 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................. 158 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................... 160 General Governmental Revenues by Source – Last Ten Fiscal Years..................................................... 162 Revenue Capacity:
Assessed Value of Taxable Property – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................. 163 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................... 164 Principal Property Taxpayers – Current Year and Nine Years Ago .......................................................... 166 Property Tax Levies and Collections – Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................. 167 Debt Capacity:
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type – Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................. 168 Historical and Overlapping Debt – Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................................................... 171 Demographic and Economic Information:
Demographic and Economic Statistics – Last Ten Calendar Years .......................................................... 172 Principal Employers – Current Year and Ten Years Ago .......................................................................... 174 Operating Information:
Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................... 175 Operating Indicators by Function – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................... 176 Capital Assets Statistics by Function – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................. 177
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California 93263
February 26, 2024
Honorable Mayor
Members of the City Council
Citizens of the
City of Shafter
The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Shafter (City) for the fiscal year which ended June 30, 2023, is hereby submitted. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data, and the completeness and fairness of the presentations, including all disclosures, rests with the city. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City of Shafter has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City of Shafter’s financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects.
The City’s financial statements have been audited by Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP (LSL). The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of Shafter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, are free of material misstatement.
The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of Shafter financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report.
Typically, the independent audit of the financial statements of the City of Shafter is a part of a broader, federally mandated “Single Audit” designed to meet the special needs of federal grantor agencies. The standards governing Single Audit engagements require the independent auditor to report not only on the fair presentation of the financial statements, but also on the audited government’s internal controls and compliance with legal requirements, with special emphasis on internal controls and legal requirements involving the administration of federal awards. These reports are available in the City of Shafter’s separately issued Single Audit Report. i
GAAP require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City of Shafter’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors.
Profile of the Government
The City of Shafter is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley in the County of Kern. This portion of California is primarily rural in nature and heavily invested in agriculture and oil & gas production. The City was founded in 1913, incorporated in 1938, and became a Charter City in 1995. The City currently occupies a land area of roughly 38.82 square miles and serves a population of roughly 21,318. The City of Shafter is a Charter City, operates under the Council-Manager form of government, and is governed by a five-member City Council elected at large, serving staggered, four-year terms. Council elections are held in November of even-numbered years. The City of Shafter operates as a major participant in county-wide government issues.
The City of Shafter provides a full range of services, including police protection, refuse, water, wastewater, rail services, the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure, along with other recreational activities and cultural events. The City contracts with the County of Kern for fire protection. Ambulance services are provided by a private company contracted with the County of Kern. This report includes all fund types and account groups of the City of Shafter and the Successor Agency to the Shafter Community Development Agency.
Other governmental entities also provide services within the Shafter city limits, including but not limited to: the State of California, the County of Kern, the Kern High School District, the Richland School District, the Shafter Cemetery District, the Minter Field Airport District, North Kern Water Storage District, Norris School District, Oildale Mutual Water Company, North of River Sanitary District, the Shafter Wasco Irrigation District, and the Shafter Recreation and Park District. These other governmental entities are legally separate from the City and are not considered component units of the City. For additional information regarding the reporting entity, see Note 1 to the financial statements.
The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Shafter’s financial planning and control.
All departments within the city are required to submit requests for appropriations for the upcoming budget year to the City Manager. The City Manager and the Finance Director use these requests as a starting point for developing the proposed budget. The city makes sustainable budgeting a top priority and at several stages in the budgetary process computations are made to ensure ongoing expenditures do not exceed conservatively estimated ongoing revenues. The City Manager then presents the proposed budget to the City Council for review on or before June 1st of each year. The City Council then adopts the annual budget by affirmative majority vote on or before June 30th of each year. The City Manager may transfer monies between departments, divisions, programs and accounts within funds and departments. Supplemental appropriations to the budget can be made by the City Council but require the City Manager to certify that monies in excess of those estimated in the budget are available for appropriation. Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided in this report for each individual governmental fund, this comparison is presented in the required supplementary information (RSI) section of this report. ii
Factors Affecting Financial Condition
The City of Shafter is in a relatively strong financial condition with recurring revenues exceeding recurring expenditures on an ongoing basis and adequate fund balance to cover current liabilities and a prudent reserve level. This can be attributed to the City’s long-term planning, conservative yet forward looking fiscal policy, and proactive economic development program which has resulted in strong business development growth.
