Shafter City Council
October 7, 2025

38 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ ■ □
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ ■
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? □ □ ■ □ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. The project proposes to develop 174 multi-family units and would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. However, construction activities would require transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and grease for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

39 for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite locations.

Although the project operation will require day-to-day maintenance activities, it would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. Maintenance of the residential buildings would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of household hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides. Building tenants are required to follow any instructions for use and storage provided on product labels carefully to prevent any accidents in the living space. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b) Less than significant impact. Please refer to response a. above. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment.
c) No impact. The closest schools to the project site are Golden Oak Elementary and Grow Academy located approximately 1.5 miles west of the site. Given the distance and the intervening uses, there is very limited potential for the project to affect the schools in the vicinity. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d) No impact. According to the EnviroStor and Cortese lists pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5, no portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns (EnviroStor 2025). Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e) No impact. The project is not located within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Minter Airport (Shafter 2005). The closest airport is Minter Airport located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because of a public airport or public use airport. f) Less than significant impact. The City maintains an emergency plan for response to disasters, including but not limited to earthquakes, floods, fires, hazardous spills or leaks, major

40 industrial accidents, major transportation accidents, major storms, airplane crashes, civil unrest, and national security emergencies. In a disaster, the City could experience significant casualties, property damage, and utility service interruptions, potentially exceeding the response capabilities of both the City and the County. The plan outlines the general authority, organization, and response actions for City staff to undertake, in compliance with existing law, when disasters happen. The objectives of the plan are to reduce loss of life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emergency forces (Shafter 2005). The emergency plan includes objectives and policies that would prevent new development from interfering with emergency response of evacuation plans. The project will comply with all local regulations related to the construction of new development that is consistent with the emergency plan. The project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access. The proposed project would not inhibit the ability of local roadwaysto accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) Less than significant impact. According to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project is located outside the State Responsibility Area severity zones (Cal Fire 2024). Additionally, the City maintains an emergency plan for response to disasters, including fires. The objectives of the plan are to reduce loss of life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emergency forces (Shafter 2005). The emergency plan includes objectives and policies that would prevent new development from interfering with emergency response of evacuation plans. The project will comply with all local regulations related to the construction of new development that is consistent with the emergency plan. The project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access. The proposed project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

41 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin? □ □ ■ □
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ □ ■
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ ■ □ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. As discussed in Geology and Soils above, the project site’s soil type has a low-to-medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall and a low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface. Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As described in Geology and Soils, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is required to comply with the General Permit because project-related construction activities would disturb at least 1 acre

42 of soil. The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Resources Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040-018; NPDES No.

CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2024). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained within the City because of operational storm water discharges throughout the City, including the project site. By complying with the General Permit and MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Less than significant impact. A large groundwater basin covering over 1.7 million acres underlies most of the southern San Joaquin Valley, including the City, and has been providing water for the area since the early 1900s. This basin is replenished by the natural runoff from the Sierra Nevada, as well as through percolation from the many irrigation canals that import water into the area from other regions of the State. The City’s drinking water is derived from the aquifers within the basin and is pumped to the surface by a system of groundwater wells operated by the City. The City owns and operates its own public water system, including groundwater wells, above-ground water storage tanks with booster stations, an aboveground tank and booster plant, and water distribution lines (City of Shafter 2005).

Under the Urban Water Management Planning Act, every urban water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually is required to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years (Shafter 2021). The UWMP serves as a foundational document and source of information for Water Supply Assessments (Senate Bill 610) and Written Verifications of Water Supply (Senate Bill 221), as it includes a 25-year projection of water demand and supply under both wet and dry year scenarios.

Given that the project is a residential development and may result in population growth, the City’s 2020 UWMP has incorporated the project’s anticipated population increase into its demand projections. Based on these projections, it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing water supply capacity to serve the proposed development. By State law, current UWMP do not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management currently. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant will have to obtain a water will-serve letter. As a result, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
c) The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.

43 i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition.

Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. To comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
ii. Less than significant impact. Refer to response c.i above. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite. iii. Less than significant impact. Referto response c.i. above. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv. Less than significant impact. Construction activities could potentially degrade water quality through the occurrence of erosion or siltation at the project site.

Construction of the project would include soil-disturbing activities that could result in erosion and siltation, as well as the use of harmful and potentially hazardous materials required to operate vehicles and equipment. The transport of disturbed soil or the accidental release of potentially hazardous materials could result in water quality degradation. The project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit. Additionally, a SWPPP would be prepared to specify BMPs to prevent construction pollutants. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

44 The project site is located outside the 500-year floodplain and is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2024). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
d) No impact. As noted above, the project site is not within a FEMA flood hazard zone, nor is it located near the ocean or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.).

