Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Shafter City Council
May 19, 2026

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
May 19, 2026
Body
Shafter City Council
Pages
655
Original file
136.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on shafterca.api.civicclerk.com. That file is the official record.

21 Agreement, in conjunction with each anticipated phase of Development of the Property, subject to all relevant provisions of this Agreement.

7.5.2 Landscaping Improvements. Owner shall, at its sole cost, expense and liability, construct those certain landscaping improvements required by the Mission Lakes Specific Plan found to be in substantial conformance by the City Engineer. Owner shall Dedicate any required improvements to the City at the time of recordation of the final map for which the improvements were a condition of approval. Owner will construct such landscaping improvements in accordance with City and other applicable governmental agency rules, codes, standards, ordinances and regulations in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, subject to the Reservations of Authority.

7.5.3 Flood Control and Storm Drainage Improvements. Owner shall, at its sole cost, expense and liability, construct those certain flood control and storm drainage improvements required by the Mission Lakes Specific Plan found to be in substantial conformance by the City Engineer. Owner shall Dedicate any required improvements to the City at the time of recordation of the final map for which the improvements were required. Owner will construct such flood control and storm drainage improvements in accordance with City and other applicable governmental agency rules, codes, standards, ordinances and regulations in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, subject to the Reservations of Authority.

7.5.4 Public Utilities Impact Measures. Contemporaneously with or prior to the approval of each final map applicable to the Project, Owner shall provide written evidence, acceptable to City, that Owner has fully satisfied all public utilities impact measures lawfully required by any public utility purveyor, including, without limitation, phone, water, electric, cable television and gas, which will service that portion of the Project. Failure to provide such evidence will result in disapproval of any final map.

7.6 Alternative Improvements Interests. City and Owner acknowledge and agree that the potential acquisition of real property and other interests necessary for the construction of the Public Improvements described in Section 7.5 of this Agreement is subject to the provisions of Section 6.7. If, due to any reason whatsoever, Owner is unable to construct those Public Improvements described in Section 7.5 of this Agreement and meeting the definition of an Offsite Improvement due to the inability of either Owner or City to acquire the necessary real property or other interests to allow such construction, then Owner shall construct alternative improvements of an equal or greater value than those improvements which would have been constructed had the necessary property and other interests been obtained or pay an in-lieu fee, if applicable. The value of such alternative improvements shall be as determined in the City’s reasonable discretion, consistent with the programs, studies and reports substantiating the amount of development impact fees adopted by the City. Construction of the alternative improvements shall be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by City in accordance with all codes, ordinances, regulations, standards and policies in effect at the time of the construction of the improvements.

7.7 Environmental Site Inspection. Owner hereby grants to the City, its agents, contractors, employees and other representatives the right to enter upon the Property during reasonable business hours for purposes including, without limitation, the surveying, inspecting, photographing, sampling, and other testing necessary, in the City’s absolute discretion, to the

Page 144 of 655 ends

22 determination of whether hazardous or toxic pollutants, contaminants or materials (collectively, “environmental contaminants”) are located upon any property which the City will be receiving through Dedication including, without limitation, parks, rights of way, and utility easements. Upon discovery of any environmental contamination, Owner shall immediately cease any work that may have begun upon the Project, will notify all appropriate governmental authorities and regulatory agencies, and will take all steps necessary to comply with any provisions of any federal or state environmental laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and all other federal or state statutes of similar import and effect.

7.8 Dedication. The term “Dedicate” as used in this Article 7 means to acquire and offer the subject land for dedication and to construct the improvements to be constructed by the Owner on such land pursuant to Section 7.5 of this Agreement and thereafter to convey such land and improvements to the City. Owner shall convey the land on which the Public Improvements are to be constructed in coordination with the anticipated phasing of Development of the Property as identified by the Public Improvement Phasing Plan included as Exhibit E of this Agreement, but in no event later than the recordation of the final tract map for which such Public Improvement(s) was/were a condition of approval. Owner shall Dedicate/convey easement interests in all property required to be Dedicated by this Agreement. The Owner shall Dedicate each Public Improvement upon completion of a segment component of such Public Improvement.

7.9 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size. Owner agrees that the minimum single-family dwelling unit size permitted in the Project’s subdivisions shall be no less than 850 square feet of living space. The minimum square foot requirement excludes garages, patios and/or porches whether enclosed or not.

7.10 Fiber Optic and Networking Installation for Dwelling Units. Owner agrees to install in each dwelling unit the following fiber optic and networking requirements:

7.10.1 Building Department Requirements
(a) Install a dedicated City Fiber Enclosure adjacent to the other utility enclosures or a Common Communication Enclosure (collectively “Utility Enclosure”) for the proposed communications utilities (phone, cable, fiber, etc.). The enclosure type shall be BennerNawman 14326W-UL or as approved by the City. The Utility Enclosure may face the garage exterior or interior and shall include one 120-volt, 15-amp convenience receptacle inside the enclosure mounted on either side of the wall. A surge-protected receptacle must be installed. (b) Install a wireless-transparent Structured Media Enclosure (“Media Enclosure”), such as models: Legrand 30” ENP3050, Legrand 42” ENP4250, Leviton 30” 49605- 30W, Primex Verge 30” P3000, 42” Primex Verge P4200, or as approved by the City. The Media Enclosure shall be installed in the wall of a master bedroom closet or a laundry room furthest from the water supply and maintain a minimum 48-inch horizontal clearance between and 24-inch clearance above any metallic appliances or accessories. The Media Enclosure shall include one 120-volt, 15-amp convenience receptacle located inside the enclosure.

Page 145 of 655 ends

23 (c) Install a conduit pathway from the Utility Enclosure to the Media Enclosure with a minimum of one (1) 1-inch diameter non-metallic, flexible conduit which shall maintain a minimum 36-inch bend radius and protrude a minimum of 6-inches into the enclosures. The conduit shall be marked with orange Tyvek or plastic tags, labeled “City Fiber Use Only”, 661- 746-5000”, tie wrapped to the conduit in plain view within the enclosures. (d) Install a continuous conduit without breaks or couplings from the existing City Fiber Distribution Enclosure located in the right-of-way (“Distribution Enclosure”) to the bottom side of the Utility Enclosure. The conduit shall be installed a minimum of 36-inches below grade, protrude a minimum of 12-inches into the Utility Enclosure, be orange in color, and be factory labeled “City of Shafter 661-746-5000”. If the conduit does not have an integrated tracer wire, a continuous external #12 AWG solid-conductor tracer wire with high-density polyethylene insulation rated for direct burial shall be installed along with the conduit leaving a minimum 15- feet of slack coiled in the Distribution Enclosure and 3-feet of slack coiled in the Utility Enclosure.

The conduit and tracer wire shall be inspected by a City of Shafter representative before shading and backfilling.
(e) After backfilling, polyester cable pulling tape (Muletape), or equivalent, shall be installed in all conduit paths between the Distribution Enclosure and the Utility Enclosure.

Mule tape shall be slack (no tension) and fastened to the plug or cap. (f) Couplings shall be used to repair damaged or short-length conduit only if approved by the City. Conduit couplings shall be an air-tight, water-tight, push-on compression fitting approved by the City. Tracer wire couplings shall be air-tight, water-tight, twist on or compression connector approved by the City. Coupling integrity shall be inspected by a City of Shafter representative.
(g) Category 6 Unshielded Twisted Pair (CAT 6 UTP) cable (or as approved by the City) shall be installed according to industry standards and the requirements below, and shall not be pinched, stapled, bent sharply, or crossing any sharp, unprotected edges:
(h) Install a minimum of two (2) cables from the Utility Enclosure to the Media Enclosure.

7.10.2 Engineering Department Requirements
(a) Owner shall design and install a system of conduits, terminal enclosures, distribution enclosures, splice enclosures, connection points, and hand holes for a fiber optic network to each buildable lot within the development. Design and material specifications are available from the City of Shafter. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Shafter, prior to recordation of the final map, showing the proposed utility trench and all appurtenant hardware. The design shall include the following minimum specifications:
(i) A combination of fiber optic conduits shall minimally include 4” SDR-11 HDPE, 2” SDR-11 HDPE, 1.25” SDR-11 HDPE, and 7-Way bundled HPDE innerduct with attached tracer wire. Fiber optic conduits may be joint-trenched with other utility company pipes and/or conduits.

Page 146 of 655 ends

24 (ii) All underground fiber optic conduits, innerduct bundles, etc. shall be factory-labeled “City of Shafter 661-746-5000”. Conduits shall be identified by a permanent marking, with the address number of the residence they serve, within the distribution enclosures. (iii) All underground fiber optic conduit paths shall have tracer wire. If the conduit does not have an integrated tracer wire, a continuous external #12 AWG solidconductor tracer wire with high-density polyethylene insulation rated for direct burial shall be installed along with the conduit leaving a minimum 15-feet of slack coiled in the endpoint enclosures.
(iv) The ends of all fiber optic conduits, innerducts, and microducts shall be plugged or capped to prevent dirt, debris, or foreign objects from entering. (v) After backfilling, all conduits shall be checked for obstructions, and re-excavated and repaired or replaced as required. All conduits ½-inch or larger shall require polyester cable pulling tape or equivalent installed. Mule tape shall be slack (no tension) and fastened to the plug or cap. Innerducts and microducts shall be mandrel tested while being witnessed by a City of Shafter Public Works Department representative. (vi) A combination of underground utility enclosures shall minimally include 36”W x 60”L x 36”D polymer concrete enclosures with dual torsion covers, 36”W x 36”L x 24-36”D and 24”W x 36”L x 24-36”D High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) enclosures. (vii) All underground utility enclosures shall be factory-stamped “City Fiber”.

ARTICLE 8. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND

MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS

8.1 Maintenance Services Community Facilities District. The City and Owner agree to the formation of a new, or annexation to an existing, CFD pursuant to the terms of the MelloRoos Community Facilities Act of 1982, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code commencing with section 53311, as amended (the “Act”). The territory of which shall include the Project, for the purposes of the payment of the ongoing maintenance and operation costs associated with certain public services authorized under the Act (“Services”) located within, or appurtenant to, the Project. Owner shall consent to the annexation or the formation of the CFD prior to recordation of the first final map for the Project or the first sale, transfer or conveyance of the Property or any portion thereof. Owner further expressly agrees that failure of Owner to consent to the annexation or formation of such CFD will result in disapproval of any future tentative or final maps for the Project and will be cause for the City to terminate this Agreement.

Owner also agrees that additional areas may be annexed into the CFD to be created pursuant to this Section 8.1; provided, however, that after giving effect to such annexation, Owner is subject only to its fair share of the obligations and costs of providing the ongoing maintenance of the Services incurred for the Project. Owner agrees to cooperate fully in any such annexation proceedings.

Page 147 of 655 ends

25 8.2 Public Safety Community Facilities District. The City and Owner agree to the formation of a new, or the annexation to an existing, CFD pursuant to the terms of the Act, the territory of which shall include the Project, for the purposes of the payment of the ongoing costs associated with providing police protection, fire protection and suppression services, and other public services as authorized by the Act (“Public Services”). Owner shall consent to the annexation or the formation of the CFD prior to recordation of the first final map for the Project or the first sale, transfer or conveyance of the Property or any portion thereof. Owner further expressly agrees that the failure of Owner to consent to the annexation or formation of such CFD will result in disapproval of any future tentative or final maps for the Project and will be cause for the City to terminate this Agreement.

Owner also agrees that additional areas may be annexed into the CFD to be created pursuant to this Section 8.2; provided, however, that after giving effect to such annexation, the Owner is subject only to its fair share of the obligations and costs incurred because of providing the Public Services. The Owner agrees to cooperate fully in any such annexation proceedings.

Owner agrees that the Public Safety Community Facilities District may be formed as part of or separate from the Maintenance Services Community Facilities District described in Section 8.1 of this Agreement, at the City’s discretion.

ARTICLE 9. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.

9.1 Periodic Review. The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall review this Agreement annually on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of the Agreement. Owner shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to, and containing such information as may be requested by the City Manager, or his or her designee, within 30 days after written notice from the City Manager, or his or her designee. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee, in an amount consistent with then-existing City fee schedules and resolutions, sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. Neither City nor Owner shall have a duty to notify the other of their respective obligations hereunder and the City’s failure to so conduct such annual reviews shall not affect the rights, protection, and benefits afforded Owner by the Development Agreement Law and this Agreement shall remain subject to the Development Agreement Law.

9.2 Special Review. The Planning Commission or City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall conduct such special reviews.

9.3 Procedure.
(a) During either a periodic review or a special review or at any time upon City’s determination that Owner is in default of this Agreement as described in Section 10.4,

Page 148 of 655 ends

26 Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner.
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall submit a report to the Planning Commission setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement and his/her recommended finding on that issue.
(c) If the Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(d) If the Planning Commission makes a preliminary finding that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that the City Council commence proceedings to modify or terminate this Agreement and the City Council may proceed to modify or terminate this Agreement under Section 9.4 and Section 9.5. Notice of default and opportunity to cure as provided under Section 10.4 of this Agreement shall be given to Owner prior to or concurrent with proceedings under Section 9.4 and Section 9.5.