The City of Shafter maintains a general fund balance sufficient to cover all outstanding pension liabilities, other post-employment benefit liabilities, contingent obligations, and assignments for strategic capital improvements, while still retaining a healthy general fund reserve. These factors helped to rebuild from a large supplemental payment to CalPERS made in 2018 to increase the funded status of the City’s pension plans and eliminate the pension liability associated with the reduction in the CalPERS assumed earnings rate to 7.00 percent.
The City has a high revenue concentration in sales taxes with significant levels of sales taxes generated by a small number of taxpayers along with a high concentration risk within the oil services business sector. To mitigate this risk the City Council has approved a Fund Balance Policy requiring a minimum of 50 percent of next year’s general fund annual budgeted operating expenditures in Unassigned Fund Balance of the General Fund. The City’s current unassigned fund balance levels exceed this amount. The City has assigned portions of the general fund balance for opportunities to reinvest excess funds in one-time strategic projects to benefit the community and payments toward unfunded liabilities. These assignments are excluded from the minimum fund balance calculations.
State-wide and regional economy
The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles, CA area, the closest published measure to the City of Shafter. It is likely that the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are behind us.
However, we face new economic challenges in inflation and a potential recession. The City of Shafter expects revenue and expense increases compared to previous years as the city continues to grow; however, current economic conditions could disrupt the City’s largest revenue source, which is Sales Taxes.
The City’s Sales Tax Consultants are optimistic on their FY 23/24 sales tax revenue forecast, but it is worth pointing out that the nation has experienced high inflation rates over the past two years.
Current inflation rates have led the Federal Reserve to increase current interest rates. iii
Source: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_losangeles.htm Unemployment Rate Historical Trend (California vs Kern County):
(Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
iv
There is not a reliable source of data to measure the specific unemployment rate in the City of Shafter. The City’s economic development activities have successfully created literally thousands of new jobs within the past several years, mainly in the logistics, warehousing, and the oil and gas sectors. These new jobs continue to provide real opportunities to Shafter’s unemployed.
One area of risk to local employment that should be considered is the severe drought that California has experienced over the past few years. The State is taking extraordinary steps to implement ground water accounting and reporting requirement which will likely reduce the amount of groundwater being pumped to a sustainable level. Both the oil and gas industry and agricultural industry rely heavily on water use. Once implemented, these restrictions may have significant negative impacts on the local economy.
Another area of risk in local employment and tax revenues is the price of oil. We have seen increase in oil prices during the recent inflation. There is a high demand on oil; however, the State of California has consistently demonstrated a clear hostility towards fossil fuels where Kern County has not obtained new drilling permits. Despite high demand in crude and processed oil; economic benefits from fossil fuel within California will continue to deteriorate unless drilling permits are restored and the codified phaseout of existing drilling is reversed. 5-Year Price per Barrel of Crude Oil
Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil Over the past year, the local housing market in Shafter has remained steady with a slight decrease nationally and recent signs of increase for the upcoming year. The median home prices nationwide peaked in July 2022, declined until January 2023, then began to recover, and now stands only 2.4 percent below its July 2022 peak. In California housing posted an overall increase of 5.7 percent over the 2022 year with a slight decrease in 2023. In Kern County, California the median home price had a decrease of 4 percent over the past year. Homes in the City of Shafter, California saw a decrease of 4 percent over the past year. Housing inventory in the historical core of Shafter has been very tight for the past several years, with few units up for sale and only a small inventory of buildable lots. That is changing as four new housing developments at a variety v
of price points are in various stages of development. In Southeast Shafter, bordering the City of Bakersfield, a large Lennar Homes development named Gossamer Grove began selling homes in 2016. This development is planned for 3,432 single family homes and the City is anticipating an annual build out rate between 200 and 300 units. This development will continue to have a significant impact on the City’s population growth, increases in median home prices, and increases in total assessed valuation. Marcona Preserve and Mission Lakes, the two additional housing developments neighboring Gossamer Grove are entitled which will continue to add to development in this portion of Shafter. As a result of all this development, Shafter had an increase of 3.03 percent in population over the past year and 3.1 percent in 2022, making Shafter one of the fastest growing communities in Kern County as well as one of the fastest growing communities in the State.
