Shafter City Council
October 7, 2025

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 2, 2025

made introductory comments.

MOVED (ALVARADO) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15282(K) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES (INSTALLATION OF PIPELINE LESS THAN ONE MILE IN LENGTH); APPROVED A GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION OF $100,000 FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF OFF-SITE SEWER MAIN CONSTRUCTION COSTS; WAIVED THE CITY’S BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY

MANAGER AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO DRAFT AND EXECUTE THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SHAFTER RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND REPORTS: No reports at this time.

DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND REPORTS: No reports at this time.

RECESS:

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ESPINOZA) COUNCIL RECESSED INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:34 P.M CLOSED SESSION:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION: Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54956.9(a). Name of Case: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration Petitions of the Cities of Alameda, et al (Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc. Case IDs: 757063, 284-450, 20127075. NO REPORTABLE ACTION.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION: Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54956.9(d)(2)/(e)(1). One Potential Case. NO REPORTABLE ACTION.

ADJOURNMENT:

MOVED (ESPINOZA) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:37 P.M.

MOTION CARRIED WITH NO OPPOSITION.
_______________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

SHAFTER CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 336 PACIFIC AVENUE

MEETING HELD IN-PERSON AND VIA ZOOM AND LIVESTREAM TO YOUTUBE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 PM
ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Mayor Givens, Mayor Pro Tem Olvera, and Council Members Alvarado, Espinoza, and Prout. Also present: City Manager Lippincott, Deputy Finance Director Perez-Hernandez, City Clerk Pallares, IT Specialist Rogers, Finance Director Sancez, and Sergeant York.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

MOVED (ESPINOZA) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL APPROVED AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

MANAGEMENT REPORT:

1. UTILITY BILLING SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM - WORKSHOP AND DIRECTION: Due to a potential conflict of interest related to age eligibility, Council Members Espinoza and Prout recused themselves from the dais. Deputy Finance Director Perez-Hernandez and Finance Director Sanchez presented concepts for a Utility Billing Senior Discount Program, including eligibility criteria, fiscal impacts, and implementation considerations. Following discussion, the City Council provided direction to staff to develop a pilot program offering a fixed $10 monthly discount on the water portion of the utility bill for qualifying senior residents aged 60 and older, including both senior property owners and senior tenants.

Council Members Espinoza and Prout returned to the dais at 5:54 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT:

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ALVARADO) COUNCIL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 5:55 P.M.

MOTION CARRIED WITH NO OPPOSITION.
_______________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SHAFTER CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 336 PACIFIC AVENUE

MEETING HELD IN-PERSON AND VIA ZOOM AND LIVESTREAM TO YOUTUBE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Mayor Givens, Mayor Pro Tem Olvera, and Council Members Alvarado, Espinoza, and Prout. Also present: City Manager Lippincott, Deputy Public Works Director Gonzalez, City Clerk Pallares, IT Specialist Rogers, Sergeant York, and Community Engagement Manager Zermeno.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Prout
INVOCATION: Council Member Espinoza
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

MOVED (PROUT) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL APPROVED AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

PRESENTATION:

1. GROW Academy students presented a proposal for a Sound Garden Project.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:

On September 3, 2025, Mayor Givens, Mayor Pro Tem Olvera, and Council Members Espinoza and Prout attended the Groundbreaking ceremony for North Shafter Community Park.

On September 5, 2025, Council Members Espinoza and Prout attended the First Fridays Downtown Street Fair and Market.

On September 8, 2025, Council Member Prout attended the AB 617 meeting via Zoom.

On September 9, 2025, Council Members Espinoza and Prout attended the Oath of Office ceremony for Police Dispatcher Yaneli Donate.

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 16, 2025

On September 9, 2025, Council Member Prout participated in a tour of new apartments at E.

Lerdo Hwy and James Street.

On September 10, 2025, Council Members Espinoza and Prout attended the Kern Economic Development Annual Dinner.

On September 11, 2025, Council Member Prout attended a COULORS meeting at Tin Cup.

On September 15, 2025, Council Members Espinoza and Prout attended the Oath of Office ceremony for Executive Assistant Alondra Hinojosa.

Council Member Alvarado reported citizen concerns he’s received.

Mayor Givens stated that it is beautiful to see the Shafter community come together, support one another, and be willing to engage in conversations and invest in the community in light of recent events across the nation.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. Approve General Checks: August 29, 2025, September 8, 2025, September 11, 2025.

2. Approve Payroll: September 2, 2025, September 5, 2025, September 9, 2025.

3. Approve Overtime Report: July 2025.

4. Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; and accept the Treasurer’s Report for July 2025

5. Approve Special Event Permit: Minter Field Air Museum, 8th Annual Wings N Wheels, Minter Field Airport, November 8, 2025.

6. Council find that the action is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15358 and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 771, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Shafter, California, Amending Article II of Chapter 13.04 of Title 13 of the Municipal Code Pertaining to CrossConnection Control.

7. Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; accept a cost proposal for purchasing 429 residential water meter assemblies from Badger Meter totaling $156,004.92 (Quotation No. 3801729); accept two (2) proposals for meter boxes and lids; approve one (1) proposal submitted by Core and Main for said meter boxes and lids valued at $21,582.99 (Bid No. 4405292); and authorize the Deputy Public Works Director to issue a purchase order for the water meter assemblies, boxes, and lids, at a total cost of $177,587.91

8. Council find the action is not defined as a "project" per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; declare the list of equipment in this item as surplus property.

9. Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; approve the sale of two surplus Rail King rail car movers to Pacific West Systems in the amount of $170,000; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to complete the transaction

10. Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; approve the renewal of the Microsoft Office 365 annual subscription in the amount of $22,898.04.

11. Council find that the project has already been environmentally cleared per CEQA; approve

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 16, 2025

the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Closure Agreement between the City of Shafter, the State of California Department of Transportation, and BNSF Railway Company for the permanent closure of the Beech Avenue (Los Angeles Avenue) Public Crossing (U.S. DOT No. 028386G); authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Shafter; and authorize the City Attorney to make non-substantive modifications to the agreement as needed to finalize execution.

12. Council find action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 3042, a Resolution Authorizing the Project List for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Grant Award from the California State of Good Repairs Program and Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute Budget Amendments, Grant Agreements, and Authorize the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances Form from the California State of Good Repairs Program.

13. Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; authorize staff to execute all materials necessary to support the State of California application for funding from the Purdue Pharma L.P. opioid settlement.

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ESPINOZA) COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Should anyone challenge any proposed action which is the subject of a public hearing listed on this agenda, that person challenging any action taken after the public hearing may be limited to raising only those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing.

1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7207 EXTENSION OF TIME APPROVAL: Associate Planner Olaguez made introductory comments. A notice of public hearing was properly advertised.

Mayor Givens opened the public hearing.

Being no members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

MOVED (PROUT) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL FOUND THE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CEQA REVIEW; CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 3040, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER, APPROVING A TWO (2) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 7207 LOCATED BETWEEN ELIZABETH AVENUE AND WEST RIVERSIDE STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1/3 WEST OF SOUTH SHAFTER AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF SHAFTER, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 18, 2009, TO NOW EXPIRE ON AUGUST 18, 2027. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 16, 2025

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6398 EXTENSION OF TIME APPROVAL: Due to a potential conflict of interest of owning property near the subject property, Mayor Givens and Council Member Prout recused themselves from the dais. Associate Planner Olaguez made introductory comments. A notice of public hearing was properly advertised.

Mayor Givens opened the public hearing.

Being no members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

MOVED (ESPINOZA) AND SECONDED (ALVARADO) COUNCIL FOUND THE ACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CEQA REVIEW; CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING; AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 3041, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER, APPROVING A TWO (2) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6398 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST TULARE

AVENUE AND NORTH BEECH AVENUE, WITHIN THE CITY OF SHAFTER, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 18, 2006, TO NOW EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 1, 2027. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, AND OLVERA.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: GIVENS AND PROUT.

Mayor Givens and Council Member Prout returned to the dias at 6:34 p.m.

MANAGEMENT REPORT:

1. 2025 RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AWARD (ST00021.25):

Deputy Public Works Director Gonzalez made introductory comments.

MOVED (PROUT) AND SECONDED (OLVERA) COUNCIL FOUND THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ACCEPTED BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE 2025 RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZED THE DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A

NOTICE OF AWARD AND NOTICE TO PROCEED TO WESTROCK LLC DBA WESTROCK GENERAL ENGINEERING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,100,000 FOR THE PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

2. AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT METHOD

AND APPROVING THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

AND PROPOSALS (RFQP) FOR DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES TO CONVERT THE

FORMER MODIFIED COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (MCCF) INTO A POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS: City Manager Lippincott made introductory comments.

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 16, 2025

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (PROUT) COUNCIL FOUND THAT THE ACTION IS NOT DEFINED AS A "PROJECT" UNDER SECTION 15378(B)(5) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES; AUTHORIZED THE USE OF THE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT METHOD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.69 OF TITLE 2 OF THE SHAFTER MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVED THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS (RFQP) FOR DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES TO CONVERT THE FORMER MODIFIED COMMUNITY CORRECTION FACILITY (MCCF) INTO A POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS; AND DIRECTED THE CITY ENGINEER OR

DESIGNEE TO PREPARE PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING PREQUALIFICATION AND SELECTION

CRITERIA, WITH COUNCIL RETAINING FINAL AUTHORITY TO AWARD THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FOLLOWING STAFF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

3. RESOLUTION APPROVING RESPONSE TO THE 2024-2025 KERN COUNTY

GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER: City Manager Lippincott made introductory comments.

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ALVARADO) COUNCIL FOUND THAT THE ACTION IS NOT DEFINED AS A “PROJECT” PER SECTION 15378(B)(5) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES; ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 3043, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER APPROVING A RESPONSE TO THE 2024- 2025 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ON THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER AND DIRECTING A RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE AND GRAND JURY FOREPERSON.

MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: ALVARADO, ESPINOZA, GIVENS, OLVERA, AND PROUT.

NAYS: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTENTIONS: NONE.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND REPORTS: No reports at this time.

DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND REPORTS: No reports at this time.

RECESS:

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ESPINOZA) COUNCIL RECESSED INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:46 P.M CLOSED SESSION:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54957.6 Agency Representative: Lance Lippincott, City Manager. Employee Organization: Shafter Police Officers Association. NO REPORTABLE ACTION.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION: Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 54956.9(d)(2)/(e)(1). One Potential Case. NO REPORTABLE ACTION.

ADJOURNMENT:

Minutes of the Shafter City Council
September 16, 2025

MOVED (OLVERA) AND SECONDED (ESPINOZA) COUNCIL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:33 P.M.

MOTION CARRIED WITH NO OPPOSITION.
_______________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk

Special Event Permit
Thank you for choosing to host an event in the City of Shafter! Before you start, let’s make sure you need this permit. If your event will have fewer than 50 attendees, does not involve the sale of food and/or beverages, and does not need to close public streets, sidewalks, or parking lots, you don’t need a Special Events Permit. Have a great event! However, if you expect more than 50 people, will sell food and/or beverages, or you are going to use public streets, sidewalks, or parking lots, please fill out this form. This helps us coordinate resources, ensure public safety, and ensures you comply with the Shafter Municipal Code. We have tried to make it as painless as possible, and we are here to help! If you have any questions contact the Public Works Office at (661) 746-5004.

Here’s what you need to know:
 You will need to submit your completed application at least 30 days before the event. This gives us time to review and approve your permit.
 An application fee of $25 is due after submittal and is non-refundable. (Other fees may apply.) A City staff member will contact you for payment.
 Events with more than 300 people at a time or serving alcohol require City Council approval.

Thank you again for hosting your event in Shafter—we can’t wait to see it come to life! Special Event Permit
Step 1 - Contact Information
Host Organization
(Host Organization is the organization accepting all financial responsibility for the event and providing the required insurance.)
Shafter Lions Club
Untitled
Check here if the Host Organization is a non-profit.

Host Organization Website
https://shafterlionsclub.com
Event Contact(s)
Untitled

Event Contact 1
Name
Gilbert T Alvarado
Phone
(661) 292-0538
Email
[email protected]
Step 2 - Event Information
Event Details
Event Name
Shafter Lions Trunk or Treat
Event Description
Vehicles are invited to attend and pass out candy to kids.

Untitled
Event Location
Veteran's Park Soccer Field
Selecting an event location for this permit is not considered a facility reservation. To complete a park reservation, visit the City of Shafter Parks Reservation webpage.

Maximum Number of People Anticipated at a Time
500
Event Activities (Check all that apply)
Amplified Music/Speech
If your event has multiple dates, enter each individual date the event will be held.

Event Set-Up Date(s)
10/28/25
Event Set-Up Time (Start and End time)
5:00pm
Event Date(s) Event Time (Start and End Time)
Event Tear-Down Date(s)
10/28/25
Event Tear-Down Time (Start and End Time)
9:00pm
Facility Use Application
Declaration

1. Applicant is responsible for any damage to the facility, contents, or fixtures and is responsible for the cost of repairs and/or replacement of such at the City’s discretion. All damages must be

reported to the City at the conclusion of the event or the next business day.

Initial
gta

2. The facility must be left in a neat, clean and orderly condition. Failure to do so may result in cleaning costs being deducted from the security deposit. Security deposit refunds will be mailed 4 to 6 weeks after the event.

Initial
gta

3. It is understood that nothing shall be attached to the walls, ceiling, or any of the fixtures. Use of tape, staples, nails, glitter, etc. is prohibited.

Initial
gta

4. The City is in no way responsible for any personal injuries, property damages, or other liabilities that maybe incurred during the use of the facility.

Initial
gta

5. All General Liability Insurance Policies must include Endorsements and name “The City of Shafter, its officers, employees, city council members, agents, boards and commissions” as additionally insured.

Initial
gta

6. Payment of any and all application fees paid for the reservation process is non-refundable.

Initial
gta

7. I understand it is my responsibility to read and abide by the terms in the Facility Use Policy.

Initial
gta
Untitled

Step 3 - Hold Harmless Agreement
I certify and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Shafter, its employees, city council members, agents, boards and commissions from and against any and all claims, liability loss, costs, damages, fees of attorneys, and other expenses which the City may sustain or incur by reason of, or in consequence of, the use of City streets and land, including but not limited to, sums paid on liability settlements or judgements in relation to use of land and streets.

Furthermore, I certify that I am the applicant or authorized agent and that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that additional conditions of approval may be imposed under this application, and I agree to comply with any conditions that may be required.

Applicant Signature Date
9/4/2025
Step 4 - Insurance Requirements
a. A Commercial General Liability Certificate of Insurance (“COI”) with coverage as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01 must be submitted two weeks prior to the event and must name the person and/or organization hosting the event as the "Insured." b. The COI must clearly show the liability limits and policy number and policy dates to be valid, shall be and include that the policy primary and non-contributory. Applicant agrees to waive all rights of subrogation.
c. The COI alone is not an acceptable proof of coverage and must be accompanied by a separate Endorsement page. The Endorsement page must name "The City of Shafter, its Officers, Employees, City Council Members, Agents, Boards, and Commissions, and volunteers" as additional insured.

Minimum insurance coverage required is $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate.

If alcohol is present or sold, a host liquor liability in the amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 general aggregate must be produced.

Amount of coverage required is dependent on level of risk and varies by type of event. Coverage limits may be higher for higher risk activities and events upon the City's sole determination. Special Events are reviewed individually; City staff will inform the applicant of the required insurance limits after the form is reviewed.

Insurance certificates and endorsement(s) may be obtained by contacting homeowner/auto insurance companies and asking for event insurance or visiting online event insurance companies such as those

listed below.
 Hub International: Event Insure | HUB International
 K&K Insurance: Special Event Insurance
 City staff may assist with obtaining insurance through Alliant. See City staff for assistance.

Attach Insurance Coverage Documents

25.26 Certificate for Shafter CA LIons Club - All Lions Club Events.pdf 25-26 GL Additional Insured Endorsement - Premises - Shafter.pdf Friendly Reminders

1. All City noise regulations must be observed.

2. Parking must be in authorized parking spaces only.

3. Carefully observe Hours of Event, as stated on permit.

4. If indicated, comply with any additional conditions that may have been imposed as Conditions of Approval following review of your application for a Special Event Permit.

City Use Only
Administrative Review
Administrative Approval
Approved
Administrative Representative Name
Mila Aleman
Administrative Representative Title
Admin Assistant
Signature Date
9/8/2025
Planning Review
Planning Approval
Approved
As part of the approval process for a Special Event Permit application, conditions may be imposed that are deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be applied in accordance with the criteria outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These conditions may involve any factors affecting the operation of the temporary use or event. Conditions of Approval include the following items.

Conditions of Approval

Item 1
Condition(s)
Planning Representative Name
Steve Esselman
Planning Representative Title
Planning Director
Signature Date
9/8/2025
Public Works Review
Public Works Approval
Approved with Conditions
As part of the approval process for a Special Event Permit application, conditions may be imposed that are deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be applied in accordance with the criteria outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These conditions may involve any factors affecting the operation of the temporary use or event. Conditions of Approval include the following items.

Conditions of Approval
Item 1
Condition(s)
Public sidewalks shall be open at all times.

Item 2
Condition(s)
Any road closures or traffic control in public roadways require separate approval.

Public Works Representative Name
Michael James
Public Works Representative Title
Public Works Director
Signature Date
9/10/2025

Police Department Review
Police Department Approval
Approved
Police Department Representative Name
Randy Milligan
Police Department Representative Title
Chief of Police
Signature Date
9/10/2025
Risk Management Review
Risk Management Approval
Approved
Risk Management Representative Name
Angelica Torres
Risk Management Representative Title
Risk Management Coordinator
Signature Date
9/11/2025
City Council Review

City Council Approval
Council Member Name Council Member Title
Signature Date

Special Event Permit
Thank you for choosing to host an event in the City of Shafter! Before you start, let’s make sure you need this permit. If your event will have fewer than 50 attendees, does not involve the sale of food and/or beverages, and does not need to close public streets, sidewalks, or parking lots, you don’t need a Special Events Permit. Have a great event! However, if you expect more than 50 people, will sell food and/or beverages, have amplified sound, or you are going to use public streets, sidewalks, or parking lots, please fill out this form. This helps us coordinate resources, ensure public safety, and ensures you comply with the Shafter Municipal Code. We have tried to make it as painless as possible, and we are here to help! If you have any questions contact the Public Works Office at (661) 746-5004.

Here’s what you need to know:
 You will need to submit your completed application at least 30 days before the event. This gives us time to review and approve your permit.
 An application fee of $25 is due after submittal and is non-refundable. (Other fees may apply.) A City staff member will contact you for payment.
 Events with more than 300 people at a time or serving alcohol require City Council approval.

Thank you again for hosting your event in Shafter—we can’t wait to see it come to life! Special Event Permit
Step 1 - Contact Information
Host Organization
(Host Organization is the organization accepting all financial responsibility for the event and providing the required insurance.)
Shafter Rotary Foundation
Untitled
Check here if the Host Organization is a non-profit.

Host Organization Website
Event Contact(s)
Untitled

Event Contact 1
Name
Cathy Prout
Phone
(661) 203-7334
Email
[email protected]
Step 2 - Event Information
Event Details
Event Name
Ghost Tour
Event Description
Group will walk through the closed facility and listen to Ghost stories Untitled
Event Location
Shafter CCF
Selecting an event location for this permit is not considered a facility reservation. To complete a park reservation, visit the City of Shafter Parks Reservation webpage.

Maximum Number of People Anticipated at a Time
56 Event Activities (Check all that apply)
If your event has multiple dates, enter each individual date the event will be held.

Event Set-Up Date
10/26/2025
Event Set-Up Time (Start and End time)
10:00 AM
Event Date
10/26/2025
Event Time (Start and End Time)
6:30 - 7:30 PM
Multiple Event Dates Indicator
Event Tear-Down Date Event Tear-Down Time (Start and End Time) 8:00 AM
Step 3 - Hold Harmless Agreement
I certify and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Shafter, its employees, city council members, agents, boards and commissions from and against any and all claims, liability loss, costs,

damages, fees of attorneys, and other expenses which the City may sustain or incur by reason of, or in consequence of, the use of City streets and land, including but not limited to, sums paid on liability settlements or judgements in relation to use of land and streets.

Furthermore, I certify that I am the applicant or authorized agent and that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that additional conditions of approval may be imposed under this application, and I agree to comply with any conditions that may be required.

Applicant Signature Date
9/17/2025
Step 4 - Insurance Requirements
a. A Commercial General Liability Certificate of Insurance (“COI”) with coverage as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01 must be submitted and must name the person and/or organization hosting the event as the "Insured."
b. The COI must clearly show the liability limits and policy number and policy dates to be valid, shall be and include that the policy primary and non-contributory. Applicant agrees to waive all rights of subrogation.
c. The COI alone is not an acceptable proof of coverage and must be accompanied by a separate Endorsement page. The Endorsement page must name "The City of Shafter, its Officers, Employees, City Council Members, Agents, Boards, and Commissions, and volunteers" as additional insured.  Minimum insurance coverage required is $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate.*
 If alcohol is present or sold, a host liquor liability in the amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 general aggregate must be produced. *Amount of coverage required is dependent on level of risk and varies by type of event. Coverage limits may be higher for higher risk activities and events upon the City's sole determination. Special Events are reviewed individually; City staff will inform the applicant of the required insurance limits after the form is reviewed.