Tsunamis are waves generated in oceans from seismic activity. Due to the inland location of the site, tsunamis are not considered a hazard for the site. Therefore, there is no potential for the site to be inundated by tsunami or mudflow.

A seiche is a wave generated by the periodic oscillation of a body of water whose period is a function of the resonant characteristics of the containing basin as controlled by its physical dimensions. There is no body of water within the vicinity of the project site. There is no potential for inundation of the project site by seiche.

There are no nearby levees that would be susceptible to failure or flooding of the site.

Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding because of the failure of a levee. e) Less than significant impact. Refer to a. through d. responses above. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any water quality control plan. The Project would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program and would be required to comply with a SWPPP. The SWPPP would identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and specify BMPs to prevent significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. Moreover, the project is within the jurisdiction of the Kern County Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was adopted by the Kern County Subbasin GSA in December 2024 (Kern County GSP 2024). The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of this GSP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

45 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ ■
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect? □ □ ■ □ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. The project does not include the construction of roads or any other physical barrier. The project includes the development of 174 multi-family units and is adjacent to existing multi-family development. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City, therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b) Less than significant impact. The proposed project requires a GPA and ZC to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the zoning classification. The GPA would change the land use designation and zoning classification from low-density residential to medium high-density residential to allow the development of 174 multi-family units. If a GPA and ZC are approved by the City, the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the zoning classification. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

46 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs resource areas delineated by the State into their General Plans. The principal mineral resources within the City are oil and natural gas. The southern portion of Kern County is a major oil producing region, with oil fields extending into the southern portion of Shafter’s Planning Area (Shafter 2005).

No oil or gas resources have been identified in or extracted from the project site. According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) [formerly called Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)], the project site is not located in an identified oilfield and there are no known wells located on the site (CalGEM 2025). The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources as the project does not propose the extraction of mineral resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not restrict the ability of mineral rights’ holders in the area to exercise their legal rights to access surrounding sites for the exploration and/or extraction of underlying oil research or other natural resources. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) No impact. As noted above, the project is not designated as a mineral recovery area. The project would not alter any existing plans that protect mineral resources. As a result, the proposed project would not interfere with known mining operations and would not result in the loss of land designated for mineral and petroleum. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

47 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □ b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □ c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Noise Impact Study prepared for the NEC Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Street Residential Project, Cesar Chavez Foundation, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., October 2023, included as Appendix C.
a) Less than significant impact. The project’s construction would generate temporary increases in noise levels. The General Plan Section 7.7 requires exterior noise levels in residential zones to be maintained at 60 to 65 decibels utilizing site and architectural design features to mitigate noise impacts when feasible (Shafter 2005). Therefore, a roadway noise impact analysis was performed to determine if a significant impact would occur if noise levels exceed the applicable noise standards and the project results in an increase of 3.0 dBA or more above “Without Project” conditions. It is assumed that all homes in the vicinity of the project site are equipped with fresh air supply or air conditioning systems and thus a windows closed condition is applicable. Additionally, a change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible by the average health human ear (RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023). As a result, the project will not cause a significant permanent increase in roadway noise levels along adjacent roadways.

The project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. b) Less than significant impact. The project is expected to create temporary ground-borne noise and vibration because of the construction activities (during site preparation and grading).

Ground-borne noise is due to construction equipment used during the phases of construction, including site preparation, grading, building, construction, paving, and architectural coating. Noise levels are calculated based on the average distance of equipment

48 over a 1-hour period to the nearest adjacent property (RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023). The project’s estimated construction noise levels have been calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1. The table below shows the noise level impacts from the center of the nearest plot to the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Project Construction Noise Levels at 360 Feet
Phase Equipment Quantity Equipment Noise
Level at 360 feet
(Dba Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
Dba Leq)
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 66.9 69.9
Grading
Graders 1 67.9

70.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 66.9
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 66.9 69.9 Paving Rollers 2 67.9 70.9
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 60.6 60.7
Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level Criteria (Dba Leq) 70.9 FTA Daytime General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria (dBA Leq) 90.0 Noise level exceed FTA criteria? No
As shown in the table above, the project is expected to generate a maximum noise level of

70.9 dBA. Therefore, the project’s construction noise levels will not exceed the Federal Transit Administration General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria threshold (RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023).

Additionally, the project also performed a construction vibration assessment, which utilized the vibration levels and methodology determined by the 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration (FTA 2018). The table below shows the Federal Transit Administration referenced vibration levels (RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023).