Economic History: The Shafter Community Development Agency activated in 1989 was a valuable wide-ranging tool to spur economic development. That changed in 2012 when the State of California passed legislation dissolving all redevelopment agencies. With no further State facilitated tools available, the City focused internally to grow its economic development program and maintain an environment where businesses can be successful. With this focus and in conjunction with City leadership and planning, assets were put in place to facilitate the development of a strong and diverse local business community.
Agriculture and energy have historically been the economic anchors for Shafter, with 40% of the total workforce employed in some area of agriculture. However, as the geographical center of California located between the major I5 and 99 Freeways, Shafter became attractive to the logistics and distribution industry. Paramount Logistics Park was developed on 1,624 acres bordering the mainline BNSF Railroad tracks, is now known as Wonderful Industrial Park.
Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT) was the first to come to Shafter with their 1.95 million square foot warehouse distribution center in 2002. In 2008, Williams-Sonoma DTC (NYSE:WSM), a California sales company that includes the West Elm and Pottery Barn brands, located their West Coast internet and catalog sales offices in the City of Shafter. In 2012, Williams Sonoma expanded their operations in Shafter by increasing both square footage and employment, and then completed a second expansion in 2017. Cemex Construction also opened a regional sales facility in the City of Shafter in 2008 and then expanded their local operation in 2012 by consolidating their southern California operations into Shafter.
In 2012, two major corporations constructed new facilities in Shafter. MI Swaco, a division of Schlumberger Limited (NYSE:SLB) built and occupied a new 50,000 square foot facility on 10 acres to provide oil related services and supplies. Baker Hughes Incorporated (NYSE:BHI) completed 200,000 square feet of buildings for their new corporate campus on 70 acres in the City of Shafter. Weatherford International (NYSE:WFT), another oil services related company, completed construction in 2013 of a new manufacturing facility on 10 acres. These energy sector companies had business to business retail sales components, purchased rail services from the City, and provided hundreds of jobs.
Between 2013 and 2015 industrial growth in Shafter continued as Wonderful Real Estate Development brought several new businesses into the Wonderful Industrial Park (formerly the Paramount Logistics Park). Ross Stores, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROST), an S&P 500, Fortune 500, and Nasdaq 100 company, constructed a 1.7 million square foot distribution facility. FedEx (NYSE:FDX) completed a 210,000 square foot transportation facility on 22 acres focused on supporting the Ross project and other neighboring businesses. American Tire Distributors, Inc. vi
expanded their operations from a 200,000 square foot rental property to a newly constructed 1 million square foot building that serves as their West Coast Distribution Center. Bakersfield Pipe and Supply, Inc. completed construction on a 30-acre parcel which houses their pipe fabrication, retails sales, and distribution business. These projects grew the local job base and established the City of Shafter’s position as a logistical hub for goods movement in California.
The years 2016 and 2017 brought several substantial industrial projects to the City of Shafter.
MRC Global (NYSE: MRC) developed a new 80,000 square foot pipe processing and sales facility located on 14 acres within the Wonderful Industrial Park. Outside of the Wonderful Industrial Park, JS Ag Packaging, Inc. a retailer of agricultural packaging products completed a 70,000 square foot facility on 24.19 acres in the Eastern portion of the City.
In 2017, the City completed a new container yard facility adjacent to the city owned railroad track to support the long-standing inland port vision. This facility can provide an organized and secure location to exchange import and export equipment and has strengthened Shafter’s position as a key location for logistics and warehousing in central California.
In 2018 and 2019, business and industrial development growth continued with Essendant (NASDQ:ESND), a leading national wholesale distributor of workplace essentials and S&P 600 company, opening a new 405,000 square foot logistics and distribution facility. Ross Stores, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROST) expanded their facility by adding another 1.0 million square foot distribution warehouse, Performance Food Group (NYSE:PFGC) expanded their cold storage facility, and Alliance Ready Mix constructed their California central valley headquarters in Shafter.