Insurance certificates and endorsement(s) may be obtained by contacting homeowner/auto insurance companies and asking for event insurance or visiting online event insurance companies such as those listed below.
 Hub International: Event Insure | HUB International
 K&K Insurance: Special Event Insurance

 City staff may assist with obtaining insurance through Alliant. See City staff for assistance.

Attach Insurance Coverage Documents
2526 GL - City of shafter, its officers, employees, city council members, agents, boards & commissi.pdf Rotary Application & Schedule _ 25-26.pdf
RC Shafter - AI Endt - City of Shafter - every Wednesday per policy period & 04.16.2026.pdf FORM CG 24 53 12 19 Westchester Club GL Policy WOS 25_26.pdf GLE0095 07 10 Westchester Club GL Policy PNC by Cntrct 25_26.pdf Friendly Reminders

1. All City noise regulations must be observed.

2. Parking must be in authorized parking spaces only.

3. Carefully observe Hours of Event, as stated on permit.

4. If indicated, comply with any additional conditions that may have been imposed as Conditions of Approval following review of your application for a Special Event Permit.

City Use Only
Administrative Review
Administrative Approval
Administrative Representative Name Administrative Representative Title Signature Date
Planning Review
Planning Approval
As part of the approval process for a Special Event Permit application, conditions may be imposed that are deemed necessary to ensure that the permit will be applied in accordance with the criteria outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance. These conditions may involve any factors affecting the operation of the temporary use or event. Conditions of Approval include the following items.

Conditions of Approval
Item 1
Condition(s)
Planning Representative Name Planning Representative Title

Signature Date
Public Works Review
Public Works Approval
Public Works Representative Name Public Works Representative Title Signature Date
Police Department Review
Police Department Approval
Police Department Representative Name Police Department Representative Title Signature Date
Risk Management Review
Risk Management Approval
Risk Management Representative Name Risk Management Representative Title Signature Date
City Council Review
City Council Approval
Council Member Name Council Member Title
Signature Date

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 707 REQUEST FOR VETO LETTER

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a "project" per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; approve Request for Veto Letter on behalf of the Shafter City Counci, for Senate Bill 707 Open Meetings.

BACKGROUND
Beginning July 1, 2026, and until January 1, 2030, proposed SB 707 would require an eligible legislative body, as defined, to comply with additional meeting requirements, imposing broad mandates that would create significant operational and fiscal challenges for local agencies. The bill would require real-time, two-way public participation via telephonic or audiovisual platforms at all meetings, substantially increasing staffing, technology, and security demands. It also mandates translating the agenda into all “applicable languages” spoken by 20% or more of the local population with limited English proficiency, and allows public posting of alternate translations, which could create confusion despite agencies not being liable.

The accelerated July 1, 2026, implementation date leaves insufficient time for planning, budgeting, and training, particularly for smaller or under-resourced agencies.

Transparency and public participation can be achieved through more practical and flexible approaches that recognize local capacity and community needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the approval of Veteo Letter for Senate Bill 707.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a "project" per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is approval of the veto letter for proposed legislation and therefore, it is organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and not subject to CEQA.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

SENATE BILL 707 REQUEST FOR VETO LETTER
- 2 -

ATTACHMENTS

1. Veto Letter SB 707 2025 10 07

City Manager
(661) 746-5000
Fax (661) 746-0607
Public Works/Engineering
(661) 746-5004
Fax (661) 746-9125
Finance
(661) 746-5001
Fax (661) 746-1002
Human Resources
(661) 746-5003
Fax (661) 746-2645
Planning/Building
(661) 746-5002
Fax (661) 746-9125
336 Pacific Avenue • Shafter, California 93263
October 7, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Senate Bill 707 (Durazo) — Request for Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
On behalf of City of Shafter, I respectfully request your veto of Senate Bill 707. While we support the goal of enhancing transparency and public participation, SB 707 imposes broad mandates that would create significant operational and fiscal challenges for local agencies.

The bill would require real-time, two-way public participation via telephonic or audiovisual platforms at all meetings, substantially increasing staffing, technology, and security demands. It also mandates agenda translation into all “applicable languages” spoken by 20% or more of the local population with limited English proficiency, and allows public posting of alternate translations, which could create confusion despite agencies not being liable.

The accelerated July 1, 2026, implementation date leaves insufficient time for planning, budgeting, and training, particularly for smaller or under-resourced agencies. We believe transparency and public participation can be achieved through more practical, flexible approaches that recognize local capacity and community needs.

For these reasons, the City of Shafter respectfully urges you to veto SB 707. Please contact City Manager Lance Lippincott, (661)746-5000, with any questions.

Sincerely,

CITY OF SHAFTER
Chad Givens, Mayor
cc: Brady Borcherding, Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Carol Chavolla, HR Director
SUBJECT: SHAFTER POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SPOA) SIDE

LETTER AGREEMENT RATIFICATION TO REMOVE

RECOGNITION OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL MANAGER

CLASSIFICATION

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines; ratify the Side Letter Agreement between the City and SPOA to remove recognition of the Animal Control Manager classification.

BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2025, City staff met and conferred with SPOA representatives regarding the recognition of the Animal Control Manager classification within the SPOA bargaining unit. The Animal Control Manager position is a standalone management role with direct authority over subordinate staff. Responsibilities include assigning work, conducting employee evaluations, and administering discipline. Maintaining this classification within SPOA presents a conflict of interest, as it is not appropriate for a management position to be represented in the same unit as their subordinates.

While Police Sergeants remain represented under SPOA, their inclusion is based on a long-established peace officer bargaining model that does not apply to the Animal Control Manager classification. Unlike Sergeants, the Animal Control Manager is not part of the statutory or traditional peace officer bargaining structure. Removing this classification from SPOA ensures clarity of roles, eliminates conflicts of interest, and aligns with standard labor relations practices.

City staff and SPOA have agreed, through the side letter agreement, to remove recognition of the Animal Control Manager classification from SPOA representation.

The enclosed side letter agreement is presented for ratification by the City Council, effective October 7, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

CEQA ANALYSIS

SHAFTER POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SPOA) SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT RATIFICATION

TO REMOVE RECOGNITION OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL MANAGER CLASSIFICATION - 2 -
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and is not subject to CEQA.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No

ATTACHMENTS

1. Side Letter Agreement between the City and SPOA to Remove Recognition of the Animal Control Manager Classification

SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHAFTER AND

THE SHAFTER POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
The authorized representatives of the City of Shafter and the Shafter Police Officers Association (collectively, “Parties”) have met and conferred pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”), ratified and adopted by the City Council on October 1, 2024, and the Parties have determined that it is reasonable and appropriate to modify certain provisions of this MOU by means of this Side Letter Agreement (“Agreement”).

Section 1. The following Section of the MOU is amended to remove recognition of the Animal Control Manager classification and incorporate the related changes as follows:

SECTION 1.2 RECOGNITION
a. The City recognizes the Association as the recognized and exclusive representative for Animal Control Officers, Police Dispatchers, Police Officers, Police Sergeants, and Senior Police Officers.

Section 2. This amendment is effective October 7, 2025. Except as expressly modified by this Side Letter, the provisions of the existing MOU remain in full force and effect.

Ratification
This Side Letter Agreement has been ratified on October 7, 2025, pursuant to the recommendation of the following parties:

SPOA CITY
____________________________________ ____________________________________ SPOA President Date Lance Lippincott, City Manager Date ____________________________________ ____________________________________ SPOA Vice President Date Chad Givens, Mayor Date
____________________________________
SPOA Board Member Date
____________________________________
SPOA Board Member Date

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Rogelio Sanchez, Finance Director, Isarel Perez-Hernandez, CMT, Deputy Finance Director
SUBJECT: UTILITY BILLING SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 3044, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter, authorizing the City Manager or Designee to appropriate $80,000 from the General Fund to support the Senior Discount Program for utility billing.

BACKGROUND
The concept of a Utility Billing Senior Discount Program was first introduced to the City Council on July 15, 2025, where staff presented preliminary options and comparisons to similar programs in nearby jurisdictions. In August, Staff returned with additional analysis, including fiscal impact estimates, program scope, and administrative needs.

Council directed Staff to return with a dedicated workshop to further review program design, potential eligibility expansions, and fiscal considerations before moving forward.

At the September workshop, the City Council expressed support for the core intent of the program, which is to provide financial relief to vulnerable senior residents. At the same time, the Council emphasized the importance of fiscal responsibility and careful implementation. Council directed Staff to develop a pilot program offering a fixed $10 monthly discount on the water portion of the utility bill for qualifying senior residents aged 60 and older, including both senior property owners and senior tenants.

Program Scope (Proposal)
• Discount Level: $10 on water service charges.
• Eligibility:
o Age 60 or older
o Primary residence within City limits
o Must be the property owner or primary tenant and utility account holder o Proof of ownership required or a valid rental agreement is required o Participation in PG&E CARE/FERA program (or similar utility incomebased criteria)

UTILITY BILLING SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM
- 2 -
o Annual re-certification required
Estimated Participation & Cost
• Estimated annual program cost: $80,000 at the fixed $10 discount level • Recommended funding source: General Fund subsidy, which avoids Proposition 218 requirements and preserves ratepayer equity
Key Policy Considerations
The Council’s direction reflects a desire to support both senior homeowners and tenants without creating a program that expands too quickly or becomes financially unsustainable. The program includes clear eligibility requirements, proof of tenancy or ownership, and annual re-verification to ensure program integrity and cost control. By limiting the initial rollout to senior residents aged 60 and over, both property owners and verified tenants, the City can gather real participation data, evaluate fraud risks, assess administrative impacts, and manage costs effectively. This focused approach helps the City build the operational infrastructure needed before considering any future expansion.

Strong programs begin with learning. Launching the senior discount program with a focused group allows the City to evaluate participation rates. This approach builds public trust and ensures fiscal accountability.

FISCAL IMPACT
The program is estimated to cost up to $80,000 annually. Funding would be provided through the General Fund. This represents a modest but meaningful investment in supporting Shafter’s senior population on fixed incomes.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is the approval to appropriate $80,000 from the General Fund to support the Senior Discount Program for utility billing and therefore, it is the creation of a governmental funding mechanism or other fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to a specific project that can result in a potentially significant impact and not subject to CEQA.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 3044

RESOLUTION NO. 3044

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO APPROPRIATE $80,000

FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT A SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM FOR

UTILITY BILLING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shafter recognizes the financial challenges faced by many senior residents, particularly those on fixed incomes; and WHEREAS, in September, the City Council reviewed staff’s workshop presentation of options for a senior discount program modeled on similar programs offered in neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Council expressed support for a senior discount program offering $10 discount on the water portion of the utility bill for qualifying senior residents (senior property owners, senior tenant) aged 60 or older who meet income-based or utility assistance criteria such as participation in the PG&E CARE/FERA program, proof of ownership or valid rental agreement is required, reside in the home, and applicant must be account holder; and WHEREAS, funding this program from the General Fund avoids the need for a Proposition 218 process and protects ratepayer equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish the program and appropriate necessary funding to ensure equitable access to utility services for Shafter’s financially vulnerable senior population; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Shafter, California, that the City Manager and Administrative Services Director of the City of Shafter is hereby authorized to:

SECTION 1: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or designee to appropriate $80,000 from the General Fund to implement and administer the Senior Discount Program for Utility Billing.

SECTION 2: The program shall provide a $10 discount on the water portion of the utility bill for qualifying senior property owners or senior tenants based on criteria developed, modified and administered by City staff.

SECTION 3: This action is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), because it involves general policy and administrative funding without physical changes to the environment.

SECTION 4: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3044
October 7, 2025

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 7
th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
____________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST
______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Rachel Zermeno, Community Engagement Manager SUBJECT: SMALL TOWN DESIGNS CITY-BRANDED MERCHANDISE

LICENSE AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the requested action is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; approve Merchandise License Agreement with Small Town Designs to allow the sale of City-Branded Merchandise.

BACKGROUND
The City of Shafter is currently in the process of registering ownership of its own trademark and logos that represent the City’s identity and brand. In an effort to foster civic pride, promote community identity, and support small businesses, the City has developed a merchandise agreement to allow Small Town Designs, a local merchant, to produce and sell City-branded merchandise.

Small Town Designs, a locally owned and operated business, has requested a license to sell merchandise using the City Logos. The business has extensive experience in merchandise production and marketing. The proposed agreement provides Small Town Designs with a non-exclusive license to use the City Logos on approved merchandise such as Hats, T-shirts, and Sweaters.

Under the agreement, all sales revenue and profits will remain with Small Town Designs, while the City retains quality control by reviewing and approving all designs before production. Although the City is not receiving any revenue from these initial sales, this initial marketing effort will provide the City with certain benefits by allowing the City to gauge popularity and narrow its merchandising efforts for future sales. The agreement provides an initial one-year term to test the program, with the option to renew. In addition, Small Town will have the right to include its logo in a small format to designate the location where the product was manufactured. Small Town Designs is required to maintain commercial liability insurance and indemnify the City. Finally, while the City waives all royalty fees, it reserves the right to audit sales to guide future program development.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct cost to the City. Small Town Designs covers all expenses and retains revenue from sales. While no City revenue is generated under this agreement, the

SMALL TOWN DESIGNS CITY-BRANDED MERCHANDISE LICENSE AGREEMENT - 2 -
program supports branding and community engagement, with the option to consider future royalty or revenue-sharing.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is the approval of a City-branded merchandise license agreement and therefore, it is the creation of a governmental funding mechanism or other fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to a specific project that can result in a potentially significant impact and not subject to CEQA.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Yes

ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Shafter Small Town Designs Merchandising License Agreement-(Final Version - 2025)(44186417.2)-c1

45635.01815\44186417.2
- 1 -

MERCHANDISING LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Merchandising License Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made effective as of September 15, 2025, by and between the City of Shafter (the “City”), a California municipal corporation, with its principal office at 336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, CA 93263, and Small Town Designs (the “Licensee”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at 720 E. Lerdo Hwy., Shafter, CA 93263.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City owns and controls certain trademarks, service marks, trade names, logos, insignia, and other indicia (the “City Marks”), as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to promote civic pride and market the City for economic development opportunities through the licensing of the City Marks for use on high-quality merchandise (“Marketing Program”); and
WHEREAS, Licensee is a qualified vendor with experience in the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of merchandise and desires to obtain a license to use the City Marks for this purpose; and
WHEREAS, in order to initiate the City’s Marketing Program and promote future Marketing Program opportunities, City wishes to enter into an agreement with vendor to manufacture and distribute merchandise, at no cost to City, with vendor keeping the initial profits.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. Grant of license

1.1 Grant: The City hereby grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, nontransferable, and non-sublicensable license to use the City Marks solely in connection with the manufacture, promotion, advertising, distribution, and sale of the Licensed Products, within the Licensed Territory, and during the Term. Licensee shall not materially change the City Marks as set forth on Exhibit "A" without the prior written consent of City.

1.2 Reservation of rights: The City reserves all rights not expressly granted to Licensee. The City retains the right to use the City Marks itself or to grant other licenses to third parties for merchandise not included in Exhibit “B” or for use outside the Licensed Territory.

45635.01815\44186417.2
- 2 -

1.3 Display of Licensee Trademarks: Licensee will have the right to include a designation on Products that the Products were manufactured by Licensee either in the form of the name of Licensee or the Licensee’s logo, provided, however, that such display will be secondary to the display of the City Marks in size and placement and will not be in proximity to the City Marks such that it would cause confusion or any direct association between Licensee’s trademark and the City. All final designs and placement of the Licensee’s trademark and name on Products will be subject to the consent of the City.

2. Licensed products and territory

2.1 Licensed products: The specific items of merchandise that Licensee is authorized to produce and sell with the City Marks are listed in Exhibit B (“Licensed Products”). No other products may be produced or sold under this license without the City’s prior written approval.

2.2 Licensed territory: The geographic region where the Licensed Products may be distributed and sold is defined as “within the city limits of the City of Shafter and its unincorporated territory (the “Licensed Territory”).

3. Term and termination

3.1 Term: This Agreement shall be effective for an initial term of one (1) year beginning on September 15, 2025 and ending on September 15, 2026 (the “Term”). with City shall have the option to renew this Agreement for additional one (1) year terms at its sole and absolute discretion.

3.2 Termination for cause: Either party may terminate this Agreement if the other party fails to remedy a material breach of this Agreement within fourteen (14) days of receiving written notice of the breach.

3.3 Termination upon notice: The City may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days written notice to Licensee.

4. Quality control and approval

4.1 Quality standards: Licensee shall ensure that all Licensed Products are of good quality, design, and workmanship and are manufactured in a professional manner that maintains the positive reputation and goodwill of the City.

4.2 Sample submission: Before beginning production or distribution of any Licensed Product, Licensee shall submit samples and proposed designs to the City for written approval. Licensee shall not manufacture, advertise, or sell any Licensed Product without such approval.

45635.01815\44186417.2
- 3 -

5. Royalties and payments waived

5.1 Royalty rate: In consideration for the license, Licensee shall not be required to pay City a royalty fee.

5.2 Audit rights: Notwithstanding the waiver of royalty fees, the City shall have the right to audit Licensee’s books and records related to the sale of Licensed Products to verify the success of the Marketing Program and determine future royalty payments.

6. Intellectual property rights

6.1 Ownership: Licensee acknowledges that the City is the sole and exclusive owner of the City Marks and all associated goodwill. Licensee shall not acquire any ownership interest in the City Marks.

6.2 Trademark notices: Licensee shall affix a trademark notice (e.g., ™ or ®) to all Licensed Products, packaging, and promotional materials in a manner approved by the City.

6.3 Infringement. Licensee shall promptly inform the City if it becomes aware of any unauthorized use of the City Marks by any third party and Licensee and City shall cooperate to take such action as is reasonably necessary to protect the City Marks from infringement, provided, however, that in no event shall either Licensee be required to file a lawsuit or incur any material cost or expense to protect such City Marks.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall at all times have the right to take legal action to protect and enforce its rights in the City Marks. Licensee agrees to cooperate with City, should City enforce its rights.

7. Indemnification and insurance

7.1 Indemnification: Licensee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from any claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses arising from Licensee’s activities under this Agreement, including product liability and infringement claims.

7.2 Insurance: Licensee shall maintain, at its own expense, commercial general liability insurance with a reputable insurer, naming the City as an additional insured. The policy limits shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence / $2,000,000 aggregate.

8. Miscellaneous

8.1 Governing law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of California. Any disputes will be resolved in the courts of Kern County.

8.2 Entire agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior discussions and agreements.

45635.01815\44186417.2
- 4 -

8.3 Notices: All notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and sent to the addresses listed at the beginning of this document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Merchandising License Agreement as of the date first above written.

CITY OF SHAFTER
By:

Lance Lippincott
Title: City Manager

SMALL TOWN DESIGNS
By:

Rick Madrigal
Title: Owner of Small Town Designs

SMALL TOWN DESIGNS
By:

Daisy Madrigal
Title: Owner of Small Town Designs

45635.01815\44186417.2
-1-

EXHIBIT A

LICENSED CITY MARKS
(Include high-resolution images and legal descriptions of the City’s name, logos, and trademarks)

Shafter Full Logo in Primary Colors PMS7735 and PMS4007, or Black or White

Shafter Seal Logo in Primary Colors PMS7735 and PMS4007, or Black or White

45635.01815\44186417.2
-1-

EXHIBIT B

LICENSED PRODUCTS
(Include a detailed list of approved products, such as “T-shirts,” “Hats,” “Mugs,” and “Keychains”)
Hats
• Baseball Cap
• Trucker Hat
• Snapback Hat
• Flexfit Hat
• Performance Hat
• Bucket Hat
• Beanies
• T-Shirts and Long Sleeve T-Shirts
• Crew Neck Sweaters and Hoodie Sweaters

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Ravi Pudipeddi, City Engineer
SUBJECT: DESIGN SERVICES FOR ROUNDABOUT UTILITY

RELOCATIONS

RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; authorize the increase of Purchase Order No. 11 with Dee Jaspar & Associates from $9,600 to a not-to-exceed amount of $29,558 to fully fund engineering services related to the proposed relocation of City utilities for the Caltrans roundabout project; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute all related documents and agreements.

BACKGROUND
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is planning the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Highway 43 and Santa Fe Way. To facilitate this project, the City is required to design the relocation of existing City-owned water and sewer mains that conflict with the proposed roundabout layout. Dee Jaspar & Associates was selected to perform the engineering design for the utility relocation work.

Due to the timing of the Caltrans project, there was urgency in initiating design efforts to provide timely coordination and feedback. City Staff authorized a limited purchase order in the amount of $9,600 for preliminary engineering services, allowing the consultant to begin work immediately and enabling staff to respond promptly to Caltrans inquiries and ensure the roundabout project remains on schedule.

