City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
CASH ACCOUNT: 0000-00-000-00-00-100010- Cash10755
CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME VOUCHER INVOICE INV DATE PO WARRANT NET
DOCUMENT INVOICE DTL DESC
67.96 5100-50-405-28-50-510100- Service Agreements
78537 2601803848 03/17/2026 052126 73.43
76685
Invoice: 2601803848 Facilities Main-SLLC Mat Service
73.43 5100-50-405-28-50-510100- Service Agreements
78538 2601808179 03/31/2026 052126 73.43
76686
Invoice: 2601808179 Facilities Main-SLLC Mat Service
73.43 5100-50-405-28-50-510100- Service Agreements
78539 2601795936 02/17/2026 052126 67.96
76687
Invoice: 2601795936 Facilities Main-SLLC Mat Service
67.96 5100-50-405-28-50-510100- Service Agreements
CHECK 1026446 TOTAL: 1,168.13
1026447 05/21/2026 PRTD 932 VITAL SIGNS 78453 44447 05/11/2026 052126 2,132.45 76605
Invoice: 44447 INSTALLATION & NEW LOGO & SEAL SIGNS FOR CHAMBERS 1,147.45 0100-10-100-01-00-510001- Departmental Supplies 985.00 0100-10-100-01-00-510400- Professional Services
CHECK 1026447 TOTAL: 2,132.45
1026448 05/21/2026 PRTD 9515 WILLIAMS CLEANING SY 78378 60561 04/24/2026 052126 715.13 76532
Invoice: 60561 STREETS - GRAFFITI - REPAIR
715.13 0100-40-400-19-02-510204- Equipment Repair
CHECK 1026448 TOTAL: 715.13
1026449 05/21/2026 PRTD 13495 WINTER AUTOMOTIVE RE 78125 9191 04/29/2026 052126 143.73 76282
Invoice: 9191 POLICE-Unit #151 Emissions cleaner, cleared code 143.73 0100-20-200-14-00-510300- Vehicle Operations
78357 9196 05/04/2026 052126 192.45
76512
Invoice: 9196 POLICE-Unit #232 Engine oil service
192.45 0100-20-200-14-00-510300- Vehicle Operations
78358 9197 05/04/2026 052126 168.61
76513
Invoice: 9197 POLICE-Unit #192 Engine oil service
168.61 0100-20-200-14-00-510300- Vehicle Operations
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
CASH ACCOUNT: 0000-00-000-00-00-100010- Cash10755
CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME VOUCHER INVOICE INV DATE PO WARRANT NET
DOCUMENT INVOICE DTL DESC
78360 9205 05/08/2026 052126 130.94
76514
Invoice: 9205 POLICE-Unit #235 Engine oil service
130.94 0100-20-200-14-00-510300- Vehicle Operations
CHECK 1026449 TOTAL: 635.73
1026450 05/21/2026 PRTD 1517 YANELI DONATE 78311 Per diem 4/22/26 04/22/2026 052126 25.00 76467
Invoice: Per diem 4/22/26 POLICE-9-1-1 Emotional Intelligence Course
25.00 0100-20-200-14-00-510505- Travel
CHECK 1026450 TOTAL: 25.00
NUMBER OF CHECKS 122 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 2,894,965.27
COUNT AMOUNT
TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 99 2,047,375.51
TOTAL EFT'S 23 847,589.76
*** GRAND TOTAL *** 2,894,965.27
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
CLERK: 5292blopez
YEAR PER JNL
SRC ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESC T OB DEBIT CREDIT
EFF DATE JNL DESC REF 1 REF 2 REF 3 LINE DESC
2026 11 272
APP 0100-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 1,751,153.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-100010- Cash: Mission Bank Acct#10755 2,894,965.27 05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5101-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 1,417.34
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5002-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 258,141.03
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5100-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 36,772.88
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5001-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 111,325.53
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0817-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 786.60
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5004-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 69,934.09
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5003-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 3,226.35
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5103-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 4,199.60
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5000-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 225,938.06
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0308-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 418,180.20
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0808-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 8,673.67
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0811-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 67.33
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0803-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 281.84
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0800-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 9.53
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0810-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 7.45
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0814-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 49.64
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0812-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 49.80
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 5006-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 55.35
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0806-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 9.74
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
APP 0200-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 4,685.89
05/21/2026 052126 052126 AP CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
GENERAL LEDGER TOTAL 2,894,965.27 2,894,965.27
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
YEAR PER JNL
SRC ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESC T OB DEBIT CREDIT
EFF DATE JNL DESC REF 1 REF 2 REF 3 LINE DESC
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209001- Due To 0100 - Gen Fund 1,751,153.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0100-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 1,751,153.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209047- Due To 5101 - Vehicle Maint 1,417.34 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5101-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 1,417.34 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209038- Due To 5002 - Water Operat 258,141.03 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5002-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 258,141.03 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209046- Due To 5100 - Facility Maint 36,772.88 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5100-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 36,772.88 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209037- Due To 5001 - Refuse Operat 111,325.53 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5001-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 111,325.53 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209817- Due to 0817 - DT CFD 786.60 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0817-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 786.60 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209040- Due To 5004 - Telecom Operat 69,934.09 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5004-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 69,934.09 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209039- Due To 5003 - Transit Operat 3,226.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5003-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 3,226.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209049- Due To 5103 - Info Tech 4,199.60 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5103-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 4,199.60 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209036- Due To 5000 - Wastewtr Operat 225,938.06 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5000-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 225,938.06 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209060- Due To 0308 - Street Projects 418,180.20 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0308-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 418,180.20 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209032- Due To 0808 - LLMD - 001-2015 8,673.67 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0808-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 8,673.67 05/21/2026 052126 052126
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
YEAR PER JNL
SRC ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESC T OB DEBIT CREDIT
EFF DATE JNL DESC REF 1 REF 2 REF 3 LINE DESC
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209035- Due To 0811 - LLMD - 001-2009 67.33 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0811-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 67.33 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209027- Due To Funds - 0803 - 003-2005 281.84 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0803-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 281.84 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209024- Due To 0800 - LLMD - 001-2002 9.53 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0800-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 9.53 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209034- Due To 0810 - LLMD - 001-1998 7.45 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0810-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 7.45 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209057- Due To 0814 - DTLL1-2022 49.64 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0814-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 49.64 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209055- Due To 0812 - DTLL1-2021 49.80 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0812-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 49.80 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209042- Due To 5006 - Rail Operat 55.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 5006-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 55.35 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209030- Due To 0806 - LLMD - 001-2007 9.74 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0806-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 9.74 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0000-00-000-00-00-209002- Due To 0200 - Federal Grant 4,685.89 05/21/2026 052126 052126
APP 0200-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 4,685.89 05/21/2026 052126 052126
SYSTEM GENERATED ENTRIES TOTAL 2,894,965.27 2,894,965.27 JOURNAL 2026/11/272 TOTAL 5,789,930.54 5,789,930.54
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
FUND YEAR PER JNL EFF DATE DEBIT CREDIT
ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
0000 Pooled Cash Fund 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0000-00-000-00-00-100010- Cash: Mission Bank Acct#10755 2,894,965.27 0000-00-000-00-00-209001- Due To 0100 - Gen Fund 1,751,153.35 0000-00-000-00-00-209002- Due To 0200 - Federal Grant 4,685.89 0000-00-000-00-00-209024- Due To 0800 - LLMD - 001-2002 9.53 0000-00-000-00-00-209027- Due To Funds - 0803 - 003-2005 281.84 0000-00-000-00-00-209030- Due To 0806 - LLMD - 001-2007 9.74 0000-00-000-00-00-209032- Due To 0808 - LLMD - 001-2015 8,673.67 0000-00-000-00-00-209034- Due To 0810 - LLMD - 001-1998 7.45 0000-00-000-00-00-209035- Due To 0811 - LLMD - 001-2009 67.33 0000-00-000-00-00-209036- Due To 5000 - Wastewtr Operat 225,938.06 0000-00-000-00-00-209037- Due To 5001 - Refuse Operat 111,325.53 0000-00-000-00-00-209038- Due To 5002 - Water Operat 258,141.03 0000-00-000-00-00-209039- Due To 5003 - Transit Operat 3,226.35 0000-00-000-00-00-209040- Due To 5004 - Telecom Operat 69,934.09 0000-00-000-00-00-209042- Due To 5006 - Rail Operat 55.35 0000-00-000-00-00-209046- Due To 5100 - Facility Maint 36,772.88 0000-00-000-00-00-209047- Due To 5101 - Vehicle Maint 1,417.34 0000-00-000-00-00-209049- Due To 5103 - Info Tech 4,199.60 0000-00-000-00-00-209055- Due To 0812 - DTLL1-2021 49.80 0000-00-000-00-00-209057- Due To 0814 - DTLL1-2022 49.64 0000-00-000-00-00-209060- Due To 0308 - Street Projects 418,180.20 0000-00-000-00-00-209817- Due to 0817 - DT CFD 786.60
FUND TOTAL 2,894,965.27 2,894,965.27
0100 General Fund 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0100-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 1,751,153.35 0100-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 1,751,153.35
FUND TOTAL 1,751,153.35 1,751,153.35
0200 Federal Grant 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0200-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 4,685.89 0200-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 4,685.89
FUND TOTAL 4,685.89 4,685.89
0308 State Grants Projects 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0308-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 418,180.20 0308-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 418,180.20
FUND TOTAL 418,180.20 418,180.20
0800 LLMD - 001-2002 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0800-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 9.53 0800-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 9.53
FUND TOTAL 9.53 9.53
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
FUND YEAR PER JNL EFF DATE DEBIT CREDIT
ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
0803 LLMD - 003-2005 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0803-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 281.84 0803-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 281.84
FUND TOTAL 281.84 281.84
0806 LLMD - 001-2007 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0806-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 9.74 0806-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 9.74
FUND TOTAL 9.74 9.74
0808 LLMD - 001-2015 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0808-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 8,673.67 0808-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 8,673.67
FUND TOTAL 8,673.67 8,673.67
0810 LLMD - 001-1998 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0810-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 7.45 0810-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 7.45
FUND TOTAL 7.45 7.45