In 2020, Amazon began constructing a one million square foot multi-level fulfillment center to Shafter in the Wonderful Industrial Park as a compliment to their existing facility near Meadows Field Airport in north Bakersfield. The Shafter facility will be a soft goods distribution center focusing on clothing, books, and miscellaneous household items. Construction has been completed and Amazon will commence daily operations by November 1, 2022. Amazon will provide approximately 1,200 new jobs at this facility.
In 2021, Walmart (NYSE:WMT), the world’s largest company by revenue and employment, completed construction and began operations of a state of the art, fully automated 600,000 square foot cold storage facility. This project showcases cutting edge technology and provides over one hundred STEM-focused jobs for the four hundred positions.
Since 2017, the evolving economic climate in the State of California focused on alternative energy and away from petroleum products adversely affected some Shafter based operations and caused their closures. However, in each case, a new industrial operation has taken over those facilities, confirming Shafter’s attraction.
In July 2017, Baker Hughes was acquired by GE and their services related to oil production were phased out. Their property was purchased by a Southern California developer to be converted into a multi-tenant industrial complex. MI Swaco closed their operation in October 2020 because of a continued downturn in the oil industry. In August 2021, R.L. Environmental Inc. leased that location to provide various oilfield and environment services, including oilwell shutdowns. In March 2021, Weatherford closed their operation and sold their property to Scelzi Enterprises, a nationally known truck bed manufacturer based in Fresno. Scelzi’s expansion into Shafter will create 150 new jobs and establish a new centralized supply and distribution base. vii
The diversification of Shafter’s economy continues with the population expected to grow from the current 22,000 residents to 30,000 by 2030. Starbucks opened their first Shafter location in June 2022 and produced an exceptional first year. Countryside Car Wash began construction on the first ever drive through car wash in the City of Shafter and will also feature multiple restaurant options when the project is completed in mid-2024. Shafter Parks & Recreation District should break ground in early-2024 on a multi-acre community sports park on the City’s main highway that will provide indoor and outdoor facilities for multiple youth sports. The park will be a catalyst for sports tourism business in Shafter as the host of tournaments for soccer, baseball, softball, basketball, volleyball, and other recreational pursuits. The adjacent City-owned land on Lerdo Highway is also a potential retail/hotel location.
Local developers continue to market land parcels purchased in 2022 as future sites for retail shopping centers with various new tenants, including major grocery stores and national retailers as potential tenants. Plans for the site adjacent to the Gossamer Grove housing development are finalizing and being reviewed. Commercial real estate brokers are actively marketing individual properties to lease as future sites for restaurant, recreation, and retail use.
Existing local businesses in Shafter will also benefit from the synergy of additional options and attractions. With a focus on also expanding the industrial, manufacturing, and medical services areas, Shafter will continue creating diversified sources of revenue and jobs.
City staff attended the annual Las Vegas ICSC Retail Convention and discovered Shafter has retail growth potential. The City is making substantial investments in economic development resources to attract national retailers.
Becoming a nationally recognized logistics and distribution hub has been a positive affirmation of the City of Shafter’s business development strategy and pro-business environment. The results are rising local revenue from increased sales tax and property taxes, as well as more local and regional job opportunities. Shafter’s location in the geographical center of California and open-for-business rail operation is drawing increasing attention as a solution for supply chain issues plaguing the rail and trucking operations out of the Ports of Long Beach and Oakland.
The City of Shafter has invested millions of dollars over the past decade into roads, water wells, sewer capacity, railroads, and a fiber optic network to provide the infrastructure businesses require. Collaboration with local business support agencies, both private and public, will ensure the City of Shafter continues to grow and thrive to the benefit of local businesses and residents.
Enterprise funds. All enterprise functions of the city are expected to pay their full share of direct and indirect costs. To this end the city completed a rate analysis for Water, Wastewater, and Refuse utilities and approved a series of rate increases over five years. The first of these rate increases became effective July, 1, 2017. These increases provide the necessary funding to keep pace with rising operational costs, new regulatory requirements for wastewater treatment and recycling, water treatment costs to ensure clean drinking water, and other capital improvements.
A new rate study will be necessary during 2023/2024 fiscal year to accommodate for recent cost changes and inflation.