9.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a recommendation of the Planning Commission under Section 9.3(d), the City Council determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, the City Council shall give written notice to Owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
(a) The time and place of the hearing;
(b) A statement as to whether or not the City Council proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and the specifics of such modifications; (c) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Owner of the nature of the proceeding.

9.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement the City Council may terminate this Agreement notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, Owner is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by Owner, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to Owner stating that after

Page 149 of 655 ends

27 the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Commission and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) Owner is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review, and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. Owner may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.

Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees of Owner, City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City Manager.

ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.

10.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof.

In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City shall not be liable in damages, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, to Owner, or to any mortgagee or lender of Owner or to a successor in interest of Owner, or a mortgagee or lender of Owner, or to any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages:
(a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement; or
(b) For the impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided under, with, or pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, any impairment or restriction which Owner characterizes as a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation; or (c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement.

Further, nothing contained herein shall modify or abridge Owner’s rights or remedies (including its rights for damages, if any) resulting from the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain; provided, however, that such exercise results in a physical occupation of the Property or portion thereof. Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, Owner’s remedies shall be limited to those set forth in this Section 10.1 and Sections 9.5 and 10.2.

10.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate, and specific performance and other non- monetary relief, including temporary and permanent injunction relief, are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages are unavailable against the City.

Page 150 of 655 ends

28 (b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. (c) Owner shall not be required to post a bond to obtain injunctive relief.

10.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 9.5, Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits or any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law, ordinance, or judicial decision which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.

Without limiting the generality of anything in the immediately preceding paragraph, Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby expressly waives the benefit of, and any protections provided by Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT

THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY

AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
OR RELEASED PARTY.

BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SECTION 10.3:

Owner’s Initials, Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.

Owner’s Initials, Millrose Properties California, LLC
Owner’s Initials, 7th Standard Ranch Investors LLC

Page 151 of 655 ends
Page 152 of 655 ends
Page 153 of 655 ends

(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to detennine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. (c) Owner shall not be required to post a bond to obtain injunctive relief.

10.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 9. 5, 0-WTier, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits or any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law, ordinance, or judicial decision which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.

Without limiting the generality of anything in the immediately preceding paragraph, Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby expressly waives the benefit of, and any protections provided by Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT

THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY

AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
OR RELEASED PARTY.

BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SECTION 10. 3:

Owner's Initials, Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.

Owner's Initials, Millro e Properties California, LLC
Owner's Initials, 7th andard Ranch Investors LLC
28

Page 154 of 655 ends

29 In addition to waiving the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542, the Owner hereby waives, releases and foregoes the provisions of any federal or state statute or judicial decision of similar effect.

10.4 Termination or Modification for Default of Owner. City may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of Owner to perform any material duty or obligation of Owner under this Agreement as provided in Article 6 hereof, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “default”); provided, however, City may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section in accordance with Article 6 hereof only after providing written notice to Owner of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Owner to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, Owner has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

10.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of City. Owner may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by City in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to City of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by City to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, City has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

ARTICLE 11. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.

11.1 General Plan Litigation. City has determined that this Agreement and the Mission Lakes Specific Plan are consistent with its General Plan, and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. Owner has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with City’s determination.

City shall have no liability under this Agreement for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement or the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Mission Lakes Specific Plan, which failure to perform or inability to develop is as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law, or that this Agreement or any of City’s actions in adopting it were invalid, inadequate or not in compliance with law.

11.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not

Page 155 of 655 ends

30 thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.

11.3 Indemnity. In addition to and not as a limitation upon the provisions of Sections

11.1 and 11.2 above, Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from all liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury or death (Owner’s employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder including, but not limited to, the design, engineering, construction, completion, operation, maintenance, repair, failure, conveyance or physical condition of the Public Improvements.

The foregoing obligation shall not apply to any claims for damages which arise through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of City. Owner shall defend, at its sole cost, expense and liability, including attorneys’ fees, City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions of Owner.

City may, in its discretion, participate in the defense of any such legal claim, action or proceeding and shall be entitled to reimbursement from Owner for any and all costs associated with such defense including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

11.4 Environmental Contamination. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors, excepting any acts or omissions of City as successor to any portions of the Property Dedicated or transferred to City by Owner, for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys, fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.

11.5 City to Approve Counsel. With respect to Sections 11.1, through 11.4, inclusive, herein, City reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense; provided, however, that Owner shall reimburse City forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys’ fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.

11.6 Survival. The provisions of Sections 11.1 through 11.6 inclusive, shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

11.7 No Waiver of Common Law or Statutory Obligations. City and Owner acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or abridgement of any common law or statutory obligations which Owner may have with respect to indemnification, defense and contribution in the event that any action or proceeding is commenced against City

Page 156 of 655 ends

31 which is based upon this Agreement or which is in any way related to any actions taken by Owner pursuant to this Agreement.

ARTICLE 12. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.

The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement, provided, further, that any modifications of this Agreement are subject to the provisions of Section 5.5 of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by Owner in the performance of Owner’s obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed Owner under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Owner’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance. However, to the extent that the performance of such covenant by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of any act by the City, the City shall have no obligation to perform such act hereunder unless and until the Mortgagee performs the covenant of Owner which is the condition precedent to the City’s performance. Although a Mortgagee is not obligated to perform the obligations and covenants of Owner hereunder, if the Mortgagee elects to so perform, such performance shall be in full accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.4 of this Agreement.

Page 157 of 655 ends

32 ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

13.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Kern County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period following the Effective Date as required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.

13.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.

13.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Article 7 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the development rights set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement are essential elements of this Agreement and Owner would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.

13.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.

13.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

13.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.

13.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement any part of the Property is jointly owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners under this Agreement as to that portion of the Property jointly owned shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the default of all such owners, except to the extent such portion(s) of the Property and associated obligations have been transferred and assigned pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a

Page 158 of 655 ends

33 member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided herein.

13.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.

13.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.

13.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.

13.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, government regulations, or court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions). If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. The failure of either party to obtain or maintain financing necessary for the performance of its respective obligations and duties hereunder shall not be deemed a cause for an extension of the term of this Agreement or a cause for the extension of time for performance of any such obligation by any party hereunder unless mutually agreed to by the parties in writing.

13.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefitted thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted party.

13.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during Ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.

13.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.

13.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the

Page 159 of 655 ends

34 County of Kern, State of California. Each Party hereto irrevocably consents to the personal jurisdiction of that court. The City and the Owner each hereby expressly waive the benefit of any provision of federal or state law or judicial decision providing for the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court or jurisdiction, including, without implied limitation, federal district court, due to any diversity of citizenship between the City and the Owner, due to the fact that the City is a party to such action or proceeding or due to the fact that a federal question or federal right is involved or alleged to be involved. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Owner and the City specifically waive any rights provided to it pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. The Owner acknowledges that the provisions of this Section 13.15 are material consideration to the City for its entry into this Agreement, in that the City will avoid the potential cost, expense and inconvenience of litigating in a distant forum.

13.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.

13.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.

Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The provisions of this Section

13.17 shall not require the taking of any actions which are prohibited by law or, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, including, without limitation, Section 6.7, impair the lawful legislative discretion of the City as to those matters to which the law imparts legislative discretion to the City.

13.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.

13.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event Owner is not a resident of the State of California or is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, Owner shall file with the City Manager or his or her designee, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon Owner. Owner is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained, and waives all objections and protests thereto.

Page 160 of 655 ends

35 13.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner warrants and represents that he/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind Owner to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

13.21 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the statute governing development agreements (Sections 65864 through 65869.5 inclusive) in effect as of the Effective Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 6.5 above, to the extent the subsequent amendment to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendment shall not be applicable to the Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable.

13.22 No Personal Obligation/No Completion Obligation. This Agreement in and of itself does not represent a personal obligation of individual officers, directors, and shareholders of Owner, its successors or assigns. Nothing herein contained shall in and of itself be deemed to create an obligation of the Owner, its successors or assigns to complete the development of the entire Project as contemplated, or any particular portion thereof. No officer, official, employee, agent, contractor or attorney of the City shall have any personal liability or obligation for the performance of the City’s obligations hereunder.

Page 161 of 655 ends

36 SIGNATURE PAGE TO
MISSION LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22 CITY:

CITY OF SHAFTER, a California municipal
corporation
By:

Mayor, City of Shafter
ATTEST:

City Clerk
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP:

By:

City Attorney

Page 162 of 655 ends
Page 163 of 655 ends
Page 164 of 655 ends
Page 165 of 655 ends
Page 166 of 655 ends

SIGNATURE PAGE TO
MISSION LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22 OWNER:
7th Standard Ranch Investors LLC
PO Box 82515
Bakersfield, CA 93380
By:

Its:

Dated.
/^.r^
-7Z.
t0/-7 -Z-$
41

Page 167 of 655 ends

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF <2. < )ss.
)
On Oc^to<-r- ~7 (3-0'9^, before me, \|~I&I<L ^>\(Lfp , a Notary Public, personally appeared ^.<- "QSzM.i^.So , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person^) whose name(^) is/ayfe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s^e/ttyfy executed the same in his/h^r/th^ir authorized capacity(ie;S), and that by his/he't'/thfeir signatures^) on the instmment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person^) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing parasrauh is true and correct.

VIOLA ROrtERO
Notary Public . Ciliforni*
Kwn County
Corn mission »24«1631
My Comm. Expires Aug W, 2027
1 WITNESS y hand and official seal.

Notar}' Public
42

Page 168 of 655 ends

43 EXHIBIT A
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Legal Description of the Property

Page 169 of 655 ends

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 4 157201-001304

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real Property in the City of Shafter, County of Kern, State of California, described as follows:

TRACT 1:

PARCELS 1 THROUGH 22, INCLUSIVE, 25 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE, 29 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE AND "D" OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11314, IN THE CITY OF SHAFFER, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2006 IN BOOK 54, PAGES 149 TO 158 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL INTERESTS CONVEYED TO TENNECO OIL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1988, IN BOOK 6183, PAGE 1167 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH INTERESTS CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS

ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER LIQUID AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBONS AND IN ADDITION THERETO

CARBON DIOXIDE, HYDROGEN, HELIUM, NITROGEN, METHANE, SULFUR (IN EACH CASE IN EITHER

LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM) AND ANY OTHER LIQUID OR GASEOUS SUBSTANCES, INERT OR

OTHERWISE, OR ANY OF THEM, ANY MINERALS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH ("HYDROCARBONS") IN, ON OR UNDER THE PREMISES, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN ANY WAY RELATED THERETO. IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED

THAT THIS RESERVATION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN THE CONVEYANCE REFERRED TO ABOVE AND THAT

TITLE IS SUBJECT TO THAT CONVEYANCE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SUMMARY WHICH IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. SAID ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE WAS CLARIFIED BY FIRST AMENDMENT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1989, IN BOOK 6200, PAGE 1908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN'S: 536-010-20 THROUGH 536-010-24, 536-010-26 THROUGH -536-010-29, 536-010-32, 536-010-34, 536-010-35 THROUGH 536-010-40, 536-010-42 THROUGH 45, 536-010-49 THROUGH 536-010-51, 536-010-63, 536-010-67 THROUGH 536-010-70, 536-010-72, 536-010-73, 536-010-81, 536-010-84, AND 536-010-86 THROUGH 536-010-91
TRACT 2:

PARCELS 23, 24 AND 29 OF PARCEL MAP 11314, IN THE CITY OF SHAFTER, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2006 IN BOOK 54, PAGES 149 THROUGH 158, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL INTERESTS CONVEYED TO TENNECO OIL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1988, IN BOOK 6183, PAGE 1167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH INTERESTS CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS

ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER LIQUID AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBONS, AND IN ADDITION THERETO

CARBON DIOXIDE, HYDROGEN, HELIUM, NITROGEN, METHANE, SULFUR (IN EACH CASE IN EITHER

LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM) AND ANY OTHER LIQUID OR GASEOUS SUBSTANCES, INERT OR

OTHERWISE, OR ANY OF THEM, AND ANY MINERALS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH ("HYDROCARBONS") IN, ON OR UNDER THE PREMISES, TOGETHER WITH

ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN ANY WAY RELATED THERETO, IT IS

ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS RESERVATION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN THE CONVEYANCE REFERRED TO

ABOVE AND THAT TITLE IS SUBJECT TO THAT CONVEYANCE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SUMMARY WHICH IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. SAID ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE WAS CLARIFIED BY FIRST AMENDMENT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1989, IN BOOK 6200, PAGE 1908, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER RIGHTS OR WATER STOCK APPURTENANT TO

OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND ALL MINERALS, COAL, CARBONS, HYDROCARBONS,

OIL, GAS, CHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS WHETHER IN SOLID, LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM,

AND ALL STEAM AND OTHER FORMS OF THERMAL ENERGY ON, IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, (THE "MINERAL ESTATE"), PROVIDED THAT GRANTOR DOES NOT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON OR USE THE SURFACE OR ANY PART OF THE SUBJECT LANDS ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500

Page 170 of 655 ends

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 5 157201-001304
FEET BELOW THE SURFACE, AS RESERVED BY FARMLAND RESERVE, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 2004 AS DOCUMENT NO. 04-243888 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN'S: 536-010-33, 536-010-41, 536-010-71, 536-010-74 AND 536-010-85 TRACT 3:

PARCEL A (WELL 4E 36-1)
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'33" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 14.45 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 89°14'03" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, A DISTANCE OF 1028.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°45'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 251.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) NORTH 44°44'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE 2) NORTH 45°15'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 3) SOUTH 44°44'39" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE 4) SOUTH 45°15'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-010-13
PARCEL B (WELL 4E 36-2)
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE NORTH 02°10'43" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2135.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°49'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 840.17 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) NORTH 17°14'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 72°45'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 85.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 3) SOUTH 47°31'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.46 FEET; THENCE 3) SOUTH 17°14'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 92.70 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 72°45'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 81.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-01-12
PARCEL C (WELL 4E 36-3)
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 02°11'12" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 1532.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°48'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1838.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) SOUTH 80°52'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 61.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 2) SOUTH 09°07'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 80°52'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 61.20 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 09°07'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-010-11
PARCEL D (WELL 4E 36-4)
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°14'39" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 799.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°45'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 79.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 1) SOUTH 35°48'39" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 54°11°21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 62.26 FEET;

Page 171 of 655 ends

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 6 157201-001304
THENCE 3) NORTH 35°48'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET, THENCE 4) NORTH 54°11'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 62.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-010-10

PARCEL E
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE SOUTH 02°10’34"

WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 1700.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL; THENCE SOUTH 66°52'59" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 12.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 1) SOUTH 66°52'59" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 23°07’01” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.68 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 66°52'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 23°07'01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.68 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-010-09

PARCEL F
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, M.D.M., COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34 FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS NORTH 89°12'12" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 45°44'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3730.76 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE (1) SOUTH 02°12'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (2) NORTH 87°47'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (3) NORTH 02°12'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (4) SOUTH 87°47'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 536-010-80

Page 172 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT B
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Map of Property and Ownership Information

Page 173 of 655 ends

Millrose Properties California, LLC
5 River Park Place East, Suite 210
Fresno, CA 93720
North Kern Water Storage District
33380 Cawelo Extended
Bakersfield, CA 93308
7th Standard Ranch Investors
P.O. Box 82515
Bakersfield, CA 93380
Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.

P.O. Box 511196
Salt Lake City, UT 84151

Page 174 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT C
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Current Mission Lakes Specific Plan
Available at:

City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
OR
Online at:
www.shafterca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6045/
Mission-Lakes-SP

Page 175 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT D
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement (“Assignment”) is made this ____ day of __________, by __________, a __________ (“Assignor”) and ____________ (“Assignee”) with reference to the following facts:

A. Assignor is the owner of that certain real property, described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”). The Property is subject to the provisions of that certain Development Agreement No. 25-22 ("Development Agreement"), dated as of __________, with the City of Shafter, a California municipal corporation (“City”).

The Development Agreement was recorded on __________, as instrument no.__________, in the official records of the Kern County Recorder.

B. Assignor has proposed to sell and transfer the Property to Assignee. Pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, Assignor wishes to assign all rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to the Property under the Development Agreement to Assignee. Similarly, Assignee desires to assume all of Assignor’s rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to the Property under the Development Agreement.

C. Assignor’s proposed sale and transfer of the Property to Assignee has been reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, as evidenced by the City’s execution of this Assignment below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals of fact set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety by this reference.

2. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby transfers and assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby expressly and unconditionally assumes all the rights, duties and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement to the extent those rights pertain to the Property, including, without limitation, all of the general rights, duties and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement for the development of the Property. Assignee agrees to observe and fully perform all of Assignor's obligations under the Development Agreement, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, it being the express intention of both Assignor and Assignee that, upon execution of this Assignment, Assignee shall become substituted for Assignor as the “Owner” under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property.

Page 176 of 655 ends

3. Secured Obligations. Pursuant to section 5.4.1(b) of the Development Agreement, Assignee has provided the City with security equivalent to any security previously provided by Assignor to secure performance of its obligations under the Development Agreement.

4. Release of Assignor. Pursuant to section 5.4.1(c) of the Development Agreement, Assignor shall be free from any and all liabilities pertaining to the Property accruing on or after the date hereof with respect to the Development Agreement. No breach or default under this Assignment or the Development Agreement by Assignee shall be attributed to Assignor.

5. Governing Law. This Assignment is made and entered into in the State of California and shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Kern County.

6. Binding Effect. This Assignment shall apply to, bind, and inure to benefit of Assignor and Assignee, and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.

7. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one instrument. [Signatures on Following Pages]

Page 177 of 655 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed as of the date first above written.
“ASSIGNOR”
________________
a ________________
By: ______________________________
Name: __________________
Its: _________________________________
“ASSIGNEE”
________________
a ________________
By:__________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Its: __________________________________
[Intentionally Left Blank]

Page 178 of 655 ends

The City of Shafter hereby approves of this Assignment and acknowledges that Assignor, having satisfied the conditions to the release set forth in Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, shall be released from its obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property described in Exhibit A.

CITY OF SHAFTER, a California municipal law corporation By: ______________________________
Name:

Its:

ATTEST:

By: _______________________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By: _________________________
City Attorney

Page 179 of 655 ends

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF _____________ )ss.
)
On __________________, before me, _______________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
____________________________________
Notary Public

Page 180 of 655 ends

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF _____________ )ss.
)
On __________________, before me, _______________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
____________________________________
Notary Public

Page 181 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT A TO EXHIBIT “D”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY BEING ASSIGNED

Page 182 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT E
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Public Improvement Phasing Plan

Page 183 of 655 ends

Phase 1 Tract 7461
Roads: North half improvements of Seventh Standard Road from the west side of Calloway Canal to the west boundary line of Phase 1, Full width improvements1 (not including sidewalk and landscaping on east side) of Lake Road, including sidewalk and landscaping along the west side of Lake Road for the tract frontage, Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on north side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Lake Road to the south end of Street A, including sidewalk and landscaping along the south side of Mission Lakes Boulevard, and fire access improvements consisting of base rock and two-lane asphalt pavement on Mission Lakes Boulevard South from the south end of Street A to Zerker Road.

Sewer: Sewer main from the point of connection on Seventh Standard Road at Zerker Road to Mission Lakes Boulevard South, east along Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Lake Road, south to point of connection on Seventh Standard Road.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company connection in Seventh Standard Road across Calloway Canal along Seventh Standard Road to Zerker Road. A tee main connection will be installed at Lake Road to continue to Mission Lakes Boulevard South, then continuing along Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Zerker Road, then south on Zerker Road to Seventh Standard Road.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 1.

Signal: Traffic Signal at intersection of Seventh Standard Road and Lake Road.

Phase 2 Tract 7462
Roads: Sidewalks and landscape for east side of Lake Road, Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, including landscape and sidewalk along east side of Mission Lakes Blvd from Lake Road to D Street and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Street D to the Phase 2 north boundary, including landscape and sidewalk on east side of D street from Mission Lakes Blvd to northerly boundary of Phase 2. 1 Full width improvement means curb-to-curb.

Page 184 of 655 ends

Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, along Street D to the Phase 2 north boundary.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company, along Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, then along Street D to Mission Lakes boundary connecting to Gossamer Grove development.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 2.

Phase 3 Tract 7463
Roads: Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on north side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard North along Phase 3 frontage, including landscape and sidewalk on south side of Mission Lakes Blvd North for Phase 3 frontage and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Street A, including landscape and sidewalk along east side of A Street from Mission Lakes Blvd South to Mission Lakes Blvd North; sidewalk and landscaping on the north side of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Street A to the eastern boundary of Phase 3.

Sewer: Sewer main along Street A from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Mission Lakes Boulevard North, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Street D to Lennar’s western property line/Suburban Land’s eastern property line.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company, along Street A from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Mission Lakes Boulevard North, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Street D to Lennar’s western property line/Suburban Land’s eastern property line.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 3.

Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).

Phase 4 Tract 7464
Roads: Sidewalks and landscape for north side of Mission Lakes Boulevard North along Phase 4, full width improvements along Mission Lakes Blvd North from westerly boundary of Phase 4 to A Street and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on east side) of Street D from Phase 2 boundary to the north boundary of Phase 4, including landscape and sidewalk

Page 185 of 655 ends

improvements along west side of D Street from Mission Lakes Blvd to northerly boundary of Phase 4.

Sewer: Sewer main along Street D from Phase 2 boundary to the north boundary of Phase 4.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company installed with Phases 1-3.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 4.

Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).

Phase 5
Roads: North half improvements of Seventh Standard Road from the west boundary line of Phase 5 to the west boundary of Phase 1, and Full width improvements (including sidewalks and landscape for south side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Street A to the west boundary line of Phase 5, and Full width improvements along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Seventh Standard Road, including landscape and sidewalk on both side of Zerker Road from 7th Std Road to Mission Lakes Blvd South.

Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company connection in Seventh Standard Road from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 5.

Signals: Modifications to existing traffic signal and loop detectors at the intersection of Zerker Road and 7th Std Road.

Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).

Page 186 of 655 ends

Phase 6
Roads: Full width improvements including landscape and sidewalk on both sides of Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to west boundary of Phase 4, and Full width improvements including landscape and sidewalk on both sides of Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6; sidewalk and landscaping on the west side of A Street between Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Mission Lakes Boulevard North.

Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 4, and along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 4, and along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 6.

Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).

Phase 7
Roads: Full width improvements of Street D from north Phase 4 boundary to northeast side of the Calloway Canal including roadway bridge over Calloway Canal and sidewalk and landscaping on both sides of D Street along Phase 7 frontage; sidewalk and landscaping on the west side of Mission Lakes Boulevard from the Phase 3 boundary to Street D. -
Sewer: Sewer main along Street D from north Phase 4 boundary to Street E.

Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company installed with Phases 1-3.

Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 7.

Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).

Page 187 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 188 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 189 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE

ONLY, EAST SIDE OF
MISSION LAKES BLVD. Page 190 of 655

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 191 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 192 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 193 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

Page 194 of 655 ends

MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N

SIDEWALK AND

LANDSCAPE ONLY,

WEST SIDE OF
MISSION LAKES BLVD. Page 195 of 655

EXHIBIT F
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Mission Lakes Specific Plan Park Improvements

Page 196 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT F
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 24-22
Mission Lakes Specific Plan Park Improvements
Per the Mission Lakes Specific Plan (“Plan”) approved July 16, 2024 (Ordinance No. 754), there are thirteen (13) parks found within the Plan area. A brief description of the parks can be found in the table below:

Planning Area (PA)* Acres per Park (minimum) Minimum Number of Parks in PA PA-1 1.0 1
PA-2a 2.0 1
PA-2b Not Applicable 0
PA-2c Not Applicable 0
PA-3 1.0 1
PA-4 1.0 1
PA-5 1.0 2
PA-6 Not Applicable 0
PA-7a 2.0 1
PA-7b Not Applicable 0
PA-8 1.0 1
PA-9 2.0 1
PA-10 44.1 1
PA-11 24.1 1
PA-12 Not Applicable 0
PA-13 Not Applicable 0
PA-14 1.0 1
PA-15 1.0 1
PA-16 Not Applicable 0
*Planning Areas and general park locations within the Planning Areas found in Figures 3-1 and 3-4, respectively, of the Mission Lakes Specific Plan approved July 16, 2024.

In lieu of paying a Park Impact Fee for each dwelling unit, the Owner may design and fully construct publicly accessible parks included in the Plan, which shall be completed within eight (8) months of commencing park construction.

Per the approved Plan, “[n]eighborhood parks shall be completed prior to the issuance of 60% of the certificates of occupancy for dwelling units in their respective planning area where they are located.” Additionally, the Plan requires that the 44.1-acre park in PA-10 “shall be completed prior to issuance of the certificates of occupancy for 1,500 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area.” Finally, the Plan requires that the construction of the 24.1-acre park in PA-11 begin “after the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for 2,500 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area and completed before 3,000 certificates of occupancy for dwelling units have been issued.” However,

Page 197 of 655 ends

the City of Shafter reserves the right to revise these requirements through unique conditions of approval for a future tract map, site plan, etc. applicable to a subject planning area.

Also, per the Plan, where possible, “detention basins should be integrated into [the Mission Lakes Specific Plan area] as landscaped open space areas for passive recreation and/or playfields.” Additionally, per the Plan, “[t]he neighborhood pocket parks will be landscaped with a small grove of trees, shrubs, and other plant material as described in the project’s plant palette which will be determined by the master developer. The public and neighborhood pocket parks will have unique identities and shall contain any combination of passive sitting areas, open space turf areas for various activities, tot lots, walkways, and decorative lighting, subject to approval of the Planning Director.”
The general landscaping standards for parks found in the Plan are as follows:

All areas required to be landscaped will be planted with turf, groundcover, shrubs, or trees selected from the plant palette contained in these guidelines. The private recreational facilities and neighborhood parks, neighborhood commercial center, and common landscaped areas are permitted to be planted with a hydroseed mix. Sod shall be used for required front yard landscaping. A combination of hydroseed mix and flatted groundcovers shall be used to cover areas between shrubs and trees to prevent erosion. Colorful perennials also will be a part of these plantings. Plants with similar watering requirements shall be planted together in order to simplify the irrigation systems and increase water use efficiency. Priority use of water shall be considered, meaning that visually sensitive areas are entitled to use more water than low visual impact areas. Visually sensitive areas include entries and highly traveled street frontages.