In accordance with the City’s procurement procedures, any expenditure exceeding $25,000 must be authorized by the City Council. The consultant has submitted a full engineering proposal in the amount of $29,558 to complete the design, requiring formal Council authorization to increase the purchase order.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the proposed engineering services is available in the existing Capital Improvement Program under Project No. ST00029. This project is supported by a combination of local and Federal Improvement Transportation Program funds designated for the roundabout at Highway 43 and Santa Fe Way. No budget adjustment is required to proceed with awarding the full scope of work proposed by Dee Jaspar & Associates.

DESIGN SERVICES FOR ROUNDABOUT UTILITY RELOCATIONS
- 2 -

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions not yet approved, adopted, or funded. The proposed engineering services are limited to planning and design activities and do not constitute approval of a physical project.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Existing Purchase Order Previously Issued to Dee Jaspar & Associates

2. Original Engineering Proposal Submitted by Dee Jaspar & Associates

THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES AND
SHIPPING PAPERS.

Purchase
Order #
Purchase Order

BILL TO
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Ave.

Shafter, CA 93263
(661) 746-5001

VENDOR SHIP TO
Date Ordered Vendor Number Department/Location
Item# Description/PartNo QTY UOM Unit Price Extended Price

VENDOR COPY
Page: 1 of: 1
11 720 COMMERCE WAY
SHAFTER, CA 93263
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 661-746-5002
N

DEE JASPAR & ASSOCIATES
2730 UNICORN RD, BLDG A
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308
Fax: 661-393-4799
720 COMMERCE WAY
SHAFTER, CA 93263
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 661-746-5002
07/11/2025 206 PUBLIC WORKS
Design for the Santa Fe Way Roundabout Project
The Above Purchase Order Number Must Appear On All
Correspondence - Packing Sheets And Bills Of Lading
1 Hwy 43 & Santa Fe Way - Roundabout Project- Preliminary 1.0 EACH $9,600.00 $9,600.00 Engineering and Construction Work.

Total Ext. Price $9,600.00
PO Total $9,600.00

PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS

1. Acceptance. This purchase order for equipment and materials issued by the City of Shafter (“CITY”) to the Vendor designated in the purchase order must be promptly accepted and acceptance is expressly limited to the terms of this order. Any additions or different terms in the Vendor's forms are hereby deemed to be material alterations and notice of objection to them and rejection of them is hereby given. Vendor's shipment of goods in response to this order shall be considered acceptance by the Vendor.

2. Entire Agreement. Unless Vendor and CITY have entered into a separate written contract covering the purchase of the goods described herein, the entire contract between the parties consists of this order and the Vendor's acceptance as above stipulated, and said contract shall not be changed or added to except in writing signed by authorized representatives of each party.

3. Price. The price invoiced for the goods on this purchase order shall be no higher than the price stated on the front of this purchase order unless prior notification is received from Vendor prior to shipment and the change is accepted by CITY. If the Vendor's established price for any item upon the date of delivery shall be lower than the price shown on this purchase order, CITY shall have the benefit of such lower price. Vendor shall deliver to CITY all invoices within 30 days of shipping or service delivery.

4. Payment. Payments will be made net 30 days unless otherwise specified as per agreements regarding discount terms. The period of computation will commence on the date of receipt of a correctly completed invoice. Payment may be withheld, in whole or in part, due to deficiencies in Vendor’s performance. Payment of an invoice by CITY shall be without prejudice to any and all claims CITY may have against Vendor in connection with such goods. Invoices are paid on a weekly basis and such practice may result in minor deviations from payment terms otherwise cited herein

5. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence on this order. If delivery is not made in the quantity or quantities and at the time or times specified, CITY shall have the right, at its option, to cancel the entire order or that part of same not so delivered. If CITY accepts delayed delivery the time of payment shall be extended accordingly.

6. Delivery and Acceptance. Vendor expressly warrants that any article, material or work is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, and that Vendor has good and marketable title to same. Unless otherwise specified, all goods are to be shipped prepaid, F.O.B. destination. No charge will be allowed for packing, crating, freight, express or other carrier's charges, or cartage, unless specifically agreed to by CITY. Title to equipment and materials purchased hereunder shall pass to Vendor at the designated F.O.B. point, subject to Vendor’s right to inspect and reject or revoke acceptance.

7. Warranty. Vendor warrants for a period of 12 months following start of use or 18 months from receipt, whichever occurs first, that the goods described herein will be free of defects in workmanship, design, materials, and title, and notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, will conform to all applicable proposals, specifications, instructions, drawings, data, descriptions, and samples, and will be of good and merchantable quality and fit and sufficient for the purpose intended. Vendor shall obtain and provide to CITY Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product that contains hazardous substances as defined by CalOSHA.

8. Rejection of Goods. CITY shall have the right, at its option, to reject or revoke acceptance of any goods which do not conform to these warranties or to the specifications. In case of such rejection or revocation of acceptance, transportation of the rejected goods, both to and from CITY, shall be at the expense of Vendor, said rejected goods are not to be replaced except upon specific instruction from CITY, and CITY shall have the right at its option to cancel the remainder, if any, of the order, by notice to Vendor at the time notice is given of rejection or revocation of acceptance. Vendor shall be liable to CITY for all damages proximately caused by breach of any of the foregoing warranties, including incidental damages but excluding special or consequential damages.

9. Returns. CITY reserves the right to return for full credit any excess over quantity called for in any order or orders. Vendor to bear the cost of transportation both ways.

10. Force Majeure. Vendor shall not be held responsible for failure or delay in shipping nor CITY for failure or delay in accepting goods described herein if such failure or delay is due to act of God, war, federal or state legislation or any regulations or orders, fire, accident, or other causes, either similar or dissimilar to the foregoing, beyond their control.

In the event of any such excused interference with shipments, CITY shall have the option either to reduce the quantity provided for in the order accordingly or to exercise its right of cancellation as set forth in these terms and conditions.

11. Additional Fees. Unless otherwise required by law or provided herein, Vendor assumes exclusive liability for, and shall pay before delinquency, all sales, use, excise and other taxes, charges or contributions of any kind now or hereafter imposed on or with respect to, or measured by the article sold or material or work furnished hereunder on the wages, salaries or other remunerations paid to persons employed in connection with performance of this order.

12. No Waiver. No exercise by CITY of its rights hereunder shall constitute a waiver of any rights it may have for breach of contract. CITY's waiver of or failure to enforce its rights on account of Vendor's failure or delay in performing any obligation of Vendor hereunder, or on account of Vendor's breach of contract in any respect, shall not constitute a waiver of any subsequent failure, delay or breach.

13. Compliance with Law. Vendor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government. CITY shall assist Vendor, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Vendor by Federal, State and local regulatory agencies. Vendor is responsible for all costs of clean up and/or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her Work. Vendor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects.

If the Work is being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Vendor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold CITY, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Vendor or any subcontractor that affect Vendor’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Vendor’s sole responsibility and Vendor shall indemnify CITY from liability arising out of the same. It shall be mandatory upon the Vendor and all subcontractors to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815), contractor registration (Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Sections 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 and to be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1771.4, 1725.5 and 1771.1.

14. Insurance. Vendor shall take out and maintain: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance, of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability most recent Occurrence Form CG 00 01, naming CITY as an additional insured; B. Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, of at least $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage, at least as broad as most recent Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability, Code 1 (any auto); C. Workers’ Compensation in compliance with applicable statutory requirements and Employer's Liability Coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence; and D. Pollution Liability Insurance of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate shall be provided by those Vendors transporting hazardous materials.

Insurance carriers shall be licensed to do business in California and maintain an agent for process within the state. Such insurance carrier shall have not less than an "A:VII" rating according to the latest Best Key Rating unless otherwise approved by CITY. VENDOR

SHALL ENSURE THAT THIRD PARTY SHIPPERS CONTRACTED BY VENDOR HAVE ADEQUATE INSURANCE COVERAGE.

15. Indemnification. The Vendor shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officials, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses or damages, including attorneys’ fees, for injury or death of any person, or damage to property, or interference with use of property, or patent infringement or fees for use of patented items, or any claim of the Vendor or sub-contractors for wages or benefits which arise in connection with the sale, delivery and/or installation of equipment or materials, except to the extent caused or resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The foregoing indemnity includes, but is not limited to, the cost of prosecuting or defending such action with legal counsel acceptable to CITY and CITY’s attorneys’ fees incurred in such an action.

16. Substitutions, Changes and Cancellation. No substitutions are acceptable unless expressly accepted in writing by CITY. CITY may make changes in the general scope of this order by giving written notice to Vendor. If any such change affects the cost of or time to deliver or perform under this order, an adjustment in price, delivery or both will be made as CITY determines to be equitable. Vendor may request changes; however no such change shall be effective unless accepted in writing by CITY. CITY may cancel this order in whole or in part at any time before acceptance of the equipment and materials due to Vendor’s breach or for CITY’s convenience.

17. Laws, Venue, and Attorneys' Fees. This purchase order shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this purchase order , the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Kern, State of California. In the event of any such litigation between the parties, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees, as determined by the court.

18. Contract Terms. Nothing herein shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than CITY and the Vendor. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this purchase order shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. Notice may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties to the addresses set forth in the purchase order. Vendor shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this purchase order or any rights under or interest in this purchase order without the written consent of CITY, which may be withheld for any reason. Vendor is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of CITY. No employee or agent of Vendor shall become an employee of CITY. This is an integrated agreement/purchase order representing the entire understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior oral or written understanding or representations with respect to matters covered hereunder. This Contract may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both parties hereto.

19. Damage to City Facilities. Damage to CITY or public facilities or private property caused by the Vendor or by its subcontractors during delivery or installation shall be repaired and/or replaced in kind at no cost to the CITY.

20. Site Safety and Cleanup. The delivery and installation site shall be kept clean and free of hazards at all times during delivery and installation. After and installation is completed at the site, as applicable, Vendor shall clean the surrounding area to the condition prior to delivery and installation.

21. Installation. If the Vendor is responsible for providing installation services, finished installation work and/or equipment shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance or rejection by the CITY.
*OPTIONAL TERMS:

Custom Design: If the goods are produced by Vendor in accordance with designs, drawings or blueprints provided by CITY, Vendor shall return same to CITY upon completion or cancellation of this order. Any materials, equipment, tools, artwork, designs or other property furnished by or specifically paid for by CITY shall be CITY’s property.

DEE JASPAR & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
2730 UNICORN ROAD, BLDG A
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308
PHONE (661) 393-4796

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 30, 2025
Marcos Torres, Deputy Public Works Director
c/o City of Shafter
720 Commerce Way
Shafter, CA 93263
Re: Caltrans Roundabout in the City of Shafter
Sewer and Water Main Relocation Project – Engineering Services Proposal Mr. Torres,
Attached is a proposal for providing preliminary engineering services associated with the Caltrans Roundabout project. The preliminary engineering services are for the planning of the relocation of existing City of Shafter water and sewer pipelines and appurtenances including field surveying, roundabout plan review, preparation of a conceptual layout for the pipeline relocation alignments, preparation of preliminary plans and specifications, preparation of final plans and specifications, and the preparation of a detailed project cost estimate.

The total estimated budget for the water main relocation work is a not-to-exceed amount of $17,220.00 and the budget for the sewer main relocation work is a not-to-exceed amount of $12,338.00. This work will be billed on a time and material basis in accordance with our 2025 Rate Schedule.

If you have any questions, would like to discuss revisions to the scope of work or costs, or need any additional information please let me know.

Sincerely,
Curtis M. Skaggs
Dee Jaspar & Associates, Inc.

Dee Jaspar Associates
Consulting Civil Engineers
City of Shafter
Budget Proposal for Engineering Services
Caltrans Shafter Roundabout - Sewer and Water Main Relocation Project Principal EngineerRegistered Engineer /
Project Manager
Staff EngineerDraftspersonSurveyor2MC SurveyMiscellaneous $228.00 $190.00 $178.00 $116.00 $166.00 $292.00 NA
Scope of Work Estimated Time (hrs) Estimated Time (hrs) Estimated Time (hrs) Estimated Time (hrs) Estimated Time (hrs) Estimated Time (hrs) Fixed Fee Total

1. Water Relocation - Engineering & Cost Estimating
Topographic Field Surveying 1 1 1 2 $100.00 $1,144
Plan Review and Caltrans Correspondence 1 2 $10.00 $556 Conceputal Project Layout for Review and Approval 1 4 $10.00 $912 Preparation of Preliminary Pipeline Relocation Plans and Specifications 2 24 24 $25.00 $7,461 Preparation of Final Pipeline Relocation Plans and Specifications 2 16 16 $25.00 $5,109 Preparation of a Detailed Cost Estimate 1 2 $10.00 $556 Project Meetings and Correspondence 4 4 $10.00 $1,482
Subtotal: $17,220

2. Sewer Relocation - Engineering & Cost Estimating
Topographic Field Surveying 1 1 2 $100.00 $966
Plan Review and Caltrans Correspondence 1 2 $10.00 $556 Conceputal Project Layout for Review and Approval 1 4 $10.00 $912 Preparation of Preliminary Pipeline Relocation Plans and Specifications 2 16 16 $25.00 $5,109 Preparation of Final Pipeline Relocation Plans and Specifications 2 8 8 $25.00 $2,757 Preparation of a Detailed Cost Estimate 1 2 $10.00 $556 Project Meetings and Correspondence 4 4 $10.00 $1,482
Subtotal: $12,338
Total Hours Estimated: 0 22 89 66 2 4 380
Total Engineering Estimate: $0 $4,180 $15,842 $7,656 $332 $1,168 $380 $29,558 7/1/2025

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Marcos Torres, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: WELL NO. 11 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION WORK

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; accept three bid proposals for the said work and authorize the Deputy Public Works Director to award project to Bakersfield Well & Pump for work up to $100,000.

BACKGROUND
Water Well No. 11, located at 200 W. Los Angeles Avenue, is a critical component of the City's municipal water supply system. Routine maintenance and rehabilitation are required to ensure continued safe and reliable water production.

The proposed work includes:
• Pulling the deep well turbine pump and associated equipment • Performing downhole video inspection
• Mechanical brushing and cleaning of the well
• Acid treatment and chemical rehabilitation to restore capacity • Disassembly and inspection of pumping equipment
Three qualified firms submitted proposals for this work.

Contractor Base Cost Estimate
Bakersfield Well & Pump $59,900.00
South Valley Companies, Inc. $79,905.31
Farm Pump and Irrigation Co. $105,015.67
Bakersfield Well & Pump submitted the lowest initial base estimate and has extensive experience working on the City's water wells.

FISCAL IMPACT

WELL NO. 11 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION WORK
- 2 -
Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Account No. WA00003, which funds major well maintenance projects, has an available budget of $175,000 available to fund the necessary work at Well 11. No budget action is required at this time.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is the maintenance and rehabilitation of an existing water well, a public facility, involving no expansion of existing use.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. FPI Proposal

2. South Valley Proposal

3. BWP Proposal

Date: 9.15.2025
Salesman:

Job No.: ESTIMATE
Farm Pump and Irrigation Co. Well No.:
535 N. Shafter Avenue Location: WELL 11, PULL PUMP FOR WELL P.O. Box 1477 INSPECTION, BRUSH AND TREAT WELL
Shafter, California 93263
Office: 661-746-3376
License: 602148
Well Dia.: in. Pump Setting: ft. %
SWL: ft. Total Head: ft. %
Draw Down: ft. Capacity: GPM RPM
Pumping Level: ft. Bowl Efficiency: %
AGH: ft. Lab Horsepower: HP V
Pipeline Losses: ft. Shaft HP Loss: HP
Field Head: ft. Field BHP: HP Lbs.

Column Losses: ft. Field Eff: #DIV/0! % Lbs.

Sales Tax:

Labor:

Net Total:

Customer: CITY OF SHAFTER
Mailing Address:

Motor Efficiency:

PRICE
Wire to Water Efficiency:

Pump Speed:

Volts:

Phase:

Thrust Capacity:

Thrust Load:

DESCRIPTION
$89,345.67

PRICES ARE ESTIMATED AND MAY VARY DEPENDING ON MATERIALS COSTS AT SHAFT ASSEMBLIES. PREPARE AND SUBMIT INSPECTION REPORT
$105,015.67
Materials & Outside Services Total: $89,345.67
$15,670.00
NOT INCLUDED).

7.25%
REMOVE PUMP HOUSE AND SET ASIDE. PULL PUMP AND BRING PUMP COMPONENTS TO FPI SHOP. DISASSEMBLE BOWL ASSEMBLY AND INSPECT. INSPECT TUBE AND TIME OF AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED. NOTE LABOR RATES ARE NON-PREVAILING $0.00
OUTSIDE LABOR/SERVICES:

VIDEO SURVEY WELL, BRUSH, BAIL AND AIRLIFT WELL FOLLOWED BY ACID ADJACENT SUMP. SECOND VIDEO WILL BE PERFORMED AFTER BRUSHING WAGES. PUMP IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING 40 GPM AT 300' TDH (FRICTION LOSSES

WASH/TREATMENT OF THE WELL (INCLUDING SWABBING OVER A THREE DAY PERIOD TO MXIMIZE ACID EFFECTIVENESS). SOLUTION WILL BE AIRLIFTED

FROM THE WELL, NEUTRALIZED THEN DISCHARGE INTO THE CITY'S

AND AIRLIFTING OF THE WELL
FPI LABOR:

Fax: 661-746-1510
F P I

To: Project:

City of Shafter City of Shafter Well 11 Pump Inspection and Well Rehab Joe Obrien
336 Pacific Ave.

Shafter, CA 93263
USA
Salesperson
Travis Spears
Salesperson Acceptance
Provided by: Travis Spears Accepted by: ______________________________________________ Title: Salesperson Title: ______________________________________________ Date: 09/15/25 Date: ______________________________________________ Scope of Work
Proposal Subtotal (USD): $ 78,575.00
Estimated Tax (USD): $ 1,330.31
Proposal Total (USD): $ 79,905.31
PUMP RIG WITH THREE MEN - PULL PUMP 20 $525.00 $10,500.00 CRANE TRUCK WITH OPERATOR - SITE SETUP/TRANSPORT PUMP 10 $230.00 $2,300.00 LABORER WITH TRUCK - TRANSPORT PUMP 6 $150.00 $900.00
SHOP LABOR - INSPECT PUMP EQUIPMENT 20 $75.00 $1,500.00 INITIAL WELL VIDEO 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00
PUMP RIG WITH THREE MEN - BRUSH WELL 24 $525.00 $12,600.00 POST-BRUSH WELL VIDEO 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00
31% HCl INHIBITED ACID 1 $15,375.00 $15,375.00 T
PLACE ACID IN WELL AND WORK WELL WITH SWAB/BRUSH TOOL 24 $525.00 $12,600.00 PUMP RIG WITH THREE MEN - DUAL SWAB AIRLIFT 24 $525.00 $12,600.00 POST-ACID TREATMENT WELL VIDEO 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00
PUMP RIG WITH THREE MEN - SWAB IN SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 8 $525.00 $4,200.00

12.5% SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE BLEACH 1 $750.00 $750.00 T
Pull deep well turbine pump. Transport pumping equipment to SVP's yard for tear down and inspection. Acid treat well.

Exclusions
- Dual swab airlifting optional. Assumes airlifting discharge can be placed in the adjacent storm drain reservoir. Other discharge management is extra.
- Repairs to pumping equipment to be quoted after inspections. - Additional well surveys can be completed upon request (e.g., deviation and EMT-24 surveys) - Any additional well repairs deemed necessary after initial video will be quoted extra. - Electric motor can be taken to local repair shop for repair estimate on request. - Add $25,800 if NSF-61 certification is necessary for acid.

Proposal

Phone: (661) 831-5703
Fax: (661) 831-5976
www.svcos.com
PO BOX 82543
South Valley Companies, Inc.

Bakersfield, CA 93380
Proposal: 25-578
Date: 09/15/25

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: ZERKER ROAD INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDY

RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; approve the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project for the Zerker Road Intersection and Corridor Study; authorize the allocation of $66,000 in Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) for the project; and authorize the Deputy Public Works Director to award the professional services contract to Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group.

BACKGROUND
Public Works Staff needs civil engineering services to evaluate and plan for future improvements to the Zerker Road corridor, specifically the segment south of Lerdo Highway. The proposed project includes preparation of an engineering analysis and study that will identify and evaluate alternative roadway and intersection configurations.