0811 LLMD - 001-2009 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0811-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 67.33 0811-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 67.33
FUND TOTAL 67.33 67.33
0812 LLMD - 001-2021 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0812-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 49.80 0812-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 49.80
FUND TOTAL 49.80 49.80
0814 LLMD - 001-2022 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0814-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 49.64 0814-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 49.64
FUND TOTAL 49.64 49.64
0817 CFD-0817 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
0817-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 786.60 0817-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 786.60
FUND TOTAL 786.60 786.60
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
FUND YEAR PER JNL EFF DATE DEBIT CREDIT
ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
5000 Wastewater Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5000-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 225,938.06 5000-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 225,938.06
FUND TOTAL 225,938.06 225,938.06
5001 Refuse Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5001-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 111,325.53 5001-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 111,325.53
FUND TOTAL 111,325.53 111,325.53
5002 Water Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5002-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 258,141.03 5002-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 258,141.03
FUND TOTAL 258,141.03 258,141.03
5003 Transit Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5003-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 3,226.35 5003-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 3,226.35
FUND TOTAL 3,226.35 3,226.35
5004 Telecommunications Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026 5004-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 69,934.09 5004-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 69,934.09
FUND TOTAL 69,934.09 69,934.09
5006 Rail Operations 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5006-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 55.35 5006-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 55.35
FUND TOTAL 55.35 55.35
5100 Facility Maintenance 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5100-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 36,772.88 5100-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 36,772.88
FUND TOTAL 36,772.88 36,772.88
5101 Vehicle Maintenance 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
5101-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 1,417.34 5101-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 1,417.34
FUND TOTAL 1,417.34 1,417.34
5103 Information Technology 2026 11 272 05/21/2026
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
FUND YEAR PER JNL EFF DATE DEBIT CREDIT
ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
5103-00-000-00-00-109000- Due From Funds - Cash Pool 4,199.60 5103-00-000-00-00-205000- Accts Payable 4,199.60
FUND TOTAL 4,199.60 4,199.60
City of Shafter
A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL
Report generated: 05/21/2026 13:38
User: 5292blopez
Program ID: apcshdsb
JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED
FUND DUE TO DUE FR
0000 Pooled Cash Fund 2,894,965.27
0100 General Fund 1,751,153.35
0200 Federal Grant 4,685.89
0308 State Grants Projects 418,180.20
0800 LLMD - 001-2002 9.53
0803 LLMD - 003-2005 281.84
0806 LLMD - 001-2007 9.74
0808 LLMD - 001-2015 8,673.67
0810 LLMD - 001-1998 7.45
0811 LLMD - 001-2009 67.33
0812 LLMD - 001-2021 49.80
0814 LLMD - 001-2022 49.64
0817 CFD-0817 786.60
5000 Wastewater Operations 225,938.06
5001 Refuse Operations 111,325.53
5002 Water Operations 258,141.03
5003 Transit Operations 3,226.35
5004 Telecommunications Operations 69,934.09
5006 Rail Operations 55.35
5100 Facility Maintenance 36,772.88
5101 Vehicle Maintenance 1,417.34
5103 Information Technology 4,199.60
TOTAL 2,894,965.27 2,894,965.27
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Brenda Lopez **
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Yazmina Pallares, City Clerk
SUBJECT: BIANNUAL REVIEW OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; direct the City Manager to review the City's Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Government Code Section 87306.5; to file a statement of review with the City Clerk no later than October 1, 2026; and if necessary, to submit a revised Conflict of Interest Code for Council approval.
BACKGROUND
The Political Reform Act requires all public agencies to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. The Act requires that conflict of interest codes be amended for changed circumstances such as an update to the designation of positions having a decisionmaking capacity, an update to assigned disclosure categories and inclusion of new provisions required by statute.
The “Act” and, in particular, Government Code Section 87306.5 require that no later than July 1 of each even-numbered year, the City Council, as the City’s code-reviewing body, notify and direct the City Manager to review the City's Conflict of Interest Code.
The Act also requires the City Manager file a statement regarding the results of the review no later than October 1 of the same year.
If the review reveals that a change in the Code is necessary, revisions must be submitted to the City Council for approval within ninety (90) days of the filing of the statement of review.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant cost associated with this biannual review process. Any legal assistance or other costs that may be incurred can be accommodated within the approved 2026-2027 annual budget.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is to direct the City Manager to review the City's conflict of interest code and file a statement of review with the City Clerk and therefore, it is organizational
BIANNUAL REVIEW OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES
- 2 -
and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ATTACHMENTS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Carol Chavolla, HR Director
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF
NEUTRAL HEARING OFFICER FOR EMPLOYMENT APPEAL
RECOMMENDATION
Council find action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; and waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 3081, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter Electing to Refer an Appeal of an Employee Personnel Matter to a Neutral Hearing Officer Whose Decision Shall be Subject to Review and Ratification by the City Council in Accordance with Section 11.12 of the City of Shafter Personnel Rules.
BACKGROUND
From time to time, the City Council acts as a decision-maker in employee personnel matters. That authority is described in the City’s Personnel Rules.
The City of Shafter’s Personnel Rule section 11.12 provides:
All regular employees shall have the right to appeal termination, demotion, suspension without pay in excess of five (5) days or reduction in pay equivalent to the suspension without pay in excess of five (5) days, to an administrative hearing before the City Council or it’s designee by filing a written request with the City Council within five (5) days of the imposition of such discipline. The City Council in its sole discretion may delegate the hearing of an appeal on an advisory or binding basis. Probationary employees shall have no right of appeal but may file a written response to the facts in question within five (5) working days of imposition of the termination.
An employee has timely appealed an adverse personnel decision. The purpose of the proposed Resolution is to confirm that the City Council will be delegating the employee’s appeal to a neutral hearing officer on an advisory basis.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with the appointment of a Neutral Hearing Officer is currently undetermined and will depend on the hearing officer selected. The City will
ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF NEUTRAL HEARING OFFICER FOR
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL
- 2 -
incur costs related to retaining the neutral hearing officer; however, no budget amendment is requested at this time.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and is not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 3081
RESOLUTION NO. 3081
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER
ELECTING TO REFER AN APPEAL OF AN EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL MATTER TO
A NEUTRAL HEARING OFFICER WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND RATIFICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11.12 OF THE CITY OF SHAFTER PERSONNEL RULES
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter Personnel Rules section 11.12, provides that, “all regular employees shall have the right to appeal termination, demotion, suspension without pay in excess of five (5) days or reduction in pay equivalent to the suspension without pay in excess of five (5) days, to an administrative hearing before the City Council or its designee by filing a written request with the City Council within five (5) days of the imposition of such discipline”; and WHEREAS, section 11.12 continues, “the City Council in its sole discretion may delegate the hearing of an appeal on an advisory or binding basis,” and WHEREAS, an employee has timely appealed an adverse employment decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council shall delegate the appeal to a neutral hearing officer on a non-binding basis; and,
WHEREAS, the appointed hearing officer shall hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a written decision that will be referred back to the City Council, which will then, in its sole discretion, and without further appeal, either accept, reject or modify the hearing officer’s decision and issue a final determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may, and desires to, delegate administrative authority to the City Manager to appoint a hearing officer with the consultation of the City Attorney.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shafter, does hereby, delegate administrative authority to the City Manager, to appoint a neutral hearing officer to hear an appeal of an employee personnel matter and provide a written decision for review and ratification by the City Council, as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference the recitals of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. Appointment Authority. The City Manager is hereby authorized, in consultation with the City Attorney, to appoint a qualified neutral hearing officer to hold an evidentiary hearing of the employee’s appeal and issue a written decision that will be referred back to the City Council for review and final determination.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force and effect upon its adoption.
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3081
June 2, 2026
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Steve Esselman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 – ORDINANCE ADOPTION
RECOMMENDATION
Council introduce for second reading, by title only, and waive reading of Ordinance No. 781, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Shafter approving Zone Change (ZC) No. 25-74. 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.
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. On May 19, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading, by title only, and waived reading of Ordinance No. 781 approving ZC No. 25-74.
ANALYSIS:
ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 – ORDINANCE ADOPTION
- 2 -
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 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.
ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 – ORDINANCE ADOPTION
- 3 -
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. • 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
ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 – ORDINANCE ADOPTION
- 4 -
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 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
ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-74 – ORDINANCE ADOPTION
- 5 -
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
No
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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§ionNum=5097.98.
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
45 the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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/
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
ATTACHMENT A
MMRP
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
ATTACHMENT B
Figures
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Aerial Overview
Figure 3: General Plan Land Use
SITE
Figure 4: Zoning
Estate and Agricultural
Figure 5: TTM 7498
Figure 6: FIRMette
Figure 7: CalGEM 2025 Map
Figure 8: PG&E GRIP Map
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”.
Shafter City Council Ordinance No. 781
June 2, 2026
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
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Marcos Torres, Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: MANNEL PARK WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS BID
AUTHORIZATION
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; approve the plans and specifications for the Mannel Park Water Supply Improvement Project; and authorize Staff to proceed with formal bidding for the project.
BACKGROUND
Mannel Park is currently irrigated using the City’s potable water distribution system. To reduce the use of treated drinking water for landscape irrigation and improve long-term operational efficiency, the City has prepared the Mannel Park Water Supply Improvement Project. The project would transition the park’s irrigation supply from the potable system to an existing non-potable irrigation source associated with Well No. 9, which currently provides irrigation water to the Shafter High School ball fields.