The more recently added enterprise funds including the Telecommunication Operations fund and the Rail Operations fund have been established to build and operate infrastructure critical to the recruitment and development of new businesses, in a way that the City can be compensated for the use of City infrastructure and related services rendered. The fiber optic network initially serves municipal and business centers throughout the city, but ultimately will provide full Fiber to the viii
Home connectivity for all Shafter residents. In 2018 the city, in conjunction with VAST Communications added the first residential customer to this service offering reliable internet speeds up to 1 gigabyte per second.
Additionally, this year the Rail Operations continued to play an important role in delivering much needed rail services to three businesses in Shafter. In 2014 the city completed a 2-mile addition to the main rail spur. With this new addition the city can accommodate an entire unit train off the main line, which then can be split, and individual cars delivered to their intended receivers. In 2017, as mentioned above, the city completed the new container yard facility which expands the rail operations services and is expected to generate additional ongoing business. The city is currently seeking a third-party partner to operate this facility. The initial onset of the pandemic specially affected the oil industry due to initial decrease in driving and deliveries.
Shafter Education Partnership. The City of Shafter created the Shafter Education Partnership Department (formerly the “Shafter Schools Project”) in the 2011 Fiscal Year to enhance educational opportunities for Shafter residents. The department is part of a long-term strategy to building an educated and financially stable community.
Today, most of the department’s work happens at the Shafter Library & Learning Center, which was created over several years. In 2014, the City leased the majority of the Shafter Branch of the Kern County Library, remodeled the entire building to create two classrooms and a computer laboratory alongside the Kern County Library branch. In 2018, the City took ownership of the entire building and in 2022 took responsibility for operation of the library renaming the building the Shafter Library & Learning Center. Also in 2022, thanks in large part to a generous donation by roofing materials company, GAF, the building was remodeled to integrate the Library and Learning Center spaces and add a classroom, a children’s library room, and an outdoor plaza.
The program continues to raise money through direct donations, grants, and the fundraising efforts of the Friends of the Shafter Library.
The Shafter Library & Learning Center’s mission is to nurture discovery, learning, and connection in our community. It does this through classes, author visits, science demonstrations, and other educational programming in addition to library services. These programs and services are often provided in partnership with educational institutions and foundations, including our local schools.
Bakersfield College has been a particularly important partner, offering classes, support services, and staffing for the library out of the building.
In 2023, the Shafter Library & Learning Center was honored for these efforts with the prestigious Helen Putnam Award for Excellence from the League of California Cities.
The Shafter Library & Learning Center is open five days per week, with more operating hours than any library in Kern County. From January 2023 to September 2023, traffic into the building has averaged 4,092 people per month. Attendance at classes and programs has averaged 1,083 students per month and book circulation has averaged 1,756 per month. ix
More information on the Shafter Library & Learning Center can be found at: shafterlearning.com.
The department also offers a series of programs to help students transition to education and training beyond high school. The City sponsors a special honors breakfast for students who take Advanced Placement, Honors, or Dual Enrollment courses, which provide college credit through Bakersfield College. The College Onramp Program includes school year seminars and a summer bridge program with expert guest speakers on topics related to applying for and succeeding in college. For Shafter High students who choose to attend Bakerfield College after high school, either for career training or with the goal to transfer to a four-year university, the City offers a scholarship for all students with a 2.5 GPA or higher.
Cash and investment policies and practice. The City continues to maintain an Investment Policy, which is submitted annually to the City Council, along with quarterly Treasurer’s Reports reporting investment activity and portfolio balances during the fiscal year. The goals of the policy are to invest public funds in a manner which will provide in this order: security, liquidity, and return; while conforming to all State and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. In 2017 the city implemented investment management software from Clearwater Analytics to improve the City’s management and reporting of investments.
Cash temporarily idle during the year was invested in demand deposits, certificates of deposit, Local Agency Investment Fund of the State of California (LAIF), California Cooperative Liquid Assets Securities System (California CLASS), Corporate Bonds and obligations of the U.S. Treasury.
x
Source: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/historical/quarterly.asp The City’s investment portfolio follows the City’s investment policy. The safety and liquidity policy objectives were placed above rates of return considerations in making deposits and investments.
Accordingly, deposits were either insured by federal depository insurance, collateralized or backed by the full faith of the federal government. For additional information see Note 2 to the financial statements.