The Plan also provides guidance on drought tolerance as follows:

The landscape palette for the Mission Lakes Specific Plan shall promote selective drought tolerance through the use of native and naturalizing species. All common landscape areas shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems. Drip or bubbler irrigation shall be provided where feasible. Automatic controllers shall be equipped with automatic rain-shutoff devices and provide for various type of water management options.

Finally, the Plan provides guidance on plant materials as follows:

Conceptual planting guidelines have been established through this Specific Plan. More detailed plant material guidelines and plant palette shall be established by the master developer…and will provide flexibility and diversity in plant material selection, while maintaining a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the

Page 198 of 655 ends

community. The plant material lists will be selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions, soil conditions, and concern for maintenance and shall be made available of the City of Shafter Planning department. Wherever possible, overall plant material groupings shall have compatible drought resistant characteristics. Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water application for the entire landscape setting. Consideration must be given when locating trees to avoid potential long-term problems with tree roots, but the City will have final approval for clearances when public facilities may be affected.

Per the approved Marcona Preserve Specific Plan, the following is applicable to the park(s) to be developed within the subject Planning Area:

PA-1
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-2a
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 2.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-3
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

Page 199 of 655 ends

PA-4
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-5
• Two neighborhood parks with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of parks shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-7a
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 2.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-8
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

Page 200 of 655 ends

PA-9
• One neighborhood with a minimum size of 2.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-10
• One park with a minimum size of 44.1 acres that includes a minimum of one lake and open space.
• Facilities can include community center, hard courts, pool/spa, parking areas, restroom facilities, basketball and tennis courts, tot lots, open space turf, and barbeque facilities. • Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-11
• One park with a minimum size of 24.1 acres.
• Facilities to be provided within this public park shall include, but are not limited to, a tot lot and children’s play area with adjacent seating and paths, multipurpose turf, ball fields, multiuse courts that may include tennis, basketball, volleyball or handball, bike racks, restroom facilities, trash receptacles and parking.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-14
• One pocket park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

PA-15

Page 201 of 655 ends

• One pocket park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.

Page 202 of 655 ends

Statistical Analysis
PA-1
157.6 AC***
PA-15

26.5 AC
PA-16
129.1 AC
PA-4
100.2 AC***
PA-2
179.5 AC
PA-3

87.1 AC
PA-11

24.1 AC
PA-6

24.6 AC PA-7
127.6 AC
PA-12

23.1 AC
PA-10

44.1 AC***
PA-9

49.8 AC
PA-14

24.1 AC
PA-13

12.0 AC
PA-5

78.8 AC
PA-8
114.2 AC
***Number includes school/lake acreage.

Land Use Plan Figure 3-1 0‘ 2000‘ 1000‘
Elementary
School

15.0 AC
Lake

33.1 AC
Middle
School

25.0 AC
LAND USE PA ACRES* DENSITY MAX
DUsRESIDENTIALLow Density Res. (LDR) PA-1 132.6 4-7.5 du/ac 745Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-2 179.5 4-7.5 du/ac 720Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-3 87.1 4-7.5 du/ac 307Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-4 85.2 4-7.5 du/ac 435Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-5 78.8 4-7.5 du/ac 375Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-6 24.6 4-7.5 du/ac 126Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-7 127.6 4-7.5 du/ac 486Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-8 114.2 4-7.5 du/ac 620Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-9 49.8 4-7.5 du/ac 275Medium Density Res. (MDR) PA-12 23.1 7.5-14 du/ac 236Medium Density Res. (MDR) PA-13 12.0 7.5-14 du/ac 123Medium-High Density Res. (MHDR) PA-14 24.1 18-24 du/ac 400Medium-High Density Res. (MHDR) PA-15 26.5 18-24 du/ac 486TOTAL 965.2 5,334NON-RESIDENTIALCommercial PA-16 129.1Middle School PA-1 25.0Elementary School PA-4 15.0TOTAL 169.1PARKS & RECREATIONPrivate Recreation (HOA)** PA-10 11.0Lake PA-10 33.1Public Park PA-11 24.1TOTAL 68.2Public Road 71.6Calloway Canal ROW 82.6TOTAL-GROSS ACREAGE 1,356.8 *Excludes ROW for roads defined on Circulation Plan
** Additional private pocket parks located throughout residential areas.Note: Lot sizes are averaged to achieve maximum dwelling unit count for each planning area.

73.2 AC 70.3 AC 124.9 AC 19.7 AC 168.5 AC 97.8 AC 67.3 AC 89.3 AC 101.2 AC 26.8 AC 74.4 AC Parcel 8 Parcels 9 & 10 Parcels 11 & portion of 12
Parcels 26 & 27 Parcel 28 Parcels 13 & 14 Parcel 15 Parcel 16 PA-7b Parcels 19 & 20 Parcel 18Parcel 31 11.7 acres Parcel 30 13.1 acres Parcels 23, 24 & 25

23.9 Parcel 5 Parcels 1, 2, 3 & 4Parcels 6 & 7 2 5 40.0 AC PA-7a 42.7 AC PA-2b PA-2a PA-2c Parcel 22 38.0 AC Parcels 17 & 21

69.4 AC Parcel D 29.6 acres 42.7

Page 203 of 655 ends

Parks and Recreation Plan Figure 3-4
Legend
Public Park
Private Recreation
Primary Paseo
Secondary Paseo
Natural Trail
Lake/Open Space
not to scale
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA

HOA HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
P
HOA
Public
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

Page 204 of 655 ends

PUBLIC HEARINGS

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Steve Esselman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74

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

1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project;

2. Approve Resolution No. 3079 approving GPA No. 25-41; and

3. Introduce for first reading, by title only, and waive reading of Ordinance No. 781 approving ZC No. 25-74.

The GPA amends the City of Shafter General Plan land use designation for one parcel (APN 028-290-03) from VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) to LDR (Low Density Residential); the other parcel (APN 028-290-04) under consideration is already designated LDR. The ZC changes the zone district under Title 17 of the Shafter Municipal Code for one parcel (APN 028-290-03) from E (Estate) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the other parcel (APN 028-290-04) from A (Agricultural) to R-1. Each parcel is 20.03 acres for a total of 40.06 acres under consideration, and the two parcels are located at the southwest and southeast corners of the E. Los Angeles Avenue and S. Mannel Avenue intersection.

BACKGROUND

1. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of the E. Los Angeles Avenue and S.

Mannel Avenue intersection. See Exhibit 1.

2. General Plan Designation: The site’s current land use designations are VLDR (APN 028-290-03) and LDR (APN 028-290-04). See Exhibit 2.

3. Zoning: The site is currently zoned E (APN 028-290-03) and A (APN 028-290- 04) (Low Density Residential). See Exhibit 3.

4. Acreage: 40.06 acres

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

6. Off-site Land Use: The site is surrounded by future multi-family residential and existing single-family residential to the north, future single-family residential to the east, agriculture to the south, and single-family residential to the west.

Page 205 of 655 ends

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 - 2 -
Cornerstone Engineering, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, V Lions Holding, LLC, is requesting the general plan amendment and zone change. At the April 14, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the general plan amendment and zone change to the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

This project consists of a request for a GPA/ZC to allow for the development of lowdensity single-family residential on 40.06 acres located at the southwest and southeast corners of the E. Los Angeles Avenue and S. Mannel Avenue intersection. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 7498 is associated with this GPA/ZC and, if the GPA/ZC is approved, the TTM would subdivide the project site to allow for the development of 176 one- and two-story single-family residential units; if the GPA/ZC is approved by the City Council, the associated TTM would be brought forward to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council at a future date.

The project will be developed to City of Shafter development standards, which include onsite and offsite improvements.

Onsite improvements include, but not limited to:
• Street, sidewalk, curb and gutter
• Sewer and storm drain
• Water
• Dry utilities
• Landscape
Offsite improvements consist of the following:
• Street, sidewalk, and landscape improvements along E. Los Angeles Avenue and future S. Mannel Avenue
• Connection to existing waterline in E. Los Angeles Avenue • Connection to the existing sewer line on E. Los Angeles Avenue and Beech Street and west of S. Mannel Avenue
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:

Staff have reviewed the proposal for consistency with the applicable objectives and policies contained within the Shafter General Plan land use element and find the following:

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

Page 206 of 655 ends

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 - 3 -
desirable place to live.

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

Policy 2: Maintain and promote suburban density, single-family areas that will accommodate a range of densities from small lot subdivisions in a planned community setting to traditional subdivisions to large lot equestrian-oriented developments.

The project is consistent with this policy because the project promotes suburban density, single-family areas that accommodates a traditional subdivision.

NOTICING:

As required by Senate Bill 18, all general plan amendments require consultation with California Native American tribes. Staff requested a tribal consultation list from the Native American Heritage Commission, and Staff received a list with eight tribal contacts. Staff provided a letter dated December 27, 2024 to each contact on the list.

No tribal contacts returned any responses or requested any further consultation.

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination were also advertised in The Shafter Press. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site and all residents within Tract 6460 (were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact because of the proposed action.

CEQA ANALYSIS
Based upon an initial study, Staff has determined that the project, with mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2026020740) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from February 20, 2026 to March 23, 2026. The MND is provided as Exhibit 4.

Comments Received:The following comments were received by staff during the public review period for the MND.
• Dave Kereazis, California Department of Toxic Substance Control (February 24, 2026) – The commenter provides general guidance regarding contaminants of concern and remediation, soil/fill testing and remediation, and possible need to perform an Environmental Site Assessment and perform soil testing.

Page 207 of 655 ends

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 - 4 -
• Response: The comments have been noted for the record and have been forwarded to the applicant.
• Kaylee Schoenheide, Kern County Fire Department (March 2, 2026) – The commenter commented that project construction would require fire water flowing a minimum 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours with 20 pounds per square inch residual, all fire access roads fire access roads to each parcel must meet specifications set forth in Section 503.2 of the California Fire Code and the applicable Appendix and Ordinance sections, and all new residential construction will require automatic fire sprinklers and shall meet all other fire requirements of the California Fire Code.
• Response: The comments have been noted for the record and have been forwarded to the applicant.
• Emilio Flores, California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) (March 3, 2026) – The commenter provides general guidance and regulation synopses regarding oil, gas, and geothermal wells and access to such wells, including guidance on leakage testing, reabandonment protocols, Notice of Intent requirements need for prior approvals from CalGEM for abandoning or re-abandoning wells, county recorder notification requirements if there are wells, and contaminated soil disposal requirements.
• Response: The comments have been noted for the record and have been forwarded to the applicant. No known oil or gas resources have been identified in or extracted from the project site.
• Daniel Martinez, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (March 5, 2026) – The commenter states that the project site is within an Assembly Bill 617 area, requests that the project use the cleanest available off-road construction equipment and recommends further quantitative analysis for potential impacts to sensitive receptors because of the project. The commenter also recommends the performance of a Health Risk Assessment, assessing the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barrier and urban greening into project design, using clean lawn and garden equipment in the community, and developing onsite solar.

Finally, the commenter provides a summary of SJVAPCD rules and regulations that could be applicable to the project.
• Response: The comments have been noted for the record. City staff conclude that the air quality analysis is sufficient for purposes of environmentally clearing a single-family residential project adjacent to existing urban uses and that

Page 208 of 655 ends

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 - 5 -
SJVAPCD’s recommendations for further analysis are not warranted. Solar installation is now mandatory in California for new housing. The project is required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. • Monique Wilber, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (March 16, 2026) – The commenter state that protection of the state’s agricultural land resources is part of the Division’s mission. The commenter provided comments that the conversion of agricultural lands as part of the project represents a permanent reduction and impact to farmland. The commenter advises that the environmental review address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land, and that an agricultural conservation easement is one potential method for mitigating loss or conversion of agricultural land. • Response: The comments have been noted for the record and have been forwarded to the applicant.

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

APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY

ATTACHMENTS

1. Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map

2. Exhibit 2 - Existing General Plan Land Use Map

3. Exhibit 3 - Existing Zone District Map

4. Exhibit 4 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

5. Exhibit 5 - Ordinance No. 781

6. Exhibit A of Exhibit 5

7. Exhibit 6 - Resolution No. 3079

8. Exhibit A of Exhibit 6

Page 209 of 655 ends

RANCES AVE

WINTERS DR

TTENHORN RD

THOMPSON ST

JEFFRIES ST

HEARTNUT ST

BIRCH ST

S MANNEL AVE

PLANADA DR

HICKORY ST

TREVINO TERRACE

S SHAFTER AVE

MARIE ST

LORI LN

VINA DR

LA DANTE ST

ELIZABETH AVE

BOESE ST

KELSEY CT

FLORES WAY

ATKINSON AVE

S MANNEL AVE

NEWCASTLE CT

RODRIGUEZ AVE

LACEY ST

S BEECH AVE

MCKENNA CT

S BEECH AVE

S CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

ESTE ST

JACEY ANN CT

SANTA FE WAY
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Parcels 2025 July 24
Site
Shafter City Limits
Road Centerlines
Arterial
Collector
Highway
Local
3/26/2026, 3:50:42 PM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:9,028
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.