The proposed improvements include the installation of a dedicated booster pump station, a hydropneumatic tank, a steel storage tank, conveyance piping, electrical improvements, site fencing, and related appurtenances within the northern triangular portion of Mannel Park. The improvements are intended to provide a reliable nonpotable irrigation supply for the park and do not include replacement or rehabilitation of the existing irrigation distribution system. A separate phase of the project will address replacing the existing irrigation system.
FISCAL IMPACT
This action authorizes the release of the project for formal bidding purposes only and does not appropriate or expend additional construction funds at this time. The project is included in the City’s approved Capital Improvement Program as CIP Project No.
PK00011 – Mannel Park Irrigation Improvements, which includes an allocated project budget of $450,000. Construction costs will be finalized through the competitive bidding process and any additional budget actions, if necessary, will be presented to the City Council at the time of contract award consideration.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15303 (New
MANNEL PARK WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS BID AUTHORIZATION - 2 -
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines because it consists of the operation and minor alteration of an existing public structure, namely Well No. 9, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use as well as the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as the booster pump station, hydropneumatic tank, steel storage tank, conveyance piping, electrical improvements, site fencing, and related appurtenances.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mannel Park Water Supply Design Project
S:\CITY OF SHAFTER\MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DRAWINGS\01 COVER SHEET.DWG 10/30/2025 11:32 AM
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
LOS ANGELES
BAKERSFIELD
VISALIA
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
0 SACRAMENTO
OREGON
FRESNO
NEVADA
KERN COUNTY
DELANO
395
178
14 395
178
155
202
58 178
223
99 99
BUS
202
184
99 65
43 166
119
58 46
155
14 5
166
33 58
33 46
58 5
LOS ANGELES
BAKERSFIELD
VISALIA
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
0 SACRAMENTO
OREGON
FRESNO
NEVADA
KERN COUNTY
DELANO
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
........
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
PROJECT SITE
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS © 2025 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
W
W
W
PROPERTY LINE
W
MID-SECTION LINE
OF SECTION 10
TULARE AVE
TULARE AVE
CENTRAL AVE
CENTRAL AVE
W W
6" Ø PIPELINE
CONNECT TO MANNEL PARK
IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
SEE DETAIL SHEET 11.
CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND
LOCATE EXISTING MANNEL
PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
16" Ø STEEL
CASING
INLET
DRAIN
LLI
767 Central AveSFR Residence
FURNISH & INSTALL
SITE ELECTRICAL W/
SHADE STRUCTURE
SEE SHEET 9
LADDER TANK INLET
FURNISH & INSTALL
MASONRY BLOCK WALL & GATES
SEE DETAIL SHEET 13
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
CONSTRUCT 6" THICKCONCRETE DRIVE APPROACHSEE DETAIL SHEET 13
OVERFLOW
W
W
W
W
W
W
500 GAL HYDROPNEUMATIC TANKSEE SHEET 7
O
U
T
L
E
T
W
W
W W
FROM WELL 9
CONSTRUCT 6" THICKCONCRETE DRIVE
APPROACH, SEE DETAIL SHEET 14
45°
6" Ø C900 DR18 PVC PIPE ±125LF
6" Ø C900 DR18 PVC PIPE
SAWCUT AND
REPAIR SIDEWALK,
CURB, & GUTTER
O
H
O
H
O
H
OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
AIR COMPRESSOR
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
SEE SHEET 6
16' DOUBLE DRIVE GATE
SEE DETAIL SHEET 13
(N89° 01'38"W)
2 9
'
-
1 1
"
EXISTING 6" VALVE ANDPIPING ABOVE GROUND
EXISTING
IRRIGATION VALVES
EXISTING
VAULT
± 3'-5" ± 210'-2 1/2"
± 151'-8 1/2" ±217'-10 1/2
"
± 8'-1 1/2"
±24'- 0"
16'-0"
10'-0"
16'- 5
"
12'- 8 12 "
39'-1 1/2
"
± 149'-3"
CONNECT TO EXISTING
6" WATER MAIN
SEE DETAIL SHEET 11
6'-4"
CONVEYANCE PIPINGSEE SHEET 8
10'-0"
24'-0"
15'-4 12
"
S
S
S
Ø20.00'
Ø24.00'
EXISTING CURB GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK
PROTECT IN PLACE
EXISTING CURB GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK
PROTECT IN PLACE
EXISTING ±20" DIAMETER TREE
PROTECT IN PLACE
EXISTING ±20" DIAMETER TREE
PROTECT IN PLACE
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
PROTECT IN PLACE
SITE GROUND COVER
3" THICK 3/4" CL. II AGGREGATE
BASE COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION
(LIMITS BEING THE BLOCK WALL
FENCING)
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
EXISTING 4' HIGH WALL
E
E
E E
W
ELECTRICAL PLAN
SEE SHEET 15
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
GG
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
10" Ø WATER MAIN
8" Ø WATER MAIN
6" Ø WATER MAIN
10" Ø WATER MAIN
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
12' TALL x 20' Ø
AWWA D100 STEEL TANK
SEE SHEETS 4 AND 5
EXISTING ±20" DIAMETER TREEPROTECT IN PLACE
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN WITH
8"X6" REDUCING TEE AND 6" GATE VALVE.
CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE TO VERIFY
MATERIAL, SIZE, AND DEPTH OF EXISTINGMAIN. SEE SHT. 10 FOR PROFILE VIEW 6" Ø C900 DR18 PVC PIPE ±30LF ±94'-8 1/2 "
SCALE 1"=12'
0 12' 24' 48'
NEW 6" PVC WATER MAINNEW BLOCK WALLEXISTING POWER LINESEXISTING PROPERTY LINESEXISTING FENCE LINEEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICALEXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY x x x
EL EL
W W
S
OH
EXISTING SIGNEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING BOLLARD/POSTEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED GATE VALVEEXISTING WATER SERVICE R/W
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A U.S.A. LOCATE PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION.
SITE PLAN
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CMM
CMS
OCT2025
AS SHOWN
2 20
S:\CITY OF SHAFTER\MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DRAWINGS\SURVEY BASE.DWG 11/6/2025 8:40 AM
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
352.14
MNT
CVR
352.06
VLV
CVER
351.17
FL
351.35
FL
351.36
FL
351.54
FL
351.66
FL
351.52
FL
351.52
FL
351.64
FL
351.73
FL 351.78
FL
352.02
FL 352.11
FL
352.20
FNC
CORNER
352.52
IRR VLV
BOX
352.60
IRR VLV
BOX
352.60
PVV
RISER
352.83
VAULT
352.76
VAULT
352.75
VAULT
352.72
VAULT
351.52
OEP
351.70
GUY
349.77
FL
349.72
FL
349.86
FL
349.95
FL
349.82
FL
349.80
FL DR
349.81
FL DR
349.81
FL
350.83
WALK
350.96
WALK
351.49
SWR
MH
351.33
GAS
MKR
351.23
GAS
MKR
351.21
GAS
MKR
352.17
SWR
MH
352.12
VLV LID
352.33
FH
352.34
FH
VLV LID
352.10
WTR
TEE
TO
HYDRANT
MKR FLOAT
351.98
WTR
MKR 352.14
STOP
SIGN
351.53
COS
MKR TEE
351.52
GAS
MRK
351.29
GAS
MRK
351.52
GAS
MRK
351.94
SW
MH 351.91
GAS
MRK
351.84
COS
MKR
351.66
COS
MKR TEE
351.89
351
GAS
MRK TEE
.88
GAS
MRK TEE
351.42
FL
352.41
BW
351.59
BW
352.31
SWR
MKR
352.14
VLV LID
350.61
FL
350.93
FL
350.78
FL
351.32
COS
MKR
351.94
TREE FLOAT
353.88
TREE FLOAT
355.28
TREE FLOAT
355.19
TREE FLOAT
355.98
TREE FLOAT
356.42
TREE FLOAT
356.92
TREE FLOAT
356.58
TREE FLOAT
356.79
TREE FLOAT
352.60
FNC FLOAT
0.00 CALCULATED
CENTER
SECTION
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
W
W
W
351.52
FL
351.52
FL
W
W
W
351.52
FL
351.52
FL
-0.62
FL
-0.62
FL
INLET
DRAIN
LLI
LADDER
±17'-6"
OVERFLOW
W
W
W
W
W
W
OUTLET
W
W
W
W
45°
OH OH
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
O
H
AIR COMPRESSOR
29'-11"
± 3'-5"
± 210'-2 1/2"
± 151'-8 1/2"
±217'-10 1/2 "
± 8'-1 1/2"
±24'- 0"
16'-0"
10'-0"
16'- 5 "
12'- 8 1
2 "
39'-1 1/2 "
± 149'-3"
6'-4"
10'-0" 24'-0"
15'-4 1
2"
S
S
S
Ø20.00'
Ø24.00'
351.40
351.40
351.60
351.60
351.80
351.80
351.80
351.80
352.00
352.00
352.00
352.00
352.00
352.00
352.20
352.20
352.20
352.20
352.20 -0.9%
-0 6. %
-1.0%
-3.3%
-3.8%
-1.2%
-1.1%
-1.2%
-1 1. %
-1.0% -1.0%
-1.0% -1.0%
-0.4%
-1.2%
E
E
E
E
W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
W
W
W
W
W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
±94'-8 1/2 "
SCALE 1"=12'
0 12' 24' 48'
FG
352.10
FG
352.25
FF = 352.45
FF = 352.19
FF = 353.00
CENTER FF = 352.60
352.50
TOP FF
FG
351.90
FG
352.25
FG
352.35
FG
352.20 FG
352.35
FG
351.67
351.15
FG
352.15
FG
352.35
SWALE
351.95
SWALE
351.72
SWALE
351.41
SWALE
351.22
FG
352.02
NEW 6" PVC WATER MAINNEW BLOCK WALLEXISTING POWER LINESEXISTING PROPERTY LINESEXISTING FENCE LINEEXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICALEXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY x
x
x
EL EL
W
W
S
OH
EXISTING SIGNEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING BOLLARD/POSTEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED GATE VALVEEXISTING WATER SERVICE R/W
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A U.S.A. LOCATE PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL AT ALL TIMES.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB THE ENTIRE SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. ALL MATERIAL GENERATED BY CLEARING
AND GRUBBING SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
4. AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BE SCARIFIED 8-INCHES, MOISTURE CONDITIONED, AND RE-COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER-EXCAVATE AND RE-COMPACT TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION TO A DEPTH OF 18-INCHES BENEATH AND 5-FT BEYOND ALL CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS.
x
513.21
TOPO
FG
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONDESIGN FINISH GRADE
513.00 FINISHED GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR
FL DESIGN FLOWLINE
DRAINAGE SWALE
±50 CY "NEAT LINE" CUT±80 CY "NEAT LINE" FILL
TC DESIGN TOP OF CONCRETE
BW DESIGN BACK OF WALKWAY
SWALE
351.48
FG
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES INCLUDE 3" OF GRAVEL
GROUND COVER.