The study area extends from Lerdo Highway southward to the Zerker/Zerker intersection and continues east to the existing railroad crossing. The scope of work is organized into three phases: (1) the Zerker/Lerdo Layout, which involves traffic analysis and intersection alternatives at Lerdo Highway and Zerker Road; (2) the Zerker-Zerker Intersection, which includes layout configurations to improve functionality and accommodate future growth; and (3) the Zerker Road Alignment south of the ZerkerZerker intersection, which will explore alignments connecting to the existing Zerker Road corridor. For each phase, preliminary engineering estimates, right-of-way impacts, and layout exhibits will be prepared. In addition, supporting calculations and exhibits will be developed to assist with future grant funding opportunities, including potential applications under the region’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated cost for engineering services associated with the Zerker Road Corridor Study is $66,000. This includes all three project phases: Phase ZLL (Zerker/Lerdo Layout) at $24,000; Phase ZZI (Zerker-Zerker Intersection) at $22,500; and Phase ZA (Zerker Road Alignment South of Zerker-Zerker Intersection) at $19,500.

Services will be billed on a time-and-materials basis, not to exceed $66,000, without additional Council authorization. A new Capital Improvement Project (CIP) will need to be created for this study, and an allocation of $66,000 in Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) will be required to fund the project.

ZERKER ROAD INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDY
- 2 -

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempt feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions not yet approved, adopted, or funded. The proposed civil engineering services are limited to planning and design activities and do not constitute approval of a physical project.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Provost & Pritchard Zerker/Zerker - Proposal

1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1351 • Tel: (661) 616-5900 www.provostandpritchard.com
https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/0ad97ae4-6288-4bd4-9d8a507cdb0968dc/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_330.ppeng.egnyte.com/Proposal.docx Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID September 19, 2025
Alex Gonzalez
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, Ca. 93263
Subject: Civil Engineering Services for the Zerker Road Corridor South of Lerdo Highway, Shafter, California
Dear Alex Gonzalez:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide engineering services for the subject project.

This proposal discusses our understanding of the project, recommends a scope of services together with associated fees.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand that the City of Shafter requests an engineering analysis and study be prepared for planning future improvements to the Zerker Road corridor from Lerdo Highway south to the intersection of Zerker/Zerker and east along Zerker to the existing railroad crossing. The study will include alternative layouts for the roadways and intersections and will include a southerly alignment of Zerker Road which will connect to the north-south Zerker Road alignment south and east of the Zerker/Zerker intersection.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our proposed scope of work for this proposal is segregated into the three phases described below.

PHASE ZLL: ZERKER/LERDO LAYOUT
This phase will include the layout of alternatives for the Zerker Road & Lerdo Highway intersections along with preliminary layout of Zerker Road south of Lerdo Highway to the Zerker-Zerker intersection. • Obtain peak hour and daily traffic counts at the intersection of Lerdo Highway and Zerker Road • Prepare level of service analysis for the existing and future condition of the intersection a. LOS analysis will include potential surrounding projects • Prepare alternative layouts of the intersection of Zerker and Lerdo to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes
• Prepare alternative layouts of the widening of Zerker Road to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes for the roadway
• Prepare preliminary engineers estimate for the alternatives for evaluation. The estimate will include the undergrounding of the canal

City of Shafter September 19, 2025
Zerker Road Corridor South of Lerdo Highway Page 2 of 3 Job No.: Job Number/Proposal Number
https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/0ad97ae4-6288-4bd4-9d8a507cdb0968dc/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_330.ppeng.egnyte.com/Proposal.docx • A preliminary right of way evaluation will be made for the future configuration of the intersection and roadway which will show impacts to adjacent properties, specifically ELK-GAF facility to the east and the NKWSD canal to the west. Potential ROW takes from adjacent property will be presented for evaluation and consideration of the preferred alternative. • Prepare writeup of the investigation including exhibits and summary of analysis of the investigation and preferred alternative
PHASE ZZI: ZERKER-ZERKER INTERSECTION
This phase will include the layout of alternative configurations of the Zerker-Zerker intersection. • Obtain peak hour and daily traffic counts at the intersection of Lerdo Highway and Zerker Road • Prepare level of service analysis for the existing and future condition of the intersection a. Emission analysis will be performed for the various alternatives b. The study will be prepared such that the information will be available to use with future CMAQ funding applications
• Prepare alternative layouts of the future intersection of Zerker-Zerker based on the level of service analysis
a. The intersection alignment will stay in the general location as existing and will include an alignment that will accommodate a future north/south arterial. b. The intersection may be a signalized intersection or a roundabout with turn movements to accommodate the existing and future traffic volumes
• Prepare preliminary engineers estimate for the alternatives for evaluation • A preliminary right of way evaluation will be made for the future configuration of the intersection and roadway which will show impacts to adjacent property, specifically ELK-GAF facility to the east and the NKWSD canal to the west.
• Prepare writeup of the investigation including exhibits and summary of analysis of the investigation, preferred alternative and right of way evaluation.

PHASE ZA: ZERKER ROAD ALIGNMENT SOUTH OF ZERKER-ZERKER INTERSECTION This phase will include the layout of alternative alignments for the Zerker Road extension south of the Zerker-Zerker intersection south and then east to connect to Zerker Road. • Prepare alternative layouts for future Zerker Road south of Zerker-Zerker intersection turning back east and connecting into Zerker Road. The east- west portion will be on or near the current alignment of Riverside
a. With input from the City, determine the preferred alternative alignment and prepare a preliminary layout showing the following:
i. Centerline and roadway geometry and width
ii. Typical section
iii. Right of Way Limits
• Prepare preliminary engineers estimate for the preferred alternative for evaluation • Prepare writeup of the investigation including exhibits and summary of analysis of the investigation and preferred alternative

PROFESSIONAL FEES
Time and Materials (Not to Exceed)
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will perform the services in this Phase on a time and materials basis, in accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are rendered. These fees will be invoiced monthly as they are accrued, and our total fees, including reimbursable expenses, will not exceed our estimate of $ 66,000 without additional authorization.

City of Shafter September 19, 2025
Zerker Road Corridor South of Lerdo Highway Page 3 of 3 Job No.: Job Number/Proposal Number
https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/0ad97ae4-6288-4bd4-9d8a507cdb0968dc/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_330.ppeng.egnyte.com/Proposal.docx PROPOSED FEE – PROJECT NAME

PHASE ESTIMATED FEE
Phase ZLL $24,000
Phase ZZI $22,500
Phase ZA $19,500
Total Estimated Fee: $66,000
The line items shown above are estimates and are not intended to limit billings for any given Task. Required task effort may vary up or down from the line item estimates shown, however total billings will not exceed the Total shown without additional authorization. If the scope changes materially from that described above, as a result of any agency’s decision or because of design changes requested by the Owner, we will prepare a revised estimate of our fees for your approval before we proceed.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Please provide a standard City of Shafter agreement for our review and execution. This proposal is valid for 30 days from the date above.

Respectfully,
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Ian Parks, RCE 58155
Principal Engineer

TERMS AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED
By City of Shafter
Signature
Printed Name
Title Date

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: NORTH SHAFTER COMMUNITY PARK PG&E SERVICE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the requested action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; authorize the Deputy Public Works Director to issue a Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed to Sierra Construction & Excavation in the amount of $81,075 for the installation of PG&E service for the North Shafter Community Park project; and authorize a General Fund appropriation of $85,000 to Project No. PK00008.

BACKGROUND
The City is proceeding with the installation of PG&E electrical service for the North Shafter Community Park project. The scope of work includes installing primary conduit, transformer pads, utility boxes, and associated components in accordance with PG&E and project specifications.

To complete this phase of the project, the City solicited three competitive bids from qualified contractors. All bids were based on the same scope of work and received in September 2025. The three bids received, including optional bollard installation, were as follows:

Contractor Total Bid Price
Sierra Construction & Excavation $81,075.00
Ruben’s Pipeline, Inc. $85,510.00
Derrick D Enterprise, Inc. $107,437.45
Staff reviewed all proposals for completeness and conformance with project specifications. Based on this review, Staff recommends awarding the work to Sierra Construction & Excavation, whose bid was the lowest responsive and responsible bid.

FISCAL IMPACT

NORTH SHAFTER COMMUNITY PARK PG&E SERVICE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - 2 -
A General Fund appropriation of $85,000 to the North Shafter Community Park project (Project No. PK00008) is required to complete the PG&E service installation. The recommended contract award to Sierra Construction & Excavation totals $81,075, which includes mobilization, bond expense, conduit installation, transformer pad, utility boxes, and bollards. The remaining funds will cover administrative and incidental costs associated with the work.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures where the allowed exemption examples in the Section include electrical extensions.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Sierra Construction & Excavation Proposal

2. Rubens Pipeline, Inc Proposal

3. Derrick D. Enterprises Proposal

To: City Of Shafter Contact:

Shafter, CA 93263 Fax:

Address: 336 Pacific Ave Phone: (661) 746-5001
Project Name: North Shafter Community Park- Offisite PG&E Feed Bid Number:

Project Location: Bid Date: 9/18/2025
Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price Mobilization 1.00 LS $3,300.00 $3,300.00
Bond Expense 1.00 LS $1,650.00 $1,650.00
4" Primary Electrical Conduit 1,185.00 LF $35.00 $41,475.00 SV1 2" Conduit 22.00 LF $130.00 $2,860.00
#5 Box 1.00 EACH $14,670.00 $14,670.00
#2 Box 1.00 EACH $2,220.00 $2,220.00
Transformer Concrete Pad - 50"x52" 1.00 EACH $4,180.00 $4,180.00 Base Bid Price Subtotal: $70,355.00
Total Bid Price: $70,355.00
Add Alt. 4" To Meter Pedestal
SV 4" Service 94.00 LF $32.00 $3,008.00
Total Price for above Add Alt. 4" To Meter Pedestal Items: $3,008.00 Bollards If Required
Bollards 8.00 EACH $1,340.00 $10,720.00
Total Price for above Bollards If Required Items: $10,720.00 Notes:
• California State License Number- 770738
• DIR Number- 1000021161
• Unless otherwise stated this proposal includes one mobilization only • Unless otherwise stated this proposal excludes any and all concrete or Asphalt repairs / place back. • The above prices do not include Performance and Payment Bonds. If required additional fees will apply • Unless otherwise noted no permits included . If required additional fees will apply • Unless otherwise noted no payment of construction water included . If required additional fees will apply • Unless otherwise noted no payment of compaction testing included. If required additional fees will apply • Unless otherwise noted no payment of construction surveying included. If required additional fees will apply • The above prices are based on plans and specs provided. Any revisions made to plans or scope after proposal has been accepted will result in cost impacts
• Required California Preliminary Lien Information (California Civil Code Section 3097/3098) to be provided. • Any unusual conditions of subsoil encountered, such as buried slabs, underground piping, trash deposits, etc. shall be deemed cause for additional charges.

Payment Terms:

Payment due within 30 days of date of invoice
9/18/2025 4:29:48 PM Page 1 of 2

ACCEPTED:

The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted.

Buyer:

Signature:

Date of Acceptance:

CONFIRMED:

Sierra Construction & Excavation
Authorized Signature:

Estimator:
9/18/2025 4:29:48 PM Page 2 of 2

To: CARLOS GARCIA September 11, 2025
Project: N. Shafter Conduit Work
Location: Shafter, CA

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Conduit Work $80,510.00
Mobilization $5,000.00
TOTAL $85,510.00
9/11/2025
____________
RUBEN'S PIPELINE, INC.
6810 HOUGHTON RD.

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
(661) 836-9508
LICENSE #893201

PROPOSAL

SUMMARY TOTALS
Submitted by: ___________________________________,
Accepted by: ____________________________________,

Project: N. Shafter Conduit Work
Location: Shafter, CA

QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1185 4" Primary Conduit LF $ 40.00 $ 47,400.00
40 2" Conduit to #2 Box LF $ 37.00 $ 1,480.00
1 Transformer Pad EA $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
1 Install #5 Box EA $ 12,900.00 $ 12,900.00
3 Install Removable Post EA $ 1,250.00 $ 3,750.00
6 Install Permanent Post EA $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00
90 Sand TONS $ 22.00 $ 1,980.00
$ 80,510.00
LICENSE #893201
RUBEN'S PIPELINE, INC.
6810 HOUGHTON RD.

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313
(661) 836-9508

Project Name: Date:

Owner: Contractor: Derrick D Enterprise, Inc.

Change Order No.:

Date Service Provided:

EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Increased Electrical Scope per PG&E Plans

UNIT UNIT PRICE
LS 79,079.50 $
LF 25.00 $
Original Contract Amount: 5,383,171.02 $ Previously granted additional days: 0 Net cost of this Change Order: 107,437.45 $ 0
Total cost of previous Change Orders: 9,157.40 $
New Contract Amount: 5,499,765.87 $ Original Date of Completion per Contract: 5/22/2026 New Date of Completion:

Contractor's signature: Derrick Dickerson Date: 9/3/2025 Project Engineer's signature: Date:

Contract work days added/(deleted) with this CO:
15% Markup on Labor & Material $ 5,250.00
Installation of Transformer Pad and Conduit by Baize Electric (*Please see proposal attached) North Shafter Community Park 9/3/2025
4 City of Shafter
(All according to project plans & specifications)

DESCRIPTION TOTAL
$ 61,079.50
$ 6,107.95
$ -
$ 107,437.45
QTY
1 10% Markup on Subcontractor Work
Dig & Compact for Conduit
Contract Change Order
Derrick D Enterprise, Inc.

PO BOX 70093 Bakersfield, CA 93387
1400 35,000.00 $
https://dodconstruction.sharepoint.com/sites/DDEnterprise/Shared Documents/2025 Bids Awarded/NORTH SHAFTER COMMUNITY PARK/CHANGE ORDERS/CCO No. 4 - PG&E Changes - N. Shafter Park - Copy Last Revised Date:9/3/2025

Date 8/15/2025
Change Order
JOB: Shafter Community Park
Shafter,CA
Description Quanity Unit Unit Price Extension
1 LS $937.00 $937.00
1 LS $8,054.00 $8,054.00
1 LS $1,950.00 $1,950.00
2 Cubic Yards $200.00 $400.00
30 LF $0.90 $27.00
1350 LF $3.65 $4,927.50
1 Ea $2,784.00 $2,784.00
0 LS $0.00 $0.00
280 Each $150.00 $42,000.00
Total $61,079.50
Change Order Break Down
Added PG&E Scope
Labor Hours
#2 Box
#5 Box
50"x52" Transformer Pad
Gravel
2" PVC
4" PVC
Sweeps, fittings, Etc.

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: SHAFTER AQUATICS CENTER ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR

PURCHASE RATIFICATION

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the requested action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); ratify an expedited purchase of a 600 amp switchgear from Witcher Electric, totaling $48,936, to maintain the schedule for improvements at the Shafter Aquatics Center.

BACKGROUND
In support of the City’s Aquatics Center project, Staff worked with JTS Modular, the contractor under contract for constructing the building, to design and specify the required electrical panel. Staff requested a change order for JTS Modular to supply the specified equipment; however, JTS Modular informed staff that the lead time for the electrical panel had increased to a minimum of two months.

The switchgear is a vital component of the project and is required to be installed before PG&E will schedule and perform their work to install permanent electrical service. A two-month delay in receiving the panel would have likely resulted in the building being completed and left without power for an extended period, potentially delaying the opening of the facility by several additional months. To avoid this, Staff sought an alternative supplier. Witcher Electric was able to provide a comparable 600 amp switchgear within one week. To ensure continuity in project delivery, Staff proceeded with the purchase from Witcher Electric in the amount of $48,936.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the 600 amp switchgear is $48,936. This expense is fully covered within the approved Aquatics Center project budget, meaning no budget adjustment is required.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not subject to further environmental review under CEQA because the Aquatics Center project has already been determined to be exempt.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No

SHAFTER AQUATICS CENTER ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR PURCHASE

RATIFICATION
- 2 -

ATTACHMENTS

1. Witcher Electric Proposal (dated May 28, 2025)

ESTIMATE FROM:

WITCHER ELECTRIC INC
3810 LABORDE PLACE #A
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308
DANIEL CELL: 661-201-0199
LOCATION:

City Of Shafter 5/28/2025
600 Amp Switch Gear
Material Only

DESCRIPTION QTY COST TOTAL
Provide new 600 amp switch gear
Material
GE 600 A Switch Gear $ 48,936.00
Material $ 48,936.00
TOTAL BID $ 48,936.00

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION INITIATING

PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; and adopt Resolution No. 3045, a Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Shafter With Respect to Annexation of Territory to City of Shafter Community Facilities District No. 0815 (“Annexation No. 1”) to authorize the levy of a special taxes within Annexation No. 1 (Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended).

BACKGROUND
The project is a continuation of development in the community known as Gossamer Grove, located in proposed Tract 7421 owned by Lennar Homes of California, LLC and includes approximately 18.40 gross acres. The proposed development will include 97 single family detached homes. The project was conditioned to create a maintenance district to provide funds to maintain parks, landscaping, parkways, trails, median islands, public lighting and street lights to be included within the tract development and it was determined that annexation to the City’s Community Facilities District No. 0815 (“CFD No. 0815”) maintenance community facilities district would be utilized for this purpose. With the assistance of the City’s special tax consultant, Koppel & Gruber Public Finance, a Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) was created for proposed Annexation No. 1 which determined how the properties located within the boundaries of Annexation No. 1 will be charged and the annual special tax charges. In addition, an analysis of the maintenance costs was completed to determine the special tax rates.

This analysis determined annual operation and maintenance costs of $48,794.44 for the proposed improvements. These costs are proposed to be spread amongst the proposed total of 97 residential lots within Annexation No. 1. The special tax charge per lot effective Fiscal Year 2025-2026 is $503.04 per year. Similar to the City’s landscape and lighting district the Annexation No. 1 special tax rates will be subject to a consumer price index increases of up to 4.0% if deemed necessary each year starting in Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

With the completion of the RMA and an Annexation Boundary Map, Council is now in position to begin the annexation process which entails adopting a resolution of

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815 - 2 -
intention. At the Council’s November 18, 2025 meeting, Council will hold a public hearing and conduct a special election so the affected property owners can vote on the proposed annexation to CFD No. 0815 and annual special tax levy. Staff does not anticipate any complications with the voting process as, Lennar Homes of California, LLC is the sole landowner of all the property within the proposed boundaries of Annexation No. 1 and their participation enables them to comply with the City’s conditions of approval for the development. The resolution of intention schedules the required public hearing on the proposed Annexation No. 1 at the City Council’s November 18, 2025 meeting.

Resolution No. 3045 has been prepared for the City Council to start the annexation process, and sets the public hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this item because developer provided a cash deposit to cover the annexation proceeding costs. Annexation No. 1 would begin collecting special taxes effective Fiscal Year 2026-27 and the costs of the ongoing administration will be paid for through the levy of the special taxes.

CEQA ANALYSIS
This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the lead agency, determined that the resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Yes

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 3045

2. Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax

3. Proposed Annexation Boundary Map

17236.00203\44226978.1
RESOLUTION NO. 3045

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER,

CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO CITY OF SHAFTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815, COUNTY OF KERN,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MAP OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE

ANNEXED, AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (ANNEXATION NO. 1)
WHEREAS, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Shafter (the “City”) has established City of Shafter Community Facilities District No. 0815, County of Kern, State of California (“CFD No. 0815”) pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, as amended, commonly known as the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”) for the purpose of levying special taxes on parcels of taxable property therein for the purpose of providing certain services which are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of the development of certain real property; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that certain parcels of property be annexed to CFD No. 0815 in order that they may be developed and receive the benefit of services which will be financed by the annual levy of special taxes on said property sufficient to pay the costs of such services and costs incidental thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 53339) of the Act to annex territory to CFD No. 0815 by complying with the procedures set forth in said Article 3.5.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shafter as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Name of District. The name of the existing community facilities district is “City of Shafter Community Facilities District No. 0815, County of Kern, State of California.” Section 3. Intention. The City Council declares its intention to conduct proceedings pursuant to said Article 3.5 for the annexation to CFD No. 0815 of the territory described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. The City Council determines that the public convenience and necessity require that such territory be annexed to CFD No. 0815.

Section 4. Description of Territory Proposed to be Annexed; Annexation Map.

The territory which is included in the existing CFD No. 0815 is described on the map of the Community Facilities District recorded on October 22, 2024 in Book 0001 at Page 0192 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts as Instrument No. 224130816 in the official records of the County of Kern. The territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Such territory is also shown and described on the map thereof entitled “Annexation Map No. 1 (Tract 7421) of City of Shafter Community Facilities District No.

17236.00203\44226978.1
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3045
October 7, 2025
Page - 2 -
0815, County of Kern, State of California,” which is on file with the City Clerk (the “Annexation Map”) and is incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. Types of Services; Incidental Expenses; Plan for Providing Services.

The services to be provided and financed by the existing CFD No. 0815, include: (a) maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads and open space; (b) maintenance of recreational facilities, and (c) any other services authorized to be financed pursuant to the Act. Existing CFD No. 0815 also finances the costs associated with the determination of the amount of and the levy and collection of special taxes which are levied to provide such services and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 0815. Annexation No. 1 is proposed to provide and finance same services as defined above. The services described above shall be provided, as needed, throughout CFD No. 0815 and the territory proposed to be annexed thereto for the benefit of all owners of property and residents of CFD No. 0815 and the territory proposed to be annexed thereto. The services to be provided and financed by CFD No. 0815, as previously described, are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of development occurring within CFD No. 0815 and the territory proposed to be annexed thereto.