49 Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV) (inches/second) at
25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level at
25 feet
Piledriver (impact), upper range 1.518 112
Piledriver (impact), typical 0.644 104
Piledriver (sonic), upper range 0.734 105
Piledriver (sonic), typical 0.170 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydro mill 0.008 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
The following table shows the project’s construction related vibration at the nearest structures to the project area. The distance between the construction area to the nearest structure is 58 feet.

Construction Vibration Impact Analysis
Construction Activity Calculated Vibration Level –
PPV (in/sec) Annoyance Criteria Level
Large Bulldozer 0.035 Barely Perceptible
Vibratory Roller 0.083 Barely Perceptible
Loaded Trucks 0.030 Barely Perceptible
*Distance to Nearest Structure 58 feet
Based on the tables above, the project related construction activity is not expected to cause any potential damage to the nearest structures (RK Engineering Group, Inc 2023). Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c) No impact. As noted in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, the project is not located within the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Minter Airport (Shafter 2005). The nearest airport to the project site is the Minter Field Airport Districted located approximately 4 miles east from the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

50 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project;
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. The project includes the development of new housing to accommodate the housing demand and provide housing to farmworker families, as stated the project does not include any new roads. According to the California Department of Finance the City’s reported population on January 2023 was 21,309 and on January 2024 was 22,226, which showed a population increase of 4.3 percent (DOF 2024). If this positive trend continues, the population in the City will continue to increase and will require more housing.

As stated, the project would assist with the need for housing in the City and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. b) No impact. The projectsite is undeveloped and will not involve demolition of existing housing and will not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

51 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
ii. Police protection? □ □ ■ □
iii. Schools? □ □ ■ □
iv. Parks? □ □ ■ □
v. Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. The construction and operation of the project would result in an increase in demand for fire protection services leading to the construction of new or physically altered facilities. Under contract with the City of Shafter, fire suppression support is provided by the Kern County Fire Department located at 325 Sunset Avenue.

The City of Shafter will ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with local and State fire codes. Services are adequately planned for within the City’s General Plan through policies to ensure the City maintains the fire department’s performance and response standards by allocating the appropriate resources. As stated, the project applicant is responsible for the development impact fees and constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.

52 ii. Less than significant impact. Law enforcement and public protection are provided by the City of Shafter Police Department. The City’s police station is located at 201 Central Valley Hwy. The project would increase demand for public safety protection as the project is a residential development. However, the project applicant is responsible for the development impact fees and constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project would impact on school facilities as the project is a residential development. However, the project would accommodate population growth and provide affordable housing to local families. Additionally, the project applicant is responsible for the school impact fees and constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project would impact on parks and recreation facilities. However, the project applicant is required to pay recreation impact fees.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks. v. Less than significant impact. The project would impact on other public facilities such as libraries, hospitals, or emergency medical facilities. However, the project applicant is responsible for development impact fees and constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the project. The proposed project would comply with the objectives and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.

53 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ ■ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. The project could potentially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks; however, the project applicant is required to pay development impact fees, which allows the City to upgrade, expand, or upkeep existing neighborhood and regional parks. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would not occur or be accelerated. b) No impact. As discussed in this MND, with mitigation, the development of 174 multi-family units would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

54 Transportation/Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ ■ □
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the NEC Birch Street and E. Los Angeles Street MultiFamily Residential Project, Cesar Chavez Foundation, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., October 2023, included as Appendix D.
a) Less than significant impact. The City has not finalized or adopted any policies or methodologies for VMT analysis. As such, the California Governor’s Office Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) formally known as the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA will be used as a basis for this project’s VMT analysis and provides screening criteria that lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project-level assessment.

As stated, the project proposes the construction of 174 affordable housing units. The OPR Advisory recognizes that affordable housing projects typically generate lower VMT than market-rate housing, and a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less significant impact on VMT. Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Evidence supports a presumption of a less than significant impact for a 100% affordable residential development in infill locations. Because the project consists of 100% affordable housing, the project may be presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact on VMT and no further VMT analysis would be required (RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2023). Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b) Less than significant impact. See response to a. above. The project consists of 100% affordable housing, therefore, the project may be presumed to have a less than significant

55 impact on VMT and not further VMT analysis would be required (RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2023). As stated, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
c) Less than significant impact. The project will be designed to current standards and safety regulations. All site access/egresses will be constructed to comply with design and safety standards of Chapter 33 of the California Building Codes and the guidelines of Title 24 to create safe and accessible roadways. Vehicles exiting the site will be provided with a clear view of the roadway without obstructions. Landscaping associated with the entry driveways could impede such views, if improperly installed. Specific circulation patterns and driveway designs will incorporate all applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or other areas surrounding the project area will not occur. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
d) Less than significant impact. See response to c. above. The project would be required to comply with all emergency access requirements adopted and set forth in the City of Shafter Municipal Code. These requirements and all others required to be included in the project design will be verified by the City prior to project approval. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

56 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in the terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or □ □ □ ■ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5021.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. □ □ □ ■
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. There are no sites, features, places, cultural landscapes that are geographically defined in the terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe located on the site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources.
b) No impact. See response to a. above and in the Cultural Resources section. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant.