FF FINISHED CONCRETE FLOOR
GRADING PLAN
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CMM
CMS
OCT2025
AS SHOWN
3 20
S:\CITY OF SHAFTER\MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DRAWINGS\_GRADING PLAN.DWG 11/6/2025 8:35 AM
TANK PLAN
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4
TANK APPURTENANCES
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5
BOOSTER PUMP STATION
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
6
HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
7
R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
355.98
TREE FLOAT
AIR COMPRESSOR
CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
8
ELECTRICAL SHADE STRUCTURE
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
9
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
10
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
11
CONVEYANCE PIPELINE DETAILS
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
12
CITY DETAILS
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
13
CITY DETAILS
MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION
WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT
CITY OF SHAFTER
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
14
C:\USERS\JULIAN SANCHEZ\ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC\PROJECTS - DOCUMENTS\DJA (DEE JASPAR ASSOC)\24166 - SHAFTER MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DWGS\DJA24166 E01-LGEND & SHEET INDEX-.DWG 6/6/2025 1:16 PM DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
OF SHEETS REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY LEGEND & SHEET INDEX MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E01
20 EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
E01-LEGEND & SHEET INDEX
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
WARNING
POWER LINES
OVERHEAD
Know what's below. WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT Call before you dig.
MANNEL PARK
SHAFTER CA
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
E E
E E
S
S3
S4
SM
SM
SD
#
G
TS
X ##
OR
LIGHTING FIXTURE; LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE RECESSED LIGHTING FIXTURE; LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE
SCHEDULE
LIGHTING FIXTURE EQUIPPED WITH EMERGENCY BATTERY PACK;
LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE
LIGHTING FIXTURE; LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE LIGHTING FIXTURE EQUIPPED WITH EMERGENCY BATTERY PACK; LETTER
INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE
EXIT LIGHT; LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE POLE MOUNTED LIGHTING FIXTURE; LETTER INDICATES FIXTURE TYPE PER
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
LIGHTING FIXTURE; BEACON TYPE PER FIXTURE SCHEDULE
A
B
AE
C
CE
D
X
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL NOTES
PER CEC 110.12 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION TO BE NEAT AND WORKMANLIKE. SEE NECA 1 STANDARD FOR GOOD WORKMANSHIP AND NECA 101 STANDARD FOR INSTALLING STEEL CONDUIT FOR REQUIREMENTS.
ABOVE GRADE - HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED RIGID STEEL CONDUIT TO BE USED FOR ALL EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR LOCATIONS ABOVE GRADE OR ELSEWHERE SHOWN ON PLANS. ALL RIGID CONDUIT AND FITTINGS TO BE THREADED. USE OF SET SCREW OR COMPRESSION TYPE CONNECTOR IS PROHIBITED. MEYERS HUBS TO BE USED ON ALL EXTERIOR PANEL CONNECTIONS.
BELOW GRADE - RIGID PVC NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SCHEDULE 40 TO BE USED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND LOCATIONS AND BELOW VAPOR BARRIER OF SLAB. NO CONDUITS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO REDUCE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF FOOTINGS. MANDREL ALL CONDUITS PRIOR
TO PULLING WIRE
CHEMICAL BUILDINGS AND CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES - RIGID PVC NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SCHEDULE 80 TO BE USED FOR ALL INTERIOR LOCATIONS ABOVE GRADE IN CHEMICAL BUILDINGS AND CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENTS.
THROUGH CONCRETE SLABS AND EXTERIOR CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES - PVC COATED GALVANIZED RIGID STEEL CONDUIT MINIMUM 40 MIL FACTORY COATING TO BE USED FOR ALL EXPOSED CONDUITS THROUGH CONCRETE SLABS (MINIMUM 12'' ABOVE AND BELOW SLAB) AND ALL EXTERIOR LOCATION CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES. USE MANUFACTURERS' SPECIFIED TOOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR INSTALLATION.
MOTORS AND SENSOR CONNECTIONS - LIQUID TIGHT FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT (UV RESISTANT) TO ONLY BE USED ON CONNECTIONS TO MOTORS AND SENSORS OR TO ISOLATE VIBRATION. MAXIMUM LENGTH TO BE 30''.
JUNCTION BOXES - MINIMUM SIZE PER NEC. EXPOSED LOCATION, 1 AND 2 GANG TO BE CAST IRON DEVICE BOXES TYPE FS/FD SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS. EXPOSED LOCATION EXTERIOR LARGER SIZES CONTINUOUS HINGE TYPE 4, CORROSIVE LOCATIONS CONTINUOUS HINGE TYPE 4X STAINLESS STEEL.
GROUND CONNECTIONS - GROUND CONNECTIONS TO BE EXOTHERMIC CADWELD (ALL 600 AMP OR LARGER SERVICE) OR BURNDY HYDRAULIC COMPRESSION CONNECTORS. GROUND BUS CONNECTIONS TO BE CRIMP LUG TYPE WITH BOLTED CONNECTION TO GROUND BUS. 480 VOLT AND BELOW POWER WIRING SHALL BE XHHW-2 COPPER. ALL POWER CONNECTIONS TO BE TREATED WITH ANTIOXIDANT COMPOUND. ALL VFD MOTOR CABLE TO BE SHIELDED, INVERTER DUTY. SHIELD GROUNDED AT BOTH ENDS.
CLASS 1, DIVISION 1 WIRING PER CEC 501.10A - PVC COATED THREADED RIGID METAL CONDUIT, RIGID METAL CONDUIT OR ALUMINUM CONDUIT PER OWNER'S DIRECTION IS REQUIRED. RIGID PVC CONDUIT ENCASED IN MINIMUM 2” CONCRETE AND MINIMUM 36” BELOW GRADE IS ALLOWED PER PRIOR APPROVAL. ALL CONNECTIONS TO BE WRENCH TIGHT MINIMUM 5 THREADS ENGAGED. FLEXIBLE FITTINGS TO BE EXPLOSION PROOF PER UL 1203. INTRINSICALLY SAFE (INCAPABLE OF CAUSING IGNITION) IS ALLOWED FOR SENSORS IF ISOLATED FROM NON-INTRINSICALLY SAFE WIRING.
CONTACT OWNER'S ELECTRICAL REPRESENTATIVE TO SCHEDULE AN ELECTRICAL PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING PRIOR TO COMMENCING
CONSTRUCTION
SHEET INDEX CURRENT APPLICABLE CODES
#
SCOPE OF WORK
NOTES:
1. CONDUIT ROUTING SHOWN AS DIAGRAMMATIC. DOES NOT INDICATE TRENCH AND CONDUIT LAYOUT.
OS
19 OR
A/C AIR CONDITIONER
XXX
###
XXX
UTILITY POLE
PULLBOX
DESIGNATES NOTES
DESIGNATES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
CADWELD OR EXOTHERMIC WELD PER PLANS
GROUND CONNECTION TO EQUIPMENT
CONDUIT NUMBER
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT
CONDUIT RUN - STUBBED, CAPPED AND LABELED
UFER GROUND
CONDUIT EXISTING, ABOVE GROUND
CONDUIT EXISTING, UNDERGROUND
CONDUIT NEW, IN FLOOR/UNDERGROUND
CONDUIT NEW, ABOVE GROUND
CIRCUIT HOMERUN, DESIGNATES PANEL "X" & CIRCUIT #
UNDERGROUND
MODIFY
RELOCATE
REPLACE
FURNISH & INSTALL
FUTURE
EXISTING
NEW
AG ABOVE GROUND
N
E
F
F&I
R
RL
M
UG
PANEL CLEARANCE AREA
ELECTRICAL GUTTER BOX PER PLANS
LIGHTING PANEL PER PLANS
ELECTRICAL PANEL PER PLANS
WEATHERPROOF CONSTRUCTION
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
TELEPHONE BACKBOARD
GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER
FULL LOAD AMPS
FURNISHED BY OTHERS
FURNISH AND INSTALL
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
AFG
F&I
FBO
FLA
GFCIGFI
TBB
UON
WP
OR
OCCUPANCY/MOTION SENSOR
THERMOSTAT
SINGLE POLE SWITCH WITH DIMMER @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON MOTOR RATED SWITCH @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON
WALL SWITCH WITH INTEGRAL OCCUPANCY SENSOR @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON FOUR WAY SWITCH @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON
THREE WAY SWITCH @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON
SINGLE POLE SWITCH @ +48" TO TOP OF BOX, UON
X
##
##
##
J
GFI
WP
VF EXHAUST FAN
ELECTRIC MOTOR
DISCONNECT SWITCH, SIZED PER LOAD SERVED
JUNCTION BOX
DUPLEX RECEPTACLE IN CEILING
250V SINGLE PHASE OUTLET IN WALL @ +18", UON
QUADRUPLEX RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
DUPLEX ISOLATED GROUND RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
WEATHER PROOF DUPLEX GFI RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON CONTROLLED OUTLET @ +18", UON
DUPLEX GFI RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
SUBSCRIPT 'AC' INDICATES ABOVE COUNTER
DUPLEX RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
SUBSCRIPT 'AC' INDICATES ABOVE COUNTER
SINGLE RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
SUBSCRIPT 'AC' INDICATES ABOVE COUNTER
FLUSH MOUNTED FLOOR BOX
WP WEATHER PROOF WHILE IN USE COVER DUPLEX GFI RECEPTACLE IN WALL @ +18", UON
IUC
AFS AIR FLOW SENSOR
AC AIR COMPRESSOR
ZERO SPEED SWITCH
ULTRASONIC LEVEL SENSOR
SOLENOID VALVE
PRESSURE INDICATING TRANSMITTER
LEVEL INDICATING TRANSMITTER
LOW LEVEL SWITCH
HIGH PRESSURE SWITCH
HIGH LEVEL SWITCH
FLOAT SWITCH
FLOW INDICATING TRANSMITTER
E-STOP
DPT DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTER
ES
FIT
FS
HLS
HPS
LLS
LIT
PIT
SV
ULS
ZS
RADAR LEVEL SENSOR
MOV MOTOR OPERATED VALVE
CIT CHLORINE RESIDUAL ANALYZER
LKS OR LS LEAK SENSOR
RLS
PS PRESSURE SWITCH
CMP CHLORINE METERING PUMP
E
COMPLIANCE WITH CEC 110.16 AND NESC RULE 410 WILL BE PROVIDED.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT THAT IS LIKELY TO REQUIRE EXAMINATION ADJUSTMENT, SERVICING, OR MAINTENANCE WHILE ENERGIZED, WILL BE FIELD OR FACTORY MARKED TO WARN QUALIFIED PERSONS OF POTENTIAL ELECTRIC ARC HAZARDS. THE MARKING SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEC 110.21 AND NFPA 130 AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO BE CLEARLY VISIBLE TO QUALIFIED PERSONS BEFORE EXAMINATION, ADJUSTED, SERVICING MAINTENANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT.