Pension and other post-employment benefits. The City of Shafter provides pension benefits for its safety and non-safety employees in separate plans managed by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The City of Shafter is subject to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) which imposes a lower pension benefit level and mandated employee cost sharing on new members. Each year a CalPERS actuary calculates the amount of the annual contribution that the City of Shafter must make to the pension plan to ensure that the plan will be able to fully meet its obligations to retired employees on a timely basis.
This payment is calculated as a percentage of payroll and remitted to CalPERS with each payroll cycle. As a matter of policy, the City of Shafter fully funds each year’s annual required contribution to the pension plans as determined by the actuary.
In 2015 the City of Shafter made a onetime payment of $5.88 million to pay off the City’s unfunded pension liabilities as of the June 30, 2013 CalPERS actuarial report. Prepayment of this liability will reduce future annual pension contribution rates, minimize total retirement costs, and improve the funded status of the City’s pension plan. In 2016 this pension prepayment was applied to the City’s net pension liability offsetting and resulting in a net pension asset of $0.31 million. Due to actual earnings at CalPERS below the actuarially assumed earnings rate, changes in earnings assumptions, and other factors, this pension asset was replaced with a net pension liability of $2.55 million in 2017. In 2018 the City made a supplemental payment of $5.96 million to CalPERS to eliminate the unfunded pension liability resulting from the reduction in the CalPERS discount rate to 7.00 percent. By paying this liability now the City avoids the 7.00 percent cost of financing 5.3% 2.8% 1.8% 1.4% 2.9% 4.5%5.2% 3.1% 1.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%0.6%0.9% 1.9%2.6% 1.5% 0.3%0.8%
3.2%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 LAIF Rate
Fiscal Year
LAIF Rate Apportionment Rate as of June
xi
this liability through CalPERS, their assumed earnings rate. The City used unassigned general fund money currently invested at under 2.00 percent at the time, to avoid the 7.00 percent financing cost from CalPERS.
Respectfully submitted,
Rogelio Sánchez Ruíz
Finance Director
xii
xiii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1611 E. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 569-1000
203 N. Brea Blvd, Suite 203
Brea, CA 92821
(714) 672-0022
21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 30089
The Woodlands, TX 77380
(936) 828-4587
2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 503-9691
24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 275
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
(949) 829-8299
www.lslcpas.com
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Shafter, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Shafter, California (the “City”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Emphasis of Matter
Change in Accounting Principle
As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, in 2023, the City adopted new accounting guidance, GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription Based Information Technology Arrangements. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Shafter, California
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. • Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. • Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. • Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements. • Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison schedules for the General Fund and major special revenue fund, and the required pension and other postemployment benefits schedules, as listed on the table of contents, presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 2
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Shafter, California
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The accompanying combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules (supplementary information) are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.
The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Other Information
Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the introductory and statistical sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon.
In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated February 26, 2024, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Brea, California
February 26, 2024
3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
As management of the City of Shafter, we offer readers of the City of Shafter’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City of Shafter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the additional information presented in the letter of transmittal, financial statements and notes to the financial statements.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2023
Assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of Resources at the close of the fiscal year by $216.7 million. Total net position increased by $8.7 million in the fiscal year 2023. The net position for governmental activities increased by $11.1 million while the net position for business type activities decreased by -$2.36 million.
On June 30, 2023, the governmental funds had a combined ending fund balance of $112.26 million. Approximately 21.94% of this amount ($24.63 million) is unassigned. The general fund has an unassigned fund balance of $25.16 million. This amount is 76.97% of total general fund operating expenditures of $33.39 million less a one-time capital outlay of $1.9 million.
Year-end general fund revenue collections totaled $40.31 million which was 108.36% of the final budget estimate of $37.20 million. Tax receipts exceeded estimates by $2.68 million or 8.73%.
Licenses, Permits, and Fees collections exceeded estimates by $1.26 million or 71.32%. Internal transfers were $0.92 million below the final budget. Interest income came higher by $0.71 million compared to the budget due to the higher cash reserves being invested during FY 22/23. All proprietary funds had operating losses which has resulted in a reduction of unrestricted net position of all major proprietary funds. The telecommunications fund shows a modest positive operating income but only because the labor cost was shifted to the Information Technology internal service fund on a temporary basis until the fiber optic business improves. Both Water and Wastewater funds had significant increases in labor costs compared to the previous year.