Page 210 of 655 ends

E RIVERSIDE ST

WINTERS DR

THOMPSON ST

JEFFRIES ST

HEARTNUT ST

BIRCH ST

S MANNEL AVE

PLANADA DR

HICKORY ST

TREVINO TERRACE

S SHAFTER AVE

MARIE ST

LORI LN

VINA DR

LA DANTE ST BOESE ST

KELSEY CT

FLORES WAY

S SHAFTER AVE

S MANNEL AVE

NEWCASTLE CT

FRANCES AVE

ELIZABETH AVE

MARGARET AVE

ATKINSON AVE

OLSON AVE

RODRIGUEZ AVE

LACEY ST

S BEECH AVE

E LOS ANGELES AVE

MCKENNA CT

S BEECH AVE

S CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

ESTE ST

JACEY ANN CT

SANTA FE WAY
Exhibit 2 - Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Parcels 2025 July 24
Site
Shafter City Limits
General Plan
Agriculture - Open Space
Business Park
Canal - Right of Way
Commercial - Professional Office
Community Facilities
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Rural Community
Very Low Density Residential
Road Centerlines
Arterial
Collector
Highway
Local
3/26/2026, 4:03:21 PM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:9,028
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.

Page 211 of 655 ends

E RIVERSIDE ST

WINTERS DR

THOMPSON ST

JEFFRIES ST

HEARTNUT ST

BIRCH ST

S MANNEL AVE

PLANADA DR

HICKORY ST

TREVINO TERRACE

S SHAFTER AVE

MARIE ST

LORI LN

VINA DR

LA DANTE ST BOESE ST

KELSEY CT

FLORES WAY

S SHAFTER AVE

S MANNEL AVE

NEWCASTLE CT

FRANCES AVE

ELIZABETH AVE

MARGARET AVE

ATKINSON AVE

OLSON AVE

RODRIGUEZ AVE

LACEY ST

S BEECH AVE

E LOS ANGELES AVE

MCKENNA CT

S BEECH AVE

S CENTRAL VALLEY HWY

ESTE ST

JACEY ANN CT

SANTA FE WAY
Exhibit 3 - Existing Zone District Map
Parcels 2025 July 24
Site
Shafter City Limits
Road Centerlines
Arterial
Collector
Highway
Local
Zoning Classifications
Agricultural
Business Park
Community Facilities
Estate
General Commercial
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
Not Designated
3/26/2026, 4:09:14 PM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:9,028
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.

Page 212 of 655 ends

February 20, 2026

CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA
Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment No. 25-41, Zone
Change No. 25-74 and Tentative Tract Map
No. 7498
(APNs 028-290-03 and 028-290-04)
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
Exhibit 4

Page 213 of 655 ends

2 CONTENTS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ............................................................................................. 4 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 4 Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures.................................................................................. 4 Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures .................................................................. 5 Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 7 Geology and Soils Impact Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 8 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (CEQA APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM) .................. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................................................................12 Determination ............................................................................................................................12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE ................................................................................................................15 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................15 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................15 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...........................................................................................17 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................17 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................20 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................20 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................25 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................25 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................28 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................28 Energy .........................................................................................................................................29 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................29 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................30 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................................................................................35 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................35 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................37

Page 214 of 655 ends

3 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................38 Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................................................................................40 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................40 Land Use and Planning ...............................................................................................................45 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................45 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................46 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................46 Noise ...........................................................................................................................................47 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................47 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................49 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................49 Public Services ............................................................................................................................50 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................50 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................52 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................52 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................53 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................53 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................55 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................55 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................56 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................56 Wildfires ......................................................................................................................................59 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................59 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................61 Evaluation of Environmental Effects ......................................................................................61 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................63

Page 215 of 655 ends

4 CITY OF SHAFTER

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Shafter (City) has completed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), would not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. 25-41, Zone Change No. 25-74 and Tentative Tract Map No. 7498 -290-03 & 028-290-04)
Comment Period Begins: February 20, 2026
Comment Period Ends: March 23, 2026
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects) are as follows. See Attachment A to the Initial Study for Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
AIR-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 grading and construction, the applicant will comply with the following:

All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover, or vegetative ground cover.

All onsite unpaved roads and offsite-unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Page 216 of 655 ends

5 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut-and-fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.

When materials are transported offsite, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. No material is expected to be transported offsite.

All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Diesel Particulate Matter: during construction, the applicant will comply with the following design features:

Properly and routinely maintain all construction equipment, as recommended by manufacturer manuals, to control exhaust emissions.

Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods of time to reduce emissions associated with idling engines.

Encourage ride sharing and use of transit transportation for construction employee commuting to the project sites.

Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of fossil fuel-fired equipment.

AIR-2 Prior to Tentative Tract Map No. 7498 approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Department that the project has complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 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

Page 217 of 655 ends

6 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.

BIO-2 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- 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. -construction survey, a qualified
biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding the nest and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities. If nest disruption is not possible, CDFW should be contacted for guidance.

BIO-3 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
If construction activities are to take place during the nesting season for tricolored blackbird (February - May), a pre-construction survey will be conducted 14 - 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities within the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer to identify individual tricolored blackbirds and active nests. This survey can be conducted concurrently with the San Joaquin kit fox pre-construction survey described above, depending on the timing of the preconstruction survey.

If any active tricolored blackbird nest sites are found during the pre-construction survey, a qualified biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding the nest site and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities, the nest site and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities.

Page 218 of 655 ends

7 BIO-4 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.

BIO-5 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 10 mph 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.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 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

Page 219 of 655 ends

8 the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fireaffected 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.

CUL-2 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.

CUL-3 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.

Geological and Soils Impact Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall 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) Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Best Performance Standard (BPS) Measures for Development Projects.

Page 220 of 655 ends

9 Transportation/Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures
TRA-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall either pay or bond for 8.7% of the cost, as determined by the City Engineer, for a future signal at the Shafter Avenue and E.

Los Angeles Street intersection.

Page 221 of 655 ends

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

1. Project title: General Plan Amendment No. 25-41,
Zone Change No. 25-74 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 7498

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

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

4. Project location: Approximately 2,000 feet west of South Central Valley Highway, along East Los Angeles Ave and
(future) South Mannel Avenue intersection in
west Shafter (Figure 1: Regional Project
Location, Figure 2: Aerial Overview)

5. Project name and address: V Lions Holdings, LLC
P.O. Box 1200
Wasco, CA 93280

6. General plan designation: LDR (Low-Density Residential) and Very Low Density Residential (Figure 3: General Plan Land
Use)

7. Zoning: Estate (E) and Agricultural (A) (Figure 4:

Zoning)

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

This project consists of a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change (ZC) to allow the development of a low-density residential development of 176 single-family residential units. The development will include one- and two-story buildings on an approximately 40-acre site located approximately 2,000 feet west of S. Central Valley Highway, along East Los Angeles Avenue and South Mannel Avenue intersection in west

Page 222 of 655 ends

11 Shafter (APN 028-290-03 and -04) (Figure 5: TTM 7498). The residential development was assessed as if it would be developed and constructed in four (4) phases over a 4-year period beginning in 2026.

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

The project will be developed to City of Shafter development standards which include onsite and offsite improvements.

Onsite improvements include, but not limited to:

Street, sidewalk, curb and gutter
Sewer and storm drain
Water
Dry utilities
Landscape
Offsite improvements consist of the following:

Street, sidewalk and landscape improvements along East Los Angeles Avenue and future South Mannel Avenue
Connection to existing water line in East Los Angeles Avenue Connection to the existing sewer line on East Los Angeles Avenue and Beech Street and west of South Mannel Avenue

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by East Los Angeles Avenue and surrounded by residential and agricultural uses to the north, east, south and west as further described:

North: Vacant and residential, zoned multi-family and low-density residential East: Agricultural, zoned low density residential
South: Vacant land, zoned agricultural and residential estate West: Scattered residential uses, zoned residential estate

10. Other public agencies whose approval is expected to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

City of Shafter CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption City of Shafter General Plan Amendment approval
City of Shafter Zone Change approval
City of Shafter Grading permit
City of Shafter Improvement plans

Page 223 of 655 ends

12 City of Shafter Building permits
City of Shafter Tentative Tract Map approval
City of Shafter Potable water and sewer will-serve letters San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Indirect Source Rule compliance State Water Resources Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit

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

Note: A records search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 25, 2024 by Hudlow Consultants. The NAHC responded with a letter on 12/5/24 stating the results of the search were negative. A list of eight (8) Federal and Non-Federal Tribes was provided, and individual requests were sent by Hudlow on December 27, 2024. Per SB 18 guidelines, no responses were received by the January 24, 2025 Resource Survey, dated January 2025.

Page 224 of 655 ends

13 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Haz. Mat.

Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Res.

Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been 1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

February 20, 2026
Steve Esselman, Planning Director Date

Page 225 of 655 ends

14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 226 of 655 ends

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

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

Page 227 of 655 ends

16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of project views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with the applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of 176 single-family units on an approximately 40-acre site. The site is located on undeveloped land with Very Low-Density Residential (VLDR) and Low-Density Residential (LDR) land use designations and Estate (E) and Agricultural (A) zoning classifications. The project is requesting a GPA and ZC, which would allow for the proposed project. There are residential uses to the north, and west, and agricultural uses to the south and east of the project site.

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

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

Page 228 of 655 ends

17 c) Less than significant impact. The project is surrounded by residential uses to the north, and west and agricultural uses to the south and east. The project would be visible from passing motorists and the surrounding residences. The proposed project includes a request for a GPA and ZC to develop one- and two-story residential buildings consisting of 176 units, which is consistent with the surrounding land use designations. The parcels located to the north of the project site are Medium High Density Residential and Low-Density Residential, therefore, changes to the visual quality and character of the project site would be compatible with the existing residential uses and adhere to similar residential uses in the surrounding areas. Given that the project is requesting a GPA and ZC, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings in a non-urban area or conflict with the applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality in an urban area.
d) Less than significant impact. The residential development was assessed as if it would be developed and constructed in four (4) phases over a four-year period beginning in 2026. The first year of operation (Phase 1 of Tract No. 7498) is expected to begin in 2027. Shafter Municipal Code (Section 8.24.030 Construction Work) limits construction noise between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. It follows that construction activity will occur during daylight hours and that lighting or glare associated with construction activities would not be a factor. Increased truck traffic and the transport of construction materials to the project site would temporarily increase glare conditions during construction. However, this increase in glare would be minimal.

Construction materials delivery would focus on specific areas on the sites, and any sources of glare would not be stationary for a prolonged period.

When occupied and construction complete, street lighting would be in place that complies with City of Shafter standards. Similarly, landscape lighting and residential lighting would comply with city standards so as not to create a light glare nuisance.

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

Page 229 of 655 ends

18 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Farmland Conversion Study was prepared for APN 028-290-04 by Cornerstone Engineering Inc. dated October 2025, included as Attachment C.
a) Less than significant impact. The 40-acre site (APNs 028-290-03 and -04) currently has Very Low-Density Residential (VLDR) and Low-Density Residential (LDR) land use designations and

Page 230 of 655 ends

19 Estate (E) and Agricultural (A) zoning classifications. The project is requesting a GPA and ZC, which would allow for the proposed project; the proposed General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential (LDR) and the proposed zoning classification is Low-Density Residential (R-1) for the 40-acre site. The project site is surrounded by existing and proposed residential uses to the north and existing agricultural uses to the south, west and east.

CEQA uses the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Farmland Mapping Project categories of of Statewide
assessing environmental impacts (Public Resources Code Section 21060.1[a]).

One of the two parcels (APN 208-290-04) that comprise the 40-acre project site is designated Prime Farmland. mplementation of the proposed project would result in a loss of approximately 20 +/- acres of soil considered prime farmland soil as confirmed by maps provided by the Farmland Mapping Project. According to the Farmland Conversion Study (see Attachment C) prepared for the GPA/ZC, a California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model was performed for the project to determine whether the project would result in a significant conversion of agricultural lands. The results of the model determined that the project would not result in a significant environmental impact resulting -agricultural uses.

This project site does not meet the requirements for Farmland of Statewide Importance category or Unique Farmland. Farmland of Local Importance may be important to the local economy due to its productivity. This may include a local advisory committee set up by the Soil Conservation Service in each county to initially identify farmland of local importance.

Kern County has determined that there will be no farmland of Local Importance in Kern County.

Therefore, the project would not significantly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use.
b) No impact. The project is surrounded by residential zones on all but the southeast corner.

The proposed project includes a request for a GPA and ZC to develop single-family residential consisting of 176 units which is consistent with the surrounding land use designations. Neither the project site nor the parcels adjacent to its boundary are subject to Williamson Act contracts (see Attachment C). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) No impact.
under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources,

Page 231 of 655 ends

20 including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. There are no forest lands identified on the project site or within its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) No impact. Please see response to c. above. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e) Less than significant impact. Please see responses to a. through d. above. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Page 232 of 655 ends

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

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive
concentrations?
receptors to substantial pollutant
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial amount of people?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Air Quality Impact Analysis (including Greenhouse Gas Study) was prepared by EnviroTech Consultants for the project, and is included as Attachment D. a) Less than significant impact. The project is located within the City of Shafter and is in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). This SJVAB is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) with jurisdiction, and emissions from the project would include both on-site and off-site construction-related sources. The Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared using methods
Revision.
pollutant thresholds of significance and the daily construction emissions are compared with les below, the
project did not exceed the screening thresholds. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

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

Page 233 of 655 ends

22 EnviroTech Consultants, 2025.

Emissions from construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as vehicle traffic, grading, and the handling of materials (e.g., lubricants). The implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term increases in the air emissions from construction activities that would occur because of the proposed project. The following table provides the estimated annual construction emissions resulting from of the project.