COORDINATION AND ARC FLASH STUDY TO BE COMPLETED AFTER PROJECT INSTALLATION TO VERIFY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, POWER CABLE TYPE, AND POWER CABLE TYPE.
ARC FLASH, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND COORDINATION STUDY TO BE PERFORMED, STAMPED, AND SIGNED BY A LICENSED CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND PER NFPA 130.
ARC FLASH, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND COORDINATION STUDY MUST BE REVIEWED AT MOST EVERY 5 YEARS PER NFPA 130.5(H).
ARC FLASH, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND COORDINATION STUDY MUST BE PERFORMED WITH ANY CHANGES TO THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PER NFPA 130.
ARC FLASH LABELING
ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL AND ITS INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES:
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8, INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 19, PUBLIC SAFETY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 1 , ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), TITLE 24, PART 2
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), TITLE 24, PART 3
CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), TITLE 24, PART 4
CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), TITLE 24, PART 5
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, TITLE 24, PART 6
CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), TITLE 24, PART 9
CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE (CBSC), TITLE 24, PART 10 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS (CALGREEN CODE), TITLE 24, PART 11 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARD CODE (CRSC), TITLE 24, PART 12
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA), STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE
REGULATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF REGULATION SERVICES
LOCAL UTILITY GAS AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
WHERE TWO OR MORE CODES CONFLICT, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE SHALL APPLY. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO APPLICABLE CODES.
EPS DWG Title Date Rev.
Number
E01 Lgend & Sheet Index 6/6/2025
E02 Overall Site Plan 6/6/2025
E03 Booster Pump Station Area 6/6/2025
E04 Single Line Diagram 6/6/2025
E05 Control Diagrams 6/6/2025
E06 Electrical Details 6/6/2025
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W E
E
0 SCALE:
OVERALL BOOSTER STATION SITE
1/8" = 1'-0"
4'-0" 8'-0" 16'-0"
BOOSTER
PUMP STATION
SEE SHEET E03
CENTRAL AVE
TULARE AVE REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY OVERALL BOOSTER STATION SITE MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E02
20 EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
OVERALL BOOSTER STATION SITE
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E E S 0 SCALE:
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
3/8" = 1'-0"
1'-4" 2'-8" 5'-4"
WLS
AC
SV PIT FIT
HPS
HPS
HLS
LIT LLS
13 14
16 19
10 5
20 21 1 2
NO. QTY SIZE NO. WIRES WIRE SIZE GND FUNCTION FROM TO 1 PG&E Primary 2 1 3" 3+1N #4/0 & #1/0 PG&E Secondary PG&E XFMR Meter/Main 3 1 3/4" 3 #8 #8 Booster Pump #1 Main Panelboard Booster Pump #1 VFD 4 1 1 1/2" 3 #8 Shld VFD #8 Booster Pump #1 Booster Pump #1 VFD Booster Pump #1 5 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Booster Pump #1 High Pressure Switch Booster Pump #1 High Pressure Switch Booster Pump #1 VFD 6 1 3/4" 2 #18 TSP Pump Controller Analog Pump Controller Booster Pump #1 VFD 7 1 3/4" 8 #14 #14 Pump Controller Discrete Pump Controller Booster Pump #1 VFD 8 1 3/4" 3 #8 #8 Booster Pump #2 Main Switchboard Booster Pump #2 VFD 9 1 1 1/2" 3 #8 Shld VFD #8 Booster Pump #2 Booster Pump #2 VFD Booster Pump #2 10 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Booster Pump #2 High Pressure Switch Booster Pump #2 High Pressure Switch Booster Pump #2 VFD 11 1 3/4" 2 #18 TSP Pump Controller Analog Pump Controller Booster Pump #2 VFD 12 1 3/4" 8 #14 #14 Pump Controller Discrete Pump Controller Booster Pump #2 VFD 13 1 3/4" 1 #18 TSP Booster Pressure Transmitter Booster Pressure Transmitter Pump Controller 14 1 3/4" 2 #18 TSP Booster Flow Transmitter Booster Flow Transmitter Pump Controller 15 1 3/4" 2 #12 #12 Booster Flow Transmitter LP Booster Flow Transmitter 16 1 3/4" 6 #14 #14 Warrick Level Probes Warrick Level Probes Warrick Level Relay 17 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Warrick Level Relay LP Warrick Level Relay 18 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Hydrotank Solenoid Warrick Level Relay Hydrotank Solenoid 19 1 3/4" 3 #12 #12 Air Compressor Main Panelboard Air Compressor 20 1 3/4" 1 #18 TSP Tank Level Transmitter Tank Level Transmitter Pump Controller 21 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Tank High Level Switch Tank High Level Switch Pump Controller 22 1 3/4" 2 #14 #14 Tank Low Level Switch Tank Low Level Switch Pump Controller 23 1 3/4" 2 #12 #12 Site Lighting LP Site Lighting
24 1 3/4" 2 #10 #10 10 KVA XFMR Main Panelboard 10 KVA XFMR 25 1 3/4" 2 #6 #8 LP 10 KVA XFMR LP
26 27
28 29
30 * Shielded VFD Cable Belden Standard
#18 TSP Belden 9341
#18 TST Belden 8770
CABLE & CONDUIT SCHEDULE
15 9 4
BP-1
BP-2
23 22
17 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY ENLARGED SITE PLAN MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E0320
EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
E03-ENLARGED SITE PLAN
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
18
EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
E04-SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
VFD'S - RATED 150% FLA FOR ONE (1) MINUTE - HD
50°C AMBIENT, OUTDOOR RATED, POWER HEAT SINK VENTED TO ATMOSPHERE
PM - ACUITY ACUVIM II W/ETHERNET
UTILITY
480/277V 3ɸ 4W
OR
THERMAL
VFD
REACTORS
25HP
34FLA
PUMP #1
VFD
REACTORS
25HP
34FLA
PUMP #2
MAIN
PANEL 'LP'
100A
120/240V
12 CIRCUIT
100A
PANEL 'LP' SCHEDULE
SQUARE D MINIPOWER ZONE
LOAD CALCS
MOTOR LIST
NEMA 3R
SINGLE BOARDS: WOOD BOARDS MUST BE MINIMUM 2" THICK BY 12" WIDE (NOMINAL). METAL BOARDS MUST BE MINIMUM 1/2" THICK BY 12" WIDE.
SOLID SHEET PANELS: WOOD SHEETS MUST BE 1" THICK. METAL SHEETS MUST BE 1/4" THICK.
STRUTS: TWO STRUTS ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT EACH PIECE OF EQUIPMENT (ONE NEAR TOP & ONE NEAR BOTTOM OF EQUIPMENT) AND MIST BE MINIMUM 1-1/2" X 1-1/2".
USE MINIMUM TWO POSTS TO SUPPORT PANEL CONSTRUCTION. POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED 72"-96" APART. POSTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMANENT CAP INSTALLED ON TOP.
FITTINGS AND ASSOCIATED HARDWARE MUST BE STAINLESS STEEL OR GALVANIZED STEEL.
SECURELY PLUG/FILL ALL UNUSED SCREW HOLES AND OPENINGS WITH APPROVED FASTENERS.
USE SEALANTS ALONG WITH SCREWS, BOLTS, AND OTHER METAL FASTENERS.
A MINIMUM OF 36" OF CLEAR AND LEVEL WORKING SPACE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN FRONT OF THE PANEL BOARD STRUCTURE AT ALL TIMES.
PROPERLY IDENTIFY AND MARK METERS WITH APPROVED SIGNS AS REQUIRED BY CURRENT NEC, CEC, AND NFPA.
WELD 1/4" STEEL PLATE
COVER OVER ALL EXPOSED
ENDS OF STEEL TUBING.