Increases in labor costs are the result of salary increases related market adjustments and increases on repairs and maintenance. The Water had a $0.89 million operating loss. The Wastewater fund had a $0.46 million operating loss.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This discussion and analysis introduces the reader to the City of Shafter’s basic financial statements.
The City of Shafter’s basic financial statements consist of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements; 2) fund financial statements and, 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains supplemental information to help the reader develop a full understanding of the City’s financial activities.
5
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements include the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position. These statements are intended to provide a reader with a broad overview of the City’s finances. They are presented in a manner that is similar to private-sector business.
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Increases and decreases in net position that occur over time may serve as an indicator of the City’s financial position.
The Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported using the Accrual Basis of Accounting. Changes are reported as soon as the underlying event causing the changes occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Therefore, revenue and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal years, such as revenues related to uncollected taxes or earned but unused employee leave.
Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to be self-supporting. The self-supporting functions are called “Business-Type Activities” or enterprise funds and are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges for services.
The governmental activities of the city include general government administration, public safety (police, fire, and animal control), public works, culture and recreation, city planning, park, recreation and payments on long-term debt.
The self-supporting, business-type activities include Shafter’s water services, wastewater services, refuse collection, transit operations, rail operations, and network operations.
Fund Financial Statements
A fund is a grouping of related accounts that are used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and accounting requirements. The City’s funds can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds.
Governmental funds are used to account for the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. These statements focus on how cash and other financial assets can readily be converted to available resources. They also show fund balances that are left at the end of the fiscal year and distinguish between amounts that are restricted for specific purposes versus funds that are available for spending.
6
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
Governmental Funds
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities.
The City of Shafter maintains several individual funds that are organized according to their type.
Information is presented separately in the governmental funds balance sheet and in the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for these funds based on major funds and non-major funds aggregated. There are three major governmental funds, the general fund, and the transportation fund. Financial information from the remaining governmental funds is combined into a single, aggregated presentation called non-major governmental funds.
Proprietary Funds
Proprietary funds are used to account for services and activities for which the City charges customers.
The City of Shafter maintains two different types of propriety funds.
Enterprise Funds. These are funds that are used to report business-type activities in governmentwide financial statements. The City of Shafter has four major enterprise funds: water, wastewater, rail, and fiber optic and communication tower fund. All other enterprise funds are aggregated as non-major funds.
Internal Service Funds. These funds are used to allocate and accumulate costs internally among the City’s functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for the maintenance and replacement of its fleet, maintenance of City buildings and facilities, risk management, and information technology.
These funds are included in the governmental activities of the government-wide financial statements because their activities support governmental activities. The internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements.
Fiduciary Funds
Fiduciary funds are used to account for financial resources held for the benefit of parties outside the City government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide statements because the resources of these funds are not available to support the City of Shafter’s governmental activities. The City maintains four fiduciary funds, one private purpose trust fund for the RDA Successor Agency and three agency funds for third party moneys held by the City relating to the operation of the modified community correctional facility.
7
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
The notes to basic financial statements provide information that will help the reader gain a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and individual fund financial statements.
Required Supplemental Information
This report also presents certain required supplementary information concerning the City’s progress in its obligation to provide pension benefits to its employees and the budget-to-actual information for the City’s general fund.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial positions. Therefore, prior-year information is made available for a comparative analysis of government-wide data.
Analysis of Net Position
As of June 30, 2023, the City of Shafter has total assets of $224.63 million, total deferred outflows of resources of $10.92 million, total liabilities of $11.92 million, and total deferred inflows of resources of $6.92 million. Therefore, assets plus deferred outflows exceed liabilities plus deferred inflows by $214.27 million.
A large portion of the City’s net position, $95.14 million, represents its net investment in capital assets.
These assets are land, buildings, equipment, and infrastructure less any outstanding debt used to acquire them. The city uses these capital assets to provide municipal services to its citizens. Therefore, they are not available for spending. It should be noted that even though the City’s capital assets are reported net of related debt, the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources because capital assets typically cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
The remaining net position, $121.57 million, includes $27.93 million that is subject to external restrictions on how it can be used and $93.63 million with no such restrictions.