Annual Short-Term Construction Air Quality Emissions - After Mitigation Source Pollutant (Ton/Year)
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2e
2026 0.27 2.28 2.70 0.40 0.21 0.01 541
2027 0.16 1.32 2.00 0.12 0.06 0.01 395
2028 0.16 1.25 2.00 0.12 0.06 0.01 394
2029 4.05 0.49 0.80 0.04 0.02 0.01 140
SJVUAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 15 15 27 NA
Highest Year 4.05 2.28 2.7 0.4 0.21 0.01 541
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No NA
Notes: VOC = Reactive organic gases
CO = Carbon Monoxide
NOx = Nitrogen Oxide
PM10 = Particulate Matter <10 Microns
PM2.5 = Particulate Matter <2.5 Microns
SOx = Sulfur Oxides
NA = Not Applicable
Refer to exhibits for a printout of the computer model used in this analysis.

EnviroTech Consultants, 2025. 1 Maximum annual emission includes both on-site and off-site emissions This table shows t
SJVUAPCD criteria air pollutant significance thresholds levels.

Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant/Precursor Construction Emission Emissions
(Tons/year)
Operational Emissions
Permitted Equipment
and Activities Emissions
(tons/year)
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities Emissions
(tons/year)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
VOC 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15

Page 234 of 655 ends

23 The project would also result in long-term emissions including both on-site and off-site -term operations emissions are generated from
energy consumption relating to heating and cooling, landscape maintenance, and consumer products, as well as from water use and waste generation, and mobile sources (resident vehicles) emissions. Most of these long-term emission impacts are from mobile sources traveling to and from the project area.

The predicted emissions associated with vehicular traffic (mobile sources) are not subject to efforts to improve air quality within the SJVAB. The SJVUAPCD reviews land use changes to evaluate the potential impact on air quality. The SJVUAPCD has established a CEQA significance level for criteria pollutants as shown in the Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants table.

Operational emissions have been estimated using the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.9 computer model.

CalEEMod predicts operational emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, PM10, PM2.5 and CO2e associated with new or modified land uses. CalEEMod modeling results are summarized in the Table below.

EnviroTech Consultants, 2025.

As shown in the above tables, the annual and daily long-term operational emissions are also short-term construction impact on regional air resources will not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The highest operational emissions occur in 2028, the first . - term operation impact on regional air resources will be less than significant. b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Under GAMAQI (SJVAPCD 2015)1, any project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality standards. These amounts are not individually considerable because emissions within the SJVAB will be essentially the same regardless of whether the proposed project is built. analysis, regionally the SJVAB has annual 1 https://www.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf Annual Long-term Operational Emissions
Source Pollutant (Tons/year)
VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2e
2028 6.44 1.15 7.49 1.62 0.44 0.02 2,237
SJVUAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 15 15 27 NA
Is threshold exceeded after
mitigation? No No No No No No NA

Page 235 of 655 ends

24 VOC emissions of 302,200 tons and annual NOx emissions of 223,800 tons from all sources.

The proposed project represents approximately 0.002% of the VOC and 0.003% of the NOx emissions in the SJVAPCD.

This project does not pose a significant increase to estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern County and the greater SJVAB. The regional contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants considerable.

Shafter Municipal Code 12.302 describes that no operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust fumes, vapors, gases or other forms of air pollution which can cause material damage to health, or property, or which can cause excessive dirt on any other lot. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and or the requirement of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City of
SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold of 50 residential or dwelling units (AIR-2).

Accordingly, the project must reduce the portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees.

The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions pursuant to this rule include, but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an offsite emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project3. SJVAPCD Regulation VIII - Fugitive PM10 Prohibition requires projects of this scale to comply with standard fugitive dust control measures during construction to regulate concentrations PM10. Regulation VIII requires receipt of a District-approved Dust Control Plan or Construction 2 https://www.shafterca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6411/Zoning-Ordinance-2025-08-21 3 https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cjlnn0u1/r9510-a.pdf

Page 236 of 655 ends

25 Notification form before the issuance of the first grading permit. The project will comply with this regulation by implementing mitigation measures as listed above4. contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and 2) the project would comply with the requirements of the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules and mitigation measures which require the applicant to provide proof of such compliance (AIR-1 and AIR-2), the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, daycare centers, and residential dwelling units. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include existing residential dwelling units, single-family residential dwellings (Tract 6490), adjacent to the project site. By incorporating mitigation are not expected to affect any sensitive
receptors and are not expected to have any adverse impact on any known sensitive receptors.

The project will also comply with SJVAPCD Rule 8021- construction, demolition, and land clearing which requires best-available dust control measures during earthmoving and grading. 5
d) Less than significant impact.
impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

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

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

The proposed project is a residential project located near other residential uses. Expected uses are not known to be a source of nuisance odors and are not listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD GAMAQI. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less-than-significant odor impact. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
4 https://www.valleyair.org/media/xtbcnaht/rule-8011.pdf 5 https://www.valleyair.org/media/bhfgzedn/rule-8021.pdf

Page 237 of 655 ends

26 Biological Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Biological Resource Evaluation prepared for V Lions Holdings, LLC, APN 028-290-03 and -04 by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, January 15, 2025, included as Attachment E. a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of incidental take of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected because of the development of the proposed project. Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include (BIO-1 through BIO-5):
-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities, resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

Page 238 of 655 ends

27 If known or natal San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance. The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2021) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability but does have low quality habitat in the vicinity.

With mitigation, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
b) No impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur because of the development of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No impact. One excavated freshwater pond appeared on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the south side proposed project site; however, the pond was classified in 1984 as a palustrine system with an unconsolidated bottom and is semipermanent flooded (USFWS 2024) and appears to have been removed in 2016 and was no longer present during the field study. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.
d) Less than significant impact. No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:

If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities.

If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors 500 feet (152 meters). With the use of appropriate

Page 239 of 655 ends

28 avoidance measures, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) No impact. There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f) No impact. The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Page 240 of 655 ends

29 Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was conducted for the project for V Lions Holdings, LLC by Scott M. Hudlow, January 2025, included as Attachment F. a) No impact. A cultural resources assessment was conducted for the project site, and no cultural resources were identified under guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Because there are no historical resources present on the project site implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change.
b) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known archaeological resources at the site. However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archeological resources at the site as grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation (CUL-1) requires 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. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required, and these additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.6
c) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No human remains have been discovered at the project site, and no burials or cemeteries are known to occur within the area of the site. However, construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites.

Implementation of mitigation (CUL-2) that included immediately ceasing work and contacting the County coroner and Native American tribal representatives, if needed, would ensure that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy previously unknown human remains. With mitigation, in accordance with PRC 5097.987 the project would not disturb any human remains, these will follow the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendant including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Work may only resume once authorized by the Coroner, Native American Heritage Commission, and Descendant. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR-15064.5 7 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=5097.98.

Page 241 of 655 ends

30 Energy
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
including whether the project would use energy efficiently and comply with applicable state and local energy plans.
a) Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other residential construction projects that occur throughout the state and this energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City of Shafter must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 248, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to ensure that new buildings do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and the impacts are less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Shafter for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed in response to a. above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant. 8 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABC2022P1/california-code-of-regulations-title-24

Page 242 of 655 ends

31 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No. 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No impact. The City of Shafter is subject to moderate to severe ground shaking because of the alluvial soils that underlie the area and its proximity to active faults.

Additionally, the thick sedimentary deposits in the City create the likelihood that a strong earthquake or other disturbance in the area could cause ground subsidence (typically a gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement). The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new developments comply with the mo 9
9 https://www.shafterca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6411/Zoning-Ordinance-2025-08-21

Page 243 of 655 ends

32 The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Per the Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey Regulatory Maps (DOC 2022), the nearest fault line is the Oildale fault, which lies approximately 11 miles east of the project site. The greatest potential for substantial adverse geologic effects in the City is posed by the San Andres Fault, which is located approximately 36 miles west of the property site. The distance from the nearest active faults precludes the possibility of fault rupture on the project site. Although the project area could potentially experience ground shaking, the magnitude of the hazard would not be severe, as indicated by the General Plan and project construction will comply with the applicable local and State requirements. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Less than significant impact. See response to a. above. The nearest active fault system is 10 miles from the project. In addition, there are faults outside the San Joaquin Valley, but close enough that a major earthquake could affect Shafter. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new developments comply with the most recent Uniform Regional earthquake faults include North of Oildale, Oildale, Pond, Oil Center, and Rio Bravo Ranch (DOC 2025). Given the high seismicity of the southern San Joaquin Valley region, moderate to severe ground shaking associated with earthquakes on the nearby faults can be expected within the project area and throughout Kern County. In the event of an earthquake on one of the nearby faults, it is likely that the project would experience ground shaking.

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

Page 244 of 655 ends

33 possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking.10 For -grained
(sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large magnitude earthquake.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey shows that the project site contains Wasco sandy loam at a 0 to 2 percent slope (see Attachment G). The project is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Because the project site contains well drained sandy soils, there is a negligible risk of liquefaction occurring at the project site during a seismic event.

Structures constructed as part of the project would be required by State law to be constructed in accordance with all applicable California Building Code and Title 24 construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. No impact. The project site is located on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley, west of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The topography is flat, with an elevation of approximately 330 to 360 feet above mean sea level, and no significant topological features. As such, there is no potential for rock fall and landslides to have an impact on the project in the event of a major earthquake, as the area has no significant elevation changes. Based on the predicted maximum horizontal accelerations at the project site and the soil types, minor subsurface settlement may occur onsite during a major earthquake, and this is considered less than significant. The site is flat and there is a low potential for landslides. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b) Less than significant impact. The project site contains Wasco sandy loams. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil types, the relatively flat terrain, and low precipitation (about 4 to 7 inches/annually)11, implementation of the project would not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. The project would be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site-specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code.

Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in one or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction 10 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP_117a.pdf 11 Yearly & Monthly weather - Shafter, CA

Page 245 of 655 ends

34 pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.

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

Page 246 of 655 ends

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

Page 247 of 655 ends

36 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Air Quality Impact Analysis (including greenhouse gas analysis) was prepared for V Lions Holdings, LLC, for E. Los Angeles and S. Mannel Avenue Single-family Residential Development, prepared by Envirotech Consultants, April 15, 2025, included as Attachment D. a) Less than significant impact. The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the greenhouse gas GHG emissions due to construction activities because of the proposed project with at modeling indicated that the construction activities for the proposed project would generate an annual maximum of 541 metric tons for the total construction period of CO2e of GHG emissions. This represents 0.0001 percent of the 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e).

Therefore, the GHG emissions because of the proposed project will be less than significant.

It is anticipated that the operation of the proposed project would have the potential to result in long-term increases in air emissions that would generate GHGs that could contribute to global climate change. The majority of the long-term GHG emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Area source emissions would result from fuel combustion, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products. The daily operational activities because of the proposed project would have the potential to generate GHG emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since there is an international ban on CFCs, it is not anticipated that this GHG would occur. SF6 is primarily used in electronics manufacturing and as an insulation medium in large electrical transformers. It is not anticipated that there will be SF6 emissions from the proposed project.

The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions due to mobile source emissions and area source emissions because of
represents 0.0005 percent of the CO2e of 2016 GHG emissions in the State of California (which is 429,400,000 metric tons of CO2e12). Therefore, the GHG emissions because of the proposed project will be less than significant. 12 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data

Page 248 of 655 ends

37 examples of types of mitigation measures and policies that local agencies may consider offsetting or reducing impacts related to global climate change. The Attor acknowledges that the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project and that the lead agency undertaking a CEQA analysis should use its own informed judgment in deciding which measures it would analyze and which measure it would require for a given project. renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste measures, land use measures, transportation and motor vehicles, and carbon offsets.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the applicable mitigation provided by the less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact. See response to a. above. The project will be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of the latest 2022 California Building Code, including Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, and Title 24, Part 6, Energy Code. The purpose of the building standards is to reduce negative environmental impacts through planning and design, energy, efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material and resource conservation. As the California Building Standards were developed to help meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which was adopted to reduce GHG emissions by achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Therefore, by complying with the California Building Standards Code and implemented mitigations (GHG-1), the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.

Page 249 of 655 ends

38 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 176 single-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, Safety Data Sheets 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

Page 250 of 655 ends

39 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. Residents 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 school to the project site is Grow Academy School located approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the project site. Given the distance and the intervening uses, there is very limited potential for the project to affect the school 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 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). The closest hazardous waste concern would be Military Evacuation (Camp Shafter, 0.34 miles away). Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, 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 4.5 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

Page 251 of 655 ends

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 roadways to 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.

Page 252 of 655 ends

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
This section assesses whether the project would substantially degrade water quality, alter drainage patterns, increase flood hazards, or interfere with sustainable groundwater management, consistent with CEQA and applicable City of Shafter stormwater and groundwater management requirements.
a) Less than significant impact.
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

Page 253 of 655 ends

42 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 of soil.