57 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c) Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □ d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulation related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. Refer to Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality responses above regarding potable and irrigation water, wastewater, and stormwater. The above analysis concluded that the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for potable and irrigation water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities.

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to the City. The existing trunk and transmission facilities are adequate to meet present and projected demand for the project site. The project will connect to the existing PG&E transmission lines for electrical power, but lighting would be minimal.

The City is served by multiple telecommunication providers such as AT&T, Spectrum, TMobile, ATel Communications, and Municipal Fiber Network.

No natural gas is proposed for the project.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas,

58 or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b) Less than significant impact. Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality responses above.

Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c) Less than significant impact. The project will connect to the City’s sewer mains and wastewater will be treated at the wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the North of the River (NOR) Sanitary District which is in a Joint Powers Agreement with the City.

The wastewater treatment plant is currently designing an upgrade and expansion for additional treatment capacity. The wastewater treatment capacity will increase from 7.5 million gallons per day to 10 million gallons per day (NORSD 2025). Therefore, it has been determined by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
d) Less than significant impact. Two franchise haulers, American Refuse and Varner Brothers, serve properties in the City. American Refuse is the franchise hauler within the city core area and will provide service to the proposed project. Solid waste that is collected is disposed of at the Shafter/Wasco Landfill and the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill. These landfills are owned and operated by the Kern County Waste Management Department. The Shafter/Wasco Landfill is the City’s primary landfill, while the Bena Landfill accepts some refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both facilities are designated as Class III landfills and have the capacity to serve projected solid waste disposal needs through December 2053 and April 2046, respectively. Implementation of the project would result in the generation of solid waste on the project site, which would increase the demand for solid waste disposal.

During construction these materials, which are not anticipated to contain hazardous materials, would be collected and transported away from the site. The project, in compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would dispose of all waste generated onsite at an approved solid waste facility. Additionally, prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant will have to obtain a landfill will-serve letter.

Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
e) No impact. See response to d. above. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the project design. The reuse and recycling of construction debris would reduce operating expenses and save valuable landfill space. As stated above, the Shafter/Wasco Landfill is the City’s primary landfill, while Bena Landfill accepts some refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both facilities have the capacity to serve projected solid waste disposal needs through

59 2056 and 2046, respectively. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulation related to solid waste.

60 Wildfires
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or areas classified as very high hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risk, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire? □ □ ■ □
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■ Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. See Hazards and Hazardous Materials section regarding emergency response. According to data from the Cal Fire, there are no fire hazard severity zones on the project site or within the City boundaries (CalFire 2024). As noted previously, the City of Shafter maintains an emergency plan for response to disasters, including fires. The objectives of the plan are to reduce loss of life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emergency forces (Shafter 2005). The emergency plan includes objectives and policies that would prevent new development from interfering with emergency response of evacuation plans. The project will comply with all local regulations related to the construction of new development that is consistent with the emergency plan. The project would also comply with the appropriate local and State requirements regarding emergency response plans and access. The proposed project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b) Less than significant impact. The project site is in a region dominated by residential and agricultural uses. The topography of the area is flat. The project would install the required infrastructure to meet water supply demands for fire protection services. Development of the project will not increase the need for fire protection services or expand the service area of the local Fire Department, and the project will comply with all applicable fire codes and

61 regulations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors.
c) No impact. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to the City. The existing trunk and transmission facilities are adequate to meet present and projected demand to the project site. The project will connect to the existing PG&E transmission lines for electrical power. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
d) No impact. The site is topographically flat land, as is the surrounding area. There are no slopes on or near the property and the project would not expose the people or structures to significant risks from downslope or downstream flooding or landslides due to a result of runoff, post fire instability or drainage changes. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps the project is within an area of minimal flood hazards (FEMA 2024). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

62 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mandatory Findings of Significance:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) □ ■ □ □
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ ■ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As evaluated in this document, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this document, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly impact biological resources, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Therefore, with the following mitigation measures the project would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

63 b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described in the impact analyses in this document, any potentially significant impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the project as described and by mitigation measures. The project would not otherwise combine with impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the region. With mitigation, the proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with mitigation incorporated. There is no substantial evidence that with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, there are any cumulative effects associated with this project. c) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. All the project’s impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the project were identified and mitigated. The project mitigation measures will substantially reduce or eliminate impacts of the project. Therefore, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

64 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cal Fire. 2024. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer Map.