Section 6. Special Taxes. Except where funds are otherwise available, special taxes sufficient to pay the costs of the services provided for in Section 5 above and the annual administrative expenses of the City and CFD No. 0815 in determining, apportioning, levying and collecting such special taxes, shall be annually levied within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815. Pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act, the special taxes shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale, and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem taxes. The property within the territory proposed to be annexed shall be assigned at the rates set forth in the rates and method of apportionment of special taxes as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto, effective Fiscal Year 2025-26 and each fiscal year thereafter subject to annual increases beginning in Fiscal Year 2026-27 by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, (1982-84 = 100) since the beginning of the preceding fiscal year provided however, that any such increase shall not exceed four percent (4%). No alteration of the special tax rates to be levied in the existing CFD No. 0815 will result from the proposed annexation. The maximum special tax rate in the existing CFD No. 0815 may not be increased as a result of this proceeding to annex property to CFD No. 0815.

Under no circumstances shall the special tax levied against any parcel subject to the levy of the special tax pursuant to the rates and method of apportionment of special tax be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel or parcels within CFD No. 0815, and the proposed annexation, by more than ten percent (10%) above the amount that would have been levied in that fiscal year had there never been any such delinquencies or default.

Section 7. Exempt Properties. Pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act, properties of entities of the state, federal, and local governments shall be exempt from the levy of special taxes of the proposed annexation.

Section 8. Necessity. The City Council finds that the services described in Section 5 hereof are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of development occurring within the boundaries of the proposed annexation.

17236.00203\44226978.1
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3045
October 7, 2025
Page - 3 -
Section 9. Adoption of Annexation Map. Pursuant to Section 3110.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council adopts the Annexation Map as the map of the area proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815. Pursuant to Section 3111 of said Code, the City Clerk shall file the original of the Annexation Map in her office and shall file a copy of the Annexation Map with the County Recorder of the County of Kern no later than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing specified in Section 10 hereof.

Section 10. Hearing. A public hearing on the proposed annexation of said territory to CFD No. 0815 shall be held at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on November 18, 2025, in the City Council Chamber at City Hall located at 336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California 93263.

Section 11. Notice. The City Clerk shall publish a notice of the time and place of said hearing as required by Section 53322 of the Act, and shall also give notice of the time and place of said hearing by first-class mail to each registered voter and to each landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 as prescribed by Section 53339.4 of the Act.

Said notice shall be published at least seven (7) days and mailed at least fifteen (15) days before the date of the hearing, and shall contain the information required by said Section 53339.4.

Section 12. Description of Voting Procedures. The voting procedures to be followed in conducting the Special Election on (i) the proposition with respect to the levy of special taxes on taxable property within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 to pay the costs of providing the services to be provided, and (ii) the proposition with respect to establishing an appropriations limit for the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 in the amount of $5,000,000 (the “Special Election”), shall be as follows:
(a) If at least twelve (12) persons have been registered to vote within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearing, the vote in the Special Election shall be by the registered voters of the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 with each voter having one vote. In that event, the Special Election shall be conducted by the City Clerk, and shall be held on a date selected by the City Council in conformance with the provisions of Section 53326 of the Act and pursuant to the provisions of the California Elections Code governing elections of cities, insofar as they may be applicable, and pursuant to said Section 53326 the ballots for the Special Election shall be distributed to the qualified electors of territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 by mail with return postage prepaid or by personal service, and the Special Election shall be conducted as a mail ballot election pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 4000) of the California Elections Code.
(b) If twelve (12) persons have not been registered to vote within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearing, and pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the vote is therefore to be by the landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815, with each landowner of record at the close of the public hearing having one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land that he or she owns within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815, the Special Election shall be conducted by the City Clerk as follows:
(1) The Special Election shall be held on the earliest date, following the conclusion of the protest hearing upon which it can be held pursuant to Section 53326 and adoption

17236.00203\44226978.1
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3045
October 7, 2025
Page - 4 -
of a resolution pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act submitting the propositions with respect to (i) the levy of special taxes to pay the costs of providing the services to be provided to the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815, and (ii) establishing of an appropriations limit therefor to the qualified electors of the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815, upon which such elections can be held pursuant to said Section 53326 which may be selected by the City Council, or such earlier date as the owners of land within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 and the City Clerk agree and concur is acceptable. (2) Pursuant to said Section 53326, the Special Election may be held earlier than ninety (90) days following the close of the public hearing if the qualified electors of the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 waive the time limits for conducting the election set forth in said Section 53326 by unanimous written consent and the City Clerk concurs in such earlier election date as shall be consented to by the qualified electors. (3) Pursuant to said Section 53326, ballots for the Special Election shall be distributed to the qualified electors by the City Clerk by mail with return postage prepaid, or by personal service.
(4) Pursuant to applicable sections of the California Elections Code governing the conduct of mail ballot elections of cities, and specifically Division 4 (commencing with Section 4000) of the California Elections Code with respect to elections conducted by mail, the City Clerk shall mail or deliver to each qualified elector an official ballot in a form specified by the City Council in the resolution calling the Special Election, and shall also mail or deliver to all such qualified electors a ballot pamphlet and instructions to voter, including a sample ballot identical in form to the official ballot but identified as a sample ballot, an impartial analysis by the City Attorney pursuant to Section 9280 of said Code with respect to the ballot propositions contained in the official ballot, arguments and rebuttals, if any, pursuant to Sections 9281 to 9287, inclusive, and 9295 of said Code, a return identification envelope with prepaid postage thereon addressed to the City Clerk for the return of voted official ballots, and a copy of this Resolution adopted by the City Council; provided, however, that such analysis and arguments may be waived with the unanimous consent of all the landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815 and shall be so stated in the resolution adopted by the City Council calling the election. (5) The official ballot to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the name of the landowner-voter and the number of votes to be voted by the landowner-voter and shall have appended to it a certification to be signed by the person voting the official ballot which shall certify that the person signing the certification is the person who voted the official ballot, and if the landowner-voter is other than a natural person, that he or she is an officer of or other person affiliated with the landowner-voter entitled to vote such official ballot, that he or she has been authorized to vote such official ballot on behalf of the landowner-voter, that in voting such official ballot it was his or her intent, as well as the intent of the landowner-voter, to vote all votes to which the landowner-voter is entitled based on its land ownership on the propositions set forth in the official ballot as marked thereon in the voting square opposite each such proposition, and further certifying as to the acreage of the landowner-voter’s land ownership within the territory proposed to be annexed to CFD No. 0815. (6) The return identification envelope delivered by the City Clerk to each landowner-voter shall have printed or typed thereon the following: (i) the name of the landowner, (ii) the address of the landowner, (iii) a declaration under penalty of perjury stating

17236.00203\44226978.1
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3045
October 7, 2025
Page - 5 -
that the voter is the landowner or the authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote the enclosed ballot and is the person whose name appears on the identification envelope, (iv) the printed name and signature of the voter, (v) the date of signing and place of execution of said declaration, and (vi) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the City Clerk.
(7) The instructions to voter form to be mailed or delivered by the City Clerk to the landowner-voters shall inform them that the official ballots shall be returned to the City Clerk properly voted as provided thereon and with the certification appended thereto properly completed and signed in the sealed return identification envelope with the certification thereon completed and signed and all other information to be inserted thereon properly inserted by 5:00 p.m. on the date of the Special Election.
(8) Upon receipt of the return identification envelopes which are returned prior to the voting deadline on the date of the Special Election, the City Clerk shall canvass the votes cast in the Special Election, and shall file a statement with the City Council as to the results of such canvass and the Special Election on each proposition set forth in the official ballot.

The procedures set forth in this section for conducting the Special Election, if they are held, may be modified as the City Council may determine to be necessary or desirable by a resolution subsequently adopted by the City Council.

Section 13. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Resolution is rendered or declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 14. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
[Signatures on following page]

17236.00203\44226978.1
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3045
October 7, 2025
Page - 6 -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. _________________________________________________
Chad Given, Mayor Date
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney Date

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

CITY OF SHAFTER
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815
ANNEXATION NO. 1
The property located in the City of Shafter, County of Kern, State of California identified by County of Kern Assessor’s Parcel Nos.: 482-370-06 and 482-370-08.

17236.00203\44226978.1
EXHIBIT “B”

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE

CITY OF SHAFTER
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815
ANNEXATION NO. 1

City of Shafter 1
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815

CITY OF SHAFTER
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 0815

AMENDED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR
ANNEXATION NO. 1 (TRACT 7421)
A Special Tax shall be levied on all Taxable Property within the boundaries of Annexation No.1 (Tract 7421) of the City of Shafter Community Facilities District No. 0815 (“CFD No. 0815”) and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2026/2027 according to the tax liability determined by the City Council, through the application of the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax set forth below. All Taxable Property shall be taxed to the extent and in the manner herein provided.

1. Definitions
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property for which a Building Permit(s) has been issued for an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” as defined in in California Government Code Section 66313(a), as may be amended from time to time, that is accessory to a primary Unit. The ADU may be located on the same Assessor’s Parcel as the primary Unit or on a separate Assessor’s Parcel. For purposes of clarification, where an ADU and primary Unit are on the same Assessor’s Parcel, the ADU located on such Assessor’s Parcel is considered a separate Unit from the primary Unit on such Assessor’s Parcel for purposes of the Special Tax and both Units will be taxed. Should an Assessor’s Parcel contain only an ADU, such Assessor’s Parcel will be taxed as a Unit. “Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California.
“Administrative Expenses” means the actual or estimated costs incurred by the City, acting for and on behalf of CFD No. 0815 as the administrator thereof, to determine, levy and collect the Special Taxes, including a reasonable allocation of salaries of City employees and a proportionate amount of the City’s general administrative overhead related thereto, and the fees of consultants and legal counsel providing services related to the administration of the CFD; the costs of collecting installments of the Special Taxes; and any other costs required to administer the CFD as determined by the City. “Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment” or “Amended RMA” means this Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for Annexation No. 1 of the CFD.
“Annexation No. 1” means the property located in Tract 7421 that is being annexed into the CFD.
“Annual Tax Escalation Factor” On July 1, 2026 for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 and on each subsequent July 1 for the Fiscal Year then commencing, the Maximum Special Tax rates for all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property shown under Section 3 shall be increased annually by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) Los AngelesLong Beach-Anaheim, CA, (1982-84 = 100) since the beginning of the preceding Fiscal Year provided however, that any such annual increase shall not exceed four percent (4%).

City of Shafter 2
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815
“Approved Property” means a Lot included in a Final Subdivision Map that was recorded prior to March 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied, and that have not been issued a building permit on or prior to June 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied.
“Assessor” means the Assessor of the County of Kern.
“Assessor's Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Tax Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor designating parcel(s) by Assessor’s Tax Number(s).
“Assessor's Tax Number” means the number assigned to an Assessor’s Parcel by the County for purposes of identification.
“Base Year” means Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2026.
“Building Permit” means a permit for new construction issued by the City for new construction of a residential or non-residential building on an Assessor’s Parcel for purposes of this definition, “Building Permit” shall not include permits for construction or installation of retaining walls, utility improvements, or other such improvements not intended for human use.
“CFD” or “CFD No. 0815” means the City of Shafter Community Facilities District No. 0815, County of Kern, State of California.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and preparing the annual Special Tax roll. “City” means the City of Shafter, California.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City of Shafter which acts as the legislative body for CFD No. 0815 under the Act.
“County” means the County of Kern, California.
“Developed Property” means each Assessor’s Parcel, for which a Building Permit for new construction was issued, prior to June 1 of the previous Fiscal Year. “Exempt Property” means an Assessor’s Parcel that is not classified as Taxable Property.

Exempt Property is not subject to the Special Tax.
"Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property creating single family residential buildable Lots by recordation of a final subdivision map or parcel map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 4285, that creates individual Lots for which building permits may be issued without further subdivision and is recorded prior to June 1 preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax is being levied. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting on July 1 and ending the following June 30. “Land Use Class” means any of the classes listed in Section 3 below.

City of Shafter 3
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815
"Lot" means an individual lot, identified and numbered on a recorded Final Subdivision Map, on which a building permit has been or is permitted to be issued for construction of one or more Dwelling Units without further subdivision of the lot and for which no further subdivision of the lot is anticipated.
"Maintenance" means the labor, material, administration, personnel, equipment and utilities necessary to maintain park, landscaping, parkways, trails, median islands, public lighting, street lights, including repair and replacement of recreational facilities, trees, plant material, sod, irrigation systems, weed control and other abatements, signs, monuments, and associated appurtenant facilities.
"Maintenance Requirement" means, for any Fiscal Year in which Special Taxes are levied, the amount equal to the budgeted costs for Maintenance applicable to Annexation No. 1 of the CFD for such Fiscal Year.
“Maximum Special Tax” means the greatest amount of Special Tax, determined in accordance with Section 3 below, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor’s Parcel.
“Owners Association” means a homeowners association or property owners association that provides services to, and collects assessments, fees, dues, or charges from, property within the CFD.
“Owners Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of the CFD that is owned in fee or through easement by an Owners Association, not including any such property that is located directly under a residential structure. “Non-Residential Property” means any Assessor’s Parcel, or portion of an Assessor’s Parcel, of Developed Property in the CFD for which a building permit(s) was issued for non-residential use.
“Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 0815, the ownership of which is transferred to a public agency, and is used for rights-of-way or any other purpose and is owned by, or irrevocably offered for dedication to the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City or any other public agency where the public agency has officially agreed to accept the offer of dedication; provided however that any property owned by a public agency and leased to a private entity and subject to taxation under Section 53340.1 of the Act shall be taxed and classified in accordance with its use.
“Reserve Fund” means a fund that shall be maintained for the CFD for each Fiscal Year to provide necessary cash flow for the first six months of each Fiscal Year, delinquencies in the payment of Special Taxes, reserve capital to cover repair and replacement costs, and a reasonable buffer to prevent large variations in annual Special Tax levies. “Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a Building Permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential Units.
“Special Tax” means any special tax authorized to be levied within CFD No. 0815 pursuant to the Act and this Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment to fund the Special Tax Requirement.

City of Shafter 4
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815
“Special Tax Requirement” means that amount required in any Fiscal Year for the CFD to:
(i) pay for the Maintenance Requirement; (ii) pay for Administrative Expenses; (iii) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish the Reserve Fund; (iv) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less (v) a credit for funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy.
“State” means the State of California.
“Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor's Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 0815 that are classified as Developed Property or Approved Property. Taxable Property does not include Welfare Exempt Property.
"Tax-Exempt Property" means an Assessor's Parcel not subject to the Special Tax. TaxExempt Property includes: (i) Public Property, or (ii) Owner Association Property, or (iii) Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement.
“Unit” means (i) for Residential Property, an individual single family detached or attached residential unit or an individual apartment unit, (ii) for Mobile Home Property, an individual mobile home, and (iii) an ADU. The number of Units assigned to each Assessor’s Parcel may be determined by (i) referencing Assessor’s data, (ii) site surveys and physical unit counts, and/or (iii) other research by the CFD Administrator. “Welfare Exempt Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 0815 that (a) have been granted a welfare exemption by the County under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code indicated in the Assessor’s data finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act.

2. Land Use Classification
Each Fiscal Year, each Assessor’s Parcel within the boundaries of CFD No. 0815 shall be classified as Taxable Property, Public Property or Exempt Property. Each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be classified as based on Section 3 A and B below.

City of Shafter 5
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815

3. Maximum Special Tax Rates
A. Developed Property
TABLE 1
Fiscal Year 2025/2026
Amended RMA
Maximum Special Tax Rates for Developed Property
Land Use
Class Description
Maximum
Special Tax
1 Residential Property $503.04 per Unit
2 Non-Residential Property $4,770.61 per Acre
B. Approved Property
The Maximum Special Tax for Approved Property shall be $503.04 per Lot.

Escalation of Maximum Special Tax
Each Fiscal Year following the Base Year, the Maximum Special Tax shall be increased in accordance with the Annual Tax Escalation Factor and otherwise adjusted as provided in this Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment.

Multiple Land Use Classes
In some instances, an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Taxes for all Land Use Classes located on that Assessor’s Parcel. For an Assessor’s Parcel that contains both Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, the Acreage of such Assessor’s Parcel shall be allocated to each type of property based on the amount of acreage designated for each Land Use Class as determined by reference to the site plan approved for such Assessor’s Parcel. The CFD Administrator’s allocation to each type of property shall be final.

4. Method of Apportionment
For each Fiscal Year, commencing Fiscal Year 2026/2027, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and calculate the Special Tax so that the amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Tax shall be levied on Taxable Property each Fiscal Year as follows:

Step 1: The special tax shall be levied proportionally on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax;

City of Shafter 6
Annexation No. 1 (Tr 7421) CFD No. 0815
Step 2: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax for Approved Property. No Special Tax shall be levied on Exempt Property.

5. Collection of Special Taxes
Collection of the Special Tax shall be by the County in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and the Special Tax shall be subject to the same penalties and the same lien priority in the case of delinquency as ad valorem taxes; provided, however, that the City Council may provide for other means of collecting the Special Tax if necessary to meet its financial obligations, including direct billings to the property owners.

6. Administrative Changes and Appeals
Any taxpayer subject to the Special Tax and who claims the amount of the Special Tax levied on his or her Assessor’s Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD Administrator regarding such error not later than twelve (12) months after first having paid the first installment of the Special Tax that is disputed. If following such consultation, the CFD Administrator determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may recommend changing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor’s Parcel. If following such consultation and action, if any by the CFD Administrator, the landowner believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City Manager or designee of the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor’s Parcel. Upon the receipt of such notice, the City Manager or designee may establish such procedures as deemed necessary to undertake the review of any such appeal. The City Manager or designee thereof shall interpret this Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the administration of the Special Tax and any landowner appeals. The decision of the City Manager or designee shall be final and binding as to all persons.

Interpretations may be made by Resolution of the City Council for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to the Special Tax, the Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment, the classification of properties, or any definition applicable to Annexation No. 1 of CFD No. 0815.

7. Term of Special Tax
The Special Tax shall be levied annually in perpetuity, unless terminated earlier by a super majority of the City Council.

8. Prepayment of Special Tax
The Special Tax may not be prepaid.

CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS SPONSORSHIP

AGREEMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not defined as a project per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; authorize the City Manager to execute the CCC-96 Sponsor Agreement with the California Conservation Corps.

BACKGROUND
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is a state agency that engages young adults in public service conservation work, providing job skills training and educational opportunities while completing environmental and infrastructure projects that benefit local communities. The CCC is authorized under California Public Resources Code Section 14306 to contract with local public entities to perform such projects.

The City seeks to enter into a standard Sponsor Agreement (CCC-96) with the CCC to establish a framework under which the CCC can perform future conservation and public service projects within the City's jurisdiction. The agreement outlines the responsibilities of both parties, including project documentation, cost-sharing arrangements, insurance provisions, indemnification, and legal compliance. No specific project is being authorized at this time; the agreement simply facilitates future collaboration and project planning.

Staff requests authorization for the City Manager to execute the CCC-96 Sponsor Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the execution of the CCC-96 Sponsor Agreement. The agreement itself does not obligate the City to any specific expenditure. Fiscal impacts will be determined on a project-by-project basis and will depend on the scope, duration, and resource needs of each future project authorized under the agreement. Each individual project will include a cost proposal prepared in coordination with the CCC and subject to separate approval prior to commencement.

CEQA ANALYSIS

CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT
- 2 -
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is approval of a sponsorship agreement with the CCC and therefore, it is organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and not subject to CEQA.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Yes

ATTACHMENTS

1. CCC96 - Local Government Sponsor Agreement

CCC-96 LG (rev. 07/2022)
SPONSOR AGREEMENT (CCC-96)
(for Governmental Entity – Local)
This Sponsor Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by the California Conservation Corps (CCC), State of California and
Sponsor’s Name: ____________________________________________, a State of California Local Public Entity (Sponsor).

WHEREAS, the CCC is statutorily mandated to provide job skills training, educational opportunities and an increasing awareness of the State’s natural resources to young adults;
WHEREAS, the CCC is authorized to work on projects in rural and urban areas that, provide a benefit to the public by, among other things, preserving, maintaining and/or enhancing the lands and water of the State of California, directly contributing to the conservation of energy and/or assisting in fire prevention and suppression;
WHEREAS, the CCC is authorized pursuant to the California Public Resources Code Section 14306 to execute contracts for furnishing the services of the CCC to any federal, state or local public entity, any local or statewide private organizations, and any person, firm, partnership, or corporation concerned with the objectives of the CCC program as specified in California Public Resources Code Sections 14000 and 14300;
WHEREAS, the Sponsor can provide opportunities for public service through meaningful and productive work projects;
WHEREAS, each party to this Agreement is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement find and determine that it would be to their mutual advantage and the public benefit to join together to accomplish the purpose herein, and coordinate their power, authority and expertise for the CCC to use its corpsmembers and employees to accomplish projects specified by Sponsor and agreed to by the CCC;

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
2 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration and recognition of the above, the Sponsor and CCC (collectively referred to herein as “the parties”) agree as follows:

A. Documentation of Projects

1. Sponsor will submit project proposals to the CCC.

2. The CCC shall work with Sponsor to include details of project proposals in a CCC Project Evaluation and/or other appropriate forms and documentation where applicable.