COAT WELDS WITH
GALVAPREP
G
NOTE:
PANEL
3"x3" GALVANIZED RIGID
STEEL (TYPICAL)
CONCRETE FOOTING
12" DIAMETER WITH 1/2"
SLOPE AND 3/4" CHAMFER
ALONG EDGES
A
A
PANEL BOARD CONSTRUCTION
GROUND LUG
6"-12" 4"
84"
MAX
#4/0 BARE GROUND WIRE
WITH ARMORED CLADDING
GROUND LUG
48"
MIN
UNISTRUT
UNISTRUT STRAP
COUPLING
3/4''X10' COPPER GROUND ROD. +6"
ABOVE GRADE INSIDE GROUND WELL.
PEBBLE ROCK APPROXIMATELY
6'' DEEP
CHRISTY G5 CONCRETE GROUND ROD
BOX WITH CONCRETE
LID AND EXTENSION
48"-96"
PANEL BOARD DIMENSIONS VARY
DEPENDING ON EQUIPMENT
36"
MIN
M
60"-73"
+6"
M
+12"
3" CLEAR
G
3/8" STAINLESS STEEL
THROUGH BOLTS WITH
NUTS AND WASHERS
(TYPICAL)
REBAR SPIRAL #4 AT 6"
REBAR VERTICAL 8 - #6
A
A
48"-52"
WEATHER PROOF WHILE IN USE
CONVENIENCE RECEPTACLE
SPD
120KA/PH
PM
PUMP
CONTROLLER
25HP HEAVY
DUTY VFD
BP-1
25HP HEAVY
DUTY VFD
BP-2
4" x 4" WP GUTTER
10kVA
XFMR-LP
1ɸ
480/277V
240/120V
Main Load Calculations 480V
Item Name FLA
1 Booster Pump #1 34
2 Booster Pump #2 34
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Sub-Total 68
25% largest motor 9
Total 77
Main Size 200
MCC Motor List
Item Name ID Timing Type HP FLA Voltage Starter typ VFD HOA I-lock Power on Running Fail ETM Remarks 1 Booster Pump #1 BP-1 25 34 460 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2 Booster Pump #2 BP-2 25 34 460 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3 4
5 6
7 8
PANEL LP
60 AMP 240/120V 1PH
CKT DESCRIPTION / LOCATION BRKR PLS Aph Bph
1 Controller 20 1 1.00
3 Lighting 20 1 1.00
5 Winding heaters 20 1 2.00
7 20 1 0.00
9 20 1 0.00
11 20 1 0.00
2 Warrick Relay 20 1 1.00
4 GFI Outlets 20 1 2.00
6 20 1 0.00
8 20 1 0.00
10 20 1 0.00
12 20 1 0.00
PANEL CONNECTED LOAD / PHASE 4.0 3.0
PANEL CONNECTED LOAD 7.0 AMP 0.8 KW
PM
PANELBOARD
6 7
11 12
3 8
PANEL 'LP'
10kVA
XFMR-LP
25 24 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E04
20 SERVING UTILITY
30A
120kA/Phase
SPD
MAIN
200/3
50/3 50/3
XFMR-UTILITY
480/277V
M
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
E05-CONTROL DIAGRAMS
C:\USERS\JULIAN SANCHEZ\ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC\PROJECTS - DOCUMENTS\DJA (DEE JASPAR ASSOC)\24166 - SHAFTER MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DWGS\DJA24166 E05-CONTROL DIAGRAMS-.DWG 6/2/2025 11:13 AM DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
OF SHEETS REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CONTROL DIAGRAMS MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E05
20 MFU
TO BUS
L1
L2
1FU 2FU
115VAC
FU
XFMR
LINE REACTOR
GND
GND
(HORIZ. GND BUS)
PE
0-10V
4-20mA
MOTOR
RESET
"J"
HIGH
PRESSURE
0-3 MIN
HIGH
PRESSURE
CONTROL
ANALOG
OUTPUT
CONTROL
DI
CONTROL
DI
ETHERNET
COM TO
CONTROL
FAIL TO PUMP
0-5 MIN
H - O - A
PUMP
CALL DELAY
H
A
A
A
CONTROL
DO
REFERENCE
SELECT
CONTROL
INPUT
HIM LCD DISPLAY
ANALOG
POTENTIOMETER
DOOR MOUNT MANUAL
POTENTIOMETER &
KEYPAD
CB
T.C.
AUTO
SPEED
REFERENCE
T.C.
RS
RS
TB
PF
HP
TB
TB
TB
DRIVE
FAULT
RR
DRIVE
RUNNING
RR
HP
R
G
R
ETM
RR
RR
RR
TR1 RR RS
PF
TR1
FAN1
FAN2
PUMP CALL
DELAY
TR1
PF
HIGH
PRESSURE
TP
RESET
THERMOSTAT
START
PRESSURE
SWITCH
OS
OS - OPEN ON
PUMP SHUTDOWN
BOOSTER PUMP
CONTROL DIAGRAM VFD
ONE SHOT ON PUMP STOP
0-5 MIN
NOTES:
1) MANUFACTURER TO BE A-B, C-H, SQ. D, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2) HEAVY DUTY RATED 150% FULL RATED CURRENT FOR 60 SECONDS 3) DRIVE RATED FOR 50°C AMBIENT MINIMUM, HEAT SINK MOUNTED THROUGH ENCLOSURE. 4) REDUNDANT COOLING FANS.
5) 5% LINE REACTORS
6) DE-RATE FOR SINGLE PHASE INPUT
CONSOLIDATOR+
PUMP CONTROLLER
PRECISION DIGITAL
RELAY RELAY RELAY RELAY
BACKUP
PUMP
MAIN
PUMP
HI
ALARM
LO
ALARM 4-20mA SIGNAL
CONNECTIONS (TYPICAL 1-6)
TANK
LEVEL
ETHERNET
MODBUS
TCP/IP
CRL
LOW
LEVEL
CRL
HIGH
LEVEL
OFF ON
+24VDC -VDC
1 2 3 TB
TB
CRL TO VFD
FLOATS
GEMS LS-7 TYPE 9 316 S.S.
MURPHY MLS OR EQUAL
T2
T1
PE
PE
(-)
ANIN1
(+)
(-)
ANIN2
(+)
T3
PRECISION DIGITAL
CONSOLIDATOR PUMP
CONTROLLER
DIGITAL
INPUT
DIGITAL
INPUT
DIGITAL
INPUT
4-20mA
ANALOG IN
ETHERNET
BP#1
CALL
BP#2
CALL 4-20mA SIGNAL
BOOSTER
PRESSURE
ANALOG IN ANALOG OUT
VFD
BP#2
VFD
BP#1
DIGITAL
INPUT
DIGITAL I/O
TANK
HIGH LEVEL
TANK
LOW LEVEL
BP#1
CALL
BP#2
CALL
BP#1
RUN
ANALOG I/O
DIGITAL
INPUT
BP#2
RUN
DIGITAL
OUTPUT
DIGITAL
OUTPUT
BOOSTER
PRESSURE
TANK
LEVEL
BP#2
VFD REFERENCE
BP#1
VFD REFERENCE
4-20mA
ANALOG IN
4-20mA
ANALOG
OUT
4-20mA
ANALOG
OUT
N L1
REFERENCE PROBE
LOW PROBE
HIGH PROBE
16DM, DIRECT MODE (ON = HI LEVEL, OFF = LOW LEVEL), 120VAC, W/SOCKET, NEMA 4 ENCLOSURE
HYDRO
AIR FILL
SOLENOID
1) COMPRESSOR SHALL START AND STOP FROM PRESSURE CONTROLS FURNISHED BY MANUFACTURER. START AT 110 PSI AND STOP AT 140 PSI. 2) A NORMALLY CLOSED SOLENOID VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED. 3) WATER LEVEL PROBES IN THE SURGE TANK SHALL ACTUATE SOLENOID VALVE TO ADD AIR TO THE CHAMBER WHEN REQUIRED. A SECOND PROBE WILL CLOSE THE SOLENOID VALVE WHEN PRESET LEVELS ARE MET.
HYDRO TANK COMPRESSOR
OPERATION
WARRICK TANK CONTROL
DIAGRAM
10 1 11
2 3
4 5 7
6 9
8 L1
L2 C
NC
NO
H
L
G
RH RL
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
EPS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DESIGN ONLY. EPS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY WORK PROCEDURES AND/OR USE OF REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, SEE NFPA 70E "STANDARD FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE'' AND OSHA 29 CFR. CONTRACTOR MUST READ SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALL MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR PLANS OR AS PER E.P.S. APPROVAL. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE CREATED.
JOE PREVENDAR P.E. CA EE 16581
[email protected]
JOB:
FILE:
PLOT:
DSGN:
DATE:
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
2187 Herndon Ave #102 Clovis CA 93611 (559) 221-7230
June 2025
DRWN:
UPD:
6/6/2025 1:17 PM
ABDUR REHMAN P.E. CA EE 22090
[email protected]
RICHARD JENSEN P.E. CA EE 22707
[email protected]
JPP
JS
CH
Preliminary
DJA24166
E06-ELECTRICAL DETAILS
C:\USERS\JULIAN SANCHEZ\ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC\PROJECTS - DOCUMENTS\DJA (DEE JASPAR ASSOC)\24166 - SHAFTER MANNEL PARK WATER SYSTEM\DWGS\DJA24166 E06-ELECTRICAL DETAILS-.DWG 6/2/2025 11:13 AM DRAWN
CHECKED
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
OF SHEETS REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY ELECTRICAL DETAILS MANNEL PARK IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY DESIGN PROJECT CITY OF SHAFTER KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DJA
DJA
8/1/2024
AS SHOWN
E06
20 HIGH PRESSURE SWITCH
1/4 NPT
FRONT VIEW
REAR MOUNTING FLANGE
GASKETED
COVER
ADJUSTMENTS
SIDE VIEW
1/2" CONDUIT
HUB
GASKET
MERCOID DAW SNAP ACTION
ROSEMOUNT 306R
BLOCK AND BLEED VALVES
OR SIMILAR
TYPICAL 3/4"x10' COPPER BONDED GROUND
ROD, MIN. 12" FROM EDGE OF SLAB AND 10'
FROM GROUND ROD IN SERVICE SECTION
PANEL BOARD GROUNDING
NOTE: SERVICE GROUND SIZE AS SHOWN OR AS PER TABLE 250-94-CEC (CURRENT).