Available:<https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps>.

2. CalGEM. 2025. Well Finder. Available:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/>.

3. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2025. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: <https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways>.

4. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025. California Essential Habitat Connectivity. Available:< https://data.ca.gov/dataset/essential-connectivity-areascalifornia-essential-habitat-connectivity-cehc-ds620>.

5. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder.

Available:<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>.

6. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2025. Fault Activity Map of California.

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data>.

7. DOF (California Department of Finance). 2024. Shafter, CA. 2024.

Available:<https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/>.

8. EnviroStor (Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor). 2025. Site/Facility Search.

Available:< https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True>.

9. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2024. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Search By Address. Available:< https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps>.

10. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

11. Kern County GSP. 2024. Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available:< https://kerngsp.com/gsp-documents/>. December.

12. NORSD (North of the River Sanitary District). 2025. CIP Status Update.

Available:<https://www.norsd.com/cip-status-update>.

65 13. RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2025. NEC Birch Street and Los Angeles Street Residential Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study. April.

14. RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023. NEC Birch Street and Los Angeles Street Residential Project Noise Impact Study. October.

15. RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2023. NEC Birch Street and Los Angeles Avenue Multi-Family Residential Project Traffic Impact Study. October.

16. Shafter (City of Shafter). 2005. General Plan.

17. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.

18. South Valley Biology Consulting LLC. 2025. Shafter Family Apartment Biological Resources Evaluation. March.

ATTACHMENT A
MMRP

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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.  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.

Prior to grading plan
approval
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District;
City of Shafter Planning
Department
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. The applicant/developer shall obtain written proof from the SJVAPCD that the project will/have met all air quality control measures and rules.

3. Provide documentation to the Planning Department for the record.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

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).

Prior to grading plan
approval
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District;
City of Shafter Planning
Department
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. The applicant/developer shall obtain written proof from the SJVAPCD that the project will/have met all air quality control measures and rules.

3. Provide documentation to the Planning Department for the record.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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. 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 special-status 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.

Prior to ground
disturbance
Qualified Biologist; City of
Shafter Planning
Department; California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14 days prior to ground disturbance activities.

3. Provide results of survey to the Planning Department for the record.

4. If special-status species found, then contact CDFW to determine avoidance and minimization measures.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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 preconstruction survey described above, depending on the timing of the pre-construction survey.
 If any active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during the preconstruction 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.

Prior to ground
disturbance
Qualified Biologist; City of
Shafter Planning
Department; California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14 days prior to ground disturbance activities.

3. Provide results of survey to the Planning Department for the record.

4. If special-status species found, then contact CDFW to determine avoidance and minimization measures.
#5 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
 If construction activities are to take place during the nesting season for tricolored blackbird (February - May), 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 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 the nest site and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities.

Prior to ground
disturbance
Qualified Biologist; City of
Shafter Planning
Department; California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14 days prior to ground disturbance activities.

3. Provide results of survey to the Planning Department for the record.

4. If special-status species found, then contact CDFW to determine avoidance and minimization measures.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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.

Prior to ground
disturbance
Qualified Biologist; City of
Shafter Planning
Department; California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14 days prior to ground disturbance activities.

3. Provide results of survey to the Planning Department for the record.

4. If special-status species found, then contact CDFW to determine avoidance and minimization measures.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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.

During construction City of Shafter Planning
Department; Qualified
Biologist (if needed);
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (if needed)
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Provide results of survey to the Planning Department for the record.

3. If special-status species found, then contact CDFW to determine avoidance and minimization 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 During construction Qualified Archeologist; City
of Shafter Planning
Department
Steps to Compliance:

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

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.

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are discovered, halt all work, and contact a qualified archaeologist to assess finds and recommend procedures.

3. If necessary, implement recommended procedures.

4. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record.
#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.

During construction City of Shafter Planning
Department; Kern County
Coroner (if needed); Native
American Heritage
Commission (if needed)
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. If human remains are uncovered, halt all work and contact the Kern County Coroner to evaluate the remains and follow the appropriate procedures and protocols.

3. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the applicant/developer shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission.

4. If Native American human remains are located, the applicant/developer shall implement and comply with the requirements listed in this mitigation measure.

5. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record.