At the end of the current fiscal year, the city can report positive balances in total net position, for governmental. For the governmental activities, unrestricted net position totals $90.16 million. Rail, fiber optic & communication, and transit services funds have negative unrestricted net positions. 8
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
The following table is a condensed Statement of Net Position for the City as of June 30, 2023 and 2022:
2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022
Current and other assets $ 121.62 $ 102.62 $ 6.91 $ 6.86 $ 128.53 $ 109.48 Other assets - 9.04 - 0.79 - 9.83
Capital assets 51.29 50.26 44.81 45.41 96.10 95.67
Total assets 172.91 161.92 51.72 53.06 224.63 214.98
Deferred outflows of resources 10.07 11.40 0.85 0.95 10.92 12.35 Long-term liabilities 4.74 1.88 0.60 0.52 5.34 2.40
Other liabilities 4.91 8.81 1.67 0.70 6.58 9.51
Total liabilities 9.65 10.69 2.27 1.22 11.92 11.91
Deferred inflows of resouces 4.73 5.16 2.19 2.31 6.92 7.47 Net position
Net investment
in capital assets 50.50 50.26 44.64 45.20 95.14 95.46
Restricted 27.93 16.87 - - 27.93 16.87
Unrestricted 90.16 90.34 3.48 5.28 93.64 95.62
Total net position $ 168.59 $ 157.47 $ 48.12 $ 50.48 $ 216.71 $ 207.95 City of Shafter
Governmental activities Business-type activities Total
(Amounts In Millions)
For Years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022
Statement of Net Position
Changes in Net Position
The City’s total net position continues to maintain a financially healthy outlook with an increase in net position of $8.76 million. As of June 30, 2023, the city had a total net position of $216.71 million. This amount is an increase of 4.21% from the total net position for the prior year.
Governmental activities experienced an increase in net position of $11.12 million while business-type activities realized a decrease in net position of $2.36 million. 9
CITY OF SHAFTER
Management’s Discussion and Analysis
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023
The following table is a condensed Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position for the City as of June 30, 2023 and 2022:
2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022
Revenues:
Program revenues:
Charges for services 11.05 $ 9.85$ $ 10.07 $ 9.20 $ 21.12 $ 19.05 Operating grants and contributions 6.47 0.20 0.33 0.07 6.80 0.27 Capital grants and contributions 7.29 2.98 0.03 0.53 7.32 3.51 General revenues:
Property taxes 2.90 2.55 - - 2.90 2.55
Sales taxes 25.14 23.65 - - 25.14 23.65
Motor vehicle taxes 3.95 3.07 - - 3.95 3.07
Other taxes 1.28 1.22 0.09 - 1.37 1.22
Investment earnings 1.49 (0.12) (0.06) (0.16) 1.43 (0.28) Miscellaneous revenue 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.23 0.09
Total revenues 59.71 43.47 10.55 9.66 70.26 53.13
Expenses:
General government 23.64 14.16 - - 23.64 14.16
Public safety 12.42 3.83 - - 12.42 3.83
Public works 10.37 5.14 - - 10.37 5.14
Culture and recration 2.10 (1.09) - - 2.10 (1.09)
Water services - - 6.52 4.28 6.52 4.28
Wastewater services - - 2.93 2.02 2.93 2.02
MCCF operations - - - 0.46 - 0.46
Refuse collection - - 2.23 0.94 2.23 0.94
Transit operations - - 0.58 0.25 0.58 0.25
Fiber optic & communication tower - - 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Rail spur services - - 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38
Total expenses 48.53 22.04 12.96 8.68 61.49 30.72
Increase/(decrease) in net position
before other financing sources and uses 11.18 21.43 (2.41) 0.98 8.77 22.41 Extraordinary Gain / (Loss) - 3.69 - (3.74) - (0.05)
Transfers (0.05) (1.72) 0.05 1.72 - -
Change in net position 11.13 23.40 (2.36) (1.04) 8.77 22.36 Net position - beginning, as restated 157.47 134.07 50.48 51.52 207.95 185.59 Net position - ending $ 168.60 $ 157.47 $ 48.12 50.48$ 216.72$ $ 207.95 Activities Activities Total
City of Shafter
Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position
Governmental Business-Type
For Years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022
(Amounts In Millions)
10