3. No project work will begin without CCC Project Evaluation documentation being signed by the parties’ representatives.

4. The documentation for any project necessarily incorporates into it this Agreement.

5. If there should be a conflict with terms and conditions contained in any other documents related to the parties’ relationship or any project related thereto, the terms and conditions set forth in this CCC 96 will take precedence.

6. Unless otherwise specified in the project documentation, the parties agree to accept documents that are electronically signed in accordance with Government Code Section 16.5.

B. Parties Obligations:

1. Sponsor agrees:
a. To pay for all costs, including but not limited to, labor, material and supply costs negotiated and agreed to by the parties that are directly related to and necessitated by the project and that are set forth in the project documentation;
b. To make available to the CCC adequate plans, specifications, materials, supplies, equipment and/or special labor requirements to complete the project as determined and agreed to by the parties as specified in the project documentation;
c. To provide adequate technical supervision as determined and agreed to by the parties;
d. To obtain approvals, clearances, and permits required by any local, state, tribal, or federal entity, law, or regulation;
e. To the extent any project involves the CCC performing work on private property, the Sponsor shall obtain and/or has obtained all necessary approvals, authorizations and/or permits from the owners

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
3 of said private property before the CCC begins project work on said property and that the CCC is authorized to perform the project work on said private property;
f. To obtain clearances and/or meet requirements, if any, of trade unions or other labor organizations occasioned by the participation of the CCC in the project;
g. To provide project sites that, to the best of the Sponsor’s knowledge, are free of any known hazardous materials, but if there are any known hazardous materials present, the Sponsor shall provide the location, identity, and amounts of such hazardous materials as well as the associated Safety Data Sheets;
h. To provide or reimburse the CCC for acceptable temporary living accommodations for CCC personnel engaged in working on a project if: (1) the project is located at a site that is more than a one-hour drive from the designated CCC base center; and, (2) provision of such living accommodation is determined necessary by the parties;
i. To conduct an orientation with CCC personnel at the
commencement of each project to explain the technical aspects, safety requirements and other relevant information necessary for the CCC to successfully complete the project including the identification of restroom facilities or alternatives;
j. To work with the CCC to conduct an educational or training presentation at the CCC base center or project site to CCC Corpsmembers; and,
k. To consider authorizing the CCC to place a sign, plaque or emblem on the project site that presents the CCC’s contribution to the project.

2. CCC agrees to:
a. Review project proposals submitted by the Sponsor and work with Sponsor to prepare project documentation for those proposed projects that are covered by the CCC’s statutory mandate, consistent with the CCC’s organizational priorities and within the CCC’s operational capabilities;
b. Provide CCC personnel, equipment and materials to perform the obligations specified in the project documentation. The CCC will

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
4 only use personnel who have received adequate prior training and are sufficiently equipped for and alerted to the general nature of the hazards inherent in the scope of work; and,
c. Provide its personnel with Workers’ Compensation coverage and benefits that are administered by the State Compensation Insurance Fund in accordance with the California Labor Code.

3. The Sponsor and CCC mutually agree to the following:
a. This Agreement is not intended to affect the legal liability of either of the parties by imposing any standard of care other than the standard of care imposed by law;
b. Mutual Indemnification:
i. To the extent permitted by law including Article XVI, sections 1 and 6 of the California Constitution, and the California Claims Act, the CCC agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Sponsor against any liability, damage, or loss legally determined to have occurred as a result of
performance or failure to perform under this Agreement
and/or the project documentation caused by the acts
and/or omissions of any person directly employed by,
enrolled in or under the control or supervision of the CCC while performing the work set forth in this Agreement
and/or the project documentation; and,
ii. The Sponsor agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CCC against any liability, damage, or loss legally
determined to have occurred as a result of performance or failure to perform under this Agreement and/or the project documentation caused by the acts and/or omissions of any person directly employed by or under the control or
supervision of the Sponsor while performing the work set forth in this Agreement and/or the project documentation; c. Insurance:
i. The State of California has elected to cover its motor vehicle and general liability exposure through claims
procedures instituted in accordance with the California Government Code provisions and the other provisions of

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
5 the law relating to such liability. Pursuant to those procedures, tort liability claims should be presented as a government claim to the Government Claims Program,
P.O. Box 989052 MS 414, West Sacramento, CA 95798-
9052; https://www.dgs.ca.gov/ORIM/Services/Page-Content/Office-of-Riskand-Insurance-Management-Services-List-Folder/File-a-GovernmentClaim?search=government%20claim%20form in accordance with the California Government Code and the other provisions of
the law governing submission of such claims. In addition, unless notified otherwise or on behalf of the CCC, motor vehicle liability claims should be presented to the Office of Risk and Insurance Management (ORIM), P.O. Box 989052
MS-403, West Sacramento, CA 95798-9052, (800) 900-
3634, [email protected]. If your motor vehicle liability claim is not resolved within six months from the date of loss, California law requires you to file a formal claim with the Government Claims Program, P.O. Box 989052 MS 414,
West Sacramento, CA 95798-9052 (link above). It should
be noted, however, that the willingness of ORIM to receive such motor vehicle liability claims does not constitute a waiver by the State of California or the CCC of the time limits or procedures provided by law or the filing of claims relating to such motor vehicle liability. It also should be noted that the addresses set forth in this paragraph are subject to change; any claimant is advised to verify the accuracy of and currency of the addresses for filing claims, and by setting forth addresses in this paragraph, neither the State of California nor the CCC is waiving any time limits or procedures provided by law for filing claims
related to alleged motor vehicle or general liability or any other alleged liability.
ii. The California Department of Human Resources has
entered into a Master Agreement with the State
Compensation Insurance Fund to administer Workers’
Compensation benefits for State employees and
Corpsmembers as required by the California Labor Code.

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
6 d. The California Labor Code Section 1720.4(c) specifically exempts the CCC from paying state prevailing wages to Corpsmembers when engaged in public works projects. The CCC is not subject to the federal prevailing wage requirements set forth in the Davis-Bacon Act (Title 40 USC 276A et seq.) when providing labor on federal government contracts. Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 5.2(h) specifically provides that a State is not considered a contractor under statutes providing loans, grants, or other federal assistance in situations where construction is performed by its own employees and/or personnel;
e. The California Business and Professions Code, Section 7040 exempts the State of California from contractor licensing requirements. The CCC is a state entity subject to the exemption;
f. Improvements and Land Use:
i. All improvements constructed in whole, or in part by the CCC on lands owned or controlled by the Sponsor will remain the property of the Sponsor;
ii. Permission to camp and/or perform work on lands owned or controlled by Sponsor does not in any way convey to the CCC, its staff or any person or persons working with the CCC in the performance of said work, employee status that would extend to them the benefits afforded to permanent employees of Sponsor; g. Emergency Services and Possible Delays:
i. The CCC is required to provide emergency services when directed by the Governor of the State of California pursuant to an Executive Order, the Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and other agencies charged with responding to emergencies throughout California arising from fire, flood, wind, and other natural and man-caused disasters.
ii. The CCC may be required to temporarily suspend or permanently cease work on projects due to required emergency response or emergency conditions. The parties agree that any delay in completing the work by the CCC due to response to an
emergency shall be excused and costs incurred by the delay shall be the responsibility of the Sponsor.

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
7 iii. The resources of the CCC are limited and the public service conservation work of the CCC may be altered in priority from time-to-time. The parties agree that other than delays caused by the CCC’s response to an emergency, all other delays by either party shall be excused and costs caused by delays shall be the responsibility of the party incurring such costs.
h. Audit: It is mutually agreed that, pursuant to California Government Code, § 8546.7, any project performed under this Agreement that involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) shall, along with the Parties thereto, be subject to the examination and audit of the California State Auditor for a period of three years after final payment under said project. Such audit may be triggered at the request of the public entity expending said funds or as part of any California State Auditor audit of said public entity. i. All contracts relating to the construction or operation of a project will contain a clause prohibiting discrimination and/or harassment against any person, employee or employee applicant engaged in the project work on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, and denial of family care leave;
j. Budget Contingencies:
i. It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, the State of California and the CCC shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Sponsor or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement or related project documentation and Sponsor shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Agreement or related project documentation; and,
ii. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act for purposes of this program, the State of California and the CCC shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
8 no liability occurring to the State of California or CCC, or offer an amendment to the Agreement reflecting the reduced amount; k. Subject to the provisions herein, all remedies allowed by law are available to either party for enforcement of this Agreement. Any waiver of rights by either party or any matter relating to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver unless in writing and approved by both parties and shall not be a waiver to any other provision or matter relating to this Agreement;
l. If any part of this Agreement is found to be invalid the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect;
m. Neither the CCC nor the Sponsor may assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the other party; n. No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties;
o. This Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California;
p. This Agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated upon thirty (30) days written notice from either party; and,

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

CCC-96 LG (rev. 08/2022)
9 q. Each Party and its respective agents executing this Agreement warrants and represents that it has the full power and authority to execute, deliver and perform the obligations under this Agreement and that each Party’s performance hereunder has been duly authorized by all requisite actions on the part of that Party.

Sponsor Information:

Sponsor Name: Sponsor Department:

Address:

Contact Person: Phone:

Email Address:

SIGNATURES
In Witness Whereof, the parties have agreed to the conditions of this Agreement as of the date shown below.

Sponsor Representative Signature:

Print Name: Date:

CCC District Director/Region Deputy Signature:

Print Name: Date:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Steve Esselman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends your Council conduct hearing to consider General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 23-39 and Zone Change (ZC) No. 23-72 and:

1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 3046, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 23-39; and

3. Introduce for first reading, by title only, and waive reading of Ordinance No. 772, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Shafter, California approving Zone Change No. 23-72.

The GPA amends the City of Shafter General Plan land use designation for the property from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MHDR (Medium High Density Residential). The ZC changes the zone district under Title 17 of the Shafter Municipal Code from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium High Density Residential) of an approximately 8.72-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-180-57) located at the northeast corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Avenue.

BACKGROUND

1. Location: Northwest corner of East Ash Avenue and Golds Avenue. See Exhibit

1. 2. General Plan Designation: The site’s current land use designation is LDR (Low Density Residential). See Exhibit 2.

3. Zoning: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). See Exhibit

3. 4. Acreage: 8.72 acres

5. On-site Land Use: The project site is vacant.

6. Off-site Land Use: The site is surrounded by multi-family residential to the north, single-family residential to the east, vacant land (zoned Estate) to the south, and

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 2 -
an existing residence and vacant land (zoned Low Density Residential) to the west.

The Cesar Chavez Foundation, on behalf of the property owner, National Farm Workers Service Center, Inc., is requesting the general plan amendment and zone change. At the August 12, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the general plan amendment and zone change to the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

This project consists of a request for a GPA/ZC to allow the development of 174 multifamily units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI (Area Median Income) distributed across three (3) three-story buildings on an approximately 8.72-acre site totaling 342,160 square-feet at the northeast corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Street (APN 028-180-57). See Exhibit 4 and 5.

The development would be constructed in three phases, Phase I and Phase II will mirror each other, Phase I includes 62 units (130,299 square-feet) with 124 on-site parking spaces, Phase II includes 62 units (130,299 square-feet) with 124 on-site parking spaces, and Phase III includes 50 units (81,560 square-feet) with 100 on-site parking spaces, pertaining a total of 174 units and 348 on-site parking spaces. The project will include two full-access driveways along Birch Street, two full-access driveways along South Mannel Avenue, and four full-access driveways along East Los Angeles Avenue.

The project site is located within Section 15, Township 28 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian. The project site lies within the Rio Bravo USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

The City reviewed the Shafter Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and determined that the closest similar use to what is being proposed is “multi-family attached dwelling units with enhanced amenities (common open space and recreation areas)”. The proposed GPA would change the designation of the parcel from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MHDR (Medium High Density Residential); the current LDR designation allows for up to five dwelling units per acre while the MHDR designation would allow for up to 20 units per acre. The proposed ZC would change the zone classification from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium High Density Residential); the current R-1 classification allows for up to five dwelling units per acre while the R-3 classification would allow for up to 24 units per acre. Therefore, the theoretical maximum number of dwelling units per acre because of the proposed GPA and ZC, if approved, is 20 units per acre. The applicant is proposing a multi-family apartment complex at 20 units per acre.

Breakdown of Phases I, II, and III

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 3 -
Phases I and II will consist of two three-story residential buildings with 60 family units and two manager units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI levels. The three-story residential building will consist of 48 one-bedroom units (575 square-feet), 32 twobedroom units (778 square-feet), 32 three-bedroom units (1,079 square-feet), and four (4) three-bedroom manager units. Phases I and II will mirror each other totaling 124 units and include 248 on-site parking spaces.

Phase III will consist of one (1) three-story residential building with 22 one-bedroom units (575 square-feet), 13 two-bedroom units (778 square-feet), and 14 three-bedroom units (1,079 square-feet) at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI and one (1) three-bedroom manager unit. Phase III includes a total of 50 units and 100 on-site parking spaces.

After completion of all three phases, there will be a total of 174 units with 348 on-site parking spaces. Additionally, the project will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and will meet all the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24.

The project site is going to be developed to City of Shafter development standards, which include onsite and offsite improvements. Onsite improvements include, but not limited to, the following:
• Paved and Covered parking areas
• Landscaping
• Security fence
• Security lighting
The offsite improvements consist of the following:
• Sidewalk Improvements along Birch Street, South Mannel Avenue, and East Los Angeles Avenue
• Connection to existing water line in East Los Angeles Avenue • Connection to the existing dry sewer line of East Los Angeles and ending the connection at the east of Birch Street and west of South Mannel Avenue to the northern property line
If the project were to be approved, the applicant would have to submit for site plan review to ensure that the multi-family apartment complex complies with the objective standards found in the Zoning Ordinance, California Building Code, and Engineering Design Manual.

Additionally, the site plan would have to be approved by the Shafter Police Department to ensure that the project includes “defensible space design.” Defensible space design guidelines focus on creating built environments that naturally deter crime and promote

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 4 -
resident safety through environmental design. Key principles include territoriality (clearly defining public, semi-public, and private spaces to foster a sense of ownership), natural surveillance (ensuring residents can observe public areas through window placement and lighting), image (maintaining an appearance that discourages vandalism and signals care), and milieu (situating developments within safe, supportive surroundings). By enhancing visibility, access control, and resident engagement, the “defensible space design” approach empowers communities to take an active role in crime prevention.

GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY/CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable objectives and policies contained within the Shafter General Plan land use element and find the following:

2.5 Residential Uses
Objective: Provide a variety of housing types suitable to a broad range of socioeconomic groups and a residential environment that enhances residents’ quality of life and reinforces those characteristics of a rural, small town that make Shafter a desirable place to live.

The project is consistent with this objective because it helps provide a variety of housing types suitable for a broad range of socioeconomic groups. The project is consistent with the surrounding land uses, including an existing multi-family project adjacent to and north of the project site, and therefore is consistent with the existing residential environment that enhances residents’ quality of life and reinforces those characteristics of a rural, small town that make Shafter a desirable place to live.

Policy 3: Broaden the range of housing types and encourage innovation in available housing types. In addition to traditional single-family housing, provide:

1. Move-up and executive housing opportunities;

2. Housing for those desiring amenities not typically found in small town subdivisions (e.g., common open space and recreational areas);

3. Opportunities for those not desiring dwelling on an individual lot or a mobile home lifestyle; and

4. Appropriate housing for active seniors and those requiring some degree of assistance or care.

The project is consistent with this policy because it broadens the range of housing types in addition to traditional single-family housing, it provides move-up or executive housing opportunities, and it provides opportunities for those not desiring to dwell on an individual lot or a mobile home lifestyle.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 5 -
Policy 4: Ensure that multifamily projects fit the scale of the community, are consistent with Shafter’s small town community character, are of high quality, and are well maintained.

The project is consistent with this policy because it fits the scale with adjacent land uses, namely the existing multi-family residential area adjacent to and north of the project site. If this project is approved, future site plan review shall ensure that the project is consistent with Shafter’s small town community character, is of high quality, and is well maintained. As discussed above, the project would be reviewed and approved by the Shafter Police Department to ensure “defensible space design” to create a residential environment that is safer, more secure, and fosters a stronger sense of community and responsibility among residents.

Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable objectives and policies contained within the Shafter 2023-2031 Housing Element and find the following:

Goal 1: Provide a diversity of development opportunities to enhance the City’s living environment and to satisfy the housing needs of Shafter residents.

The project is consistent with this goal because it helps provide a diversity of development opportunities to enhance the City’s living environment and to satisfy the housing needs of Shafter residents.

Policy 1.1: Provide adequate residential sites to produce new for-sale and rental residential units for existing and future residents.

The project is consistent with this policy because it helps provide adequate residential sites to produce new rental residential units for existing and future residents.

Program 1.1.1: Rezone Sites to Accommodate Housing Need Rezone sufficient sites (from those identified in Appendix B Residential Sites Inventory as adequate to accommodate lower income housing) to zones that allow the City to fully accommodate its RHNA in the lower income categories of 1,109 total units, e.g., rezone at least 187 acres to minimum density of 20 units/acre, assuming 25% of units lower income, to accommodate shortfall of 935 units.

In general, the City will work with property owners to determine which parcels in the Residential Sites Inventory to target for rezoning. The City will work with the property owners of these sites in taking the actions described in Program 1.1.3 (Large Sites) to facilitate subdivision and development of appropriately sized sites for affordable housing.
• Each site to be rezoned shall meet the criteria identified in Gov. Code §65583.2(h) and (i):

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 6 -

1. Zoned to allow owner-occupied and rental multi-family residential use by right for developments that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower income households (Use by right means that the local government’s review cannot require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review that would constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act.

However, subdivisions are allowed to be a discretionary review in accordance with the local ordinance, and non-discretionary design review using objective standards may be conducted.).

2. Zoned to allow at least 16 units on the site;

3. Zoned to require a minimum density of 20 units per acre (for suburban jurisdictions, including Shafter);

4. At least 50% of the remaining lower-income housing need shall be accommodated on residentially zoned sites (with a limited exception for mixed use)- (this provision is superseded by the solid bullet below); and

5. Sites shall meet utilities requirements to satisfy Gov. Code §65583.2(b)(5)(B).
• To maintain the validity of the realistic capacity assumptions, all sites to be rezoned shall be residentially zoned.
• Sites to be rezoned should affirmatively further fair housing by promoting an inclusive community with site locations distributed throughout the community.

Sites previously identified in prior housing element site inventories (i.e., APN 536-010- 50 in Mission Lakes Specific Plan): These sites have been previously identified in prior Housing Element site inventories and meet the criteria identified in Gov. Code §65583.2(c)—nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element and vacant sites that have been included in two or more consecutive prior planning periods. • For these existing high density zoned sites to count toward the RHNA in the lower income categories, these sites shall be zoned:

1. To allow residential use by right (as described above) for developments that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower income households.

2. At residential densities consistent with Gov. Code §65583.2(c)(3)— density per analysis or allowing at least 20 units per acre (for suburban jurisdictions including Shafter)- (current zone density of these sites is currently consistent).

The project is consistent with this program because it would rezone 8.72 acres to allow for a multi-family residential development at a density of 20 units/acre (174 total units) as opposed to the current 3.5 units/acre (30 total units) at the project site. The housing element currently includes the project site as a single-family residential site where it was assumed that up to 30 single-family homes for moderate-income buyers could be built. By rezoning the site, an additional 174 units of low-income housing can instead go towards the City’s RHNA. Per Program 1.1.1 of the Shafter 2023-2031 Housing Element (see below for more information), the City must rezone at least 187 acres to

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 7 -
minimum density of 20 units/acre, assuming 25% of units lower income, to accommodate a shortfall of 935 units to satisfy the City’s RHNA for low-income housing. This project would provide 174 multi-family units towards this shortfall.

Policy 2.3: Facilitate the development of new housing for all economic segments of the community, including lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income households.

The project is consistent with this policy because it facilitates the development of new housing for all economic segments of the community, including lower-income households.

Policy 3.2: Assure the provision of housing opportunities for those residents of the City who have special housing needs, including farm workers, the elderly, disabled, large families, and the homeless.

The project is consistent with this policy because it provides housing opportunities for those residents of the City who have special housing needs.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT Since the applicant is proposing 174 multi-family units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI, consideration of Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5, is required for the project. The HAA establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing needs.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed a memorandum in 2020 that provides technical assistance for HAA. As part of the memorandum, HCD created a decision matrix on whether a project can be denied without violating HAA. Exhibit 6 provides the HAA decision matrix developed by HCD.

The following provides a HAA analysis for this project and informs that the City is severely limited in making changes that affect the project’s feasibility and/or density. Moreover, there is no basis upon which it may be denied.

1. Does the project meet the definition of a housing development? Yes, the project is a housing development and therefore HAA applies.