EXHIBIT “A” - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible Monitoring
Agency Date Initials
GPA 23-39 & ZC 23-72 (Cesar Chavez Multi-Family) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

#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.

During construction Qualified Paleontologist;
City of Shafter Planning
Department
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. Contract a qualified paleontologist, if needed.

3. Perform additional investigations and fossil recovery, if needed.

4. Perform significance evaluation and effectuate recommendations, if needed.

5. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record.
#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.

Prior to building
permit issuance
City of Shafter Building
Department; City of Shafter
Planning Department
Steps to Compliance:

1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any site plan review.

2. The applicant/developer shall submit percolation testing results to the Shafter Building Department.

3. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record.

ATTACHMENT B
Figures

Figure 5: Site Plan

Figure 6: Elevations

EXHIBIT 8
ORDINANCE NO. 772

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-72.

WHEREAS, the City Council has, at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 2025, studied and considered Zone Change No. 23-72, a request to change the zone classification from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium High Density Residential) on 8.7 acres (Accessor’s Parcel Number 028-180-57) located at the northeast corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Avenue as depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance as set forth herein (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project includes enforceable mitigation described in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been followed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter Planning Department (336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to amend the City of Shafter Zoning Map to enhance the quality of life and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by applying orderly development in the City; and

WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing for proposed Zone Change No. 23-72 was held by the City Council of the City of Shafter at a regular meeting on October 7, 2025, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said zone change.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shafter, in a regular session assembled on the 21th day of October, 2025, resolved to approve Zone Change No. 23-72 as illustrated in Exhibit “A”.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
____________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST
______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk

Shafter City Council Ordinance No. 772
October 21, 2025

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney

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 A
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 9
RESOLUTION NO. 3046

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

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-39.

WHEREAS, the City Council has, at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 2025, studied and considered General Plan Amendment No. 23-39, a request to amend the general plan designation from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MHDR (Medium High Density Residential) on 8.7 acres (Accessor’s Parcel Number 028-180-57) located at the northeast corner of Birch Street and East Los Angeles Avenue as depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as set forth herein (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project includes enforceable mitigation described in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been followed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter Planning Department (336 Pacific Avenue, Shafter, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposal is consistent with the City of Shafter General Plan; and

WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed public hearing for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 23-39 was held by the City Council of the City of Shafter at a regular meeting on October 7, 2025, at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said general plan amendment.

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shafter, in a regular session assembled on the 7th day of October, 2025, resolved to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and approve General Plan Amendment No. 23-39 as illustrated in Exhibit “A”.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025.
____________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor

Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3046
October 7, 2025

ATTEST
______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney

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 A
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.

MANAGEMENT REPORT

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Rachel Zermeno, Community Engagement Manager SUBJECT: COUNCIL DAIS LOGO DISCUSSION

RECOMMENDATION
Council find action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; discuss and provide direction to Staff regarding the design option provided by Shafter High School.

BACKGROUND
With the recent adoption of the City’s new Branding Standards, the next phase of implementation is underway in support of the “use in commerce” requirement for the City’s California State Trademark application. As part of this process, Staff is moving forward with more visible applications of the logo, specifically within the Council Chambers.

On August 19, 2025, the City Council directed Staff to collaborate with Shafter High School’s Welding and Woodshop Department for the design and creation of the Dais Emblem. Council determined that the full main logo would be displayed behind the dais, while the Seal Logo would be installed on the side wall beneath the phrase “In God We Trust.” Partnering with Shafter High School not only promotes community engagement and strengthens the City’s ongoing relationship with the school, but also provides a cost-effective solution. The City could either compensate the program directly or provide a donation in support of student projects and resources.

Following the Council’s direction, Shafter High recommends focusing on a wood emblem logo design with a backing, using either maple or cherry wood. The emblem would be mounted to the wall using a French cleat system, with the option to incorporate backlighting powered by a battery pack.

FISCAL IMPACT
No immediate fiscal impact.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is a discussion about the Council Chamber dais logo and accent

COUNCIL DAIS LOGO DISCUSSION
- 2 -
wall 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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Shafter City Council Rendering 1

2. Shafter City Council Rendering 2

Shafter City Council
Woodshop / Metal Shop Sign Rendering
28" Wide
22 1/2" Tall
Justin Verrell / Jacob Eyraud
Shafter High School
Sign Specs
28" wIDE x 22 1/2" TALL
made of 3/4" Hardwood (Maple
or Cherry)
Will be French Cleated to the
wall
Can have provisions for Back
Lighting with Battery Pack