Further, the City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The Water Resources Quality Control Board 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) (Central Valley Water Resources Quality Control Board 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 subbasin covering over 1.7 million acres underlies most of the southern San Joaquin Valley (DWR Basin No. 5-002.14), including the City, and has been providing water for the area since the early 1900s. This subbasin 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 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 above- ground 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.

The project is a residential development and may result in population growth and an associated increase in potable water demand. The encompassed future that land currently designated under agricultural/open space category will remain preserved (undeveloped) over the course of this UWMP plannin
ed for the project acreage.

The UWMP goes on to conclude that even under a period of multiple dry years and projecting increased City population through the year 2045, that the current groundwater supply system has more than adequate capacity to meet demands. Without accounting for the additional

Page 254 of 655 ends

43 water demand of the proposed project, the 2020 UWMP estimates available leftover supply capacity ranging from 2,478 to 2,692 million gallons per year (7,604 to 8,261 AFY) through 2045.

Estimated water demand at buildout for the project (i.e. 176 residences) is calculated as:
176 homes x 3.7 persons per household13 x 217 gpcd14 = 141,310 gpd = 51.6 MG/yr
= 158 AFY
adequate to supply the additional demands anticipated from the project under normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions.

By State law, current UWMP do not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 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.
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., structures, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) 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. 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 off- site. 13 https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0671106-shafter-ca/ 14 Average household consumption rate in 2015-2020 period per Shafter 2020 UWMP

Page 255 of 655 ends

44 iii. Less than significant impact. Refer to response c(i) above. The project would not create or contribute runoff water exceeding 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.

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. See Figure 6.
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 Amended Final Version of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was adopted by the Kern County Subbasin GSA in August 2025 (Kern County GSP 2025). designated as agriculture within the incorporated City limits of both Shafter and Bakersfield.

Water savings could be realized through the conversion of agric the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of this GSP. Therefore,

Page 256 of 655 ends

45 the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Page 257 of 655 ends

46 Land Use and Planning
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 that would pose a barrier. The project includes the development of 176 multi-family units and is adjacent to existing single-family residential and proposed multi-family development(s). 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 and ZC would change the land use designation and zoning classification from rural residential and very low-density residential and agriculture to low-density residential to allow the development of 176 single-family residential 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Page 258 of 655 ends

47 Mineral Resources
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
a) No impact. The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 197415. These Mineral Resource Zones identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified Mineral Resource Zones resource areas delineated by the State into their General Plans. The principal mineral resources within the City are oil and natural gas.

No oil or gas resources have been identified in or extracted from the project site. According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) the project site is not located in an identified oilfield and there are no known wells located on the site (CalGEM 2025).

See Figure 7. The closest Canceled Oil & Gas well is 4,634 feet, the closest Plugged Dry Hole is 21,232 feet, the closest Idle Oil & Gas Well is 7,581 feet, and closest Active Oil & Gas well is 8,988 feet. 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. Note that the State of California characterized property within 3,200 feet of oil and gas production facilities to be considered challenges, nonetheless, construction of any new housing could be perceived to create or extend health protective zones, thereby constraining exercise of mineral rights. Nonetheless, no active oil and gas production is evident within this distance. 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. 15 H.R.12844 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974): Surface Mining Reclamation Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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?

Page 259 of 655 ends

48 Noise
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 ground- borne 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
a) Less than significant impact. The City of Shafter Zoning Ordinance Section 10.180 (Noise Hazards)16 requires exterior noise levels in residential zones to not exceed 65 dB (A) CNEL, utilizing site and architectural design features to mitigate noise impacts when feasible.

Interior noise levels in residence dwelling units shall not exceed 45 (dB(A) CNEL.

Development Standards Section 10.180 2(a)1-5 will be adhered to during development. 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. 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 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

The construction would generate temporary increases in noise levels and such temporary activities would be approached in compliance with Shafter Municipal Code Section

8.24.030 [w]ithin a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, no person shall operate equipment, for the construction or repair of buildings, structures or projects, which creates noise exceeding the ambient noise level beyond fifty feet from the source between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. . Further, it is likely that 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. As a result, the project will not cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient that fails to comply with City standards.

Long-term operational noise generated by the project would consist of typical residential activities and vehicle traffic associated with housing. These noise sources are generally low 16 Zoning-Ordinance-2025-08-21

Page 260 of 655 ends

49 intensity and compatible with surrounding residential and agricultural land uses.

In the absence of substantial stationary noise sources, the project is not expected to result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise or exceed applicable Shafter noise standards. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impact related to increases in ambient noise levels.
b) Less than significant impact. Construction activities associated with site preparation, utility installation, and roadway/building construction would generate temporary ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise typical of residential subdivision development. These vibration sources would primarily involve operation of conventional equipment such as graders, bulldozers, loaders, trucks, and compaction equipment.

The City of Shafter does not adopt quantitative vibration thresholds temporary vibration from equipment operation are mitigated through compliance with Shafter Municipal Code Section 8.24.030 [w]ithin a residential
zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, no person shall operate equipment, for the construction or repair of buildings, structures or projects, which creates noise exceeding the ambient noise level beyond fifty feet from the source between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. In other words, typical vibration resulting from construction equipment would occur but would be limited to hours of operation to avoid being a nuisance during quieter hours of the day.

The nearest off-site residences are across E. Los Angeles Avenue approximately 145 feet from the northernmost project property line. Much of the site work that would cause vibration would take place at a much further distance than the northernmost property boundary. At these distances and across a public street, vibration levels would weaken the magnitudes likely to levels that are not perceptible and far below levels associated with structural damage.

Considering this setting, neither project related construction activity nor ongoing residential occupancy would pose risk of potential damage to the nearest structures. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to, nor 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 of 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.

Page 261 of 655 ends

50 Population and Housing
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 demand for housing due to the rate of population growth. The City of Shafter, 6th Cycle Housing Element revised January 2024, Section II Housing Needs Assessment, A. Population Characteristics according to the 2020 Census, the population of Shafter in 2020 was 19,743 persons.

According to the State of California Department of Finance17 the reported population on January 2024 was 22,399, and on January 2025 was 23,455, which showed a population increase of 4.71 percent. When compared to the 2020 Census data, population increased by over 18 percent. 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 project site 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.
17 Estimates-E1 | California Department of Finance

Page 262 of 655 ends

51 Public Services
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 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 associated with the construction and occupancy of 176 additional single-family residences. Fire protection is provided by the Kern County Fire Department located at 325 Sunset Avenue under contract with the City of Shafter. The proposed project would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units representing a low incremental demand for fire service.

Construction activities are to be conducted in accordance with local and State fire codes and citywide s and
appropriate resources. The project applicant is responsible for paying relevant impact fees. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or need for new or physically altered fire facilities.
ii. Less than significant impact. Law enforcement and public protection are provided by Central Valley Hwy. The project would increase demand for public safety protection as the project is a residential development that would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units. The project applicant is responsible for paying applicable development impact fees. Therefore, the project would not result in

Page 263 of 655 ends

52 substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or need for new or physically altered police facilities. iii. Less than significant impact. The project would impact school facilities as the project is a residential development that would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units. The project applicant is responsible for the school impact fees.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities.
iv. Less than significant impact. The project would impact parks and recreation facilities as the project is a residential development that would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units. 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 park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities.
v. Less than significant impact. The project would impact on other public facilities such as libraries, hospitals, or emergency medical facilities as the project is a residential development that would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units. The project applicant is responsible for payment of development impact fees and for compliance 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 park facilities, the need for new or physically altered park facilities.

Page 264 of 655 ends

53 Recreation
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 as the project is a residential development that would increase citywide housing by 176 single-family residential units; 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, with mitigation, the development of 176 single-family residential 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.

Page 265 of 655 ends

54 Transportation/Traffic
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 Study was prepared for the GPA/ZC on Los Angeles Avenue in Shafter, CA by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil /Provost & Pritchard dated April 2025, included as Attachment H. a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Ingress and egress to and from the project area would be off E. Los Angeles Avenue and internal circulation would be provided by a network of internal streets. Internal streets would be constructed to City standards and potential offsite street improvements along E. Los Angeles Avenue would be a condition of development. Other than fronting along E. Los Angeles Avenue, the project area does not lie along a planned vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor as identified by the City of Shafter or CalTrans. Consequently, the proposed project conforms to programs, plans, and ordinances pertinent to the circulation system.

The Traffic Study found that in 2025 and 2026, prior to the addition of project traffic, all intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project operate at or above an acceptable level of service except for the intersection of State Route 43 and Santa Fe Way/Beech Ave. That intersection is anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service.

In 2045, prior to the addition of project traffic, all intersections operate at or above an acceptable level of service except for the intersections of Shafter Ave and Los Angeles St and State Route 43 and Santa Fe Way/Beech Ave, which are anticipated to operate below an acceptable level of service.

The Traffic Study prepared for the project evaluated roadway segment and intersection operations consistent with CEQA requirements. The analysis found that all roadway segments are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without project traffic in each scenario reviewed. Although certain intersections operate below acceptable Level of Service under cumulative background conditions, these deficiencies are associated with existing and planned regional growth, and the City has already identified and programmed improvements.

The project is required to pay its proportional fair-share contribution toward these improvements through road impact fees, thereby complying with applicable circulation plans

Page 266 of 655 ends

55 and policies. In addition to paying impact fees, the Traffic Study for the project concluded intersection to accommodate the project is 8.7% of the cost to install the signal (TRA-1). With mitigation, 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. CEQA Guideline §15064.3 subdivision (b) gives local agencies the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact. Vehicle Miles , were analyzed to assess the degree of transportation impact.

The Traffic Study shows an average VMT per trip of 9.76 miles for Shafter households. This compares to an average project VMT trip of 7.23 miles. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a significant transportation impact.
c) Less than significant impact. Traffic will come and go from E. Los Angeles Avenue, an existing street without any sharp curves, unusual roadway alignment or the need for intersection modifications that would create hazardous conditions. This includes incompatible use of heavy industrial truck traffic or agricultural equipment. Tentative Tract Map No. 7498 will be reviewed and approved by the City of Shafter to ensure landscaping, off-site street right-ofway, and internal circulation do not obstruct visibility or create unsafe turning movements.

Specific circulation patterns will incorporate applicable safety measures to ensure that hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the tract 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. Emergency access to the project would be from E. Los Angeles Avenue, an existing public roadway with adequate width and visibility for emergency vehicles.

The project would be required to comply with City of Shafter roadway standards, all emergency access requirements adopted, California Fire Code requirements, 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 Tentative Tract M 7498 approval.

Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Page 267 of 655 ends

56 Tribal Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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.

A Sacred Lands File search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission on November 26, 2024 in compliance with SB 18 Guidelines18. The search revealed that no Native American cultural resources are located in close proximity to the current project area.

Although no positive results were obtained from the Sacred Lands File search, which arrived on December 27, 2024; Native American consultation letters were sent out on December 27, 2024, notifying each interested Kern County Native Contact, per the list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Eight Tribes (Federal and non-Federal) were emailed letters. These letters both described the project and provided maps for further reference. By Friday, January 24, 2025, no parties returned any responses or requested any further consultation.

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. 18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Supplement to General Plan Guidelines

Page 268 of 655 ends

57 Would the project:

Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 addition to the 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. network and supplied from existing wells which are reported to have more than adequate capacity for the proposed project (Shafter UWMP 2020). Wastewater service would similarly be provided by connecting new collectors to the existing City collection system. Wastewater treatment and disposal is provided by contract between the City and North of River Sanitary District. The City is expected to secure additional contractual capacity in that system as part of the North of River Sanitary District plant expansion that is currently being designed.

Stormwater would be managed on site as described in the Hydrology and Water Quality section. The project would increase demand on City water and add load to the wastewater system, both of which would be subject to payment of utility connection fees that provide funding for such impacts. The City will require properly sized stormwater basins on site such that the project applicant will be required to manage resulting increases in runoff.

As for electrical power, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides electricity to the City of Shafter. The existing trunk and transmission facilities are adequate to meet present and

Page 269 of 655 ends

58 projected demand for the project site.19 The project will connect to the existing PG&E transmission lines for electrical power and no new or expanded power facilities are required to provide service. See Figure 8.

As for telecommunications, the project area is served by multiple providers including AT&T, Spectrum, T- Mobile, ATel Communications, and the Municipal Fiber Network. Fiber optic lines may be installed in the proposed internal streets for telecommunications purposes, the installation of which concurrent with roadway improvements would not result in significant environmental impacts.

As for natural gas services, Southern California Gas Company is the service provider via existing distribution pipelines located within East Los Angeles Avenue. The project would connect through standard service laterals and on-site extensions would be needed, which involves minimal ground disturbance. The project would not need construction of new or expanded natural gas transmission facilities.20
Considering this utility setting, extension of utilities to the project would not cause significant environmental effects.
b) Less than significant impact. See Hydrology and Water Quality section for a demonstration of adequate water supplies.
c) Less than significant impact.
wastewater will be treated and disposed at the wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the North of River Sanitary District which is in a Joint Powers Agreement with the City. A plant expansion is currently designed to increase capacity 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 that it
d) Less than significant impact. Two franchise haulers, American Refuse and Varner Brothers, serve properties in the City of Shafter. American Refuse is the franchise hauler within the city core area and will likely 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. refuse from industrial uses within the City. Both facilities are designated as Class III landfills.21 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 19 https://grip.pge.com/ 20 https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=09d70253280b4792b7a6a3fa6a2cf4a7 21 https://www.kernpublicworks.com/services/solid-waste/disposal-sites

Page 270 of 655 ends

59 disposal needs.
e) No impact. See response to d. above. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)22 requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 199123, 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 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 2056 and 2046, respectively. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulation related to solid waste. 22 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB939 23 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-30/part-3/chapter-18/

Page 271 of 655 ends

60 Wildfires
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
If located in or nearstate 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 relatively flat. The project would install the required infrastructure with capacity to meet water supply demands for fire protection services. Development of the project will modestly increase the need for fire protection services and is within the existing service area of the local Fire Department, and the project will comply with all applicable fire codes and 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, or other factors.