2. Are 20% of the total units affordable to very low- or low-income households, 100% affordable to moderate- or middle-income households, or an emergency

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 8 -
shelter? Yes, the project would provide at least 20% units that are affordable to very low- or low-income households and therefore HAA applies.

3. Does one of the following apply?

1. Housing element is in compliance, RHNA has been met (permitted) or exceeded for all income categories proposed for project. No, RHNA has not been met.

2. Project has a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid impact. A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. No, the City has no such standards.

3. Denial is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply. No, there is no applicable federal law that applies here.

4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or inadequate water or sewer. No.

5. The project is inconsistent with both zoning and general plan land use designation, and the project is not proposed on a site identified in the housing element, and there are sufficient sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) or zoning for emergency shelters. No, while the project is currently inconsistent with both zoning and the general plan land use designation, it is proposed on a site identified in the housing element and there are currently not sufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA for the City. Per Program 1.1.1 of the Shafter 2023-2031 Housing Element (see below for more information), the City must rezone at least 187 acres to minimum density of 20 units per acre, assuming 25% of units lower income, to accommodate a shortfall of 935 units to satisfy the City’s RHNA for low-income housing.

Therefore, the project cannot be denied without risking a potential HAA violation.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the HAA (by denying a qualifying project), exposes the City to lawsuits, compliance orders, fines and penalties and attorney fees. In addition, a court is authorized to force the City to approve the project anyway.

BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT TO SHAFTER
While the City is without authority to deny the project, staff should point out that there are several benefits that staff believe are relevant and inform why staff is recommending approval of the project.

First, the housing element currently includes the project site as a single-family residential site where it was assumed that up to 30 single-family homes for moderatePage 251 of 359 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 9 -
income buyers could be built. By approving the GPA/ZC, 174 multi-family units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI could instead be built and this proposed rezoning to allow 174 low-income multi-family units would go towards the requirement in the housing element to rezone at least 187 acres to minimum density of 20 units/acre, assuming 25% of units lower income, to accommodate a shortfall of 935 units to satisfy the City’s RHNA for low-income housing. The City currently has sufficient planned development to accommodate the loss of 30 moderate-income residential units to satisfy the RHNA in the City for this type of housing. The RHNA is a California state-mandated process that determines how much housing must be planned for by each jurisdiction (city or county) within its housing element. This process ensures that cities and counties plan for adequate housing to accommodate all income levels within the community.

Second, it is good planning practice for a City to provide a range of housing products from single-family to multi-family. Multi-family units are typically cheaper to build and rent per unit than single-family homes. Therefore, multi-family residential provides the ability for lower-income households, particularly the young and the elderly, with affordable opportunities for housing. Currently, there is a lack of multi-family residential with the City limits and this project would help fill that need.

Third, as further discussed below, the project furthers several objectives, policies, goals, and programs of the General Plan land use and housing elements.

Finally, a multi-family residential area already exists adjacent to and north of the project site. The development of additional multi-family residential units at the site because of the GPA/ZC would be an extension of this area and would not be inconsistent with its surrounding land uses.

NOTICING
As required by Senate Bill 18, all general plan amendments require consultation with California Native American tribes. Staff requested a tribal consultation list from the Native American Heritage Commission, and Staff received a list with 25 tribal contacts.

Staff provided a letter dated March 14, 2024 to each contact on the list.

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination were also advertised in The Shafter Press. All property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing.

Comments Received: The City received a comment from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe stating that, due to the location of this project, the tribe will be deferring to the more local tribes of the area. Comment noted for the record. The City also received a comment from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) stating that project is located outside of their ancestral territory and, as such, YSMN will not be requesting to receive consulting party status with the lead agency or to participate in the scoping, development, or review of documents created pursuant to legal and regulatory mandates. Comment noted for the record.

FISCAL IMPACT

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 10 -
There is no fiscal impact because of the proposed action.

CEQA ANALYSIS
Based upon an initial study, Staff has determined that the project, with mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025050756) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from June 24, 2022 to July 24, 2022. The MND is provided as Exhibit 7.

Comments Received: The following comments were received by staff during the public review period for the MND.
• Don Loveless – The commenter states that they are the owner of about 20 acres just to the west of the project site and is responding to a request from staff to provide his comments in writing for the record. The commenter states that it is their understanding that there will be an environmental impact report and mitigation statement for any negative findings and that hard copies will be made available to the commenter. The commenter provides some history on the previous development of multi-family housing to the north of and adjacent to the project site and asserts that his farm was shut down because of the previous project. The commenter expresses concern about traffic along Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Avenue, and specifically about the potential widening of these roads and its effect on the commenter’s property. The commenter expresses concern over the effects to his property’s value as well as noise and traffic because of the project. The commenter hypothesizes about what would happen if the applicant bought 20 additional acres next door to the project; staff assumes the commenter is referring to his property.

Response to Comments: Staff has prepared a MND (see Exhibit 7) with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA and has created hard copies of the MND and MMRP for the commenter. To date, the commenter has not picked up the hard copies.

Per Section 10.270 of the Zoning Ordinance (Right to Farm Provisions), farmland within 300 feet of urban uses are not considered a nuisance if the agricultural use is conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, and the agricultural use has been in operation for more than three years and was not a nuisance at the time it began.

Regarding right-of-way (ROW) and the potential need to widen Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Avenue to accommodate the project, Assessor’s Maps 028-28 (commenter’s properties), 28-18 (project site) show a 30-foot ROW for Birch Street between the project site (APN 028-180-57) and the commenter’s properties (APNs 208-280-03 and - 04) to allow for the extension of Birch Street to E. Los Angeles Avenue. The project site

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 11 -
would give up an additional 8 feet along its western property line to match up with the existing 38-foot-wide ROW for Birch Street to the north of this segment of Birch Street to be improved as part of the project and in compliance with approved Parcel Map No. 10996 and similar to the approved offsite improvements shown for the Los Rosas Apartments (the existing apartments to the north of the project site) found in the City’s Engineering files; there are currently no plans to widen E. Los Angeles Avenue because of the project. The City cannot ask for additional ROW from the commenter along the frontage of his property to accommodate the project; ROW acquisition that affects the commenter’s property would only occur if the commenter decides to further develop his property, such as through the approval of a tract map or another entitlement for an urban land use, that can be conditioned to require the widen of roads along its frontage at the time of approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.

The MND determined that there would be a less-than-significant impact on noise and traffic because of the project and property values are not an issue area under CEQA.

However, there are numerous peer-reviewed papers that conclude that multi-family projects do not result in decreased property values to surrounding properties and instead increase property values due to the increased cost of building multi-family on a parcel as opposed to single-family residential.

If the applicant purchases the nearby 20 acres of land (staff is assuming the commenter means his property) to build additional multi-family housing, the applicant would have to go through the same entitlement process because the nearby 20 acres is currently general plan-designated and zoned for single-family residential. The entitlement process would include obtaining a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval from the City Council as well as the need to comply with CEQA.

The State CEQA Guidelines have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. Significant environmental impacts were not identified with the project proposal. Therefore, a MND was prepared for the project. Compliance with the mitigation measures in the MND, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the California Building Codes and Shafter’s Engineering Design Manual would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map

2. Exhibit 2 - Existing General Plan Land Use Map

3. Exhibit 3 - Existing Zone District Map

4. Exhibit 4 - Conceptual Development Plan

5. Exhibit 5 - Elevations

6. Exhibit 6 - HAA Decision Matrix

7. Exhibit 7 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

8. Exhibit 8 - Ordinance No. 772

9. Exhibit A of Exhibit 8

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72 - 12 -

10. Exhibit 9 - Resolution No. 3046

11. Exhibit A of Exhibit 9

WINTERS DR

LACEY ST

ENTRAL VALLEY HWY

BIRCH ST

MCKENNA CTMARIE ST

ESTE ST

JACEY ANN CT

LA DANTE STBOESE ST

DANA ST

THOMPSON ST

E LOS ANGELES AVE

VINO TERRACE

LORES WAY

RMOUR DR
SITE
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Copyright nearmap 2015
3/14/2024, 1:30:20 PM
0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:4,514
City of Shafter
City of Shafter | Source: U.S. Census Bureau | County of Kern Planning Department, Bakersfield, California. | Kern County Assessor's Office, Mapping Section.

Exhibit 2 - Existing General Plan Land Use Map

Exhibit 3 - Existing Zone District Map

Figure 5: Site Plan
Exhibit 4 - Conceptual Development Plan

Figure 6: Elevations
Exhibit 5 - Elevations

Housing Accountability Act Decision Matrix
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory 4 Housing Accountability Act Decision Matrix
This decision tree generally describes the components of the HAA. Both affordable and market-rate developments are protected by components of the HAA. The statute contains detailed requirements that affect the applicability of the HAA to a specific housing project based on its characteristics.

A) Does the project meet the definition of a housing development? YES NO: HAA does not apply
B) Are 20% of the total units affordable to very low- or low-income households, 100% affordable to moderate or middle income households, or an emergency shelter? YES, Subdivision (d) applies
Does one of the following findings apply?
(1) Housing element is in compliance, RHNA has been
met (permitted) or exceeded for all income categories
proposed for project.
(2) Project has a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid impact.
(3) Denial is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply. (4) The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or inadequate water or sewer.
(5) The project is inconsistent with both zoning and
general plan land use designation, and the project is not proposed on a site identified in the housing element, and there are sufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA or
zoning for emergency shelters.

Yes
Make finding and
move to C).

NO
Project cannot be denied
w/o potential HAA
violation.

NO, Subdivision (j) applies
C) Is the project consistent with objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards and criteria? YES
Is there a specific, adverse
impact upon the public
health or safety? and
Is there no feasible method
to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact?
YES
Can make
written
findings to
deny project
or condition
approval at
lower-density.

NO
The project
cannot be
denied w/o
potential HAA
violation.

NO
Does the project meet general
plan standards but zoning is
inconsistent with general plan?
YES
The project is
consistent
with zoning.

NO
Provide written
documentation
of
inconsistency.

Exhibit 6 - HAA Decision Matrix

May 15, 2025

CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA
Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment No. 23-39 &
Zone Change No. 23-72
(Cesar Chavez Multi-Family)
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263

2 CONTENTS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ............................................................................................ 4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................... 4 Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures................................................................................. 4 Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures................................................................. 5 Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures.................................................................... 8 Geology and Soils Impact Mitigation Measures...................................................................... 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Mitigation Measures....................................................... 8 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (CEQA APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM).................. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.................................................................. 12 Determination ........................................................................................................................... 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................................. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE ............................................................................................................... 15 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................. 15 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 15 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................................................... 17 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 17 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 19 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 19 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................. 25 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 25 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................... 28 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 28 Energy........................................................................................................................................ 29 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 29 Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................... 30 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................................... 35 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 35 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................................. 38

3 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 38 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 41 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 41 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 45 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 45 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................... 46 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 46 Noise.......................................................................................................................................... 47 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 47 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 50 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 50 Public Services........................................................................................................................... 51 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 51 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 53 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 53 Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................................... 54 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 54 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 56 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 56 Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................... 57 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 57 Wildfires.................................................................................................................................... 60 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 60 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 62 Evaluation of Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 64

4 CITY OF SHAFTER

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Shafter (City) has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), would not have a significant effect on the environment.

This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Project Title: General Plan Amendment 23-39 & Zone Change 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family)
Comment Period Begins: May 15, 2025
Comment Period Ends: June 17, 2025
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects) are as follows:

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they will/have met all air quality control measures, design features, and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, including but not limited to the following:

To minimize Fugitive Dust during construction, the applicant will comply with the following:
• Apply water to unpaved surfaces and areas.
• Use non-toxic chemical or organic dust suppressants on unpaved roads and traffic areas. • Limit or reduce vehicle speed on unpaved roads and traffic areas. • Maintain areas in a stabilized condition by restricting vehicle access. • Install wind barriers.
• During high winds, cease outdoor activities that disturb the soil. • Keep bulk materials sufficiently wet when handling.
• Store and handle materials in a three-sided structure.

5 • When storing bulk materials, apply water to the surface or cover the storage pile with a tarp.
• Don’t overload haul trucks. Overloaded trucks are likely to spill bulk materials. • Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover. Or, wet the top of the load enough to limit visible dust emissions.
• Clean the interior of cargo compartments on emptied haul trucks prior to leaving a site. • Prevent trackout by installing trackout control devices at all project access points. • Clean up trackout at least once a day. If along a busy road or highway, clean up trackout immediately.
• Monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate measures for maximum dust control.

Diesel Particulate Matter: during construction, the applicant will comply with the following design features:
• Construction equipment should be maintained in proper tune. • All construction vehicles should be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer.
• Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units, to the maximum extent feasible.
• Establish an electricity supply to the construction site and use electric powered equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment or generators, where feasible. • Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as far from adjacent residential homes, as feasible.
• Use haul trucks with on-road engines instead of off-road engines for on-site hauling.

2. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Department that the project has complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures

3. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction survey must be conducted 14 - 30 days within the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer to identify active or potential San Joaquin kit fox dens.
• If potential kit fox dens are observed within the Project Area, a 50-foot avoidance buffer should be implemented. If construction activities require the destruction of a potential den, then den monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for a minimum of 4 consecutive nights following the protocols set forth in the U.S.

6 Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). Known dens shall require an avoidance buffer of at least 100 feet. If a known den cannot be avoided, it shall be left undisturbed, and the monitoring biologist shall be contacted immediately. Natal dens found within the Project Area or within a 500-buffer surrounding the Project Area should be avoided and the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted.
• To prevent the entrapment of a San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife, all steep walled, open trenches greater than 2 feet in depth should be covered at the end of each day. If covering an open excavation is not feasible, escape ramps made of earthen material or wooden planks at a 1:1- slope (45-degree angle) should be implemented. Trenches should be inspected in the morning prior to commencing work activities and prior to backfilling. If a San Joaquin kit fox or any other specialstatus species is found within the excavation, the monitoring biologist shall be contacted immediately. At no time should any personnel attempt to handle, corral, remove, or otherwise interact with the animal.

4. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
• If construction activities are to take place during the nesting season (February - August), a preconstruction survey will be conducted 14 - 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities within the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer to identify individual Swainson’s hawk’s and active nests. This survey can be conducted concurrently with the San Joaquin kit fox pre-construction survey described above, depending on the timing of the preconstruction survey. • If any active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during the pre-construction survey, a qualified biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding the nest and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities. If nest disruption is not possible, CDFW should be contacted for guidance.

5. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• If construction activities are to take place during the nesting season for tricolored blackbird (February - May), a pre-construction survey will be conducted 14 - 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities within the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer to identify individual tricolored blackbirds and active nests. This survey can be conducted concurrently with the San Joaquin kit fox pre-construction survey described above, depending on the timing of the preconstruction survey.
• If any active tricolored blackbird nest sites are found during the pre-construction survey, a qualified biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding

7 the nest site and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities.

6. Other Migratory Birds
• Other migratory birds may use the proposed Project Site or surrounding lands for feeding, nesting, and roosting. In compliance with Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, if construction activities are to occur during the nesting and breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any native bird and raptor nests prior to construction activities. If any nests are identified, appropriate buffer zones will be established around any identified nests to prevent disruption of nesting. If an adequate buffer zone cannot be established around any active nest, CDFW and USFWS will be contacted for guidance.

7. General Wildlife Avoidance Measures
• To further ensure no special-status species are impacted by the project, the project will comply with the following general wildlife avoidance measures during the construction period.
• All vehicles should implement a maximum 10mph speed limit within the Project Area or adhere to the posted speed limit.
• To avoid the entrapment of any animal, all excavations greater than 2 feet should be backfilled by the end of day. If backfilling by the end of day is not possible, excavations should be covered in a way to prevent wildlife species from entering the excavation. If excavations cannot be covered, an earthen escape ramp or a ramp constructed of wooden planks should be implemented inside the excavation at a 1:1 slope (45 degrees). If any wildlife is found entrapped inside an open excavation, the biologist should be contacted immediately. All pipes, culverts, or similar structures staged onsite should be capped in a way to prevent the entry of wildlife. Such structures should be checked prior to moving to ensure no wildlife is entrapped inside.
• All food-related trash items including wrappers, cans, bottles, and scraps should be disposed of in a securely closed container and removed from the site at the end of each day.
• No firearms or pets should be allowed onsite.
• Any protected wildlife species that may venture onsite should be allowed to leave the site of their own accord. No attempt to handle or otherwise engage with the animal should be made. If after a reasonable amount of time the animal does not leave the Project Site, the biologist should be contacted.

8 Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures

8. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

9. If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Geology and Soils Impact Mitigation Measures

10. If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or other appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Mitigation Measures

11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project will provide proof to the Planning Department that the project scores a minimum of 29 points using the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) GHG Emission Reduction Best Performance Standard (BPS) Measures for Development Projects.

9 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
(CEQA APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
FORM)

1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 23-39 & Zone Change 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family)

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263

3. Contact person and phone number: Steve Esselman
Planning Director
661-746-5002

4. Project location: Northeast Corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Street (Attachment B, Figure 1: Project
Location, Figure 2: Aerial Overview)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Cesar Chavez Foundation 555 N. Broadway Avenue, Unit B103
Los Angeles, CA 90012

6. General plan designation: LDR (Low Density Residential) (Attachment B, Figure 3: General Plan Land Use)

7. Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Attachment B, Figure 4: Zoning)

8. Description of project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation):

This project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change (ZC) to allow the development of 174 multi-family units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% Area Medium Income (AMI) distributed across three (3) three-story buildings on an approximately

7.85-acre site totaling 342,160 square-feet at the northeast corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Street (APN 028-180-57) (Attachment B, Figure 5: Site Plan, Figure 6: Elevations).

The development would be constructed in three (3) phases, Phase I and Phase II will mirror each other, Phase I includes 62 units (130,299 square-feet) with 124 on-site parking spaces, Phase II includes 62 units (130,299 square-feet) with 124 on-site parking spaces, and Phase III includes 50 units (81,560 square-feet) with 100 on-site parking spaces, pertaining a total

10 of 174 units and 348 on-site parking spaces (Figure 5, Site Plan). The project will include two (2) full-access driveways along Birch Street, two (2) full-access driveways along South Mannel Avenue, and four (4) full-access driveways along East Los Angeles Avenue.

The project site is located within Section 15, Township 28 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian. The project site lies within the Rio Bravo USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

Breakdown of Phases I, II, and III
Phases I and II will consist of two (2) three-story residential buildings with 60 family units and two (2) manager units at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI levels. The three-story residential building will consist of 48 one-bedroom units (575 square-feet), 32 two-bedroom units (778 square-feet), 32 three-bedroom units (1,079 square-feet), and four (4) three-bedroom manager units. Phases I and II will mirror each other totaling 124 units and include 248 onsite parking spaces.

Phase III will consist of one (1) three-story residential building with 22 one-bedroom units (575 square-feet), 13 two-bedroom units (778 square-feet), and 14 three-bedroom units (1,079 square-feet) at 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% AMI and one (1) three-bedroom manager unit. Phase III includes a total of 50 units and 100 on-site parking spaces.

After completion of all three (3) phases, there will be a total of 174 units with 348 on-site parking spaces. Additionally, the project will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and will meet all the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24.

The City reviewed the Shafter Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and determined that the closest similar use to what is being proposed is “multi-family attached dwelling units with enhanced amenities (common open space and recreation areas).” This use is allowed within the Medium High Residential (R-3) zone and therefore, a GPA and ZC is required. The parcel is also currently zoned Low Density Residential (R-1) and the land use is designated as Low Density Residential. Proposed projects within the R-3 zone must also adhere to maximum allowable density of twenty (20) dwelling units per net acre to ensure compatibility with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.

The project site is going to be developed to City of Shafter development standards which include onsite and offsite improvements. Onsite improvements include, but not limited to, the following:
• Paved and Covered parking areas
• Landscaping
• Security fence
• Security lighting

11 The offsite improvements consist of the following:
• Sidewalk Improvements along Birch Street, South Mannel Avenue, and East Los Angeles Avenue
• Connection to existing water line in East Los Angeles Avenue • Connection to the existing dry sewer line of East Los Angeles and ending the connection at the east of Birch Street and west of South Mannel Avenue to the northern property line

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The site is surrounded by residential and agricultural uses to the north, east, south and west as further described:
• North: Casa Amelia Cadena (a multi-family complex), zoned medium-density residential
• East: South Mannel Avenue, single-family residential, zoned low-density residential • South: East Los Angeles Avenue, vacant land, zoned low-density residential • West: Birch Street, scattered residential uses, zoned low-density residential

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• City of Shafter—Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Shafter—Grading permit
• City of Shafter—Building permit
• City of Shafter—Site Plan Review
• City of Shafter—Potable water and sewer will-serve letters • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—Indirect Source Rule compliance • State Water Resources Control Board—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? No, California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have not requested consultation.