Shafter City Council
Woodshop / Metal Shop Sign Rendering
28" Wide
28" Tall
Justin Verrell / Jacob Eyraud
Shafter High School
Sign Specs
28" wIDE x 28" TALL
made of 3/4" Hardwood (Maple
or Cherry)
Will be French Cleated to the
wall
Can have provisions for Back
Lighting with Battery Pack

MANAGEMENT REPORT

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 7, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Marcos Torres, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: TRANSFER COMPLETED SOUTH SHAFTER SEWER PROJECT

TO THE CITY AGREEMENT APPROVAL

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 and the Public Works Director, or their designees, to execute the Agreement to Own, Operate, and Maintain the South Shafter Sewer Project Improvements with the County of Kern; and authorize the Public Works Director to take all necessary steps to implement the terms of the agreement and assume operational responsibility for the completed infrastructure.

BACKGROUND
In 2018, the County of Kern was awarded over $10 million in Proposition 1 Small Community Wastewater Grant funding from the California State Water Resources Control Board to construct a new public sewer collection system serving the unincorporated communities of South Shafter. The project area includes the neighborhoods of West Shafter, Southwest Shafter, Thomas Lane, Smith Corner, Burbank, and Cherokee Strip. Following subsequent grant approvals in 2019 for private lateral connections, the County is now in a position to proceed with construction bidding.

Early in the planning process, County and City Staff determined that it would be in the best interest of affected County residents for the City of Shafter to assume responsibility for ongoing sewer service. This approach ensures service continuity at a reasonable rate and aligns with the City’s existing provision of water service to these communities. Under the proposed agreement, the County will oversee and fully fund the construction of the new system. Upon completion and issuance of a Notice of Completion, the City will assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities.

To facilitate this transition, County and City Staff jointly prepared the proposed agreement to clearly define the terms of ownership, service, and post-construction responsibilities. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement as to form. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2025, with project completion as early as the end of 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT

TRANSFER COMPLETED SOUTH SHAFTER SEWER PROJECT TO THE CITY AGREEMENT

APPROVAL
- 2 -
The proposed agreement is structured to ensure that the City of Shafter’s role during the construction phase of the South Shafter Sewer Project remains cost neutral. The County of Kern will retain full responsibility for all construction-related activities, including project management, grant administration, contractor engagement, and compliance with State funding requirements. The City will not incur costs related to design, construction, or inspection of the improvements.

Upon completion, the City will assume ownership and begin providing sewer service to the benefitted properties under its standard service rates. The grant funding secured by the County includes full payment of applicable City sewer impact fees on behalf of the future customers. Ongoing operational and maintenance costs will be recovered through existing sewer service charges applied to those new customers, consistent with the City’s rate structure.

CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it involves administrative activities related to the assumption of maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure constructed by another agency and does not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

In addition, the construction of the South Shafter Sewer Project has already undergone environmental review by the County of Kern, which acted as Lead Agency. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2007101148) was adopted in 2016, and an Addendum was filed in 2019 to address subsequent design changes and the transition of operational responsibility to the City of Shafter.

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Yes

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft South Shafter Sewer Project Transfer Agreement

AGREEMENT TO OWN, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE

SOUTH SHAFTER SEWER PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

THIS AGREEMENT TO OWN, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE SOUTH
SHAFTER SEWER PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS (“AGREEMENT”), dated for reference purposes ____________ 2025, is by and between the COUNTY OF KERN, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the CITY OF SHAFTER, a charter city of the State of California (“City”).

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, On March 27, 2018, County executed a construction grant agreement with the California State Water Resources Control Board in the amount of $10,177,553 from Proposition 1 Small Community Wastewater grant to fund the South Shafter Sewer Project; and
WHEREAS, The South Shafter Sewer Project will construct a new sewer collection system to provide sewer service to the County unincorporated communities of West Shafter, Southwest Shafter, Thomas Lane, Smith Corner, Burbank and Cherokee Strip (the “South Shafter Private Sewer Connections Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, On April 9, 2019, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved the submission of an application for $3,397,320 in Prop 1 Small Community Wastewater grant funds for construction of the South Shafter Private Sewer Lateral Connections Project in order to abandon the septic systems and connect to the new sewer collection system; and
WHEREAS, The City has agreed to operate and maintain the new sewer collection system for the Project (the “Improvements”) that is to be constructed by County within County streets, upon County’s transfer of ownership of the Project to City; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2020, the County Local Agency Formation Commission (Kern LAFCO) approved an Extension of Services Agreement allowing City to provide sewer service from its municipal sewer system for the project benefitted properties and collect monthly sewer charges as they do for the rest of their municipal sewer customers; and
WHEREAS, The County and City are authorized by Government Code sections 55002, 55080 and 54981 and Health and Safety Code section 4614.15 to jointly exercise their common powers to plan and fund development, operation and maintenance of such Improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to these authorities County and City wish to authorize City to own and maintain the Improvements constructed by County for the Project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between COUNTY and CITY as follows:

1. County will manage and administer all construction grant agreements with the California State Water Resources Control Board and all construction agreements with private construction contractors for the Project. County shall be responsible for completion all Improvements required for the Project.