ALL GROUND CONDUCTORS TO BE COPPER.
ALL LOAD, NEUTRAL, OR BRANCH EQUIPMENT GROUNDING TERMINALS OR NEUTRAL
DISCONNECT LINK REQUIRE POLY BARRIERS TO PREVENT EXPOSURE TO LIVE BUS 600A OR LARGER SERVICES SHALL BE THERMOWELD OR SIMILAR
#4/0 BARE COPPER UFER GROUND TO
GROUND GRID, MINIMUM LENGTH 25',
MINIMUM 3" CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
COMPRESSION LUG CONNECTION
BOLTED TO GROUND BUS -
3/8" 2-HOLE BOLTED CONNECTION
USING BELLEVILLE WASHER
THERMOWELD
OR BURNDY
GROUND CLAMP COMPRESSION
GROUND ROD
GROUND BUS
NEUTRAL BUS TO GROUND
BUS BOND CONNECTION
GROUND ROD MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ABOVE SLAB IS 6"
S
MAIN
S
N N
PANEL/ENCLOSURE
BOND TO BUILDING STEEL
GROUND GRID WIRES
GROUND ROD TO CABLE
EXOTHERMIC WELD
3/4''X10' COPPER BONDED
GROUND ROD. +6" ABOVE
GRADE INSIDE GROUND WELL.
CONTINUOUS LOOP
SEPARATE TAP CONDUCTOR
WHERE SHOWN
PEBBLE ROCK APPROXIMATELY
10'' DEEP
CHRISTY G5 CONCRETE GROUND
ROD BOX WITH CONCRETE
LID AND EXTENSION
OR SIMILARLY APPROVED
FINISH GRADE
GROUND - WELL
5/8" X 8' COPPER BONDED STEEL GROUND ROD
FINISHED GRADE
+36"
6"
6"
EARTH BACKFILL PER SPECS.
WARNING TAPE
+12"
ASPHALT CONDITION: SAW CUT EXISTING (6"
SPACING BOTH SIDES) AND PATCH BACK WITH MIN
5" ASPHALT (TYPE B) PLACE IN TWO LIFTS OF 2"
OVER 3", 3/8" DIA MAX AGGREGATE SIZE (BY
PAVING CONTRACTOR), APPLY ASPHALT BINDER AT
EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGES IMMEDIATELY PRIOR
TO PLACING TRENCH RESURFACING
UNPAVED CONDITION: EARTH BACKFILL PER SPECS.
CONCRETE CONDITION: SAW CUT EXISTING
(FLUSH) AND PATCH BACK WITH MIN 5" THICK
CONCRETE SLAB (MIN 6 STACK MIX), MATCH
EXISTING FINISH
ELECTRICAL TRENCH
1-1/2" 7-1/2" 1-1/2"
2"
UNDERGROUND CONDUITS
(ELEC., COMM., EMS, ETC.)
NUMBER AND SIZE OF CONDUITS AS INDICATED ON
PLANS
SAND BACKFILL OR CONCRETE SLURRY
7-1/2"
1. HIGH OR LOW VOLTAGE ARE SEPARATE TRENCHES
2. GIVEN ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS FROM FINISH GRADE. ADJUST TRENCH DEPTH TO ACCOMMODATE.
3. ALL TRENCHES, ("ALL") CONTAINS WARNING TAPE WITH TRACER WIRE.
4. MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN CONDUITS SHALL BE 3"
4.1. 7-1/2" MINIMUM SPACING ON CENTER FOR 3 OR LESS VERTICAL
CONDUITS
4.2. 10" MINIMUM SPACING ON CENTER FOR 4 OR MORE VERTICAL CONDUITS
LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE
METALLIC CONDUIT WITH
MANUFACTURER CABLE
GROUNDING RINGS OR
LINING PROTECTORS
#10 AWG GROUND
CABLE & CONDUIT PER
SCHEDULE & PLANS
3" GALVANIZED STEEL CHANNEL
PVC COATED CONDUIT STRAP.
ATTACH WITH STAINLESS STEEL
1/4"x20. DRILL AND TAP 1/4"x20
HOLE. (TYPICAL, MINIMUM 2)
FLOW
TUBE
FLOW INDICATING TRANSMITTER
LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE
METALLIC CONDUIT WITH
MANUFACTURER CABLE
FINISHED
GRADE
3" GALVANIZED STEEL
CHANNEL
TO CONTROL
PANEL
HINGED FRONT SUNSHIELD,
FLIP UP, 10G ALUMINUM
24"
+48"
12"DIA x 24" CONCRETE
FOUNDATION, REBAR
REINFORCED
PVC COATED CONDUIT STRAP.
ATTACH WITH STAINLESS STEEL
1/4"x20. DRILL AND TAP 1/4"x20
HOLE. (TYPICAL, MINIMUM 2)
TRANSMITTER
REAR SUNSHIELD,
10G ALUMINUM
1. IF FIELD SENSOR DEVICE IS FURNISHED WITH CONDUIT CONNECTION PROVISIONS, CONNECT WITH WATERTIGHT FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT.
2. IF FIELD SENSOR DEVICE IS EQUIPPED ONLY WITH WATERTIGHT CABLE, USE WATERTIGHT CABLE CONNECTOR. PROTECT CABLE WITH SPIRAL WRAP FLEX.
FIELD SENSOR TRANSMITTER
WITH SUNSHIELD
TO DEVICE
FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY -
EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM THIS
DRAWING MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC.
APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR
THAT EQUIPMENT
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 7TH STANDARD ROAD STREETSCAPE PROJECT – PHASE 1-
APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH FORMAL BIDDING
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; approve the plans and specifications for the 7th Standard Road Streetscape Project – Phase 1; and authorize Staff to proceed with formal bidding for the project.
BACKGROUND
The City is responsible for maintenance of the Target lot frontage along 7th Standard Road as a result of the sewer project that installed a sewer main to serve properties located along the corridor, including the nearby Lennar developments. Target provided a sewer easement to the City to facilitate the sewer installation, and in return, the City assumed responsibility for frontage landscaping maintenance within the project area.
The proposed 7th Standard Road Streetscape Project – Phase 1 consists of grading and roadway shoulder improvements along approximately 2,640 linear feet of frontage on 7th Standard Road. The project includes grading and site preparation activities for a future landscaping installation, as well as grading improvements to the shoulder along 7th Standard Road to improve overall site conditions and roadway functionality. The plans and specifications for the project have been completed and are ready for formal bidding.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is currently no existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project established for the 7th Standard Road Streetscape Project – Phase 1. As part of the project award process, a new CIP project will be created to facilitate construction and project administration activities.
Project funding is anticipated to be provided through the City’s Lighting and Landscaping District for the grading and future landscaping preparation components, with Gas Tax funding proposed to fund the roadway shoulder improvement portion of the project. A detailed fiscal impact, including construction bid costs and recommended funding allocations, will be presented to the City Council at the time of contract award.
7TH STANDARD ROAD STREETSCAPE PROJECT – PHASE 1- APPROVAL OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH FORMAL
BIDDING
- 2 -
CEQA ANALYSIS
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) because the project consists of minor grading and land alteration activities on lands with a slope of less than 10% and not within a waterway, wetland, scenic area, or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ATTACHMENTS
1. 7th Standard Road Streetscape Project – Phase 1 - FOR BID
N
S EJ
SI GER ET
ER D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
RB ETT
DAWSON No. 54058 Exp. 12/31/25 CI V I L
STATE OF
CAL
FI ORN AI SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering Land Development Services SHEET
OF 4
1 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
BRETT DAWSON
No. 54058
Exp. 12/31/25
CI V I L STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7th STANDARD ROAD STREETSCAPE PROJECT - PHASE 1
GRADING AND ROAD SHOULDER
07/31/25
7/31/2025 Page 290 of 547
SI GER ET
ER D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
RB ETT
DAWSON No. 54058 Exp. 12/31/25 CI V I L
STATE OF
CAL
FI ORN AI SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering Land Development Services SHEET
OF 4
2
N
S EJN
S EJ SI GER ET ER D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER RB ETT DAWSON No. 54058 Exp. 12/31/25 CI V I L STATE OF CAL FI ORN AI SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering Land Development Services SHEET
OF 4 3
N
S EJ N
S EJ SI GER ET ER D PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER RB ETT DAWSON No. 54058 Exp. 12/31/25 CI V I L STATE OF CAL FI ORN AI SAN JOAQUIN ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering Land Development Services SHEET
OF 4 4 7/31/2025 8:53:44 AM, HT Page 293 of 547
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (RMRA) SB-1 PROJECT LIST 2026-2027
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution 3082, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Funded by Senate Bill 1:
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2017, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, into law. This Act addresses basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system by 1) increasing per gallon fuel excise taxes; 2) increasing diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and 3) providing for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller (Controller) started depositing various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h) for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on local streets.
SB 1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in delivering California’s transportation programs. Therefore, to be eligible for RMRA funding, the statute requires cities and counties to provide basic RMRA project reporting to the California Transportation Commission (Commission). Specifically related to RMRA reporting, SB 1 requires the City to do the following on an annual basis:
Submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds, which includes a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement.
All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in a City budget that is adopted by the City Council at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (RMRA) SB-1 PROJECT LIST 2026- 2027
- 2 -
For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, the City must submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description and location of each completed project, the funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)].
The Commission has released Reporting Guidelines for RMRA funding, primarily intended to implement the reporting procedures discussed above. It is important to note that these reporting requirements are unique to RMRA funds and do not apply to traditional Gas Tax funds the City receives.