Page 272 of 655 ends

61 c) No impact. 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 (see Utilities and Service Systems). 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)24 for the FIRMette for the project site. 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.

Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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) Doesthe project have impactsthat are individually limited, but 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. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 24 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd

Page 273 of 655 ends

62 Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site. However, measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project 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.
b) Less than significant. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is individually limit
significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other c) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in response a. above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Page 274 of 655 ends

63 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. AB 52 Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act (2013-2014) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB 52 2. AB 939 Solid waste management, source reduction, recycling, composting and market development. 1989-1990.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900A B939

3. Air Quality Impact Analysis (including Greenhouse Gas) prepared by EnviroTech Consultants, dated April 15, 2025.

4. Biological Resources Evaluation prepared by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, dated January 15, 2025.

5. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Current GHG Emission Inventory Data https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data

6. California Code of Regulations, Title 24
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABC2022P1/california-code-of-regulationstitle-24

7. California Code of Regulations, Public Resources Code, Division 30, Waste Management, Part 3 State Programs, Chapter 18 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. (Justia 2025)
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-30/part-3/chapter-18/

8. Cal Fire. 2024. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer Map. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps

9. CalGEM. 2025. Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

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

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

12. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Species Management https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation#species

Page 275 of 655 ends

64 13. Census Reporter. https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0671106- shafter-ca/

14. Congress.Gov. HR 12844 93rd Congress Surface Mining Reclamation Act. 1974. https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/12844

15. Cornell Legal Institution (California Code of Regulations) Title 14. Section 150064.5 Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/14-CCR15064.5

16. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

17. DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2025. Fault Activity Map of California. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/maps-data

18. DOC (California Department of Conservation). Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. 2008.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/SpecialPublications/SP_117a.pdf

19. DOF (California Department of Finance). 2024. Shafter, CA. 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/

20. EnviroStor (Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor). 2025.

Site/Facility. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True

21. Farmland Conversion Study, Prepared by Cornerstone Engineering dated October 2025.

22. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2024. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address. Available:< https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps>.

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

24. Kern County GSP. 2024. Groundwater Sustainability Plan. https://kerngsp.com/gsp-documents/. December.

25. Kern County Public Works. Solid Waste Disposal Sites. https://www.kernpublicworks.com/services/solid-waste/disposal-sites

26. Native American Heritage Commission (State of California) Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5

Page 276 of 655 ends

65 27. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. https://nhm.org

28. NORSD (North of the River Sanitary District). 2025. CIP Status Update. https://www.norsd.com/cip-status-update

29. Guidelines (Supplement to General Plan Guidelines) November 2025. https://ci.ca.gov/docs/011414_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf

30. PG & E Grid Resource Integration Portal. GRIP Map. https://grip.pge.com

31. Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey, prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, dated January 2025.

32. Public Resources Code (State of California) Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&se ctionNum=5097.98

33. SB 18 Traditional tribal cultural places. (California Legislative Information) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040S B18

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

35. Shafter (City of Shafter). Zoning Ordinance.
https://www.shafterca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6411/Zoning-Ordinance2026-01-14?bidId=

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

37. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under CEQA
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/mdfm0lsd/1-ccap-final-ceqa-ghg-staff-reportdec-17-2009.pdf

38. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). Rule 9510 INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW (ISR). https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/cjlnn0u1/r9510-a.pdf

39. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). Rule 8011. https://www.valleyair.org/media/xtbcnaht/rule-8011.pdf

40. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). Rule 8021. https://www.valleyair.org/media/bhfgzedn/rule-8021.pdf

Page 277 of 655 ends

66 41. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. 2010. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf

42. Southern California Gas. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map. https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=09d7025 3280b4792b7a6a3fa6a2cf4a7

43. Traffic Study prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler/Provost & Pritchard, dated April 2025.

44. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Custom Soils Report for Kern County, Northwest Part, dated July 15, 2025.

45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/about/region/pacificsouthwest

46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for the Protection of the Endangered Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011)

47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper

48. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MBTA https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-birdtreaty-act-1918

49. Weather. https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/california-usa/shafter-climate

Page 278 of 655 ends

ATTACHMENT A
MMRP

Page 279 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials AIR - 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. 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 Tentative Tract Map 7498 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.

Page 280 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials 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. AIR - 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 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 Tentative Tract Map 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.

Page 281 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials BIO-1 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 Tentative Tract Map review. 2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14-30 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.

Page 282 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials BIO-2 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 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 pre-construction survey. - construction survey, a qualified biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding the nest and a plan to be implemented to prevent disruption of nesting activities. If nest disruption is not possible, CDFW should be contacted for guidance. 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 14-30 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. BIO-3 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) If construction activities are to take place during the nesting season for tricolored blackbird (February - May), a pre- construction survey will be conducted 14 - 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities within the Project Area and a 500- foot buffer to identify individual tricolored blackbirds and active nests. This survey can be conducted concurrently with the San Joaquin kit fox pre-construction survey described above, depending on the timing of the preconstruction survey. If any active tricolored blackbird nest sites are found during the pre-construction survey, a qualified biologist will prescribe an appropriate buffer zone surrounding 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 Tentative Tract Map review. 2. Contract a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey within 14-30 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.

Page 283 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials BIO-4 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 Tentative Tract Map 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.

Page 284 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials BIO-5 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 Tentative Tract Map 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.

Page 285 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials CUL-1 If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. During construction Qualified Archeologist; City of Shafter Planning Department Steps to Compliance: 1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any Tentative Tract Map 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.

Page 286 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials CUL-2 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 Tentative Tract Map 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.

Page 287 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 of 8 EXHIBIT - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Single-Family Residential Development No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Date Initials CUL-3 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 Tentative Tract Map 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. GEO-1 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. 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 Tentative Tract Map. 2. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record. GHG -1 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 Prior to building permit issuance City of Shafter Building Department; City of Shafter Planning Department

Page 288 of 655 ends

GPA 25-41 & ZC 25-74 (TTM 7498) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 of (SJVAPCD) GHG Emission Reduction Best Performance Standard (BPS) Measures for Development Projects. Steps to Compliance: 3. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any Tentative Tract Map. 4. Provide summary of all relevant activities to the Planning Department for the record. TRA -1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall either pay or bond for 8.7% of the cost, as determined by the City Engineer, for a future signal at the Shafter Avenue and E. Los Angeles Street intersection. Prior to building permit issuance City of Shafter Engineering Department; City of Shafter Planning Department Steps to Compliance: 1. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for any Tentative Tract Map. 2. The applicant/developer shall either pay or bond for 8.7% of the cost for the future signal. 3. Provide documentation to the Planning Department for the record.

Page 289 of 655 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Figures

Page 290 of 655 ends

Figure 1: Regional Map

Page 291 of 655 ends

Figure 2: Aerial Overview

Page 292 of 655 ends

Figure 3: General Plan Land Use
SITE

Page 293 of 655 ends

Figure 4: Zoning
Estate and Agricultural

Page 294 of 655 ends

Figure 5: TTM 7498

Page 295 of 655 ends

Figure 6: FIRMette

Page 296 of 655 ends

Figure 7: CalGEM 2025 Map

Page 297 of 655 ends

Figure 8: PG&E GRIP Map

Page 298 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT 5
ORDINANCE NO. 781

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74
WHEREAS, the City Council has, at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 19, 2026, studied and considered Zone Change No. 25-74, a request to change the zone classification for one parcel (APN 028-290-03) from E (Estate) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the other parcel (APN 028-290-04) from A (Agricultural) to R-1 where each parcel is 20.03 acres for a total of

40.06 acres under consideration, and the two parcels are, respectively, located at the southwest and southeast corners of the E. Los Angeles Avenue and S. Mannel Avenue intersection 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 May 19, 2026, 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 2nd day of June, 2026, resolved to approve Zone Change No. 25-74 as illustrated in Exhibit “A”.

Page 299 of 655 ends

Shafter City Council Ordinance No. 781
June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2026.
_____________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST
______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney

Page 300 of 655 ends

LACEY ST

S BEECH AVE

WINTERS DR

JEFFRIES ST

HEARTNUT ST

E LOS ANGELES AVE S MANNEL AVE

PLANADA DR

HICKORY ST

MCKENNA CT

TREVINO TERRACE

MARIE ST

LORI LN

ESTE ST

VINA DR

JACEY ANN CT

LA DANTE ST

KELSEY CT

FLORES WAY

S MANNEL AVE

NEWCASTLE CT

E RIVERSIDE ST

S BEECH AVE

SANTA FE WAY

S SHAFTER AVE

JUANITA ST

ELIZABETH AVE

ARGARET AVE

ATKINSON AVE

RODRIGUEZ AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE

THOMPSON ST

BIRCH ST

S CENTRAL VALLEY HWY
SITE
ZC No. 25-74
Parcels 2025 July 24
Site
Shafter City Limits
Road Centerlines
Arterial
Collector
Highway
Local
3/13/2026, 11:13:59 AM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:9,028
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 A

Page 301 of 655 ends

EXHIBIT 6
RESOLUTION NO. 3079

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

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 25-41
WHEREAS, the City Council has, at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 19, 2026, studied and considered General Plan Amendment No. 25-41, a request to amend the general plan designation for one parcel [Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 028-290-03] from VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) to LDR (Low Density Residential), the other parcel (APN 028-290-04) under consideration is already designated LDR, and change the zone classification for one parcel (APN 028-290-03) from E (Estate) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the other parcel (APN 028- 290-04) from A (Agricultural) to R-1 on 40.06 total acres for the two parcels located at the southwest and southeast corners of the E. Los Angeles Avenue and S. Mannel Avenue intersection 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. 25-41 was held by the City Council of the City of Shafter at a regular meeting on May 19, 2026, 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 19th day of May, 2026, resolved to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and approve General Plan Amendment No. 25-41 as illustrated in Exhibit “A”.

Page 302 of 655 ends

Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3079
May 19, 2026

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF MAY, 2026.
______________________________
Chad Givens, Mayor
ATTEST
______________________________
Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Marco A. Martinez, City Attorney

Page 303 of 655 ends

LACEY ST

S BEECH AVE

WINTERS DR

JEFFRIES ST

HEARTNUT ST

E LOS ANGELES AVE S MANNEL AVE

PLANADA DR

HICKORY ST

MCKENNA CT

TREVINO TERRACE

MARIE ST

LORI LN

ESTE ST

VINA DR

JACEY ANN CT

LA DANTE ST

KELSEY CT

FLORES WAY

S MANNEL AVE

NEWCASTLE CT

E RIVERSIDE ST

S BEECH AVE

SANTA FE WAY

S SHAFTER AVE

JUANITA ST

ELIZABETH AVE

ARGARET AVE

ATKINSON AVE

RODRIGUEZ AVE

LOS ANGELES AVE

THOMPSON ST

BIRCH ST

S CENTRAL VALLEY HWY
SITE
GPA No. 25-41
Parcels 2025 July 24
Site
Shafter City Limits
Road Centerlines
Arterial
Collector
Highway
Local
3/13/2026, 11:13:59 AM
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:9,028
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 A

Page 304 of 655 ends

MANAGEMENT REPORT

CITY OF SHAFTER

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Lance Lippincott, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH

THE KERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TO EXPLORE

FEASIBILITY OF A SHAFTER BASED REGIONAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FACILITY

RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; and approve the memorandum of understanding with the Kern Community College District, authorize the City Manager or designee to sign, and allocate funding to support exploring feasibility.

BACKGROUND
The Memorandum of Understanding is designed to establish a cooperative framework between the City of Shafter and the Kern Community College District, in order to develop a conceptual plan creating a regional police training center at or adjacent to the City's current existing Police Shooting Range. Currently, two organizations in Kern County operate training facilities, Kern County Sheriff's Office and Bakersfield Police Department. These facilities have insufficient space for smaller policing agencies to receive training, often requiring officers to be sent out of area at increased cost due to travel and hotels. The potential facility would be designed to significantly increase training assets in the area, reducing the impacts of having to send officers to training in other jurisdictions.

If approved, the conceptual plan will be used to assess feasibility and funding needs to determine next steps. The conceptual plan will examine multiple areas, including but not limited to the following:
• Site analysis and suitability assessment
• Conceptual site layout and facility design
• Identification of training components and program needs • Preliminary cost estimates
• Environmental and regulatory considerations
• Phasing and implementation strategies
It is anticipated that costs for the conceptual plan could be as much as $300,000, and the Memorandum of Understanding stipulates that all costs are to be equally divided.

FISCAL IMPACT

Page 305 of 655 ends
← All documents from this meeting