12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in the following pages:
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural/Forestry Resources □ Air Quality □ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards/Haz. Mat. □ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Res.
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been 1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ________________________ May 7, 2025
Steve Esselman, Planning Director Date

13 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be crossreferenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

14 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

15 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ □ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of project views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with the applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of a total of 174 multi-family units and 378 on-site parking spaces on an approximately 7.85-acre site. The site is located on undeveloped land with a low-density residential (LDR) land use designation and low-density residential (R-1) zoning classification. The project is requesting a GPA and ZC, which would allow for the proposed project. There are residential uses to the north, east, southwest, and west and agricultural uses to the southeast of the project site.

According to the City of Shafter General Plan, the site is not within or in the vicinity of an identified scenic vista, and no known aesthetic resources exist on or near the site. The project does not lie near or within a State Designated or Eligible State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2025).

Furthermore, development of the project would not block or preclude views to any area containing important or what would be considered visually appealing landforms. The project does not include the removal of trees determined to be scenic or of scenic value, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building(s). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) No impact. Please see response to a. above. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

16 c) Less than significant impact. The project is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, southwest, and west and agricultural uses to the southeast. The project would be visible from passing motorists and the surrounding residences. The proposed project includes a request for a GPA and ZC to develop three (3) three-story residential buildings consisting of 174 units which is consistent with the surrounding land use designations. The parcel located to the north of the project site is Medium High Residential, therefore, changes to the visual quality and character of the project site would be compatible with the existing residential uses and adhere to similar residential uses in the surrounding areas. Given that the project is requesting a GPA and ZC, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings in a non-urban area or conflict with the applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality in an urban area. d) Less than significant impact. The project will be developed in three (3) phases. Phases I and II would begin construction in December 2026 and Phase III would begin construction in March 2029. Construction of the proposed project would generally occur during daytime hours, typically from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All lighting would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the desired work areas only and prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. Because lighting used to illuminate work areas would be shielded, focused downward, and turned off by 7:00 p.m., the potential for lighting to affect any residents adversely is minimal. Increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials to the project site would temporarily increase glare conditions during construction. However, this increase in glare would be minimal. Construction activity would focus on specific areas on the sites, and any sources of glare would not be stationary for a prolonged period.

During operations, all lighting would be directed downward and shielded to focus illumination on the site only and prevent light spillage onto off-site properties. Furthermore, the project would be designed and improved with all applicable policies and regulations along with appropriate setbacks, landscaping, and screening to minimize light and glare impacts.

Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

17 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. The 7.85-acre vacant site currently has a low-density residential land use designation (LDR) and a low-density residential zoning classification (R-1). The project is requesting a GPA and ZC, which would allow for the proposed project. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, southwest, and west and agricultural uses to the southeast.

18 CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection’s Farmland Mapping project (FMMP) categories of “Prime Farmland,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” and “Unique Farmland” to define “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts (PRC Section 21060.1[a]). The project site is designated as “Grazing Land” (DOC 2022).

The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. Additionally, much of the project and surrounding areas are currently zoned for nonagricultural uses except a parcel located southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not significantly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to nonagricultural use. b) No impact. The project is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, southwest, and west and agricultural uses to the southeast. The proposed project includes a request for a GPA and ZC to develop three (3) three-story residential buildings consisting of 174 units which is consistent with the surrounding land use designations.

Neither the project site nor the parcels adjacent to its boundary are subject to Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) No impact. The Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g) and Section 4526 defines “forest land” as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. There are no forest lands identified on the project site or within its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) No impact. Please see response to c. above. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e) No impact. Please see responses to a. through d. above. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

19 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ ■ □ □
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ ■ □ □
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial amount of people? □ □ ■ □ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study was prepared for the NEC Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Street Residential Project, Cesar Chavez Foundation, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., April 2025, included as Appendix A.
a) Less than significant impact. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Emission sources because of the project would include both on-site and off-site construction-related work. The project’s annual construction emissions are compared with the SJVAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds of significance and the daily construction emissions are compared with the District’s Ambient Air Quality Analysis Screening Levels. As shown in the tables below, the project did not exceed the SJVAPCD nor the ambient air quality analysis screening thresholds.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

As shown in the table below, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance which are the six air pollutants analyzed for this project.

20 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Air Pollutant Tons/Year
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 10
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 10
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 27
Particulate Matter (PM10) 15
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.

Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following table provides the estimated annual construction emissions because of the project.

Annual Construction Air Quality Emissions
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Year VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.22 1.60 2.60 0.00 0.33 0.14
2027 0.57 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00
Maximum1 0.57 1.60 2.60 0.00 0.33 0.14
SJVUAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.
1 Maximum annual emission includes both on-site and off-site emissions As shown in the above table, the project’s annual construction emissions will be below the applicable SJVUAPCD criteria air pollutant significance thresholds levels.

Construction Emissions Ambient Air Quality Screening
Maximum Annual Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 3.21 29.24 29.64 0.05 9.12 5.13
Grading 1.75 18.20 18.81 0.04 4.34 2.21
Building Construction 1.63 11.14 21.87 0.03 2.08 0.76
Paving 1.23 7.19 10.65 0.01 0.50 0.34
Architectural Coating 55.94 0.94 2.22 0.00 0.33 0.09
Maximum1 55.94 29.24 29.64 0.05 9.12 5.13
SJVUAPCD Screening
Threshold
100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.
1 Maximum annual emission includes both on-site and off-site emissions The table above shows that the project’s daily construction emissions will be below the applicable ambient air quality analysis screening thresholds.

21 The project would also result in long-term emissions including both on-site and off-site emissions. The proposed project’s long-term operations emissions are generated from mobile, energy, and area sources as well as from water use and waste generation emissions.

Most of these emissions impacts are from mobile sources traveling to and from the project area.

The following tables show the project’s estimated annual and daily long-term operation emissions.

Annual Operational Air Quality Emissions (tons/year)
Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 0.59 0.74 6.31 0.02 1.64 0.43
Energy Sources 0.01 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02
Area Sources 0.99 0.09 2.52 0.01 0.24 0.23
Total 1.59 1.04 8.92 0.03 1.90 0.68
SJVUAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.

Operational Emissions Ambient Air Quality
Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 3.52 4.33 43.13 0.10 9.10 2.5
Energy Sources 0.07 1.14 0.48 0.01 0.09 0.09
Area Sources 9.28 2.18 49.75 0.14 5.73 5.52
Total 12.87 7.65 93.36 0.25 14.92 7.96
SJVUAPCD Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.

As shown in the above tables, the annual and daily long-term operational emissions are also not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels. Given that the project’s short-term construction impact on regional air resources will not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the project’s long-term operation impact on regional air resources will be less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Under Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015), any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards. The following table shows the project’s contribution to cumulative emissions calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB.

22 Cumulative Emissions
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Kern County – 2015 22,484 20,842 33,872 511 13,688 3,833 SJVAB – 2015 112,931 96,105 199,509 2,738 95,667 21,681 Proposed project 1.59 1.04 8.92 0.03 1.90 0.68
Proposed project’s % of Kern 0.007% 0.004% 0.02% 0.005% 0.013% 0.017% Reference: RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023. SJVAB 2015.

As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern County and the greater SJVAB. The project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration) and therefore, the project’s contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that “[a] Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located” (SJVAPCD 2015).

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from APCO prior to commencing construction on the project.

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved through the use of mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source pollution is granted. The project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets.

SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.

23 SJVAPCD Rule 4601 regulates VOC emissions from architectural coatings by regulating architectural coating storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. This rule is applicable to any person who supplies, markets, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any architectural coating, or who manufactures, blends, or repackages any architectural coating for use within the SJVAPD. The project will comply with this rule by appropriately storing and disposing of paints and solvents used for architectural coating.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold of 50 residential or dwelling units. Accordingly, the project must reduce the portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions pursuant to this rule include, but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an offsite emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project.

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII- Fugitive PM10 Prohibition requires the project to comply with standard fugitive dust control measures during construction to regulate concentrations PM10.

Regulation VIII requires receipt of a District-approved Dust Control Plan or Construction Notification form before the issuance of the first grading permit. The project will comply with this regulation by implementing mitigation measures as listed above.

The Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Rick Assessments (HRA Guidelines) adopted by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) provides procedures for the use in the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program or for permitting existing, new, or modified stationary sources (RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023). The HRA Guidelines provide risk factors based on exposure to toxic substances over a 30-year life span. The project’s construction is not expected to be a long-term source of toxic air contaminant emissions and short-term risks factors have not been developed. Due to the reduced risk from short-term

24 exposure, SJVAPCD does not require the evaluation of long-term cancer risk or chronic health impacts for construction activities due to the project. Therefore, the project will comply with SJVAPCD and HRA Guidelines as the project has implemented mitigated measures to reduce diesel particulate matter during construction activities without the need for a HRA evaluation (RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023).

Due to the fact that 1) the air quality modeling indicates that the project’s regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and 2) the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules and mitigation measures which require the applicant to provide proof of such compliance, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, daycare centers, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include existing residential dwelling units, single-family residential dwellings, Amelia Cadena Apartments, and medical offices. The closest school is Grow Academy School located approximately 0.9 miles to the west of the project site. The closest hospital is Omni Family Health Walk-in Clinic approximately 0.9 miles to the east, and the closest daycare facility is Shafter Child Development Center approximately 0.9 miles to the west. The project applicant will incorporate mitigation to establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from adjacent sensitive receptors (residential land uses). By incorporating mitigation, the project’s predicted operational emissions is not expected to affect any on-site sensitive receptors and are not expected to have any adverse impact on any known sensitive receptors. d) Less than significant impact. The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate and

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

The proposed project is a residential project located near other residential uses. Expected uses are not known to be a source of nuisance odors and are not listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD GAMAQI. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less-than-significant odor impact. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

25 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □ 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
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? □ □ ■ □
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Biological Resources Evaluation prepared for Shafter Family Apartments, Cesar Chavez Foundation prepared by South Valley Biology Consulting, LLC, March 2025, included as Appendix B.
a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and biological field survey consisting of a reconnaissance-level site survey were conducted to identify reported historical occurrences of special-status plants, wildlife species, and sensitive habitats within the project and surrounding areas. The CNDDB identified a total of five special-status wildlife species to occur within a 5-mile radius of the project site. Of the five special-status wildlife species only three were labeled as “possible” to having potential to occur or have been observed in the project and surrounding area. The

26 three identified special-status wildlife speciesinclude the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).

Given the possible presence of the San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s Hawk, tricolored blackbird, and migratory birds on the project site or surrounding areas, direct and/or indirect impacts could result in impacts to transient species and therefore, mitigation measures have been implemented for these species. Additionally, general wildlife avoidance mitigation measures have been implemented.

With implementation of mitigation, the project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS.
b) No impact. The CNDDB identified three special-status plant species to occur within 5-miles of the project site, which include the Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis), San Joaquin woollythreads (Monolopia congdonii), and Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri). Due to the possible presence of the special-status plant species, a reconnaissance level survey within the entirety of the project site was performed on March 4, 2025, which focused on identifying any sensitive wildlife. The reconnaissance level survey confirmed that the project site consists entirely of non-native ruderal, weedy vegetation apart from a patch of California mustard (Caulanthus lasiophyllus) and Foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). No special-status plant species listed as either Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or California Endangered Species Act (CESA) were observed within the project site. Additionally, the project does not overlap with any federally designated critical habitats.

The project does not support any riparian or other sensitive natural communities, nor does it overlap with any designated critical habitat. Therefore, the project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No impact. There are no jurisdictional waterways or wetlands present within the project area as identified in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and confirmed during the field survey.

There are no wetlands or water features on or in the vicinity of the project. The project would have no impact on jurisdictional aquatic resources and no mitigation measures are warranted. Therefore, the project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands. d) Less than significant impact. Wildlife movement corridors, also referred to as dispersal corridors or landscape linkages, are generally defined as linear features along which animals can travel from one habitat or resource area to another. Wildlife movement corridors can be large tracts of land that connect regionally important habitats that support wildlife in general, such as stop-over habitat that supports migrating birds or large contiguous natural habitats that support animals with very large home ranges [e.g., coyotes (Canis latrans), mule deer

27 (Odocoileus hemionus californicus)]. They can also be small scale movement corridors, such as riparian zones, that provide connectivity and cover to support movement at a local scale.

The project is not located within any identified wildlife linkages or corridors identified by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity project. No potential wildlife corridors occur within the project area.

The project is not located within a mapped wildlife movement corridor or linkage, and none were observed during the survey (CDFW 2025). The project would not have any impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Therefore, the project would not 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.
e) No impact. The project does not conflict with the adopted 2005 City of Shafter General Plan Update and is not subject to any local ordinances. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) No impact. The project is within the range of the PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan, but this Plan applies only to PG&E operations and maintenance projects and does not apply to this project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

28 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? □ ■ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. The site is vacant and therefore, it has been verified in the field that no structures, including potentially historic structures, are located at the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known archaeological resources at the site. However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archeological resources at the site as grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation requires if prehistoric or historicera cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required, and these additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.
c) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No human remains have been discovered at the project site, and no burials or cemeteries are known to occur within the area of the site. However, construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites.

Implementation of mitigation that included immediately ceasing work and contacting the County coroner and Native American tribal representatives, if needed, would ensure that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy previously unknown human remains. With mitigation, the project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

29 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ ■ □ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ ■ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other residential construction projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City of Shafter must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to ensure that new buildings do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and the impacts are less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Shafter for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed in response to a. above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts are less than significant.

30 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No. 42. □ □ □ ■
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □ iv. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □ 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? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No impact. The City of Shafter is subject to moderate to severe ground shaking because of the alluvial soils that underlie the area and its proximity to active faults.

Additionally, the thick sedimentary deposits in the City create the likelihood that a strong earthquake or other disturbance in the area could cause ground subsidence (typically a gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement). The General Plan policy 7.1.1. requires that all new developments comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code’s seismic design standards.

31 The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Per the Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey Regulatory Maps (DOC 2022), the nearest fault line is the North of Oildale fault, which lies approximately 7 miles east of the project site. The greatest potential for substantial geologic adverse effects in the City is posed by the San Andres Fault, which is located approximately 4 miles west of the Kings County boundary line within Monterey County. The distance from the nearest active faults precludes the possibility of fault rupture on the project site.

Although the project area could potentially experience ground shaking, the magnitude of the hazard would not be severe as indicated by the General Plan and project construction will comply with the applicable local and State requirements.

Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. See response to a. above. The City is surrounded on three sides by active fault systems, several of which are less than 10 miles from the City boundaries. In addition, there are faults outside the San Joaquin Valley, but close enough that a major earthquake could affect Shafter. The General Plan policy 7.1.1. requires that all new developments comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code’s seismic design standards.

The project site lies within the vicinity of five earthquake fault lines – North of Oildale, Oildale, Pond, Oil Center, and Rio Bravo Ranch (DOC 2025). Given the high seismicity of the southern San Joaquin Valley region, moderate to severe ground shaking associated with earthquakes on the nearby faults can be expected within the project area and throughout Kern County. In the event of an earthquake on one of the nearby faults, it is likely that the project would experience ground shaking.

While such seismic shaking would be less severe from an earthquake that originates at a greater distance from the project site, the side effects could potentially be damaging to people or structures. The project is required to design structures and infrastructure to withstand substantial ground shaking in accordance with all applicable State law and applicable codes included in the California Building Code Title 24 for earthquake construction standards and building standards code including those relating to soil characteristics. The projectshall adhere to all applicable local and State regulations to reduce any potentially significant impacts to structures resulting from strong seismic ground shaking at the project site. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is defined as a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The

32 possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. For liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: “low density,” coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large magnitude earthquake.

The USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey shows that the project site contains Wasco sandy loam at a 0 to 2 percent slope (South Valley Biology Consulting, LLC 2025). The project is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Additionally, the possibility of flooding is rare as the site is in an area of minimal rainfall. Because the project site contains well drained sandy soils, there is a negligible risk of liquefaction occurring at the project site during a seismic event.

Structures constructed as part of the project would be required by State law to be constructed in accordance with all applicable California Building Code and Title 24 construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. No impact. The project site is located on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley, west of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The topography is flat, with an elevation of approximately 250 to 3,700 feet above mean sea level, and no significant topological features. As such, there is no potential for rock fall and landslides to impact the project in the event of a major earthquake, as the area has no significant elevation changes. Based on the predicted maximum horizontal accelerations at the project site and the soil types, minor subsurface settlement may occur onsite during a major earthquake, and this is considered less than significant. The site is flat and there is a low potential for landslides. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b) Less than significant impact. The project site contains Wasco sandy loams. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil types, the relatively flat terrain, and low precipitation (about 4 to 7 inches/annually), implementation of the project would not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. The project would be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site-specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.

Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in one or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of

33 the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.

During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c) Less than significant impact. See Geology and Soils responses above. As indicated in previous responses, the site is flat and does not have slopes. Additionally, the site is not located near any area with sufficient slope that could result in off-site landslides. Moreover, the project will be designed by an engineer to resist potential side-effects of spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. d) Less than significant impact. See Geology and Soils responses above. Expansive clay soils are subject to shrinking and swelling due to changes in moisture content over the seasons. These changes can cause damage or failure of foundations, utilities, and pavements. During periods of high moisture content, expansive soils under foundations can heave and result in structures lifting. In dry periods, the same soils can collapse and result in settlement of structures. According to Physical and Chemical Properties of the Soils in the USDA Kern County Soil Survey, the upper five feet of the onsite soil (Wasco sandy loam) is considered to have low shrink-swell or expansion potential. In addition, the site is not located in an area of expansive soil. Compliance with applicable City of Shafter General Plan policies, Municipal Code, and the California Building Code, would reduce potential site-specific impacts to lessthan-significant levels. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.
e) No impact. The project would not require the use of a septic system because the project would connect to the existing City sewer services. Therefore, the project would not result in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The General Plan confirms that the City of Shafter has received sediments from the Coast Ranges to the west, the Sierra Nevada to the east, and to a lesser degree from activity on the San Andreas Fault system. These sediments contain different species of fossils, reflecting the different periods of deposition. General Plan policy 6.6.3. includes a standard condition of approval for new development projects. The policy requires that if cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during grading,

34 alteration of earth materials in the vicinity of the find be halted until a qualified expert has evaluated the find and recorded identified cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

35 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? □ ■ □ □
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ ■ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study was prepared for the NEC Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Street Residential Project, Cesar Chavez Foundation, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., April 2025, included as Appendix A.
a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts.

Although the project is expected to emit GHG, the emission of GHG by a single project into the atmosphere is not necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.

According to SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, a proposed project may utilize Best Performance Standards (BPS) to achieve a less than significant impact from GHG emissions. The BPS have been developed to enforce specific reduction strategies as part of the CEQA process for development projects. Projects that garner at least 29 points are presumed to be consistent with SJVAPCD guidelines. Consistent with CEQA and SJVUAPCD guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

The project will implement mitigation measures that include quantified measures and nine (9) unquantified BPS measures, for which the SJVUAPCD has not assigned specific point values. These measures include actions like installing electric stoves in residences and

36 increasing land use density beyond nine units per acre. Based on the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, December 2021, installing only electric stoves could result in up to a 15% reduction in GHG emissions associated with electricity, while increasing land use density above nine units per acre could result in up to a 30% reduction in GHG emissions associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (RK Engineering Group, Inc 2025).

For those reasons, the project’s annual construction and operational GHG emissions shown in the tables below are primarily for disclosure purposes.

Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/year)1 Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2026 546.81 0.02 0.02 553.91
2027 18.66 0.00 0.00 18.76
Total 565.47 0.02 0.02 572.67
Amortized over 30
years

18.85 0.00 0.00 19.09
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023. 1 MT/year = metric tons per year As shown in the table above, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction will be approximately 572.67 MTCO2e per year, or 19.09 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years. The construction of the project would be temporary; therefore, the project would not consist of a lasting, ongoing source of GHG emissions.

Additionally, GHG emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site operational activity using CalEEMod. The table below shows the project’s estimated generation and usage of GHG emissions from mobile, energy, area, water, waste, and refrigerant sources.

Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/year)1
Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile 1,641.13 0.05 0.06 1,663.77
Energy 329.10 0.04 0.00 330.66
Area 105.46 0.17 0.00 109.65
Water 5.19 0.23 0.01 12.58
Waste 11.47 1.15 0.00 40.15
Refrigerant -- -- -- 0.20
30-year Construction
Amortization 18.85 0.00 0.00 19.09
Total 2,111.21 1.63 0.07 2,176.10
RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023.
1 MT/year = metric tons per year
As shown in the table above, the estimated annual operational GHG emissions will be 2,176.02 MTCO2e per year, including operational emissions and amortized construction.

37 By complying with the implemented mitigation measures, mandatory requirements of the latest 2022 California Building Code, including Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, and Title 24, Part 6, Energy Code, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See response to a. above. The project will be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of the latest 2022 California Building Code, including Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, and Title 24, Part 6, Energy Code. The purpose of the building standards is to reduce negative environmental impacts through planning and design, energy, efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material and resource conservation. As the California Building Standards were developed to help meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which was adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions by achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. Therefore, by complying with the California Building Standards Code and implemented mitigations, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.