Pursuant to these guidelines, the City Council must adopt, by resolution, a list of RMRA projects for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. Below is a summary of the proposed project developed by the Public Works Department.
Project Title: Central Ave. Reconstruction - Phase 1
Project Description: Reconstruct Central Avenue, including full roadway rehabilitation improvements consisting of pavement reconstruction, curb and gutter improvements, sidewalk improvements, Storm Drain Improvements, ADA-compliant curb ramps, striping, and associated roadway safety enhancements.
Project Location: Walker St. to Calloway St.
Estimated Project Schedule: FY2026-2027
Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 Years
Estimated Cost: $1,061,000
In addition, it is noted that the West Ash Avenue Reconstruction project, which was approved as part of the FY 2025-2026 SB 1 allocation, is expected to be completed later this year. Should additional funding be required to finalize that project due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., cost increases, extended construction schedule), a portion of the FY 2026-2027 RMRA allocation may be applied to ensure that the project is completed as planned. This approach ensures that essential road rehabilitation projects are fully funded and completed on schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this item is necessary to secure the estimated $658,113 in SB 1 gas tax funding allocated to the City for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Any cost difference between the estimated project cost and the estimated SB 1 funding may be covered by dedicated or recurring street and road funding sources, including Gas Tax funds, Measure funds, or other eligible transportation funding sources.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is the adoption of a road maintenance and rehabilitation funding list pursuant to Senate Bill 1, and therefore, it is organizational and administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment and is not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (RMRA) SB-1 PROJECT LIST 2026- 2027
- 3 -
No
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 3082
RESOLUTION NO. 3082
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City of Shafter are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter, will receive an estimated $658,113 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-2027 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the 10th year in which the City of Shafter is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City of Shafter to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shafter has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City of Shafter used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City of Shafter maintain and rehabilitate one street throughout the City of Shafter this year; and WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Shafter streets and roads are in an at-risk condition, and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “good” condition; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
Shafter City Council Resolution No. 3082
June 2, 2026
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Shafter, State of California, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Project Title: Central Ave. Reconstruction Phase 1
Project Description: Reconstruct Central Avenue, including full roadway rehabilitation improvements consisting of pavement reconstruction, curb and gutter improvements, sidewalk improvements, storm drain improvements, ADA-compliant curb ramps, striping, and associated roadway safety enhancements.
Project Location: Walker St. to Calloway St.
Estimated Project Schedule: Start 08/2027– Completion 12/2027 Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 years
Estimated Cost: $1,061,000.00
3. The following previously proposed and adopted projects may also utilize Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues in their delivery. With the relisting of these projects in the adopted fiscal year resolution, the City of Shafter is reaffirming to the public and the State our intent to fund these projects with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Project Title: West Ash Avenue Reconstruction
Project Description: Reconstruct the road section and complete curb & gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramp, and striping improvements
Project Location: Wall St. to South Reiker St.
Estimated Project Schedule: Start 06/2026– Completion 12/2026 Estimated Project Useful Life: 20 Years
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ RAILROAD CROSSING
ELIMINATION GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE CHERRY
AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not a project pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; authorize the Mayor to sign a funding commitment letter in support of Kern Council of Governments’ application to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program for the Cherry Avenue, Kratzmeyer Road, and Renfro Road Grade Separations Project; authorize participation in the Cherry Avenue grade separation component of the regional project application; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute related documents necessary to support the grant application process.
BACKGROUND
Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), in partnership with Kern County, the Cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, and BNSF Railway, is applying for funding through the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program for the Cherry Avenue, Kratzmeyer Road, and Renfro Road Grade Separations Project. Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of the proposed project, which includes crossings located within the jurisdictions of the City of Shafter, City of Bakersfield, and Kern County, Kern COG is proposed to serve as the lead applicant and coordinating agency for the regional grant application. The overall project proposes the construction of grade separations at the three existing atgrade rail crossings along the BNSF Railway corridor, which accommodates daily freight and Amtrak passenger rail service. If grant funding is awarded, it is anticipated that delivery and implementation of each individual crossing improvement would be managed by the respective local agency with jurisdiction over the applicable project segment.
The City of Shafter’s participation in the grant application is specific to the Cherry Avenue grade separation component of the larger regional project. The Cherry Avenue crossing has experienced multiple collisions in recent years resulting in injuries and fatalities and is currently ranked as the highest-risk rail crossing within the City of Shafter under the Federal Railroad Administration’s accident prediction system.
Continued residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the northwest Metropolitan
KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ RAILROAD CROSSING ELIMINATION GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE CHERRY AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - 2 -
Bakersfield and south Shafter area has increased traffic volumes and heightened the need for long-term transportation improvements in the corridor.
The proposed Cherry Avenue grade separation would improve public safety, reduce traffic delays, and enhance regional mobility by eliminating conflicts between roadway users and rail operations. The broader regional project would also improve freight and passenger rail reliability throughout the Central Valley by reducing delays caused by atgrade crossing incidents and train stoppages. If grant funding is awarded, the City of Shafter would provide up to $4,126,667 toward the required local match associated with the Cherry Avenue portion of the project. In addition, Wonderful Real Estate Development has committed approximately $3.8 million toward the Cherry Avenue portion of the project, which would subsequently be credited against future Transportation Impact Fees in accordance with applicable City agreements and policies.
FISCAL IMPACT
If awarded, the City of Shafter would provide up to $4,126,667 toward the local match requirement associated with the Cherry Avenue grade separation component of the project. The City’s contribution is anticipated to be funded through a combination of future Transportation Impact Fee revenues and other identified transportation funding sources, subject to future City Council appropriations and approvals. Additionally, Wonderful Real Estate Development has committed approximately $3.8 million toward the project, which would be credited against future Transportation Impact Fees in accordance with applicable City agreements and policies. The City’s ultimate financial contribution may be reduced if additional grant or partner funding becomes available for the project.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not defined as a “project” per Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action is the approval for the Mayor to sign a funding commitment letter in support of an application to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program and therefore, it is fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to a specific project that can result in a potentially significant impact and not subject to CEQA.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
No
ATTACHMENTS
1. Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Application and Letter of Financial Support
June 8, 2026
The Honorable David Fink, Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W-32
Washington, DC 20590
Re: Kern County Council of Governments’ Application to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program – Funding Commitment Letter Dear Honorable David Fink,
I am writing to express the City of Shafter’s strong support for Kern Council of Governments’ (Kern COG’s) application for funding under the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program for the Cherry Avenue, Kratzmeyer Road, and Renfro Road Grade Separations Project ("the Project"). The Project will grade separate the three existing rail/road at-grade crossings at BNSF Railway’s rail corridor, which carries daily freight and Amtrak intercity passenger rail services.
These crossings currently have safety concerns that need to be addressed swiftly. The northwest Metropolitan Bakersfield and south Shafter region has seen significant growth in residential, commercial, and industrial development over the past two decades. Since 2020, the Cherry Avenue crossing has had three accidents, which resulted in injuries and fatalities, and the Kratzmeyer Road crossing has had two accidents, which resulted in injuries. The Cherry Avenue at-grade crossing is ranked first in the City of Shafter by FRA’s accident prediction system and represents a significant safety concern as well as a recurring impediment to local mobility.
Grade separating the three crossings will prevent collisions, reduce delays for both roadway users and rail traffic, and improve safety for the Cities of Shafter, Bakersfield, and Kern County communities. The Project will improve safety for road users and directly raise the quality of life for residents through improved mobility and by enhancing connectivity, the project will help create a more livable environment and allow residents and workers better access to jobs and opportunities. In eliminating delays resulting from safety incidents, the Project will also benefit freight and intercity passenger rail reliability along this route, which connects major regional cities such as Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and Sacramento.
The Project is the result of close collaboration between Kern COG, Kern County, the Cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, and BNSF Railway, representing a strong partnership of public and private entities committed to improving safety and quality of life in the community. Given the importance of grade separation at the rail
crossings to residents, businesses, and the surrounding region, and for the required grant funding non-federal match, the City of Shafter will commit funds to ensure the Project is completed. If awarded, the City’s funding commitment will be up to $4,126,667 for the Project toward the Cherry Avenue Grade Separation portion of the project.
The City of Shafter is fervent about supporting the safe, efficient, and reliable operations of passenger and freight rail in California’s Central Valley. This transformative project will make a dramatic difference in the safety and mobility of the local and regional communities and its delivery and operations closely align with the sought after outcomes of the Railroad Crossing Elimination Program. We respectfully request that you give Kern COG’s grant application your full and fair consideration.
Sincerely,
Chad Givens
Mayor
City of Shafter
CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 2, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Dennis Fidler, Building Official
SUBJECT: AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Council find the action is not defined as a “project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and approve professional services agreements with JAS Pacific, CSG Consultants, Inc., and Cornerstone Municipal Services for on-call building plan review and inspection services for a oneyear term from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, in a combined amount not to exceed $300,000; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreements.
BACKGROUND
Over the past decade, the City of Shafter has experienced sustained growth in residential, commercial, and industrial development activity, resulting in a significantly increased volume of building permit applications and inspection requests. This continued growth has increased demand on the Building Department to complete plan reviews and field inspections in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining high standards of customer service and code compliance.
To help maintain and strengthen permit turnaround goals and ensure continuity of service during periods of elevated workload, staff recommends entering into professional services agreements with JAS Pacific, CSG Consultants, Inc., and Cornerstone Municipal Services. The firms were selected through an informal solicitation process based on their municipal experience, qualifications, responsiveness, and demonstrated ability to provide timely and professional building services.
The proposed agreements will provide the City with flexible, on-call professional support for building plan review and inspection services. While staff currently anticipates utilizing the consultants primarily for plan review services, the agreements also provide the option for inspection support if operational needs require additional assistance during the term of the agreements.
All three firms are experienced in providing municipal building services and have demonstrated the ability to deliver effective, high-quality work. Utilizing multiple qualified