2. Upon the issuance of a Notice of Completion by the Kern County Board of Supervisors for the construction of the Project, title to the Improvements will pass hereunder to the City, who will thereafter operate and maintain the Improvements to provide City sewer service to the benefitted properties and collect all applicable and necessary sewer charges and fees in the same manner and to the same extent as it does for the existing City sewer system and its customers. Following the passage to title to the Improvements, City will thereby also acquire all County rights to the construction warranties contained in the County construction agreements as County’s assignee to such construction agreements.

3. Concurrent with the issuance of the Notice of Completion by the Kern County Board of Supervisors for the construction of the Project, the County will issue quit-claim deed(s) to the City of Shafter for the sewer easements acquired as a part of the Project.

4. Responsibility for payment of any debts, liabilities and obligations incurred by County or City in the discharge of its duty hereunder shall be and remain the sole debt, liability or obligation of the party incurring the debt.

5. Upon completion of the Project, City shall maintain the Improvements in such reasonable manner and at such reasonable times as it determines appropriate. The services to be performed, and the manner in which such services are performed by City, shall be in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the applicable federal, state and local governmental agencies.

6. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall endure to the benefit of the successors of the parties. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect without specific term until such time as the parties hereto shall agree upon the termination thereof.

7. City agrees to comply with the on-going Grant Funding obligations in that certain Grant Funding Agreement between the County of Kern and California State Water Resources Control Board attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as to the following Sections:
 2.12 (Project Access)
 2.14 (Continuous Use of Project)
 2.17 (Records)
 3.7 (Rates, Fees and Charges)
 3.9 (Accounting and Auditing Standards)

 4.6 (Conflict of Interest)
 4.16 (Operation and Maintenance; Insurance)
 Exhibit E (Programmatic Conditions and Cross-Cutters)  Exhibit H (Compliance with Cross-Cutting State Authorities) Indemnity

8. Reciprocal Mutual Indemnity.
a. The City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County and County’s agents, board members, elected and appointed officials and officers, employees, volunteers and authorized representatives from any and all losses, liabilities, charges, damages, claims, liens, causes of action, awards, judgements, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees of County Counsel and counsel retained by the County, expert fees, costs of staff time, and investigation costs) of whatever kind or nature, which arise out of or are in any way connected with any act or omission of City or City’s officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, sub-contractors of any tier, or authorized representatives. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include bodily and personal injury or death to any person or persons; damage to any property, regardless of where located, including the property of the City; and any workers’ compensation claims or suit arising from or connected with any services performed pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of the City by any person or entity.

b. County agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials and officers, employees, volunteers and authorized representatives from any and all losses, liabilities, charges, damages, claims, liens, causes of action, awards, judgements, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees of counsel retained by the City, expert fees, costs of staff time, and investigation costs) of whatever kind or nature, which arise out of or are in any way connected with any act or omission of County or County’s officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, sub-contractors of any tier, or authorized representatives. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include bodily and personal injury or death to any person or persons; damage to any property, regardless of where located, including the property of the County; and any workers’ compensation claims or suit arising from or connected with any services performed pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of the County by any person or entity.

9. No party hereto shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by

reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the other party hereto or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the other party under this agreement.

Pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, each party shall fully indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code section 810.8) occurring by any reason of anything done or omitted to be done by such party under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this agreement.

10. Notices. Any written communication required or permitted to be given hereunder will be deemed received upon personal delivery or 48 hours after deposit in any United States mail depository, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for who intended, as follows:

If to County: County of Kern - Public Works
2700 M Street, Suite 400
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attn: Public Works Director
If to City: City of Shafter
720 Commerce Way
Shafter, CA 93263
Attn: Public Works Director
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written.

COUNTY OF KERN APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED:

Board of Supervisors Public Works Department
By _______________________________ By ____________________________ Signature Joshua Champlin, Director
Name/Title:_________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of County Counsel
By ____________________________
Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF SHAFTER APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED:

City of Shafter Public Works
By ______________________________ By ____________________________ Michael James, Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City of Shafter Attorney
By ______________________________